My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence #41
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2022
>
12/20/2022 Special & Regular
>
Correspondence #41
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/22/2022 9:49:20 AM
Creation date
12/20/2022 10:02:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
December 20, 2022 <br />SAFER Appeal No. 2022-01 of Garry Avenue Business Park Planning Commission Approval <br />City Council Agenda Item 41 (Amendment Application No. 2022-01; Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14) <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from project -generated <br />DPM emissions be evaluated. (Id.) <br />SWAPE analyzed the Project's emissions of DPM and the resulting impact on human <br />health. To do so, SWAPE prepared a screening -level Health Risk Assessment ("HRA") to <br />evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. (Exhibit A, pp. 3- <br />7.) SWAPE prepared a screening -level HRA to evaluate potential health risk impacts posed to <br />residential sensitive receptors as a result of the Project's construction -related and operational <br />TAC emissions. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening -level air quality dispersion <br />model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 200 meters and analyzed impacts to <br />individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age <br />sensitivity factors. <br />SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately <br />200 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation, while utilizing the <br />recommended age sensitivity factors, are approximately 71.6 in one million for infants, 103 in <br />one million for children, and 11.5 in one million for adults. (Id., p. 6.) Moreover, the excess <br />cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (i.e. 30 years) for Project operation and <br />construction is approximately 188 in one million. (Id.) The cancer risks to infants, children, <br />adults, and lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in one million, <br />thus indicating a significant air quality impact. <br />Because the Project will have significant air quality and health risk impacts peculiar to <br />this project, additional CEQA review is required. (14 CCR § 15183(b)(c).) <br />B. The Project Will Have Significant Greenhouse Gas Impacts. <br />The Project's greenhouse gas impacts were not discussed as significant impacts in the <br />prior EIR, and as such, they must be analyzed in an ND or supplemental EIR. SWAPE analyzed <br />the Project's potential greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and found that the Project and GPU <br />PEIR failed to adequately analyze the Project's greenhouse gas impacts, which SWAPE found to <br />be potentially significant. (See, Exhibit A, pp. 8-10.) The City may therefore have to prepare an <br />EIR to assess these impacts, pursuant to 14 CCR 15183(b)(2). <br />First, the EA's greenhouse gas impact analysis and subsequent less -than -significant <br />impact conclusion are based on an outdated quantitative analysis GHG threshold. (See, id., pp. 8- <br />9.) According to SWAPE, the EA incorrectly "estimates that the Project would generate net <br />annual [GHG] emissions of 1,668 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year ("MT <br />CO2e/year"), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year." (Id., p. <br />8.) SWAPE explains that this is incorrect because "the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT <br />CO2e/year threshold, the SCAQMD's 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for <br />Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions <br />Act of 2006, commonly known as "AB 32", was the governing statute for GHG reductions in <br />California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020." (Id.) In <br />addition, the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) guidance states: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.