Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-2021 cc -Codron City of San Luis Obispo comments - CCLF DEIR Attn: James Campbell, Manager of Programs LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency 600 South Main Street Orange, CA 92863 Dear Mr. Campbell, The City of San Luis Obispo (City) provides this letter as its formal comments on the Draft EIR (DEIR) for the Central Coast Layover Facility (the “Project”). The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR, the invitation to participate in the design charette process, and the opportunity for the public to provide comments at the scoping meeting of March 10, 2021. While the City supports the Project in general, there are a number of troubling environmental issues which the DEIR does not properly evaluate. Ultimately, the City asserts that the DEIR requires improvement and the purpose of these comments is to strengthen the analysis of the environmental impacts and fully disclose those impacts so that environmental impacts can be fully mitigated to the extent reasonably feasible. The City is focused on achieving a comprehensive and complete DEIR that fully meets the requirements of CEQA since as is pointed out throughout the DEIR, the City lacks discretionary authority over the project. The EIR is the only opportunity for the City to ensure on a long term basis that impacts are avoided where possible, and where impacts are unavoidable, are properly mitigated on a long term basis. Many of the issues raised in this letter are related to key issue areas which staff and the Planning Commission identified during the design charette process and the scoping meeting of March 10, 2021 which are summarized below: • Evaluate for consistency with City Plans, guidelines, and ordinances including the Railroad Historic Area Plan, Historic Preservation Ordinance, Circulation element (including the gr ade separated crossing at Round House Avenue and crossing point at Francis), and the Broad Street Corridor Plan • Various comments from Transportation were provided on demonstrating bicycle paths meet City and Caltrans design standards • Design with neighborhood compatibility in mind including issues of primary concern such as potential impacts from light, glare, noise, odors, emissions, and vibration • Buildings and site improvements should be compatible with the surrounding built environment and be consistent with guidance in the Railroad District plan • Provide specific information in project description to to adequately perform the EIR such as hours of operation, building placement and use, and design of buildings • Consider compatibility of fencing • Include details on how engine idling will be managed • Evaluate diesel particulate matter impact to local residents City of San Luis Obispo Comments LOSSAN Central Coast Layover Facility DEIR 2 The City believes the issues identified in this submission can be remedied through additional analysis, inclusion of substantial evidence to support the DEIR’s findings, and revised mitigation measures and will remain ready to aid LOSSAN in accomplishing these revisions. However, t he City requests that written responses to each of the following comments be provided in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.), and section 15088 of the State of California Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) General and Overarching Problems While there are numerous deficiencies in the DEIR as more specifically discussed below, the primary fatal deficiencies are categorized as follows: 1. The DEIR’s impact analyses rely on unfounded assumptions and bare conclusions in violation of CEQA requirements. There are numerous impact areas in which the DEIR concludes there would be a less than significant impact. However, as discussed in greater detail below, the conclusions of less than significant impact for these impact areas are not supported by substantial evidence and analysis sufficient to satisfy CEQA. An EIR that does not explain the basis for its conclusion may be deemed to not comply with CEQA’s requirements. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111 [finding that a “bare conclusion” as opposed to a “statement of reasons” that an effect on the environment is not significant “does not satisfy CEQA requirements”].) “To facilitate CEQA's informational role, the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 404.) As a result of these unsupported conclusions of less than significant impacts, potentially necessary mitigation measures are not identified and thus, the EIR does not serve its purpose as a “document of accountability.” (Id. at 392.) 2. Many of the mitigation measures are largely unenforceable and cannot be relied upon to mitigate impacts to the level of significance concluded in the DEIR. Numerous identified mitigation measures are speculative, unenforceable, and include vague language that undermines the effectiveness and reliability of the measure. CEQA provides that “[m]itigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.” (CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(2).) Critically, the DEIR identifies no mechanism for assuring that many of the mitigation measures will be carried out or enforced. This flaw occurs throughout the document and undermines each and every mitigation measure and self-mitigating project component used to conclude that environmental impacts will be less than significant. Impact Areas Under CEQA, an EIR “should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15151.) Further, an EIR must “contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons for determining the various effects on the environment of a project are not significant and