report to the planning commission city council …

Agenda – Fremont Planning Commission Meeting March 12, 2015

REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 3300 CAPITOL AVENUE, FREMONT CA 94538

General Order of Business

1. Preliminary (Call to Order – 7:00 p.m., Salute to the Flag, Roll Call, Approval of Minutes,

Disclosures)

2. Consent Calendar

3. Public/Oral Communications

4. Public Hearing Items

5. Miscellaneous Items (Matters of Interest)

6. Adjournment

Addressing the Planning Commission

Any member of the public may speak on any item under discussion by the Planning

Commission after “being recognized” by the Chairperson. To speak, walk to the rostrum

directly in front of the Commission and, after the Chairperson recognizes you, state your

name and address. Generally, after the Chairperson introduces an item, the order of

presentation begins with comments by staff. The project applicant or their authorized

representative may then comment. Next, interested members of the public may speak.

Additional comments by the applicant or staff, as appropriate, may follow. At the close of

testimony, the matter will return to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Any

item not introduced prior to 11:00 p.m. will automatically be “continued,” or held over, to

the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.

Consent Calendar

Items on the Consent Calendar are scheduled public hearing items which are considered

routine by the Planning Commission. The Consent items will be enacted by one motion and

one vote and include the following:

Items recommended for continuance to a later meeting.

Items for which staff has received no indication of public concern and for which staff is

recommending approval.

Items which have been moved from the regular hearing agenda and placed on the

Consent Calendar at the beginning of any particular meeting.

Items on the Consent Calendar may be removed by any member of the public or Planning

Commission. If removed from the Consent Calendar, the item will be placed on the regular

hearing agenda in its normal sequence on the agenda. When the Planning Commission

approves a consent item, it approves the staff recommendation together with any conditions

of approval included in the recommendation.

Please note that items on the regular hearing agenda may be placed on the Consent

Calendar at the beginning of any particular meeting when requested by a member of the

Planning Commission and with the approval of the Chairperson. If a Planning Commissioner

requests that an item be moved from the regular hearing agenda and placed on the Consent

Calendar, the Chairperson will ask if anyone in the audience or any other Commissioner

wishes to speak to the item or have the item heard. If no one wishes to do so, the


Chairperson may move the item to the Consent Calendar and it will be considered at that

time. Accordingly, anyone wishing to speak to an item should be present at the beginning

of the meeting.

Oral Communications

Any member of the public desiring to speak on a matter which is not scheduled on this

agenda may do so under Oral Communications. As a matter of policy, the Planning

Commission does not take immediate action on items presented under Oral

Communications.

General Information

The Planning Commission usually meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month.

[Exceptions: Only one meeting in August, November, and December.] Commission

meetings are held in the City Council Chambers at 3300 Capitol Avenue.

Stenocaptioning and/or earphones for people who are hearing impaired are available from

the Recording Clerk 15 minutes prior to the meeting. A driver’s license will be held as a

deposit. Commission meetings are open captioned for the deaf in the Council Chambers and

closed captioned for home viewing. Assistance will be provided to those requiring

accommodations for disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990. Interested persons must request the accommodation at least 2 working days in

advance of the meeting by contacting the Planning Department at (510) 494-4440. Planning

Commission meetings are open captioned for the deaf in the Council Chambers and closed

captioned for home viewing. For more information on Planning Commission please visit our

website at www.fremont.gov or contact the Planning Department at (510) 494-4440.

The regular meetings of the Fremont Planning Commission are broadcast on Cable

Television Channel 27.

Availability of Public Records

All documents submitted to Boards and Commissions will become public information and

posted to the www.fremont.gov website. Public records relating to an open session item on

this agenda that are distributed by the City to all or a majority of the Planning Commission

prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection at 39550 Liberty Street during

normal business hours, at the time the records are distributed to the Planning Commission.

Copies of staff report are available at the Development Services Center at 39550 Liberty

Street (between Stevenson Blvd. and Walnut Ave.) and at City Hall at 3300 Capitol Avenue

the week of the meeting and are free of charge. Plans and other supporting documents may

be viewed any day until noon the day of the Planning Commission meeting. Copies will be

provided at cost when feasible. The Development Services Center is open 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Mondays through Thursdays; and 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., Fridays. Planning Commission final

agendas, which include location maps, staff reports and proximity maps can also be viewed

on the Internet at www.fremont.gov/planningcommission.

The Planning Commission meetings are now also live over the Internet. Please note: Live

webcasts are only available when the Planning Commission is in session. If the Planning

Commission is not in session, the web browser will return a "busy" error.

http://www.fremont.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=50


To send an e-mail message to all of your Planning Commissioners send your message to:

[email protected]

To leave a voice message for any of the Planning Commissioners, dial the

numbers listed below:

David Bonaccorsi: 494-4895 *4998

Brannin Dorsey: 494-4895 *4997

Reshma Karipineni: 494-4895 *4992

Raj Salwan: 494-4895 *4996

Ripple Leung: 494-4895 *4994

Ed Pentaleri: 494-4895 *4993

Roman Reed: 494-4895 *4995

We appreciate your interest in the conduct of your City’s business. Information about the

City or the items discussed in this report may be referred to:

Planning Commission Secretary

City of Fremont Planning Division

39550 Liberty Street, P.O. Box 5006

Fremont, CA 94537-5006

Telephone: 510-494-4440

Planning Commissioners

David Bonaccorsi, Chairperson

Brannin Dorsey

Reshma Karipineni

Raj Salwan, Vice Chairperson

Ripple Leung

Ed Pentaleri

Roman Reed

City Staff

Kristie Wheeler, Planning Manager

Wayne Morris, Planning Commission Secretary

Prasanna Rasiah, Deputy City Attorney

Alice Malotte, Recording Clerk

mailto:[email protected]


CITY OF FREMONT

Agenda

Planning Commission Regular Meeting, March 12, 2015

City Council Chambers

7:00 PM

1. PRELIMINARY

1.1 Call to Order

1.2 Salute to the Flag

1.3 Roll Call

1.4 Approval of Minutes - None

1.5 Disclosures

2. CONSENT CALENDAR

NOTICE: ITEMS ON THE PUBLIC HEARING CALENDAR MAY BE MOVED TO

THE CONSENT CALENDAR IF NO ONE IS PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE ITEMS.

ALL APPLICANTS AND INTERESTED PERSONS ARE ADVISED TO BE PRESENT

AT THE START OF THE MEETING.

Item 1. OSGOOD RESIDENCES - 42111 and 42183 Osgood Road - PLN2015-00034 -

To consider a Discretionary Design Review Permit and Vesting Tentative

Tract Map No. 8210 to allow development of a 93-unit residential

condominium building on a 1.6-acre site located in the Irvington

Community Plan Area and to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration

prepared and circulated for the project in accordance with the requirements

of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Project Planner - Terence Wong, 510-494-4456, [email protected]

Recommended Action: Continue to a date uncertain.

Item 2. SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - 47700 Kato Road and 1055 Page Avenue

- PLN2014-00192 - To consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow a High

Intensity Hazardous Materials User to establish and operate a solar panel

and photovoltaic cell technology research and development facility at an

existing two-building industrial campus, and to consider a Negative

Declaration prepared and circulated for the project in accordance with the

requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Project Planner - Steve Kowalski, 510-494-4532, [email protected]

Recommended Action: Approve, based on findings and subject to

conditions.


3. PUBLIC/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

4. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - NONE

5. DISCUSSION ITEMS

6. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

Information from Commission and Staff:

6.1 Information from staff: Staff will report on matters of interest.

6.2 Information from Commission: Commission members may report on

matters of interest.

6.3 Report on actions of City Council Regular Meeting.

7. ADJOURNMENT

WORK SESSION IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS: COMMERCIAL/OPEN-

SPACE/RESIDENTIAL ZONING UPDATE (PLN2013-00223) PROJECT

PLANNER-JOEL PULLEN, (510) 494-4436, [email protected]

Planning Commission March 12, 2015

Page 1

Proposal: OSGOOD RESIDENCES - 42111 and 42183 Osgood Road -

PLN2015-00034 - To consider a Discretionary Design Review

Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8210 to allow

development of a 93-unit residential condominium building on a

1.6-acre site located in the Irvington Community Plan Area and

to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and

circulated for the project in accordance with the requirements

of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Recommendation: Continue to a date uncertain.

Location: 42111-42183 Osgood Road in the Irvington Community Plan

Area APN: 525-339-4-8; 10

Lot Size: 1.6 acres

People: SiliconSage Builders (Sanjeev Archarya,) Applicant

SiliconSage Builders (Shaivali Desai, Agent and Architect)

Contact Person

Robert Sommer, Property Owner

Terry Wong, Staff Planner (510) 494-4456;

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

General Plan: Residential - Urban, 30-70+ dwelling units per acre

Zoning: R-3-27, Multifamily Residence District; Transit Oriented

Development (TOD) overlay district

ENCLOSURES

2.1

Packet Pg. 6

Planning Commission March 12, 2015

Page 1

Proposal: SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - 47700 Kato Road and 1055

Page Avenue - PLN2014-00192 - To consider a Conditional Use

Permit to allow a High Intensity Hazardous Materials User to

establish and operate a solar panel and photovoltaic cell

technology research and development facility at an existing

two-building industrial campus, and to consider a Negative

Declaration prepared and circulated for the project in

accordance with the requirements of the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Recommendation: Approve, based on findings and subject to conditions.

Location: 47700 Kato Road and 1055 Page Avenue; Bayside Industrial

Community Plan Area; APN: 519-1010-130-01

Land Area: 9.3 acres

Floor Area: 196,310 square feet (both buildings combined)

People: Silevo/SolarCity Corporation (Melissa McMorrow), Applicant

M+W U.S., Inc. (Kelly Vincent), Project Architect

Global Kato HG, LLC, Property Owner

Steve Kowalski, Staff Planner, 510-494-4532,

[email protected]

General Plan: Industrial – Tech

Zoning: I-R (Restricted Industrial) District

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applicant, Silevo/SolarCity Corporation (Silevo), proposes to establish a photovoltaic

cell and solar panel research and development (R&D) facility in the two existing industrial

buildings on the property located at 47700 Kato Road and 1055 Page Avenue. Silevo uses

various hazardous materials in the design, manufacturing and testing of its solar panels and

photovoltaic cells, which would categorize the company as a Large User of Hazardous

Materials engaged in the storage and handling of Group “A” Chemicals under Fremont

Municipal Code (FMC) Section 18.190.220 (High Intensity Hazardous Materials Uses). The

property is located within the I-R (Restricted Industrial) Zoning District, and a Large User of

Group “A” Chemicals requires a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends that the Planning

Commission adopt the Draft Negative Declaration for the project as shown in Exhibit “A” and

approve the Conditional Use Permit as shown in Exhibit “B,” based on the findings and

subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit “C.”

BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS

The subject property was originally developed with a single, 72,300-square-foot building at

1055 Page Avenue in 1989 to house HMT Technology (HMT), a Silicon Valley company that

engaged in the design and manufacturing of thin-film disks for computer disk drives. On

June 30, 1996, the City Council approved a Finding to allow a Floor Area Ratio Increase

from 0.35 to 0.484 to allow HMT to build a second, 124,010-square-foot building at 47700

2.2

Packet Pg. 7


Planning Commission Report (ID # 2314) Meeting of March 12, 2015

SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLN2015-00148 Page 2

Kato Road, thereby increasing the allowable floor area on the property to 196,310 square

feet. The City Council also approved a Parking Reduction from 583 spaces to 411 spaces

(Finding F-96-22) on the same date.

The property has housed several high tech companies which have operated by right ever

since HMT ceased its operations, including Maxtor and, most recently, Solyndra. There is no

other history of entitlements associated with the property.

PROCEDURE FOR TONIGHT’S HEARING

At tonight’s hearing, the Planning Commission is charged with the following:

1. Consider adopting a Negative Declaration for the proposed project, prepared in

accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and

2. Consider the request for approval of Conditional Use Permit PLN2015-00148 as shown in

Exhibit “B” to allow the establishment of a High Intensity Hazardous Materials User at

the subject industrial property based on the findings contained in Fremont Municipal

Code (FMC) Section 18.230.060 and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit “C.”

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Silevo proposes to establish a photovoltaic cell and solar panel technology R&D facility in

the two existing industrial buildings on the property located at 47700 Kato Road and 1055

Page Avenue. The subject property is a single parcel with two separate street addresses due

to the buildings’ orientations toward the two adjacent streets of Kato Road and Page

Avenue. The building at 1055 Page Avenue contains 72,300 square feet of floor area, while

the building at 47700 Kato Road contains 124,010 square feet, bringing the total floor area

of the two buildings to 196,310 square feet. Silevo would occupy both buildings completely.

The solar panel design and manufacturing process employed by Silevo requires the use of

various hazardous materials, including inert cryogens, toxic, pyrophoric, and flammable

gases, and corrosive, toxic and water-reactive liquids. Pursuant to the definitions contained

in FMC Section 18.190.220(d), the aggregate volume of all chemicals that would be stored

and used on the site would categorize Silevo as a Large User Site, while the proposed

inventory of chemicals would categorize it as a user of Group “A” Chemicals. A Large User

Site utilizing Group “A” Chemicals requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the

Planning Commission when located in the I-R District. The three specific chemicals that

would qualify Silevo as a Group “A” Chemical user are silane, phosphine and diborane, all of

which will be kept in gaseous states. These three chemicals would be stored on-site in the

following quantities:

Chemical Size of Individual Storage Unit(s) Total Quantity

Silane 266 cubic foot tanks grouped in packs

of six (4 total) 6,384 cubic feet

Phosphine 235 cubic foot tanks (4 total) 940 cubic feet

Diborane 235 cubic foot tanks (4 total) 940 cubic feet

These and the other proposed chemicals would be stored either within the building or in

outdoor tanks and tanks enclosed within gas containment cabinets which would be located

in the utility yard directly behind the building at 1055 Page Avenue. A new 10-foot high

2.2

Packet Pg. 8



metal fence with bollards would be constructed around the outdoor tanks and cabinets to

secure them and protect them from being accidentally struck by delivery truck traffic.

The project would employ various containment and mitigation systems to protect Silevo’s

employees and the general public from risk of exposure to an accidental release such as

sealed gas cabinets surrounding the storage tanks which pass through restrictive flow

orifices that ultimately connect to a scrubber, as well as emergency shutoff valves with

sensors that monitor gas levels throughout the containment system, emergency power

back-up generators that activate within seconds of a power outage to ensure that the

monitoring systems continue operating at all times, and automatic shutoff valves which

activate in the event of seismic activity or a fire detected on the premises. The Fire

Department has reviewed the proposed hazardous materials inventory, as well as the

proposed storage and containment systems, enclosure, and other safety measures that

would be employed, and deemed them to be satisfactory and in conformance with current

industry standards.

PROJECT ANALYSIS

General Plan Conformance

The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Industrial - Tech. This land use

designation is intended to accommodate light industrial and research and development-

based uses, many of which are tied to the Silicon Valley economy, including semi-conductor

design/manufacturing, biotech, and software engineering firms. It is not uncommon for such

uses to engage in the storage and handling of various hazardous materials such as acids,

solvents, oxidizers and gases which are utilized in the testing and manufacturing processes

at each business. The General Plan recognizes this fact and prescribes careful regulation and

oversight to minimize the risks such uses pose to the public. The proposed project would be

consistent with the following goals, policies and implementation measures contained in the

Land Use, Economic Development and Safety Elements of the General Plan:

Land Use Goal 2-5: Employment Districts – Strengthen Fremont as a major regional job

center, a health care and professional office hub, a preferred location for technology,

research and development, and home to a diverse mix of businesses and industries.

Land Use Implementation Measure 2-5.2.A: Tech Industrial Areas – Accommodate a

range of development settings in the “Tech Industrial” designation, including planned

industrial parks with abundant landscaping and high design aesthetic standards similar to

Ardenwood and Bayside Technology Parks, and more conventional industrial businesses with

outdoor storage and use of hazardous materials.

Land Use Policy 2-5.8: Industrial Land Use Compatibility – Achieve compatibility

between industrial uses and adjacent land uses through the regulation of industrial

activities, limits on operations, and standards for buffering. This is particularly important in

Service Industrial areas, since they may be adjacent to commercial and residential uses.

Land Use Implementation Measure 2-5.8.B: Industrial Land Use and Hazardous

Materials – Locate industrial uses that use, store, generate or transport significant

quantities of hazardous materials in areas where the risk of upset to sensitive uses such as

schools, housing, or shopping areas is minimized. Require hazardous materials management

plans and other measures to limit the risk of accidents and contamination.

Economic Development Policy 6-1.3: Business Recruitment/Retention – Through

business-friendly policies, recruit new businesses and retain existing businesses that provide

2.2

Packet Pg. 9



revenues to the City and jobs to the community.

Economic Development Implementation Measure 6-1.3.D: Assist Expansion Efforts

– Assist firms in their efforts to expand locally and provide individualized site selection

assistance to ensure that Fremont firms have adequate space to grow their operations in

suitably zoned areas that will accommodate future expansion.

Economic Development Policy 6-3.1: Diverse Industrial and Technology Uses –

Provide for a variety of industrial uses to minimize the impact of industry-specific downturns

on the local economy, to provide a range of job opportunities for local residents, and to

provide opportunities for synergy between various industries.

Safety Goal 10-6: Hazardous Materials and Waste – Minimum feasible risks to life,

property and the environment resulting from the use, storage, transportation and disposal

of hazardous materials.

Safety Policy 10-6.1: Hazardous Materials Regulation – Maintain sufficient regulation

of land use and construction to minimize potential health and safety risks associated with

future, current or past use of hazardous materials in Fremont.

Safety Policy 10-6.5: Hazardous Materials Oversight – Maintain sufficient oversight

regarding the storage, transport and handling of hazardous materials within the City.

Analysis: Allowing the proposed use at the subject site would enable a major company and

industry leader to establish a new business in Fremont by operating a facility that would

engage in research and development of technology used for the manufacturing of state-of-

the-art solar panels/photovoltaic cells and help increase the industrial engineering job base

within the City. The project would minimize risk to life, property, and the environment by

employing various containment and mitigation systems such as sealed gas cabinets

surrounding the storage tanks, which pass through restrictive flow orifices that ultimately

connect to a scrubber, as well as emergency shutoff valves with sensors that monitor gas

levels throughout the containment system, emergency power back-up generators that

activate within 10 seconds of a power outage to ensure that the monitoring systems

continue operating at all times, and automatic shutoff valves which activate in the event of

seismic activity or a fire detected on the premises. All of these safety measures would

ensure that any accidental spills, leaks or explosions would be contained to the maximum

extent feasible and would not pose a significant risk to the public health.

Zoning Compliance:

The subject property is zoned I-R. While R&D is a permitted use in the I-R District, the

quantity and nature of hazardous materials Silevo proposes to utilize at the site categorize it

as a Large User of Group “A” Chemicals, which requires a Conditional Use Permit to ensure

that the hazardous materials are stored and handled in a safe manner consistent with

industry standards and applicable Fire Department and California Fire Code (CFC)

regulations.

Silevo has provided a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement and Risk Management Plan

(copies of which are on file with the Fire Department and Planning Division) prepared in

accordance with the requirements of the California Accidental Release Program (CalARP) to

identify the proposed inventory of hazardous materials and the associated risks the

proposed quantities could pose to the public health. The Fire Department has reviewed both

documents and found them to be satisfactory and in compliance with the CalARP, and has in

included additional measures as conditions of approval designed to further minimize the

2.2

Packet Pg. 10



increased health risks that the proposed hazardous materials inventory would pose to the

public., The required safety measures include passive containment and control systems in

the form of heavy-duty steel piping, valves and ductwork, and sealed gas cabinets

surrounding the storage tanks which pass through restrictive flow orifices that ultimately

connect to a scrubber, as well as active systems including emergency shutoff valves with

sensors that monitor gas levels throughout the containment system, emergency power

back-up generators that activate within seconds of a power outage to ensure that the

monitoring systems continue operating at all times, and automatic shutoff valves which

come on in the event of seismic activity or a fire detected on the premises. These project

attributes are either required under the CalARP/CFC or have been deemed necessary by the

Fire Department to ensure that potential accidental releases and/or explosions are

minimized and contained to the maximum extent feasible in order to prevent impacts to the

public.

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL

Pursuant to FMC Section 18.230.060, the Planning Commission must make the following

findings in order to approve a CUP:

(a) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.

Analysis: The proposed use would be consistent with the General Plan, including the

goals and policies set forth in the Land Use, Safety, and Economic Development

Elements as described in this staff report in that it would enable a major company

and industry leader to establish a new business in Fremont by opening a facility that

would engage in research and development of technology used for the manufacturing

of state-of-the-art solar panels and photovoltaic cells and help increase the industrial

engineering job base within the City, while also minimizing risk to life, property, and

the environment through the employment of various containment and mitigation

systems that would be utilized to help maintain the safety of the company’s

employees, neighbors, and the community at large.

