Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/7/2019 Item 15, Wolfe May 6, 2019 By Email Brian Leveille, Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 bleveille@slocity.org Re: Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, -Use Commercial / Assisted-Living Center including Vesting Tentative Map #3115 Dear Mr. Leveille: On behalf of San Luis Obispo residents Jonathan Brown, Joe Vreden and Ray Soto, please accept the following comments on the above-referenced initial study and and shopping center referenc topic area. Air Quality/Health Effects We consulted with air quality expert Greg Gilbert of the environmental quality impact analysis is attached herewith together with his credentials. As Mr. Gilbert explains, the IS/MNDis incorrect in its conclusion that project-related operational toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions, namely diesel particulate matter (DPM) are essentially nonexistent. The IS/MND assumes that because of the location (not on a major roadway with 100,000 or more annual average annual daily trips), and because its , there is no possibility of significant health-related emission impacts for future assisted-This assumption is erroneous based on t relatively high numbers of routinely operating diesel trucks and buses: Tank Farm May 6, 2019 Page 2 -living residential units. There are also concerns with respect to cumulative effects on these and future additional sensitive receptors occupying the adjacent residential/commercial project at 650 Tank Farm Road. inion supported by fact that that the project may have significant individual and cumulative air quality and human health emissions from other sources in the vicinity, including from the commercial retail use at 650 Tank Farm Road. Biological Resources The IS/MND purports to consider potential impacts on biological resources, including wetlands. Of particular concern is the impact on Orcutt Creek, which runs southwesterly along the west edge of the Site to a culvert under Tank Farm Road. The IS/MND identifies three areas of significant impact, which may be mitigated by mitigation measures. The IS/MND states that development of access from Broad Street along the north project acres of seasonal wetland habitats. The IS/MND points out that this potentially significant impact will be mitigated by three mitigation measures, BIO-1, -2, and -3. It is unclear specifically how this ephemeral damage will be mitigated by these measures; BIO-1 for example seems inapposite completely. Most importantly, however, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 is improperly designed to effectively mitigate or prevent this impact, because no entitlements are tied to the implementation of this mitigation measure. This is important because there are variable potential outcomes as a result of the proposed mitigation measure. BIO-3 requires that the Project Proponent enter into a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. This mitigation measure directs the Proponents to seek to enter into this agreement, but does not make any development on the site contingent on securing of that agreeme- mitigation measure is disfavored and improper. For a mitigation measure to be meaningful, it must be definite, effective, and binding. As the IS/MND itself points out, there is a potentially significant impact on these wetlands. The mitigation measure proposed is thus inadequate under CEQA. Land Use & Planning The staff report prepared for the April 10, 2019 Planning Commission hearing on the protect identifies what appear to be several inconsistencies with certain Goals See Staff Report Packet at pp. 14-18. Staff acknowledged these inconsistencies in its presentation, as an alternative course of action on the ite May 6, 2019 Page 3 on findings of inconsistency with the AASP, General Plan, Design Guidelines or The staff report is at best unclear, at worst obfuscatory, on the nature and finding of no significant Land Use & Planning impacts is therefore unsupported by substantial evidence. As discussed in a comment letter of April 10, 2019, the project conflicts with Land Use Element 8.13 in several respects. Most immediately, the site and residential uses. To the contrary, the Project as proposed will be built in phases of large-scale commercial uses and limited residential uses (i.e., the Project will begin with an assisted living facility and a big box store), oriented away from one another. This latter issue speaks to a second conflict--again, one identified or raised by staff in the agenda packet provided to the Planning Commission-- Plan Land Use Element 8.13. This conflict is not, however, identified or evaluated in the IS/MND.In fact, despite the apparent conflict identified in other materials, the IS/MND does not mention land use element or quote its requirements; nor does it evaluate the nature of the , namely that connectivity and circulation may be impacted by a phasing-in plan that leaves future development to the discrete market demands for each subsequent tenant, and an assisted living facility with limited connectivity to the rest of the development. Noise The evaluation of noise impacts in the IS/MND is likewise insufficient. The noise study determined that airport and aircraft noise sources would be less impactful than grade-level traffic