https://www.sacrt.com/wp-content/uploads/home-image-greenline.jpg Environmental Noise Assessment
American River One
Sacramento, California
BAC Job # 2022-138
Prepared For:
I.M. Investment, LLC
Mr. Steve Ayers
P.O. Box 3011
Sacramento, CA 95812
Prepared By:
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.
Paul Bollard, President
November 17, 2022
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) P.O. Box 7968 Auburn, CA 95604 (530) 537-2328 BACNOISE.COM Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
American River One – Sacramento, California
Introduction
The American River One project (project) is a mixed use development proposed on two parcels located at 450 and 500 Bercut Drive in Sacramento, California. The project site is positioned in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 5 and the American River Parkway. The project proposes two 18-story, one 10-story, and one 14-story buildings on top of a podium parking garage. The total number of apartments proposed within this development is approximately 825 and 4000 square feet of commercial space. The project location and site plan are shown on Figures 1 and 2, respectively.
Due to the proximity of the proposed development to Interstate 5, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) was retained by the project applicant to prepare this noise assessment. The specific purposes of this assessment are to quantify future I-5 traffic noise exposure at the noise-sensitive areas of the project, to compare those levels against the applicable City of Sacramento standards for acceptable noise exposure at new residential developments, and to recommend appropriate noise mitigation measures if exceedance of the City’s noise standards is predicted to occur. This report contains the results of BAC’s study.
Noise Fundamentals and Terminology
Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard, and thus are called sound. Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB. Another useful aspect of the decibel scale is that changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. Appendix A contains definitions of Acoustical Terminology. Figure 3 shows common noise levels associated with various sources.
The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by weighing the frequency response of a sound level meter by means of the standardized A-weighing network.
There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and community response to noise. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighted levels in decibels.
Community noise is commonly described in terms of the “ambient” noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq) over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the Day-Night Average Level noise descriptor, DNL, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise generated by transportation noise sources.
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
American River One – Sacramento, California
The Day-Night Average Level (DNL) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hours.
The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because DNL represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. DNL-based noise standards are commonly used to assess noise impacts associated with traffic, railroad and aircraft noise sources.
Figure 3
Noise Levels Associated with Common Noise Sources
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
American River One – Sacramento, California
Criteria for Acceptable Noise Exposure
City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan
The City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan, Environmental Constraints Chapter (EC-3) establishes exterior and interior noise standards for noise-sensitive uses. The policies applicable to the project are included below.
EC 3.1.1 Exterior Noise Standards. The City shall require noise mitigation for all development where the projected exterior noise levels exceed those shown in Table 1 (Table EC 1 of the General Plan), to the extent feasible.
EC 3.1.3 Interior Noise Standards. The City shall require new development to include noise mitigation to assure acceptable interior noise levels appropriate to the land use type: 45 dBA DNL for residential, transient lodgings, hospitals, nursing homes and other uses where people normally sleep; and 45 dBA Leq (peak hour) for office buildings and similar uses.
EC 3.1.11 Alternatives to Sound Walls. The City shall encourage the use of design strategies and other noise reduction methods along transportation corridors in lieu of sound walls to mitigate noise impacts and enhance aesthetics.
According to Table 1, the exterior noise level standard for primary outdoor use areas of mixeduse developments is 70 dB DNL. Footnote “g” of Table 1 indicates that for multi-family apartments, the exterior noise level standard is applied at the primary open space areas of the project, which would be the pool area for this project. The City’s 45 dB DNL General Plan interior noise level standard was applied to all habitable interior spaces of this development.
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
American River One – Sacramento, California
Table 1
Exterior Noise Compatibility Standards for Various Land Uses Land Use Type
Highest Level of Noise Exposure that is
Regarded as “Normally Acceptable”a
(DNLb or CNELc)
Residential–Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 60 dBAd,e Residential–Multi-familyg65 dBA
Urban Residential Infillhand Mixed-Use Projectsi,j 70 dBA Transient Lodging–Motels, Hotels 65 dBA
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 70 dBA Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Mitigation based on site–specific study Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Mitigation based on site–specific study Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 dBA
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 75 dBA Office Buildings–Business, Commercial, and Professional 70 dBA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 75 dBA SOURCE: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines 2003, October 2003 a. As defined in the Guidelines, “Normally Acceptable” means that the “specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any building involved is of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.” b. DNL or Day Night Average Level is an average 24-hour noise measurement that factors in day and night noise levels. c. CNEL or Community Noise Equivalent Level measurements are a weighted average of sound levels gathered throughout a 24- hour period.
d. Applies to the primary open space area of a detached single-family home, duplex, or mobile home, which is typically the backyard or fenced side yard, as measured from the center of the primary open space area (not the property line). This standard does not apply to secondary open space areas, such as front yards, balconies, stoops, and porches. e. dBA or A-weighted decibel scale is a measurement of noise levels. f. The exterior noise standard for the residential area west of McClellan Airport known as McClellan Heights/Parker Homes is 65 dBA.
g. Applies to the primary open space areas of townhomes and multi-family apartments or condominiums (private rear yards for townhomes; common courtyards, roof gardens, or gathering spaces for multi-family developments). These standards shall not apply to balconies or small attached patios in multistoried multi-family structures. h. With land use designations of Central Business District, Urban Neighborhood (Low, Medium, or High) Urban Center (Low or High), Urban Corridor (Low or High).
i. All mixed-use projects located anywhere in the City of Sacramento j. See notes d and g above for definition of primary open space areas for single-family and multi-family developments.
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
American River One – Sacramento, California
Existing Ambient Noise Environment at the Project Site
The existing ambient noise level environment at the project site is dominated by traffic on Interstate 5. To quantify the existing ambient noise environment, long-term (24-hour) noise level measurements were conducted at the project site on September 27-28, 2022 at the location shown on Figure 1. Those measurements were conducted with the microphone located on a hydraulic lift positioned 50 feet above ground in order to obtain an unobstructed view of I-5, similar to the exposure of the upper floors of the apartment building proposed nearest to I-5. Appendix B shows photographs of the elevated noise measurement location.
Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meters were used for the noise level survey. The meters were calibrated before and after use with an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).
The results of the long-term measurements, which are shown numerically and graphically in Appendices C and D, respectively, indicate that the existing DNL value at the elevated noise measurement location was 81 dBA.
The long-term noise measurements were supplemented with short-term (1-hour) noise level measurement on the morning of September 28th, 2022. The short-term noise meter microphone was positioned at height of 5 feet above ground at the same location as the elevated long-term meter shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the short-term noise level measurements was to establish the difference in traffic noise levels between first-floor areas of the project site which are shielded from view of I-5 and elevated, unshielded areas of the project site. That comparison yielded a 15 dBA difference between shielded ground-level locations and unshielded upper floor locations.
