75E - PH 2525 MAIN ST - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 7 analyze the possibility of soil -vapor intrusion — a process by which toxic vapors enter the building constructed on the contaminated soil. DTSC also pointed out that the soil on the Project site is contaminated with arsenic — a known human carcinogen. In both cases, the EIR dismissed DTSC's comments, failed to conduct additional analysis and failed to adopt adequate mitigation measures. This is a patently inadequate response to expert comments from a State Agency. A Revised DEIR is required to analyze these impacts and to respond to DTSC's comments. In response to DTSC's comments, the FEIR merely states that a soil mitigation plan will be developed at a later time. CEQA does not allow such deferral of mitigation. Mitigation measures must be set forth in the EIR, so that the public can analyze the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The EIR fails to comply with this requirement. Feasible mitigation measures for significant environmental effects must be set forth in an EIR for consideration by the lead agency's decision makers and the public before certification of the EIR and approval of a project. The formulation of mitigation measures generally cannot be deferred until after certification of the EIR and approval of a project. Guidelines, section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) states: "Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way." "A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decisionmaking. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA." (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) "[R]eliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmaking; and[,] consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment." (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.AppAth 70, 92.) LIUNA is very concerned about the soil contamination identified by DTSC. Construction workers, such as LIUNA members, will be exposed to higher levels of soil and groundwater contamination than anyone else since they will be involved in direct excavation of potentially contaminated soil and groundwater. It is critical to LIUNA that adequate mitigation measures be identified prior to Project construction, not after contaminated soil is discovered. 75E-251 WA 1.1