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