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
Agenda – Fremont Planning Commission Meeting March 12, 2015
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.
Agenda – Fremont Planning Commission Meeting March 12, 2015
To send an e-mail message to all of your Planning Commissioners send your message to:
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
Agenda – Fremont Planning Commission Meeting March 12, 2015
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.
Agenda – Fremont Planning Commission Meeting March 12, 2015
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,
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
Planning Commission Report (ID # 2314) Meeting of March 12, 2015
SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLN2015-00148 Page 3
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
Planning Commission Report (ID # 2314) Meeting of March 12, 2015
SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLN2015-00148 Page 4
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
Planning Commission Report (ID # 2314) Meeting of March 12, 2015
SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLN2015-00148 Page 5
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
Planning Commission Report (ID # 2314) Meeting of March 12, 2015
SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLN2015-00148 Page 6
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
Planning Commission Report (ID # 2314) Meeting of March 12, 2015
SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLN2015-00148 Page 7
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
Page 1 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)
Page 2 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
Attachment: Exhibit C - Project Plans (2314 : SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
2.2.
c
Pac
ket
Pg
. 21
Attachment: Exhibit C - Project Plans (2314 : SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
2.2.
c
Pac
ket
Pg
. 22
Attachment: Exhibit C - Project Plans (2314 : SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
2.2.
c
Pac
ket
Pg
. 23
Attachment: Exhibit C - Project Plans (2314 : SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
2.2.
c
Pac
ket
Pg
. 24
Attachment: Exhibit C - Project Plans (2314 : SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
2.2.
c
Pac
ket
Pg
. 25
Attachment: Exhibit C - Project Plans (2314 : SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
2.2.
c
Pac
ket
Pg
. 26
Attachment: Exhibit C - Project Plans (2314 : SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
2.2.
c
Pac
ket
Pg
. 27
Attachment: Exhibit C - Project Plans (2314 : SILEVO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
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
Template 10/12 Page 2 of 33
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
Template 10/12 Page 4 of 33
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
Template 10/12 Page 5 of 33
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
Template 10/12 Page 6 of 33
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
Mitigation: None Required
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
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
Template 10/12 Page 7 of 33
Environmental Setting
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.
Regulatory Framework
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
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None 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
)
PLN2015-00148
Silevo EIA
Template 10/12 Page 8 of 33
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
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
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. 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.
Regulatory Framework
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
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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
Template 10/12 Page 9 of 33
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
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.
Potential Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Mitigation: None Required
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - 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, 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
Template 10/12 Page 10 of 33
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
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.
Regulatory Framework
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
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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
Template 10/12 Page 11 of 33
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
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. 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
Template 10/12 Page 12 of 33
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.
Regulatory Framework
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
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None 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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
Template 10/12 Page 13 of 33
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.
Regulatory Framework
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
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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.
Potential Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Mitigation: None 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
Template 10/12 Page 14 of 33
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
Environmental Setting
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.
Regulatory Framework
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)
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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
Template 10/12 Page 15 of 33
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
Template 10/12 Page 16 of 33
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
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 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.
Regulatory Framework
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
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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
Template 10/12 Page 17 of 33
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
Template 10/12 Page 18 of 33
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.
Potential Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Mitigation: None 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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
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
Template 10/12 Page 19 of 33
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
Template 10/12 Page 20 of 33
8, 17
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. Existing public sanitary sewer and storm drain systems are
located within Kato Road and Page Avenue and currently serve the project site.
Regulatory Framework
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
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
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
Template 10/12 Page 21 of 33
Mitigation: None Required
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
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 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.
Regulatory Framework
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
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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
Template 10/12 Page 22 of 33
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
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.
Regulatory Framework
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
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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
Template 10/12 Page 23 of 33
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
XII. NOISE - Would the project result in:
ISSUES: Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
Environmental Setting
The project site is located approximately 150 feet to the east of the Interstate 880 freeway, the only major
noise source in the area.
Regulatory Framework
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.
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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
Template 10/12 Page 24 of 33
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.
Potential Impact: Less than Significant Impact
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.
Potential Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Mitigation: None Required
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact Potentially
Significant
Unless
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
Template 10/12 Page 25 of 33
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
The project site consists of a 9.3-acre lot currently developed with two industrial buildings and associated
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.
Regulatory Framework
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)
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
ISSUES: Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
Template 10/12 Page 26 of 33
Police protection? X 1, 10
Schools? X 1, 10
Parks? X 1, 10
Other public facilities? X 1, 10
Existing Conditions
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 is currently provided with public services, including
police and fire protection.
Regulatory Framework
Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to public services include:
City of Fremont General Plan Public Facilities Element
City of Fremont Municipal Code
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
XV. RECREATION:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
Template 10/12 Page 27 of 33
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
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 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.
Regulatory Framework
Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to recreation include:
City of Fremont General Plan Parks and Recreation Element
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
Template 10/12 Page 28 of 33
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.
Regulatory Framework
Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to transportation/traffic include:
City of Fremont General Plan Mobility Element
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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
Mitigation: None Required
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
Template 10/12 Page 29 of 33
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
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.
Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None Required
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
The project site consists of a 9.3-acre lot currently developed with two industrial buildings and associated
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
Template 10/12 Page 30 of 33
Regulatory Framework
Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to utilities and service systems include:
City of Fremont General Plan Public Facilities Element
City of Fremont Municipal Code
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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.
Potential Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Mitigation: None Required
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
Template 10/12 Page 31 of 33
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
ISSUES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact Information
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
Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation
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
)
Template 10/12 Page 32 of 33
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
)
Template 10/12 Page 33 of 33
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
)