3 - COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENTS- - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sunflower Legacy Apartments Project May 13, 2019 Page 5 of 6 assessment. Based on all of the guidance available from the expert agencies, a health risk assessment must be prepared for the Project. D. The MND Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Indoor Air Quality. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Many composite wood products typically used in residential and office building construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off- gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential and office building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. Given the prominence of materials with formaldehyde-based resins that will be used in constructing the Project and the residential buildings, there is a significant likelihood that the Project’s emissions of formaldehyde to air will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents and workers in the buildings. Even if the materials used within the buildings comply with the Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), significant emissions of formaldehyde may still occur. The residential buildings may have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that may expose workers and residents to cancer risks in excess of SCAQMD’s threshold of significance. A 2018 study by Chan et al. (attached as Exhibit B) measured formaldehyde levels in new structures constructed after the 2009 CARB rules went into effect. Even though new buildings conforming to CARB’s ATCM had a 30% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk than buildings built prior to the enactment of the ATCM, the levels of formaldehyde may still pose cancer risks greater than 100 in a million, well above the 10 in one million significance threshold established by the SCAQMD. Based on published studies, and assuming all the Project’s and the residential building materials will be compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure, future residents and employees using the Project may be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde greater than the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts. (See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98. [“[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts.”].) “If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.) Given the lack of study conducted by the City on the health risks posed by emissions of formaldehyde from new residential projects, a fair argument exists that such emissions from the Project may pose significant health risks. As a result, the City must prepare