|
<br />74
<br />parklet since the early 1980s. Prior to the early 1980s, the site was primarily vacant, but included a portion of a
<br />building used as a public hall, for storage, and as a painter’s shop.
<br /> CBRE, Inc. (“CBRE”) conducted a site visit and reconnaissance of the surrounding roads and readily accessible
<br />adjacent properties; review of readily available information and environmental data relating to the property; interviews
<br />with persons with knowledge of the site; review of maps, aerial photographs of the site; review of records maintained
<br />by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies; and a “Tier I” (non-intrusive) vapor encroachment screening (VES).
<br />CBRE evaluated information on recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the property. CBRE
<br />also evaluated potential business environmental risks (BER), including asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and
<br />lead-based paint (LBP), in connection with the property.
<br /> As there are no structures on site, ACM and LBP are not likely present on site (pp. 36-37).
<br /> A VES initial screening was conducted to identify the potential for a vapor encroachment condition (VEC) in
<br />connection with the site with respect to chemicals of concern that may migrate into the vadose zone of the site as a
<br />result of contaminated soil and/or groundwater on or near the site. The results of the Tier I VES identified several
<br />impacted offsite properties (p. 40). The Phase I ESA, concluded, however, based on the hydrogeology, groundwater
<br />flow direction, furthest known extent of contamination, and distance from the site, none of the identified properties
<br />are suspected of having petroleum or chemical contaminant plumes that would be identified as a VEC. Therefore, a
<br />VEC was ruled out.
<br /> The Phase I ESA concluded there is no evidence of RECs, including controlled or historical RECs, in connection with
<br />the Spring/Marshall Parklet site (p. 1).
<br /> Conclusion
<br /> In conformance with the DTPP program EIR (Chapter 14, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, pp. 14-13 through 14-
<br />16) and the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (Chapter 14, pp. 14-8 through 14-9), regarding hazardous
<br />materials, ACM, PCBs, and LBP, the proposed project component would continue to be subject to all applicable
<br />existing local-, county-, regional-, State- and federally- mandated site assessment, remediation, removal, and disposal
<br />requirements of the City of Redwood City, San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD),
<br />Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), California
<br />Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and other responsible agencies. These uniformly applicable
<br />policies, standards, and regulations would adequately assure that possible health and safety impacts related to exposure
<br />to existing hazardous materials contamination would be less than significant.
<br /> As noted above, the proposed project component would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
<br />through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
<br />environment, nor would the project component emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials. As a result,
<br />this project component would be consistent with the analysis in the EIR/SEIR because it would not create new impacts
<br />or increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes.
<br />c. The DTPP program EIR (pp. 14-12 through 14-13) concluded that the potential impact on schools from hazardous
<br />materials transport, use, or disposal, or from risk of upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
<br />materials, would represent a less-than-significant impact with existing General Plan policies and federal, State, and
<br />local regulation and oversight of hazardous materials. The DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (pp. 14-10
<br />through 14-11) concurred with this conclusion.
<br /> The proposed project component is not anticipated to result in the emission, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
<br />materials within one-quarter mile of a school. The nearest school, Creative Learning Center, is approximately 0.45
<br />miles northwest of the project component site (on Allerton Street near Brewster Avenue). As discussed in item (b),
<br />the proposed project component consists of the development of a mixed-use commercial (office and retail) building
<br />and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
<br />accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, nor would the project
<br />component emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials. The potential impact to schools related to project
<br />component-related hazardous materials emissions or handling would be less than significant. As a result, this project
<br />component would be consistent with the analysis in the EIR/SEIR because it would not create new impacts or increase
<br />impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes.
<br />d. The DTPP EIR concluded that, due to the numerous existing hazardous materials sites in the area, construction
<br />activities associated with future development within the amended DTPP area could expose workers, the public, and/or
<br />the environment to contaminated soil and/or groundwater. The DTPP EIR further concluded that compliance with
<br />existing state and local laws and regulations would adequately address any potential impacts associated with exposure
<br />ATTY/RESO.0074/CC RESO 847 WOODSIDE (CEQA) - EXHIBIT 1 - CEQA CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
<br />REV: 10-23-24 VR
<br />
<br />Page 74 of 135
|