Loading...
2022-03-15 CC Agenda - Public Communication related to Item #14 - Pacific Coast Commons EIR2022-03-15 CC AGENDA PACKET PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO ITEM #14 - PACIFIC COAST COMMONS #3 Harada, Patricia From: Weaver, Tracy (City Clerk) Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 7:18 PM To: ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS Cc: *ALL CITY CLERKS; Hensley, Mark; George, Darrell; Voss, Barbara Subject: FW: Correspondence and written response re: Item #14 (Pacific Coast Commons EIR) Attachments: PCC SpPlan_Responses_2202_0315.pdf Importance: High Council, This item came in at 6:00 PM tonight. I have a couple hard copies with me if you would like one. Thank you, Tracy Weaver I City Clerk City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo CA 90245 31.0.524.2305 1 tweaver@elegundo.orR I www.else undo.or ELISEOUNDO Where big ideas lake ufi: From: Samaras, Paul <PSamaras@elsegundo.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 6:34 PM To: Weaver, Tracy (City Clerk) <tweaver@elsegundo.org> Cc: Schonborn, Eduardo <eschonborn@elsegundo.org>; Allen, Michael <mallen@elsegundo.org>; Gregg Kovacevich <gk@hensleylawgroup.com> Subject: FW: Correspondence and written response re: Item #14 (Pacific Coast Commons EIR) Tracy, Attached is written communication regarding Item #14 on tonight's agenda. The attached document contains comments received from the Law Firm Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) regarding the adequacy of the EIR for the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan project. In addition, the document contains responses from staff to the comments submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP on the EIR. Thank you, Paul Samaras, AICP I Principal Planner City of El Segundo Development Services Department 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA 90245 www.elsegundo.org I EISegundoBusiness.com I Destination EISe undo.com ELSE GUNDO Where big ideas off. From: Kristin Starbird <kstarbird@dudek.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 6:27 PM To: Samaras, Paul <PSarnaras@elsegundo.ore> Subject: Resend Kristin L. Starbird _*11101i1 38 N. Marengo Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101 626.204.9839 www.dudek.com DUDEK 38 NORTH MARENGO AVENUE PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101 T 626.204.9800 F 626.204.9834 MEMORANDUM To: Paul Samaras, Principal Planner, City of El Segundo From: Kristin Starbird, Senior Project Manager Subject: Pacific Coast Commons Project Responses to Lozeau Drury Letters (dated February 10, 2022 and March 11, 2022) Date: March 15, 2022 Attachment(s): Bracketed Comment Letters The responses provided below address comments submitted by the law firm, Lozeau Drury, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) on the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2020050508) prepared for the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan Project (Project). The comment letters were provided to the City via email on Thursday, February 10, 2022 and Friday, March 11, 2022, respectively. The responses below address comments in the attached bracketed letters. Responses to February 10, 2022 Letter Comment 1-1: In summary, the comment provides an opinion that the Final EIR requires recirculation due to the addition of three related projects into the cumulative analysis of the Final EIR. The comment requests a revised EIR be prepared and recirculated prior to considering approvals for the Project. Response to Comment 1 -1: The commenter's opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. This comment was thoroughly addressed in Response to Comment 1-5 in the "Responses to Additional Comments Received" dated February 2022, which addresses all of the concerns regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR raised by the commenter. None of the issues raised in the comment letter constitute "significant new information" as defined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation of an EIR includes, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTERS (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043.) None of the issues raised in this comment letter provides information that substantively affects the analyses within the Final EIR or otherwise identifies where the public would have been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the proposed Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Further, Chapter 2, Responses to Comments, of the Final EIR addressed concerns associated with cumulative impact analyses. As discussed in Topical Response No. 1 - Cumulative Impacts (starting on Final EIR page 2-2), the City added three reasonably foreseeable projects shown and incorporated in Table 2-2, Additional Related Projects. Topical Response No. 1 determined the additions do not change the impact conclusions in the Draft EIR, including the topics of air quality and noise, nor do they result in any new significant impacts or the need for new or altered mitigation measures, as further demonstrated in Topical Response No. 1. Given that these changes would not result in a new significant impact or in an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted or appropriate. Comment 1-2: In summary, the comment states that the proposed Project would have significant health risk impacts due to indoor air quality, and specifically due to formaldehyde emissions from interior finishes used on building material and furniture. Response to Comment 1-2: The commenter's opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. This comment was thoroughly addressed in Response to Comment 2-4 in the "Responses to Additional Comments Received" dated February 2022, which addresses all of the concerns regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR raised by the commenter. The response previously provided is summarized in brief below, and the reader is referred to Response to Comment 2-4 in the "Responses to Additional Comments Received" dated February 2022 for the full response. ■ Discussion of impacts on indoor air quality on future occupants of new construction is not specified or required by the City's CEQA Guidelines, State CEQA Guidelines, or California's air district guidelines. California air districts base their thresholds of significance for CEQA purposes on