Evaluation of Future Traffic Noise Exposure at the Project Site The SoundPlan noise prediction model (Version 8.2) was used to predict future traffic noise exposure at the outdoor activity areas and building facades of the apartment buildings proposed within this development. The noise survey results described in the previous section were used to calibrate the model for accuracy and future traffic noise levels were assumed to be higher than existing levels due to growth in the region which is anticipated to occur over time. The predicted future traffic noise levels at the nearest building facades to Interstate 5 and at the common outdoor activity areas are summarized in Table 2.
Future I-5 traffic noise contours for first-floor receivers and upper floor receivers are provided in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
American River One – Sacramento, California
Table 2
Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels and Required Window STC Ratings American River One – Sacramento, California
Receiver1 Building2 Floor
Exterior DNL,
dBA
Façade NLR Req’d to
Achieve 45
DNL Interior, dBA
Required
Window STC
Rating
1 1 3 - 4 < 68 < 23 27
1 1 5 - 8, 12, 17-18 71 - 74 26 - 29 32
1 1 9-11, 13-16 75 30 34
2 1 3 - 4 < 54 < 9 27
2 1 5-10, 12, 16 72 - 74 27 -19 32
2 1 11, 13-15, 18 75 - 76 30 34
3 1 17 66 21 27
3 1 18 76 31 34
3 1 3 77 32 36
3 1 4 - 5 79 - 80 34 - 35 38
3 1 6 - 16 81 - 82 36 - 37 40
4 1 17 69 24 27
4 1 3 80 35 38
4 1 4-6, 13 -18 81 - 82 36 - 37 40
4 1 7 - 12 83 38 41
5 1 3 - 4 79 - 80 34 - 35 38
5 1 5 - 18 81 - 82 36 - 37 40
6 1 3 74 29 32
6 1 4 - 18 75 30 34
7 1 3 74 29 32
7 1 4 - 10 75 - 76 30 - 31 34
8 2 3 - 18 72 - 74 27 - 29 32
9 2 3 - 13 60 - 68 15 - 23 27
9 2 18 63 18 27
9 2 14 - 17 70 25 32
10 2 3-5, 12-14 67 - 69 21 - 24 27
10 2 6 - 11 70 - 72 25 - 27 32
11 2 3 - 4 44 0 27
11 2 15 65 20 27
11 2 16 75 30 34
11 2 5-7, 17-18 77 - 78 32 - 33 36
11 2 8 - 14 79 - 80 34 -35 38
12 2 3 - 4 44 0 27
12 2 5 - 6 78 33 36
12 2 7 - 14 79 - 80 34 -35 38
13 2 3 67 22 27
13 2 4 - 6 70 - 74 25 - 29 32
13 2 7 - 18 75 - 76 30 - 31 34
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
American River One – Sacramento, California
Table 2
Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels and Required Window STC Ratings American River One – Sacramento, California
Receiver1 Building2 Floor
Exterior DNL,
dBA
Façade NLR Req’d to
Achieve 45
DNL Interior, dBA
Required
Window STC
Rating
14 1 3 - 4 < 68 < 23 27
14 1 5 - 10 71 - 74 26 - 29 32
15 3 3 - 6 70 - 74 25 - 29 32
15 3 7 - 10 75 - 76 30 - 31 34
16 3 3 - 10 64 - 68 19 - 23 27
17 3 3 - 10 33 - 53 < 9 27
18 4 3 - 14 64 - 66 19 - 21 27
19 4 3 - 14 27 - 42 < 4 27
20 4 3 - 10 34 - 47 < 3 27
21 4 11 68 23 27
21 4 3 - 6 72 - 74 27 - 29 32
21 4 7-10, 12-14 75 - 76 30 - 31 34
22 4 3 - 4 73 - 74 28 - 29 32
22 4 5 - 8 75 - 76 30 - 31 34
22 4 9 - 10 77 32 36
23 4 3 - 5 71 - 74 26 - 29 32
23 4 6 - 14 75 - 76 30 - 31 34
24 3 3 69 24 27
24 3 4 - 10 71 - 74 26 - 29 32
25 3 3 68 23 27
25 3 4 - 10 70 - 73 25 - 28 32
Notes: 1 Receiver locations are identified on Figure 2 2 Building locations are identified on Figure 2 Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2022)
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
American River One – Sacramento, California
Traffic Noise Compliance Evaluation for Primary Outdoor Activity Areas The location of the proposed common outdoor activity area of the development is shown on Figure 2 as Receiver A. The Predicted noise level at the proposed common outdoor activity area is approximately 74 dB DNL, which exceeds the City’s 70 dB DNL exterior noise standard by 4 dB.
As a result, consideration of noise mitigation for the proposed primary outdoor activity area would be required. Specifically, construction of a 6-foot tall noise barrier along the northern boundary of the project site is predicted to reduce future I-5 traffic noise exposure at that location to approximately 69 dB DNL or less. If desired, such a barrier could be constructed of glass to preserve views from the pool area to the north.
Predicted Future Interior Traffic Noise Levels within Proposed Apartments Table 2 shows the predicted building façade noise exposure for each floor and each façade of the three apartment buildings proposed within this development. As noted in Table 2, exterior building façade noise exposure is predicted to vary considerably at the project site, with several facades being exposed to future traffic noise levels in excess of 70 dB DNL.
Standard residential construction (stucco siding, STC 27 windows, door weather-stripping, exterior wall insulation, composition plywood roof), results in an exterior to interior noise reduction of at least 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open. Therefore, where future traffic noise levels do not exceed 70 dB DNL at exterior building façades, standard construction would be adequate to ensure compliance with the City of Sacramento General Plan 45 dB DNL interior noise level standard provided mechanical ventilation (air conditioning) is provided to allow occupants to close windows as desired for acoustical isolation. However, where future traffic noise levels are predicted to exceed 70 dB DNL, window upgrades are required to provide the additional degree of traffic noise attenuation required to achieve satisfaction with the City’s 45 dB DNL interior noise level standard.
As indicated in Table 2, future exterior noise exposure is predicted to exceed 70 dB DNL at several of the residential building facades of this development. Because the lower levels of the building would be shielded from view of I-5 by the elevated nature of the roadway relative to the project site, traffic noise exposure is predicted to be lower at those lower building facades. At higher elevations with a direct view of I-5, future exterior traffic noise levels are predicted to be considerably higher and window upgrades would be required. Table 2 shows the required Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for windows installed within the various facades and floors of each building. Provided the recommended STC ratings shown in Table 2 are incorporated into the building design and construction, satisfaction with the City’s 45 dB DNL interior noise level standard is predicted to result.
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise Assessment
American River One – Sacramento, California
Conclusions and Recommendations
Future Interstate 5 traffic noise levels are expected to exceed the City of Sacramento exterior and interior noise level standards at various locations within this development. In order to satisfy the City of Sacramento 45 dB DNL interior noise level criteria and 70 dB DNL exterior noise criteria, the following noise mitigation are recommended for the project:
1) A noise barrier measuring 6-feet in height relative to the elevation of outdoor pool area (see Figure 2) should be constructed along the northern boundary of that outdoor area. If desired, such a barrier could be constructed of glass to preserve views from the pool area to the north. Such a barrier would reduce future I-5 traffic noise exposure to 70 dB DNL within that courtyard area.