consequently have not been discussed in detail in the environmental impact report.” (CEQA Guidelines §§ 2110(c), 15128.) The DEIR is City of San Luis Obispo Comments LOSSAN Central Coast Layover Facility DEIR 3 deficient and fails to comply with these requirements as well as those stated above in a number of respects as specifically identified below. Chapter 3.2 – Aesthetics The DEIR impermissibly relies on bare conclusions to support its finding that Project impacts to aesthetic resources will be less than significant. Degrade Existing Visual Character - Impact 3.2-3: In concluding that operational impacts related to visual character would be less than significant, the DEIR refers to the Project’s consistency with the Railroad District Plan’s (RDP) Architectural Guidelines and the City’s associated review process, which includes project review by the Architectural Review Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee, and Planning Commission. However, this impact conclusion is impermissibly vague and conclusory because the Project neither requires discretionary review by the City nor is there an expressed commitment in the DEIR for the Project to voluntarily undergo the review process for projects subject to the RDP. Further, this impact discussion provides no details or evidence demonstrating how the Project would comply with the RDP or be consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for New Construction in Historic Districts as no design or conceptual design of buildings are provided in the DEIR. Accordingly, the DEIR must either commit to undergo the review process for projects subject to the RDP or provide alternative factual analysis to support the conclusion that Project impacts related to visual character would be less than significant. Fencing - Aesthetics Impact 3.2-3 & Cultural Resources Impact 3.5-1: Of particular concern to both the Aesthetics and Cultural Resources analysis is the aesthetic compatibility of perimiter fencing and gates, which will extend around nearly all of the site and be the most outwardly visible and noticeable component of the Project to observors. The Aesthetics and Cultural Resources discussion s do not contain sufficient factual analysis of the potential aesthetic impacts and historic compatibility issues of the proposed fencing. The November 2021 Visual Resources Memorandum does not provide any detailed analysis of this component and it does not include accurate depictions of the appearance of the fencing as viewed from the observation points. To sufficiently evaluate potential impacts to aesthetics and cultural resources, proposed fencing details should be provided in the DEIR along with accurate simulations. Consideration should be given to avoid high and overbearing security fencing in favor of a design and materials that are compatible with surroundings and the Historic Railroad District. The design could also use offsets, landscaping, and changes in materials and colors to break up the massing and monotony of fences and gates. Light and Glare - Impact 3.2-4: The analysis of construction-related light and glare impacts relies on the assertion that construction will not occur at nighttime and therefore no potential impacts will occur. This analysis fails to consider the realistic potential that there could be preparation for work in the early morning hours (prior to sunrise) and that completion of construction, including work shutdown and potential security measures to protect equipment and materials, could also occur after sunset and throughout hours of darkness. Any impact analysis that relies on work hours should include clear limitations and hours of operation that can be tracked and verified for consistency with a responsible party outlined in a Mitigation Monitoring and Repor ting Plan City of San Luis Obispo Comments LOSSAN Central Coast Layover Facility DEIR 4 (MMRP). If the potential for any “nighttime” activity or lighting cannot be ruled out, sufficient mitigation must be developed. To ensure operational impacts are less than significant on an ongoing basis, the DEIR and MMRP must identify a responsible party and include procedures on how it will be guaranteed the appropriate light fixtures including cutoffs and motion sensing features will be included in initial construction and maintained for the Project. Chapter 3.3 – Air Quality The DEIR does not adequately evaluate, disclose, or mitigate impacts to air quality from the Project. Sensitive Receptors – Impact 3.3-3: The DEIR’s finding of less than significant impacts to sensitive receptors at risk from Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) relies on the unfounded assumption that trains will only idle 15 minutes at startup and shutdown (30 minutes total per day from each train). While the City understands the Project will include improved facilities to provide ground power, the DEIR does not discuss how the identified idling times will be monitored and verified or identify the responsible party to ensure operations are consistent with these operational assumptions. Additionally, the deficiencies in the Health Risk Analysis noted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), as set forth in its December 20, 2021 DEIR comment letter, must be addressed to ensure complete analysis of the potential impacts from DPM in accordance with CEQA requirements. The EIR should provide evidence how ongoing compliance with any operational assumptions such as engine idle run times will be verified and confirmed during operation of the Project, including identification of responsible parties and verification mechanisms. Mitigation measures should also include a methodology to test and monitor possible