Communication from Public

(1)

Communication from Public

Name:

Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility

Date Submitted:

11/18/2020 03:41 PM

Council File No:

19-1294

(2)

November 18, 2020

Via LACouncilComment.com

Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Chair

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield

Councilmember Curren D. Price, Jr.

Councilmember Gilbert A. Cedillo

Councilmember John S. Lee

Planning and Land Use Management Committee

200 North Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re:

1375 St. Andrews Project

Council File No.: 19-1294

Case No.: ENV-2015-4630-EIR

Agenda Item Number 9 (November 19, 2020)

Dear Chair Harris-Dawson and Honorable Councilmembers of the PLUM Committee:

Please find attached correspondence submitted by Appellant Supporters Alliance for

Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) to the Central Area Planning Commission on

September 9, 2019 concerning the 1375 St. Andrews Project EIR, including the expert comments

of indoor air quality expert Francis Offermann and air quality consulting firm SWAPE.

For the reasons set for in SAFER’s September 9, 2019 correspondence, SAFER

respectfully requests that the Committee grant SAFER’s appeal so that staff may adequately

address the Project’s significant impacts on indoor and outdoor air quality prior to Project

approval. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Brian Flynn

(3)

ATTACHMENT

(4)

September 9, 2019

Via E-mail and Hand Delivery

Jennifer Chung-Kim, President Oliver Delgado, Vice President Jennifer Barraza

Ilissa Gold Nick Schultz

Central Los Angeles Area Planning Commission 200 North Spring St.

Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected]

Erin Strelich

City Planning Associate

221 N. Figueroa St., Suite 1350 Los Angeles, CA 90012

[email protected]

Re: 1375 St. Andrews Apartments Project Environmental Impact Report Appeal; Case No. ZA-2015-4629-ZAA-ZAI-WDI-SPR-1A,

CEQA No. ENV-2015-4630-EIR, SCH No. 2016051068

Honorable Members of the Central Los Angeles Area Planning Commission: This letter is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility and its members living in and near the City of Los Angeles (collectively

“SAFER”) regarding the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s June 27, 2019 decision certifying the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and adopting the related Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the 1375 St. Andrews Apartments Project (Case No. ZA-2015-4629-ZAA-ZAI-WDI-SPR-1A; CEQA No. ENV-2015-4630-EIR; SCH No. 2016051068) (the “Project”).

After reviewing the EIR, which includes the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) dated August 23, 2018 and the Final EIR (“FEIR”) dated December 12, 2018, SAFER is concerned that the EIR fails to adequately analyze significant environmental impacts and fails to mitigate significant impacts that will occur as a results of the Project. SAFER requests that the Central Area Planning

Commission set aside the Zoning Administrator’s June 27, 2019 decision at this time and request staff to prepare a revised draft EIR (“RDEIR”) to reconsider the analyses and require additional mitigation measures in order to address the Project’s significant impacts.

(5)

The 1375 St. Andrews Apartments Project September 9, 2019

Page 2 of 13

I. PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Project proposes the demolition of two vacant buildings which comprise 35,057 square feet, and construction of a new 226,160 square-foot residential building with 185 residential units and 294 on-site parking spaces. The building would be an eight (8) story, 95-foot high residential building providing six levels of residential units above a concrete parking structure with two levels above grade and one subterranean level. The first two stories would be wrapped with habitable space along De Longpre Avenue and St. Andrews Place in front of parking and would contain an entry lobby on the ground floor on De Longpre Avenue. The existing theater building located on the Project Site at 5605–5607 Fernwood Avenue would be maintained on the site and continue operations as part of the Project. No changes are proposed to the interior or exterior of the existing theater building. Once completed, the Project would total approximately 235,841 square feet, including the existing theater.

The Project Site consists of an irregularly shaped area comprising approximately 1.7 acres at the southwest corner of the intersection of St. Andrews Place and W. De Longpre Avenue in Hollywood. The Project Site is relatively flat and is currently occupied by three buildings: the theater, which will remain, and two buildings which would be demolished. These existing buildings total approximately 44,738 square feet of floor area.

The Project proposes a total of 185 residential units, including 5 studio apartments, 75 one-bedroom apartments, 70 two-bedroom, and 35 three-bedroom apartments. The units range in size from 464 square feet (studio) to 2,162 square feet (three-bedroom apartment). The Project would include public and private open space including a garden courtyard on the ground floor, a fitness facility, community room, two courtyards, and pool on the third floor, and a roof deck on the eighth floor.

