background applications to develop 31-unit residential condo...

BACKGROUND

Applications to develop 31-unit residential condo project

Site contaminated due to past use as Navy gas station

Site is subject to a deed covenant prohibiting residential use

Deed covenant must be lifted to consider residential use

Removal of contaminated soil is required to lift deed covenant

If covenant is lifted, applicant may pursue residential entitlements

Service station demolished by applicant – April 2015

Permits issued for demolition – concern work was done improperly

Project previously considered Planning Commission – July 2015 & May 2017

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- RECOMMENDATION: CEQA & USE PERMIT

- PRELIMINARY MERITS COMMENTS

- DECISION: CEQA & USE PERMIT

- PRELIMINARY MERITS COMMENTS

- DECISION: REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN

- REVIEW SAFETY AND MONITORING PLAN PREPARED BY CITY

HIRED ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR

- REVIEW POST-REMEDIATION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

- DETERMINE IF SITE REMEDIATED TO RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS

- DECISION WHETHER TO REMOVE RESIDENTIAL USE RESTRICTION

-

-

-

City Council Action:

Decision to adopt CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration for

Hamilton Square (Phases I & II)

PURPOSE:

Disclose significant environmental effects of the whole of the

proposed project – Phases I and II

Identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts

Inform decision makers and the public of the environmental

consequences of the proposed discretionary actions

Provide an opportunity for public and agency comment

1. Environmental document prepared in accordance with CEQA

requirements;

2. CEQA document was reviewed and considered prior to decision on

the project at issue; and

3. CEQA document reflects City’s independent judgement as lead

agency.

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration – July 2015

Revised Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration - October 2016

Errata to Revised Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration– April 2016

Identified Impacts and Mitigation Measures in the CEQA categories of:

Aesthetics

Air Quality

Cultural Resources

Geology/Soils

Hazards/Hazardous Materials

Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use

Noise/Vibration

Utilities/Service Systems

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration – July 2015 (continued)

Circulated for 30-Day Public Review Period – July 1 through July 31, 2015

Presented to Planning Commission on July 13, 2015

Public concern raised about public safety and oversight of soil

remediation

Planning Commission continued matter to allow staff time to:

- better address concerns about soil remediation

- conduct additional public outreach

- clarify permitting process

updated analyses for air quality & hazardous materials

new air quality modeling for project level & cumulative condition

no new impacts identified based on updated analyses

expanded mitigation measures for air quality & hazardous materials

30-day public review period– October 14 through November 14, 2016

Omission identified during public review period - cumulative analysis

Air Quality - Implementation of the project has the potential to generate

dust through the operation of construction equipment and movement of

soil.

Air Quality – Implementation of the project has the potential to expose

infants/children to toxic air contaminants (diesel exhaust) exceeding the

project level lifetime cancer risk threshold established by the Bay Area Air

Quality District.

Hazardous Materials – Soil remediation activities could expose public and

environment to hazardous materials.

U.S. EPA & CA AIR RESOURCES BOARD – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES,

including, but not limited to:

Diesel off-road equipment of 50 horsepower or more – Tier 2 engine

emissions level

Diesel powered portable equipment – Tier 4 engine emissions levels

Other options: Air Board Level 3 diesel particulate filters or non-diesel

fuel equipment

Obtain inventory of equipment and anticipated schedule of use – review

for compliance

Limit vehicle idling times to 5 minutes or less – worker instructions

Properly maintain equipment and exhaust devices

REMEDIATION WORK ONLY PERMITTED ON WEEKENDS WHEN CHILDREN ARE NOT

PRESENT AT NEIGHBORING SCHOOL AND DAY CARE FACILITIES

PRE-REMEDIATION SAFETY – TARP PLAY EQUIPMENT, EATING SURFACES , AND

VEGETABLE GARDENS

POST-REMEDIATION SAFETY – WIPE DOWN PLAY EQUIPMENT & EATING SURFACES

THIRD PARTY DUST CONTROL CONTRACTOR – SOLE FUNCTION IS DUST CONTROL

APPLICATION OF NON-TOXIC VAPOR SUPPRESSANTS

TARPING OPEN EXCAVATION PITS

UPWIND & DOWNWIND AIR MONITORING – LEAD, ASBESTOS, HEAVY METALS,

PARTICULATES, & ORGANIC VAPORS

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROTOCOLS – OFFICIAL CONTACTS & DISTRIBUTION

ACTIONS

PUBLIC NOTICE 30-DAYS PRIOR TO REMEDIATION WORK

SIGN POSTINGS – REMEDIATION DATES & CONTACTS

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT – POST REMEDIATION

PUBLIC REQUEST FOR TENT STRUCTURE DURING REMEDIATION

CONSIDERED BY AGENCY STAFF & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONSULTANTS

NO AGENCY OR SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANT INDICATED A TENT WAS REQUIRED

– MITIGATION AS PROPOSED IS EFFECTIVE BASED ON AIR QUALITY MODELING

TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE - REQUIRING TENT APPEARS TO EXCEED WHAT IS

REQUIRED TO MITIGATE IMPACTS – NOT PROPORTIONAL TO IMPACT AND

MAY NOT BE FEASIBLE

APPLICANT WAS REQUESTED TO CONSIDER VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING TENT

APPLICANT CONSIDERED TENT AND DECLINED TO PROVIDE TENT

PUBLIC REQUEST FOR FOCUSED EIR

DECISION TO RECOMMEND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION – NOT

ARBITRARY

FOLLOWED STEPPED CEQA PROCESS

- Is project exempt from CEQA?

- Prepare Initial Study – Significant & Unavoidable Impacts?

- If No Significant & Unavoidable Impacts - Neg. Dec. or MND

ALL IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL

NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATING PROJECT REQUIRES AN EIR

-

-

-

-

-

-

-