HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/16/2019 Item 14, Codron (2)
Council Agenda Correspondence
City of San Luis Obispo, City of San Luis Obispo, Council MemorandumCouncil Memorandum
Date: July 15, 2019
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager DJ
SUBJECT: Item #14 NWC Assisted Living and Commercial-Retail Project
Recirculated Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
As discussed in the Council Agenda Report, this item was previously reviewed by the Council on
May 7, 2019 (Environmental Review discussion, Council Agenda packet page 208). This
correspondence provides a summary of how comments were addressed from the previously
circulated IS-MND reviewed by Council on May 7, 2019. The City Council report provides a brief
summary of the revisions made to the IS-MND for recirculation.
Mark Wolfe & Associates (May 6, 2019)
Air Quality
is stated that the IS-MND did not appropriately evaluate potential impacts to sensitive receptors
from toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions since the project is in proximity to Tank Farm Road
and State Hwy 227 (Broad Street). The commenter also contends that the necessary cumulative air
quality effects from the project TAC emissions and TAC emissions from other sources in the
vicinity were not evaluated properly. The commenter also raises that the air quality analysis did
not sufficiently include baseline, project, and cumulative project emissions for cumulative impact
analysis.
Staff Response:
if any additional analysis should be prepared in response. Rincon Consultants prepared a
letter (attached) which provides a detailed response
letter. Rincon Consultants found that Mr. Wolfe incorrectly summarized the IS-
conclusions and that the level of analysis in the IS-MND is adequate including the approach
used for determining cumulative impacts. Rincon Consultants explained that the analysis
properly included an evaluation and findings that potential air-quality impacts from TACs,
including existing and future impacts, would be less than significant pursuant to applicable
guidelines and thresholds.
possibility of health-
thresholds which appropriately evaluate projects
Northwest Corner Assisted Living and Commercial-Retail Project Page 2
Biological Resources
The commenter asserts that mitigation measures for Biological resources are inappropriately
applied.
Staff Response: Mitigation Measure BIO-1 relates to the timing of vegetation removal in
order to protect nesting birds, and is directly related to habitat protection, which is at the
heart of the proposed 3:1 wetland replacement included in the project design. It is incorrect
The commenter states that Mitigation Measure BIO-3, which requires obtainment of California
sure development is contingent on the permit.
Staff Response: In fact, the mitigation monitoring plan clearly requires that no grading or
building permits may be issued until all the necessary permitting and certification
requirements have been met. The monitoring program (B-1 through B-3) further requires that
all improvement plans, landscaping plans, and/or relevant construction permits include the
required measures for mitigation plantings, creek enhancement, and any compensatory
mitigation measures for impacts to Waters of the U.S. as required by the Corps of Engineers
and RWQCB. The IS-MND appropriately points the way toward other resource regulatory
permitting are required outside the CEQA process. Other regulatory permitting is discussed
in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the context of permitting under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
via the US Army Corps of Engineers and related water quality certification through the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Land Use and Planning
The commenter contends that the finding of a less than significant impacts related to land use and
planning are not supported by substantial evidence.
Staff Response: The project staff report and associated findings go into detail as to why the
project is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan as amended. The CEQA
document itself did not include the same level of information on this issue as the associated
project staff report. Staff acknowledges that additional information needed to be provided
directly in the IS-MND document. Although no additional analysis is required, Staff included
an updated discussion of Land Use and Planning in the recirculated IS-MND to reflect the
key issues that were already discussed in the staff report.
Noise
The commenter contends the noise analysis failed to consider the effects of the project on
surrounding noise sensitive uses.
Staff Response: Staff agrees that the analysis lacked sufficient analysis of the projects
potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors offsite. This issue was addressed in the
recirculated IS-MND. Rincon Associates prepared a Technical Noise Analysis report (IS-
Northwest Corner Assisted Living and Commercial-Retail Project Page 3
MND, Attachment 9) to assess issues the commenter raised as discussed in the attached
Rincon Consultants response to comments. The analysis found that there were potential
impacts to offsite sensitive receptors and that mitigation measures are required to reduce
potential impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation measures N-2 and N-3 were
included in the recirculated IS-MND to address potential impacts to offsite receptors during
construction activities.
Transportation/Traffic
explicitly state where the funds will be used and show how and when the required improvements
will be built.