The Project requires approval of a Site Plan Review; Zoning Administrator’s Adjustment to allow a non-conforming front yard of 0 feet and non-conforming side yard of 7 feet for the existing theater building to remain, a reduction in one required side yard along De Longpre Avenue from 11 feet to 8 feet 10 inches, and a reduction in required building separation from 22 feet to 17 feet 7 inches; a Zoning Administrator’s Interpretation to determine that St. Andrews Place shall be the front yard, De Longpre Avenue and Fernwood Avenue shall be the side yards, and the western property line separating Lots 7 and 8 shall be the rear yard; and a Waiver of Dedications and Improvements (WDI) to seek relief from a 10-foot by 10-foot corner cut otherwise required at St. Andrews Place and Fernwood Avenue.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

(6)

Page 3 of 13

within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Environment

v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (“CBE v. CRA”).)

CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).) “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” (Citizens of Goleta

Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) The EIR has been described as “an

environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” (Berkeley Keep

Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.)

Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15002(a)(2) and (3); See also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (CEQA Guidelines, §15002(a)(2).) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081; CEQA Guidelines, § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B).)

While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” (Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355 (emphasis added), quoting, Laurel Heights

Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391 409, n. 12.)

As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355:

A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.” (San Joaquin

Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713,

722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946.)

More recently, the California Supreme Court has emphasized that:

(7)

Page 4 of 13

participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises [citation omitted]....

(Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 (2018), citing Laurel Heights

Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.) The Court

in Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno also emphasized at another primary consideration of sufficiency is whether the EIR “makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” (6 Cal.5th at 510.) “Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one-paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an informational document.” (Id. at 516.) Although an agency has discretion to decide the manner of discussing potentially significant effects in an EIR, “a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a potentially significant effect is sufficient or insufficient, i.e., whether the EIR comports with its intended function of including ‘detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’” (6 Cal.5th at 516, citing Bakersfield Citizens for Local

Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197.) “The determination whether

a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s factual conclusions.” (6 Cal.5th at 516.) As the Court emphasized:

[W]hether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question. A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence.

(Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 514.)

In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15370.) Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (Id. at §

15126.4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved.

III. DISCUSSION

A. The EIR Relies on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Fails to Provide Substantial Evidence of the Project’s Air Quality Impacts.

(8)

Page 5 of 13

The EIR for the Project relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (“CalEEMod”). This model relies on

recommended default values based on site specific information related to a number of factors. The model is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the EIR. This results in an underestimation of the Project’s emissions. As a result, the EIR fails to provide substantial evidence that the Project will not have significant air quality impacts and an RDEIR is required to properly analyze these potential impacts.

1. The EIR’s air quality analysis failed to include all operational land uses. SWAPE’s review of the Project’s operational CalEEMod output files found that not all of the operational land uses proposed by the DEIR were included in the Project’s operational CalEEMod model. (Ex. A, p. 2.) As a result, SWAPE concluded that the Project’s operational emissions are underestimated. (Id.)

According to the DEIR, “[t]he children’s playhouse/theater building would be retained as part of the Project, and no changes are proposed to the theater. Consistent with the Project’s Traffic Study, this analysis assumes that the existing school is operational at the time of this analysis.” (DEIR, p. IV.B-12.) However, SWAPE’s review of the Project’s operational CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the existing 9,681 square foot children’s theater was entirely omitted from the Project’s air model. (Ex. A, p. 2.) As the building already exists, the EIR does not need to include the building in an air model for the Project’s construction;

however, since it will be a part of the project’s operation, the EIR must include the building in an operational air model. By completely omitting the children’s theater, the DEIR fails to account for all emissions that would be produced during Project operation and, as a result, the Project’s operational emissions are underestimated. (Ex. A, p. 3.) Because the EIR’s air quality analysis underestimates the Project’s operational emissions, the EIR fails to provide substantial evidence that the Project’s air quality impacts would be less-than-significant.

(9)

Page 6 of 13

3. The EIR’s air quality analysis improperly reduced default construction pieces and usage hours without justification.

SWAPE’s review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files found that the EIR artificially reduced the number of pieces of off-road construction equipment, as well as the usage hours for several pieces of equipment, without providing proper justification for doing so. The CalEEMod user guide requires that any non-default values inputted must be justified by the Applicant. (Ex. A, p. 4.) However, SWAPE found that in the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” section, the Applicant simply stated that they “[a]dded 1 excavator” and “[a]ssumed one roller and paver for paving.” (Id.) Without a Project-specific equipment list provided by the

Applicant—or any explanation of how the necessary equipment amount and usage hours were determined—it is impossible to evaluate whether the substantial reductions in pieces of

construction equipment and usage hours are accurate and justified. As such, the air model inputs utilized to calculate emissions cannot be verified, the resultant emissions may be underestimated, and the EIR’s air quality analysis fails as an informational document as required by CEQA.

B. The EIR Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions

With hardly more than a couple sentences of explanation, the EIR concludes that the impact of substantial pollutant concentrations to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. IV/B-31.) No effort is made by the applicant to justify this conclusion with a quantitative health risk assessment (“HRA”). The IS/MND’s back-of-the envelope approach to evaluating a Project’s health impacts to existing nearby residences is inconsistent with the approach recommended by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”). SWAPE concluded that the failure to evaluate the health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors to the Project is inappropriate for several reasons.

