Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAMS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
`LUCAS WILLIAMS (State Bar No. 264518)
`JACOB JANZEN (State Bar No. 313474)
`490 43rd Street, #23
`Oakland, CA 94609
`Telephone: (707) 849-5198
`Facsimile: (510) 609-3360
`lucas@williams-envirolaw.com
`jake@williams-envirolaw.com
`
`LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
`Howard Hirsch (State Bar No. 213209)
`503 Divisadero Street
`San Francisco, CA 94117
`Telephone: (415) 913-7800
`Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
`hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY PROJECT
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY
`PROJECT, a California not-for-profit
`corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`GREEN SAGE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
`Colorado Limited Liability Corporation,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
` COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
`RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND
`DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`[Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Defendant Green Sage Management, LLC (Defendant) has been violating
`the Clean Air Act for nearly two years. Defendant owns and operates an indoor cannabis
`cultivation facility located at 5601 and 5733 San Leandro Street, Oakland, California
`94621 (the Facility). There is an artist live/work space with 32 residents located at the
`Facility. To supply the Facility with power, Defendant has been operating up to nine
`massive diesel generators twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, since July 2020.
`The generators are the size of eighteen-wheeler trucks. In violation of the Clean Air Act,
`Defendant has not obtained air quality permits for the generators. Plaintiff Environmental
`Democracy Project, a non-profit environmental justice organization based in East Oakland
`(Plaintiff or EDP), seeks to put an immediate end to Defendant’s Clean Air Act violations
`and to deter future violations.
`2.
`Defendant’s unpermitted, semi-truck size generators have emitted tons of
`cancer-causing diesel particulate matter (DPM) and other pollutants that are inhaled
`deeply into the lungs of residents of the Facility’s live/workspace. Residents of the
`densely populated community of color located just east of the Facility’s generators are
`also exposed to the Facility’s pollution. The generators’ emissions are not mitigated by
`any pollution limits or control technology because Defendant failed to obtain air quality
`permits before operating the generators.
`3.
`Defendant’s failure to obtain air quality permits for the generators violates the
`Clean Air Act’s preconstruction permitting requirements as set forth in the Bay Area Air
`Quality Management District’s (the District) Regulation 2, Rules 1-301 and 1-302.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`4.
`This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`(federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (actions for declaratory relief), and 42
`U.S.C. § 7604(a) (the Clean Air Act’s citizen suit provision).
`
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`5.
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 42 U.S.C. §
`7604 because the Facility—where the violations have occurred and continue to occur—is
`located in this District. In addition, Plaintiff’s officers, who are directly impacted by the
`Facility’s air pollution, live in this District.
`6.
`On April 12, 2022, Plaintiff gave notice of Defendant’s violations and
`Plaintiff’s intent to file suit under the Clean Air Act. Plaintiff served notice by certified
`mail return receipt requested to Defendant, the Administrator of the United States
`Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Regional Administrator for Region IX of
`the Environmental Protection Agency, the District, and the California Air Resources
`Board. See 40 C.F.R. § 54.2(a)-(c). Plaintiff also mailed a copy of the notice to the
`Governor of California. Id. § 54.2(b). The notice of violation described in detail
`Defendant’s Clean Air Act violations—i.e., Defendant’s failure to obtain an authority to
`construct and permit to operate for the diesel generators. Defendant did not respond to
`Plaintiff’s notice of violation. The notice of violation is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`7. More than sixty days have passed since service of Plaintiff’s notice of
`violation described above. Defendant remains in violation of the Clean Air Act. Neither
`EPA, the state, nor the District have commenced, nor are diligently prosecuting, a civil
`action in a court of the United States or any state to require compliance with the Clean Air
`Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(1)(B).
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Environmental Democracy Project
`8.
`Plaintiff Environmental Democracy Project is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
`corporation dedicated to representing communities of color exposed to disproportionate
`amounts of pollution. EDP is based in East Oakland. Several of EDP’s officers live near
`the Facility and are exposed to the Facility’s pollution on a daily basis.
`9.
