18
Public Comment
From:Paige Fennie <paige@lozeaudrury.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 27, 2020 12:57 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:10/27 City Council Hearing Agenda Item No. 18 - 1122 North Anaheim Boulevard
Project Public Comment
Good evening, my name is Paige Fennie and I am commenting on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for
Environmental Responsibility, also known as SAFER, regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”)
for the Invitation Anaheim project located at 1122 North Anaheim Boulevard (the “Project”). As an initial
matter, SAFER requests that the City continue consideration of the Project until after the COVID-19 State of
Emergency is lifted because it makes it impossible for the public to actively participate in public meetings at
which the Project will be considered as required by the Brown Act. The agenda makes clear that there is no
opportunity for the public to make oral comments to the Council, in clear violation of the Brown Act.
As stated in our written comments submitted on September 8, September 28, and today, it is evident that the
MND is inadequate and fails as an informational document because there is a fair argument that the Project may
have unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. The City should have prepared an environmental impact
report (“EIR”) and the City therefore should not approve the Project or adopt the MND tonight.
If an EIR has not been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair
argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, an EIR must be prepared. Under this “fair
argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may
have an adverse environmental effect. This standard creates a low threshold favoring environmental review
through an EIR. Here, as detailed in our written comments, there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that
the Project will have numerous significant adverse impacts, and the threshold for environmental review through
an EIR is therefore met.
SAFER provided expert evidence that the Project may have significant health risk impacts on future residents
from formaldehyde emissions that will be emitted by finishing materials used to construct interiors of the
Project. Certified industrial hygienist Bud Offermann calculated that the Project will pose a cancer risk of 112
per million to residents, which is more than 11 times greater than the South Coast Air Quality Management
District’s cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. The City has failed and refused to analyze these impacts with
any informed expertise.
SAFER also provided expert evidence that the MND relies on unsubstantiated input parameters to estimate the
Project’s emissions and failed to adequately analyze the Project’s diesel particulate matter health risk emissions.
Environmental consulting firm SWAPE also estimated that the Project’s excess cancer risk over the course of a
residential lifetime as the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”), with age sensitivity factors, would
be approximately 38.6 in one million and without age sensitivity factors would be approximately 21.4 in one
million, both exceeding the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million and resulting in a significant impact.
1
SAFER has provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have numerous significant
adverse impacts and therefore respectfully requests that the City Council deny the Project and refuse to adopt
the MND and instead require an EIR to be prepared for the Project. Thank you.
--
Paige Fennie
Legal Fellow
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 836-4200
(510) 836-4205 (fax)
paige@lozeaudrury.com
2