2) In order to achieve compliance with the City’s 45 dB DNL interior noise standard, upgraded windows with STC ratings exceeding standard assemblies would be required as indicated in Table 2 of this report. In the event that patios and balconies are proposed for this development, doors leading from the interior of the apartments to those patios and balconies would require similar upgrades.
3) A suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation or air-conditioning shall be provided so that windows can be kept closed as desired for additional acoustical isolation.
These conclusions are based on the measured traffic noise levels and on noise reduction data for standard residential dwellings. Deviations from the project site plan shown in Figure 2 could cause future traffic noise levels to differ from those predicted in this analysis. In addition, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. is not responsible for degradation in acoustic performance of the residential construction due to poor construction practices, failure to comply with applicable building code requirements, or for failure to adhere to the minimum building practices cited in this report.
This concludes our environmental noise assessment for the proposed American River One project in Sacramento, California. Please contact BAC at (530) 537-2328 or [email protected] with comments or questions regarding this evaluation.
CA Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21155.4
21155.4.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a residential, employment center, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21099, or mixed-use development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning, change that meets all of the following criteria is exempt from the requirements of this division:
(1) The project is proposed within a transit priority area, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 21099.
(2) The project is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified. (3) The project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. (b) Further environmental review shall be conducted only if any of the events specified in Section 21166 have occurred.
CA Public Resources Code § 21099
(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms mean the following:
(7) “Transit Priority Area” means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program or applicable regional transportation plan.
CA Public Resources Code § 21166
21166. SUBSEQUENT OR SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; CONDITIONS When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report.
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report.
(c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.
Sabrina V. Teller
[email protected]
‒
Sabrina V. Teller
[email protected]
June 7, 2024
Via Email
City of Sacramento
Planning and Design Commissioners
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Email: [email protected]
Re: Applicant’s Response to Save the American River Association’s Appeal of City Design Director’s decision for Project No. DR22-238 Dear Chair Wallace and Commissioners:
On behalf of I.M. Investment, LLC, the applicant for the American River One project proposed at 450‒500 Bercut Drive in the River District Specific Plan area, we respond to certain points raised in the appeal and correspondence submitted by Save the American River Association (SARA) and its representatives, challenging the City Design Director’s approval of a Site Plan/Design Review and Tree Permit for the proposed project. SARA’s claims regarding the City’s alleged failures to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and relevant plans are baseless, for the reasons further discussed herein. The applicant respectfully requests that the Commissioners deny the appeal and uphold the Design Director’s determinations.
The Project Is Consistent with All Applicable Plans
SARA’s primary contention is that the project conflicts with the American River Parkway Plan. Planning Staff’s report for the Commission thoroughly refutes this claim, and the City is entitled to substantial deference to its expert interpretation of its own plans. (Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 155 (Orange Citizens), quoting San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 678 (San Franciscans) [A city’s determination that a land use approval is consistent with its own general or specific plan “is entitled to deference as an extension of [its] ‘unique’ competence to interpret [its] policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.”].) The River District Specific Plan (RDSP) provides the most directly relevant set of policies governing the project parcels. The City’s analysis exhaustively documents the project’s consistency with the RDSP, as well as relevant policies of the General Plan, and SARA makes no compelling argument for finding it inconsistent in any substantial respect.
Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
June 7, 2024
The Environmental Impact Report (RDSP EIR) certified for the RDSP states that it considered planning and land use consistency and compatibility, including with the American River Parkway Plan (RDSP Draft EIR, p. 4-1) and concluded that the uses proposed in the Specific Plan would be consistent with the General Plan and other relevant planning documents (see RDSP Draft EIR, pp. 4-5–4-6):
Land Use Compatibility with Surrounding Uses
Generally, the RDSP Area is adjacent to industrial and residential uses to the east, the developing Railyards Specific Plan area to the south, and the American and Sacramento Rivers to the north and west. Because the Proposed Project is consistent with the existing General Plan designations for the area, the land uses developed in accordance with the proposed RDSP would be compatible with the surrounding areas. The types of land uses allowed by the General Plan were already considered for the RDSP area and the surrounding areas during the process of developing the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, there would not be incompatibilities in land uses.
The Project Is Exempt from Further Environmental Review SARA demands that an EIR be prepared to address its claims that the project will have significant adverse environmental effects, but they appear to misunderstand the approach the City has taken to CEQA compliance for the project. The project plainly qualifies for the full exemption at Public Resources Code section 21155.4, and therefore no further environmental review is required. Moreover, the City cannot legally require analysis of alleged aesthetic impacts for this project, because it is a mixed-use residential project on an infill site in a transit priority area, and the aesthetic impacts of such a project “shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (d)(1).) Therefore, even if the project were to cause objective, significant, adverse aesthetic effects (it does not), the City could not require an EIR to be prepared to analyze or mitigate those aesthetic effects because section 21099, subdivision (d)(1) prohibits the City from considering such effects significant for this type of project. (See San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 924, 940 [“there is no basis for requiring the City to conduct an environmental review of an issue as to which it would have no ability to respond.”].)
The project is statutorily exempt from CEQA
The Design Director correctly determined that the project qualifies for the statutory exemption in Public Resources Code section 21155.4 for mixed use and residential projects proposed in a transit priority area that are consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified and consistent with the land use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified in a sustainable communities strategy.
Moreover, there is no substantial evidence that the criteria triggering subsequent review under Public Resources Code section 21166 have been met, and SARA neither provides nor cites to any. Thus, there is no trigger requiring an EIR to be prepared for this project.
Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
June 7, 2024
The project is located in a transit priority area.
SARA and its legal counsel allege that the project is not located in a transit priority area, and therefore, the exemption at section 21155.4 does not apply here. They are incorrect.
As explained in several documents in the administrative record for the project, there is a planned light rail stop one block away from the project at Richards and North 3rd Street. (See January 18, 2022, Sacramento Area Council of Governments [SACOG] letter to Ron Bess, p. 1; April 18, 2024, Director Report, p. 20.) Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ Open Data Portal shows the future stop as a “Planned Major Transit Stop.” (See attached screenshot of SACOG’s map.) Public Resources Code section 21099, subdivision (a)(7) defines “transit priority area” as “an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program or applicable regional transportation plan.” SACOG is on record as confirming that the Richards/North 3rd Street stop meets this criterion.
The project is consistent with the regional MTP/SCS.