(b) The site is physically suitable for the type and density or intensity, as

applicable, of the proposed use.

Analysis: The site would be physically suitable for the proposed hazardous materials

storage and usage in that it would be capable of accommodating the service yard for

the new mechanical equipment and storage structures needed to house and convey

the proposed hazardous materials in compliance with the applicable fire and life

safety codes and within an area that would not be visible from the adjacent public

right-of-ways or the neighboring properties, and the existing buildings would not

need to be expanded to accommodate the company’s proposed operations.

(c) The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use

are compatible with development in the vicinity and in the zoning district.

Analysis: The operational characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with

development in the vicinity and the I-R (Restricted Industrial) District in that there

are already several high tech research and development and/or manufacturing uses

operating within the surrounding area, many of which also involve the storage and

handling of similar types of hazardous materials, and the proposed mechanical

equipment needed to store and convey the chemicals on the project site would be

2.2

Packet Pg. 11

http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/fremont/cgi/defs.pl?def=18.25.750




similar to equipment on the other properties containing similar industrial design and

manufacturing uses.

(d) The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or

welfare of persons or property in the vicinity or the zoning district in which

the use would be located.

Analysis: The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or

welfare in that the daily operations of the facility would be required to comply with

current California Fire Code (CFC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

regulations governing the storage and handling of hazardous materials. All

hazardous materials used on the site would also be required to be delivered and

disposed of by a licensed chemical transporter. Finally, conditions of approval are

included which would require the applicant to implement numerous automatic active

and passive safety control measures on all of the proposed storage and conveyance

systems to minimize the risk to public health in the event of an accidental chemical

release. Compliance with these safety measures and the recommended conditions of

approval would ensure that the impact of the proposal on the welfare of the citizens

living and working nearby is minimal.

CITY FEES

All applicable impact fees for the two subject buildings were paid by their original developer

upon issuance of the building permits allowing their construction. Since no additional square

footage is being proposed, the applicant would not be subject to payment of additional

impact fees for the proposed project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project

pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate

the potential environmental impacts that could result from project implementation (see

Informational Item #1 and Exhibit “A”). The Initial Study determined that the project would

not result in any significant impacts to the environment and, therefore, a Negative

Declaration is recommended for the proposed project.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT

Public hearing notification is required for the entitlement being requested. A total of 46

hearing notices were mailed to the owners and occupants of all property located within 300

feet of the project site on Tuesday, February 24, 2015. A Public Hearing Notice was also

published in The Argus on Thursday, February 26, 2015.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Hold public hearing;

2. Adopt the Draft Negative Declaration as shown in Exhibit “A,” and find on the basis

of the whole record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received)

that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on

the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent

judgment and analysis of the City of Fremont;

2.2

Packet Pg. 12




3. Find that Conditional Use Permit PLN2015-00148 would be consistent with the

relevant provisions contained in the City's General Plan. These provisions include the

goals and policies set forth in the Land Use, Safety, and Economic Development

Elements of the General Plan as enumerated within the staff report; and

4. Approve Conditional Use Permit PLN2015-00148, as shown in Exhibit “B,” based on

the findings and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit “C."

ENCLOSURES

Exhibit A - Draft Negative Declaration

Exhibit B - Findings & Conditions of Approval

Exhibit C - Project Plans

Informational 1 - Initial Study

Informational 2 - Project Site Information

2.2

Packet Pg. 13

of 2

DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION

The following proposed project has been reviewed, pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 3231, as amended, of the

City Council of the City of Fremont for the purpose of determining the likelihood of a significant adverse environmental

impact occurring as a result of project completion.

NAME OF PROJECT: Silevo Hazardous Materials Conditional Use Permit

PROJECT NO.: PLN2015-00148

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant (Silevo, Inc.) is proposing to establish and operate a solar panel and

photovoltaic cell research and development facility at an existing two-building industrial campus located at 47700 Kato

Road and 1055 Page Avenue in the I-R Restricted Industrial zoning district. The solar panel design and manufacturing

process requires the use of various hazardous materials, including inert cryogens, toxic, pyrophoric, and flammable gases,

and corrosive, toxic and water-reactive liquids. In this case, the proposed quantities and types of chemicals that would be

used on the site would constitute Silevo as a Large User of Hazardous Materials engaged in the storage and handling of

Group “A” chemicals pursuant to Section 18.190.220 of the Fremont Municipal Code (FMC), High Intensity Hazardous

Materials Uses. In accordance with FMC Section 18.190.220(f), a Conditional Use Permit is required to allow a Large

User of Group “A” chemicals to locate in the I-R zoning district.

LOCATION OF PROJECT: 47700 Kato Road and 1055 Page Avenue, Fremont, 94538 (APN: 519-1010-130-01)

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION WITHIN CITY: Bayside Industrial Community Plan Area

NAME OF AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICANT: Silevo, Inc. c/o: Melissa McMorrow

([email protected], 650-963-5822)

MAILING ADDRESS OF APPLICANT OR AGENT: 3055 Clearview Way, San Mateo, CA 94402

TYPE OF ENTITLEMENT SOUGHT: Conditional Use Permit

EXPLANATION OF REASONS FOR THE FINDING: The Lead Agency has determined that the proposed project

will not have a significant impact on the environment. The proposal would include containment and mitigation systems in

the form of sealed gas cabinets surrounding the storage tanks which pass through restrictive flow orifices that ultimately

connect to a wet exhaust scrubber. Emergency shutoff valves would also be installed with sensors that monitor gas levels

throughout the containment system, along with emergency power back-up generators which activate within seconds of a

power outage to ensure that the monitoring systems continue operating at all times. These monitoring and containment

systems will ensure that any accidental spills, leaks or explosions are contained to the maximum extent feasible and do not

pose a significant risk to sensitive receptors.

Public Hearing: The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this project at its March 12, 2015 public hearing.

Planning Commission hearings are held in the City Council Chambers located at 3300 Capitol Avenue, Fremont, 94538.

Copies of all environmental documents are available for review at the Planning Division located at 39550 Liberty Street,

Fremont, 94538.

Any comments as to whether this draft Negative Declaration should become final or whether an EIR should be prepared

for the project must be submitted within 20 days of the posting of this draft Negative Declaration. The comment period

begins February 18, 2015 and ends March 10, 2015.

2.2.a

Packet Pg. 14

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it A

- D

raft

Neg

ativ

e D

ecla

rati

on

(23

14 :

SIL

EV

O H

AZ

AR

DO

US

MA

TE

RIA

LS

CO

ND

ITIO

NA

L U

SE

PE

RM

IT)


of 2

If this draft Negative Declaration becomes final by any approval agency other than the City Council, any person who

wishes to protest such final action must do so within ten days of the date it becomes final by the filing of a written protest

with the City Clerk and by payment of the required protest fee. If this draft Negative Declaration becomes final by City

Council action, any person who disagrees with Council action may seek judicial review.

Posted within the Development Services Center on February 18, 2015.

Notice of Determination to be sent to:

[ ] Posting of Notice [X] County Clerk

[ ] Mailed to owners of contiguous [ ] Clearinghouse

property

[ ] Publish notice

IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT:

Stephen Kowalski Associate Planner (510) 494-4532

NAME TITLE PHONE NUMBER

2.2.a

Packet Pg. 15

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it A

- D

raft

Neg

ativ

e D

ecla

rati

on

(23

14 :

SIL

EV

O H

AZ

AR

DO

US

MA

TE

RIA

LS

CO

ND

ITIO

NA

L U

SE

PE

RM

IT)

Exhibit "B"

Findings and Conditions of Approval

PLN2015-00148 – Silevo Hazardous Materials Conditional Use Permit

47700 Kato Road/1055 Page Avenue

FINDINGS:

The findings below are made on the basis of information presented at the public hearing and

contained in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated March 12, 2015, incorporated

hereby:

(a) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan is consistent with the General

Plan in that it would enable a major company and industry leader to establish a new

operation in Fremont by opening a new facility that would engage in research and

development of technology used for the manufacturing of state-of-the-art solar panels and

photovoltaic cells and help increase the industrial engineering job base within the City, while

also minimizing risk to life, property, and the environment through the employment of various

containment and mitigation systems that would be utilized to help maintain the safety of the

company’s employees, neighbors, and the community at large;

(b) The site is physically suitable for the type and density or intensity, as applicable, of

the proposed use in that it would be capable of accommodating the service yard for the new

mechanical equipment and storage structures needed to house and convey the proposed

hazardous materials in compliance with the applicable fire and life safety codes and within an

area that would not be visible from the adjacent public right-of-ways or the neighboring

properties, and the existing buildings would not need to be expanded to accommodate the

company’s proposed operations;

(c) The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are

compatible with development in the vicinity and the I-R Restricted Industrial zoning

district in that there are already several high tech research and development and/or

manufacturing uses operating within the surrounding area, many of which also involve the

storage and handling of similar types of hazardous materials, and the proposed mechanical

equipment needed to store and convey the chemicals on the project site would be similar to

equipment on the other properties containing similar industrial design and manufacturing

uses; and

(d) The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare

of persons or property in the vicinity or the zoning district in which the use would

be located in that the daily operations of the facility would be required to comply with

current California Fire Code (CFC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations

governing the storage and handling of hazardous materials. All hazardous materials used on

the site would also be required to be delivered and disposed of by a licensed chemical

transporter. Finally, conditions of approval are included which would require the applicant to

implement numerous automatic active and passive safety control measures on all of the

proposed storage and conveyance systems to minimize the risk to public health in the event

of an accidental chemical release. Compliance with these safety measures and the

recommended conditions of approval would ensure that the impact of the proposal on the

welfare of the citizens living and working nearby is minimal.

2.2.b

Packet Pg. 16

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it B

- F

ind

ing

s &

Co

nd

itio

ns

of

Ap

pro

val

(231

4 :

SIL

EV

O H

AZ

AR

DO

US

MA

TE

RIA

LS

CO

ND

ITIO

NA

L U

SE

PE

RM

IT)



CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

General Conditions

1. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit (CUP PLN2015-00148) shall allow the use of the

property by a Large User of Group “A” Chemicals as shown in: (1) Exhibit “B” (project plans);

(2) the Risk Management Plan prepared by Integrated Engineering Services dated January 6,

2015; and (3) the Hazardous Materials Inventory (HMIS) dated January 5, 2015, prepared for

Silevo, Inc. by M+W Group, copies of which are on file with the Fire Department and Planning

Division.