First, simply stating that the Project has a “short-term construction schedule of approximately 24 months” and “would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70-year) source of TAC emissions” does not justify the omission of a construction HRA. (Ex. A, p. 5.) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) recommends that health risk impacts from short-term projects also be assessed. The Guidance document states,

Since these short-term calculations are only meant for projects with limits on the operating duration, these short-term cancer risk assessments can be thought of as being the equivalent to a 30-year cancer risk estimate and the appropriate thresholds would still apply (i.e. for a year project, the maximum emissions during the 5-year period would be assessed on the more sensitive population, from the third trimester to age 5, after which the project’s emissions would drop to 0 for the remaining 25 years to get the 30-year equivalent cancer risk estimate).1

(10)

Page 7 of 13

Therefore, SWAPE concluded that the DEIR should have conducted an assessment that

compared the Project’s construction and operational health risks to the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million in order to determine the significance of the Project’s health risk impacts. (Ex. A, p. 5.) By failing to prepare an HRA, the DEIR fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the sensitive receptor impacts that may occur as a result of exposure to substantial air pollutants.

Second, once operational, the Project’s residential land use will result in vehicle trips and truck deliveries, generating diesel exhaust over the duration of Project operation. As such,

SWAPE concluded that the DEIR should have conducted a construction and operational HRA, as long-term exposure to DPM and other TACs may result in a significant health risk impact, which must be properly assessed. (Ex. A, p. 5.)

Third, the omission of a quantified HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the

organization responsible for providing recommendations and guidance on how to conduct HRAs in California. (Ex. A, p. 5.) OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. Because construction will take place over a 24-month period (DEIR, p. IV.B-31.), an HRA for the Project’s construction should have been included in the EIR. (Ex. A, p. 5.)

OEHHA also recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”). (Ex. A, p. 5.) Even though the EIR did not provide the expected lifetime of the Project, it is reasonable that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, per OEHHA guidelines, health risk impacts from the operation of the Project should also have been evaluated in an HRA. (Ex. A, p. 5.) Without conducting an HRA for the Project’s

construction and operation, the EIR fails to provide substantial evidence that the Project’s health risks would be less-than-significant.

C. A Screening-Level Health Risk Assessment for the Project Indicates a Significant Impact to Human Health from Diesel Particulate Matter

SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. (Ex. A, p. 6.) SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. (Id.) SWAPE used a sensitive receptor distance of 25 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance. (Ex. A, pp. 6-8.)

(11)

Page 8 of 13

trimester of pregnancy at the maximally exposed receptor, located at 50 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 12, 110, 160, and 6.7 in one million, respectively. (Id.) SWAPE additionally found that the excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the maximally exposed receptor is approximately 280 in

one million.

Even under a less conservative HRA prepared under the standards of OEHHA’s 2003 Guidance, SWAPE concluded that the Project would still have significant impacts on human health. (Ex. A, pp. 10-11.) Without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution, SWAPE found that the excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the closest receptor, located approximately 25 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 11, 33, 14, and 0.6 in one million, respectively. (Ex. A, p. 11.) The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the closest receptor is approximately 58

in one million. (Id.) Furthermore, SWAPE found that the excess cancer risk posed to adults,

children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the maximally exposed receptor, located at 50 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation, are

approximately 12, 37, 16, and 0.67 in one million, respectively. (Id.) The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the maximally exposed receptor (MEIR) is approximately 65 in one million.

These values appreciably exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million by over twenty times. Because the EIR omitted any HRA, the EIR failed to disclose, discuss, or mitigate this potentially significant impact. As such, the City must prepare an RDEIR with a more refined HRA that is representative of site conditions in order to properly evaluate the Project’s health risk impact. Without conducting such an analysis, the EIR fails to provide substantial evidence that the health risk impacts of the Project would be less-than-significant. In order to mitigate this impact to human health, SWAPE has recommended numerous mitigation measures to reduce the health risks of the Project to less-than-significant levels. (Ex. A, pp. 12-21.)

D. The EIR Fails to Provide Substantial Evidence that the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Impacts Are Less-Than-Significant

SWAPE reviewed the EIR’s greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis and found: (1) the EIR failed to make a significant attempt to evaluate or reduce GHG emissions beyond compliance with basic GHG reduction measures that all projects are required to implement; (2) the EIR failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s GHG impact according to applicable SCAQMD guidance and current, applicable scientific knowledge and regulatory schemes regarding GHG emissions reductions; and (3) the EIR relied on a flawed CalEEMod model to determine net emissions. (Ex. A, p. 21.)

