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

Home Browse Search

■ Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. ■ Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify: • Source of supply • Quantity of fuel • Quality of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) Furthermore, the following mitigation measures should be considered to reduce the Project's operational criteria pollutant emissions: • Site Design o Incorporate urban infill, higher density, mixed use and walkable, bikeable, and transit - oriented designs to significantly reduce vehicle activity and associated air quality impacts. • Energy Efficiency o Orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling to reduce building energy demand and reduce emissions at the power plant source and natural gas combustion in homes and commercial buildings. • Transportation o Reduce the demand for single -occupancy vehicle trips to reduce vehicle emissions. o Use cleaner fueled vehicles or retrofitting equipment with emission control devices to reduce the overall emissions without impacting operations. These measures offer cost-effective, feasible ways to reduce the Project's construction -related and operational criteria air pollutant emissions. As additional mitigation measures are available to reduce the Project's emissions, the proposed Project's reliance on the 2018 DSEIR and the subsequent significant -and -unavoidable air quality impact conclusion is incorrect. A subsequent EIR should be prepared and recirculated to adequately evaluate the Project's air quality impacts and implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project's emissions to a less -than -significant levels. 2) Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated Exhibit 11 calculates the excess cancer risk from exposure to vehicle exhaust to be 3.58 in a million, which would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") significance threshold of 10 in one million (p. 1-46). However, the Staff Report's evaluation of the Project's health risk impacts in insufficient for two reasons. First, the Staff Report's cancer risk estimate of 3.58 in one million should not be considered in isolation. Additional impacts related to non -cancer health risks have been documented for those people living near congested roadways. Key findings from a 2005 California Air Resources Board ("CARB") report3 on health risk impacts from nearby freeways include: 3 "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective." CARB, April 2005, available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. 5