HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 7 - Responses to Appeal ApplicationPage 1 of 7
RESPONSE TO APPEAL LETTER
A-1 The commenter has not provided any credible evidence to support a fair
argument that there are significant impacts. The IS/MND, as well as all
supporting technical studies, provide the existing setting comprising the
baseline conditions for the project, and all feasible mitigation measures for the
project’s impacts have been applied. Therefore, an EIR is not required. See
responses A-2 through A-16.
A-2 This introductory comment summarizes the project but does not address any
topics in the recirculated IS/MND. No further response is required.
A-3 The comment states that the project is being piecemealed, noting that the
applicant is also processing another project at 821 Main Street, Nirvana
Business Park. The comment states that these two separate projects are a
single project and should be processed under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) as a single project.
However, these are two distinctly separate projects and have been processed
under CEQA and the City’s Zoning Code separately. Neither the Shinohara
project nor the 821 Main Street project will provide the necessary step to
facilitate the other project, and neither project requires nor presumes
completion of the other. Rather, the two projects have independent utility and
purpose from the other. Accordingly, no piecemealing under CEQA has
occurred. (See Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012)
211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1223-1226). Even projects that are similar in nature and
have similar purposes are properly considered separate projects under CEQA
if they are independently considered for approval by an agency and one activity
is not a foreseeable consequence of the other. (Aptos Council v. County of
Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 281-282). That is the case with the
Shinohara and 821 Main Street projects.
Nevertheless, the cumulative impacts of the Nirvana Business Park project
have been considered under the CEQA analysis for this Shinohara Business
Center project, where each threshold was analyzed for cumulative impacts
using both the General Plan and the Cumulative Project List (pages 127- 128
of the Recirculated IS/MND) prepared for the environmental review, as well the
impact studies also considered cumulative impacts (i.e., a copy of the
cumulative impacts used for Air Quality, GHG, Energy, and Health Risk
Assessment can be found as Appendix B of Appendix C – Air Quality,
Greenhouse, and Health Risk Impact Study). The Nirvana Project is listed on
page 128 of the IS/MND as a cumulative project. Therefore, the CEQA analysis
is not flawed. The Recirculated IS/MND, as well as all supporting technical
studies, provide the existing setting comprising the baseline conditions for the
Page 2 of 7
project, and all feasible mitigation measures for the project’s impacts have been
applied. Therefore, an EIR is not required.
A-4/5 The comment states the IS/MND failed to include a discussion of environmental
justice issues regarding project impacts. In response, a complete discussion of
health and equity impacts has been included in the Recirculated IS/MND on
page 48 and in Appendix C – the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk
Impact Study (pages 43 – 44) using CalEnviroScreen 4.0 and the California
Healthy Places Index (HPI) to analyze project impacts.
As stated on page 48 of the recirculated IS/MND, “the project would qualify for
the first tier of the CalEEMod Health and Equity Evaluation Scorecard, the
Acorn equity award level” because the project has implemented programs to
improve social equity by encouraging community input and maintaining
community communication through the noticing process for the CEQA review
and hearing process. The complete list of health and equity measures to be
implemented regarding the project can be found in the CalEEMod output in
Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study,
Appendix C to the Recirculated IS/MND; furthermore, as set forth in the
Recirculated IS/MND. The project would not result in significant impacts during
construction or operation, which could disproportionately impact disadvantaged
communities.
A-6 The comment states that the energy analysis is insufficient as it does not utilize
California’s Building Energy Code Compliance Software (CBECC). However,
CEQA energy guidelines do not require CBECC software to be used to
demonstrate compliance. CalEEMod version 2022.1 includes default
assumptions based on Title 24 standards that quantify the project’s energy
usage. As the project shall be built to meet Title 24 standards, the energy
analysis provided in the recirculated IS/MND is accurate and complete.
CalEEMod is widely used throughout the state and is recommended by the San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District. Moreover, the commenter does not
provide any evidence that using the CBECC software would result in greater
impacts than set forth in the Recirculated IS/MND.