impacts to sensitive receptors during various operational phases of the Project and include clear steps to address any potential increase in risk to sensitive receptors beyond what was anticipated in the EIR. Any potential health risks from DPM should be fully analyzed with realistic operational assumptions, monitoring, and periodic air quality testing. Without this information, the DEIR is deficient because the conclusion that impacts would be less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence. Chapter 3.4 – Cultural Resources The DEIR provides insufficient evidence that potential impacts to historical resources have been evaluated, disclosed, and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Historic Resources - Impact 3.5-1: The DEIR acknowledges the project will result in the physical demolition of the Southern Pacific Roundhouse and Rail Yard Site, which is a contributing element of the City of San Luis Obispo Local Railroad Historic District and the San Luis Obispo Southern Pacific Railroad NRHP Historic District. The DEIR analysis concludes that impacts to these districts and the individually significant features of the Southern Pacific Roundhouse and Rail Yard site would be potentially significant but are effectively mitigated to a level of less than significant by the preservation of a portion of the resources in the “Roundhouse Protected Zone” viewable by the public and by requiring archival documentation and educational installations. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires archival documentation and educational installations and is City of San Luis Obispo Comments LOSSAN Central Coast Layover Facility DEIR 5 laudable in its intent to provide the history of the site but it would not reduce impacts resulting from the destruction of actual historic resources, and the districts to which they contribute, to less than significant levels. (Architectural Heritage Association v County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1119.) California courts have held that “[d]ocumentation of the historical features of the building and exhibition of a plaque do not reasonably begin to alleviate the impacts of its destruction. A large historical structure, once demolished, normally cannot be adequately replaced by reports and commemorative markers.” (Id.) Accordingly, impacts to historic resources should be accurately evaluated as Class 1 significant impacts because the Project will result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the identified historic resource (PRC Section 21084.1 Historical Resource; Substantial Adverse Change) and incorporate mitigation appropriate to the level of impacts to historic resources which will result from the project, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects). Most importantly, the DEIR should explore options to reduce and avoid impacts to the degree feasible. In addition to archival documentation and interpretive features, more significant mitigation options commensurate with the significant effects of the Project should be evaluated and considered by LOSSAN, such as alternatives to preserve as much of the historic features and site as possible, and consideration of reconstruction of historic buildings, site features, and layouts, which could be more reflective of the historic use and appearance of the site. The DEIR also does not evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Project’s apparent inconsistency with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program including policies, guidelines, and ordinance provisions which relate to historic preservation which are noted in the Regulatory Framework discussion but are not evaluated. Although the Project is not required to seek City discretionary approvals, analysis of the Project’s consistency or inconsistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Program should be provided along with a discussion of how the final Project design will consider avoiding and minimizing impacts consistent with public disclosure requirements of CEQA. Chapter 3.11 – Land Use and Planning The DEIR does not provide substantial evidence, but rather unsupported conslusions, that Project impacts to land use and planning will be less than significant. Division of an Established Community - Impact 3.11-1: The DEIR discussion does not provide an adequate basis for the conclusion that the project would not preclude implementation of future pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Please see comments below from the City’s Public Works Transportation Division which raise concerns the project may preclude or make infeasible planned bicycle and pedestrian circulation infrastructure (also see Planning Commission comments regarding potential infeasibility of crossings at Roundhouse and Francis Streets). Conflict with Land Use Plan, Policies, or Regulations – Impact 3.11-2: The DEIR states the proposed buildings and site improvements will be designed to be compatible with the surrounding environment and will be consistent with the City’s Railroad District Plan (RDP). As discussed in comments above in the Aesthetics and Cultural Resources section, no information is City of San Luis Obispo Comments LOSSAN Central Coast Layover Facility DEIR 6 provided to justify this conclusion (also see Planning Commissioner comments to this issue below). Chapter 3.12 – Noise The DEIR does not provide substantial evidence to support its analysis, mitigations, or conclusions regarding potential noise impacts. Generation of Ambient Noise Levels in Excess of Established Standards – Impact 3.12-1: Similar to the DEIR’s analysis of Air Quality impacts, the Noise impact analysis relies on numerous