Correspondence #41 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

December 20, 2022 SAFER Appeal No. 2022-01 of Garry Avenue Business Park Planning Commission Approval City Council Agenda Item 41 (Amendment Application No. 2022-01; Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14) Page 3 of 5 If the agency finds that there is no significant impact, they must prepare an MND or an ND. An MND is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study "to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and ... there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." (PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City ofLos Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.AppAth 322, 331.) In that context, "may" means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC § § 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-05.) II. DISCUSSION As explained below, the City has failed to adequately analyze the proposed Project with respect to air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. The City must therefore prepare an EIR or an ND to adequately analyze these effects in accordance with Section 15183 Review. A. The Project May Have a Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact as a Result of the Project's Emissions of Diesel Particulate Emissions. The Project's potentially significant health risk impact as a result of the Project's emissions of diesel particulate matter ("DPM") was previously discussed as a significant and unavoidable impact in the prior 2022 GPU PEIR (GPU PEIR, p. 1-22), and as such, they must be analyzed in an ND or supplemental EIR. In support of Section 15183 Review, the EA claims that the Project is not required to submit an HRA because Mitigation Measure AQ-3 ("MM-AQ-3") included in the GPU PEIR is not applicable to the Project. (See Exhibit A, pp. 1-2.) However, as SWAPE notes, "regardless of the EA's claims, the State of California Department of Justice recommends that all warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines." (Id., p. 2.) OEHHA released its most recent guidance document in 2015 describing which types of projects warrant preparation of an HRA. (See, e.g., "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html.) OEHHA recommends that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. (Exhibit A, p. 2.) Because "the Project's anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 12-month construction period." (Id.) The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. (Id.) Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will