2. Changes in the type(s), or increases in the quantity, of chemicals beyond those listed in the

HMIS or California Accidental Release Program (CalARP) Risk Management Plan (RMP) shall be

subject to approval by the Fire Department. Increases to chemical inventory beyond the

quantities listed in the HMIS and CalARP RMP, cited above, may require submission and

approval of a new CalARP RMP and/or a Conditional Use Permit amendment based on the

impact to public and environmental receptors.

3. The applicant shall comply with current and future applicable rules of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, California Fire Code,

California Health and Safety Code, California Code of Regulations, Fremont Municipal Code,

and other regulations governing the use, storage, handling and transportation of hazardous

materials.

4. The applicant shall comply with the provisions and permits required from any federal, state,

or regional agencies, including, but not limited to, the Bay Area Air Quality Management

District, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Union Sanitary District and Alameda County

Department of Environmental Health.

5. In addition to passive and active mitigations required by current California Fire and Building

codes, the applicant shall install and maintain the following additional measures to further

minimize risk to public and environmental receptors:

Bulk Silane Installation:

1) Installation shall comply with the current addition of ANSI/CGA G-13 specifications for

the Storage and Handling of Silane and Silane Mixtures.

.

2) All piping, valves and ductwork shall be of steel and all systems, anchorage and bracing

should have an Importance Factor (Ip) of 1.5, including the proposed 1/4 inch

impingement panels.

3) Seismic sensors shall be installed on these systems to automatically shut off the source

upon seismic activity.

Emergency Response Team:

4) The applicant shall develop and maintain a trained on-site emergency response team

(ERT) as identified in Silevo’s Risk Management Plan and CGA G-13 Appedix A.

2.2.b

Packet Pg. 17

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it B

- F

ind

ing

s &

Co

nd

itio

ns

of

Ap

pro

val

(231

4 :

SIL

EV

O H

AZ

AR

DO

US

MA

TE

RIA

LS

CO

ND

ITIO

NA

L U

SE

PE

RM

IT)

6. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked or modified by the Planning Commission, or by

the City Council if it originally took final action on the permit, if any one of the following

findings can be made:

a. The permit was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud;

b. The terms or conditions of approval of the permit have not been met;

c. The improvement, use, or activity authorized by the permit is in violation of any statute,

ordinance, law, or regulation or constitutes a nuisance; or

d. The owner or occupant of the property is conducting the use or any associated or other

use of the property in violation of any statute, ordinance, law, or regulation or in a

manner that constitutes a nuisance.

7. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards,

commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against

the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or

annul, the approval of the project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such

claim, action or proceeding. The City shall have the option of coordinating the defense.

Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of

any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney’s fees and costs, and the

City defends the action in good faith.

END OF CONDITIONS

2.2.b

Packet Pg. 18

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it B

- F

ind

ing

s &

Co

nd

itio

ns

of

Ap

pro

val

(231

4 :

SIL

EV

O H

AZ

AR

DO

US

MA

TE

RIA

LS

CO

ND

ITIO

NA

L U

SE

PE

RM

IT)

2.2.

c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 19

Attachment: Exhibit C - Project Plans (2314 : SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)

2.2.

c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 20


2.2.

c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 21


2.2.

c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 22


2.2.

c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 23


2.2.

c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 24


2.2.

c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 25


2.2.

c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 26


2.2.

c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 27


PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA

Template 10/12 Page 1 of 33

City of Fremont Initial Study

1. Project: Silevo Conditional Use Permit (PLN2015-00148)

2. Lead Agency name and address (including e-mail address/fax no. as appropriate):

City of Fremont Community Development Dept.

39550 Liberty Street, 1st Floor

Fremont, CA 94538

3. Lead Agency contact person:

Stephen Kowalski, Associate Planner

Phone: (510) 494-4532

E-mail: [email protected]

4. Project location: 47700 Kato Road and 1055 Page Avenue, Fremont, 94538 (APN: 519-1010-130-01)

5. Project Sponsor’s name and address:

SolarCity (Melissa McMorrow – project manager)

3055 Clearview Way

San Mateo, CA 94402

Phone: (650) 963-5822

E-mail: [email protected]

6. General Plan Land Use Designation: Industrial - Tech

7. Zoning: I-R Restricted Industrial

8. Description of Project:

The applicant (“Silevo”) is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the storage and

handling of various hazardous materials on a developed industrial property located at 47700 Kato Road

and 1055 Page Avenue in the I-R Restricted Industrial zoning district. Silevo is a company that designs

and manufactures solar cells and photovoltaic solar module (solar panel) technology. The solar panel

design and manufacturing process requires the use of various hazardous materials, including inert

cryogens, toxic, pyrophoric, and flammable gases, and corrosive, toxic and water-reactive liquids. In this

case, the proposed quantities and types of chemicals that would be used on the site would constitute

Silevo as a Large User of Hazardous Materials engaged in the storage and handling of Group “A”

chemicals pursuant to Section 18.190.220 of the Fremont Municipal Code (FMC), High Intensity

Hazardous Materials Uses. Silevo is currently classified as a Medium User of Group “A” chemicals. In

accordance with FMC Section 18.190.220(f), a Conditional Use Permit is required to allow a Large User

of Group “A” chemicals to locate in the I-R zoning district.

The company would occupy both of the existing buildings on the property (124,010 total square feet of

floor area) and would install a new equipment enclosure behind the building at 1055 Page Avenue

housing the subject hazardous materials in tanks of various sizes, some of which would be housed in

protective cabinets and others in containers of various sizes that would simply be mounted on concrete

pads/footings. No other exterior changes to the site would be made; only interior tenant improvements

would be made to the two buildings in order to accommodate Silevo’s desired floor plans for each

facility.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site consists of a 9.3-acre lot currently developed with two industrial buildings totaling

124,010 square feet, as well as associated parking lot and landscaping improvements. The site currently

takes its access from two existing driveways located along Page Avenue and one vehicular driveway on

Kato Road, as well as one driveway for service/delivery truck traffic at the back of the facility on Kato.

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 28

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)



PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


The adjacent properties are all currently zoned I-R Restricted Industrial, designated Industrial – Tech in

the General Plan, and occupied by various industrial uses, including R&D companies, manufacturing

facilities, warehouses and freight forwarding businesses. The properties located across the Interstate 880

freeway to the west also have the same zoning and General Plan land use designations and are occupied

by similar types of industrial uses. The closest residential properties are located approximately 0.4 miles

to the east on the opposite (eastern) side of Warm Springs Boulevard.

10. Congestion Management Program - Land Use Analysis: The project analysis must be submitted to the

Alameda County Congestion Management Agency for review if “Yes” to any of the following:

YES

X NO This project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment. If yes, send

appropriate forms to Alameda County Congestion Management Agency.

YES X NO A Notice of Preparation is being prepared for this project.

YES X NO An Environmental Impact Report is being prepared.

11. Other Public Agencies Requiring Approval: Bay Area Air Quality Management District

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The following list indicates the environmental factors that would be potentially affected by this project. Those

factors that are indicated as a "Potentially Significant Impact" in the initial study checklist are labeled “PS” while

those factors that are indicated as a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” are labeled “M”.

Aesthetics

Agriculture and Forest

Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils

Hazards & Hazardous

Material

Hydrology / Water Quality

Land Use / Planning

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mineral Resources Noise

Population / Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation / Traffic

Utilities / Service Systems

Mandatory Findings of

Significance

PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES: None

DETERMINATION BY THE CITY OF FREMONT: On the basis of this initial evaluation:

X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE

DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a

significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project

proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless

mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier

document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the

earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it

must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 29

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

2.2.

d

Pac

ket

Pg

. 30

Attachment: Informational 1 - Initial Study (2314 : SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


2.2.d

Packet Pg. 31

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than

Significant Impact

No Impact

Information Sources

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X 1, 8, 11

b

Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not

limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings

within a state scenic highway? X 1, 8, 11

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality

of the site and its surroundings? X 1, 8, 11

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would

adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X 1, 8, 11

Environmental Setting

The project site consists of a 9.3-acre lot currently developed with two industrial buildings and associated

parking lot and landscaping improvements. The site currently takes its access from two existing

driveways located along Page Avenue and one vehicular driveway on Kato Road, as well as one driveway

for service/delivery truck traffic at the back of the facility along Kato Road. Other than a new equipment

enclosure to the rear of one building, the proposed project does not involve exterior modifications that

would be visible to the project. The project is not located along a scenic highway or vista.

Regulatory Framework

Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to aesthetics include:

City of Fremont General Plan Community Character Element (adopted December 2011)

City of Fremont Municipal Code, Title 18, Planning and Zoning (Reformatted October 2012)

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a-b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Would the project

substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

The proposed project would not result in any new construction on the site with the exception of a

new 6-foot tall mechanical equipment enclosure that would be constructed in a paved area behind

the existing building at 1055 Page Avenue in the innermost corner of the site. The enclosure

would be surrounded by existing development both on the site and on the adjacent industrial

properties and would be significantly shorter than all of the existing adjacent buildings; therefore,

it would not be visible from the public realm or encroach into any viewsheds of any scenic

resources. Furthermore, no existing trees would need to be removed as part of the project.

Therefore, impacts from the proposed project on aesthetics would be less than significant and no

mitigation is required. Furthermore, there are no historic buildings or unique geological features

on the project site that would be impacted by the proposed project.

Potential Impact: No Impact

Mitigation: None Required

c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site

and its surroundings?

The project would not result in any new buildings or significant modifications to the exteriors of

the two existing buildings on the site. A new 6-foot tall mechanical equipment enclosure would

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 32

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


be constructed in a paved area behind the existing building at 1055 Page Avenue in the innermost

corner of the site where it would be surrounded by the existing development both on the site and

on the adjacent industrial properties. This enclosure would contain several tanks and gas cabinets,

but the enclosure walls would be tall enough to screen this equipment completely from views

from the public right-of-way or the adjacent developed properties. As such, the project would not

degrade the visual character of the area, and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Impact


d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely

affect day or nighttime views in the area?

The project would utilize the existing site lighting, including the existing parking lot light

standards and wall-mounted light fixtures on the exteriors of the two buildings. No additional

exterior lighting is needed for the project. As such, lighting from the proposed project would be

the same as the current levels at the site. Therefore, no impact would result.



II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural

resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural

Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as

an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland In determining whether

impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may

refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the

state’s inventory of forest land, including the forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy

Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols

adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated Less Than

Significant

Impact No Impact Information

Sources

a.

Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of

Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps

prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring

Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-

agricultural use?

X 1, 8,

20

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a

Williamson Act contract? X

1, 8,

20

c.

Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest

land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)) or

timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code § 4526)? X N/A

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to

non-forest use? X N/A

e.

Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due

to their location or nature, could result in conversion of

Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land

to non-forest use?

X N/A

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 33

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA



The project site is currently developed with industrial uses and is located within an existing industrial

district. The site does not contain agricultural uses or significant trees comprising a forested area.


State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to agriculture and forest resources

include:

City of Fremont General Plan Conservation Element

California Department of Conservation, Alameda County Farmland Map-Access via URL:

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ala10.pdf


a) Would the proposed project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of

Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-

agricultural use?

According to the California Department of Conservation’s 2010 Alameda County Farmland Map,

the site is not Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site

and surrounding area is already developed with industrial buildings consistent with the General

Plan and zoning. Therefore, no impact to such lands would result from the project.



b-e) Would the proposed project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a

Williamson Act contract? Would the proposed project conflict with existing zoning for, or

cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or

timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? Would the proposed

project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Would

the proposed project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their

location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or

conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

The project site is currently developed as an industrial campus and improved with two buildings,

parking lots and landscaping. The site does not contain any farmland or other agricultural

resources. As shown on the California Department of Conservation’s 2010 Alameda County

Farmland Map, the site is “urban and built-up land.” Furthermore, there are no agriculturally-

zoned lands or existing Williamson Act contracts in the project area. In addition, the project

would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Therefore, no agricultural resource or forest resource impacts would result from the development

of the project, and no mitigation is required.



2.2.d

Packet Pg. 34

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ala10.pdf

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality

management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable

air quality plan? X

1, 21,

22

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to

an existing or projected air quality violation? X

1, 21,

22

c.

Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any

criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-

attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air

quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed

quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

X 1, 21,

22

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations? X

1, 3,

6, 21,

22

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of

people? X 1, 3, 6



parking lot and landscaping improvements. No sensitive uses are located in the immediate vicinity of the

project site. The nearest residentially-zoned properties are located approximately 0.4 miles east of the site

along Warm Springs Boulevard, while the nearest school (Warm Springs Elementary) is located

approximately 0.8 miles northeast of the site.


Federal, state and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to air quality include:

City of Fremont General Plan Conservation Element (Air Quality)

Clean Air Plan: The City of Fremont uses the guidance established by the Bay Area Air Quality

Management District (BAAQMD) to assess air quality impacts associated with project construction

and operation based on criteria pollutants contained in the adopted Clean Air Plan. The Clean Air

Plan focuses on improvement of air quality throughout the basin. A network of BAAQMD

monitoring stations continually measures the ambient concentrations of these pollutants for reporting

purposes. The closest such monitoring station is located at 935 Piedmont Road in San Jose. Ozone

precursors and particulate matter are the primary air pollutants of concern for development projects.

These include reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM10 and

PM2.5). Thresholds are whether a project would exceed the emissions of 10 tons per year or 54 lbs. per

day for ozone precursors.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines


a-c) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality

plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or

projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any

criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable

federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed

quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 35

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


In formulating its compliance strategies, BAAQMD relies on planned land uses established by

local general plans. When a project is proposed in a jurisdiction with a general plan that has been

deemed compliant with BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan and that project conforms to the general

plan, then it would also be considered consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The proposed project

would not result in the construction of any new floor area that would increase indirect mobile and

construction-related emissions; instead, Silevo would simply occupy and utilize the two existing

buildings to conduct research and development of solar panel and photovoltaic technology. The

proposed use would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the property of

Industrial – Tech. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with or obstruct

implementation of the applicable clean air plan nor result in a net increase of any criteria

pollutant. Therefore, no impacts to air quality would result.



d-e) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Construction Dust

There are no sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project site. As such, emissions from

construction equipment or traffic generated by the project would not expose a substantial number

of sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. No significant ground-breaking

activities are proposed; therefore, no impacts from construction dust will result.



Objectionable Odors

The proposed project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during construction of

the new mechanical equipment enclosure and any interior tenant improvements that would be

made to the two buildings. These emissions may be noticeable from time to time by nearby

receptors. However, they would be temporary and would not affect a substantial number of

people. In addition, there are no existing uses in the project vicinity that produce objectionable

odors nor are any uses proposed that would produce objectionable odors. The hazardous materials

used in conjunction with the proposed use would be stored in enclosed containers or within an

enclosed cabinet also within an equipment enclosure. Therefore, impacts would be less than

significant.



IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a.

Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through

habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,

sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,

policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish

and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X 1, 8

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 36

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


b.

Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or

other sensitive natural community identified in local or

regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California

Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service?

X 1, 8

c.

Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected

wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,

etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological

interruption, or other means?

X 1, 8

d.

Interfere substantially with the movement of any native

resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with

established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or

impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

X 1, 8

e.

Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting

biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or

ordinance? X

1, 3,

8, C

f.

Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,

or other approved local, regional, or state habitat

conservation plan?

X 1, 8



parking lot and landscaping improvements.


Federal, state, and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related biological resources

include:

City of Fremont General Plan, Conservation Element

City of Fremont Tree Preservation Ordinance

Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service laws and requirements

Alameda County Flood Control District laws and requirements


a-c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat

modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in

local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and

Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Would the project have a substantial adverse

effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or

regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife

or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on

federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,

but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,

hydrological interruption, or other means?

The project site is developed with industrial buildings and associated parking, circulation and

landscaping. As such, the site does not provide habitat for candidate, sensitive or special-status

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 37

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


species. Furthermore, the site does not contain riparian habitat nor federally protected wetlands,

and no existing trees on or off the site are proposed for removal.


Mitigation: None Required.

d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or

migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife

corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

The project would not result in the disturbance or removal of any areas, structures or trees that

may provide habitat for any native or migratory fish or wildlife. The only physical change

proposed to be made to the site is the construction of a new mechanical equipment enclosure in a

paved area at the back of the existing building at 1055 Page Avenue adjacent to loading docks

and other mechanical equipment. There are no trees or other landscaping in this area that would

be affected by the construction of the new enclosure. As such, no impacts would result.



e-f) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological

resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Would the project conflict with

the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation

Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

The project would not result in the disturbance or removal of any landscaping or trees. As such,

no impacts would result. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with any adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or

state habitat conservation plan, as none exist that affect the area.



V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a

historical resource as defined in §15064.57? X

1, 28,

29, C

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an

archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? X

1, 28,

29, C

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological

resource or site or unique geologic feature? X

1, 28,

29, C

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside

of formal cemeteries? X

1, 28,

29, C



parking lot and landscaping improvements. No historic structures or other cultural resources are known to

exist on-site or in the immediate vicinity. The project site does not contain any known archaeological

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 38

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


resources, paleontological resources, unique geologic features, or human remains, and the entire site is

already developed with buildings, parking and circulation facilities, and landscaping improvements.


State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to cultural resources include:

City of Fremont General Plan Land Use Element (Historic Resources)

Fremont Municipal Code, Title 18, Planning and Zoning (Reformatted October 2012), Section

18.175 Historic Resources


a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical

resource as defined in §15064.57?

The project site is currently developed with industrial buildings and associated parking,

circulation and landscaping. There are no known historical resources located on the site or on any

of the adjacent properties. As such, the project would not impact any historical resources and no

mitigation is required.



b-d) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an

archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Would the project directly or indirectly

destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Would the

project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

There are no known archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or unique geologic

features located on or adjacent to the site, and no additional ground-breaking of undeveloped

and/or undisturbed land is proposed as part of the project. As such, the proposed project would

not result in impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains.


Mitigation: None Required.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse

effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on

the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning

Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based

on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to

Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

X 1, 5, 6

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X 1, 5, 6

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 1, 5, 6

iv) Landslides? X 1, 5, 6

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 1, 5,

6, 8

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 39

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


c.

Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that

would become unstable as a result of the project, and

potentially result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral

spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

X 1, 5, 6

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in California

Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? X 1, 5, 6

e.

Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of

septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where

sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

X N/A

Environmental Setting:

The City of Fremont is subject to fault rupture and related seismic shaking from several faults in the area.

According to the 2004 State of Geologic and Seismic Hazard Zones map, the project site is located in an

area susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction. The nearest active fault is the Hayward-Rogers Creek

fault located approximately one mile to the east. As with any land in the San Francisco Bay Area, the

project site could be subjected to strong shaking during a major seismic event along this or any other fault

in the area.


State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to geology and soils include:

City of Fremont General Plan Safety Element (Seismic and Geologic Hazards)

City of Fremont Municipal Code (Building Safety)

2010 California Building Code


a-e) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving a major seismic event? Would the

project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Would the project be located

on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the

project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,

liquefaction or collapse? Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in the

California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?

According to the 2004 State of Geologic and Seismic Hazard Zones map, the project site is

located in an area that is susceptible to ground failure as a result of liquefaction caused by a

seismic event. As such, all new structures must be designed in conformance with geotechnical

and soil stability standards as required by the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). In this case,

Silevo is only proposing to construct a new mechanical equipment enclosure which will contain

various tanks and gas cabinets housing various chemicals and hazardous materials. Conformance

to the applicable 2013 CBC standards during the construction of this enclosure and the footings

and pads that will house the tanks and gas cabinets will reduce potential project impacts to the

site, its occupants, or the adjacent properties from potential ground failure to less than significant.

The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil in that no grading

activities are proposed; the only construction that would occur outdoors on the site would be in a

paved loading dock area at the rear of the building at 1055 Page Avenue. As such, impacts

associated with geology and soils would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.



2.2.d

Packet Pg. 40

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a.

Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the

environment?

X 1, 3,

8, 21,

22, 23

b.

Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an

agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of

greenhouse gases?

X 1, 3,

8, 21,

22, 23


With the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), the State of California

acknowledged the role of greenhouse gases (GHG) in global warming and took action to reduce GHG

emission levels. AB 32 set a statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In

doing so, it contemplated economic expansion and growth of population to 44 million people by 2020. It

also called for the State’s Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan encompassing all major

sectors of GHG emissions for achieving reductions consistent with AB 32’s goals. The Scoping Plan,

adopted in December 2008, creates an overarching framework for meeting the GHG reduction goal of

returning to 1990 emissions levels by 2020.

GHG analysis uses carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), measured in metric tons, to adjust for the different

warming potential of a wide range of greenhouse gases, not just exclusively CO2. The State 2005 GHG

emission inventory was 479 million metrics tons of CO2e. CARB projected that under business-as-usual

conditions (no reduction effort) GHG emissions would grow to 596.4 million metric tons of CO2e by the

year 2020. According to the Scoping Plan, reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels requires cutting

approximately 30 percent from the business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15

percent from 2010 levels. The target amount for the 2020 goal is an emission level of no more than 427

million metric tons of CO2e (the 1990 levels). On a per capita basis, this means reducing current annual

emissions of 14 tons of CO2e for every person in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.