noises, and so the sound impacts are concentrated on are less in the MND focuses on the sound impacts from traffic sources. IS/MND at 380. These noise impacts are studied in terms of their impact on the residential assisted living facility planned for the northern portion of the Project Site. See e.g. p. 366-67. This approach however fails to consider impacts on potential sensitive receptors lying outside of the Project Site and also fails to consider potential sources of noise other than either airport sources or traffic sources. As noted in the project description, there is a residential area to the west of the Project Site. See Planning Commission Agenda at 7. Residential uses are sensitive receptors for purposes of noise impact analysis. The noise impact study does not seem to include any analysis of off-site noise impacts. IS/MND at 367, Fig. 7. Sound level measurement seems to have been conducted on-site only, presumably for impacts on the planned assisted living center included as part of the Project. While this naturally should be included in any environmental study of a proposed residential May 6, 2019 Page 4 use, it fails to include an analysis of the impact of the Project itself on the environment with regard to noise. This is important because of the second problem mentioned above, namely, potential noise impacts resulting from the particular uses planned for the Project. The types of commercial uses contemplated for the site may be the source of specific noise impacts. In particular, a big box retail establishment selling produce and other fresh and frozen foods will require daily deliveries by semi-trucks, and these often happen at early morning or late evening hours when best practices and local ordinance provide for more restrictive decibel levels. For one thing, truck deliveries result in back-up beeps for deliveries that can exceed 70 decibels, and these deliveries can often occur in the early morning or late evening hours when the limit is 45 decibels. Deliveries related high-intensity retail uses like the big box store planned for the Project also included refrigerated trucks which create exhaust noise above and beyond the typical semi-truck noise and can exceed 45 decibels. These types of early-hour deliveries also result in noise from metal-on-metal grates on semi-trucks and loading bays on the structures that can create regular noise in excess in 45 decibels. In any case, the noise study does not include any discussion of these potential noise impacts. The fact that these impacts are certain to result from development of the site and there was no study of them contradicts the conclusion in the MND that there would be less than significant noise impacts as a result of development of the Project. The MND should contain an adequate and complete study of potential noise impacts. Transportation/Traffic There are also several deficiencies in the IS/ - adequate under CEQA, the programs into which the fees are paid must be sufficiently firm and certain, and the contributions must actually result in the mitigation; that is, the mitigation must be more than a foreseeable result of the mitigation measure as it is imposed. Mitigation Measure MM T-2 fails to satisfy this requirement. The mitigation measure as described in the IS/MND itself is insufficiently detailed and the contribution not reasonably calibrated to result in the mitigation required. Measure T- 2 requires contribution of less than 1% of the (apparently indefinite) cost of the named necessary mitigation, but there is no description of the fund or program to which this percentage will be contributed, nor for any horizon in which the measures will be implemented (nor other sources of funding). Typically a mitigation measure May 6, 2019 Page 5 set of guidelines benchmarks for completion of the mitigation itself. As a matter of fact, this is necessary element of mitigation measures that are intended to address a specific impact and rely on contribution to general funds to do so. MM T-4 has a similar deficiency, in that the terms of the contribution are indefinite. It is unclear from how the mitig share is determined. Nothing in the IS/MND itself spells these elements out. This is a fatal defect for this mitigation measure; neither the IS/MND nor the agenda packet contains more specific terms for MM T-4. Cumulative Assumptions, Baselines and Trip Counts There are also assumptions in the traffic study that raise questions. For example, the traffic study builds in assumptions about full build outs of planned infrastructure included in the General Plan. IS/MND at 415. While this anticipates development in the area of the Project Site, it also assumes the building of relevant infrastructure, including a major interchange at Prado Road and U.S. Route 101 (a 1 state highway), and extension of Victoria Avenue. Id. The baseline vehicle trip counts are also out of date and disparate in source, having been collected at various times between 2016 and 2017. IS/MND at 396. The traffic study also relies on a misclassification, specifically from the Institute of Tbig undercounting. Big box stores, and in particular grocers, have unique trip generation counts because of the nature of the use; they attract more frequent trips because of vehicle trip. See ITE Manual 11th Edition. Taken together with the assumptions as to infrastructural build out, the traffic study is inadequate for purposes of a MND. Conclusion For the above reasons, the City should not approve the project based on the IS/MND. Because there is substantial evidence that the project may have one or more significant environmental effects, the City should require a full environmental impact report (EIR) before considering the project any further. 