SACOG further explained in its January 18, 2022 letter that it had determined the project is consistent with the range of general uses, densities and building intensities forecasted in the MTP/SCS. (Jan. 18, 2022, SACOG letter to Ron Bess, pp. 1-2, and the Determination of MTP/SCS Consistency Worksheet attached thereto.) SARA has provided no substantial evidence disproving this determination.
The project is consistent with the applicable specific plan for which an EIR was previously certified and never timely challenged.
The record for the project also demonstrates that the project is consistent with the River District Specific Plan, for which an EIR was certified in 2011. (April 18, 2024, Director Report, p. 17.) SARA claims the project is not consistent, but merely attacks the RDSP EIR. They do not explain exactly which policies of the RDSP they believe the project is inconsistent with. Their approach does not meet the legal standard they would have to satisfy in a court challenge to demonstrate that no “reasonable person” could reach the Planning Staff’s determination of consistency. (Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444, 461; Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 412‒413.)
CEQA’s subsequent review criteria are not met here.
SARA alleges that the EIR prepared for the River District Specific Plan did not adequately analyze their issues of concern and therefore the City must prepare an EIR for the project now. Additionally, their legal counsel asserts that the standards for subsequent review are met here, triggering the preparation of an EIR. But they misunderstand both the subsequent review process under Public Resources Code section 21166 (and its implementing CEQA Guidelines, section 15162) and the application of the exemption under Public Resources Code section 21155.4.
Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
June 7, 2024
The RDSP EIR was certified by the City Council in 2011 and was not timely challenged in court. Thus, it is presumed correct and SARA’s attack on its analysis now comes years too late. (Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda v. City of Alameda (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 91, 103‒104.) The section 21155.4 exemption provides that further environmental review of a qualifying project shall be conducted only if the criteria of Public Resources Code section 21166 are met. Section 21166 and its implementing Guideline section 15162 provide that after an EIR is certified, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required unless there are changes in the project (here, the RDSP), the circumstances surrounding the project, or new information that was not available at the time of the previous analysis, showing that there would be new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed. Those criteria are not met here.
Critiquing the adequacy of the aesthetic, biological resource and cumulative impacts analysis of the RDSP EIR does not carry SARA’s burden to demonstrate that the City’s determination is wrong and that the criteria of Public Resources Code section 21166 are met. Neither SARA nor its legal counsel provide any substantial evidence supporting their assertions that the impacts disclosed in the RDSP EIR will be substantially worse than the EIR disclosed, as a result of changes in the plan or its surrounding circumstances. There is no amendment to the specific plan proposed with this project.
SARA points to no significant changes in the circumstances surrounding the plan or the project. And they provide no substantial evidence that was not available in 2011 showing there would be any new or worse significant impacts than the RDSP EIR already disclosed.
They assert the project will cause aesthetic and noise impacts and adversely affect biological resources in adjacent riparian habitat, but their allegations are bare assertions, unsupported by any credible or expert evidence. Their assertions do not rise to the level of substantial evidence, defined as “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (b).) The RDSP EIR contained a robust analysis of potential biological resource impacts and determined they would be less than significant after mitigation, which focused on protecting nesting and foraging special status birds and bat populations. (RDSP Draft EIR, section 5.2.) The EIR also exhaustively considered noise impacts and concluded they would be less than significant after mitigation. (Id., section 5.6.) SARA commented on the RDSP Draft EIR in 2010 and raised the issue of potential light effects on adjacent riparian wildlife at that time. (RDSP Final EIR, Comment L-3.) The City responded in the Final EIR that wildlife would not be adversely affected by lighting from new buildings in the RDSP because of required compliance with the River District Design Guidelines governing the allowable types, intensities and direction of lighting, and required setbacks from the levees. (RDSP Final EIR, Response to Comment L-3.) As the Staff Report to this Commission confirms, the project meets all lighting requirements.
SARA’s objections are grounded in the size of the buildings. They claim that the buildings will be visually intrusive and out of scale with the adjacent parkway and riparian Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
June 7, 2024
environment. But the RDSP envisioned buildings of the project’s proposed height and scale in this location. Buildings One and Two will be 194 feet tall, six feet below the 200- foot maximum height envelope for that area of the plan. Adjacent Buildings Three and Four will be 120 feet and 162 feet, respectively, on the southern edge of the portion of the plan area designated for a 35-foot-height maximum. The area directly behind (east of) the 35-foot-height envelope is designated for 150-foot-high development, while the area adjacent to (north of) the 35-foot area is planned for a 120-foot maximum. (RDSP, Fig. 3.4 Allowable Height Map.) The RDSP does not explain the intent behind the designation of a shorter height area amidst substantially taller building envelopes, but it can be inferred from the explanations in the Final EIR’s responses to comments that it was to provide visual corridors to the river through taller development and to provide some varied building height views from vantages in and across the river. The Design Director reasonably found that waiver of the 35-foot-height maximum for Buildings Three and Four was appropriate given the overall purpose and design of the proposed project. Buildings Three and Four would be situated at the southern edge of the 35-foot height area, adjacent to taller buildings, thereby still leaving open space at the edge of the plan area and view corridors toward the river as intended in the RDSP.
SARA does not provide or cite any substantial evidence supporting a claim that allowing Buildings Three and Four to exceed the RDSP’s contemplated height maximum directly adjacent to taller buildings allowed under the plan presents any significant aesthetic, biological, or any other type of environmental impact not previously analyzed in the RDSP EIR. They do not cite any personal expertise in architecture or planning. Their assertions are based merely on their own lay opinions.
The Commission would be acting well within its considerable discretion if it disregards mere opinions and relies instead on the planning expertise and recommendations of City staff. We respectfully request that you deny the appeal and uphold the Design Director’s determination to approve the project.
Very truly yours,
Sabrina V. Teller
Records: 458
2040 Planned Major Transit Stops
County of Sacramento, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, EPA, USDA Powered by Esri Legend
SACOG Open Data Portal
Sabrina V. Teller
[email protected]
June 11, 2024
Via Email
City of Sacramento
Planning and Design Commissioners
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Email: [email protected]
Re: Applicant’s Further Response to Save the American River Association’s Appeal of City Design Director’s decision for Project No. DR22-238 Dear Chair Wallace and Commissioners:
On behalf of I.M. Investment, LLC, the applicant for the American River One project proposed at 450‒500 Bercut Drive in the River District Specific Plan area, we are supplementing our June 7, 2024, response to the appeal filed by Save the American River Association with the following information about an additional exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for which the Project qualifies. The City may determine that a project meets the criteria for more than one exemption under CEQA, and we encourage the Commission to expressly so find here.
The Project Qualifies for the Exemption for Residential Projects Consistent with a Specific Plan for Which an EIR Was Certified
CEQA Guidelines section 15182 and its mirror in Government Code section 65457 provide that where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan, a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity with that specific plan is exempt from CEQA.