`Defendant Green Sage Management LLC is a limited liability corporation
`organized under the laws of the State of Colorado. Defendant is an owner or operator of
`
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`the enormous unpermitted diesel generators that have been used at the Facility since on or
`around July 30, 2020.
`10.
`EDP’s Executive Director, Tanya Boyce, lives in East Oakland near the
`Facility. She lives within the area impacted by the Facility’s DPM pollution. In addition,
`one of EDP’s Board Members, Alistair Monroe, lives at the artist live/work space known
`as the “the Cannery” at 5733 San Leandro Street, Oakland, California 9462, where several
`of the Facility’s unpermitted diesel generators are located. The fumes from the generators
`permeate the live/work space and cause residents, including Mr. Monroe, to become
`nauseous. The fumes from the generators are visible and have created a black soot stain
`on the Facility’s external walls. Ms. Boyce and Mr. Monroe are injured by the increased
`health risks and poor air quality caused by the Facility’s unpermitted pollution.
`11.
`EDP and its officers have been involved in community organizing, outreach,
`scientific analysis, and public education efforts related to the unpermitted generators’
`impacts on health and the environment in the East Oakland community of color where they
`are located. EDP’s officers have spoken at numerous public hearings in opposition to the
`unpermitted generators.
`12.
`The concrete interests EDP seeks to vindicate in this action—namely,
`addressing environmental racism, protecting air quality, ensuring compliance with
`environmental laws, and ensuring the public’ s right to participate in government decision-
`making processes—are within the purposes and goals of the organization. Plaintiff brings
`this action on behalf of itself and its members, including Mr. Monroe and Ms. Boyce, who
`live near the Facility.
`13. Defendant’s Clean Air Act violations pose an imminent threat to the health,
`happiness, and livelihood of Mr. Monroe and Ms. Boyce, who live and recreate near the
`Facility. The increased pollution and unregulated emissions of highly toxic chemicals—
`which could have been avoided had Defendant complied with the Clean Air Act—impact
`the health, economic, informational, organizational, and conservational interests of Mr.
`
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`Monroe and Ms. Boyce. For instance, if Defendant had followed the permitting rules, the
`District could have required Defendant to conduct air quality monitoring, thereby serving
`EDP’s informational interest in providing impacted communities with data concerning the
`quality of the air they breathe. Thus, EDP and its members have been, and continue to be,
`adversely affected by Defendant’s violations of the Clean Air Act, which cause the
`emission of tons of toxic air contaminants in the low-income community of color
`surrounding the Facility.
`14. Mr. Monroe and Ms. Boyce have constitutional standing to sue individually
`under the Clean Air Act for the violations alleged in this complaint. Nevertheless, their
`individual participation is not necessary for a just resolution of this case.
`15.
`EDP, Mr. Monroe, and Ms. Boyce are “persons” within the meaning of the
`Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7604(a). Should the Court grant the relief requested by EDP in
`the present action—civil penalties, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief—the harm to
`EDP, Mr. Monroe, and Ms. Boyce alleged in this complaint will be redressed, i.e., by
`stopping the illegal pollution and deterring future illegal pollution
`STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`16. Defendant’s operation of unpermitted diesel generators violates the Clean
`Air Act. The Clean Air Act sets out a comprehensive regulatory scheme designed to
`prevent and control air pollution. Congress passed the Clean Air Act to prevent air
`pollution and to protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources to promote
`the public health and welfare. 42 U.S.C. § 7401. The statute directs EPA to prescribe
`national ambient air quality standards at a level sufficient to protect the public health and
`welfare. 42 U.S.C. § 7409(a) & (b).
`17.
`The Clean Air Act is implemented jointly by the United States
`Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states. The Clean Air Act requires each
`state to adopt and submit to EPA for approval a State Implementation Plan (SIP). 42
`U.S.C. § 7410. SIPs provide the mechanism for states to ensure compliance with national
`
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`air quality standards. Id. § 7410(a)(2)(A), § 7502(c)(6). Once approved by EPA, SIPs
`become federal law and are enforceable under the Clean Air Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413,
`7604. EPA has approved elements of California’s SIP, including each of the
`preconstruction permitting requirements at issue in this case. See 40 C.F.R. §
`52.220(c)(502)(i)(A)(1).
