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

Browse Search

(TCE) and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as tetrachloroethene (PCE, or “perc”), as potential contaminants of concern (COCs). Subsequent site investigation located a small, localized area of VOC soil impact that is above jurisdictional screening levels, which will require a Soil Management Plan be prepared for County Review. (Initial Study, pp. 22-28) Further, the Applicant has prepared a Work Plan, dated February 25, 2015, and a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Approach, dated June 10, 2015, which it has submitted to the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health. As the Applicant proceeds with the Project, further testing of soil and groundwater will be required, and it will have to comply with comprehensive local, state and federal regulations. Thus, the Project will continue to be subject to regulation by the local, regional, state and federal regulatory authorities, in conformance with the law and the DTPP EIR (Chapter 14, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). (Initial Study, pp. 21-23.) In light of the site conditions and this regulatory process, the potential impacts from hazards and hazardous materials is less than significant. Thus, the evidence shows that there is not a new significant impact or a substantial increase in severity of a previously identified significant impact. Accordingly, a new EIR is not required. vii. The City Has Adequate Water Supply to Serve the Project. Appellants’ Contention: The City does not have sufficient water supplies for the Project. In addition, California’s water drought constitutes new information that requires an EIR. The DTPP EIR relied on the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (2005 UWMP) which is now outdated, and the City can no longer rely on the conclusion that the City will have adequate water supply under normal conditions through 2030. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which supplies the City’s water from the Hetch Hetchy water system, may not be able to provide enough water under drought conditions. The Governor has imposed a state of emergency which requires cities to cut back on their water usage. Thus, the City must prepare an EIR for the Project that studies water supplies. (J&S Management Appeal—July 22, 2015 letter, p. 2, and June 10, 2015 letter, pp. 19-22.) City’s Response: Appellants refer to the drought and the state of emergency imposed by the State which requires a cut back on the City’s overall water usage. However, Appellants have not actually offered evidence that the City does not have adequate water supplies for the Project, let alone whether the City can meet the cut back requirements if the Project is constructed. Rather, substantial evidence shows that the City has adequate water supplies to serve the Project, will not need to construct new water supply facilities, will not need to acquire new water entitlements and can meet the water cutback requirements (even though rationing is not required and this last point is not a CEQA issue). The evidence is included in the Initial Study as well as a Memorandum from the Public Works Department, dated June 26, 2015. The City has 7.A. - Page 26