|
<br />
<br />
<br />86
<br />evaluation, and/or site conceptual model development are occurring at the site. Examples of site assessment activities
<br />include, but are not limited to, the following:
<br /> 1) identification of the contaminants and the investigation of their potential impacts;
<br /> 2) determination of the threats/impacts to water quality;
<br /> 3) evaluation of the risk to humans and ecology;
<br /> 4) delineation of the nature and extent of contamination;
<br /> 5) delineation of the contaminant plume(s); and
<br /> 6) development of the Site Conceptual Model.”22
<br /> (2) one site is identified as Ritz Cleaners, located across the street from the Commercial Component site at 37 James
<br />Avenue (also known as the “Ramey Parcel”). This site is listed as a cleanup program site with the status of “Open -
<br />Long Term Management,” which means “Remediation phases are complete, all current risks to receptors are mitigated,
<br />and risk management measures are in place. A monitoring/sampling program is occurring to confirm ongoing
<br />performance of the risk management measures (e.g. visual inspection of caps to prevent dermal exposure, or pressure
<br />monitoring of sub-slab depressurization systems). The case should be periodically re-evaluated (i.e. Five Year
<br />Reviews) to verify that the risk management remains effective and to evaluate the case for closure when risk
<br />management is no longer warranted.” Because the site has not been issued a closure letter or other formal closure
<br />decision document, and because the site is not on the Commercial Component site, any future development proposed
<br />for the Ritz Cleaners site would need to comply with the requirements listed in the Plan-Wide DTPP Amendments
<br />program SEIR (p. 14-11) to comply “with existing state and local laws and regulations [that] would adequately address
<br />any potential impacts associated with exposure to contaminated soil and/or groundwater and/or hazardous fumes”;
<br />and (3) the Unocal Station #0060, located at 2653 Broadway, and is listed as closed LUST cleanup site.
<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 Commercial 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 a result, this Commercial Component would be consistent with the analysis in the EIR/SEIR because it would not
<br />create new impacts or increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes.
<br />e. The Commercial Component site is located within San Carlos Airport Influence Area A, as is the entire DTPP area
<br />(DTPP program EIR pp. 14-9, 14-10, and Figure 14.1). The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) reviewed the
<br />DTPP prior to its adoption and found that its goals, objectives, policies, and development criteria were consistent with
<br />the San Carlos Airport Land Use Plan (DTPP EIR pp. 14-16 and 14-17; also see Final EIR comment letter L5 and p.
<br />2-101). The DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (pp. 14-11 through 14-12) concurred with the DTPP EIR
<br />conclusion that the impacts related to consistency with the San Mateo County ALUCP were less than significant and
<br />no mitigation was required. In addition, because the proposed maximum building height would be less than 200 feet,
<br />the Commercial Component would not require FAA notification (San Mateo County C/CAG, Comprehensive ALUCP
<br />for the Environs of San Carlos Airport, Exhibit 4-4a: FAA Notification Form 7460-1 Filing Requirements; adopted
<br />October 2015, amended October 13, 2022). Therefore, implementation of the proposed Commercial Component
<br />would not result in an airplane-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the project component vicinity.
<br /> Therefore, implementation of the proposed Commercial Component would not result in an airplane-related safety
<br />hazard for people residing or working in the project component vicinity. The impacts related to safety and noise
<br />hazards associated with airports would be less than significant. As a result, this Commercial Component would be
<br />
<br />22 State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker, “Project Status Definitions,”
<br />https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/GeoTrackerStatusDefinitions.pdf, accessed 6/11/24.
<br />ATTY/RESO.0028/CC RESO CEQA GUIDLINES (920 SHASTA) - EXHIBIT A
<br />REV: 04-22-25 VR
<br />
<br />Page 86 of 148
|