Staff response: The IS-MND appropriately used the related traffic study (IS-MND
Attachment 10, Multimodal Transportation Impact Study) to describe the nature of potential
impacts using methodology consistent with standard industry practice. Specific mitigation
measures were developed based on the traffic analysis including a discussion of cumulative
impacts. As appropriate the project will also participate in a Citywide Impact Fee Program,
or for needed improvements not covered under the program, a fair share contribution based
on quantified impacts. potential cumulative
impacts and creates a legally and practically feasible mechanism to ensure that larger capital
improvement projects that will address cumulative impacts can be built that require the
contribution of many cumulative projects. The projects identified in Mitigation Measure
T-4 will be completed through the Capital Improvement Program through the Capital
Improvement Program.
The commenter contends that the traffic study contains a misclassification because the project
estimates are instead used.
Staff Response: The retail-commercial component of the project is in fact a shopping center
with six separate buildings, the largest of which is the anchor tenant with approximately
22,000 square feet. This is not classified as a big box store, which are generally more than
th
50,000 square feet. Additionally, the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10 edition, the most
current edition, does not have a . Based on the ITE trip generation
definitions, the appropriate Land Use designation for this project is used in the traffic study.
th
ITE has not released an 11 edition of the Trip Generation Manual.
The commenter contends that the baseline assumptions used in the traffic analysis are potentially
out of date and that the IS-MND improperly assumed that the Prado Road/US 101 interchange and
Victoria Avenue extension improvements would be completed.
Staff Response: The project submittal and environmental review was conducted prior to
the availability of 2018 traffic counts. Per CEQA section 15125(a) the 2016 counts used in
the traffic study are the appropriate baseline for use in the IS-MND. The traffic analysis
was based on the information available at the time the traffic study was scoped in 2017.
Baseline as included in the IS-MND is appropriate. Furthermore, the traffic analysis
appropriately assumed that the Prado Road/US 101 interchange would be completed
Northwest Corner Assisted Living and Commercial-Retail Project Page 4
because completion is required as a condition of the approved San Luis Ranch entitlements
and Phase 1 construction documents have been submitted for approval. It was appropriate
to assume that the Victoria Avenue extension will be completed because it is currently
under construction.
Department of Transportation, Caltrans District 5 (May 6, 2019 & July 8)
The commenter raises three main issue areas: (1) study of impacts to intersections and
interchanges, (2) dates of traffic counts used for analysis, (3) methodology for trip generation.
Staff Response: The Public Works Department previously fully responded to these
comments via Agenda Correspondence (attached) on May 7, 2019 from Daryl Grigsby,
Public Works Director. No changes to the traffic analysis were deemed necessary in the
recirculated IS-MND. Cal Trans again provided the same comments on July 8, 2019.
ese
same comments.
Air Pollution Control District (May 3, 2019)
The commenter noted support for the project as an urban infill project that is consistent with the
goals and policies of the Clean Air Plan (CAP). APCD also noted a number of action items for
various permit requirements which should be addressed.
Staff Response: Staff has included the APCD recommended permit requirements in the
discussion of the recirculated IS-MND and included in project conditions of approval. No
comments have been received from APCD regarding the recirculated IS-MND.
Evan Chechopoulos, May 5, 2019
The commenter requests that a Mitigated Negative Declaration not be accepted and notes that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared. The commenter also contends that the
abandonment of proper procedure may put sen
Staff Response: The IS-MND found that all potential impacts can be mitigated to less than
significant levels. Preparation of an EIR is not warranted or appropriate under CEQA. There
is no substantial evidence in the record that the project would result in potentially significant
impacts affecting senior population safety.
Kathy Borland (Protect CEQA), May 6, 2019
The commenter reiterated a previous letter to the Planning Commission dated April 10, 2019. The
commenter appears to assume that the Planning Commission was going to make a final decision
on the project and that it was improper procedure to hear the item before the conclusion of the
public comment period.
Staff Response: CEQA does not require that the public comment period on an IS-MND be
closed prior to advisory body review and recommendations (CEQA section 15074). It was
Northwest Corner Assisted Living and Commercial-Retail Project Page 5
fully consistent with CEQA and is common practice to have advisory body hearings and
recommendations during the IS-MND public review period.
Lea Brooks, May 6, 2019
review the project. The commenter also raises a number of issues regarding Transportation
Mitigation measures T-1 through T-4, stating that the improvements do not adequately address
pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel.
Staff Response: A comprehensive response was provided by the Public Works Department
on May 7, 2019 via agenda correspondence (attached). The commenter is incorrect that the
Active Transportation Committee should review this development proposal or any other
specific development proposals. The purpose of the ATC is accurately described as
providing advisory comment on policies related to active transportation. Review of
development projects for conformance with adopted plans and policies is not within the
purview of the ATC. The proposed project will require the project to develop the ultimate
cross sections identified in the Airport Area Specific Plan which includes design
components to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel and discussed in the
Public Works agenda correspondence.