`18.
`The District is the governmental agency charged with the primary
`responsibility for controlling air pollution from stationary sources in all or portions of the
`nine Bay Area counties, including all of Alameda County, under the Clean Air Act. The
`District’s responsibility includes adopting and enforcing rules and regulations relating to
`air pollution and maintaining healthy air quality.
`19.
`The Clean Air Act authorizes any person to commence a civil action on her
`own behalf against any person “who is alleged to have violated (if there is evidence that
`alleged violation has been repeated) or to be in violation of . . . an emission standard or
`limitation . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(1). The terms “emission limitation” and “emission
`standard” mean a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which limits
`the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis,
`including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure
`continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational
`standard promulgated under this chapter. 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k). Preconstruction permits
`such as an authority to construct and permit to operate under the District’s rules are
`emissions standards or limitations because, among other things, they allow the District to
`impose pollution control conditions on facilities that emit pollutants.
`20.
`This Court has jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or
`the citizenship of the parties, to enforce emission standards or limitations. 42 U.S.C. §
`7604(a).
`21.
`The District has established rules regarding preconstruction permits that are
`EPA-approved and federally-enforceable components of California’s SIP. 40 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`52.220(c)(502)(i)(A)(1); Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air
`Quality Management District, 83 Fed. Reg. 23372-01.2
`22.
`The District’s EPA-approved rules state that any person that puts in place
`any equipment that may cause the emission of an air pollutant must first obtain an
`“authority to construct.” Regulation 2, Rule 1-301. Likewise, the District’s EPA-
`approved rules state that any person that operates any equipment that may cause the
`emission of air contaminants must first obtain a “permit to operate.” Regulation 2, Rule
`1-302.
`23.
`These preconstruction permits are important because the District can impose
`conditions on the equipment “to ensure compliance with federal or California law or
`District regulations.” See Regulation 2, Rule 1-403. These conditions can include Best
`Available Control Technology and/or a Health Risk Assessment.
`THE POLLUTION FROM DEFENDANT’S GENERATORS IS HARMFUL TO
`HUMAN HEALTH AND AIR QUALITY
`24.
`The Facility’s generators have emitted over ten tons of DPM since they
`began operating on or around July 30, 2020. The generators have also emitted significant
`amounts of particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, nitrous oxides, and sulfur
`dioxide—harmful pollutants that create smog and exacerbate respiratory conditions. The
`generators emit greenhouse gases as well.
`25.
`The East Oakland community surrounding the Facility is a community that
`already suffers from high rates of adverse health conditions, like asthma and
`cardiovascular disease, which are linked to the high levels of pollution in the area.
`According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, a screening tool created by the Office of
`Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment to help identify communities
`disproportionately burdened by pollution and with population characteristics that make
`
`
`2 See also EPA-Approved Bay Area Air District Regulations in the California SIP,
`https://www.epa.gov/sips-ca/epa-approved-bay-area-air-district-regulations-california-sip.
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`them more sensitive to pollution, the East Oakland community near the Facility is
`adversely affected by pollution to a greater extent than 91% of California. The East
`Oakland community is also a low-income community, with 85% of households living
`under the poverty line, and a community of color, with a population that is 66% Latinx
`and 21% African American.
`26. More than 90% of DPM is a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a
`human hair. DPM is inhaled by individuals and deposited in the deepest regions of the
`lungs where the lung is most susceptible to injury.
`27. DPM is a chemical known to cause cancer under California law. 27 Cal.
`Code Regs. § 27001(b). DPM includes over forty substances that are listed by EPA as
`hazardous air pollutants and by the California Air Resources Board as toxic air
`contaminants. These highly toxic substances include acetaldehyde, antimony compounds,
`arsenic, benzene, beryllium compounds, bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalatedioxins and
`dibenzofurans, formaldehyde, inorganic lead, mercury compounds, nickel, POM
`(including PAHs), and styrene.