In addition, the project is required under State law to comply with the California
Code & Regulations Title 24, Part 6 (California Energy Code) 100.0(a),
Chapters 1-6, and Part 11 (California Green Building Standards Code)
requirements, as well as Title 20 – Energy and Water Conservation, Chapter
15.12 – Green Building Standards, and State Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance. Further, if approved, compliance with the 2022 California Building
Energy Code Compliance will require adherence to Title 24 Energy and
Efficiency Standards will be a condition of approval for the project. The
applicant must demonstrate compliance through the City building permit
process and, before issuance of any building permit occurring, that the Title 24
standards are met for the project.
Page 3 of 7
Also, as stated in Section VI – Energy (page 63) of the Recirculated IS/MND:
“Regarding the State’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy
efficiency standards, the applicant must comply with the California Green
Building Standard Code requirements for energy-efficient buildings and
appliances and utility energy efficiency programs implemented by SDG&E.
Regarding the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the project
would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the
California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen).
CalGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption,
employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert
construction waste from landfills, use LED lighting, and install low pollutant-
emitting finish materials.”
A-7 The comment states that the CO2e emissions were understated in the
Recirculated IS/MND compared to the CalEEMod output provided in the
previous IS/MND. The appellant has mistakenly claimed that the calculations
found the project would emit 20,900 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year when the
project would emit 20,900 pounds (not MT) CO2e per day on the peak day of
emissions in the summer. As pounds per day and metric tons per year are not
equivalent, the study did not understate emissions. Further, Recirculated
IS/MND Section VIII (GHG Emissions), Table 11 (on page 73), and Appendix
C to the recirculated IS/MND at section 7.2, Table 11, identify that the project’s
annual operational GHG emissions (including mobile source emissions of
7,684 MT CO2e) will be less than the SCAQMD significance threshold of
10,000 MT CO2e per year, even without any reductions from sustainable
project design and/or compliance with regulatory requirements.
Furthermore, this comment is no longer relevant as a revised CalEEMod model
using CalEEMod version 2022.1 has been used for the recirculated IS/MND.
(See, for example, the Recirculated IS/MND, Section VIII (GHG Emissions),
Table 11 (at page 73), note 1, stating that CalEEMod version 2022.1 was the
source used to provide the emissions numbers analyzed in the Recirculated
IS/MND.)
A-8 The comment states that vehicle emissions were understated in the IS/MND
due to unsubstantiated reductions in operational VMT. However, no VMT,
including pass-by or diverted trip reductions, was included in the model as
mitigation or adjustment, and all operational emissions used in determining the
significance of project impacts were based on the unmitigated, unadjusted
scenario. (See Recirculated IS/MND on page 73 and page 14 of the CalEEMod
output in Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk
Impact Study.) Therefore, the comment does not apply. Furthermore, this
comment is no longer relevant as a revised CalEEMod model using CalEEMod
version 2022.1 has been used for the Recirculated IS/MND.
Page 4 of 7
A-9 The comment states that vehicle emissions were understated in the IS/MND
due to VMT assumptions not accounting for trip lengths larger than CalEEMod
defaults during the project’s operation. In response, a revised CalEEMod model
was completed using trip lengths of 40 miles for heavy-heavy duty truck trips
during operation based upon a regional operation like the NASSCO shipyards.
See Recirculated IS/MND on page 61 and page 65 of the CalEEMod output in
Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study.
The result is a conservative assumption as the project is highly likely to serve
businesses and operations located in the nearby NASSCO shipyards, located
11 miles northwest of the project (see comment response 12/13 below). For
employee trips, default CalEEMod trip lengths were used based on the rates in
the 2015 California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM) from Caltrans
for the project’s traffic analysis zone (TAZ) and land use type. As employment
for the project is anticipated to be fulfilled by residents of Chula Vista and the
surrounding area, larger trip lengths would not need to be considered (see
Recirculated IS-MND page 32).