Unlike the exemption at Public Resources Code section 21155.4 relied on to-date (correctly) by the City for this Project, the exemption at CEQA Guidelines section 15182 does not require proximity to a transit stop for a project to qualify. The City has extensively documented how the Project is consistent with the River District Specific Plan. And the City’s determination of consistency is subject to substantial deference by a reviewing court, as agency planning staff are presumed to be experts on their own plans. (Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 155 (Orange Citizens), quoting San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 678 (San Franciscans) [A city’s determination that a land use approval is consistent with its own general or specific plan Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
June 11, 2024
“is entitled to deference as an extension of [its] ‘unique’ competence to interpret [its] policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.”].) Further environmental review is required only if the conditions of CEQA Guidelines section 15162 governing subsequent review are met. As explained in our previous letter of June 7, 2024, and in Staff’s report to the Commission, those subsequent review standards are not met. Save the American River Association provides no substantial evidence that the Project would cause new or worse significant impacts than were previously analyzed and mitigated in the River District Specific Plan EIR. Thus, the exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15182 and Government Code section 65457 applies to the Project, in addition to Public Resources Code section 21155.4.
In the interest of providing as strong a legal footing as possible for the City’s approval, particularly since SARA has already filed a lawsuit challenging the Project, we respectfully request that the Commission affirm the determination that the Project is a residential project within the scope of the River District Specific Plan EIR, that the proposed approvals do not constitute a substantial change in the project or project circumstances and that there is no new information of substantial importance requiring supplemental review under CEQA, and therefore, the Project also qualifies for the exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15182 and Government Code section 65457 for residential projects consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR was certified.
Very truly yours,
Sabrina V. Teller
cc: Armando Lopez, Jr., Assistant Architect, [email protected] Scott Johnson, Community Development Dept., [email protected] Sabrina V. Teller
[email protected]
June 12, 2024
Via Email
City of Sacramento
Planning and Design Commissioners
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Email: [email protected]
Re: Applicant’s Response to Late-Submitted Comments of Laborers Union of North America, Local Union 185 for Project No. DR22-238 Dear Chair Wallace and Commissioners:
On behalf of I.M. Investment, LLC, the applicant for the American River One project proposed at 450‒500 Bercut Drive in the River District Specific Plan area, we respond to the comments submitted 48 hours before the Commission’s hearing by Laborers Union of North America, Local Union 185 (LIUNA). LIUNA’s comments were submitted, of course, not to ensure environmental protection, but for the purpose of creating leverage for their inevitable demand for a project labor agreement for construction, as is their long-standing practice across the state.1
LIUNA attaches comments by its hired expert, purporting to explain that the Project will have significant, unstudied impacts on indoor air quality and health risks. Mr.
Offermann’s comments are regularly recycled in LIUNA’s and other unions’ attacks on other projects around the state. Notwithstanding the abusive purpose and timing of their comments, the “expert evidence” LIUNA submitted, purporting to show a significant indoor air quality impact/health risk from the Project’s expected use of standard modern building materials, has been repeatedly refuted by credible experts and should be disregarded.2 The City has substantial discretion to determine the credibility of competing evidence in its record and should exercise that discretion here to reject LIUNA’s demand for additional environmental review.
1 “Greenmailing” abuse of CEQA by unions is well-documented. https://reason.com/2019/08/21/how-california-environmental-law-makes-it-easy-forlabor-unions-to-shake-down-developers/ 2 For example, see attached memo dated April 1, 2019, to the City of Sunnyvale, from Pat Angell, et al., of Ascent Environmental, responding to another nearly identical late hit from LIUNA regarding the AMD Redevelopment project. Ascent’s air quality experts refute similar comments from LIUNA and Mr. Offermann concerning indoor air quality and formaldehyde.
RMM
REMY MOO SE MANLEY LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Sui te 800 Sacramento CA 95814 I Phone: (916) 443-2745 I Fax: (916) 443-9017 I www.rmmenviro law.com Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
June 12, 2024
LIUNA has not provided any substantial evidence to support their claim that the Project will be constructed with building materials with significant amounts of formaldehyde.
They assert that the Project will exceed Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk from TACs. However, this significance threshold is intended to be used to evaluate the increase in cancer risk above ambient air quality conditions (outdoor air).
Therefore, the application of this threshold on indoor air quality is not appropriate.
Furthermore, there is no requirement from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), SMAQMD or California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to evaluate indoor formaldehyde emissions from building materials and practices nor have those agencies provided guidance on how to evaluate such emissions or thresholds of significance. The Project will comply with existing codes and regulations that will adequately address potential impacts from building materials and ensure healthy indoor air quality.
CARB does recognize that formaldehyde is identified as a toxic air contaminant based on public exposure and its potential to cause cancer per their website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/formaldehyde. CARB approved a regulation called the Composite Wood Products Airborne Toxic Control Measure on April 26, 2007, to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products that are sold, supplied, used or manufactured for sale in California. The regulation requires that hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard and new finished goods that contain composite wood products meet stringent formaldehyde emission standards and be labeled as such. The regulation applies to all composite wood manufacturers, importers, fabricators, distributors, and retails selling in the state and requires that: 1) composite wood materials are produced in a mill that is third party certified; 2) efforts taken to ensure materials are compliance documented; and 3) all products are labeled for compliance. Furthermore, CARB undertakes significant enforcement efforts, such as emissions testing and extensive audits of the compliance precautions taken, to protect California consumers from toxic formaldehyde emissions, according their website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carbs-enforcement-protectscalifornia-consumers-toxic-formaldehyde-emissions.
Furthermore, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) contains formaldehyde emission limits. For example, CALGreen requires the use of composite wood products be made with either CARB approved no-added formaldehyde resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde resins, and documentation must be provided that verifies that finish materials are certified to meet the pollutant emission limits. As such, while formaldehyde is toxic, it is also a heavily regulated pollutant, and the Project is subject to all regulatory compliance measures that will reduce potential significant impacts from formaldehyde to less-than-significant levels.
The Project will comply with the existing codes and regulations that will adequately address potential impacts risks from building materials and ensure healthy indoor air.
These include:
Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
June 12, 2024
• Title 24: Building Energy Efficiency Standards;
• Section 4.5, Environmental Quality, of the CALGreen Code; and • CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products.
In addition, LIUNA’s analysis is based on a series of inaccurate assumptions, including that:
(a) the Project’s construction materials would not be compliant with the applicable regulations to reduce formaldehyde exposure; (b) formaldehyde daily emissions from construction materials would be constant for over 70 years;
(c) residents would live in their units for 70 years; and (d) employees would work at the Project site for 8 hours/day, 5 days/week, 50 weeks/year for 45 years.