`28. DPM exposures cause negative health effects including premature death,
`hospitalizations, and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic heart and lung
`disease, including asthma, increased respiratory symptoms, and decreased lung function in
`children.
`29. DPM emitted from the Facility is inhaled by individuals living in the area
`surrounding the Facility including Ms. Boyce and Mr. Monroe, officers of Plaintiff. They
`are exposed to harmful air pollutants as a direct result of Defendant’s air emissions. The
`exposures threaten their health, and cause injury to their recreational and aesthetic
`interests. Defendant’s violations directly injure Plaintiff by polluting the air with
`dangerous and cancer-causing pollutants that impair Plaintiff’s members use and
`enjoyment of the ambient air.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S CLEAN AIR ACT VIOLATIONS
`30. Defendant began operating large diesel generators in violation of the Clean
`Air Act in or around July 30, 2020. The Facility failed to obtain an authority to construct
`or permit to operate before operating the generators. Defendant has been operating the
`generators all day, every day, for nearly two years.
`31. Defendant’s conduct violates the Clean Air Act. Any person that puts in
`place any equipment that may cause the emission of air contaminants must first obtain an
`authority to construct. District Regulation 2, Rule 1-301. Defendant did not obtain an
`authority to construct prior to operating the massive diesel generators at the Facility.
`Defendant’s failure to obtain an authority to construct violates the Clean Air Act.
`32.
`In addition, any person that operates any equipment that may cause the
`emission of air contaminants must first obtain a permit to operate. District Regulation 2,
`Rule 1-302. Defendant did not obtain a permit to operate prior to operating the massive
`diesel generators at the Facility. Defendant’s failure to obtain a permit to operate violates
`the Clean Air Act.
`33.
`Portable generators cannot provide “primary power” to a facility without
`first obtaining an air quality permit from the District. 13 Cal. Code Regs. §
`2453(m)(4)(E). Defendant’s generators provide primary power to the Facility; and they
`have done so for nearly two years. Defendant’s use of the generators is not due to any
`“unforeseen” power interruption or any other exception to the Clean Air Act’s
`preconstruction permit requirements. See 13 Cal. Code Regs. § 2453(m)(4)(E)(1).
`34. Without the issuance of injunctive and declaratory relief and the assessment
`of civil penalties, Defendant will continue to operate the unpermitted diesel generators,
`releasing excess emissions of harmful pollutants to the further injury of Plaintiff and the
`environment.
`35.
`The Court’s issuance of injunctive and declaratory relief and imposition of
`civil penalties is necessary to require Defendant to discontinue its current violations and
`
`
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`deter it from committing future ones—thereby redressing the injuries caused by
`Defendant’s violations.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a);
`Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`
`
`
`36.
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the paragraphs above.
`37. Defendant has operated up to nine diesel generators for nearly two years
`without having first obtained an authority to construct from the District. Defendant’s failure
`to obtain an authority to construct violates District Regulation 2, Rule 1-301.
`38. Defendant has operated up to nine diesel generators for nearly two years
`without having first obtained a permit to operate from the District. Defendant’s failure to
`obtain a permit to operate violates District Regulation 2, Rule 1-302.
`39.
`The District’s Regulation 2, Rule 1-301 and Regulation 2, Rule 1-302 have
`been approved by EPA as part of California’s State Implementation Plan. The District’s
`rules requiring polluting facilities to obtain authorities to construct and permits to operate
`are emissions standards and limitations under 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a).
`40. As a result of Defendant’s failure to obtain an authority to construct or permit
`to operate, Plaintiff’s members have been, and continue to be, exposed to harmful air
`pollution that will increase the likelihood of health risks including cancer. The Facility’s
`pollution would have been controlled or curtailed if Defendant had complied with the Clean
`Air Act.
`41. Defendant’s violations are ongoing and will continue unless enjoined by the
`Court. Plaintiff is entitled to an order from this Court enjoining the use of the unpermitted
`generators.
`42.
`Each day that Defendant operates the generators in violation of the Clean Air
`Act is a separate violation of the statute. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of civil penalties
`for each day Defendant operates the generators.