(12)

Page 9 of 13

efficiency and conservation standards … does not establish that its [GHG] emissions from transportation activities lack significant impacts.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Cal. Dept.

of Fish and Wildlife (“Newhall Ranch”) (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 229. As such, it is improper for

the City to rely solely on regulatory compliance to conclude that the Project’s GHG impacts would be less-than-signficant.

Second, the EIR failed to adequately compare the Project’s annual GHG emissions to the relevant SCAQMD thresholds. (Ex A, p. 21.) The EIR stated that the SCAQMD’s Interim

Thresholds for GHG emissions were provided in the EIR for “informational purposes” but not as

thresholds of significance because SCAQMD has not formally adopted the Interim Thresholds. (DEIR, p. IV.F-21.) While the EIR is correct in stating that SCAQMD has not formally adopted the Interim Thresholds, this does not mean that they are inapplicable to the proposed Project or otherwise can be ignored. (Ex. A, p. 23.) In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(c) permits the use of thresholds developed by other public agencies.

SCAQMD developed its current thresholds when AB 32 was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Health & Saf. Code § 38500 et seq. However, in September 2016, well before the release of the DEIR, SB 32 was enacted. SB 32 requires California to achieve a new, more aggressive 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions over the 1990 level by the end of 2030. As a result, the Project must comply with Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which would include a more aggressive GHG threshold. (Ex. A, p. 24.)

Consistent with the requirements of SB 32, other air control districts have adopted more aggressive GHG thresholds for project-level analysis, including but not limited to the

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). (Ex. A, p. 24.) Although more demanding, the thresholds adopted by the other air districts are analogous to the application of SCAQMD’s Interim Thresholds for mixed-use developments (3,000 MT CO2e/year) and SCAQMD’s Tier 4 efficiency target goals (4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for target year 2020 and 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for target year 2035). (Ex. A, p. 26.)

The actions taken by other air districts to reduce the GHG emission through more stringent thresholds is the most persuasive rationale as to why the Interim Thresholds apply as the current standard set of evolving scientific knowledge and regulatory schemes. (Ex. A, p. 26.) The Project should use the SCAQMD’s mixed-use threshold to determine significance because the failure to do so may understate the severity of the Project to the public. (Id.) Because the EIR’s GHG analysis is not consistent with evolving standards, the conclusion that the Project has a less than significant GHG impact is not supported by substantial evidence.

(13)

Page 10 of 13

equipment. (Ex. A, p. 27.), As a result, the Applicant’s CalEEMod model underestimates emissions and cannot be relied upon to determine significance. Due to the flaws in the EIR’s CalEEMod model, the EIR lacks substantial evidence to determine that the Project’s GHG emissions would be less-than-significant.

For the above reasons, the City must prepare an RDEIR which accurately models the Project’s GHG emissions and compares those emissions to the relevant, applicable thresholds.

E. The EIR Fails to Address the Potential Adverse Indoor Air Quality Impacts on the Health of Future Residents of the Project.

The EIR also fails to address the significant health risks from yet another TAC,

formaldehyde, posed by the Project. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the Project, the EIR, and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Mr. Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality, in particular emissions of formaldehyde, and has published extensively on the topic. As

discussed below and set forth in Mr. Offermann’s comments, the Project’s emissions of

formaldehyde to air will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents at the Project’s apartments and townhomes. Mr. Offermann’s expert opinion and calculation is substantial evidence that the Project may have significant health risk impacts as a result of these indoor air pollution emissions, which were not discussed, disclosed, or analyzed in the EIR. These impacts must be addressed in a RDEIR. Mr. Offermann’s comment is attached as Exhibit B.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and listed by the State as a TAC. As noted above, SCAQMD has established a significance threshold of health risks for carcinogenic TACs of 10 in a million and a cumulative health risk threshold of 100 in a million. The EIR fails to acknowledge the significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project. Specifically, there is no discussion of impacts or health risks, no analysis, and no identification of mitigations for significant emissions of formaldehyde to air from the Project.

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in home and apartment building construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “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, office, and retail building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Ex. B, pp. 2-3.)

(14)

Page 11 of 13

Comments, pp. 4, 10-12.) He prescribes a methodology for estimating the Project’s

formaldehyde emissions in order to do a more project-specific health risk assessment. (Id., pp. 4-9.). Mr. Offermann also suggests several feasible mitigation measures, such as requiring the use of no-added-formaldehyde composite wood products, which are readily available. (Id., pp. 10-12.) Mr. Offermann also suggests requiring air ventilation systems which would reduce formaldehyde levels. (Id.) Since the EIR does not analyze this impact at all, none of these or other mitigation measures have been considered.

When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. (See, e.g.

Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [County applies Air District’s

“published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”]; see

also Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103

Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111 [“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”].) The California Supreme Court made clear the substantial importance that an air district significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. (Communities

for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310,

327 [“As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District’s established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact.”].) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant

environmental effect[]” exists. (See Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty.

Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958 [emphasis added].) As a result, the EIR for the

Project must address this impact and identify enforceable mitigation measures.

The failure of the EIR to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air

Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). In that case, the Supreme Court

expressly holds that potential adverse impacts to future users and residents from pollution generated by a proposed project must be addressed under CEQA. At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-01.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801.) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or

residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800 [emphasis

(15)

Page 12 of 13

The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an

existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. People will be residing in and using the Project once it is built and begins emitting formaldehyde. Once built, the Project will begin to emit formaldehyde at levels that pose significant direct and cumulative health risks. The Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of air emission and health impact by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process. The existing TAC sources near the Project site would have to be

considered in evaluating the cumulative effect on future residents of both the Project’s TAC emissions as well as those existing off-site emissions.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the

‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 [emphasis in original].) Likewise, “the

Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d).) It goes without saying that the thousands of future residents at the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents must be subjected to CEQA’s safeguards.

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.”].) The proposed office buildings will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose future residents to cancer risks potentially in excess of SCAQMD’s threshold of significance for cancer health risks of 10 in a million. Likewise, when combined with the risks posed by the nearby TAC sources, the health risks inside the project may exceed SCAQMD’s cumulative health risk threshold of 100 cancers in a million. Currently, outside of Mr.

Offermann’s comments, the City does not have any idea what risks will be posed by

formaldehyde emissions from the Project or the residences. As a result, the City must include an analysis and discussion in a RDEIR which discloses and analyzes the health risks that the Project’s formaldehyde emissions may have on future residents and identifies appropriate

(16)

Page 13 of 13

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, SAFER and its members urge the City to prepare and recirculate a revised EIR addressing the above shortcomings. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include this letter and all attachments hereto in the record of

proceedings for this project.

Sincerely,

Brian Flynn

(17)

(18)

2656 29th_{Street, Suite 201} Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 [email protected] September 5, 2019 Richard Drury Lozeau | Drury LLP

1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 836-4200

Subject: Comments on the 1375 St. Andrews Project (SCH No. 2016051068)

Dear Mr. Drury,

We have reviewed the August 2018 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the 1375 St. Andrews Apartments Project (“Project”) located in the City of Los Angeles (“City”). The Project proposes the demolition of two existing buildings totaling 35,057 square feet, while maintaining a 9,681 square foot children’s theater on the site. The Project also proposes the construction of an apartment building with 185 units, totaling 226,160 square feet, and an enclosed parking garage with 294 total parking spaces on the 1.70-acre site.

Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate theProject’s Air Quality, Health Risk, and Greenhouse Gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated DEIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and health risk impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.

Air Quality

Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions

The DEIR relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2016.3.2 ("CalEEMod").1_{CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on} site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.2_{Once all of the values are} 1_{CalEEMod website, available at:}_{http://www.caleemod.com/}

2_{“CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at:}

(19)

2

inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters were utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions, and make known which default values were changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.3

When we reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in Appendices C and G to the DEIR, we found that several of the values inputted into the model were not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. An updated DEIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Failure to Include All Operational Land Uses

Review of the Project’s operational CalEEMod output files demonstrates that not all of the operational land uses proposed by the DEIR were included in the Project’s operational CalEEMod model. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions are underestimated.

According to the DEIR, “[t]he children’s playhouse/theater building would be retained as part of the Project, and no changes are proposed to the theater. Consistent with the Project’s Traffic Study, this analysis assumes that the existing school is operational at the time of this analysis” (p. IV.B-12). However, review of the Project’s operational CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the existing 9,681 square foot children’s theater was entirely omitted from the Project’s air model (see excerpt below) (Appendix C, pp. 28, 58, Appendix G, pp. 21).

As shown in the above excerpt, the Project Applicant failed to include the proposed 9,681 square foot children’s theater in the Project’s air model. As the building already exists, the Applicant does not need to include the building in an air model for the Project’s construction; however, since it will be a part of the project’s operation, the Applicant must include the building in an operational air model. The land use type and size features are used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model’s calculations.4_{For example, the square footage of a land use is used for} certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from

architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts). Furthermore,

http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 7, 13 (A key feature of the CalEEMod program is the “remarks” feature, where the user explains why a default setting was replaced by a “user defined” value. These remarks are included in the report.)

(20)

3

CalEEMod assigns each land use type with its own set of energy usage emission factors.5_{By completely} omitting the children’s theater, the DEIR fails to account for all emissions that would be produced during Project operation. As a result, the project’s operational emissions are underestimated.