unfounded assumptions including: train configuration (number of locomotives and cars per train), maximum speeds, no use of horns, idle time limited to 15 minutes at startup and shutdown, access and storage of trains with the intended effect that they act as sound barriers, wash facility hours of use assumptions, and assumed infrequent use of the wheel truing equipment. It is unclear how these assumptions were reached nor does the DEIR guarantee these assumptions can be relied upon for the life of the Project. Fundamentally, the Noise analysis should be updated to include more detail and accountability mechanisms to ensure these assumptions can be monitored and enforced and include a regime for ongoing testing during the construction and operational phases of the Project to verify if mitigation measures for sound level reduction have been effective. Finally, the mitigation measures and MMRP should include steps to address impacts if sound levels are measured that exceed the anticipated noise levels that LOSSAN concluded to be less than significant in the DEIR. Additionally, the Noise analysis is inadequate because City of San Luis Obispo noise requirements are not evaluated. As noted in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report of the DEIR, CEQA Thresholds of Significance state that the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies should be used as a basis to evaluate whether impacts are significant. Simply because LOSSAN is not subject to City discretionary review and compliance with local regulations does not mean this information shouldn’t be evaluated and resulting impacts disclosed in the DEIR, particularly when CEQA Thresholds of Significance expressly requires such analysis. As a result, the DEIR underestimates noise impacts resulting from the Project; the DEIR evaluates noise impacts under the criteria established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), but those criteria include higher noise thresholds than the City’s noise ordinance. Additionally, the DEIR fails to evaluate noise impacts under City’s multiple General Plan policies that specifically address noise mitigation in contravention of CEQA requirements (See e.g., [Land Use Element Policy 1.4 New Transportation Noise Sources, Noise Element Policy 1.1 Minimizing Noise]. Finally, the DEIR fails to analyze the Project in light of the City’s construction noise limits. Mitigation measures NV-2 and NV-3 purport to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. However, discussion in the impact analysis and conclusions of the Noise and Vibration Technical report note compliance monitoring, but there is no mention of such monitoring in any mitigation measures rendering the noted compliance monitoring completely uneforceable. Additionally, it is unclear how it is feasible to mitigate noise impacts to less than significant levels by locating construction equipment away from sensitive receptors because the Project construction has to occur in fixed locations on the site. As discussed above, the assertion that there will be no nighttime construction is vague because no definitive hours or days of operation are provided. The construction phase mitigation measure NV-1 also vaguely describes what City of San Luis Obispo Comments LOSSAN Central Coast Layover Facility DEIR 7 could be effective for construction phase impact mitigation with statements about selecting quieter demolition methods where feasible, combining noisy operations at the same time, siting equipment as far away as possible from sensitive sites, and using specially quieted equipment. A Community Notification Plan is a prudent approach, but is not clear how this measure would actually reduce impacts to less than significant levels. There is also no commitment in mitigation measures to ongoing compliance monitoring and steps to be taken if sound level reduction measures have not been effective. Finally, no modeling or substantial evidence is provided to demonstrate the identified mitigation measures would be effective at reducing impacts to less than significant levels. Chapter 3.13– Transportation Conflict with a Program, Plan, or Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Circulation System – Impact 3.13-1: As discussed above in comments on the Land Use and Planning analysis, the DEIR does not provide a basis for the conclusion that the Project would not preclude or make infeasible the City’s implementation of important circulation components of the City’s Active Transportation Plan. Please see comments below from The City’s Public Works Transportation Division: 1. Proposed Project 2.3.7.2 (page 2-14) and repeated in Proposed Impacts 3.11-1 (page 3.11-13), Table 3.11-1 (page 3.11-18), and elsewhere. The EIR acknowledges a segment of the Railroad Safety Trail Class I bike path is identified as a proposed project in the City’s Active Transportation Plan and states that “should project conditions, land use, and ROW alignments allow, the proposed project would construct a portion of the new segment of class I bike trail, from approximately High Street to Francis Street.” Furthermore, it states in Impact 3.11-1 (page 3.11-13) that “the proposed project would not preclude implementation of future pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would provide connections to land uses on the west side and east side of the project site.” The City requests that the alignment of this shared use path be determined as part of the proposed layover facility design footprint in order to ensure that construction and operation of the pathway is not precluded. Given the complexity of both the layover facility and the shared use path within the area footprint if this