the levels that scientific and factual data demonstrate that the air basin can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the state and federal ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The AAQS is based on maximum pollutant levels in outdoor air that would not harm the public's health. • The commenter speculates on indoor air quality associated with finishes used on building material and furniture. The types of interior building materials would not be known until the building permit stage, and as stated below, these materials would be required to comply with CARB regulations and the 2019 CALGreen building code. There is no substantial evidence that the Project would involve use of materials that contain formaldehyde in levels that pose a risk to human health. • Building materials are required to reduce exposure to toxic substances through compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board regulations, such as 40 CFR Part 770, Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products. The regulations typically apply to manufacturers, distributors, importers, fabricators, and retailers of the products. All building materials used for the Project would be required to comply with the applicable federal and state standards. • The Project (both nonresidential and residential uses) will need to comply with the 2019 CALGreen Code, which specifies that composite wood products (such as hardwood plywood and particleboard) meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in the California Air Resources Board's Air Toxic Control Measures. The 2019 CALGreen building code also does not allow added formaldehyde -based resins or 12171 DUDEK MARCH 2022 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTERS ultra -low emitting formaldehyde resins, and requires documentation of compliance with the California Air Resources Board's Air Toxic Control Measures. (See Section 5.504.4.5, Chapter 5, Part 11, 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, July 2019, incorporated herein by this reference.) Furthermore, the 2019 Title 24 standards increased the level of air filtration required for new residential construction, from minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) 6 to MERV 13, per American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), with the stated goal of reducing indoor PM2.5 concentrations. MERV 13 filters remove at least 90% of particles sized 3.0 and 10.0 microns, 85% of particles sized 1.0 to 3.0 microns, and 50% of particles sized 0.3 to 1.0 microns, which would minimize the potential for new residents to be exposed to substantial TAC and PM2.5 emissions. The commenter's conclusions were not based on the assumption that the Project would be built in accordance with CARB's Air Toxic Control Measures and 2019 CALGreen building code. The commenter provides no evidence to substantiate a contrary conclusion that in spite of the proposed Project using materials that comply with the standards of the CARB's Air Toxic Control Measures, the proposed Project would still expose occupants to toxic substances that results in exceeding the SCAQMD CEQA significance health risk threshold. In summary, none of the issues raised in the comment letter constitute "significant new information" as defined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines that would require revisions to the Final EIR. Comment 1-3: In summary, the comment states that the Final EIR does not properly account for growth -inducing impacts due to new information related to the U.S. Census results, which would further increase populations that may tax existing community services facilities. Response to Comment 1-3: The commenter's opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. However, the commenter's assertion that growth -inducing impacts were not properly analyzed is not substantiated. Importantly, growth -inducing impacts of a project are not identified by CEQA to be significant impacts on the environment, rather CEQA requires a disclosure of any potential for growth inducing impacts. As stated in CEQA Section 15126.2(e), "it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment." The CEQA Guidelines do not have a specific threshold related to growth -inducement, but rather the environmental impacts associated with growth are understood to be captured within the stated threshold of significances in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would allow development of a mixed -use project with the majority residential component. The environmental impacts of the proposed Project are analyzed throughout the Draft EIR, within each of the relevant topical chapters, which thoroughly analyze the direct and indirect impacts associated with the long-term population and employment growth associated with buildout of the Specific Plan. Regarding the assertion that appropriate U.S. Census data was not used in the Draft EIR, the Census results from the 2020 Census were not released for use until the end of September 2021 and the Draft EIR was released February 2021. Therefore, the EIR correctly relies on available/final/approved demographic data. As stated in the Draft EIR, because there is no wholly reliable population, housing, or employment data after 2010, as the U.S. Census is conducted every ten years, all data for years prior to the 2020 Census should be viewed as projections or estimates. The Draft EIR disclosed the most relevant planning data available (i.e. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments (Connect SoCal 202-2045 RTP/SCS) projections). The comment correctly notes the anticipated additional population from Project implementation (618 people); however, the comment incorrectly states that the Draft EIR does not assess the cumulative population through 12171 D U D E( MARCH 2022 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTERS 2045. Per the Draft EIR page 4.11-18, "the proposed Project would exceed SCAG's estimated projections through 2045 by 118 persons." The updated Census data information does not alter the conclusions of the analysis of the Final EIR. The increase in existing population from 17,272 to 16,777 accounts for an increase of 2.87% between planned and quantified population for El Segundo. The adjustment for existing conditions that are clarified through the new U.S. Census results simply acknowledge the existing condition and do not alter the analysis of future unplanned population growth. The Draft EIR thoroughly addresses the population growth associated with the proposed Project, and acknowledges that all environmental topical areas would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation, with the exception of consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan. Long-term operational environmental impacts associated with population growth are assessed in the Draft EIR (see Sections 4.2, Air Quality; 4.4, Energy; 46, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality; 4.9, Land Use and Planning; 4.10, Noise; 4.11, Population and Housing; 4.12, Public Services and Recreation; 4.13, Transportation; 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems). In summary, although this updated U.S. Census population data reflects a slightly higher population in the existing conditions than was known at the time of the Draft EIR, it would not constitute a "substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact" such that new mitigation would be required, and would not require recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Responses to March 11, 2022 Letter Comment 2-1: In summary, the comment provides an opinion that the Final EIR requires recirculation due to the addition of three related projects into the cumulative analysis of the Final EIR. The comment requests a revised EIR be prepared and recirculated prior to considering approvals for the Project. Response to Comment 2-1: This comment is repetitive of Comment 1-1 provided in the February 10, 2022 letter. Please see response to Comment 1-1 above. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR. Comment 2-2: In summary, the comment states that the Final EIR does not properly account for growth -inducing impacts due to new information related to the U.S. Census results, which would further increase populations that may tax existing community services facilities. Response to Comment 2-2: This comment is repetitive of Comment 1-3 provided in the February 10, 2022 letter. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 above. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR. Comment 2-3. In summary, the comment states that new U.S. Census results exceed the SCAG 2045 population projections and that the project's additional population, in combination with other cumulative residential projects, is unplanned growth that was not analyzed in the Draft EIR. DUDEI1 -- - --- -- 12171-- 4 MARCH 2O22 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTERS Response to Comment 2-3: The commenter's opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. However, the commenter's assertion that Project -related growth impacts were not properly analyzed is not substantiated. This comment correctly states that the newly released 2020 U.S. Census population data (i.e. 17,272) shows a population in the current condition that exceeds SCAG's projected 2045 population projection for El Segundo (i.e. 17,200), which results in a difference of 72 individuals. This circumstance clearly articulates whythe Connect SoCal clearly states that lead agencies are responsible for determining consistency with the RTP/SCS. As stated in Section 4.11, Population and Housing of the Draft EIR: As stated in the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, there is no obligation by a jurisdiction to change its land use policies, General Plan, or regulations to be consistent with the RTP/SCS, and lead agencies have the sole discretion in determining a local project's consistency with the RTP/SCS (SCAG 2020a). The Draft EIR has clearly articulated consistency with the guiding principles, goals and policies of SCAG's 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS as they relate to livability, economic prosperity, and sustainability through the development of walkable, mixed use communities along major transportation corridors. The development of a mix of housing and job opportunities within 0.51-mile of transit, thereby alleviating pressure on suburban and open space areas to develop, is fully supportive of SCAG's strategies, as summarized in Chapter 1 of SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The updated U.S. Census data does not alter the analysis of impacts associated with the proposed Project's population growth, as explained in Response to Comment 1-3 for the February 10, 2022 letter. Please see response to Comment 1-3 above. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR. Comment 2-4: In summary, the comment states that the Draft EIR includes unsupported claims related to employment and housing vacancy. Response to Comment 2-4: The commenter's opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. However, the commenter's assertion that unsupported claims in the Draft EIR were used to support an impact conclusion is not substantiated. This quote taken from the text of the Draft EIR regardingthe future residents of the proposed Project in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, is accurate. Regarding the statement that the proposed residential units would likely accommodate some existing residents and would also facilitate new residents moving to the City is a generalized statement that was not used to provide a lesser impact analysis of population impacts. Further, the summary statement of the housing vacancy rate of 4.7% in El Segundo, which is less than the vacancy rate of Los Angeles County, was provided to show context for the regional demand for housing. The statement was not used to provide a lesser impact analysis of growth -inducing impacts. The Draft EIR fully assesses the environmental impacts of a population growth of all 618 new residents to the City generated by the proposed new residential units. Long- term operational environmental impacts associated with population growth are assessed in the Draft EIR (see Sections 4.2, Air Quality; 4.4, Energy; 46, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality; 4.9, Land Use and Planning; 4.10, Noise; 4.11, Population and Housing; 4.12, Public Services and Recreation; 4.13, Transportation; 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems). This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR. Comment 2-5: In summary, the comment states that the Final EIR did not include an analysis of land use and planning impacts. 