Use of Incorrect Land Use Size

Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files also demonstrates that the size of the proposed

residential land use was underestimated in the model. Review of the DEIR demonstrates that the Project will include “a new 226,160 square-foot residential building with 185 residential units” (p. I-4). However, review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the Project Applicant inputted a size of only 223,100 square feet (see excerpt below) (Appendix C, pp. 28, 58, Appendix G, pp. 21).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the Project Applicant inputted 223,100 square feet of residential land use space into the air model. This underestimates the total size of the proposed residential land use space by approximately 3,060 square feet. As previously mentioned, the land use type and size features are utilized by CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model’s calculations.6_{Thus, by underestimating the size of the residential land use within the air model, the} emissions generated by the proposed Project for construction and operation are underestimated and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Reduction of Default Construction Equipment Pieces and Usage Hours

Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the Project Applicant artificially reduced the number of pieces of off-road construction equipment, as well as the usage hours for several pieces of equipment, without providing proper justification for doing so (see excerpt below) (Appendix C, pp. 30, 60, Appendix G, pp. 23).

As a result of these unsubstantiated reductions, construction-related Project emissions may be underestimated. As previously stated, the CalEEMod user guide requires that any non-default values 5_{“CalEEMod User’s Guide, Appendix D.” CAPCOA, September 2016, available at:}

http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix-d2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2

6_{CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at:}

(21)

4

inputted must be justified by the Applicant.7_{However, in the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default} Data” section, the Project Applicant simply states that they “[a]dded 1 excavator” and “[a]ssumed one roller and paver for paving” (Appendix C, pp. 29, 59, Appendix G, pp. 22). Review of the Project documents, however, demonstrates that the Applicant failed to provide a complete equipment list or substantive justification for the artificially reduced number of construction equipment pieces or usage hours. Without a Project-specific equipment list provided by the Project Applicant, or any explanation of how the necessary equipment amount and usage hours were determined, we are unable to evaluate whether the substantial reductions in pieces of construction equipment and usage hours are accurate and justified. Therefore, the air model inputs utilized to calculate emissions cannot be verified and the resultant emissions may be underestimated.

As a result of the air modeling issues discussed above, we find the Project’s air quality impacts to be inadequately evaluated and require that an updated CEQA analysis be prepared that adequately evaluates and mitigates the Project’s air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated

The DEIR determines that the proposed Project would have a less than significant health risk impact without conducting a quantitative construction or operational health risk assessment (HRA) to nearby, existing receptors (p. IV.B-31). Regarding the Project’s construction-related health risk, the DEIR states,

“Given the short-term construction schedule of approximately 24 months, the Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70-year) source of TAC emissions. No residual emissions and

corresponding individual cancer risk are anticipated after construction. Because there is such a short-term exposure period (24 out of 48 months), construction TAC emissions would result in a less than significant impact” (p. IV.B-31).

Regarding the Project’s operational health risk, the DEIR states,

“As the Project would consist of the development of residential uses and would not include any industrial or other land uses involving the use, storage, or processing of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic toxic chemicals or air contaminants, or the generation of high levels of diesel truck activity, no toxic airborne emissions would result from its implementation. In addition,

operation activities associated with the Project would be typical of other similar residential developments in the City, and would be subject to the regulations and laws relating to toxic air pollutants at the regional, State, and federal level that would protect sensitive receptors from substantial concentrations of these emissions. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors

associated with the release of TACs from the Project Site would be less than significant” (p.

IV.B-31).

7_{CalEEMod User Guide, p. 7, p. 13, available at:}

(22)

5

However, these justifications for failing to evaluate the health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors to the project are incorrect for several reasons.

First, simply stating that the Project has a “short-term construction schedule of approximately 24 months” and “would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70-year) source of TAC emissions” does not justify the omission of a construction HRA. According to the SCAQMD, the air pollution control agency for the proposed Project, it is recommended that health risk impacts from short-term projects also be assessed. The Guidance document states,

Since these short-term calculations are only meant for projects with limits on the operating duration, these short-term cancer risk assessments can be thought of as being the equivalent to a 30-year cancer risk estimate and the appropriate thresholds would still apply (i.e. for a 5-year project, the maximum emissions during the 5-year period would be assessed on the more sensitive population, from the third trimester to age 5, after which the project’s emissions would drop to 0 for the remaining 25 years to get the 30-year equivalent cancer risk estimate).8 Thus, an HRA is required to determine whether the Project would expose sensitive receptors to

substantial air pollutants. The DEIR should have conducted some sort of quantitative analysis and should have compared the results of this analysis to applicable thresholds. The SCAQMD provides a specific numerical threshold of 10 in one million for determining a project's health risk impact.9_{Therefore, the} DEIR should have conducted an assessment that compares the Project’s construction and operational health risks to this threshold in order to determine the Project’s health risk impacts. By failing to prepare an HRA, the DEIR fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the sensitive receptor impacts that may occur as a result of exposure to substantial air pollutants.