In fact:
(a) construction materials would comply with all such applicable regulations; (b) the amount of formaldehyde off-gassing from construction materials decreases over time;3
(c) per the U.S.EPA, lifetime risk values for residents should be based on an exposure duration of 30 years,4 not 70; and
(d) based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median number of years workers remain in a job is 4.2 years, not 45.5
LIUNA would have the Commission believe that both the state and federal expert air quality regulatory agencies—CARB and EPA— are wrong about the appropriate or acceptable levels of formaldehyde they have targeted in their regulations, and only LIUNA’s “expert” understands the “true” risk posed to residents and workers by nearly every new building in the city and the state when new construction complies with current building standards. The more credible conclusion, based on LIUNA’s own evidence and past practices, as well as the dishonest assumptions in their expert’s analysis, is that their letter significantly overstates impacts and presents no credible evidence of a significant indoor air quality impact. If LIUNA is so concerned that state and federal standards are 3 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-03/formaldehyde-draft-re-indoor-airexposure-assessment-for-formaldehyde-public-release-hero-march2024.pdf, see p. 31, lines 744‒748.
4 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
09/documents/chap3.pdf#:~:text=The%20exposure%20duration%20reflects%20the%20 length%20of,to%20be%206%20years%20(U.S.%20EPA%201997d), p. 3-11; and https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-11/documents/OSWERdirective9285.6-
03.pdf, p. 15.
5 https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/tenure.pdf
Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
June 12, 2024
not sufficiently protective of future residents and workers, their efforts would be better spent petitioning the air quality agencies to change their standards, not attacking muchneeded housing that complies with all current standards, in a cynical bid to gain leverage in their inevitable future demand for a project labor agreement.
Very truly yours,
Sabrina V. Teller
Attachment
cc: Armando Lopez, Jr., Assistant Architect, [email protected] Scott Johnson, Community Development Dept., [email protected] Memo
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.444.7301
Date: April 1, 2019
To: Andy Miner and Margaret Netto, City of Sunnyvale
From: Pat Angell, Ascent Environmental
Julia Wilson, Ascent Environmental
Allison Fuller, Ascent Environmental
Subject: Response to the Laborers International Union of North America’s Public Comment Regarding the AMD 1 Redevelopment Project
OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION
This memorandum documents Ascent Environmental’s (Ascent’s) response to correspondence submitted 13 weeks after the close of the public comment period on the Draft EIR pertaining to the proposed AMD 1 Redevelopment Project (project) located in the City of Sunnyvale (city). The correspondence was submitted on March 24, 2019 by the Laborers International Union of North America (referred to below as comment letter or commenter). No detailed comments on the Draft EIR were submitted by this organization during the comment period. The correspondence critiques the analyses of the following resource areas contained in the Draft EIR: air quality, biological resources, and noise. While this correspondence references the Final EIR, its comments are focused on the technical analysis provided in the Draft EIR.
This memorandum responds to these comments. Note, modeling was revised in response to this comment, which modified the values of estimates of both air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) construction and operational emissions; however, no significant new information that would identify new significant impact or a substantial increase in severity of an identified impact would occur that would require recirculation of the EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
As further discussed below, the comment letter includes input from consultants that have technical experience in the areas of air quality and biological resources that argue the EIR impact analysis fails to address significant issues. The Draft and Final EIR were prepared by technical experts at Ascent that have between 5 to over 25 years of experience in the areas of air quality, biological resources, noise, and CEQA compliance. Disagreement amongst experts is not a sufficient reason to require an EIR to be updated and recirculated pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15151.
Under established CEQA precedent, the lead agency may properly accept the determinations and conclusions reached by the experts that prepared the EIR, even though other conclusions could also be reached (see Eureka Citizens v. City of Eureka, (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 357, 371-372 (accepting findings on noise impacts despite experts’ disagreement over methodology); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 1179-80 (2014) reversed on other grounds, 62 Cal. 4th 204 (2015) (one scientist’s disagreement with a conservation ATTACHMENT 18
Memo
April 1, 2019
plan is “not pertinent to the issue of whether the environmental impact report’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence”). Since the function of review of the EIR is limited to determining whether the EIR is supported by substantial evidence, it is not an “abuse of discretion” for a public agency “to give more weight to one set of ‘experts’ than to another.” (see Greenebaum v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 391, 412). Thus, the City is properly allowed to reject the opinions and beliefs of commenter’s experts and instead rely on its experts’ and their expert opinions and analysis regarding the Project and its environmental impacts.
1.1 AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE CHANGE
CRITERIA POLLUTANT, PRECURSOR, AND GHG EMISSIONS
The comment letter references the California Supreme Court’s decision in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (herein referred to as the Friant Ranch decision). The Court evaluated the adequacy air quality analysis contained in the EIR prepared for the Friant Community Plan Update and Friant Ranch Specific Plan. For a number of reasons, the Court confirmed the 5th District Court of Appeal’s holding that the regional analysis of criteria air pollution was inadequate under CEQA and asserted that air quality analyses should frame significant impacts in terms of effects to human health.
To demonstrate consistency with the Court’s direction in the Friant Ranch decision, the Final EIR provides an updated discussion associated with project air quality impacts to human health (Final EIR pages 3-1 through 3-6). To achieve consistency, the methodology and impact analysis discussions were expanded to include a narrative regarding the development of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) CEQA thresholds of significance (which were applied to the project) and their applicability to reduce ambient air quality impacts and related public health impacts within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The Draft EIR found that unmitigated constructionrelated emissions would exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds and concluded a potentially significant impact. In the significance determination, the EIR related these exceedances to the potential for adverse human health impacts to occur; however, following the application of Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a and 4.2-1b, construction emissions would be successfully reduced to levels below the applied thresholds of significance. Project operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and would not create an impact to public health. By making these edits to the EIR in the Final EIR, the city demonstrated consistency with the Friant Ranch decision.
The comment letter to which this memorandum responds to also asserts that the modeling performed for the Draft EIR underestimates emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors. For example, the comment refers to underreporting of emissions associated with enclosed parking structures which would serve project residents. The comment also refers to the use of “Townhouse” as a CalEEMod land use subtype. However, this land use choice adequately represents the energy consumption associated with the project as 130 multi-family housing units would be provided within 22 townhouse buildings repurposed to support a higher number of individuals as compared to each townhouse supporting one family unit. CalEEMod defaults assumed 63 people occupying these buildings and this number has been adjusted to support 370 persons.
The comment letter also states that the air quality modeling did not address emissions associated with the project garage. Transportation emissions were modeled in CalEEMod using traffic data provided by the traffic consultant, which accounted for vehicle trips accessing project garages. These mobile emissions were addressed in the modeling and were reported in Draft EIR Table 4.2-6.
iii
Memo
April 1, 2019
In response to this comment, Ascent has prepared additional modeling of construction emissions following the application of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a and 4.2-1b. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a requires that the project applicant apply Tier-4 emissions standards to all diesel-powered off-road equipment if feasible. However, the language of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a provides for flexibility based on the feasibility of using Final Tier 4 engines. Due to market constraints, the project applicant may use Tier 3 engines in cases where use of Final Tier 4 is infeasible.