A-10/11 The comment notes that the project is expected to have 600 employees, which
is incorrect. But the total number of employees projected will be 350 working
over three shifts. (See, for example, Recirculated IS/MND at p. 8.) As noted in
the Recirculated IS/MND in Section III Air Quality (pages 31 -32) and XIV
Population and Housing (pages 106 – 107), SANDAG’s Regional Growth
Forecast notes that the City will add 42,107 new jobs between 2016 and 2050.
The project is projected to create 350 new jobs, or .832%, less than 1%, of the
42,107 new jobs projected by SANDAG over the next 34 years. As the tenant
is unknown at this time, the projection of 350 new jobs may be high, but it
illustrates what may occur on the site and that the project will not result in
substantial growth in employment. Chula Vista residents and others living in
the surrounding area would be expected to fill these positions. Because the
project is not residential, it would not generate direct population or housing
growth. The employment growth associated with the project would be
consistent with SANDAG’s employment forecast and the City’s General Plan.
The VMT per employee threshold for the project was obtained using the
SANDAG Screening Maps (Attachment A). The maps showed the project
would be expected to generate 15.32 VMT/employee, an amount less than the
regional average VMT/employee rate of 18.9. The subject map is included in
Appendix B of the Local Mobility Analysis (LMA). The LMA is included as
Appendix O to the IS/MND. A discussion of the project VMT is included in
section 4.0 of the LMA.
The IS/MND, as well as all supporting technical studies, provide the existing
setting comprising the baseline conditions for the project, and all feasible
mitigation measures for the project’s impacts have been applied. Therefore, an
EIR is not required.
Page 5 of 7
A-12/13 The comment notes three items:
1. “VMT analysis presented in the MND does not adequately or accurately
represent the VMT impacts of the proposed project, and an EIR must be
prepared to reflect this.”
2. “Second, Table 4.2 Trip Summary of the CalEEMod output sheets in
Appendix C indicates that the project will generate approximately
14,251,839 annual VMT (14,251,839 / 365 days = 39,046 daily total
VMT). This is exponentially higher than the 15 VMT per employee
reported in the MND to determine the project will have less than
significant impacts.”
3. “Third, the MND has not presented any information regarding the
location of employees to fulfill its construction or operational needs.
Relying upon the labor force of the greater San Diego region to meet the
employment demands of the proposed project will exponentially
increase the VMT per employee.”
Appendix O of the IS/MND – Local Mobility Analysis, prepared by Linscott Law
& Greenspan Engineers on December 14, 2022 (Section 4.0, page 11),
addresses item 1.
Also, in reference to CEQA Guidelines Proposed Section 15064.3, the OPR
states that “’vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount of distance of
AUTOMOBILE travel attributable to a project. Here, the term ‘automobile’ refers
to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks.” Therefore,
heavy vehicles are not considered.
Per the City of Chula Vista Transportation Study Guidelines:
“Industrial Employment projects located within a VMT-efficient area may be
presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to
the contrary. A VMT-efficient area for industrial employment projects is any
area with an average VMT/Employee at or below the baseline regional average
for the census tract it is located within.”
Also, as explained by Tucker Hohenstein, SIOR, Senior Executive Vice
President, Colliers Brokerage (Attachment B), at the June 28, 2023, Planning
Commission meeting for this project and the Recirculated IS/MND, based on
his significant real estate leasing and sales experience in the San Diego region
and the South Bay area, it was highly likely that a tenant or occupant of the
project would primarily serve businesses and operations located in the nearby
NASSCO shipyards, supporting the VMT figures analyzed for the project in the
Recirculated IS/MND.
Page 6 of 7
Regarding item 2, the VMT used in the model is based upon a trip generation
rate of 4,881 trips, which is the worst-case scenario trip generation rate and
serves as a conservative analysis for air quality, greenhouse gas, health risk,
and energy impacts (See Recirculated IS/MND, page 65 of the CalEEMod
output in Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk
Impact Study.) The VMT number cited in the comment is based on all trips (i.e.,
total truck and employee trips), so it is not relevant to the VMT transportation
analysis, which, as discussed above, is based solely on employee trips.