`
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`43.
`Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration from the Court that Defendant has failed
`to obtain Clean Air Act preconstruction permits for the diesel generators it has been
`operating for nearly two years, and directing Defendant to cease use of the generators
`immediately.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`A.
`An injunction requiring Defendant to immediately cease operating all
`unpermitted generators;
`B.
`An order requiring Defendant to pay civil penalties in the maximum amount
`allowable under the Clean Air Act and an order that such civil penalties, in lieu of being
`deposited with the United States Treasury, be used in a beneficial mitigation project which
`enhances public health or the environment;
`C.
`A declaration from the Court that Defendant is in violation of the Clean Air
`Act and District Rules for failure to obtain preconstruction permits for the generators;
`D.
`An order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and
`costs.
`E.
`
`An order granting any other relief that may be just.
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`July 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WILLIAMS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
`
`
`
`/s/ Lucas Williams
`Lucas Williams
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY
`PROJECT
`
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 12 of 17
`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`490 43rd Street, #23
`Oakland, CA 94609
`(707) 849-5198 (cell)
`Lucas@williams-envirolaw.com
`www.williams-envirolaw.com
`
`
`
`April 12, 2022
`By Certified Mail—Return Receipt Requested
`
`Kenneth E. Greer Jr., Manager
`Green Sage Management, LLC
`1250 Humboldt Street, Ste. 1203
`Denver, CO 80218
`
`Green Sage Management, LLC
`C T Corporation System (C0168406)
`330 N. Brand Boulevard, Ste. 700
`Glendale, CA 91203
`
`Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator
`Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
`75 Hawthorne Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Michael S. Regan, Administrator
`Environmental Protection Agency
`Headquarters
`1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20460
`
`Air Pollution Control Officer
`Bay Area Air Quality Management District
`375 Beale Street, Ste. 600
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Richard Corey, Executive Officer
`California Air Resources Board
`1001 I Street, Ste. 2828
`Sacramento, CA 95814
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Re: Notice of Intent to File Suit Under the Clean Air Act
`
`
`We write to notify you that Green Sage Management, LLC’s cannabis operation located
`at or near 5601 and 5733 San Leandro Street in Oakland, CA, 94621 (the Facility) is in violation
`of the Clean Air Act. The Facility has been using at least seven large diesel generators to
`provide power to the Facility. The Facility has been operating the generators for at least twenty
`months without having first obtained an authority to construct or permit to operate the generators
`from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This conduct violates the Clean Air Act.
`
`
`This notice is sent on behalf of Environmental Democracy Project whose members are
`impacted by the Facility’s illegal diesel emissions. The Facility has emitted, and continues to
`emit, significant amounts of diesel pollution into the surrounding community, including the
`live/work space adjacent to the generators. The Facility is located in East Oakland, a community
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Violation of Clean Air Act
`April 12, 2022
`
`of color that is already overburdened by industrial pollution. Yet the Facility has failed to obtain
`the air permits required by the Clean Air Act and California’s State Implementation Plan.
`
`The Facility’s conduct jeopardizes the health and safety of the East Oakland community.
`For over twenty months, the Facility has emitted diesel particulate matter throughout the
`neighborhood, infiltrating residences, and entering the lungs of residents and community
`members. Inexplicably, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has allowed the Facility
`to continue to operate despite its violations of the Clean Air Act. The Project seeks to put an end
`to the Facility’s violations of the Clean Air Act and deter future violations.
`
`
`The Clean Air Act requires that citizens give sixty days’ notice of their intent to file suit.
`42 U.S.C. § 7604(b). The Project hereby provides notice to Green Sage Management, LLC that
`it has violated and continues to violate the Clean Air Act by violating the Bay Area Air Quality
`Management District’s (the District) rules. The District’s rules are federally enforceable
`requirements that are part of California’s State Implementation Plan. The Facility has violated
`and continues to violate the law by operating the Facility without having first obtained an
`authority to construct and permit to operate from the District, and causing a public nuisance.
