Board upholds appeal in part, orders more review of Whole Foods environmental analysis for Geary Boulevard site

The Board of Supervisors on Nov. 17 found the planning department’s reliance on a “common sense” exemption from environmental review inadequate for the proposed Whole Foods project at 2675 Geary Boulevard, and directed further study of toxic-air and health-risk issues raised during a multi-hour public hearing.

Supervisor Stephanie moved to uphold the appeal on the narrow question of whether the common-sense exemption applies; Supervisor Fewer seconded the motion. The board voted unanimously to adopt motions that approve and file related committee items (items 34 and 35) while tabling the exemption/affirmation (item 33) for additional analysis.

The site is an existing vacant 49,780-square-foot retail space at City Center, previously occupied by a large-format electronics retailer. Whole Foods Market proposed to occupy the space, build out an approximately 35,000-square-foot sales floor with the remaining area used for back-of-house operations, and operate with on-site loading docks and an adjacent parking lot. City planning staff told the board they had estimated the grocery would generate about 23 to 28 truck delivery trips per day; department transport analysis used conservative local travel-demand methods and did not count any residual activity that had ceased when Best Buy left the building.

Appellants and their consultants told the board that the addition of diesel-powered delivery trucks — especially refrigerated trucks with rooftop diesel refrigeration units (TRUs) — plus many thousands of customer vehicle trips on peak weekend days could raise toxic-air and diesel-particulate exposures for nearby sensitive populations, including the UCSF child-care center on the site, students at nearby Wallenberg High School, and nearby residences. Appellants’ experts used screening tools and then a refined health-risk assessment, which, they argued, showed possible exceedances of Air District significance thresholds.

Planning staff and a peer reviewer countered that the department had requested an independent peer review and a refined analysis; its consultant’s refined health-risk modeling concluded that incremental cancer risks attributable to the project would fall below the more protective thresholds the city uses inside designated air-pollutant exposure zones. The department’s reviewer found methodological errors in one appellant analysis and identified dramatically different vehicle-trip inputs between the parties, and staff argued the department’s review was the more appropriate basis for a categorical decision.

Supervisor Stephanie said the statutory standard for the common-sense exemption requires that a lead agency be able to say “with certainty” that no significant environmental impact is possible. Given the late-submitted revised analysis from the appellants and the technical disagreement over modeling inputs — in particular the selection of baseline conditions and the treatment of previously ceased activity at the site — Stephanie said she could not find that certainty.

The board’s action: The board voted to sustain the appeal on the limited ground that the common-sense exemption could not be confidently applied in light of the conflicting health-risk analyses, and it sent the item back to planning for additional environmental analysis and clarification. The motion to table item 33 and to file/approve 34 and 35 passed on a roll call vote that recorded unanimous support for the board’s instructions.

Why it matters: The ruling does not block a grocery at the site but requires planning staff and consultants to resolve competing technical analyses about truck-related toxic-air exposures before the city concludes the project needs no further environmental review. That additional review will focus on baseline assumptions, delivery-vehicle modeling, TRU emissions and the potential for cumulative exposure in an air-pollutant exposure zone.

What’s next: The planning department will perform the additional analysis requested by the board and report back per the city’s environmental-review process. The project sponsor and the appellants are expected to respond to the department’s forthcoming written analysis.

Provenance: The hearing on the appeal began with planning staff presentation and public comment (topicintro) and ended in the board’s vote to sustain the appeal on the common-sense exemption and to send further analysis back to planning (topfinish).