Regarding item 3, the Recirculated IS-MND states on page 32 that the
employees for the project “would be expected to be filled by Chula Vista
residents and others living in the surrounding area” as the County has a large
labor pool. Page 32 also states, “employment growth associated with the
project would be consistent with SANDAG’s employment forecast and the
City’s General Plan.” However, predicting where the future project workers will
live accurately is impossible, and CEQA does not require speculation. While it
is possible that some workers may travel more miles than the average, others
would travel less. The use of SANDAG regional; trip length averages is a widely
accepted best practice and represents a reasonable, good-faith approach
consistent with CEQA. Moreover, the comment provides no evidence that the
trip lengths used in the analysis are inaccurate or that using a different trip
length would result in a significant impact. As set forth in Table 4-1 of the
Recirculated IS-MND, the project’s per capita employee VMT of 15.32 is well
below the significance threshold of 18.9, so it would take a very large increase
(over 23 percent) in trip lengths to cause a significant impact.
A-14 The comment notes that the IS/MND “. . .has not adequately analyzed the
project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment); or result in inadequate emergency access.”
The Recirculated IS/MND on pages 114 – 115 and Appendix O (Section 10.1,
page 28) address the topics of hazards due to geometric design features,
incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access.
Regarding truck turning movements, on page 28 of Appendix O, the following
information can be found.
As part of the civil engineering plan preparation, truck turning template
analyses were conducted. These analyses show that trucks can be
accommodated at the Brandywine Avenue intersections at Main Street and
Shinohara Lane and at the Project driveway without creating traffic hazards.
The truck turning templates are on sheet C9.0 of the project Civil Plans, which
are included in Appendix B of the Recirculated IS/MND.
Page 7 of 7
A-15 See response to comment 3 above regarding the statement on piecemealing.
Further, the IS/MND, as well as all supporting technical studies, provide the
existing setting comprising the baseline conditions for the project, and all
feasible mitigation measures for the project’s impacts have been applied.
Therefore, an EIR is not required.
A-16 The comment is a concluding remark expressing the commenter’s opinion that
the Draft IS/MND is flawed and that an EIR must be prepared. See responses
to comments 1-15 above regarding this statement. The comment also requests
that the City provide the commenter with all environmental documents, notices,
and hearings for the project. As discussed in Response 1, the City will add the
commenter to their public interest list for the project.
Attachments:
A. SANDAG Screening Maps
B. Tucker Hohenstein, SIOR, Senior Executive Vice President, Colliers Brokerage,
Resumé
C. Tyler Klassen, EIT, Air Quality Specialist, MD Acoustics, LLC, Resumé
Tucker Hohenstein, MBA, SIOR
Area of Expertise
Tucker Hohenstein is a Senior
Executive Vice President with Colliers
International in the San Diego
Region. Tucker is an industry expert
in the industrial and flex markets.
With 30 years of experience, his
strategic approach and market
knowledge contribute to the success
of his clients.
Tucker is able involved in private
client and institutional relationships.
He controls a large market share and
is intent on developing new business
opportunities. Tucker’s
determination to succeed drives him
to produce creative solutions for his
clients. By combining his market
expertise with the Colliers
International platform, he is to
deliver superior performance.
Business and Educational Background
Tucker has held senior sales positions
with Cushman & Wakefield, Burnham
Real Estate, and Grubb & Ellis Company.
He has earned numerous sales and
service awards recognizing his
contributions to the business
community. Tucker’s commitment to his
clients has been evident throughout his
career, resulting in a high degree of
client satisfaction and continued
business.