12111 D U D E K MARCH 2022 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO L07EAU DRURY COMMENT LETTERS Response to Comment 2-5: The commenter's opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. However, the commenter's assertion that the proposed Project conflicts with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) is not substantiated. As stated under Response to Comment 2-3, lead agencies have the sole discretion of determining consistency with the RTP/SCS. The Draft EIR clearly discloses that population growth associated with the proposed Project would exceed SCAG's Connect SoCal population projections. However, importantly, growth alone does not create a significant impact on the environment and it was determined that this population growth would result in a less than significant impact on land use and planning. Importantly, additional housing units are required to meet the City's mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The City's fair share allocation for the planning period was 491 units at the time of the Draft EIR, but has been recently revised to 492 units (which is the final RHNA allocation). As such, between the years 2021 to 2029, the City needs to accommodate at least 492 housing units, consisting of a variety of housing types to accommodate extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and above moderate -income households to keep pace with housing demand. The proposed Project would create 236 new housing units and would include affordable housing in accordance with the negotiated Development Agreement. The specific allocation between the types of low-income housing has yet to be determined; however, the proposed low-income units would satisfy a portion of the City's mandated 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. Because the proposed Project would support SCAG's goals and strategies, and because the proposed Project would assist the development of new housing that would improve the City's job/housing balance and facilitate the City's ability to obtain RHNA allocation, impacts related to population growth were determined to be less than significant. Although the proposed Project would provide a resident population that exceeds SCAG's projections, this growth is not considered substantial and it would further attainment of local and regional goals. As stated in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the Draft EIR includes a thorough discussion of land use impacts related to SCAG's Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS); the City of El Segundo General Plan; and the City of El Segundo Municipal Code, and the proposed Project would not conflict with any plans or policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect, and all impacts were determined to be less than significant. Long- term operational environmental impacts associated with population growth are assessed in the Draft EIR (see Sections 4.2, Air Quality; 4.4, Energy; 46, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality; 4.9, Land Use and Planning; 4.10, Noise; 4.11, Population and Housing; 4.12, Public Services and Recreation; 4.13, Transportation; 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems). The commenter asserts that a modified threshold was used. To the contrary, the threshold of significance used in the Draft EIR is verbatim from the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR. Comment 2-6: In summary, the comment states that the Final EIR did not include an analysis of or mitigation for cumulative impacts on population growth and land use and planning impacts. Response to Comment 2-6: The Draft EIR provides an overview of the proposed Project's cumulative setting by environmental resource area in Chapter 2, Environmental Setting in Table 2-2, Geographic Scope and Method of Evaluation for Cumulative Impacts (Draft EIR p. 2-7). As explained in the table, population and housing is analyzed on a regional level using a projections -based method of evaluation. As noted in the comment letter, CEQA allows two methods to evaluate cumulative impacts; a list of past, present and probable future projects or a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide planning document (CEQA Guidelines section 15130(b)). The Draft EIR 12171 D U D E K MARCH 2022 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTERS includes a list of past, present and probable future projects in Table 2-3, List of Cumulative Projects to evaluate the Project's cumulative impacts consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the commenters assertion that the EIR does not comply with CEQA requirements is incorrect. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, the Final EIR updates Table 2-3, List of Cumulative Projects to include three additional projects. These projects include 8 residential units and additional office uses. Regarding the concern raised by the commenter that the EIR does not address the additional population growth anticipated by these projects, the cumulative population and housing growth associated with these additional projects is addressed in the Final EIR and the analysis determines the "addition of 8 units intended to serve the planned office uses for the three new related projects would not be a substantial change in the context of cumulative housing and population growth for the City." (Final EIR p. 2-8). The additional 8 units would contribute a population increase of approximately 19 residents. Regardingthe commenter's concern that "there is no wayto know the cumulative impact on land use and planning as a result of population levels that exceed projections" the following information is provided. The Draft EIR provides an overview of the existing population projections within the City of El Segundo (City), Los Angeles County (County), and the larger region as provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG estimates that the County would have 10,407,000 residents by 2020 and 11,647,000 residents by 2045 (see Table 4.11-2, p. 4.11-13). SCAG and the Department of Finance estimate that the City would have 16,777 residents by 2020 and 17,200 residents by 2045 (see Table 4.11-2). SCAG's forecasted population growth for the City is 500 persons between 2016 and 2045. (Draft EIR pp. 4.11-13 and -14). As explained in the Draft EIR in Section 4.11, Population and Housing