1 These assumptions are predicated on a further assumption that transit conditions remain the same. May 6, 2019 Page 6 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Most sincerely, M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C Mark R. Wolfe On behalf of Jonathan Brown, Joe Vreden, and Ray Soto MRW:sa attachment Air Quality Review -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019 - A utumn W ind A ssociates Air Quality CEQA Analysis and Consulting Services AWA 916.719.5472 ggilbert@autumnwind.us May 3, 2019 Mr. Mark Wolfe M.R. Wolfe & Associates 555 Sutter Street, Suite 405 San Francisco CA 94102 RE: Autumn Wind Associates comments regarding Air Quality environmental CEQA impact analysis and proposed mitigation contained within the proposed -Use Commercial / Assisted- Development Project At the request of M.R. Wolfe & Associates, Autumn Wind Associates has reviewed the above-referenced Initial Study for the analysis and treatment of potential air emission impacts estimated to result from the development of the proposed -living care facility mixed with retail buildings and associated parking. Our comments follow. I. Project Description And Impact Significance Criteria The Tank Farm project is proposed for the northwest corner of Tank Farm Road and Broad (State Hwy 227) to be comprised of 139 assisted-living units within a 133,655 square foot assisted-living facility to be located on 4.79 acres. Adjoining the assisted-living facility will be 49,269 square feet of new commercial-shopping retail facilities in 6 buildings, located on 5.28 acres. Parking at both assisted-living and retail land uses will require approximately 280 spaces. Up to 18 employees will serve assisted-living residents at any given time. Of the 6 - . Assisted-care facility residents and service employees together with employees in the retail and grocery land uses combine to create a service population of 417. The Initial Study has assumed for its emissions estimates that site preparation and grading would begin September 2019, building construction in February 2020, and final construction with architectural coatings to conclude in December 2021. Page 1 of 6 Air Quality Review -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019 impacts, including estimateemissions and their potential to impact air quality. At pg. 13, a project-related air quality impact would be considered significant if it would: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan; Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected violation; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard; Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or Create objectionable odors , first quarterly ROG and NOx emissions associated with site preparation and grading were predicted to CEQA thresholds of significance unless mitigated with standard air district measures designed primarily to reduce onsite diesel construction equipment emissions. With mitigation, the related impact was identified to be less than significant. Operational emissions estimates were calculated using ITE vehicle trip data for specified land uses, with vehicle fleet characteristics relying on default EMFAC assumptions operating in the background of the CalEEMod land use emissions estimation model. As noted at IS pg. 15, SLOAPCD CEQA thresholds of significance for operational emissions were not estimated to exceeded using selected ITE trip rates and generic CalEEMod fleet information for the area. However, at IS pg. 15 project-related operational toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions for the project were determined to be essentially nonexistent based on the project(not on a major roadway with 100,000 or more AADT) ould not act as emissionsthere will be no significant health-related emission impacts for future assisted- We disagree with this assumption based with relatively high numbers of routinely operating diesel trucks and buses: Tank Farm Road and State Hwy 227 , of the proposed -living residential units. At IS pg. 15 the CalEEMod-modeled quantity of project-related operational diesel particulate matter (DPM) a 1 toxic air contaminant known to cause cancer and representing roughly 80% of the ambient air-related increased cancer risk to Californians, is estimated at .4 lbs/day as compared with the SLOAPCD threshold of significance at 1 Both the California Air Resources Board and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment have designated DPM as a toxic air contaminant for both cancer and chronic non-cancer health effects; OEHHA information and toxicity values for DPM is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/diesel-exhaust-particulate. Page 2 of 6 Air Quality Review -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019 1.25 lbs/day. However, it is important to note that the CalEEMod estimated quantity of DPM at pg. 15 accounts solely for