AgdaPkt 2015-09-28 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

various regulatory requirements, including without limitation the NPDES permit requirements and the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Such required compliance with regulatory requirements to prevent significant impacts constitutes substantial evidence of the absence of a significant impact. In addition, there is no waterway at the site into which erosion or run-off could flow. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments do not establish that an EIR is required. vi. The Project Will Not Cause Any Significant Impacts Due to Hazardous Materials. Appellants’ Contention: The Project may cause significant impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. Further, the DTPP EIR deferred analysis of significant public health impacts from exposure to hazardous materials on the basis that such analysis at that time would be speculative and better addressed when a site-specific development project was proposed. The Initial Study also acknowledged that soil and groundwater samples will be required. (J&S Management Appeal—July 22, 2015 letter, p. 2, and June 10, 2015 letter, pp. 15-17, citing page 13 of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exh. B to Resolution No. 15086.) City’s Response: Again, Appellants speculate, but offer no evidence, that the Project may cause significant impacts due to hazards or hazardous materials. In any event, the DTPP EIR did not defer such analysis. Rather, it includes extensive analysis of hazardous and hazardous materials. (DTPP EIR, Ch. 14.) The City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations (page 13 of Exh. B to Resolution No. 15086 certifying the DTPP EIR) merely stated that, to the extent that a particular development project might include hazardous materials that could cause a significant impact, analysis at that time would be required. The Initial Study includes evidence regarding the conditions at the Project site. The Applicant’s consultant, Tetra Tech, prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) which found no evidence of “recognized environmental conditions,” per industry standards. However, the Phase I ESA identified prior uses at the site that might have contributed hazardous materials, such as an electroplating facility (Circuitron, in the 1960s), an auto and industrial parts sales business (also in the 1960s), and a California Highway Patrol facility that may have included fueling and maintenance operations (circa 1937 to 1950). The Phase I ESA also identified a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) “gas holder” that operated across the street, at 675 Jefferson Avenue (from approximately 1914-1959). Tetra Tech developed a Work Plan and performed further site investigation, including a Phase II ESA. Tetra Tech tested for the presence of hazardous materials in portions of the site, including by drilling nine borings in February 2015 and April 2015 to test soil and groundwater for potential contamination. Tetra Tech identified trichloroethene 7.A. - Page 25