Dale Sutliff, May 7, 2019
The commenter references the Lea Brooks correspondence above and raises similar concerns
regarding the safety of bicycle facilities.
Staff Response: See above Lea Brooks response.
Stephanie Teaford, Heal SLO, May 6, 2019
The commenter recommends an alteration in the project design to reduce exposure of residents to
truck exhaust from the loading dock of building 1.
Staff Response: There is no substantial evidence in the record that the loading dock would
result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors. SLOAPCD defines
s: power plants wastewater treatment
plants, auto body shops, and landfills. No such uses are proposed or are allowed uses in the
project. The Rincon Associates Response to Comments (attached) dated June 15, 2019
explains significance thresholds and appropriate analysis of this issue under CEQA. Also,
see the Air Quality staff response in the Wolfe and Associates response above.
Sfdfjwfe
6080312:
TMPDJUZDMFSL
NFFUJOHEBUF;6080312:
JUFNOP;26
EjtusjcvufeupDpvodjm
pouifebjt
6080312:
TMPDJUZDMFSL
NFFUJOHEBUF;6080312:
JUFNOP;26
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
805 547 0900 OFFICE AND FAX
info@rinconconsultants.com
www.rinconconsultants.com
June 15, 2019
Project No: 19-07096
Michael Codron
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3218
Via email: mcodron@slocity.org
Subject: Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project Response to Comments on
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3985 Broad Street and 660 Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Mr. Codron:
Rincon has reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), associated technical
analyses, and comments from Mr. Wolfe and Associates (Mr. Wolfe) and the attached air quality
assessment prepared by Autumn Wind Associates (AWA). In the following responses, we have
addressed air quality and noise comments from Mr. Wolfe, as well as air quality comments provided by
AWA.
Summary
Rincon has reviewed the IS/MND, associated technical analyses, and comments from Mr. Wolfe and
AWA. Rincon has responded to the air quality concerns from Mr. Wolfe and AWA and provided
recommendations to improve the noise analysis attached to the IS/MND to address comment from Mr.
Wolfe.
The air quality issues raised by Mr. Wolfe and AWA are based primarily on a misinterpretation of the San
Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) air quality thresholds and a typographical error.
Specifically, AWA attempts to draw a cumulative impact conclusion based on 1) a project level threshold
for projects involving a high number of truck trips (e.g., mining or a distribution facility), 2) a incorrect
quote of the project related traffic generation, which was correctly stated in the traffic report, to create
the impression the project would result in a high volume of truck traffic. The commenter then attempts
to use the project level threshold and the overestimated truck traffic to argue the project would result in
health impacts to existing residents in the project area, future resident of the project, and residents that
may move into future development not part of the project. Rincon provided explanations on a point-by-
point basis disclosing incorrect assumptions and misinterpretations of the CEQA process as outlined in
the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and why the findings of the IS/MND related to air quality are
correct.
In addition to reviewing the air quality comments, Rincon evaluated the comments from Mr. Wolfe on
the noise analysis as well as the noise section of the IS/MND and noise report. Based on our review we
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
City of San Luis Obispo
Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project
recommended the noise analysis be revised to include analyses of construction, on-site noise sources,
off-site traffic noise level increases, as well as potential vibration levels during construction.
Mr. Wolfe Letter
The Introductory comments are noted.
Air Quality and Health Effects
The commenter notes that the IS/MND, based on the project characteristics and location, indicates that
-related emission impacts for future assisted-living facility
The comment states the conclusion is erroneous because the project site
is approximately 500 feet from State Highway 227 and within 30 feet of Tank Farm Road. The
commenter further notes a concern for future residents due to a potential cumulative air quality and
health effect of these sources for other unrelated development in the immediate area. The comment
notes the issues identified in the comment are based on the expert opinion of a Mr. Greg Gilbert, of
Autumn Wind Associates, an environmental consulting company.
The comment incorrectly summarizes the IS/MND findings in which it was determined the potential air
quality impact from toxic air contaminants (TACs), either from existing or future sources, including on-
and off-site sources, would be less than significant. The less than significant impact determination
indicates that the impact is below the threshold identified by the lead agency for use in the analysis. In
this case, the City relies on the expertise of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California
Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in determining the significance of TAC sources.
