Laserfiche WebLink
May 6, 2021 <br />Page 10 <br /> <br /> <br />5005-003acp <br /> <br /> printed on recycled paper <br />should have been disclosed as a significant impact in the Checklist, but was not.41 <br />When an impact exceeds a CEQA significance threshold, the agency must disclose <br />in the EIR that the impact is significant.42 The EIR must then analyze mitigation <br />measures and alternatives to reduce the impact.43 The Checklist fails to comply <br />with CEQA by failing to disclose a significant construction-related health impact <br />from the Project’s unmitigated construction emissions. Instead, the Checklist <br />conflates analysis and mitigation by concluding that impacts would be less than <br />significant because Uniformly Applicable Development Policies would decrease <br />cancer risk impacts to the off-site residential MER from 54.7 in a million to 4.9 in a <br />million.44 This is an additional CEQA violation.45 <br /> <br />In light of the inadequate health risk analysis presented in the Checklist, <br />SWAPE conducted their own health risk analysis using the Project’s construction <br />and operational emissions, as seen in the table below.46 <br /> <br /> <br />41  Checklist, p. 4-18, concluding that construction-related health impacts would be less than <br />significant. <br />42 Comtys. for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111; Schenck v. <br />County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (County applies BAAQMD’s “published CEQA <br />quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”); CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th <br />at 327 (impact is significant because exceeds “established significance threshold for NOx … <br />constitute[ing] substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact”)  <br />43 Id.  <br />44 Checklist, p. 4-18.  <br />45 Lotus v. Dep't of Transp. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 651-52.  <br />46 SWAPE Comments p. 21 <br />100