emissions generated by trucks serving the assisted-living operation and the retail land uses at the site, and that it specifically does not account for those potentially significant increased cumulative health risks to result from project-generated DPM (.4 lb/day) combining cumulatively with DPM in ambient air from the relatively high numbers of daily heavy-duty diesel trucks operating on Tank Farm Road and State Highway 227. In fact, there is no mention or any discussion CEQA cancer risk thresholds of significance, either for the potential health impacts resulting from project-specific TAC emissions or in cumulative combination with DPM emissions generated regularly by diesel trucks operating 2 routinely near the project location. DPM will be emitted regularly by project-serving trucks once the project is operational, and those emissions will combine with nearby truck emissions to increase health risks to levels holds. Yet without discussion of the air dist cumulative TAC thresholds or what would, for the proposed project, constitute a cumulatively significant increased cancer risk IS provides no evidence to justify its determination that the project will not result in cumulatively significant increased health risks for assisted-living facility residents. Both qualitatively and quantitatively the number of DPM-emitting trucks operating proximate to the proposed assisted-living facility is relevant to determining the potential significance of increased cancer risks to older sensitive receptors who will live at the assisted-living facility. Unfortunately, the IS provides substantially and unacceptably conflicting estimates (ADT) from which heavy-duty truck trip numbers can be derived. 1930. At IS pg. 344 emissions estimates for onroad mobile sources were based on 2313.89 average trips per weekday. If the AADT value of 3765 is accurate, the CalEEMod emissions estimates found in the IS would be low by 39% based on the discrepancy; this is a potentially significant underestimate, particularly for evaluating the potential for DPM from project-serving diesel vehicles to combine with heavier-than-average diesel concentrations in the project vicinity due to increased truck traffic (primarily on State Hwy 227). To estimate diesel truck trips proximate to the project we obtained Caltrans AADT estimates for Hwy 227 3 between its northern terminus and Crestmont Drive. AADT on Hwy 227 at Crestmont is 14,200 and 11,000 on the portion immediately to the north where the Hwy begins. The average AADT of these two values is 12600. To derive the numbers of heavy-duty trucks (>14000 lbs GVWR) nearest Tank Farm Road on Hwy 227, we utilized the nearestCaltrans AADT for heavy-duty trucks (Edna/227, just south of the project area); truck counts at that location range (east v. west off of 227)between 6% - 8% of total AADT. Assuming an average heavy-duty 2 SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012) identifies a project-specific TAC threshold of 10 increased cancers per million for sensitive receptors, and 89 per million for cumulative cancer increased risks for sensitive receptors. See SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook pg. 3-7. 3 See Caltrans 2017 AADT estimates for CA highways at http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/ Page 3 of 6 Air Quality Review -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019 truck proportion of 7% of all AADT applied to the average AADT of 12600 vehicles/day for traffic on Hwy 227 nearest the project site, the numbers of heavy-duty trucks operating each day is estimated to be 882. Added to this best-guess estimate in the absence of any truck trip discussion in the IS will be heavy-duty diesel -The great majority of heavy-duty trucks are diesel-powered, and additional heavy-duty truck traffic will occur each day on Tank Farm Road; we have requested related truck trip information from the City and continue toawait their response. ARCGIS traffic data system at http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=f808ee341ad743259b9f7b455cd7b6 9b; Tank Farm Road is a major city thoroughfare with 16,774 vehicle trips/day. Using generic ~14% share of the total onroad vehicle fleet for heavy-duty vehicle types, approximately 2348 heavy-duty predominantly diesel-powered vehicles would be expected to operate on Tank Farm Road each day in addition to the 882 derived from Caltrans AADT data for Hwy 227 nearest the project. Using this approach, combined diesel truck emissions proximate to the project area would result from 3230 truck trips/day. As noted above, CalEEMod emissions. IS pg. 213 of 428 shows that of all 13 onroad vehicle classes, from the lightest-duty passenger vehicles up through the heaviest class of heavy-duty trucks, the heavy-duty vehicles which are predominantly diesel powered (over 14000 lb. GVWR) comprise very close to 14% of the total fleet mix. Multiplying the 3765 average annual trips/day for the project identified at IS pg. 36 by .14 to estimate the number of heavy-duty, predominantly diesel vehicles operating to, from, and for the project each day yields 527. These 527 - -duty, DPM-emitting diesel vehicles serving the operational project each day would -living sensitive receptors. When added to the 882 heavy-duty truck trips/day we derived above for Hwy 227, -DPM with