Based on guidance from CARB and CAPCOA, the project would not expose people to undue excess
cancer risk, which is defined as a risk of greater than 10 in a million. CARB developed guidance for these
assessments in its 2005 handbook, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health
Perspective, which identified roadways of concern and provided a 100,000 vehicle screening criteria for
determining when additional analysis is recommended for siting specific sensitive land uses within
approximately 500 feet of major roadways and freeways. CARB states that the 100,000 vehicle screening
criterion
The screening
criterion is not a significance threshold. Rather, it is developed to identify when there is an excess cancer
risk greater than 10 in a million. This concept and data are supported in the CAPCOA guidance document
Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects Technical Advisory: Strategies
to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways. The analysis in the IS/MND concludes
that the risk would be less than significant at the project level and in a cumulative context based on this
screening criterion.
Additional comment and clarification of air quality issues are provided in a detailed response to the
memorandum prepared by Autumn Wind Associates, Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, "Northwest Corner" (NWC) Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial / Assisted-Living
Center including Vesting Tentative Map #3115, dated May 3, 2019. The format of the responses to AWA
comments is to provide the actual comment (included in italics) with a response immediately following
the individual comments.
Page 2
City of San Luis Obispo
Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project
Noise
The comment indicates that the analysis only evaluates on-site noise compatibility of the project. Rincon
reviewed the noise section of the IS/MND and the noise report included as an appendix. Based on our
review, the comment is correct, and the noise analysis is focused on compatibility of the project with
existing ambient noise levels, but did not address off-site impacts
impact on the environment. Based on additional analysis provided by Rincon, the City has revised the
noise and vibration analysis to more directly address
environment.
Autumn Wind Associates
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 NWC
Broad & Tank Farm (hereafter "Tank Farm") assisted-living care facility mixed with retail buildings and associated parking.
Our comments follow.
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 commercial buildings, two are identified as "retail"; two are
"restaurant"; one is "retail-restaurant"; and one is "grocer". 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.
The Initial Study has provided a basic review of the project's anticipated environmental impacts, including estimates of the
project's construction and operational emissions 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
For the project's construction emissions as calculated with the CalEEMod modeling program, first quarterly ROG and NOx
emissions associated with site preparation and grading were predicted to exceed the SLOAPCD's 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.
The Introductory comments are noted.
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's location (not on a major roadway with 100,000 or more AADT and
because the project's proposed land uses would not act as "stationary sources" of toxic emissions; on that basis, the IS' AQ
element concludes that there will be no significant health-related emission impacts for future assisted-living facility
"sensitive receptor" residents. We disagree with this assumption based on the project's proximity to two busy roadways
Page 3
City of San Luis Obispo
Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project
with relatively high numbers of routinely operating diesel trucks and buses: Tank Farm Road and State Hwy 227 are located
within 30' and 500', respectively, of the proposed project's "sensitive receptor" assisted-living residential units.
The air quality analysis uses industry standard methodologies in the assessment of TAC emissions. The
analysis relies on the expertise of CARB and the SLOAPCD in determining air quality impacts. Based on
considers the proximity to existing sources of TACs as an
initial screening analysis. Because the project site is in proximity to a freeway, the analysis moved to the
next level of evaluation and reviewed the traffic volume on the freeway. At this point the analysis
ance and similar guidance used
throughout the state in the evaluation of air quality impacts, that the traffic volume on the freeway was
below the screening criterion of 100,000 AADT and the potential risk to future residents was within the
acceptable range and thus impacts are less than significant. The identification of an impact being less
than significant does not imply, as the comment suggests essentially nonexistent rather,
it is a statement that the amount that is present is below a level that would be considered significant
under CEQA. This is similar to other environmental issues where it is recognized that a project would
affect the environment; however, the effect is acceptable and would not represent a substantial change
in the environment.
In addition, the project as proposed would not have any stationary sources. The SLOAPCD defines
stationary sourcefixed facilities such as: power plants, waste water treatment plants, auto body
shops, and landfills.does not include any of these uses and if such a use were proposed
anywhere in the state, it would be required to apply for a permit to construct and authority to operate
that would be reviewed on a regular basis by the applicable air district and modified as needed. As part
of the permit process for SLOAPCD, a stationary source would be required to implement prescriptive
measures that would reduce any cancer and health risk associated with the source to less than 1 in one
million. If the source was not capable of implementing these measures, it would be required to undergo
a detailed analysis known as a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to determine the cancer and health risks to
any nearby receptor and to develop performance-based measures that would reduce the risks to an
acceptable level.
