75E - PH 2525 MAIN ST - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 6 more than ten times above the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold. Mr. Offermann concludes that this significant environmental impact should be analyzed 14 in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes a fair argument that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact and an EIR is required. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project's air quality impacts. See, e.g. Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.AppAth 949, 960 (County applies BAAQMD's "published CEQA quantitative criteria" and "threshold level of cumulative significance"). See also Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 110-111 ("A'threshold of significance' for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant"). The California Supreme Court made clear the substantial importance that an air district significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 CalAth 310, 327 ("As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District's established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact"). Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the BAAQMD's CEQA significance threshold, there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant adverse and an EIR is required. Mr. Offermann suggests several feasible mitigation measures, such as requiring the use of no -added -formaldehyde composite wood products, which are readily available. Mr. Offermann also suggests requiring air ventilation systems 6 which would reduce formaldehyde levels. Since the EIR does not analyze this impact at all, none of these or other mitigation measures are considered. 2. The EIR Fails to Address or Adequately Mitigate Significant Soil Contamination Impacts. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") has submitted a comment letter pointing out deficiencies in the EIR related to soil and groundwater contamination at the Project site. DTSC points out that soil and groundwater at the Project site contains levels of the cancer-causing and toxic 7 chemicals, benene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and methyl -tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) above residential standards. DTSC commented that the EIR failed to 75E-250