Table 1 below summarizes the anticipated construction emissions from project buildout including additional inputs recommended by the commenter. Based on comment’s concern that emissions were underreported, the model has been adjusted to provide a more conservative estimate to demonstrate a scenario where Tier 4 equipment could not be used for every piece of construction equipment. The model applied a suite of Tier 3 and Final Tier 4 standards to a variety of equipment. As shown in Table 1, the project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. The revised modeling also represents an increase in parking area. The Draft EIR air quality construction modeling did factor the overall site development related to grading and paving activities. Emissions associated with hauling of 15,000 cubic yards of excavated soil and importation of new concrete (13,800 cubic yards) and new asphalt (13,400 cubic yards) were factored and were included in the updated modeling. This is noted in the attached model outputs.
As show below, these levels of criteria pollutant and precursors would still be below BAAQMD’s construction emissions threshold. Nonetheless, although emissions of air pollutants would be less than significant, the difference in the model contained in the attachment of this memorandum estimate that metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/year) would be higher than the model contained in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. Nonetheless, the application of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 would still apply and climate change impacts.
Table 1 Mitigated Construction Emissions by Construction Year (2018-2022) Year1 ROG (lb/day) NOX (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) CO2e (MT/year) 2018 1 36 25 5 46
2019 4 51 38 20 1,708
2020 3 33 6 1 1,593
2021 25 53 24 11 2,112
2022 16 25 6 2 1,010
BAAQMD
Threshold 54 54 82 54 Zero Net Increase2
Notes: ROG=reactive organic gases, NOX=oxides of nitrogen, PM10=respirable particulate matter, PM2.5=fine particulate matter, lb/day=pounds per day, CO2e=carbon dioxide equivalent, MT/year=metric tons per year, BAAQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1 Construction would occur over five phases, which would be expected to overlap. As such, maximum daily emissions levels are summarized by year. 2 BAAQMD does not formally recommend a zero-net increase threshold for climate change analyses; however, the city and Ascent Staff have applied the threshold to the project to best show consistency with the 2017 California Climate Change Scoping Plan.
Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2019.
Under the revised model prepared in response to this comment, mitigated construction emissions would generate a total of 6,469 MTCO2e, which represents a 1,119 MTCO2e increase from what was previously estimated in the Draft EIR. However, Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, which requires the project applicant to achieve a zero-net increase in GHG emissions through a combination of applying of all feasible on-site mitigation measures and purchasing carbon offsets, would still apply to the project.
I
Memo
April 1, 2019
Table 2 below summarizes the estimated emissions of criteria pollutants, precursors, and GHGs associated with operation of the project.
Table 2 Mitigated Operational Emissions by Sector for the Year 20221 Year1 ROG (lb/day) NOX (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) CO2e (MT/year) Vehicle Trips (Mobile Sources) 7 23 17 5 2,887
Natural Gas Combustion (On-Site) <1 1 <1 <1 305
Solid Waste Disposal2 0 0 0 0 224
Water Consumption and
Wastewater Treatment2 0 0 0 0 113
Electricity Consumption (On-Site)3 <1 <1 <1 <1 26
Landscape Maintenance 32 1 <1 <1 12
Total 39 25 18 6 3,567
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Zero Net
Increase4
Notes: ROG=reactive organic gases, NOX=oxides of nitrogen, PM10=respirable particulate matter, PM2.5=fine particulate matter, lb/day=pounds per day, CO2e=carbon dioxide equivalent, MT/year=metric tons per year, BAAQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1 Emissions estimates account for energy and water efficiency project design features as well as reduced mobile-source emissions associated with improved density and affordable housing units.
2 Solid waste disposal, water consumption, and wastewater treatment activities are sectors that only apply to GHG emissions. 3 Residents of the project site would be enrolled in Silicon Valley Clean Energy, which provides 100 percent renewable energy to its customers using Pacific Gas & Electric infrastructure. Currently, 98 percent of all Sunnyvale residents are enrolled. A 98 percent reduction in GHG emissions associated with electricity was therefore assumed to be representative of the community. 4 BAAQMD does not formally recommend a zero-net increase threshold for climate change analyses; however, the city and Ascent Staff have applied the threshold to the project to best show consistency with the 2017 California Climate Change Scoping Plan.
Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2019.
As shown above, operation of the project under the revised model would not generate emissions of criteria pollutants or precursors in exceedance of BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds. This is the similar conclusion drawn in the Draft EIR and no mitigation was required or recommended. In Draft EIR Section 4.5, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” operational emissions were estimated to be 3,560 MTCO2e/year, which would be a potentially significant impact and Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 was developed to reduce emissions to a less-thansignificant level. The similarity of these emissions levels despite remodeling indicates that the operation of an enclosed parking structure generates very little emissions. The minor increase would be due to a slight increase in energy consumption related to lighting and operation of garage doors and kiosks. It also shows that the number of persons within a land use subcategory has very little impact on CalEEMod outputs.
Table 2 shows an anticipated operational GHG emissions value of 3,567 MTCO2e/year, a 7 MTCO2e/year increase from the number contained in the Draft EIR. Nevertheless, this incremental rise in operational emissions would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through the application of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. Impact determinations would not change as a result of new modeling.
I
Memo
April 1, 2019
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Health Risk Assessment
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR does not quantify the cumulative exposure of sensitive receptors near the project site to toxic air contaminants (TACs). The comment letter includes a third-party analysis conducted by the environmental consulting firm SWAPE concludes a hazard index in exceedance of BAAQMD’s 1.0 or greater hazard index threshold of significance for individual projects. This is counter to the technical analysis provided in the Draft EIR as well as the AMD Potential Residential Development in Sunnyvale, CA – Preliminary Screening for Toxic Air Contaminants (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2016). The Illingworth and Rodkin that indicated that combined sources of TACs (cumulative exposure and thus an overestimate) would not exceed a hazard index in exceedance of 1.0 (i.e., <0.9). Moreover, BAAQMD has an adopted cumulative TAC threshold of a hazard index of 10.0. The findings of this analysis indicate a cumulative exposure of <0.9, which is below this threshold. Thus, project-related and cumulative TAC exposure would be less than significant, as concluded in the Draft EIR.
As the Draft EIR explains, the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential neighborhoods to the north, east, and west of the project site, located adjacent to the site. The TAC of greatest concern is diesel PM, which would be emitted during project construction. The Draft EIR explains that diesel PM is highly dispersive and concentrations decline quickly from the source (e.g., 500 feet from a freeway the concentration of diesel PM decreases by 70 percent) (Draft EIR page 4.2-17). Moreover, as explained in the Draft EIR, construction would be expected to occur over 5 years (i.e., 2018-2022), which is 25 years less than the recommended 30-year exposure period used by the California Air Pollution Control Officer Association (CAPCOA) as an exposure threshold that warrants conducting a health risk assessment (HRA). Additionally, the Draft EIR estimates emissions of PM10, which diesel PM is a surrogate of, to be below BAAQMD’s recommended threshold of significant for construction emissions Draft EIR Table 4.2-4).
