3 - COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENTS- - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sunflower Legacy Apartments Project May 13, 2019 Page 4 of 6 in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 [emphasis in original].) III. DISCUSSION A. The MND Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts of the Project due to Hazardous Materials. The MND states that “[t]here is the potential for asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead based paint to be present” yet also admits that “[a]sbestos and lead based paint surveys were not included in the Phase I ESA.” (MND, p. 56.) The omission of such surveys fails to satisfy CEQA’s requirement to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392.) Instead, the City impermissibly defers further analysis of asbestos and lead paint until the Project applies for demolition permits. “A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decisionmaking. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA.” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) The City must conduct surveys to determine whether asbestos or lead paint are present on the Project site and disclose such findings to the public prior to approving the Project. B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions The MND concludes that the health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors from exposure to toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions and diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) from the Project would be less than significant. (MND, p. 43-45). However, no effort is made to justify this conclusion with a quantitative health risk assessment (“HRA”). The MND’s back-of- the envelope approach to evaluating a Project’s health impacts to existing nearby residences is inconsistent with the approach recommended by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”). OEHHA guidance makes clear that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. OEHHA also recommends a health risk assessment of a project’s operational emissions for projects that will be in place for more than 6 months. Projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident. The Project would last at least 30 years and certainly much longer than six months. The construction phase alone is expected to last over 24 months – more than four time longer than the OEHHA threshold of 6 months. In order for the MND to be reasonable under CEQA, the MND’s assertions regarding the Project’s health impacts on nearby residences must be substantiated with a health risk