75C - PH - THE BOWERY - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comment 16: This comment asserts that the EIR states that Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is insufficient to ensure mitigation of impacted soils and that engagement of the DTSC is necessary. The comment further states that a soil mitigation plan is not an instrument that is used by DTSC. The comment provides suggested mitigation language and provides activities that asserts are from the DTSC comment letter. Response 16: As described in the Final EIR and page 5.7-22 of the Draft EIR, contaminated soils would be excavated and removed during Project excavation and grading activities pursuant to the regulations of DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, RWQCB, OCFA, and the OCHCA. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires approval of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to ensure that excavation of contaminated soils be completed pursuant to existing DTSC and RWQCB requirements. The SMP would detail hazardous materials excavation and disposal methods and requirements pursuant to the regulation of Title 8 of the CaIOSHA regulations and DTSC requirements for the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment. Therefore, the mitigation related to removal of the contaminated soils includes engagement of the DTSC, as necessary. In addition, contrary to the comment, the DTSC comment letter (included in the Final EIR) does not include a list of requirements for a removal action work plan. Comment 17: This comment asserts that the Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 constitutes deferred mitigation, 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 through references of court decisions and statutes. In addition, the comment states that the deferred mitigation removes the CEQA decision -making body from its decision -making role and that the EIR may not rely on programs to be developed and implemented later without approval by the City. The comment further states that without valid mitigation, the Project's significant hazardous materials impact remains significant. Response 17: Refer to Response 16. As described, 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 SMP that would ensure specific existing regulations, procedures, and standards for removal, handling, and disposal of contaminated soils to protect human health and the environment would occur. The SMP 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 their related 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 18: This comment states that the EIR must be revised to correct its inconsistent statements about the likelihood of encountering contaminated groundwater during Project construction. The comment states that the Draft EIR page 5.5-5 in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, states that based on onsite borings (completed in May 2019) the depth of groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet below ground surface (bgs), which is not consistent with the RWQCB No Further Action letter for the Project site, which states that groundwater is at depths of 5.67 to 13 feet deep. In addition, the comment states that The EIR needs to plan for protection of construction workers who may encounter contaminated groundwater when excavation is conducted. Furthermore, the comment requests the City to require preparation of a revised EIR. Response IS: The City recognizes that RWQCB No Further Action letter for the Project site (as provided by the comment) describes the history of groundwater sampling and monitoring at the site, which shows that groundwater levels fluctuate and ranged in depths from 5.67 to 13 feet bgs between 1986 and 75C-114