01-14-19_AGENDA PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 3 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 Response 6: Refer to Response 4. The project would be implemented pursuant to existing formaldehyde requirements, as all products manufactured or imported in the United States would be required to meet these regulations. Application of these mandatory regulations would limit the potential of human health and cancer risks and avoid impacts related to formaldehyde. Thus, no mitigation measures related to formaldehyde are required. Comment 7: This comment refers to the Draft EIR comment letter provided by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and asserts that the EIR dismissed comments related to soil and groundwater contamination, failed to conduct additional analysis and failed to adopt adequate mitigation measures, and that a revised Draft EIR is required to analyze the impacts and to respond to DTSC’s comments. Response 7: This comment is inaccurate. The Draft and Final EIRs describe the various subsurface investigations that were conducted on the site to identify potential areas of groundwater and soil contamination. These investigations were included in Appendix G of the Draft EIR and were conducted pursuant to the requirements of DTSC and the OC Health Care Agency. As detailed on page 4.6-5 of the Draft EIR, soil and groundwater investigations were conducted on the site that identified low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater (at 110 feet below grade), but the overlying soil samples did not have detectable levels of hydrocarbons. Thus, the groundwater contamination is not from the project site. Also, due to the depth of groundwater, potentially contaminated groundwater would not be encountered during project construction or operation. The Draft EIR details that initial soils testing identified three VOCs (benzene, bromomethane, and formaldehyde) in concentrations that could potentially be of concern. In response, more intensive soils and soils gas testing was conducted in accordance with DTSC guidelines. The results showed that no VOCs (including: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene) or formaldehyde exceed residential screening levels (Draft EIR page 4.6-5). Thus, potential impacts related to vapor intrusion as suggested by the comment, would not occur from redevelopment of the project site. The Draft EIR also details that the soils testing identified isolated areas of arsenic impacted soil that are estimated to total 50 cubic yards of soils and extend to approximately 0.5 feet below the ground surface (page 4.6-7). Pursuant to the requirements of the DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orange County Fire Authority, and the Orange County Health Care Agency, the contaminated soils would be excavated and disposed of. The EIR ensures compliance with all of the various applicable hazardous materials regulations through Mitigation Measure Haz-1, which requires implementation of a site specific a Soil Management Plan to detail specific regulations, procedures, and standards for removal, handling, and disposal of contaminated soils to protect human health and the environment (Draft EIR page 4.6-8). With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1, impacts related to onsite contaminated soils would be less than significant. Thus, the EIR provides for a detailed analysis of potential onsite hazardous materials and has provided appropriate mitigation. The EIR has completed analysis pursuant to DTSC’s comments and guidelines. In addition, refer to Response 1. The analysis and mitigation related to hazardous materials are supported by substantial evidence in the record. This comment does not identify any new or different impacts that could occur from the project that would require revision or recirculation of the EIR document. Comment 8: This comment asserts that the EIR states that a soil mitigation plan will be developed at a later time, and that this is a deferral of mitigation that is not allowed by CEQA. The comment also provides a summary of CEQA requirements related to deferral of mitigation and the allowable use of performance standards through references of court decisions and statutes. 2-299