SU0006225 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�A. �. prepared for the project in late 2005, found a number of hazards and potential hazards on the subject property. These include the following: 1. Manure and manure-impacted soils that create high nitrate levels in groundwater at the ` site of the former dairy; 2. Groundwater beneath the dairy contaminated with high nitrates, total dissolved solids, and o♦ electrical conductivity levels; 3. Organics and redoxymorphic soils lining the sides of dairy ponds and ditches that could create explosive methane gas and cause geotechnical design concerns; 4. Dead cows that may be buried on the dairy site; 5. Motor oil in concentrations over 1000 milligrams/liter present in three surface soil samples at the dairy, 6. Soil contamination from the former Shell oil pipelines crossing the property from northwest to southeast at 14 sites along the pipeline alignment, particularly southwest of rw the dairy settling pond; 7. One well and two septic tanks at the dairy requiring proper abandonment; 8. Lead-based paint and asbestos material in the dairy buildings; and ♦. 9. Two electric transformers not marked as PCB-free. %W The reports recommend specific measures that are needed to remove or mitigate these hazards. ` These include the proper removal of contaminated soils and other materials (e.g., lead based paint and asbestos); the location and exhuming of dead cow carcasses and skeletons for proper law disposal; the excavation, testing, and disposal of soil contaminated from the former Shell oil pipelines as proposed by Shell Oil and documented in the Remedial Action Plan; the abandonment of the well and septic tanks in conformance with San Joaquin County %%. Environmental Health Department requirements; and the testing of the electrical transformers and their replacement if they contain PCPs by PG&E. ` Because of the presence of these hazards on the project site, a number of conditions of approval (COAs) have been added to assure their correction. For the small lot tentative map, the Community Development Department(CDD) and the Environmental Health Department (EHD) `„ require that the applicant or developer satisfy the following COAs: 1. (CDD)COA#31: "The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Limited Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment and Summary of Project to Date Machado Property, prepared by Neil O. Anderson & Associates, Inc., dated November 16, 2005" This condition provides that corrective actions, as recommended in the report, shall be taken prior to recordation of a final map or the issuance of a grading permit for the affected area, whichever occurs first. 2. (CDD)COA#51: "The developer shall comply with the [Specific Plan III Environmental Impact Report] Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program."This condition provides for the removal of contaminated soil and materials in accordance with specified procedures and State and local requirements (e.g., the requirements of the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Toxic Substances, and ` the County Environmental Health Department) and with oversight provided by the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department. 3. (EHD)COA#1: "The Environmental Health Department(Department) has reviewed a Surface/Subsurface Contamination Report (SSCR)dated October 17, 2005. Because ` over six months has elapsed since the preparation of the SSCR and because the report references two other studies for which the results were not indicated in the SSCR (possible Shell Oil pipeline contamination and a Phase II Dairy Investigation), an addendum must be submitted to and approved by the Department prior to recordation of the Final Map. In addition, any remediation/cleanups required by the Department shall be completed to the s r 17 r►-