Second, just because the Project does “not include any industrial or other land uses involving the use, storage, or processing of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic toxic chemicals or air contaminants, or the generation of high levels of diesel truck activity,” and because the Project Applicant asserts that impacts would be less than significant, does not mean that the Project’s health-related impacts will inherently be less than significant. Once operational, the Project’s residential land use will result in vehicle trips and truck deliveries, generating diesel exhaust over the duration of Project operation. As such, the DEIR should have conducted a construction and operational HRA, as long-term exposure to DPM and other TACs may result in a significant health risk impact and therefore, should be properly assessed.

Third, the omission of a quantified HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the organization responsible for providing recommendations and guidance on how to conduct HRAs in California. In February of 2015, the OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk

8_{http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/riskassprocjune15.pdf?sfvrsn=2}_{, p. IX-2} 9

(23)

6

Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015.10_{This guidance document describes the} types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. As previously stated, grading and construction activities for the proposed Project will produce emissions of DPM through the exhaust stacks of

construction equipment over an approximate 24-month construction period (p. IV.B-31). The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.11_{Once construction is complete, Project operation will generate} truck trips, which will generate additional exhaust emissions, thus continuing to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions. The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR). 12_{Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the} Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, per OEHHA guidelines, health risk impacts from Project construction and operation should have been evaluated in an HRA. These recommendations reflect the most recent HRA policy, and as such, an assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from construction and operation should be included in an updated DEIR.

Screening-Level Assessment Indicates Significant Impact

In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by Project construction and operation to nearby sensitive receptors, we prepared a simple screening-level HRA. The results of our assessment, as described below, provide substantial evidence that the Project’s construction and operational DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact that was not previously identified. In order to conduct our screening level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model. 13 _{The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the} OEHHA14_{and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (CAPCOA)}15_{guidance as the}

appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an

unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.

10_{“Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February} 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf

11_{“Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February} 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18

12_{“Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February} 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-6, 8-15 13_{“AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” USEPA, April 11, 2011, available at:}

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf

14_{“Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February} 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf

15_{“Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:}

(24)

7

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health-related impact to sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the SWAPE annual CalEEMod output files. According to the DEIR, the nearest sensitive receptor is located adjacent to the Project site and evaluated at a distance of 25 meters (p. IV.B-30). Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed that residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. The SWAPE

construction CalEEMod output files indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 221.8 pounds of DPM over the approximately 739-day construction period. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠� = 221.8 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 739 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔 3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔 Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.001576 grams per second (g/s). Subtracting the 739-day construction duration from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the MEIR would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 27.98 years approximately. SWAPE’s updated operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 67.1 pounds of DPM per year throughout

operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠� = 67.1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 365 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔 3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔 Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000965 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 1.70-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with dimensions of 95 meters by 72.5 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical

dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.

The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.16_As previously stated, there are residential receptors located approximately 25 meters from the Project boundary. The single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 4.407 µg/m3_{DPM at approximately 25 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour}

16_{“Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” EPA, 1992, available}

(25)

8

concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.4407 µg/m3_{for Project} construction at the nearest sensitive receptor. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is approximately 2.698 µg/m3_{DPM at approximately 25 meters downwind.} Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.2698 µg/m3_{for Project operation at the nearest sensitive receptor.}

Furthermore, the closest sensitive receptor is not necessarily the receptor experiencing the highest-concentration of TAC exposure. AERSCREEN models emissions at different distances, with the maximum one-hour concentration increasing and then decreasing with distance. As a result, the closest sensitive receptor is not always the receptor experiencing the maximum exposure. In this case, for our

construction and operational AERSCREEN models, the maximum exposed individual receptor (MEIR) is located at 50 meters from the Project site, with maximum single-hour DPM concentrations of 4.943 µg/m3_{and 3.026 µg/m}3_{, respectively. These exposures are higher than both at the closest sensitive} receptor to the Project site, described previously. Multiplying these single-hour concentrations by 10%, we get annualized average concentrations of 0.4943 µg/m3_{and 0.3026 µg/m}3_{, respectively.}

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the residential receptors both maximally exposed and located closest to the Project site using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the SCAQMD. Consistent with the construction schedule proposed by the DEIR, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.75 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the remainder of the infantile stage of life (0-2 years), child stages of life (2 – 16 years) and adult stages of life (16 – 30 years). Consistent with OEHHA, SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors (ASFs) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.17, 18, 19, 20_{According to the most updated guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor} of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant). Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95th_{percentile breathing rates for}

17_{“Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February} 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.

18_{“Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed The Exchange (SCH No. 2018071058).” SCAQMD,} March 2019, available at:

http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/comment-letters/2019/march/RVC190115-03.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 4.

19_{“California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:}

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 56; see also “Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards.” BAAQMD, May 2011, available at:

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20Modeling%20Approac h.ashx, p. 65, 86.