on page 4.11-13, "[U]sing population and housing estimates from the California Department of Finance, the City has an occupancy rate of 2.35 persons per household (DOF 2020). Assuming 2.35 persons per household, the proposed Project's residential units would accommodate 618 individuals. If these 618 individuals would be new residents to the City, then the proposed Project would exceed SCAG's estimated projections through 2045 by 118 persons." The EIR uses SCAG population projections because the City's General Plan does not include population projections beyond 2010. The proposed Project would accommodate an expected 618 residents, which would exceed the overall population growth projections included in Connect SoCal by an additional 118 individuals. As stated in the Connect SoCal, there is no obligation by a jurisdiction to change its land use policies, General Plan, or regulations to be consistent with the RTP/SCS, and lead agencies have the sole discretion in determining a local project's consistency with the RTP/SCS. As provided in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project would implement the guiding principles, goals and policies of SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as they relate to livability, economic prosperity, and sustainability through the development of walkable, mixed use communities along major transportation corridors. The development of a mix of housing and job opportunities within 0.51-mile of transit, thereby alleviating pressure on suburban and open space areas to develop, is fully supportive of SCAG's strategies, as summarized in Chapter 1 of SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The Draft EIR evaluated the Project's cumulative impacts starting on page 4.11-18 in Section 4.11.5, Cumulative Impact Analysis. The analysis recognizes that the proposed Project would exceed SCAG's estimated projections through 2045 by 118 persons. The cumulative projects listed in Table 2-3 would generate an increase of approximately 183 individuals, and the three projects included in the Final EIR would generate approximately 19 individuals, resulting in an increase of approximately 202 new residents in the City based on the projected 86 new units from cumulative projects, using the Draft EIR's anticipated household size of 2.35. When considering this population growth in the context of the potential 3.87 million square feet of non-residential development anticipated, as shown in Table 2-3, as well as the three projects included in the Final EIR, it is clear that the addition of the cumulative projects would further exacerbate the jobs -rich profile of the City. As stated in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, "Therefore, the remaining cumulative projects would be primarily increasing employment in the City and potentially further exacerbating the jobs -rich profile of the City, which could increase the vehicle miles traveled between employment centers and residential land uses." It is understood that increasing the distance between employment opportunities and housing opportunities results in increased vehicle miles traveled. 12171 DUDEK MARCH 2O22 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTERS The addition of 202 individuals that would result from the anticipated cumulative projects within the City would not result in a significant cumulative impactto land use and planning. Each of these cumulative projects will be required to evaluate their proposed impacts on population and housing, as well as land use and planning, and all relevant environmental topics that are affected by population growth. The proposed Project would accomplish the following: (1) provide much needed housing to the City and region and would support implementation of the Connect SoCal goals and policies; (2) support the City's required RHNA allocation of housing including affordable housing; (3) be consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Connect SoCal and City's General Plan; (4) facilitate movement towards a more balanced jobs/housing balance within the City; therefore, the proposed Project's population growth was determined not to result in substantial or significant environmental impacts due to population growth, either directly or cumulatively. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR. 12171 DUDEK MARCH 2022 DRURYLLe T s10_836.4200 F 510 836.4205 Via Email February 101, 2022 Chair Ryan Baldino and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission City of El Segundo Development Services Department 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 1939 Harrison Street, Ste 1S0 www.iozeaudrury.com Oakland, CA 94612 Arnalia!a>lozeaudrury.com Comment Letter #1 Paul Samaras, AICP City of El Segundo Development Services Department 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 samaras else undo.or2 Re: Supplemental Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report, Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (SCH# 2020050508) Dear Chair Baldino, Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, and Mr. Samaras: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared for the Project known as Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan, aka SCH# 2020050508, including all actions related or referring to the proposed demolition of existing surface parking lots and construction of a new mixed use development located at 401-575 N. Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and the parking lot on 600-block of PCH in the City of El Segundo ("Project"). We previously commented on this project ahead of the December 9, 2021 Planning Commission hearing, which was continued. Earlier this month, the City of El Segundo ("City") released the agenda for the February 10, 2022 Planning Commission hearing, in which included an FEIR dated February 2022, and the City's responses to comments from SAFER and the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ("SWRCC") which had not previously been responded to. We are submitting these comments as a supplement to our December 9th comment for the Planning Commission's consideration. After reviewing the February 2022 FEIR, we conclude that changes made to the DEIR require recirculation. Further, the issues raised in our December 9th comment letter remain. SAFER requests that the Development Services Department address these shortcomings in a revised environmental impact report ("REIR") and recirculate the REIR prior to considering approvals for the Project. February 10, 2022 Supplemental Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (SCH4 2020050508) Page 2 of 3 I. DISCUSSION A. The City Has Added Significant New Information to its EIR and is Therefore Required to Recirculate the FEIR. CEQA requires re -circulation of an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR following public review but before certification. (PRC § 21092.1). The CEQA Guidelines clarify that new information is significant if "the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project" including, for example, "a disclosure showing that ... [a] new significant environmental impact would result from the project." (14 CCR § 15088.5). The City added three additional related projects to its cumulative impacts analysis in the FEIR. These projects are all located just blocks from the proposed Project site and have the potential to add a substantial increase in severity to numerous environmental impacts, such as air quality and noise. The public must be given the opportunity to review and comment on the substantial new information which includes additional pages of tables, charts, maps and new analysis that resulted from the inclusion of the new projects in the FEIR's cumulative impacts analyses. The public has a right for their comments, and the comments of their experts, to be responded to in the FEIR, as required by CEQA. The DEIR should be recirculated for full public review to address the impacts identified above and to propose feasible mitigation measures. B. Substantial Evidence Remains that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts. In its December 9th letter, SAFER included the comments of Certified Industrial Hygienist Bud Offermann, who found that the Project would likely expose residents and commercial employees of the Project to significant indoor air quality impacts. (SAFER letter, Dec. 9, 2021, Exhibit A). In its response to comments, the City states that building materials for the project would be required to comply with applicable state and federal standards, including California Air Resource Board ("CARB") regulations. However, Mr. Offermann's analysis specifically assumes compliance with CARB's formaldehyde airborne toxics control measures. (SAFER letter, Dec. 9, 2021, Ex. A, p. 4). Despite use of these measures, Mr. Offermann found cancer risks for residents and commercial employees that exceeded applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") standards. Additionally, contrary to the City's assertion in its response to comments, it is required under CEQA to address the carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann in his comment. As noted in the December 9th letter, the court in California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (" CBIA) held that CEQA's statutory language requires lead agencies to disclose and analyze "impacts on a project's 1-1 February 10, 2022 Supplemental Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (SCH# 2020050508) Page 3 of 3 users or residents that arise from the project's effects on the environment." ((2015) 62 CalAth 369, 800). The emissions identified by Mr. Offermann will stem from the Project and therefore must be addressed in a Revised Environmental Impact Report. C. The FEIR Fails to Properly Account for the Project's Growth -Inducing Impacts. CEQA standards require EIRs to assess growth -inducing impacts of a proposed project. (PRC § 21 100(b)(5)). As explained in CCR Tit. 14 § 15126.2(e), this analysis is important because "[i]ncreases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects." This includes potential impacts on public services, transportation, and greenhouse gases, among others. Here, the DEIR has relied upon 2010 Census Results to conclude that anticipated growth is not considered substantial. (DEIR, p. 4.11-15). However, 2020 Census Data for the City of El Segundo is now available,' and it indicates a population of 17,272, which exceeds Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) projections for 2020 (16,777) and 2045 (17,200). (DEIR, p. 4.11-13). This Project alone will add an additional 618 people, and does not analyze additional population expected from any other cumulative project planned or proposed at any time between now and 2045, each of which would further exceed projections. This constitutes unplanned growth that must be disclosed and its impacts analyzed in a Revised EIR. II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, SAFER believes that the EIR is wholly inadequate. SAFER urges the Planning Commission to refrain from recommending certification of the FEIR or recommending approval of the Project in order to allow staff additional time to address the concerns raised herein. Thank you for considering our comments and please include this letter in the record of proceedings for this project. Sincerely, (t�inaIia B ley F ntes Lozeau Drury LLP htt s: www.census. ov uickfacts else undocit california?. 1-2 1-3 �1 DRURYLLP T 510-836.4200 F 510 836 4205 Via Email March 11, 2022 Drew Boyles, Mayor Honorable Members of the City Council City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 dbo ies cr else undo.or� Mishia Jennings Executive Assistant to City Council City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 infennini.zs (1'7i elsegundO.org 1939 Harrison Street, Ste 150 www.lozeaudrury.com Oakland, CA 94612 Amaha@lozeaudrury,com Comment Letter #2 Paul Samaras, AICP City of El Segundo Development Services Department 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 psamaras@elsegundo.org Re: Supplemental Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report, Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (SCH# 2020050508) Dear Mayor Boyles and Honorable Members of the City Council: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared for the Project known as Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan, aka SCH# 2020050508, including all actions related or referring to the proposed demolition of existing surface parking lots and construction of a new mixed use development located at 401-575 N. Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and the parking lot on 600-block of PCH in the City of E1 Segundo ("Project"). On February 10, 2022, the Planning Commission considered this Project and approved it despite issues raised regarding recirculation, health risk impacts, and growth - inducing impacts from the Project. SAFER maintains that changes made to the DEIR require recirculation, and that there is still substantial evidence of a growth -inducing impact from the Project that requires analysis in a Revised Environmental Impact Report ("REIR"). SAFER therefore requests that the City Council not approve this Project so that the Development Services Department can address the February 2022 FEIR's shortcomings in an REIR, and recirculate the REIR prior to considering approvals for the Project. March 11, 2022 Supplemental Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (SCH# 2020050508) Page 2 of 6 I. DISCUSSION A. The City Has Added Significant New Information to its EIR and is Therefore Required to Recirculate the FEIR. CEQA requires re -circulation of an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR following public review but before certification. (PRC § 21092.1). The CEQA Guidelines clarify that new information is significant if "the EIR is changed in a Way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project" including, for example, "a disclosure showing that ... [a] new significant environmental impact would result from the project." (14 CCR § 15088.5). As mentioned in our letter to the Planning Commission, the City added three additional related projects to its cumulative impacts analysis in the FEIR. These projects are all located just blocks from the proposed Project site and have the potential to add a substantial increase in severity to numerous environmental impacts, such as air quality and noise. The public must be given the opportunity to review and comment on the substantial new information which includes additional pages of tables, charts, maps and new analysis that resulted from the inclusion of the new projects in the FEIR's cumulative impacts analyses. The public has a right for their comments, and the comments of their experts, to be responded to in the FEIR, as required by CEQA. The DEIR should be recirculated for full public review to address the impacts identified above and to propose feasible mitigation measures. B. The FEIR Fails to Properly Account for the Project's Growth -Inducing Impacts. CEQA standards require EIRs to assess growth -inducing impacts of a proposed project. (PRC § 21100(b)(5)). The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project will have a significant growth -inducing impact if it would "induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)." As explained in CCR Tit. 14 § 15126.2(e), this analysis is important because "[i]ncreases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects." This includes potential impacts on public services, transportation, and greenhouse gases, among others. In its discussion of population projections, the DEIR states that Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") and the Department of Finance estimate the following population numbers for the City of El Segundo: 16,777 residents by 2020 and 17,200 residents by 2045. (DEIR, p. 4.11-13 to 14). The DEIR claims that "the City is not expected to meet the populations growth expectations set forth in the General Plan [of 17,200 2-1 2-2 March 11, 2022 Supplemental Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (SCH# 2020050508) Page 3 of 6 people] until after 2045." (DEIR, p. 4-11.5.) Based on data from the U.S. Census, however, 2-2 these statements are false. Census data reveals that as of April 1, 2020, El Segundo's population was 17,272 people — 72 more than SCAG's projected 2045 population.' The EIR states that the Project will add an additional 618 people from this one project alone. In total, together with existing population, the Project would cause the City's population to exceed the population relied on in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS by 690 people, not taking into account any additional residential development. In addition to exceeding SCAG's projections, the population increase is also greater than projections in the currently applicable General Plan. (DEIR, 4.1 1-13.) The additional population stemming from this Project, as well as other cumulative residential projects, is unplanned growth because it exceeds the population levels planned for. This unplanned growth constitutes a significant impact that the City has failed to analyze and mitigate. The DEIR claims that "[i]t is likely that the proposed residential units would accommodate a combination of existing residents and new residents that either currently work within the City and/or new residents that would be hired as a result of projected employment generation within the City." (DEIR, p. 4.11-13). However, the DEIR provides no evidence to support this claim. The DEIR also states that the City of El Segundo has a housing vacancy rate of 4.7%, which is less than that of Los Angeles County, and that therefore the Project is expected to be growth -accommodating rather than growth -inducing. (Id.). The DEIR similarly provides no evidence to support this claim. A revised EIR is necessary to analyze and mitigate this significant impact based on the readily available 2020 census population data. C. The FEIR Fails to Analyze and Mitigate Significant Land Use and Planning Impacts. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project has a significant environmental impact if it would "[c]onflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Section X.b.) Pursuant to the Guidelines, a conflict with a plan adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact is itself a significant impact. In 2008, California enacted the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375), requiring Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) element as part of 1 httos://www.census.govlquickfacts/elseaundocitycalifornia; also attached as Exhibit A. 2-3 2-4 2-5 March 11, 2022 Supplemental Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (SCH# 2020050508) Page 4 of 6 their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update for the purpose of identifying policies and strategies to reduce per capita passenger vehicle -generated GHG emissions. (Connect SoCal PEIR, 2.0-1.) The EIR for SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (known as Connect