01-14-19_AGENDA PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 4 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 Response 8: Refer to Response 7. As described, 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. The contaminated soils would be excavated and disposed of as part of the project. The EIR ensures compliance with all the applicable hazardous materials regulations through the proposed mitigation. Mitigation Measure Haz-1 would implement a site specific a Soil Management Plan that would ensure specific existing 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) would occur. The Soil Management Plan would be based on the specific construction activities within the areas that contain the contaminated soils. The proposed mitigation does not constitute deferral because measurable performance standards that are set by existing regulations are required to be conducted. Use of existing regulations and performance standards that reduce environmental impacts are allowed pursuant to CEQA. Furthermore, the EIR and mitigation provides full disclosure and informed decision making by detailing the environmental issues of concern and methods for reducing the impact to a less than significant level. Comment 9: This comment expresses concern relating to construction workers being exposed to higher levels of soil and groundwater contamination given their involvement in direct excavation of potentially contaminated soil and groundwater. The comment also states that it is critical that adequate mitigation measures be identified prior to project construction not after contaminated soil is discovered. Response 9: Refer to Responses 7 and 8. As described in the previous responses, investigation of onsite hazardous materials has occurred through various testing and analyses, which identified that potentially contaminated groundwater or soils gasses would not be encountered and the limited areas of arsenic impacted soils would be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementing regulatory specifications to dispose of hazardous materials. As described in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act Safety and Health Regulations for Construction (29 CFR Part 1926.65 Appendix C) contains requirements for construction activities, which include occupational health and environmental controls to protect worker health and safety. The guidelines describe the health and safety plan(s) that must be developed and implemented during construction, including associated training, protective equipment, evacuation plans, chains of command, and emergency response procedures. In addition, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) requires preparation of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). Compliance with OSHA and CalOSHA regulations would maintain worker safety related to the removal and disposal of contaminated soils. Adherence to. Mitigation Measure Haz-1 would implement a site specific a Soil Management Plan that includes hazard-specific OSHA and Cal/OSHA regulations. Thus, adequate mitigation measures are identified that would protect the environment and construction workers. Comment 10: This comment asserts that Caltrans comment letters conclude that the EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project’s significant traffic impacts related to I-5 and SR-22 or respond adequately Caltrans’ initial comments. The comment further asserts that the Final EIR dismisses the agency’s comment and that the EIR legally inadequate. Response 10: This comment is inaccurate. The Caltrans comment letters are provided as Letter A-3 in the Final EIR. The response to the Caltrans comment describes the analysis that was conducted pursuant to the Caltrans letter received in response to the Notice of Preparation for the proposed project. The response provided in the Final EIR details that the project would result in less than significant impacts pursuant to Caltrans criteria. The Final EIR provides a complete response to the Caltrans concerns that were raised. Comment 11: This comment asserts that the EIR improperly abrogates responsibility for mitigating the project’s traffic impacts. The comment asserts that the EIR states that Caltrans has authority to adopt certain mitigation measures, 2-300