20_{“Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance}

(26)

9

infants.21_{Finally, according to SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) Value of 1} for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors.22_{We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)}-1_and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown below.

The Closest Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor

Activity Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) ASF Cancer Risk Construction 0.25 0.4407 361 10 6.0E-06

3rd Trimester Duration 0.25 3rd Trimester

Exposure 6.0E-06

Construction 1.77 0.4407 1090 10 1.3E-04

Operation 0.23 0.2698 1090 10 1.0E-05

Infant Exposure Duration 2.00 Infant Exposure 1.4E-04

Operation 14.00 0.2698 572 3 9.8E-05

Child Exposure Duration 14.00 Child Exposure 9.8E-05

Operation 14.00 0.2698 261 1 1.1E-05

Adult Exposure Duration 14.00 Adult Exposure 1.1E-05

Lifetime Exposure

Duration 30.00 Lifetime Exposure 2.5E-04

The Maximum Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor (MEIR)

Activity Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) ASF Cancer Risk Construction 0.25 0.4943 361 10 6.7E-06

3rd Trimester Duration 0.25 3rd Trimester

Exposure 6.7E-06

Construction 1.77 0.4943 1090 10 1.4E-04

Operation 0.23 0.3026 1090 10 1.1E-05

Infant Exposure Duration 2.00 Infant Exposure 1.6E-04

Operation 14.00 0.3026 572 3 1.1E-04

21_{“Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and} Assessment Act,” June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19.

“Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf

22_{“Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at:}

(27)

10

Child Exposure Duration 14.00 Child Exposure 1.1E-04

Operation 14.00 0.3026 261 1 1.2E-05

Adult Exposure Duration 14.00 Adult Exposure 1.2E-05

Duration 30.00 Lifetime Exposure 2.8E-04

The excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the closest receptor, located approximately 25 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 11, 98, 140, and 6 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the closest receptor is approximately 250 in one million. Furthermore, the excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the maximally exposed receptor, located at 50 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 12, 110, 160, and 6.7 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the maximally exposed receptor (MEIR) is approximately 280 in one million. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure was assumed to begin during the 3rd_{trimester of pregnancy to provide the most conservative estimates of air quality} hazards. The adult, child, infant, and lifetime cancer risks all exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million for both the closest receptor and the MEIR, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the Addendum.

Furthermore, in order to consider guidance from the City of Los Angeles, we conducted a health risk analysis using older OEHHA guidance from 2003.23_{This guidance utilizes a less health protective scenario} than what is currently recommended by SCAQMD, the air quality district responsible for the City, and several other air districts in the state. In the 2003 Guidance Manual, OEHHA suggests calculating the excess cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution. Although it is not the most recent or health protective guidance, we have calculated the excess cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors following OEHHA’s 2003 guidance, not adjusting for age sensitivity. All other HRA methodologies are the same as described above. The results of our calculations are shown below.

The Closest Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor

Activity Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) Cancer Risk Construction 0.25 0.4407 361 6.0E-07

3rd Trimester Duration 0.25 6.0E-07

Construction 1.77 0.4407 1090 1.3E-05

Operation 0.23 0.2698 1090 1.0E-06

Infant Exposure Duration 2.00 1.4E-05

Operation 14.00 0.2698 572 3.3E-05

Child Exposure Duration 14.00 3.3E-05

(28)

11

Operation 14.00 0.2698 261 1.1E-05

Adult Exposure Duration 14.00 1.1E-05

Duration 30.00 5.8E-05

The Maximum Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor (MEIR) Activity Duration

(years)

Concentration (ug/m3)

Breathing Rate

(L/kg-day) Cancer Risk

Construction 0.25 0.4943 361 6.7E-07

3rd Trimester Duration 0.25 6.7E-07

Construction 1.77 0.4943 1090 1.4E-05

Operation 0.23 0.3026 1090 1.1E-06

Infant Exposure Duration 2.00 1.6E-05

Operation 14.00 0.3026 572 3.7E-05

Child Exposure Duration 14.00 3.7E-05

Operation 14.00 0.3026 261 1.2E-05

Adult Exposure Duration 14.00 1.2E-05

Duration 30.00 6.5E-05

The excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the closest receptor, located approximately 25 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 11, 33, 14, and 0.6 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the closest receptor is approximately 58 in one million. Furthermore, the excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the maximally exposed receptor, located at 50 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 12, 37, 16, and 0.67 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the maximally exposed receptor (MEIR) is approximately 65 in one million. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure was assumed to begin during the 3rd_{trimester of pregnancy to provide the most conservative estimates of air quality} hazards. Even when calculating a less health protective HRA using outdated OEHHA guidelines, the adult, child, infant, and lifetime cancer risks reveal potentially significant impacts not previously addressed or identified by the Addendum.