Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA 2018-49 - Exhibit J Comment LettersPage of 1 8 January 17, 2020 VIA EMAIL Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 dabraham@lake-elsinore.org SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON PENNINGTON INDUSTRIAL PROJECT MND (SCH NO. 2019129075) To whom it may concern: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Pennington Industrial Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877. I. SUMMARY As we understand it, the project proposes the development of three industrial buildings that are 91,140 square foot (SF) in total with 167 parking spaces on an approximately 5.01 acre vacant site. Building 1 will have 32,940 SF gross floor area and three truck loading dock doors, Building 2 will have 39,000 SF gross floor area and three truck loading dock doors, and Building Page of 2 8 3 will have 19,200 SF gloss floor area and two truck loading dock doors. Each building will consist of a planned open warehouse with truck access doors and a planned office area with mezzanine level. The Proposed Project would have a 0.44 floor area ratio (FAR) and 41 percent lot coverage. The maximum height of the buildings would be 30 feet. Discretionary actions required to implement the proposed project include: 1.Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 37710) to subdivide the 5.01 gross acre site into three parcels that are 1.06 acres, 1.72 acres, and 2.01 acres. 2.Industrial Design Review (IDR No. 2019-01) to construct three industrial buildings that are 91,140 sf total. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Description describes the proposed use as “planned open warehouse.” Throughout the MND, it is unclear if the proposed use is manufacturing or warehousing. For example, the Air Quality Analysis (AQA) and Transportation Analysis model all three buildings as manufacturing use only. The Land Use and Planning Analysis describes the use as both warehouse and manufacturing. The Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHG) describes it as “a warehouse use that will serve mid-stream functions in the goods movement chain between manufacturers and consumers,” and analyzes the project accordingly. The MND is internally inconsistent because it analyzes different types of proposed uses for various environmental impacts. A project EIR must be prepared which provides a consistent environmental analysis of that accurately represents the proposed project. III. AIR QUALITY The MND describes the proposed project for analysis as a as manufacturing use only. This differs from the Project Description which describes the use as an open warehouse, the Land Use and Planning Analysis which describes the use as both warehouse and manufacturing, and the Greenhouse Gas Analysis which models all three buildings as a warehousing use only. A project EIR must be prepared which consistently models the proposed project as the same type of use in order to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts. Section 17.176.080 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code permits construction activity between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. The MND does not provide a “worst-case scenario” analysis of construction equipment emitting pollutants for the legal 12 hours per day, 6 days per week. It is legal for construction to occur for much longer hours (12 Page of 3 8 hours per day permitted while 8 hours per day analyzed) and an additional day (6 days per week permitted while 5 days per week analyzed) than modeled in the Air Quality Analysis. An EIR must be prepared with revised Air Quality modeling to account for these legally possible longer construction days and increased number of construction days. If shorter hours of construction are proposed, this must be included as an enforceable mitigation measure with field verification by an enforcement entity of the lead agency (CEQA § 21081.6 (b)). The CalEEMod output sheets indicate that the vendor trip length is 6.90 miles for all phases of construction. The MND does not provide information regarding where the construction materials are coming from or if they are all coming from the same location during all phases. The CalEEMod output sheets also rely on trip generation from the Focused Traffic Evaluation, which presents trip generation in passenger car equivalents (PCE). The AQA must be revised to utilize the actual quantity of truck trips and model them as truck trips instead of PCE to accurately account for the potentially significant environmental impacts of individual truck trips. There is also no indication that offsite improvements (streets, streetlights, striping, and connection to sewer, water, and utilities) are included for analysis. Additionally, at least 50% of any proposed warehouse space must be modeled as refrigerated/cold storage. This is especially necessary because the M-1 Limited Manufacturing Zone permits cold storage by right. An EIR must be prepared for the project which includes a revised Air Quality Analysis (AQA) to present an accurate analysis of the potentially significant impacts. Further, project grading is expected to balance onsite with no required import or export of soils. However, the MND states “there is an on-site man-made detention basin on the northeast corner of the site which will be removed during construction and replaced with on-site catch basins,” resulting in paving over the existing detention basin to create a portion of the parking lot. Figure 5 – Conceptual Grading Plan provided in the MND does not include any meaningful information regarding the existing detention basin and the amount of fill required to accommodate the proposed parking stalls. A project EIR must be prepared which includes this information and models the required number of hauling trips during grading to accommodate the necessary soil import/export. The LST analysis arbitrarily utilizes a 279 meter receptor distance for PM10 and PM2.5 impacts because this is the distance of the nearest residential receptor. The nearest non-residential receptor is an industrial building 18 meters north of the project site, and a 25 meter receptor distance was utilize for NO2 and CO analysis consistent with SCAQMD methodology. A project EIR must be prepared which also utilizes a 25 meter receptor distance for PM10 and PM2.5 Page of 4 8 analysis. This is vital because although McCarthy Academy/Ortega High School are sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site. In order to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts, a 25 meter receptor distance must be utilized for all LST modeling as the project site is immediately adjacent to sensitive receptors. A project EIR must also be prepared to include a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to analyze construction related and operational stationary and mobile sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5). At minimum, the HRA must analyze the following potentially significant health impacts: cancer, non-cancer (such as respiratory impairment), acute/short-term and chronic/long-term impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors at McCarthy Academy/Ortega High School and offices to the east and west. Further, the MND does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 3.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed project’s census tract (6065043006) ranks worse than 85% of the rest of the state overall. The surrounding community, including sensitive receptors such as Ortega High School adjacent to the west, bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than average on every pollution indicator measured by CalEnviroScreen. For example, the project census tract has a higher burden of ozone than 82% of the state and more PM 2.5 than 54% of the state. Further, the project’s census tract is a diverse community including 63% Hispanic residents, which are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of linguistic isolation, meaning 72% of households speak little to no English. