SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

November 8, 2024 Page 17 7357-013acp printed on recycled paper it exceeds the BAAQMD construction and operational significance thresholds,77 but concludes that Project emissions would not exceed any of these thresholds.78 SWAPE reviewed the DEIR’s air quality analysis and performed an independent model of the Project’s construction emissions.79 SWAPE concludes that the DEIR underestimates the Project’s construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 by artificially extending the construction phase lengths without proper justification. SWAPE concludes that the DEIR failed to adequately analyze emissions associated with material hauling and associated truck trips. The DEIR relies on modeling based on Tier 4 Final engine tier, but the DEIRs’ mitigation measures only require Tier 4 Interim, which has higher emissions than Tier 4 Final. These significant errors and omissions result in a severe underestimation of the Project’s air emissions. When properly calculated, Project construction and operational air pollutant impacts will be significant and remain unmitigated. SWAPE’s comments demonstrate that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not identified or mitigated in the DEIR.80 Therefore, the DEIR’s statement that construction emissions are less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence.81 A revised EIR should be circulated to provide an adequate construction-related air quality analysis. i. The DEIR Underestimates Construction Emissions The DEIR estimates the Project’s air pollution emissions using the “CalEEMod” modeling program, which allows users to input project-specific information supported by substantial evidence.82 The modeling program’s calculations for the Project are generated as “output files” that reveal what inputs and parameters were used. Any deviations from the “default values” in the model must include a written description to justify why a different value was selected.83 77 DEIR, p. 3.2-36; 3.2-38. 78 DEIR, p. 3.2-43. 79 SWAPE Comments, pp. 2-13. 80 SWAPE Comments, p. 4; Comtys. for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111 (when impact exceeds CEQA significance threshold, agency must disclose in the EIR that the impact is significant); Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960; CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 327 (impact is significant because exceeds “established significance threshold for NOx … constitute[ing] substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact”). 81 DEIR, p. I-14. 82 SWAPE Comments p. 2. 83 SWAPE Comments p. 2.