The City of Fremont GHG emission inventory estimate for 2010 was 1.99 million metric tons with a

service population of jobs and residents of 304,489.


State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to GHG emissions include:

City of Fremont General Plan Sustainability and Conservation Elements

State Assembly Bill (AB) 32

California Green Building Code (Mandatory)


a-b) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may

have a significant impact on the environment? Would the project conflict with any

applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the

emissions of greenhouse gases?

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain methodology and thresholds of

significance for evaluating the potential impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land

use projects. BAAQMD thresholds were developed specifically for the Bay Area after

considering the latest GHG inventory and the effects of AB 32 scoping plan measures that would

reduce regional emissions. BAAQMD intends to achieve GHG reductions from new land use

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 41

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


projects to close the gap between projected regional emissions with AB 32 scoping plan measures

and AB 32 targets. BAAQMD suggests applying GHG efficiency thresholds to projects with

emissions of 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalency) or greater per year.

Projects that have emissions below 1,100 MT of CO2e per year are considered to result in less

than significant GHG emissions. Land use projects with emissions above the 1,100 MT per year

per year threshold would then be subject to a GHG efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT per year per

capita. Projects with emissions above the threshold would be considered to have an impact, which

cumulatively, would be significant.

The BAAQMD provides screening criteria for new projects to aid in determining whether a

project could exceed the emissions threshold of 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2e (carbon dioxide

equivalency) or greater per year. The screening size for GHG emissions related to light industrial

buildings is 121,000 square feet (at which point GHG emissions could exceed the 1,100 MT of

CO2e per year threshold). The screening size for construction related emissions for light

industrial development is 259,000 square feet. The proposed project would utilize the two

existing buildings on the subject site, and would not require the construction of any additional

floor area in either facility. Therefore, the project would not generate additional GHG emissions

that would have a significant impact on the environment and would not conflict with any

applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.



VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a.

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment

through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous

materials?

X 1, 6,

7, C

b.

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment

through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions

involving the release of hazardous materials into the

environment?

X 1, 6,

7, C

c.

Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely

hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter

mile of an existing or proposed school?

X 1, 3, C

d.

Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous

materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code

Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant

hazard to the public or the environment?

X 1, 18

e.

For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where

such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a

public airport or public use airport, would the project result in

a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project

area?

X N/A

f.

For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would

the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or

working in the project area?

X N/A

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an

adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan? X

1, 6,

7, C

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 42

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


h.

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,

injury or death involving wildland fires, including where

wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences

are intermixed with wildlands?

X N/A



parking lot and landscaping improvements and is located within a built-out industrial district adjacent to

Interstate 880. No sensitive uses are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The nearest

residentially-zoned properties are located approximately 0.4 miles east of the site along Warm Springs

Boulevard, while the nearest school (Warm Springs Elementary) is located approximately 0.8 miles

northeast of the site.


State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to hazards and hazardous materials

include:

City of Fremont General Plan Land Use and Safety Elements

City of Fremont Fire Code

Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List


a-c) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the

routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Would the project create a

significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset

and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous

materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Silevo’s proposed operations at the project site would employ a number of hazardous gases and

liquids that would be stored and managed for routine use, the quantities of which would result in

Silevo’s classification as a Large User of Group “A” Chemicals under FMC Section 18.190.220,

and require approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City’s Planning Commission. These

hazardous materials will be delivered to and stored on the site in accordance with Federal and

State Department of Transportation regulatory specifications, and will be required to be delivered

and disposed of by a licensed chemical transporter.

Daily operations at the facility would include compliance measures with regulations regarding

hazardous materials in accordance with the standards of the 2013 California Fire Code (CFC).

Under those provisions, the applicant is required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan

(HMBP) for review and approval by the City’s Fire Department during the building permit

process to ensure that it conforms to the standards of the 2013 CBC. The project also includes a

Risk Management Plan (RMP) prepared on January 6, 2015, by Integrated Engineering Services

in accordance with the requirements of the California Accidental Release Program (CalARP) to

analyze the off-site impacts to public safety in the event of an accidental release or gas vapor

cloud explosion involving the following 10 hazardous chemical compounds:

1. Hydrogen

2. Silane

3. Methane

4. Phosphine

5. Diborane

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 43

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


6. Sulfuric Acid

7. Hydrochloric Acid

8. Hydrofluoric Acid

9. Nitric Acid

10. Ammonium Hydroxide

These 10 chemical compounds were analyzed specifically because they would either be stored in

the largest quantities or are the most volatile (or both). The RMP concluded that under worst-case

scenarios involving an accidental release or explosion of any of the 10 chemical compounds at

the site, impacts to the sensitive population receptors (not including employees or visitors of

Silevo or other industrial businesses in the immediate vicinity) would be as follows:

Chemical Compound Worst-Case Scenario

Release Amount (Tank Size) Impact Radius

Hydrogen 21.8 lbs. (gas) 0.03 miles (±158 feet)

Silane 132 lbs. (gas) 0.04 miles (±211 feet)

Methane 241 lbs. (gas) 0.05 miles (±264 feet)

Phosphine 0.412 lbs. (gas) 0.6 miles (±3,168 feet)

Diborane 0.336 lbs. (gas) 0.2 miles (±1,056 feet)

Sulfuric Acid 330 gallons (liquid) 0.1 miles (±528 feet)

Hydrochloric Acid 330 gallons (liquid) 0.2 miles (±1,056 feet)

Hydrofluoric Acid 330 gallons (liquid) 0.1 miles (±528 feet)

Nitric Acid 330 gallons (liquid) 0.2 miles (±1,056 feet)

Ammonium Hydroxide 330 gallons (liquid) <0.1 miles (<528 feet)

As this table shows, an accidental release of any of these 10 chemical compounds would have an

impact radius ranging from less than 0.1 miles to 0.6 miles under a worst-case scenario without

any containment measures. Only one of the worst-case release scenarios for one chemical

compound would impact a residential neighborhood; a portion of Warm Springs located

approximately between Gable Drive to the north and Tonopah Drive to the south falls within the

0.6-mile impact radius of the worst-case scenario release for Phosphine. However, the proposal

includes passive containment and control systems in the form of sealed gas cabinets surrounding

the storage tanks which pass through restrictive flow orifices that ultimately connect to a

scrubber, as well as numerous active systems, including emergency shutoff valves with sensors

that monitor gas levels throughout the containment system, emergency power back-up generators

that activate within seconds of a power outage to ensure that the monitoring systems continue

operating at all times, and automatic shutoff valves which come on in the event of seismic

activity or a fire detected on the premises, among other types of emergencies. These project

attributes ensure that any accidental releases and/or explosions are minimized and contained to

the maximum extent feasible in order to prevent impacts to the public, and reduce the likelihood

of a worst-case scenario, which would see no containment of the hazardous materials at all. The

Fire Department would review the plans and specifications for all such containment measures and

systems and ensure that they are installed and made operational in accordance with applicable

Federal and State safety regulations before allowing Silevo to begin using the proposed chemical

compounds on the site.

The impact radii for the worst-case scenario releases for the other nine chemical compounds

could expose employees and visitors on the premises and, in some instances, on the properties

immediately adjacent to the site to harm from a release or explosion. Potential risk to employees

and visitors is typical to general- and restricted-industrial areas due to the nature of the zoning

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 44

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


district and the types of activities that are typically conducted within them. The I-R zoning district

in which the project site is located specifically restricts the placement of sensitive receptors in the

area in acknowledgement of the potential industrial processes that occur in the area and the

dangers associated with such processes. Employee safety and health is regulated by OSHA and

not part of the land use consideration of the conditional use permit. Advanced containment and

control systems would be installed along with the proposed storage tanks and mechanical

appurtenances as described above in accordance with the applicable California Building and Fire

Codes and the RMP. Furthermore, the Fire Department would require Silevo to obtain approval

of an Emergency Action Plan (EAP), which would include a shelter-in-place component prior to

commencement of usage of the proposed hazardous materials at the facility, thereby further

reducing the likelihood of exposure to any accidental releases or fallout from an explosion.

Due to the containment measures, the RMP and the EAP that would be required to be employed

by Silevo, impacts associated with the routine transport and storage and handling of, or any

accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant, and no mitigation is

required.



d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled

pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant

hazard to the public or the environment?

The project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s Hazardous Waste

and Substances Site List (Cortese List). As such, the proposed project would not create a

significant hazard to the public or the environment resulting from existing hazardous materials

that would need to be removed from the site. Thus, no impact would result.



e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been

adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result

in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within

the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people

residing or working in the project area?

The project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor are there any public or private

airports near the project site.



f-g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted

emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Would the project expose people

or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including

where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with

wildlands?

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 45

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


The proposed project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans and

would be designed to meet all applicable federal, state and local fire safety codes. Emergency

vehicle access would be provided throughout the site via parking lot drive aisles and designated

fire lanes demarcated with red curb painting and “No Parking” signage to City Fire Department

standards. Furthermore, to protect the employees and visitors to the project site from exposure to

an accidental release of hazardous materials, the Fire Department would require the applicant to

obtain approval of an Emergency Action Plan, which would include a shelter-in-place

component. Finally, the project site is not located in a wildland fire area. Thus, no significant

impact to life safety would result from the project.



IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge

requirements? X

1, 6,

8, 14,

15, 16

b.

Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere

substantially with groundwater recharge such that there

would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the

local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pro-

existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not

support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits

have been granted)?

X 1, 6,

8, 14,

15, 16

c.

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or

area, including through the alteration of the course of a

stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial

erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

X 1, 6,

8, 14,

15, 16

d.

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or

area, including through the alteration of the course of a

stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of

surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-

or off-site?

X 1, 6,

8, 14,

15, 16

e.

Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the

capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems

or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

X 1, 6,

8, 14,

15, 16

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X 1, 6,

8, 14,

15, 16

g.

Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped

on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate

Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

X N/A

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which

would impede or redirect flood flows? X

1, 6,

17

i.

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,

injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a

result of the failure of a levee or dam?

X 1, 6,

8, 17

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X 1, 6,

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 46

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


8, 17



parking lot and landscaping improvements. Existing public sanitary sewer and storm drain systems are

located within Kato Road and Page Avenue and currently serve the project site.


