X hits on this document





6 / 11

Glen Campbell March 30, 2006 Page 6

4.1-16.) Nowhere in the document, however, is a detailed comparison shown to the public, nor is there any indication of how the project emission budgets compare year by year with the AQMP emission budgets. This failing is linked to the failure to consider “all phases” of the project, but displays as well the fundamental lack of detailed information in this DPEIR. The conclusory statement that “the impacts were assessed,” without any backup, is not sufficient disclosure for the public to make its own evaluation, and, in fact, this lack of information precludes the informed decision making and public participation required by CEQA. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21061; Cal Code Regs, title 14, § 15121(a) [an EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally].) The purpose of an EIR, inter alia, is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect of the proposed project on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21061; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391.) An EIR should, when viewed as a whole, provide a reasonable, good faith analysis of known environmental impacts. (Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc. v. Board of Harbor Commissioners (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 729, 749.)

Third, the air quality appendix does not contain any actual useful emissions data or modeling to allow the public to evaluate the accuracy or appropriateness of the model. Appendix B, Air Quality, contains only summary tables of the results of some computer modeling performed by OCTA for criteria pollutant emissions. The tables may represent various alternative scenarios (perhaps for the proposed Plan and for some plan alternatives; it is not clear), but there are no explanations of the assumptions and data (or “inputs”) that went into the modeling program that produced these results. There is no explanation of what the various summaries (or “outputs”) represent. Without an explanation of the data inputs for the modeling done to support the DPEIR, or an explanation of what the summaries show, it is impossible for the public or the public agency decision makers to make informed decisions. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21061.)

Fourth, the toxics analysis is inadequate. In its discussion of impacts on hydrology and water quality, the DPEIR acknowledges that there will be “new roadways in undeveloped areas” under the Plan. (DPEIR at 4.7-11.) In its discussion of toxic air contaminants, however, there is no discussion of the impacts of those “new roadways in undeveloped areas” which will expose new populations to both criteria and toxic pollutants. There should be a risk assessment in order to draw valid conclusions about public health, and such an assessment should be done for each phase of the project (just as with the overall air quality assessment). The DPEIR recognizes that diesel emissions are a known carcinogen, but limits its analysis of cancer risk from the project to construction emissions and to the expected situation in 2030. The DPEIR does not consider the cancer risks resulting from the operation of current and new roadways, expanded freeways, etc. In Health & Safety Code Section 39606(b), the Legislature recognized the special susceptibility of children and infants to air pollution, and the DPEIR itself recognizes that there are particularly

Document info
Document views40
Page views40
Page last viewedThu Jan 19 15:27:30 UTC 2017