Contrary to what is suggested, the analysis assesses potential risks, and uses industry standard methods.
Furthermore, the findings are consistent with current scientific understanding.
disagreement with the findings is noted, but this opinion is not supported by evidence.
At IS pg. 15 the CalEEMod-modeled quantity of project-related operational diesel particulate matter (DPM) a 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 1.25lbs/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 in the IS' Air Quality element of the SLOAPCD's 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 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 potentially exceeding the SLOAPCD's TAC significance thresholds.
Yet without discussion of the air district's cumulative TAC thresholds or what would, for the proposed project, constitute a
cumulatively significant increased cancer risk contribution ("the straw that would break the camel's back"), the 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.
Page 4
City of San Luis Obispo
Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project
The comment misinterprets the SLOAPCD thresholds, which have been developed by SLOAPCD to apply
and are not intended to be evaluated in conjunction with ambient
concentrations from existing sources. Additionally, the analysis of DPM is not required for every project,
in quantities
examples
distribution facilities, etc The proposed mixed-use project would not generate a substantial number of
diesel truck trips and would not substantially increase the number of trucks on local or regional
roadways. In addition, TACs typically have a short dispersal distance and therefore only combine
cumulatively when there are multiple nearby sources (typically within 500 feet). There are no stationary
sources of TACs in the project site vicinity. Therefore, the potential cumulative sources of TACs are DPM
from truck trips on nearby roadways and truck trips from the proposed project.
The following analysis of background emissions from nearby truck trips is provided for informational
purposes:
CARB developed guidance for these assessments in its 2005 handbook, Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which identified roadways of concern and provided a
100,000 vehicle screening criteria for determining when additional analysis is recommended for siting
specific sensitive land uses within approximately 500 feet of major roadways and freeways. For
comparison, Highway 227 near the project site carries approximately 15,000 vehicles per day according
the2017 Caltrans traffic data. The nearest freeway to the project site is U.S. 101, which is located
approximately 1.75 miles (9,000 feet) from the project site and carries approximately 65,000 vehicles
per day through the City of San Luis Obispo. Given this distance, DPM emissions from U.S. 101 would be
negligible at the project site.
CalEEMod calculates NO, ROG, SO, CO, CO, CH, NO, PM and PM. PM and PM include exhaust
XX2422.5102.510
and mechanical generation of PM. While the calculations include the exhaust PM, CalEEMod does not
provide a calculation of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Thus, the analysis used the reported PM and
2.5
PM exhaust emissions as DPM. However, because PM is a subset of PM, this represents an
102.510
extremely conservative approach. A more refined estimate would report DPM as a fraction of PM,
2.5
which would be an approximate maximum of 0.0305 lbs/day (based on CARB statewide inventories,
DPM is roughly 8 percent of statewide PM). Therefore, for disclosure purposes, project emissions
2.5
would equate to approximately 0.00244 lbs/day of DPM, not 0.4 lbs/day as stated by the commenter.
The project traffic report, which accounts for internal trip capture and trip diversion, identifies that the
is 1,930 trips. The CalEEMod standard setting for heavy truck (LHDT1,
LDH2, MHD, and HHD) vehicle classification in San Luis Obispo County is 6.52 percent of the total trip
generation, and this would include both gasoline and diesel fueled trucks. Therefore, 126 truck trips
(1,930 trips x 6.52 percent truck trips) is the correct number to use for DPM analysis.
Based on a review of the identified Caltrans truck data (2017_Truck_AADT_Final.xls), about 6.34 percent
of the traffic volume on Highway 227 are trucks. There is no range provided and this represents all 2 to 5
axle trucks. However, based on the type of truck identified in the comment, i.e. >14,000 lbs gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR), there would be fewer of these trucks where the Caltrans truck counts include
many types trucks including pickups, and smaller delivery trucks that are primarily gasoline fueled. A
more accurate method to evaluate the number of diesel trucks operating on Highway 227 is to evaluate
the CARB mobile sources emission database, emission factor model (EMFAC). EMFAC indicates that
about 1.6 percent of vehicles operating in the County are trucks that exceed 14,000 GVWRand are
Page 5
City of San Luis Obispo
Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project
fueled by gasoline and diesel. Diesel fueled vehicles with a greater than 14,000 GVWR represent 1.46
percent of the total traffic volume. That would represent approximately 189 diesel-fueled trucks. Each
truck would emit an average of 1.94E-05 lbs per truck per day (0.00244 lbs DPM÷126 trucks=1.94E-05
lbs DPM per truck per day). Using the corrected and more accurate truck count estimates (189+126=315
trucks) the project, in combination with existing truck trips on nearby roadways, would result in the total
generation of 0.0061 lbs/day, which is substantially (less
than 1% of the threshold). Based on this analysis, there is no cumulative scenario where baseline +
cumulative projects would approach the SLOAPCD threshold causing this project to result in an
exceedance or a cumulatively considerable impact.
