5A Public Hearings 2021 0706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 19, 2021 Page 20 5005-004acp printed on recycled paper SWAPE explains, the State Geotracker’s description of contamination at the Project site is entirely inconsistent with the Checklist’s conclusion that “the project site does not contain outstanding surface or subsurface recognized environmental conditions that require further investigation.”86 Absent mitigation, disturbance of contaminated soil during Project construction may release contaminants which could pose significant health and safety risks to workers and sensitive receptors near the Project site. This is a more significant impact than analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and is not disclosed in the Checklist, resulting in violations of CEQA’s disclosure requirements. Moreover, to the extent the City relies on CEQA Guidelines exemption 15183.3, the Project site’s presence on the Cortese list precludes reliance on the exemption.87 In order to approve a Conditional Use Permit, the Board of Zoning Adjustments must determine “on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony submitted… [t]hat the proposed location of the use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of persons residing, or working in, or adjacent to, the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City.”88 The Checklist does not show, with substantial evidence, that the soil contamination onsite will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare of people living and working on the Project site. General Plan Policy EH-5.2 provides for the clean-up of contaminated sites to “[e]nsure that the necessary steps are taken to clean up residual hazardous wastes on any contaminated sites proposed for redevelopment or reuse. Require soil evaluations as needed to ensure that risks are assessed and appropriate remediation is provided.”89 Here, appropriate remediation for onsite contamination has not been provided. SWAPE concludes that the Checklist fails to adequately disclose and mitigate this potentially significant impact from hazardous materials, and identifies specific mitigation measures that should be incorporated into an EIR and mitigation plan for the Project to protect future occupants from exposure to contaminated soil vapor, 86 SWAPE Comments, pp. 2-3; Checklist p. p. 4-63. 87 Pub. Res. Code § 21084(d). 88 San Leandro Zoning Code § 5.08.124(A)(2). 89 General Plan p. 7-55. 79