SoCal) explains (Connect SoCal Draft PEIR, p. 2.0-1): The SCS is required to identify the general location of land uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the region; identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region; identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight -year projection of the regional housing need; identify a transportation network to service the regional transportation needs; gather and consider the best practically available scientific information regarding resources areas and farmland in the region; consider the state housing goals; set forth a forecasted development pattern for the region; and allow the regional transportation plan to comply with the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 (42 USC. § 7401 et seq.) (Gov. Code, § 65080, subd. (b)(F)(2)(B)), of which, when integrated with the transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies will reduce the GHG from automobiles and light duty trucks to achieve, if there is a reasonable way to do so, the GHG emission reduction targets approved by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Beginning in 2012, SCAG adopted its first Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Plan, described as "a long-range plan for transportation in the region that links air quality, land use, and transportation needs." (Connect SoCal Draft PEIR, p. 2.0-2.) The most recent RTP/SCS was updated in 2020, and includes a growth forecast with population, household and employment growth anticipated to occur by 2045, a transportation network and planned projects, and a forecasted development pattern with land use and transportation strategies. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS "was developed to achieve targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, consistent with SB 375 and other regional goals." (Connect SoCal Draft PEIR, p. 2.0-2.) "The Plan details how the SCAG region can achieve several outcomes essential to the success of the region's long-range transportation and land use goals." (Connect SoCal Draft PEIR, p. 2.0-10.) The EIR concludes that the Project will not have a significant land use and planning impact because the "Project would not conflict with the applicable goals in the RTP/SCS adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." (DEIR, 4.9-11.) But the threshold of significance is not limited to consistency with a plan's goals. Here, the Project is inconsistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS because it permits population growth — and related additional vehicle use, GHG emissions, etc. — beyond what was forecast and planned for in the RTP/SCS. Growth beyond the assumptions used in the RTP/SCS will have impacts on transportation, air quality, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions. This is a significant impact that must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in a revised EIR. The EIR ignores this potential impact in part by relying on a modified threshold of signficance that asks "[w]ould the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a 2-5 March 11, 2022 Supplemental Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (SCH# 2020050508) Page 5 of 6 conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (DEIR, p. 4-9.1 l .) This threshold of significance fails to 2-5 acknowledge that, where a plan or policy is adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, the conflict itself is an environmental impact. D. The FEIR Fails to Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Cumulative Impact on Population Growth and Land Use and Planning Impacts. EIR's must discuss a Project's significant cumulative impacts. 14 CCR § 15130(a). This requirement flows from CEQA section 21083, which requires a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if "the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.... `Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." The CEQA Guidelines allow two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the list -of -projects approach, and the summary -of projects approach. Under either method, the EIR must summarize the expected environmental effects of the project and related projects, provide a reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts, and examine reasonable mitigation options. 14 CCR § 15130(b). The EIR's cumulative impacts analysis does not comply with either of these requirements. The EIR's analysis of cumulative population impacts lists two other residential projects proposed in the area, but does not discuss the additional population growth expected from those projects. Without this information, there is no way to know the impact of the Project on population growth, together with the impact of the cumulative projects. Similarly, without this information, there is no way to know the cumulative impact on land use and planning as a result of population levels that exceed projections. The Project's cumulative impact on unplanned growth and land use and planning must be disclosed and its impacts analyzed in a Revised EIR. II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, SAFER believes that the EIR is wholly inadequate. SAFER urges the City Council to refrain from certifying the FEIR or recommending approval of the Project in order to allow staff additional time to address the concerns raised herein. Thank you for considering our comments and please include this letter in the record of proceedings for this project. 2-6 March 11, 2022 Supplemental Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (SCH# 2020050508) Page 6 of 6 Sincerely, �,malia 8 wley F ntes Lozeau Drury LLP EXHIBIT A G Q 8 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/elsegundocitycalifornia IM An official website of the United States government 5�1? 0 y m 9 QuickFacts what's New & FAQs 110 El Segundo city, Califomia QuickFacts provides statistics for all states and counties, and for cities and towns with a population of 5,000 or more. Table All Topics Mi Population Estimates, July 12021, (V2021) Population Population Estimates, July 12021, (112021) e Population estimates base, April 1, 2020, (V2021) O Population, percent change - April 1, 2020 (estimates base) to July 1, 2021, (V2021) e Population, Census, April 1, 2020 9 Population, Census, April 1, 2010 Q El Segundo city, California ® NA © NA p NA ® NA 17,272 16,654