segment of path is not constructed as part of the Layover facility it is likely infeasible to construct it in the future as a City -led project. Therefore, the Layover facility would be conflicting with an adopted local plan. 2. Figure 2-10. Cross Section E (page 2-25) and elsewhere. The figure shows a typical cross section of the Railroad Safety Trail with a width of only 5 feet. However, the trail width is not consistent with the design standards of the City, Caltrans, or AASHTO which require a minimum width of 10 feet (City standard is 12 feet preferred). Constructing the trail with a 5-foot width would be a substandard bicycle and pedestrian facility and would need to be disclosed as a safety impact per CEQA. 3. Bishop Street Extension. As currently presented in the EIR, it is unclear if the proposed Project would impede the City’s planned Capital Improvement Project to extend Bishop Street west across the UPRR to connect with Roundhouse, which is identified in the General Plan Circulation Element (Project #5 in Table 5). This could create a potential City of San Luis Obispo Comments LOSSAN Central Coast Layover Facility DEIR 8 impact by conflicting with an adopted local plan or policy addressing the circulation system. More analysis needs to be shown to indicate that construction of a Layover facility would not preclude the roadway extension. 4. Francis Street Extension to Sinsheimer Park. The City’s Active Transportation Plan and South Broad Street Area Plan identify a bicycle and pedestrian crossing of UPRR from Francis Street to the Sinsheimer Park. The City requests that the EIR acknowledge this proposed Project identified in local plans and show how the Layover facility will not preclude this bicycle and pedestrian facility. Planning Commission Comments (December 8, 2021) While the City expects that LOSSAN took diligent notes of the comments made by the public and the City’s Planning Commission on the DEIR at the December 8, 2021 public meeting, the City nonetheless submits the Commission’s comments as they appear in the meeting minutes: 1. Hazardous Materials Impact discussion HAZ - 1: Clarify if mitigation applies to daily operation or just construction. 2. Noise Impact discussion NV-3: Parking of trains to block and mitigate noise impacts from trains being worked on only applies to later phases of the project. What about the initial Phase when additional trains in later phases won’t be there to block the noise? 3. How will noise from the wash track to the west be mitigated for the residential units to the west. There are several multi-family buildings and two were pointed out in the EIR subject to noise impacts, one is an eight unit building and one is a 20-unit building. How will the noise be mitigated to those buildings since the wash track will only partially be blocked by the buildings in the project? This was not explained in the EIR and should be. 4. Transportation – Two concerns about conclusions in the EIR. What is the basis for the conclusion the planned grade separated crossing at Roundhouse planned to connect to Bishop St. would not be precluded by the proposed project? There was no basis or discussion on the feasibility of completing the crossing. It does not appear possible to get a road, bike path, or pedestrian path in from Roundhouse over such a short distance. The same goes with the crossing at Francis Ave. Can that be accomplished with the security fencing. How does the project not preclude that future crossing at Francis? 5. Consistency with plans – Commission indicated desire to see more on building designs in previous review. No design or conceptual design of buildings provided in the DEIR. How will the project be consistent with the Railroad District Plan as no building design is included? 6. LOSSAN should invest resources on a strategy for the interpretive elements about the historic roundhouse feature. A significant amount of information is available. The Roundhouse is a focal point to understand what went on at this place. Hopes there is significant follow up in what actually gets built and that money is put into the interpretive side of things. City of San Luis Obispo Comments LOSSAN Central Coast Layover Facility DEIR 9 Conclusion CEQA requires that an EIR be recirculated when “significant new information is added to the EIR” prior to certification of the document. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.) Recirculation is also required under any of the following circumstances: 1) “A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. 2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. 4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” (CEQA Guidelines §15088(a).) Here, given the significant impacts not identified in the DEIR and the substantial new information that must be included in the DEIR to comply with CEQA, the EIR must be revised and recirculated for public review and comment. Recirculation is also advised to ensure that LOSSAN complies with its mandate under CEQA that an “EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (CEQA Guidelines §15003(d).) Based on the numerous comments set forth above, the City requests that LOSSAN suspend any further consideration of approving the Project and prepare and recirculate for public comment a revised Draft EIR that fully discloses, analyzes, and attempts to mitigate the impacts of the Project. The City remains open and available to assist LOSSAN in accomplishing these tasks. Thank you for providing the City the opportunity to provide these comments on this important Project. Sincerely, Michael Codron Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo Cc: City Council Planning Commission City Leadership Team