Further, the project consists of residential land use types and does not introduce any substantial sources of TACs beyond a minor amount of diesel PM from diesel-powered service trucks that would occasionally be used at the project (e.g., moving vehicles). As noted in the Draft EIR, the project would add an additional 6,670 daily trips; however, these trips would primarily be gasoline- or electricity-powered automobiles which would not emit diesel PM.
The commenter states that its expert, SWAPE, prepared a level 2 Health Risk Screening Assessment (HRSA), applying the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s AERSCREEN model, as recommended by OEHHA and CAPCOA, and calculated that construction and operation of the project will result in cancer risks of 23.5 in one million, 22.3 in one million, and 50.7 in one million. However, SWAPE based its HRSA calculations on its own “updated air modeling,” not the modeling conducted in the Draft EIR. SWAPE has limited knowledge of the specifics of the project or its assumed emissions, nor of any of the assumptions used in Draft EIR (development and project detail assumptions were provided in the Draft EIR in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” and modeling assumptions were provided on Draft EIR pages 4.2-10 and 4.2-11 and Appendix B). For this reason, any calculations completed by SWAPE regarding health risk are not accurate and not supported by substantial evidence.
Last, the commenter alleges that the EIR should have analyzed cumulative health risk. As explained above, substantial evidence supports the City’s determination that there is no health risk impact from either project construction or operation, thus there is no significant contribution to any cumulative health impact. SWAPE cites other “stationary sources” within 1,000 feet of the nearest residential receptor, but none of these sources have high emission profiles that support SWAPE’s analysis.
Memo
April 1, 2019
Indoor Air Quality
The commenter appends its document with a separate comment from a Certified Industrial Hygienist who states that the project’s air quality analysis is flawed because there is no discussion of indoor air quality. The commenter asserts that residents of buildings are exposed to high levels of off-gassed formaldehyde from the decomposition of composite wood products used to construct buildings, which would be the case for residents occupying the project site. The commenter also states that residents of the project site would be exposed to adverse levels of PM2.5 from ambient concentrations of PM2.5 within the project site.
The commenter alleges that its expert, Mr. Offermann has determined that the Project’s indoor emissions of formaldehyde constitute a significant CEQA impact. Mr. Offermann claims that, assuming this project will be built using typical materials and construction methods used in California, future residents will experience a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 125 per million. Mr. Offermann sites his own 2009 study—the California New Home Study (2009 study), and a 2018 study—Indoor Air Quality in new California Homes with Mechanical Ventilation by Chan et al—and appears to rely on both of these studies to derive his 125 in one million value.
Mr. Offermann calculates a 180 in one million figure based on the 2009 study. He then lowers this by 30 percent based on the second study to derive a 125 in one million figure. However, there are many distinguishing factors between these studies and the project.
First, the project would comply with mandatory and applicable regulatory requirements, many of which were not in place when the homes in the 2009 and 2018 studies were built. These applicable requirements include the following:
The Composite Wood Products Regulation is a California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation that reduces public exposure to formaldehyde through the establishment of strict emission performance standards on particleboard, medium density fiberboard and hardwood plywood (collectively known as composite wood products). The regulation, adopted in 2007, established two phases of emissions standards: an initial Phase I, and later, a more stringent Phase 2 that requires all finished goods, such as flooring, destined for sale or use in California to be made using complying composite wood products. As of January 2014 only Phase 2 products are legal for sale in California. Moreover, the ASHRAE 62.2 ventilation and air filtration requirements in the state’s Title 24 Building Code improves indoor air quality, and these standards are scheduled to become more stringent with the adoption of the 2019 Title 24 Building Code that the project would be required to comply (Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative 2018).
On December 12, 2016, EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule to reduce exposure to formaldehyde emissions from certain wood products produced domestically or imported into the United States. EPA worked with CARB to help ensure the final national rule was consistent with California’s requirements for similar composite wood products.
While the second study cited by Mr. Offermann was published in 2018, it assessed homes built in 2011, before the newest CARB formaldehyde standards (Phase 2 standards) were put into place (2014). Thus, these studies do not provide evidence that the project, which will be built in phases out to 2020, will have significant impacts from formaldehyde emissions.
In addition, the 2018 study cited by Mr. Offermann, required participants to keep their windows closed for the duration of the study and rely on mechanical ventilation. In reality, residents would open their windows for hours at a time during spring, summer, and fall. This ventilation would greatly reduce formaldehyde concentrations in indoor air and thus the studies do not accurately capture real-world scenarios. In addition, the studies assume a continuous 24- hour exposure and 100 percent absorption by the respiratory system, further unrealistic assumption unsupported by Memo
April 1, 2019
substantial evidence. For these reasons, the project can be distinguished from the homes studied in the 2009 and 2018 studies.
Second, Mr. Offermann’s claim that the project would result in significant impacts is based on pure speculation and assumption, regarding project construction and materials, regarding health risk modeling of formaldehyde, regarding how much ventilation there will be in project homes, and regarding application of a significance threshold that is not formaldehyde specific. CEQA does not require speculation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15145; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376 (where future development is unspecified and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences).
The commenter also states that residents of the project site would incur health effects associated with exposure to dangerous levels of PM2.5, for which Santa Clara County and the SFBAAB are in nonattainment for the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). However, as determined by the California Supreme Court in the California Building Industry Association v. BAAQMD, CEQA reviews the impacts of a project on the environment rather than the effects of the environment on the residents or users of a project. The Court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project‘s future users or residents. But when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment – and not the environment’s impact on the project – that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.”
As directed by the Court, a project would only need to evaluate the environments impact on a project if the project itself would exacerbate an existing adverse condition. The commenter asserts that due to the nonattainment designation of Santa Clara County and the SFBAAB, the Draft EIR should have evaluated the health impacts of PM2.5 to residents of the project site. As identified in Draft EIR Table 4.2-4 and 4.2-6 in the Draft EIR and above, emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors following mitigation would be below BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance. BAAQMD provides substantial evidence for the use of their thresholds in their CEQA Justification Report.
Because project emissions would not exceed these thresholds, the existing nonattainment designation within the project site would not be exacerbated. No further analysis is required regarding the effects of the environment to residents of the project site.
1.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SPECIAL-STATUS BIRD SPECIES
The commenter identifies that the project and surrounding area as providing suitable habitat to support populations of special-status bird species but provides no project site specific evidence (field review, habitat mapping, or species observations) to support this statement. Draft EIR pages 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 and Exhibits 3-1 and 3-2 document that the project site and the surrounding area consists of urban developed conditions that provide no natural habitat that would support the presence of these species in the manner commenter suggests. The project site only includes small landscaped areas that are actively maintained and thus do not provide quality foraging or stopover habitat. iii