`
`
`The Project intends to promptly bring suit under the Clean Air Act after expiration of
`sixty days from the date of this letter. The lawsuit will be filed in the United States District
`Court for the Northern District of California. The Project intends to seek the maximum penalties
`authorized by law as well as its attorney fees and costs. If Green Sage Management, LLC would
`like to discuss this matter before the lawsuit is filed, please contact counsel for the Project
`immediately.
`
`
`I. The Facility Operates at Least Seven Unpermitted Diesel Generators in an
`Overburdened Community of Color.
`
`The Facility has operated and continues to operate large diesel generators without the
`preconstruction permits required under the Clean Air Act. The Facility is located in East
`Oakland. The neighborhood is a community of color that is already overburdened by numerous
`industrial sources, including other cannabis operations using diesel generators. Residents and
`community members—including members of the Project—are exposed to highly toxic diesel
`pollution from the Facility.
`
`
`In response to citizen complaints, the District issued a Notice of Violation to the Facility.
`The Facility continues to operate the diesel generators despite receiving this notice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Notice of Violation of Clean Air Act
`April 12, 2022
`
`Inexplicably, the District has allowed the Facility to operate despite its ongoing violations of the
`Clean Air Act. The Project has no choice but to pursue its own Clean Air Act lawsuit.
`
`
`II. Clean Air Act Requirements.
`
`The Clean Air Act is implemented jointly by EPA and the states. The statute requires
`each state to adopt and submit to EPA for approval a State Implementation Plan, or SIP. 42
`U.S.C. § 7410. SIPs provide the mechanism for states to ensure compliance with the air quality
`standards. Id. § 7410(a)(2)(A), § 7502(c)(6). Once approved by EPA, SIPs become federal law
`and are enforceable under the Clean Air Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413, 7604. EPA has approved
`elements of California’s State Implementation Plan. 42 C.F.R. § 52.220. The District’s rules
`regarding preconstruction permits and nuisance are federally-enforceable components of
`California’s State Implementation Plan. See id; https://www.epa.gov/sips-ca/epa-approved-bay-
`area-air-district-regulations-california-sip.
`
`
`Violations of the Clean Air Act and California’s State Implementation Plan are
`enforceable through the Act’s citizen suit provision. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a); id. § 7604(f)(4). A
`citizen suit may proceed to federal court sixty days after the notice letter, unless either EPA or
`the District has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil action in federal or state court.
`42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(1). This letter provides notice of the Facility’s violations.
`
`III. The Facility’s Clean Air Act Violations.
`
`The Facility began operating large diesel generators in violation of the Clean Air Act in
`or around July 2020. The Facility failed to obtain an authority to construct before operating the
`generators. Any person that puts in place any equipment that may cause the emission of air
`contaminants must first obtain an authority to construct. District Rule 2-1-301. The Facility did
`not do so.
`
`
`The Facility has operated and continues to operate the generators in violation of the Clean
`Air Act. Any person that operates any equipment that may cause the mission of air contaminants
`must first obtain a permit to operate. District Rule 2-1-302. The Facility did not do so.
`
`
`The Facility’s operation has caused and continues to cause a nuisance. The District’s
`rules prohibit emissions that cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable
`number of persons or the public. District Rule 1-1-301. The excessive diesel particulate
`emissions from the Facility have caused and continue to cause a nuisance. Thus, the Facility is
`in violation of District Rule 1-1-301.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03970-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Notice of Violation of Clean Air Act
`April 12, 2022
`
`
`These District rules are incorporated into California’s State Implementation Plan and are
`
`emissions limitations under the Clean Air Act. Thus, the Facility is in violation of the Clean Air
`Act.
`
`IV.
`
`Potential Resolution During 60-day Period.
`
`The entity giving this notice is the Environmental Democracy Project, who may only be
`contacted through counsel. Counsel representing the Project in this matter are:
`
`
`Lucas Williams
`Jacob Janzen
`Williams Environmental Law
`490 43rd Street, #23
`Oakland, CA 94609
`707.849.5198
`lucas@williams-envirolaw.com
`
`
`
`During the sixty-day notice period, the Project is willing to discuss effective remedies for
`the violations of t