Professional Accomplishments
• Consistent Top 10 Producer
• Team Leader for 5 Member Top
Producing Team
• Colliers Everest Club (Top 10%)
• Colliers Service Excellence
Committee Member
• CoStar Power Broker Award
Winner
• Founding Member of the Colliers
Advisory Board
• Colliers University Expedition
Prague
• Cushman & Wakefield Certificate
of Excellence Award
• Elected by peers to serve as
Founding Member of the
Burnham Advisory Board
• Rookie of the Year with Grubb &
Ellis Company
Community Involvement
• Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce;
Past Board Member
• Casa de Amparo
• North County Health Services; Past
Board Member
• Solana Beach School District
• YMCA
Senior Executive Vice
President | San Diego
tucker.hohenstein@colliers.com
Main: 760 438 8950
Direct: 760 930 7966
Mobile: 858 336 4104
5901 Priestly Drive, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008 United
States
Affiliations or Memberships
Society of Industrial and Office
Realtors® (SIOR) board
member
State of California, Department
of Real Estate
License No. 00999360
Education or Qualifications
University of Southern
California
• Master of Business
Administration, Real Estate
Finance
• Bachelor of Arts, Honors
Representative Clients and Projects
Tucker Hohenstein
Senior Executive Vice President
| San Diego
Main: 760 438 8950
Direct: 760 930 7976
Mobile: 858 336 4104
5901 Priestly Drive, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008 United
States
Aramark Uniforms
BAE Systems
Best Buy
Callaway Golf
City of Escondido
Coca-Cola
County of San Diego
Danaher Corporation
General Atomics
Genuine Parts Company
HD Supply
J.P. Morgan
Lincoln Property Company
Link Logistics
MasTec
Rexford Industrial Realty
San Diego County Water Authority
Sendx Medical
Sunbelt Rentals
Sunrun Solar
UCSD
U-Haul
Verizon
ViaSat
Wells Fargo Bank
Zimmer Biomet
Tyler Klassen, EIT
Air Quality Specialist
Tyler Klassen graduated Magna Cum Laude in Chemical Engineering
from Arizona State University in 2019. After graduating, he worked
as an Air Quality Specialist at SWCA Environmental Consultants
where he completed air quality analyses in fields including the oil
and gas industry and solar and wind power. He also worked for the
Maricopa County Air Quality Department as an Air Quality
Inspector, performing site visits to ensure air quality permit holders
were in compliance with County rules and regulations.
As an Air Quality Specialist with MD Acoustics, Mr. Klassen writes studies analyzing air quality,
greenhouse gas, and energy usage for projects including housing developments, fueling stations,
and storage facilities, using CalEEMod to model emissions. He writes health risk assessments
analyzing road, industrial, and gas station impacts utilizing AERMOD and contributed air quality,
greenhouse gas, and energy analyses to city general plans.
Education
Bachelor of Science in Engineering – Chemical Engineering, Arizona State University
Certifications
Engineer-in-Training, Arizona State Board of Technical Registration
Relevant work experience includes the following:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Studies
• Energy Analyses
• Health Risk Assessments
• CalEEMod Modeling
• AERMOD Modeling
• City General Plans
• Air Quality Permitting
• Emission Inventories
• Field Work and Evaluations
Representative Project Experience
• Maverick Fueling Station, Desert Hot Springs, CA
• Crossings at Palm Desert, Palm Desert, CA
• City of San Jacinto 2040 General Plan Update, San Jacinto, CA
• City of Redwood City 2040 General Plan Update, Redwood City, CA
• City of San Carlos 2040 General Plan Update, San Carlos, CA
• Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency High Desert Water Bank, Kern County, CA
• Life Bible Church, Upland, CA
• Paradise Ranch, Chino Hills, CA
• Santiago Estates, Los Angeles, CA
Tyler Klassen, EIT
Air Quality Specialist
• Date Street Storage, Murrieta, CA
• Rove Corona Project, Corona, CA
• Plan D Properties Cultivation Facility, Desert Hot Springs, CA
• Red Bluff Apartments, Red Bluff, CA
• Berendo Street Multifamily Development, Los Angeles, CA
• Fire Station 226, San Bernardino, CA
• 1845 Oak Road Residential Development, Simi Valley, CA
• Chula Vista Center, Chula Vista, CA