The air quality analysis states and evaluates DPM emissions consistent with SLOAPCD guidelines. As
shown in Table 3 of the IS/MND, emissions were well below the SLOAPCD threshold, even with addition
of existing baseline emissions from nearby truck emissions. As discussed above, the local thresholds
were developed by SLOAPCD to determine the significance of project emissions in the context of existing
regional air pollutant concentrations to be protective of human health from localized pollutants under
project-level and cumulative conditions. Therefore, the analysis adequately assesses the impacts of DPM
from the project, including the cumulative context.
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 for
the project's average daily trips (ADT) from which heavy-duty truck trip numbers can be derived. At IS pg. 36, the project's
ADT is estimated at 3765. At IS pg. 387 it is estimated at 1930. At IS pg. 344 emissions estimates for onroad mobile sources
were based on 2313 .89 average trips per weekday.
The ADT of 3,765 in the IS/MND appears to be a typographical error. The traffic report identifies a total
of 2,338 vehicle trips, which is the same as the CalEEMod calculation using ITE rates with the
discrepancy between 2,338 and 2,313.89 due to rounding of the trip rates to whole number in the traffic
analysis. However, the traffic report applies internal trip capture and trip diversion to reduce the daily
trip generation to 1,930 trips. 1,930 trips is the correct number for determining traffic impacts and the
use of the 2,313.89 by the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses represents a conservative
analysis since it accounts for a greater amount of vehicle miles traveled than assumed for the traffic
analysis. The CalEEMod standard setting for heavy truck (LHDT1, LDH2, MHD, and HHD) vehicle
classification in San Luis Obispo County is 6.52 percent of the total trip generation, and this would
include both gasoline and diesel fueled trucks. Therefore, 126 truck trips (1,930 trips x 6.52 percent
truck trips) is the correct number to use for DPM analysis and, is used in the above informational
analysis. As shown therein, project truck trips in combination with existing nearby truck trips would not
If the AADT value of3765 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).
As stated above, the 3,765 is not accurate and thus the subsequent analysis in the following comments
is based on incorrect traffic data. Additionally, the analysis of emissions for air quality and GHG analysis
uses a conservative trip generation estimate and thus emissions are not underestimated.
To estimate diesel truck trips proximate to the project we obtained Caltrans AADT estimates for Hwy 227 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 12,600.
Comment noted.
Page 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project
To derive the numbers of heavy-duty trucks (14000 lbs GVWR) nearest Tank Farm Road on Hwy 227, we utilized the nearest
Caltrans 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 truck proportion of 7% of all AADT
applied to the average AADT of 12,600 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.
As described above, diesel fueled vehicles with a greater than 14,000 GVWR represent 1.46 percent of
the total traffic volume, which represents approximately 189 diesel-fueled trucks. SLOAPCD does not
direct lead agencies to evaluate existing conditions from truck traffic and this data is not relevant to the
SLOAPCD DPM threshold, which was
would result in an excess cancer risk greater than 10 in a million. As described above, project truck trips
in combination with existing nearby truck trips would not result in emissions that would exceed
Added to this best-guess estimate in the absence of any truck trip discussion in the IS will be heavy-duty diesel trucks that
pass on Tank Farm Road within 30' of the project's assisted-living residents' living quarters. 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 to await their response. Alternatively, total "Average
Daily Motor Vehicle Volume" is made available in the City's ARCGIS traffic data system at (Web address)
Comment noted
Tank Farm Road is a major city thoroughfare with 16,774 vehicle trips/day. Using CalEEMod's 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.
The CalEEMod standard setting for heavy truck (LHDT1, LDH2, MHD, and HHD) vehicle classification in
San Luis Obispo County is 6.52 percent of the total trip generation, and this would include both gasoline
and diesel fueled trucks. Please see pages 213, 249, or 279 of the IS/MND for a breakdown of the vehicle
classification mix. Alternately, the data is provided in the appendices of the air quality study on page 26
of the annual emissions estimates, and page 25 of the winter and summer emissions estimates. Based
on these data sets, CalEEMod does not use the approximately 14% trucks vehicle mix identified in the
comment. Additionally, data from EMFAC better represents the County as opposed to using data from a
project level emissions estimation model that uses conservative assumptions in estimating air emissions.
existing emissions from nearby truck trips included above. As shown therein, project truck trips in
combination with existing nearby truck trips
DPM threshold.
