Item 27 - Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 - Central Pointe Mixed-Use Development

Home Browse Search

Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 5 of 14 however, because the proposed Project has never undergone CEQA review. Neither an EIR nor a negative declaration was prepared for the Project, and the Project was never mentioned or discussed in the MEMU EIR. As a result, the City cannot rely on the subsequent review provisions of CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 or 15164, and must instead prepare a tiered EIR under CEQA Guidelines 15168. IV. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. A. Health Risk Impacts. Exhibit 11 of the Staff Report includes a Health Risk Assessment ("HRA") for the Project. See October 26, 2020 Staff Report, p. 1-40. The HRA calculates the excess cancer risk from exposure to vehicle exhaust to be 3.58 in one million, which would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") significance threshold of 10 in one million. See id, p. 1-46. However, environmental consulting firm SWAPE concludes that this evaluation of the Project's health risk impacts is insufficient for two reasons. See Air Quality Comments (November 6, 2020) (Exhibit A). First, the Staff Report's cancer risk estimate of 3.58 in one million should not be considered in isolation. Id., p. 5. Additional impacts related to non -cancer health risks have been documented by people living near congested roadways. See id., pp. 5-6. The 1-5 adjacent to the Project has 14 lanes of traffic, and in the area of the Project, the 1-5 freeway has been ranked to be one of the busiest in California. Id., p. 6. People living within the Project will be located 70 to 750 feet downwind from the 1-5 and as close as 2,500 feet southwest of the 55 Freeway. Therefore, many of the Project's residents will be subjected to additional non -cancer health risks as a result of close proximity to the 1-5 and 55 Freeways. Id. Despite CARB recommendations to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway and avoiding exposing children to elevated air pollution levels immediately downwind of freeways, asthma and other non -cancer, freeway -related health risks were not assessed in the HRA prepared for the Project. Id., pp. 6-7. An EIR should be prepared to include an assessment of all health risks faced by residents at the Project, not just cancer. Id., p. 7. Second, while the Staff Report estimates the cancer risk posed to people that will be housed on the Project site as a result of proximity to nearby roadways, it fails to quantify the risk posed to people living nearby the Project suite as a result of the Project's construction and operation. Id., p. 8. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of diesel particulate matter ("DPM"), a human carcinogen, through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and by failing to prepare an HRA for the Project's construction, the City's air quality analysis is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. Id. The omission of a quantified operational HRA is also inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by OEHHA. Id.