TAC risk threshold would be generated by ~1400 heavy-tors. The higher bound estimate, using non-project initiated daily truck trips derived above for AADT on Tank Farm Road, pushes that total diesel truck daily trip value up substantially. In the absence of any DPM-related analysis and discussion in the estimation process reflects the potential for cumulative DPM exposures -living sensitive residents to result from roughly 1400 to over 3000 predominantly diesel vehicles operating routinely and proximately; the related increase in cumulative TAC health risks in the immediate vicinity of project residents will combine additively with background DPM for the larger area. While DPM-related health risks for the larger area are pre-existing, project-related DPM will combine with those to create even greater cumulative health risks. Unfortunately, no discussion is found in the IS regarding this potentially significant health risk impact issue. Page 4 of 6 Air Quality Review -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019 Recent court decisions that place most pre-existing environmental conditions outside the purview of proposed- project CEQA review will not pre-empt cumulative impact assessment where there is a potential that impacts which are not individually significant may nonetheless constitute a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As we have noted, however, the IS appears to have failed to describe in any measure what would constitute a considerable contribution to cumulative TAC-related health risk, of whether the Based on our pproach in the absence of substantive TAC-related information in the IS, heavy-duty truck trips/day range of about 1400 3000 proximate to the project. Given the relatively high toxicity of diesel emissions from the potentially high numbers of diesel vehicles that will operateroutinely on State Highway 227 and on Tank Farm Road there exists clear potential for significant health risk impacts to the project residents, and therefore a comprehensive health risk assessment (HRA) must be prepared. Without an accurate HRA, the Lead Agency and the public cannot be assured that the project will not exceed relevant acute and chronic health risk thresholds of significance. II. Air Quality Mitigations Are Unenforceable as Written At IS pg. 187, the report by Rincon Consultants, Inc. states that air quality mitigations for construction emissions -emitting equipment. simply means in real-world terms that MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2 are voluntary measures and not mandatory since the statement would must Additionally, at IS pg. 185 to cause impacts has AQ mitigation measur-1 and AQ-2 means that the measures are discretionary, and therefore will fail to provide the certainty of actual emission reduction benefits required under CEQA Guidelines. In real-world terms a not enforceable and can be expected to be ignored by construction fleet operators operating routinely older, more fully capitalized higher-emitting onroad and offroad diesel vehicles. At IS pg. 14, ---but not required. Recommended mitigations are no more enforceable for actual emission reductions than mitigation components without metrics to measure real progress, or those that rely on discretionary At IS pg. 15, the component parts of Mitigation Measure AQ-e approval process, yet one of the componentsrenders the entire mitigation measure unenforceable due to its discretionary nature: Page 5 of 6 Air Quality Review -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019 Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance (emphasis added). No information is provided with this option to indwill provide the quantities of pollutant reductions necessary to legitimize construction emission impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels, nor is there any metric to ensure such. Finally, no information is found in the IS regarding what agency will enforce AQ mitigation claimed to reduce the The offroad equipment mitigation appears to only recommend use of Tier 3 and 4 offroad equipment for the initial and relatively higher emitting phases of project construction, while onroad diesel vehicles are recommended to operate at 2007 or later model years. The IS fails to confirming Tier 3 and 4 offroad engines, and 2007 and later heavy-duty diesel trucks. It is very unlikely that City code enforcement personnel are trained to confirm use of those types of equipment necessary to produce the claimed emission benefits for AQ-1 and AQ-2, nor does the IS state that the City would be responsible for their enforcement. Similarly, while other CEQA projects around CA have mandatedsimilar measures and required the process, no such requirement is found in the Tank Farm IS. As written, the AQ mitigation measures identified and described in the IS appear to be unenforceabledue to discretionary language use, fail to provide the necessary metrics to measure real emission reductions needed to -than-significant emission impacts, and provide no direction on what responsible, qualified party will be used to ensure their effective implementation. For all these reasons, there is no basis in fact upon which to conclude the project will have no significant air quality or human health effects. Sincerely, Greg Gilbert Autumn Wind Associates Page 6 of 6