As noted above, CalEEMod relies on vehicle fleet information to estimate a project's share of on road vehicle emissions. IS
pg. 213 of 428 shows that of all 13 on road 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 "worst-case", predominantly heavy-duty, DPM-emitting diesel vehicles
serving the operational project each day would represent only a minor portion of all diesel vehicles operating within 500' of
the project's assisted-living sensitive receptors.
As stated above, the comment incorrectly identifies the percentage of trucks and uses the incorrect trip
generation. A more accurate truck count would be on the order of 126 trucks from the project.
When added to the 882 heavy-duty truck trips/day we derived above for Hwy 227, total "worst-case" DPM with the
potential to cause an exceedance of the SLOAPCD's 89 increased cancers per million TAC risk threshold would be generated
by ~ 1400 heavy-duty vehicles operating in proximity to the project's sensitive receptors. The higher bound estimate, using
Page 7
City of San Luis Obispo
Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project
non-project initiated daily truck trips derived above for AADT on Tank Farm Road, pushes that total diesel truck daily trip
value up substantially.
Please see previous comments on the accuracy of the data used and applicability of the SLOAPCD DPM
threshold.
In the absence of any DPM-related analysis and discussion in the IS' Air Quality element our "best guess" estimation
process reflects the potential for cumulative DPM exposures to the project's assisted-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.
The air quality analysis and IS/MND include an analysis of DPM and determine that impacts would be
less than significant.
Recent court decisions that place most pre-existing environmental conditions outside the purview of proposed-project
CEQA review will not pre-empt CEQA's mandate for a cumulative impact assessment where there is a potential that a
project's 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, nor does it provide the SLOAPCD's TAC
thresholds of significance or any related discussion of whether the project's TAC impacts will exceed the air district's
cumulative TAC threshold.
The air quality analysis and IS/MND include an evaluation of DPM and determine that impacts would be
less than significant. The project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality.
Based on our "best guess" approach 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 operate routinely 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.
As previously indicated, the DPM analysis provided in the comment uses erroneous information and
incorrect data for determining potential DPM emissions from existing and future sources. The comment
also misapplies the SLOAPCD threshold to existing emission sources.
As noted in the above DPM analysis provided for informational purposes, the project, in combination
with nearby truck trips, would result in DPM emissions of approximately 0.0061 lbs/day, which is well
below 1.25 lbs/day DPM threshold.
At IS pg. 187, the report by Rincon Consultants, Inc. states that air quality mitigations for construction emissions "would
provide for the use of' lower-emitting equipment. "Would provide for" simply means in real-world terms that MM-AQ-l and
MM-AQ-2 are voluntary measures and not mandatory since the statement would otherwise be written as "must provide
for" or similar.
As stated in the IS/MND, standard construction equipment mitigation measures and BACT measures
have been developed by SLOAPCD to enhance the consistency of projects with the goals and policies of
the Clean Air Plan, and SLOAPCD has identified the measures as contributing to achieving and
maintaining attainment of State and federal ambient air quality standards. The mitigation measures in
the IS/MND are taken directly from the SLOAPCD. Nevertheless, the comment is noted. Please see
revised language for air quality mitigation measures in the IS/MND.
Additionally, at IS pg. 185, the Rincon report used to estimate the project's emissions and their potential to cause impacts
has AQ mitigation measures listed under the heading "Recommendations". Recommended use of AQ-l and AQ-2 means
that the measures are discretionary, and therefore will fail to provide the certainty of actual emission reduction benefits
Page 8
City of San Luis Obispo
Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project
required under CEQA Guidelines. In real-world terms a "recommended" mitigation is 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.
Comment noted. Please see revised language for air quality mitigation measures.
At IS pg. 14, air quality mitigation measures to reduce the project's significant emission impacts to less than significant
levels "are recommended"---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
implementation with use of terms such as "recommended", "may", "should", "could", etc.
Comment noted. Please see revised language for air quality mitigation measures.
At IS pg. 15, the component parts of Mitigation Measure AQ-l "shall be implemented" as part of the project's approval
process, yet one of the components renders the entire mitigation measure unenforceable due to its discretionary nature:
"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) ƒğǤ ĬĻ ĻƌźŭźĬƌĻ ĬǤ ƦƩƚǝźƓŭ ğƌƷĻƩƓğƷźǝĻ
ĭƚƒƦƌźğƓĭĻ" (emphasis added).