Federal, state and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to hydrology and water

quality include:

City of Fremont General Plan Conservation Element (Water Quality)

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Alameda

Countywide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit, Order R2-2003-0021, National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System Permit No. CAS00229831(NPDES C.3)

Federal Clean Water Act 1987


a-c, f) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially

with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a

lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pro-existing

nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned

uses for which permits have been granted)? Would the project substantially alter the

existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course

of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-

or off-site? Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

The proposed development would not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater

supplies, or substantially degrade water quality. The project would continue to utilize the existing

public sanitary sewer and storm drain systems within Kato Road and Page Avenue to which the

site is currently connected, and would obtain its water from the existing piped public water main

serving the site.



d-e) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase

the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-

site? Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity

of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional

sources of polluted runoff?

The project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in that no new

buildings, paving or other forms of hardscape would be added to the site. Drainage from the

project would continue to follow its existing patterns on the site, and ultimately discharge into the

public storm drain system serving the property in Kato Road.


2.2.d

Packet Pg. 47

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA



g-j) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard

Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place

within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,

including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche,

tsunami, or mudflow?

The project site is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate

Map (FIRM), Panel No. 06001C0464G, effective August 3, 2009. According to this FIRM, the

project site is located within an Unshaded X zone. As such, the project is outside of the 100-year

flood zone. Furthermore, the project site is not located in an area that would be subject to

flooding as a result of the failure of a dam or levee, nor would it be subject to inundation by

seiche, tsunami or mud flow. The proposed project does not include new housing. The proposed

use would take place within two existing industrial buildings. As such, no impact would result.



X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a. Physically divide an established community? X 1, 2,

3, 8

b.

Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or

regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project

(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,

local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the

purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X 1, 2,

3, 8

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or

natural community conservation plan? X

1, 2,

3, 8



parking lot and landscaping improvements. The use of the proposed building would be consistent with the

Industrial – Tech General Plan land use designation and IR Restricted Industrial zoning of the site.


State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to land use and planning include:

City of Fremont General Plan Land Use and Community Character Elements

Habitat Conservation Programs, California Department of Fish and Wildlife


a-c) Would the project physically divide an established community? Would the project conflict

with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over

the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal

program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 48

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


environmental effect? Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation

plan or natural community conservation plan?

The proposed project does not involve new construction that would have the potential to

physically divide an established community. The existing buildings that would house the

proposed use are located in an area of the City that is largely built out with existing industrial

development on land located in proximity to the Interstate 880 freeway. Therefore, it would not

introduce an incompatible land use to the area. The subject property is zoned I-R Restricted

Industrial and designated as Industrial – Tech in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The

intent of these land use and zoning designations is to provide for uses that engage in research and

development, light manufacturing, and wholesale/distribution, while also allowing for certain

uses involving the storage and handling of various hazardous materials subject to approval of a

discretionary permit by the City. The Economic Development Element of the General Plan also

contains goals and policies specifically aimed at attracting high-tech and green-tech industries

and companies to Fremont through business-friendly land use practices and policies. Allowing

the proposed solar panel research and development facility would be consistent with these

policies in that it would allow a major employer to locate its operations within the City and hire a

new, local workforce to engage in research and development of high-tech/green-tech equipment.

There are no adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans that affect the

site. Thus, no impact would result.



XI. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a.

Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource

that would be of value to the region and the residents of the

state?

X 8

b.

Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important

mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general

plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

X 8



parking lot and landscaping improvements.


State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to mineral resources include:

City of Fremont General Plan Conservation Element

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) 1975, California Department of Conservation


a-b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would

be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Would the project result in the loss

of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local

general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 49

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


According to local and state mineral resources maps, there are no known mineral resources of

importance to the state or region on the site or within the surrounding area. The site is already

developed with industrial buildings and designated and zoned for industrial development.

Therefore, no impact to such resources would result.



XII. NOISE - Would the project result in:

ISSUES: Potentially Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless Mitigation

Incorporated Less Than Significant


Sources

a.

Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess

of standards established in the local general plan or noise

ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

X 1, 3, 9

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X 1, 3, 9

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in

the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X 1, 3, 9

d.

A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the

project?

X 1, 3, 9

e.

For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where

such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a

public airport or public use airport, would the project expose

people residing or working in the project area to excessive

noise levels?

X N/A

f.

For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would

the project expose people residing or working in the project

area to excessive noise levels?

X N/A


The project site is located approximately 150 feet to the east of the Interstate 880 freeway, the only major

noise source in the area.


State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to noise include:

City of Fremont General Plan Safety Element (Noise and Vibration)

City of Fremont Municipal Code

California Building Code

In accordance with Fremont General Plan Policy 10-8.1: Site Development Acceptable Noise

Environment, appropriate interior noise levels are evaluated on a case by case basis. Interior noise levels

in offices should be maintained at 45 Leq (hourly average) or less, while exterior noise exposure of up to

70 Ldn is considered acceptable.


a-c) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of

standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards

of other agencies? Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 50

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Result in a substantial

permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing

without the project?

The 2030 traffic noise environment shown in General Plan Diagram 10-9 indicates the project site

is within the 65 Ldn dB(A) traffic noise contour. Industrial uses are commonly located near

freeways and along major thoroughfares where vehicular and truck traffic volumes are frequently

high. Based on the typical noise attenuation properties of modern-day industrial construction and

the setbacks of the two buildings from the Interstate 880 freeway, the project would attain the

General Plan acceptable interior noise threshold for office space, and exterior noise exposure

would not exceed 70 Ldn db(A). As such, impacts would be less than significant.


Mitigation: None required

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity

above levels existing without the project?

Development of the project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels during daytime

hours, particularly from diesel-powered construction equipment used to construct the new

equipment enclosure. All construction-related activities would be required to comply with the

noise standards contained in the City of Fremont’s Municipal Code which limits such activities to

certain times of the day and week to reduce noise impacts on any sensitive receptors such as

residences, schools or senior care facilities. In this case, these restrictions are:

Monday-Friday, 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Weekends and Holidays, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.

These construction hours apply to all development on properties not located within 500 feet of a

sensitive receptor, and are designed to allow construction to occur with less time limitations given

the fact that its noise impacts would not pose a significant nuisance to any sensitive receptors.

Construction noise may temporarily disturb the occupants of the adjacent industrial properties,

but the impacts would be temporary in nature and, therefore, would be less than significant.



e-f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been

adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose

people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within

the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the

project area to excessive noise levels?

There are no public or private airports located near the project site. No impact would result.



XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact Potentially

Significant

Unless

Less Than

Significant


Sources

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 51

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


Mitigation

Incorporated

a.

Induce substantial population growth in an area, either

directly (for example, by proposing new homes and

businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of

roads or other infrastructure)?

X 1, 2, 4

b.

Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,

necessitating the construction of replacement housing

elsewhere?

X 1, 2, 4

c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X 1, 2, 4

Existing Conditions


parking lot and landscaping improvements. There is no existing housing on the site or in the vicinity. The

nearest residences are located approximately 0.4 miles away to the east in the residential portion of the

Warm Springs Community Plan Area.


Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to population and housing include:

City of Fremont General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements (referencing City Housing

Element, July 2009)


a-c) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for

example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through

extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Would the project displace substantial numbers

of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere?

The proposed project would occupy a site located in an industrial zone that is already fully

developed with an industrial building and associated site improvements. No infrastructure

extensions would be needed to accommodate the project that would induce substantial growth in

the area beyond what was already anticipated in the City’s 2010 General Plan. In addition, the

proposal does not involve the demolition of any existing housing; therefore, it would not displace

any residents or result in the loss of any dwelling units and no impacts would result.



XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:

ISSUES: Potentially Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless Mitigation

Incorporated Less Than Significant


Sources

a.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or

physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable

service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? X 1, 10

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 52

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


Police protection? X 1, 10

Schools? X 1, 10

Parks? X 1, 10

Other public facilities? X 1, 10

Existing Conditions


parking lot and landscaping improvements. The site is currently provided with public services, including

police and fire protection.


Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to public services include:

City of Fremont General Plan Public Facilities Element



a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the

provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically

altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant

environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or

other performance objectives for any of the public services: fire, police, schools, parks or

other public facilities?

On September 3, 1991, the City Council passed resolutions implementing the levying of

Development Impact Fees for all new development within the City of Fremont. These fees are

required of any new development for which a building permit is issued on or after December 1,

1991. The concept of the impact fee program is to fund and sustain improvements that are needed

as a result of new development as stated in the General Plan and other policy documents within

the fee program. Development Impact Fees fall into the following categories: Traffic Impact

Fees, Park Dedication and Park Facilities In-Lieu Fees, Capital Facilities Fees, and Fire Service

Fees. All non-residential developments are exempt from Park Dedication and Park Facilities In-

Lieu Fees since such uses do not directly generate demand for park facilities.

The proposed project is located in a built-out industrial area of the City where public facilities and

services needed to serve the project are already in place. Silevo would occupy the two existing

buildings on the site and would not need to expand either facility at this time; therefore, it would

not be subject to the payment of Development Impact Fees since no additional floor area would

be developed as a result of the project. As such, no impact would result.



XV. RECREATION:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a.

Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood

and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that

substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur

X 1, 2,

3, 12

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 53

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


or be accelerated?

b.

Does the project include recreational facilities or require the

construction or expansion of recreational facilities which

might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

X 1, A

Existing Conditions


parking lot and landscaping improvements. The site is located in an area that has been primarily

developed with industrial uses. No recreational facilities are located on or adjacent to the project site.


Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to recreation include:

City of Fremont General Plan Parks and Recreation Element


a-b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other

recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur

or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the

construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical

effect on the environment?

The project would not increase the use of parks or other recreational facilities nor require the

construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities given the industrial nature of the

proposed use. Therefore, no impacts to parks or other recreational facilities would result.



XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a.

Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based

on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated

in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account

all relevant components of the circulation system, including

but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and

freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

X 1, 7, H

b.

Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,

including, but not limited to a level of service standard

standards and travel demand measures, or other standards

established by the county congestion management agency for

designated roads or highways?

X 1, 7, H

c.

Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an

increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in

substantial safety risks?

X 1, 7, H

d.

Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,

sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses

(e.g., farm equipment)?

X 1, 7, H

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X 1, 6,

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 54

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


7, H

f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting

alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X 1, 7, H

Existing Conditions

The project site is located on Kato Road slightly more than one mile south of the Interstate 880/Mission

Boulevard interchange, and slightly less than one mile north of the Interstate 880/Dixon Landing Road

interchange. Access to the site is available via both Kato Road to and Page Avenue via Milmont Drive. No

changes to the existing driveway locations or parking/circulation/loading areas are proposed as part of the

project.


Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to transportation/traffic include:

City of Fremont General Plan Mobility Element


a-b) Would the project exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an

applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.),

taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not

limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and

mass transit? Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management

program, including, but not limited to a level of service standards and travel demand

measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for

designated roads or highways?

The existing buildings on the property were originally developed to house light industrial

research and development uses engaged in the development of high-tech equipment similar to the

use currently being proposed. Neither building would need to be enlarged to accommodate the

new use; only interior modifications would be needed to accommodate Silevo’s desired floor

plans for the two facilities. The proposed use and intensity of the site is consistent with the uses

and intensity envisioned by the General Plan for the Tech Industrial designation, and also

analyzed in the General Plan EIR with regard to potential traffic impacts. Because no new square

footage would be added to either facility, potential impacts to the existing circulation system in

the area would be less than significant.

Potential Impact: Less Than Significant Impact


c-d) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in

traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Would the

project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or

dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

The proposed project would not have an impact on air traffic patterns as there are no airports in

the project vicinity. Furthermore, the proposal does not feature any unusual design elements such

as a sharp curve or unsafe intersection that could pose a safety hazard to vehicular, bicycle or

pedestrian traffic. Vehicular access to the project site would continue to be provided via the two

existing driveways serving the property along Page Avenue and the two existing driveways along

Kato Road, one on each street of which would remain capable of accommodating delivery truck

traffic. Thus, no impacts would result.

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 55

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA




e-f) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Would the project conflict with

adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus

turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Emergency vehicle access would continue to be provided throughout the entire project site

through existing designated fire lanes demarcated by red curbing and “No Parking” signage. The

project would not conflict with, or require the redesign or relocation of, any existing sidewalks,

bicycle lanes or transit stops in that all proposed improvements would be constructed entirely on-

site. The project would also not conflict with any plans, policies or programs supporting

alternative transportation in that it would provide parking for bicycles and motorcycles, as well as

electric vehicles, in addition to gas-powered automobiles, and direct pedestrian connections from

the two buildings to Kato Road to facilitate walking. Thus, no impacts would result.



XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable

Regional Water Quality Control Board? X

10,

agency notice

b.

Require or result in the construction of new water or

wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant

environmental effects?

X 10,

agency

notice

c.

Require or result in the construction of new stormwater

drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant environmental

effects?

X 10,

agency

notice

d.

Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project

from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or

expanded entitlements needed?

X 10,

agency

notice

e.

Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment

provider which serves or may serve the project that it has

adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in

addition to the provider's existing commitments?

X 10,

agency notice

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to

accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X 10, 24

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations

related to solid waste? X 10, 24

Existing Conditions


parking lot and landscaping improvements. The project site is already served by public water, sewer and

storm drain lines located within the Kato Road and Page Avenue public rights-of-way.

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 56

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA



Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to utilities and service systems include:

City of Fremont General Plan Public Facilities Element



a-e) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional

Water Quality Control Board? Would the project require or result in the construction of

new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Would the project

require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing

entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Would the project

result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve

the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition

to the provider's existing commitments?

The proposed project would remain connected to the existing public water, sewer and storm drain

lines in Kato Road and Page Avenue which already serve the existing buildings on the site. The

Union Sanitary District (local sewer service provider) and Alameda County Water District (local

water service provider) have reviewed the proposal and confirmed that the proposed project

would not generate a significant increase in wastewater that could exceed the capacity of the

sewer lines serving the property, nor would it require excessive amounts of water that could not

be provided by the existing water main serving the site. Additionally, the applicant would not

make any changes to the site that could result in increased stormwater runoff into the storm drain

lines serving the area. As such, the existing water, sewer and storm drain lines serving the area

need not be expanded to accommodate the proposed project, and impacts to utilities would be less

than significant.



f-g) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate

the project's solid waste disposal needs? Would the project comply with federal, state, and

local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

The project would be served by the City’s franchised waste hauler agreement in compliance with

applicable standards for conventional (universal) business waste products and recyclables.

Although Silevo would generate various hazardous wastes (e.g., spent liquid or solid chemical

wastes, hazardous wipes, etc.), it would not generate any unconventional hazardous waste

products in the proposed facility. Any universal hazardous wastes generated by the proposed

facility such as spent compact fluorescent light bulbs, printer ink, batteries, etc., would be

collected separately by a licensed vendor specializing in removal and disposal of such waste

products. Therefore, no impacts would result.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 57

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

PLN2015-00148

Silevo EIA


XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:

ISSUES: Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation


Significant


Sources

a.

Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of

the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or

wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop

below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or

animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of

a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important

examples of the major periods of California history or

prehistory?

X See

Previous

b.

Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,

but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"

means that the incremental effects of a project are

considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of

past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the

effects of probable future projects)?

X See

Previous

c.

Does the project have environmental effects which will cause

substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or

indirectly?

X See

Previous


The above discussion adequately addresses all potential impacts the proposed project may have on the

environment. This Initial Study has found that the proposed project would not have the potential to

degrade the quality of the environment and would not pose any significant environmental impacts.

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 58

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)


GENERAL SOURCE REFERENCES:

The following is a list of references used in the preparation of this document. Unless attached herein, copies of all

reference reports, memorandums and letters are on file with the City of Fremont Department of Community

Development. References to publications prepared by federal or state agencies may be found with the agency

responsible for providing such information.

1. Existing land use.

2. City of Fremont General Plan (Land Use Element Text and Maps)

3. City of Fremont Municipal Code Title 18, Planning and Zoning (including Tree Preservation Ordinance)

4. City of Fremont General Plan (Certified 2009 Housing Element)

5. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and City of Fremont General Plan (Safety Element)

6. City of Fremont General Plan (Safety Element)

7. City of Fremont General Plan (Mobility Element)

8. City of Fremont General Plan (Conservation Element, including Biological Resources, Water Resources,

Land Resources, Air Quality, Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy)

9. City of Fremont General Plan (Safety Element, subsection Noise & Vibration)

10. City of Fremont General Plan (Public Facilities Element)

11. City of Fremont General Plan (Community Character Element)

12. City of Fremont General Plan (Parks and Recreation Element)

13. City of Fremont General Plan (Community Plans Element, Measure T)

14. RWQCB National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit October 2009

15. RWQCB, Construction Stormwater General Permit, September 2009

16. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Hydromodification Susceptibility Map 2007

17. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FEMA online) and City of Fremont General Plan (Safety Element)

18. Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List, consolidated by the State Department of Toxic Substances

Control, Office of Environmental Information Management, by Ca./EPA, pursuant to Government Code

Section 65962.5 (accessed online)

19. Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map 2010

20. City of Fremont Agricultural Preserves Lands Under Contract (2007 Map and List)

21. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: Clean Air Plan (Bay Area Ozone Strategy 2010)

22. CARB Scoping Plan December 2008

23. City of Fremont Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2005

24. City of Fremont Municipal Code Title 8, Health and Safety (e.g. solid waste, hazardous materials, etc.)

25. City of Fremont Municipal Code Title 12, Streets, Sidewalks & Public Property

26. City of Fremont Municipal Code Title 15, Building Regulations

27. City of Fremont Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance

28. Fremont Register of Historic Resources and Inventory of Potential Historic Resources

29. Local Cultural Resource Maps (CHRIS)

30. Fremont High Fire Severity Zone Map

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 59

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)


PROJECT RELATED REFERENCES:

A. Project Plans prepared by M+W Group, dated January 6, 2015

B. Site reconnaissance visit by City Planning Division, January 21, 2015

C. Risk Management Plan prepared by Integrated Engineering Services, dated January 6, 2015

2.2.d

Packet Pg. 60

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

1 -

Init

ial S

tud

y (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

INFORMATIONAL ITEM #2 PROJECT SITE INFORMATION

STA

RLI

TE W

AY

GOLDENRAIN AVE

SHAWNEE P

L

PAGE AVE

KA

TO

RD

TONOPAH DR

FLA

GSTAFF C

T

KATO TER

MAYTEN WAY

MAYTEN WAY

LAKEVIE

W C

T

WA

RM

SPR

ING

S B

LV

D

CAITLIN WAY

KANSAS WAY

SP

OK

AN

E P

L

SCOTT CREEK RD

WA

RM

SPR

ING

S B

LV

D

YAMPA WAY

KA

TO

TE

R

STARLITE WAY

LA

KE

VIE

W B

LV

D

BA

YSID

E P

KW

Y

MA

YTE

N W

AY

TO

NO

PA

H D

R

OTTAWA WAY

KATO RD

MIL

MO

NT

DR

KA

TO

RD

TUOLU

MNE D

R

TONOPAH DR

FREMO

NT BLVD

AM

AR

ILLO

CT

CR

AYC

RO

FT D

R

CRAYCROFT DR

CO

NIF

ER

ST

LA

KE

VIE

W B

LV

D

SA

WL

EA

F S

T

CE

RE

US

CT

BAYVIE

W D

R

AR

KA

NS

AS

PL

WHITNEY PL FLA

GS

TA

FF

PL

LA

KE

VIE

W B

LV

D

FR

EM

ON

T B

LVD

I-880

I-880

SAGO PALM TERIRONWOOD TER

PISTACHE TER

KATO RD

WA

RM

SPR

ING

S B

LV

D

PAGODA TER

TR

EE

FER

N C

MN

AIR

FE

RN

CM

N

LA

DY F

ER

N C

MN

Figure 1: Aerial Photo (2009) of Project Site and Surrounding Area.

SURROUNDING LAND USES:

North: Industrial uses; I-R Restricted Industrial zoning district

South: Industrial uses; I-R Restricted Industrial zoning district

East: Industrial uses; I-R Restricted Industrial zoning district

West: Interstate 880 freeway, industrial uses beyond; ROW Right-of-Way zoning district,

I-R Restricted Industrial zoning district beyond

2.2.e

Packet Pg. 61

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

2 -

Pro

ject

Sit

e In

form

atio

n (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

Existing Zoning

(Shaded Area represents the Project Site)

Existing General Plan Land Use Designation

(Shaded Area represents the Project Site)

2.2.e

Packet Pg. 62

Att

ach

men

t: In

form

atio

nal

2 -

Pro

ject

Sit

e In

form

atio

n (

2314

: S

ILE

VO

HA

ZA

RD

OU

S M

AT

ER

IAL

S C

ON

DIT

ION

AL

US

E P

ER

MIT

)

report to the planning commission city council …

Documents