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