No information is provided with this option to indicate what "alternative compliance" will provide the quantities of
pollutant reductions necessary to legitimize the IS' claim that the project's construction emission impacts will be reduced to
less than significant levels, nor is there any metric to ensure such.
The California Supreme Court recently held in the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, also known as the
Friant Ranch case, that performance standards are applicable and suitable for mitigation measures as
the people who would be implementing the measures would by nature have an understanding of the
re
mitigation or an abuse of discretion. It is simply a recognition that substitutions of adopted mitigation
the mitigation included in the IS/MND is sufficient under CEQA to provide enforceable mitigation
measures.
As stated in the IS/MND, SLOAPCD does not quantify the potential emission reductions achieved by the
identified mitigation measures. The California Supreme Court held that mitigation measures need not
include precise quantitative performance standards, but they must be at least partially effective, even if
they cannot mitigate significant impacts to a less than significant level. The SLOAPCD has determined
the identified mitigation is effective even if it is not quantified. Additionally, mitigation measure AQ-2 is
quantified and indicated emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level. Thus, quantification
demonstrating that proposed mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level has been
provided. To address the comment on enforceability, the mitigation measures have been modified to
require their implementation.
Finally, no information is found in the IS regarding what agency will enforce AQ mitigation claimed to reduce the project's
significant emissions to less than significant levels. 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 assign responsibility to the
SLOAPCD's enforcement personnel who should be capable of identifying and 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-l 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 mandated
similar measures and required the use of a qualified environmental coordinator to ensure such reductions throughout the
project's construction process, no such requirement is found in the Tank Farm IS.
Page 9
City of San Luis Obispo
Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project
Comment noted. Please see revised language for air quality mitigation measures.
As written, the AQ mitigation measures identified and described in the IS appear to be unenforceable due to discretionary
language use, fail to provide the necessary metrics to measure real emission reductions needed to justify the IS' claim of
less-than-significant emission impacts, and provide no direction on what responsible, qualified party will be used to ensure
their effective implementation.
Comment noted. Please see revised language for air quality mitigation measures.
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.
Comment noted. Based on the above, the IS-MND provides factual evidence supporting the conclusion
Conclusion
The comments from Mr. Wolfe on the air quality analysis incorrectly summarize the IS/MND findings
related to TACs. However, most of the air quality comments are based on AWA comments and are
addressed in the AWA responses. The comments from Mr. Wolfe on the noise analysis reflect that the
noise analysis did not include an evaluation of off-site noise impacts. Based on our review we
recommended the noise analysis be revised to include analyses of construction, on-site noise sources,
off-site traffic noise level increases, as well as potential vibration levels during construction. These
components were included in the IS-MND prepared by the City, including standard construction
mitigation measures N-1 (Sound Wall and or Special Building Considerations South Elevation Assisted
Living Facility), N-2 (Construction Equipment Best Management Practices), and N-3 (Neighboring
Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints) to ensure that construction noise
would result in less than significant impacts at nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Operational noise
impacts were determined to be less than significant without the need for mitigation.
As indicated, the air quality issues raised by Mr. Wolfe are based primarily on AWA comments. However,
AWA comments are premised on a misinterpretation of the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District
(SLOAPCD) air quality thresholds and a typographical error. Specifically, AWA attempts to draw a
cumulative impact conclusion based on 1) a project level threshold for projects involving a high number
of truck trips (e.g. mining or a distribution facility), 2) a misquote of the project related traffic
generation, which was correctly stated in the traffic report, to create the impression the project would
result in a high volume of truck traffic. The commenter then attempts to use the project level threshold
and the overestimated truck traffic to argue the project would result in health impacts to existing
residents in the project area, future resident of the project, and residents that may move into future
development not part of the project. Rincon provided explanations on a point-by-point basis disclosing
incorrect assumptions and misinterpretations of the CEQA process as outlined in the SLOAPCD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook and why the findings of the IS/MND related to air quality are correct, and impacts
associated with TACs would be less than significant at the project level and in a cumulative context.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide responses to public comments on the IS/MND for the project.
If you have any questions about this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me via email
(bmaddux@rinconconsultants.com) or by phone at (760) 918-9444, extension 2038.
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Page 10
City of San Luis Obispo
Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project
William A. Maddux Chris Bersbach, MESM
Senior Environmental Scientist Senior Project Manager
Page 11