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 88% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Additionally, the surrounding community has a higher proportion of babies born with low birth weights than 84%of the state, which makes those children more vulnerable to asthma and other health issues. This is demonstrated by the census tract ranking in the 49th percentile for asthma and containing 18% children under the age of 10 compared to 13% average children under the age of 10 in California. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page of 5 8 The project site is located within an MSHCP survey area for burrowing owl. The MND implements Mitigation Measure (MM) Bio 1 to conduct preconstruction focused species surveys for burrowing owl within 30-days prior to any ground-disturbing activities at the project site where suitable habitat is present. The MDN concludes that implementation of MM Bio 1 will result in less than significant impacts. However, since the project site is identified as a MSHCP survey area for burrowing owl, a biological survey must be completed in a project EIR. The burrowing owl survey will not be made available for public review through MM Bio 1, which is implementation of the project without CEQA review. An EIR must be prepared for the project which includes a burrowing owl survey. VI. ENERGY The MND concludes that implementation of Project Design Features 1 through 6 will ensure consistency with the applicable measures in the Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan, resulting in less than significant impacts to renewable energy or energy efficiency. However, the MND does not include a list of Project Design Features for reference or consistency analysis. The MND is inadequate as an informational document and a project EIR must be prepared. VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The MND describes the proposed project for analysis as a “warehouse use that will serve mid- stream functions in the goods movement chain between manufacturers and consumers.” This differs from the Project Description which describes the use as an open warehouse, the Air Quality Analysis and Transportation Analysis which model all three buildings as manufacturing use only, and the Land Use and Planning Analysis which describes the use as both warehouse and manufacturing. A project EIR must be prepared which consistently models the proposed project as the same type of use in order to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts. The MND states here that the project’s traffic generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual for warehouse and industrial land use categories. This statement is erroneous as the Focused Traffic Evaluation utilized ITE Code 140 – Manufacturing for analysis. The MND concludes that implementation of Project Design Features 1 through 8 will ensure consistency with the applicable measures in the Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan, resulting in less than significant impacts to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. However, the MND does not Page of 6 8 include a list of Project Design Features for reference or consistency analysis. The MND is inadequate as an informational document and a project EIR must be prepared. XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING The MND describes the proposed project for analysis as both warehouse and manufacturing. This differs from the Project Description which describes the use as an open warehouse, the Air Quality Analysis and Transportation Analysis which model all three buildings as manufacturing use only, and the Greenhouse Gas Analysis which models all three buildings as a warehousing use only. A project EIR must be prepared which consistently models the proposed project as the same type of use in order to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts. XIII. NOISE Exhibit 7-A: Operational Noise Source and Receiver Locations analyzes the impacts of the distribution/warehouse activity (truck loading dock doors) to a sensitive receiver modeled at a distance from 169 feet from the activity, which is much further than the closest point of the Ortega High School property line. The Noise Analysis must be revised as part of a project EIR to analyze the impacts associated with the distribution/warehouse activity to the closest point of the Ortega High School property line in order to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant noise impacts. The MND attempts to mitigate construction noise impacts by implementing Mitigation Measure NOI 1: MM NOI 1: Construction Buffer. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/ Developer shall include a note on the grading and building plans that no large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds), loaded trucks, and jackhammers shall be operated within 90 feet of the southwest property line. This mitigation measure is unenforceable as there is no enforcement entity, field verification, or lead agency oversight component to follow up on the note written on the project plans. This must be revised as part of a project EIR to include consistent and timely verification of compliance by the Lead Agency throughout the duration of project construction, including at minimum sending notification to property owners/occupants at the adjacent properties of the 90 foot buffer requirement and a Lead Agency contact phone number to report violations, and Page of 7 8 posting signs at the project site with a Lead Agency contact phone number to report violations in order to comply with CEQA § 15126.4 (a)(2). XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING The MND does not provide any meaningful analysis or supporting evidence to conclude that the project will have no significant impacts to population and housing. The MND simply states the project “would provide employment opportunities for City residents” without citing the City’s unemployment rate/available workforce, number of residents with the appropriate skillset, or the number of jobs created by the project. The Lake Elsinore General Plan provides employment generation calculations for all types of uses. Limited industrial uses are expected to generate one employee for every 600 square feet of building area. The proposed 91,140 square foot project will generate 152 employees based on the LE General Plan employment generation. A project EIR must be prepared which includes supporting evidence to substantiate the claim that there will be no significant environmental impacts. XVII. TRANSPORTATION The MND describes the proposed project for analysis as a manufacturing use. This differs from the Project Description which describes the use as an open warehouse, the Greenhouse Gas Analysis which models all three buildings as a warehousing use only, and the Land Use and Planning Analysis which describes the use as both warehouse and manufacturing. A project EIR must be prepared which consistently models the proposed project as the same type of use in order to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts. The Focused Traffic Evaluation did not include any freeway analysis. A project EIR must be revised to include at minimum analysis of the following facilities providing direct access to the project site: Freeway Ramp I-15 at Main Street I-15 at Central Avenue Freeway Merge/Diverge I-15 at SR-74 I-15 at SR-91 SR-74 at I-215 Page of 8 8 This is especially vital for analysis since the I-215 and I-15 provide direct access to the project site from the Southern California Logistics Airport and SR-91 provides direct access to the site from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the MND is flawed and an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877. Sincerely, Board of Directors Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance