HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/16/2019 Item 14, Wolfe
From:Mark Wolfe <
To:E-mail Council Website; Purrington, Teresa
Cc:Leveille, Brian
Subject:Letter to City Council re: 660 Tank Farm Road Project
Attachments:Letter to City Council re 660 Tank Farm Rd_7-15-19.pdf
To the City Clerk and City Council:
Attached in PDF format is correspondence addressed to the City Council concerning the 3985 Broad Street/660 Tank
Farm Road Commercial Center and Assisted Living Facility project, current set for public hearing at the Council’s July 16
regular meeting (Agenda Item No. 14).
Please distribute to Councilmembers in advance of the hearing, and include in the administrative record for the Project.
I would also be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this email and the attachment by reply email.
Thank you very much.
________________________
Mark R. Wolfe
M. R. Wolfe & Associates, P.C.
Land Use | Environmental Law | Elections
555 Sutter Street | Suite 405 | San Francisco, CA 94102
415.369.9400 | Fax: 415.369.9405 | www.mrwolfeassociates.com
The information in this e-mail may contain information that is confidential and/or subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you
have received it in error, please delete and contact the sender immediately. Thank you.
1
July 15, 2019
By Email
Mayor Heidi Harmon
Members of the City Council
c/o Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
emailcouncil@slocity.org
tpurrington@slocity.org
Re: 3985 Broad Street/660 Tank Farm Road – Commercial Center
and Assisted Living Facility
Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the City Council :
On behalf of San Luis Obispo residents Jonathan Brown, Joe Vreden and Ray
Soto, as well as Preserve the SLO Life, an unincorporated association of San Luis
Obispo City and County residents and business owners, please accept the following
comments and concerns on the Project referenced above. We previously submitted
comments to the City on the Project’s initial study and mitigated negative declaration
(IS/MND) in May of this year, when the matter was last before you. We attach a
copy of that comment letter and incorporate its contents by reference here. Staff has
made certain changes to the analysis in the Revised IS/MND, and have also added
new mitigation measures in response to our and others’ comments. While we
appreciate the efforts to address our earlier concerns, the fact remains that there is
substantial evidence in the record before you that the Project may still have one or
more significant environmental impacts. Under these circumstances, the City should
require preparation of a full environmental im pact report (EIR) in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Objection to Lack of Notice of Recirculation of Revised IS/MND
As a preliminary matter, we note that we never received notice of the public
comment period for the Revised IS/MND, which according to the staff report ran
from June 7 to July 8, 2019. We only learned of the document’s existence by
July 15, 2019
Page 2
reviewing the staff report for this matter, which we understand was posted July 10.
CEQA generally requires agencies to provide notice of recirculated environmental
documents to those who have requested notice in writing, directly or constructively.
By virtue of our having submitted written comments to the City on the original
version of the IS/MND on May 6, 2019, and the City’s having acknowledged receipt
of those comments by reply email, we were entitled to receive notice of the comment
period on the revised version.1
Accordingly, please consider the following comments and concerns to be
submitted under protest unless the City provides an additional public comment
period after providing us with notice of the same.
Air Quality/Health Effects
We previously consulted with air quality expert Greg Gilbert of the
environmental consulting firm Autumn Wind Associates , submitting his critique of
the IS/MND’s air quality impact analysis on May 6, 2019. Mr. Gilbert pointed out the
IS/MND’s its failure to adequately consider health impacts to existing and future
sensitive receptors living near or within the Project from exposure to diesel
particulate emissions associated with diesel vehicle traffic . While the revised IS/MND
nominally addresses those concerns, it does not contain any meaningful analysis of
those potential impacts. Furthermore, the proposed new mitigation measures,
namely conditions recommended by the air pollution control district, are by
themselves inadequate to demonstrably reduce potential impa cts to less than
significance. Mr. Gilbert has reviewed the revisions to the IS/MND’s air quality
section, and his opinion confirming this is attached to this letter. Again, Mr. Gilbert’s
letter constitutes expert opinion supported by facts that the Projec t may have
significant air quality and human health impacts. An EIR is therefore required.
Biological Resources
The analysis and mitigation measures for biological resources impacts do not
appear to have materially changed from the previous version of the IS/MND. We
accordingly stand by our previous comments, attached.
1 Recirculation was not optional. Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines
requires a lead agency to recirculate a negative declaration if the agency determines
that mitigation measures will not reduce potential effects to less than significance,
such that new or revised mitigation measures are required. Id., subds. (a), (b)(2). Here,
the City has added new mitigation measures for air quality and noise to the revised
IS/MND.
July 15, 2019
Page 3
Land Use & Planning
Despite some additional discussion of the application of the City’s land use
planning policies to the Project, the fact remains that the Project is not a mixed-use
office/commercial/residential Project as called for in General Plan Policy 8.13. For
this reason, and for the other reasons stated in in our previous comments, attached, it
is inconsistent with the General Plan.
Noise
We previously commented that the IS/MND’s analysis and mitigation of the
Project’s noise impacts was inadequate. Although the Revised IS/MND contains a
new noise analysis and adds new mitigation measures, it still fails to disclose or
mitigate all significant noise impacts.
As explained in the attached technical review from noise expert Derek Watry
of the acoustical consulting firm Wilson Ihrig Associates, the IS/MND’s noise
studies fail to evaluate whether future noise levels will exceed the City’s 60 C NEL
noise standards with respect to residents of the assisted living facility.2 The noise
studies likewise fail to disclose or mitigate significant construction vibration impacts
that violate City vibration standards.
For these reasons, and as argued in our May 6, 2019 letter incorporated by
reference here, there is substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant
noise impact. The City should therefore prepare a full EIR.
Transportation/Traffic
The analysis and mitigation measures for traffic impacts do not appear to have
materially changed from the previous version of the IS/MND. We accordingly stand
by our previous comments, attached.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the City should not approve the project based on the
revised IS/MND. Because there is substantial evidence that the project may have
one or more significant environmental effects, the City should require a full
environmental impact report (EIR) before considering the project any further.
2 Although CEQA generally does not require analysis of the environment’s impact on
a project, in this case the noise-generating component of the Project, i.e., the
commercial/retail center, will clearly impact the assisted living facility, which the IS/MND
indicates will be completed first.
July 15, 2019
Page 4
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Most sincerely,
M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
Mark R. Wolfe
On behalf of Jonathan Brown, Joe Vreden, and
Ray Soto, and Preserve the SLO Life
MRW:sa
attachments: letters from Greg Gilbert & Derek Watry
cc: Brian Leveille (by email to bleveille@slocity.org)
Attachment 1
Air Quality Review and Comments for the revised “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial
Study/MND; City of San Luis Obispo; July 15, 2019
Page 1 of 15
-
Autumn Wind Associates
Air Quality CEQA Analysis and Consulting Services
916.719.5472 ▪ ggilbert@autumnwind.us
July 15, 2019
Mr. Mark Wolfe
M.R. Wolfe & Associates
49 Geary Street, Suite 200
San Francisco CA 94108
RE: Comments regarding revised Air Quality environmental CEQA impact analysis and proposed
mitigation contained within the City of San Luis Obispo’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial / Assisted-Living Center”
Development Project
At the request of M.R. Wolfe & Associates, Autumn Wind Associates has reviewed the above-referenced revised
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and related materials for the analysis and mitigation of air
emission impacts estimated for the proposed NWC Broad & Tank Farm assisted-living/congregate care facility
mixed with retail buildings and associated parking; the revised, undated 492-page IS/MND was recently made
publicly available by the City. Our ongoing concerns with air impact analysis and mitigation within the revised,
recently issued IS/MND are noted below and follow our comment letter of April 26, 2019; we incorporate our
April 26 comments in their entirety by this reference. Our page-number references for information contained
within the IS/MND documents, below, are taken from the pdf program’s page-counter, since page numbering
within the project’s environmental documents is not consistent.
I. Components of MM AQ-1 and AQ-2 are Inconsistent Between Revised IS/MND and MMRP
Found Within City Council Draft Resolution Document
While the revised IS/MND has changed little from the draft IS/MND made available earlier this year, additional
air quality mitigation information has been added to the Environmental Checklist’s section covering “Mitigation
Measures” beginning at the bottom of pg. 15. MM AQ-1 appears to remain identical between the draft and
revised IS/MND versions. However, an additional three pages of purported “mitigation measures” material
provided by the SLOAPCD and made applicable under MM AQ-2 have been added to the revised IS/MND,
AWA
Air Quality Review and Comments for the revised “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial
Study/MND; City of San Luis Obispo; July 15, 2019
Page 2 of 15
including estimates of mitigated maximum construction emissions and, commencing in the middle of page 17, the
relatively extensive air district measures provided to mitigate the project’s construction and operational emissions.
The revised IS/MND has included the air district’s recently provided construction and operational mitigation
components within the context of the project’s MM AQ-2. However, the MMRP documentation, within the
Resolution presented as Item 14 beginning at pg. 221 of City Council’s 244-page Council Agenda (dated on pg. 1
as July 16, 2019), fails to include those air district’s mitigation components.
Within the revised IS/MND’s CEQA environmental checklist beginning at pg. 15, mitigation measure (MM) AQ-
2 has expanded from one sentence in the draft IS/MND:
“Best Available Control Technology. Diesel construction equipment used during the site preparation
and grading phases shall be equipped with CARB Tier 3 or Tier 4 certified off-road engines and 2010 on-
road compliant engines.”
The revised IS/MND now includes 3 pages of additional information, identifying estimated maximum
construction emissions and operational emissions; CEQA significance thresholds, mitigation measure language,
and impact significance after mitigation. Included in that information (pg. 17):
“In addition to the above stated mitigation measures, the APCD is requiring other construction phase and
operational phase measures as described below.”
What follows this statement are numerous components to reduce the project’s construction and operational
emissions. Construction phase requirements include the project’s compliance with SLOAPCD restrictions on
developmental burning and demolition activities, along with use of 13 specified dust control measures.
Operational phase measures include restrictions on loading dock operations and residential wood combustion, and
operational facility compliance with applicable air district stationary source regulations. However, the MMRP’s
air quality mitigations (AQ-1, AQ-2) contained within the City Council “Agenda” document (pg. 224-225 of
244) make no reference to the additional mitigation-related information from SLOAPCD which has been added
under MM AQ-2 discussion in the revised IS/MND. To be consistent with information provided in the revised
IS/MND and made enforceable under the two mitigation measures it must be included by reference in the MMRP.
II. MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 Contain Contradictory Requirements
At revised IS/MND pg. 16, MM AQ-1 requires use of construction trucks that “meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner
certification...”. Under MM AQ-2, however, contradictory information is noted with “Diesel construction
equipment used during the site preparation and grading phases shall be equipped with Tier 3 or Tier 4 certified
offroad engines and 2010 on-road compliant engines (emphasis added). Emissions levels of the two separate
years of heavy-duty diesel trucks differ appreciably, and any CalEEMod emissions modeling for the project
which relied on emission benefits of 2010-or-later heavy-duty construction trucks would be invalidated by actual
Air Quality Review and Comments for the revised “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial
Study/MND; City of San Luis Obispo; July 15, 2019
Page 3 of 15
use of 2007 or other pre-2010 trucks. The MMRP must be revised to remove the contradictory information,
eliminating the reference to 2007-or later trucks required for mitigation compliance.
III. Project‐Specific and Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Health Risks Remain Inadequately
Analyzed and Reviewed
Our air quality comment letter of April 26 submitted to the Lead Agency raised concerns regarding the project’s
potential to cause unacceptable cumulative toxic air contaminant (TAC) health risks exceeding CEQA cancer- and
non-cancer thresholds of significance. Our concerns were not responded to by the Lead Agency, and both the
draft and revised IS/MND documents dismiss meaningful analysis and review of the project’s potential to cause
significant health risk impacts to residents within or proximate to the project area. The Lead Agency’s
justification, noted at revised IS/MND pg. 201, remains predicated on inappropriate reliance on CARB land use
guidance:
“The analysis of operational emissions does not consider toxic air contaminants because the project does
not include a stationary source of toxic air emissions that would impact adjacent sensitive receptors and
the project site is not located close to a freeway or urban road with daily traffic volumes of greater than
100,000 vehicles.” 1
CARB’s 2005 land use guidance2 is designed to prevent exposures of sensitive receptors (e.g. residents, children,
athletes, seniors) to a project’s TACs that could exceed applicable TAC-based CEQA thresholds of significance,
either singly or in cumulative form with background, pre-existing TAC emissions. CARB’s guidance at Table 1-
1 notes that new land use projects should be avoided in “rural” settings with 50,000 or more vehicle trips/day, and
therefore a conservative CEQA review approach would evaluate for whether the project area is “urban” or “rural”
in nature. The environmental setting in the San Luis Obispo central coast region is primarily rural in nature when
compared against the highly urbanized, extensively developed area in which project-proximate roads would see
100,000 vehicles per day (consistent with a heavily traveled roadway in a highly developed, urbanized city
setting, or with a project located adjacent to a major freeway). Therefore, to be conservative in the assessment of
the project’s potential to cause significant TAC-related health impacts to its congregate care residents or to nearby
residents, the project should rely on the 50,000 vehicles/day value and not the 100,000 vehicles/day typical of
highly- and broadly-developed urban areas of the State.
Under the conservative assessment approach envisioned by CEQA the project area is likely to exceed the 50,000
vehicle/day value prior to completion of project construction. At revised IS/MND pg. the following information
on vehicle trips/day is provided:
1 Both the draft and revised IS/MND versions reflect this footnote provided by Rincon Consultants in their air quality analysis of the
project: “The CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005) recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a
freeway or urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day”; see pg. 201 of revised IS/MND.
2 CARB “Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective”; April 2005
Air Quality Review and Comments for the revised “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial
Study/MND; City of San Luis Obispo; July 15, 2019
Page 4 of 15
“Existing traffic on Tank Farm Road is approximately 20,709 ADT between Broad Street and Santa Fe
Road. Existing traffic on Broad Street is 28,396 ADT between Tank Farm Road and Industrial Way and
22,944 between Tank Farm Road and Fuller Road. Adding the full 1,930 ADT to Tank Farm Road or
Broad Street would result in a less than 1 CNEL increase in traffic noise levels along any affected
roadway....Based on the noise compatibility analysis, traffic volumes can be assumed to increase by 1 to 2
percent annually.”
For purposes of assessing the project for its potential to create substantial health risk-related TAC exposures,
summing the values contained above and adjusting for envisioned growth in vehicle use will result in exceeding
the 50,000 vehicle/day threshold.
Further, at revised IS/MND pg. 16, one mitigation component provided by SLOAPCD to reduce public exposures
to project-related TAC emissions and contained within MM AQ-1 has been changed. SLOAPCD CEQA guidance
recommends a 1000’ setback as noted in the footnoted material, but due to the project’s co-locating congregate
care facilities with planned retail operations that will require daily deliveries by TAC-emitting diesel vehicles, and
adjacent to two highly-traveled roads (Tank Farm Road and Hwy 227/Broad Street), the setback distance
developed by the expert air agency has been halved.
Our previous comment letter included our estimates of heavy-duty, diesel truck trips (with emissions of health-
risk TACs) that could be expected on roadways adjacent to the project; in the absence of any discussion or even a
listing of the SLOAPCD’s CEQA TAC thresholds of significance in the IS/MND regarding the project’s potential
to cause direct or cumulative health risk impacts from diesel particulate matter (DPM is a CARB-regulated toxic
air contaminant), our truck trip estimate approach was intended to show that substantial numbers of diesel truck
trips could be expected to occur adjacent to the congregate care facility and within 500’, and therefore should be
evaluated with inclusion of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in the IS/MND process. The HRA would use the
latest scientific methods to develop reliable health risk estimates for subsequent comparison to applicable project-
specific and cumulative TAC thresholds. No response to our previous comment was provided by the Lead
Agency in the revised IS/MND, however, and it continues to rely on the misapplication of CARB land use
guidance in lieu of the health protective, dispositive HRA.
Together with the increased risk to sensitive receptors to occur from the Lead Agency’s halving the 1000’ setback
distance identified in SLOAPCD CEQA guidance, the certainty that daily vehicle trips will exceed the 50,000-trip
threshold identified in CARB guidance even before the project is constructed, and based on our previous review
and comment at the draft IS/MND stage that estimates up to 3000 diesel truck trips/day near the project’s
sensitive receptors, the IS/MND has again failed to provide adequate analysis and meaningful discussion of the
project’s potential to cause project-specific and/or cumulatively significant health risk impacts. The
documentation must be revised to include an HRA and related meaningful discussion of its findings. Absent such
a HRA, there is no basis on which to conclude with any reasonable certainty that the project will not significantly
increase health risks to sensitive receptors either on-site or off-site.
Air Quality Review and Comments for the revised “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial
Study/MND; City of San Luis Obispo; July 15, 2019
Page 5 of 15
IV. Construction Phase Timing Is Inconsistent with CalEEMod Defaults, and Overlapping
Construction and Operational Emissions Appear Likely
The IS/MND provides information on the anticipated duration of project construction activities; these activities
will span 4 calendar years (2019 – 2022). The CalEEMod model used to estimate the project’s land use emissions
assumes that site preparation and grading will occur prior to the construction/building phase, with paving
following construction, and architectural coating (“painting”) to occur last. However, CalEEMod worksheets
commencing at pg. 204 of the revised IS/MND reflect that the construction phase, lasting 25 months, will end 3
months after application of architectural coatings has concluded. This is inconsistent with industry practice and
common sense, and with CalEEMod modeling default assumptions. Changes to CalEEMod defaults by the
modeler or the Lead Agency should have been justified,3 yet no explanation is found in the IS/MND or staff
report.
In the revised IS/MND, CalEEMod unmitigated construction emissions were estimated (see Table 1, pg. 14) to
exceed the SLOAPCD’s tons/quarter ROG+NOx emission threshold, resulting in the recommended application of
MM AQ-1 and AQ-2. While the measures are then calculated to cause modeled emissions to fall below the
SLOAPCD’s CEQA thresholds, they are predicated on the five total phases (demolition/site preparation, grading,
construction, paving, and architectural coating) of project construction occurring in not less than ~39 months
(from 9/2/2019 through 2/28/2022). Condensing construction timing or extending construction phase overlaps
could easily cause exceedances of the project’s modeled emission estimates. To prevent construction
acceleration, phase overlapping beyond modeled values, and substantially earlier project completion, the
IS/MND’s MMRP must be conditioned with a mitigation to prevent early completion. Absent such a condition,
the project’s construction emissions will be significant and unmitigated.
Similarly, operational emissions were modeled to begin in 2022. The revised IS/MND at pg. does not prevent
early operational startup, nor does it discuss the potential for overlapping operational and construction emissions
that could lead to significant excursions beyond modeled estimates relied upon in the revised IS/MND for the
determination of significant impacts. Conjoining operational emissions of a completed facility at the site while
construction continues at an adjacent structure would invalidate the IS/MND’s modeled emissions assumptions
and jeopardize the accuracy of its significance determinations. At revised IS/MND pg. 4 information is provided
that may presuppose the failure to adhere to the construction timing used for CalEEMod emission estimates
prepared for the project. We note, specifically, that the CalEEMOd emissions modeling did not segregate
construction for the congregate care facilities from construction of the retail facilities, nor is there any MMRP
mitigation measure which prevents condensed construction phases to shorten the project’s unusually long
construction duration or that would prevent startup of one facility before all others were completed.
Rather, item 9 on pg. 4 of the revised IS/MND states:
3 CalEEMod User Guide, p. 11; CalEEMod guidance permits changes to its defaults "provided the information is supported by substantial
evidence as required by CEQA”
Air Quality Review and Comments for the revised “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial
Study/MND; City of San Luis Obispo; July 15, 2019
Page 6 of 15
“The commercial site is proposed to be developed in 1 phase, with construction of each of the six (6) proposed
businesses at varying timeframes based on project demand;” (emphasis added)
This provides clear indication that the project’s construction, while modeled with construction occurring
simultaneously for congregate care and retail facilities and without overlap of operational and construction
emissions, will in fact be split into phases where the six proposed (retail) businesses to be developed “based on
project demand” and separately from the construction of the congregate care land use. Under this setting, “project
demand” will dictate “varying timeframes” for construction of the retail facilities, and it is therefore reasonable to
assume that “demand” will result in the opening and operation of at least one retail facility while others are still
under construction or awaiting construction. Under such a scenario emissions estimates cited in the IS/MND
would be exceeded, since emissions were modeled with all construction activities completed prior to initiation of
any facility operation.
To prevent timing phase disruption that would likely invalidate the project’s emissions calculations and
significance determinations, the project’s MMRP must be amended to reflect a mitigation that prevents
compressed timing of construction, and with completion dates preceding March of 2022; prevents overlap of
construction with operations of already-completed land uses (since combined emissions will exceed the
IS/MND’s emissions estimates predicated on completion of construction prior to any facility operational startup);
and which will specifically ensure that construction of the congregate care land use and the six retail facilities will
occur contemporaneously and with timing of phases consistent with those used to model the project’s construction
emissions. As currently written, MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 will not prevent compressed construction activities
leading to greater emissions, will not prevent early completion of all construction such that the modeled 2022
operational startup date and related emissions estimates are invalidated, and will not prevent overlap of later
construction of some of the project’s congregate care facilities or retail businesses with operations of earlier-
completed facilities.
V. Operational Vehicle Trip Emissions Are Likely Underestimated
Operational vehicles trips over the 660 Tank Farm’s project life will result in the largest share of total project
emissions across its thirty- to fifty-year planning lifetime. CalEEMod emissions estimates for the project rely on
the modeler’s use of designated trip rates for land use types developed by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). At revised IS/MND pg. 468, the Multimodal Transportation Study identifies the Regional
Shopping Center land use type (ITE Code 820) for the project’s largest retail land use type.
At revised IS/MND pg. 229, CalEEMod worksheet information shows use of that land use type alone for all retail
land use types proposed for the six retail facilities. Contradicting the sole reliance on ITE code 820 for retail
emissions calculations, however, at revised IS/MND pg. 4 three of the six commercial retail lots are identified for
“restaurant” and “retail-restaurant” land use types. Trip rates (and related amounts of vehicle trip emissions) for
Air Quality Review and Comments for the revised “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial
Study/MND; City of San Luis Obispo; July 15, 2019
Page 7 of 15
high-turnover restaurant and quality restaurant are substantially higher than for a regional shopping center4 and
should have been used for these identified retail-business land uses.
In addition, at revised IS/MND pg. 303, the “grocer” land use type is identified for 21,981 square feet, less than
half the project’s total of 45,269 SF of space across all six retail lots. By generalizing and then lumping the
project’s various retail land use types’ trip rates under the single Regional Shopping Center land use, the project’s
operational emission estimates are virtually certain to be underestimated. Rather than inappropriately subsuming
the restaurant-retail and other retail uses, with their often markedly-different trip rates, into the one regional
shopping center trip rate code for calculating the project’s operational emissions, the IS/MND should have used
specific ITE codes readily available for each of the varying retail-oriented land use types.
While the IS/MND has likely underestimated the project’s retail-related operational emissions with singular use
of the regional shopping center ITE land use code, it also reflects inconsistent information on the number of
vehicle trips per day. Under-representing operational vehicle trips per day may also result in under-
representative emissions estimates.
The CalEEMod model worksheet for annual project emissions at revised IS/MND pg. 229 is excerpted in this
screenshot:
From the excerpted table, the project was modeled by Rincon Consultants for the Lead Agency for its operational
vehicle emissions using ~2314 trips per weekday and with a maximum of ~2568 trips per Saturday. The derived
weekly average of weekday, Saturday, and Sunday values, then, would be ~2231 trips/day.
However, at revised IS/MND pg. 48, the Lead Agency relies on transportation impact information referencing the
“February 2018 (Attachment 10)” Multimodal Transportation Impact Study prepared by Central Coast
Transportation Consultants for the mixed-use project. According to the IS/MND’s information at pg. 48, the
Multimodal Transportation Impact Study estimated 3765 vehicle trips/day to be generated by the project.
Then, at pg. 421, the Technical Noise Analysis Report by Rincon Consultants (June 2019) provides is excerpted
from pg. 421 here, referencing its reliance on the “November 2018” Multimodal Transportation Study’s estimate
of 1930 project vehicle trips/day:
4 See ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition; Codes 931, 932.
Air Quality Review and Comments for the revised “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial
Study/MND; City of San Luis Obispo; July 15, 2019
Page 8 of 15
The total vehicle trips/day values reflected in the project’s CalEEMod modeling worksheets are relatively close
to, but still higher than, the 1930 trips/day identified for the project in the Attachment 10’s Multimodal
Transportation Study, and both are substantially lower than the 3765 vehicle trips/day noted at revised IS/MND
pg. 48 and attributed to a February version of the Multimodal Transportation Study. While we raised this
contradictory issue in our April 26 comment letter, the Lead Agency did not respond to our comment and has
again provided the same information in the revised IS/MND. Based on the misapplication of ITE Code 820 to all
six retail lots, project operational emissions are inaccurate and likely underestimated. Based on the 3765 vehicle
trips/day value noted above, the project’s contradictory trips/day values signal greater potential for underestimated
emission quantities found at revised IS/MND Table 2, pg. 15.
VI. Conclusion
In summary, the revised CEQA environmental documentation provided by the Lead Agency for the proposed 660
Tank Farm Mixed-Use development project continues to reflect a number of analytical flaws which jeopardize the
accuracy of its construction and operational emissions estimates and, thereby, its significance determinations, and
consistent with the preceding draft IS/MND it has (again) failed to provide effective review of the project’s
potential to cause significant project-specific or cumulative TAC-related health risks. In our professional
judgment, based on reasonable assumptions predicated on the facts and materials we have reviewed, we believe
the project may have significant unmitigated air quality and health risk-related impacts. Should you have any
questions or comments regarding this comment letter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Greg Gilbert
Autumn Wind Associates
Attachments: AWA Statement of Qualifications
AWA Air Quality Comment Letter of April 26, 2019
Air Quality Review and Comments for the revised “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial
Study/MND; City of San Luis Obispo; July 15, 2019
Page 9 of 15
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
Greg Gilbert
Autumn Wind Associates
Greg Gilbert is director and founder of Autumn Wind Associates, located northeast of Sacramento, CA.
AWA provides expert review, analysis, and estimation of potential air quality and related environmental
impacts of proposed land-use development projects involving indirect- (mobile) and stationary
(operating under air agency permit) sources of air pollution. He has consulted on air quality land use
planning, mobile, and stationary source matters and projects to private and public clients since leaving
public service as an air agency manager in 2000. Previously, he was national marketing director for an
emissions catalyst products and technology firm with international markets in mobile and stationary
sources. Between 1990 and 2000 Mr. Gilbert was employed in two California air agencies, most
recently as project manager in the Mobile Source Division of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD). While at SMAQMD Mr. Gilbert was responsible for managing
development and implementation of the agency’s heavy-duty diesel vehicle low-emission incentive
program that would later evolve into the statewide Moyer Program; the evaluation of land use-related air
quality emission impacts and control strategies, development of California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) thresholds of significance and mitigations to reduce, offset, or eliminate air quality impacts of
new land use; development of air-related CEQA guidance; and creation of the first air quality CEQA
mitigation fee program with percentage-based emission reduction mitigation choices provided to the
developer.
Since 2001, AWA has provided consulting expertise to private entities and air agencies, conducted
research on construction practices and equipment emissions, assisted with development of CEQA land-
use guidance documents and mitigation strategies for CA air quality agencies, and provided analysis and
modeling of potential air quality impacts identified primarily in Mitigated Negative Declarations and
Environmental Impact Reports for proposed land use development projects throughout California. Mr.
Gilbert reviews and provides expert written and testimony on CEQA- and development-related project-
specific environmental analysis, mitigation, and documentation for a wide range of public-, private-, and
environmental-sector clients, including law firms specializing in CEQA-NEPA cases.
Attachment 2
15 July 2019
Mark R. Wolfe, Esq.
M. R. Wolfe & Associates, P.C.
555 Sutter Street, Suite 405
San Francisco, CA 94102
Subject: “Northwest Corner” Project – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Review of Noise Analysis
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
As requested, we have reviewed the noise analysis supporting the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Northwest Corner Project proposed in San Luis Obispo,
California. This letter discusses elements of the IS/MND noise analysis that we find deficient in
some way.
Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Acoustical Consultants, has practiced exclusively in the field of
acoustics since 1966. During our 53 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise
studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical
laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical
programs such as Environmental Noise Model (ENM), Traffic Noise Model (TNM),
SoundPLAN, and CADNA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise
studies and review studies prepared by others.
The documents we have reviewed and referenced are:
1. Acoustical Assessment of Proposed Residential & Commercial Projects at Northwest
Corner, Tank Farm and Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 45dB Acoustics, 31 October
2017. (“45dB Noise Assessment”)
2. Tank Farm Road Assisted Living Facility and Retail Project, Technical Noise Analysis
Report, San Luis Obispo, CA, Rincon Consultants, Inc., June 2019 (“Rincon Noise
Assessment”)
3. “Northwest Corner” (NWC) Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial / Assisted-
Living Center Initial Study Environmental Checklist 2018, City of San Luis Obispo, 5
June 2019. (“Initial Study Environmental Checklist”)
“Northwest Corner” Project
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Review of Noise Analysis
2
Issue #1: Noise analysis fails to analyze summation of all relevant noise sources on site
suitability.
There are two independent noise studies that support the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this
project. The 45dB Noise Assessment purportedly evaluated the project’s noise and land use
compatibility. The Rincon Noise Assessment looked primarily at impacts by the project on off-
site receptors, however, there is some overlap.
Both studies cite the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element maximum noise
exposure standard for residences as 60 Ldn or CNEL. However, despite the myriad of noise
sources that will affect the site – most importantly the future residents of the Assisted Living
Facility – neither study comprehensively determines whether or not future noise levels will
exceed the 60 CNEL threshold.
As both studies indicate that the current noise exposure is between 55 and 60 CNEL, there may
be a significant, unmitigated impact to outdoor activity areas associated with Assisted Living
Facility such as the Walking Path along the western edge of the site once the project is
developed.
The 45dB Noise Assessment shows the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan CNEL
contours for the area. We are taking those contours to be correct as shown, and they are also
cited in the Rincon Noise Assessment. The project site is shown to lie between the 55 and 60
CNEL contours. The western edge of the site is closer to the 60 CNEL contour so the existing
noise exposure is likely 57 or 58 CNEL, perilously close to the 60 CNEL limit.
The 45dB Noise Assessment report also presents CNEL noise contours across the project site due
to road traffic. These contours were calculated using the widely used SoundPLAN acoustical
model and was calibrated using measurement that were made on the project site. The bulk of the
developed site is between the 50 and 60 CNEL contours. The Assisted Living Facility and the
Walking Path, in particular, are exposed to levels between 55 and 60 CNEL. Because decibels
add logarithmically, if the 57 to 58 CNEL exposure from normal County Airport operations are
added to the 55 to 60 CNEL exposure from road traffic, the cumulative noise exposure would
likely be over 60 CNEL, above the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element
maximum noise exposure standard for residences.
The 45dB Noise Assessment indicates that, due to future traffic growth, the CNEL may be
expected to increase by 1 dB over the next 20 years. While that is a small increase, it speaks to
the insidious nature of noise exposure in the modern world. The environmental assessment
process widely regards a 1 dB increase to be “imperceptible”, but five such “imperceptible”
increases results in “noticeable” increase in noise.
Finally, the 45dB Noise Assessment discusses the fact that a helicopter flight school operates
from the SLO County Airport and, in fact, shows that helicopter flight path goes directly over the
project site. [45dB Noise Assessment at p. 4, Figure 1] However, despite a somewhat lengthy
“Northwest Corner” Project
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Review of Noise Analysis
3
discussion about the Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) of the particular helicopter, no
actual quantitative analysis of the helicopter noise is undertaken.1 Rather, the helicopter noise is
“judged to have a less-than-significant impact on the site when duration and frequency are
considered against the total daytime wall of noise from . . . traffic sources.” The judgment seems
to be based on personal observations rather than quantitative analysis. Insufficient information is
provided about the helicopter noise allow independent assessment.
In conclusion, the City of San Luis Obispo has established an exterior noise standard of
60 CNEL for residences, and this compatibility of this project site has not been adequately
assessed against that standard to date despite the fact that the project noise studies have the
requisite information to do so. If this is done, the result will likely be that the City’s standard is
exceeded, indicating a significant, unmitigated impact for future residents.
Issue #2: Rincon Noise Assessment fails to identify significant construction vibration
impact
A construction noise and vibration analysis for this project has apparently been done by Rincon
Consultants, as it is referenced in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist [see, for example, p.
41: “See Appendix D of the Rincon Consultants Noise Study (Attachment 9) for vibration
analysis worksheet.”] The referenced Appendix D is not, at this time, included in the
environmental documents posted to the City’s website, however, there is sufficient information
in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist to point out an error interpreting the City’s vibration
criterion that results in a significant, unmitigated impact.
The Initial Study Environmental Checklist states, “The City has adopted a vibration threshold of
0.01 in/sec PPV. However, the City has not adopted a significance threshold to assess vibration
impacts during construction.” [ISEC at p. 40] The fallacy of the ensuing analysis is that there is
no indication in the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (“SLO M.C.”) that the vibration
threshold does not apply to construction.
The two pertinent sections of the SLO M.C. are:
1 The EPNL (or EPNdB) is not typically utilized in environmental assessments. As stated on the
Wikipedia page describing the EPNL, “The EPNdB metric is only used for aircraft certification purposes.
Several attempts have been made to integrate the aircraft certification noise level in community noise
exposure calculations. However, most noise exposure calculations are based on the A-weighted sound
pressure level and not on the EPNdB.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPNdB)
“Northwest Corner” Project
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Review of Noise Analysis
4
9.12.0202 Definitions
(AG) “Vibration perception threshold” means the minimum ground or structure-borne
vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration by
such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of
moving objects. The perception threshold shall be presumed to be a motion velocity of
0.01 in/see over the range of 1 to 100 Hz.
9.12.050 Prohibited Acts
B. Specific Prohibitions. The acts, as set forth in this section, arid the causing or
permitting thereof, are declared to be in violation of this chapter.
7. Vibration. Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates a
vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or
beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at one
hundred fifty feet (forty-six meters) from the source if on a public space or public
right-of-way.
There is nothing in these codes that excludes construction vibration or restricts the 0.01 in/sec
limit to ongoing operations. While it may be true that the Caltrans and Federal Transit
Administration criteria cited in the ISEC are useful for assessing whether or not construction
vibration will potentially damage nearby buildings, they are not appropriate for assessing human
annoyance. Elsewhere in the ISEC, a standard of 94 VdB is stated as the significance standard
for human annoyance due to construction vibration. (The basis for this value is not given in the
ISEC excerpt, but there may be some stated basis in the absent Rincon Noise Assessment.).
Given that the City of San Luis Obispo has assertively established a standard for assessing
vibration annoyance, and noting that that standard is not qualified in any way with regards to
source or activity, it should be used as the threshold of significance in assessing construction
vibration impact from this project. As such, Table 6 in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist
clearly indicates that this standard will be far exceeded by pile driving, and this should be
identified as a significant, unmitigated impact.
* * *
Please call us if you have any questions regarding this review.
Very truly yours,
WILSON IHRIG
Derek L. Watry
Principal
DEREK L. WATRY, M.S.
Experience
Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. (1992 to Present)
Principal
Mr. Watry is experienced in all aspects of environmental acoustics, including noise
measurement and prediction, regulatory analysis, environmental impact assessment, and noise
control design. He is well versed in the requirements of CEQA, and has both prepared and
critiqued many environmental noise studies. Over the past 18 years, he has conducted
numerous construction, traffic, HVAC, and industrial equipment noise projects, and has
extensive experience with construction noise and vibration monitoring.
University of California, Berkeley (1988 - 1992)
Graduate Student, Research and Teaching Assistant
Teaching Assistant for "Fundamentals of Acoustics" course
Education
M.S. (1991) in Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley
B.S. (1988) in Mechanical Engineering, University of California at San Diego
M.B.A. (2000), Saint Mary's College of California, Moraga
Professional Associations
Member, Acoustical Society of America
Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants
Academic Distinctions
Summa Cum Laude, Saint Mary's College of California (2000)
National Science Foundation Fellowship Recipient (1988 - 1991)
Summa Cum Laude, University of California, San Diego (1988)
Representative Projects
Patterson Ranch EIR, Fremont
Noise section of EIR for 428 acre project that included residential, educational, religious,
community recreation, and commercial land uses.
WILSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 Derek L. Watry
Mare Island Dredged Material Disposal Facility EIR, Vallejo
EIR noise study for proposed disposal facility to be built next to residential neighborhood.
Silva Ranch Annexation EIR, King City
EIR noise study for development of new, large, primarily residential, district on the outskirts of
King City.
525 Golden Gate Avenue Demolition, San Francisco
Noise and vibration monitoring and consultation during the demolition of multi-story office
building next to Federal, State, and Municipal Court buildings in San Francisco.
Tyco Electronics Annual Noise Compliance Study, Menlo Park
Conducted annual noise compliance monitoring for Tyco Electronics in 2009 and 2010.
Provided letter critiquing the regulatory requirements and recommending improvements.
Safeway Redevelopment, Sunnyvale
Noise study of store redevelopment including loading dock, trash compactor, parking lot, and
rooftop HVAC equipment.
Safeway Redevelopment, Los Altos
Noise study of store redevelopment including loading dock, trash compactor, rooftop parking lot,
rooftop HVAC equipment, and Foothill Expressway traffic noise.
Central Park Apartments Noise Study, Mountain View
Noise study for new residential building development. Major noise sources included Central
Expressway and Caltrain.
465 N. Whisman Road, Mountain View
Noise control among suites in a low-rise office complex.
Caltrain Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility, San Jose
Noise study of impacts for new maintenance and operations facility built next to existing
residential neighborhood. Included analysis of 16 ft sound barrier wall.
Conoco-Phillips Refinery Noise Control, Rodeo
Environmental noise study and assessment of refinery noise at residential neighborhood.
Groth Winery HVAC Sound Barrier, Oakville
Design of sound barriers to control noise from rooftop HVAC equipment.
Dahl Booster Pump Station, Palo Alto
Design of sound barrier and specification of mufflers for pump station equipment.
Attachment 3
May 6, 2019
By Email
Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
bleveille@slocity.org
Re: Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
“Northwest Corner” (NWC) Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use
Commercial / Assisted-Living Center including Vesting
Tentative Map #3115
Dear Mr. Leveille:
On behalf of San Luis Obispo residents Jonathan Brown, Joe Vreden and Ray
Soto, please accept the following comments on the above -referenced initial study and
mitigated negative declaration (“IS/MND”) for the proposed assisted living facility
and shopping center referenced above (“Project”). The comments are organized by
topic area.
Air Quality/Health Effects
We consulted with air quality expert Greg Gilbert of the environmental
consulting firm Autumn Wind Associates. Mr. Gilbert’s critique of the IS/MND’s air
quality impact analysis is attached herewith together with his credentials. As Mr.
Gilbert explains, the IS/MND is incorrect in its conclusion that project-related
operational toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions, namely diesel particulate matter
(DPM) are essentially nonexistent. The IS/MND assumes that because of the
project’s location (not on a major roadway with 100,000 or more annual average
annual daily trips), and because its proposed land uses would not act as “stationary
sources” of toxic emissions, there is no possibility of significant health-related
emission impacts for future assisted-living facility “sensitive receptor” residents. This
assumption is erroneous based on the project’s proximity to two busy roadways with
relatively high numbers of routinely operating diesel trucks and buses: Tank Farm
Road and State Hwy 227 are located within 30’ and 500’, respectively, of the
May 6, 2019
Page 2
proposed project’s “sensitive receptor” assisted -living residential units. There are also
concerns with respect to cumulative effects on these and future additional sensitive
receptors occupying the adjacent residential/commercial project at 650 Tank Farm
Road. Mr. Gilbert’s letter constitutes expert opinion supported by fact that that the
project may have significant individual and cumulative air quality and human health
effects from the project’s own TAC emissions as well as in combination with TAC
emissions from other sources in the vicinity, includin g from the commercial retail use
at 650 Tank Farm Road.
Biological Resources
The IS/MND purports to consider potential impacts on biological resources,
including wetlands. Of particular concern is the impact on Orcutt Creek, which runs
southwesterly along the west edge of the Site to a culvert under Tank Farm Road.
The IS/MND identifies three areas of significant impact, which may be mitigated by
mitigation measures. The IS/MND states that development of access from Broad
Street along the north project boundary would cause “ephemeral damage” about 0.20
acres of seasonal wetland habitats. The IS/MND points out that this potentially
significant impact will be mitigated by three mitigation measures, BIO -1, -2, and -3. It
is unclear specifically how this ephemeral damage will be mitigated by these measures;
BIO-1 for example seems inapposite completely.
Most importantly, however, Mitigation Measure BIO -3 is improperly designed
to effectively mitigate or prevent this impact, because no entitlements are tied to the
implementation of this mitigation measure. This is important because there are
variable potential outcomes as a result of the proposed mitigation measure. BIO -3
requires that the Project Proponent enter into a completed Streamb ed Alteration
Agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. This
mitigation measure directs the Proponents to seek to enter into this agreement, but
does not make any development on the site contingent on securing of that
agreement, or on any content of such an agreement. This type of “open -ended”
mitigation measure is disfavored and improper. For a mitigation measure to be
meaningful, it must be definite, effective, and binding. As the IS/MND itself points
out, there is a potentially significant impact on these wetlands . The mitigation
measure proposed is thus inadequate under CEQA.
Land Use & Planning
The staff report prepared for the April 10, 2019 Planning Commission hearing
on the protect identifies what appear to be sever al inconsistencies with certain Goals
and Policies of the City’s General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan. See Staff
Report Packet at pp. 14-18. Staff acknowledged these inconsistencies in its
presentation, as an alternative course of action on the item, “[d]eny the project based
May 6, 2019
Page 3
on findings of inconsistency with the AASP, General Plan, Design Guidelines or
Subdivision Regulations.” Packet at p. 21.
The staff report is at best unclear, at worst obfuscatory, on the nature and
extent of the project’s inconsistencies with these planning policies. The IS/MND’s
finding of no significant Land Use & Planning impacts is therefore unsupported by
substantial evidence. As discussed in a comment letter of April 10, 2019, the project
conflicts with Land Use Element 8.13 in several respects. Most immediately, the site
is frankly not proposed as a “mixed use” development that blends commercial, office
and residential uses. To the contrary, the Project as proposed will be built in phases
of large-scale commercial uses and limited residential uses (i.e., the Project will begin
with an assisted living facility and a big box store), oriented away from one another.
This latter issue speaks to a second conflict--again, one identified or raised by staff in
the agenda packet provided to the Planning Commission --with the “connectivity,
safety and comfort of bicycle and pedestrian circulation” requirement of General
Plan Land Use Element 8.13. This conflict is not, however, identified or evaluated in
the IS/MND. In fact, despite the apparent conflict identified in other materials, the
IS/MND does not mention General Plan’s land use element or quote its
requirements; nor does it evaluate the nature of the Project’s inconsistency with it,
namely that connectivity and circulation may be impacted by a phasing-in plan that
leaves future development to the discrete market demands for each subsequent
tenant, and an assisted living facility with limited connectivity to the rest of the
development.
Noise
The evaluation of noise impacts in the IS/MND is likewise insufficient. The
noise study determined that airport and aircraft noise sources would be less impactful
than grade-level traffic noises, and so the sound impacts are concentrated on are less
in the MND focuses on the sound impacts from traffic sources. IS/MND at 380.
These noise impacts are studied in terms of their impact on the residential assisted
living facility planned for the northern portion of the Project Site. See e.g. p. 366-67.
This approach however fails to consider impacts on potential sensitive receptors lying
outside of the Project Site and also fails to consider potential sources of noise other
than either airport sources or traffic sources.
As noted in the project description, there is a residential area to the west of
the Project Site. See Planning Commission Agenda at 7. Residential uses are sensitive
receptors for purposes of noise impact analysis. The noise impact study does not
seem to include any analysis of off-site noise impacts. IS/MND at 367, Fig. 7. Sound
level measurement seems to have been conducted on -site only, presumably for
impacts on the planned assisted living center included as part of the Project. While
this naturally should be included in any environmental study of a proposed residential
May 6, 2019
Page 4
use, it fails to include an analysis of the impact of the Project itself on the environment
with regard to noise.
This is important because of the second problem mentioned above, namely,
potential noise impacts resulting from the particular uses planned for the Project. The
types of commercial uses contemplated for the site may be the source of specific
noise impacts. In particular, a big box retail establishment selling produce and other
fresh and frozen foods will require daily deliveries by semi -trucks, and these often
happen at early morning or late evening hours when best practices and local
ordinance provide for more restrictive decibel levels.
For one thing, truck deliveries result in back-up beeps for deliveries that can
exceed 70 decibels, and these deliveries can often occur in the early morning or late
evening hours when the limit is 45 decibels. Deliverie s related high-intensity retail
uses like the big box store planned for the Project also included refrigerated trucks
which create exhaust noise above and beyond the typical semi -truck noise and can
exceed 45 decibels. These types of early -hour deliveries also result in noise from
metal-on-metal grates on semi-trucks and loading bays on the structures that can
create regular noise in excess in 45 decibels.
In any case, the noise study does not include any discussion of these potential
noise impacts. The fact that these impacts are certain to result from development of
the site and there was no study of them contradicts the conclusion in the MND that
there would be less than significant noise impacts as a result of development of the
Project. The MND should contain an adequate and complete study of potential noise
impacts.
Transportation/Traffic
There are also several deficiencies in the IS/MND’s treatment of
transportation and traffic impacts. For “impact-fee” mitigation measures to be
adequate under CEQA, the programs into which the fees are paid must be
sufficiently firm and certain, and the contributions must actually result in the
mitigation; that is, the mitigation must be more than a foreseeable result of the
mitigation measure as it is imposed.
Mitigation Measure MM T-2 fails to satisfy this requirement. The mitigation
measure as described in the IS/MND itself is insufficiently detailed and the
contribution not reasonably calibrated to result in the mitigation required. Measure T -
2 requires contribution of less than 1% of the (apparently indefinite) cost of the
named necessary mitigation, but there is no description of the fund or program to
which this percentage will be contributed, nor for any horizon in which the measures
will be implemented (nor other sources of funding). Typically a mitigation measure
May 6, 2019
Page 5
that contributes a “fair share” to a program does so to a program that has a definitive
set of guidelines benchmarks for completion of the mitigation itself. As a matter of
fact, this is necessary element of mitigation measures that are intended to address a
specific impact and rely on contribution to general funds to do so.
MM T-4 has a similar deficiency, in that the terms of the contribution are
indefinite. It is unclear from how the mitigation measure is articulated how the “fair”
share is determined. Nothing in the IS/MND itself spells these elements out. This is
a fatal defect for this mitigation measure; neither the IS/MND nor the agenda packet
contains more specific terms for MM T-4.
Cumulative Assumptions, Baselines and Trip Counts
There are also assumptions in the traffic study that raise questions. For
example, the traffic study builds in assumptions about full build outs of planned
infrastructure included in the General Plan. IS/MND at 415. While this anticipates
development in the area of the Project Site, it also assumes the building of relevant
infrastructure, including a major interchange at Prado Road and U.S. Route 101 (a
state highway), and extension of Victoria Avenue.1 Id.
The baseline vehicle trip counts are also out of date and disparate in source,
having been collected at various times between 2016 and 2017. IS/MND at 396. The
traffic study also relies on a misclassification, specifically from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), because the Project contains a “big box” grocer, but
traffic estimates for a “shopping center” are used. This results in a systematic
undercounting. Big box stores, and in particular grocers, have unique trip generation
counts because of the nature of the use; they attract more frequent trips because of
the “staple” nature of the commodity and the comparatively brief nature of each
vehicle trip. See ITE Manual 11th Edition. Taken together with the assumptions as to
infrastructural build out, the traffic study is inadequate for purposes of a MND.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the City should not approve the project based on the
IS/MND. Because there is substantial evidence that the project may have one or
more significant environmental effects, the City should require a full environmental
impact report (EIR) before considering the project any further.
1 These assumptions are predicated on a further assumption that transit
conditions remain the same.
May 6, 2019
Page 6
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Most sincerely,
M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
Mark R. Wolfe
On behalf of Jonathan Brown, Joe Vreden, and
Ray Soto
MRW:sa
attachment
Air Quality Review and Comments for the “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of
San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019
Page 1 of 6
-
Autumn Wind Associates
Air Quality CEQA Analysis and Consulting Services
916.719.5472 ▪ ggilbert@autumnwind.us
May 3, 2019
Mr. Mark Wolfe
M.R. Wolfe & Associates
555 Sutter Street, Suite 405
San Francisco CA 94102
RE: Autumn Wind Associates comments regarding Air Quality environmental CEQA impact analysis
and proposed mitigation contained within the City of San Luis Obispo’s Initial Study for the
proposed “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial / Assisted-Living Center”
Development Project
At the request of M.R. Wolfe & Associates, Autumn Wind Associates has reviewed the above-referenced Initial
Study for the analysis and treatment of potential air emission impacts estimated to result from the development of
the proposed NWC Broad & Tank Farm (hereafter “Tank Farm”) assisted-living care facility mixed with retail
buildings and associated parking. Our comments follow.
I. Project Description And Impact Significance Criteria
The Tank Farm project is proposed for the northwest corner of Tank Farm Road and Broad (State Hwy 227) to be
comprised of 139 assisted-living units within a 133,655 square foot assisted-living facility to be located on 4.79
acres. Adjoining the assisted-living facility will be 49,269 square feet of new commercial-shopping retail
facilities in 6 buildings, located on 5.28 acres. Parking at both assisted-living and retail land uses will require
approximately 280 spaces. Up to 18 employees will serve assisted-living residents at any given time. Of the 6
commercial buildings, two are identified as “retail”; two are “restaurant”; one is “retail -restaurant”; and one is
“grocer”. Assisted-care facility residents and service employees together with employees in the retail and grocery
land uses combine to create a service population of 417. The Initial Study has assumed for its emissions estimates
that site preparation and grading would begin September 2019, building construction in February 2020, and final
construction with architectural coatings to conclude in December 2021.
AWA
Air Quality Review and Comments for the “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of
San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019
Page 2 of 6
The Initial Study has provided a basic review of the project’s anticipated environmental impacts, including
estimates of the project’s construction and operational emissions and their potential to impact air quality. At pg.
13, a project-related air quality impact would be considered significant if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected violation;
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard;
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
• Create objectionable odors
For the project’s construction emissions as calculated with the CalEEMod modeling program, first quarterly ROG
and NOx emissions associated with site preparation and grading were predicted to exceed the SLOAPCD’s
CEQA thresholds of significance unless mitigated with “standard air district measures” designed primarily to
reduce onsite diesel construction equipment emissions. With mitigation, the related impact was identified to be
less than significant.
Operational emissions estimates were calculated using ITE vehicle trip data for specified land uses , with vehicle
fleet characteristics relying on default EMFAC assumptions operating in the background of the CalEEMod land
use emissions estimation model. As noted at IS pg. 15, SLOAPCD CEQA thresholds of significance for
operational emissions were not estimated to exceeded using selected ITE trip rates and generic CalEEMod fleet
information for the area.
However, at IS pg. 15 project-related operational toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions for the project were
determined to be essentially nonexistent based on the project’s location (not on a major roadway with 100,000 or
more AADT) and because the project’s proposed land uses would not act as “stationary sources” of toxic
emissions; on that basis, the IS’ AQ element concludes that there will be no significant health-related emission
impacts for future assisted-living facility “sensitive receptor” residents. We disagree with this assumption based
on the project’s proximity to two busy roadways with relatively high numbers of routinely operating diesel trucks
and buses: Tank Farm Road and State Hwy 227 are located within 30’ and 500’, respectively, of the proposed
project’s “sensitive receptor” assisted-living residential units.
At IS pg. 15 the CalEEMod-modeled quantity of project-related operational diesel particulate matter (DPM) a
toxic air contaminant known to cause cancer 1 and representing roughly 80% of the ambient air-related increased
cancer risk to Californians, is estimated at .4 lbs/day as compared with the SLOAPCD threshold of significance at
1 Both the California Air Resources Board and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment have designated DPM as a toxic air
contaminant for both cancer and chronic non-cancer health effects; OEHHA information and toxicity values for DPM is available at
https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/diesel-exhaust-particulate.
Air Quality Review and Comments for the “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of
San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019
Page 3 of 6
1.25 lbs/day. However, it is important to note that the CalEEMod estimated quantity of DPM at pg. 15 accounts
solely for emissions generated by trucks serving the assisted-living operation and the retail land uses at the site,
and that it specifically does not account for those potentially significant increased cumulative health risks to result
from project-generated DPM (.4 lb/day) combining cumulatively with DPM in ambient air from the relatively
high numbers of daily heavy-duty diesel trucks operating on Tank Farm Road and State Highway 227.
In fact, there is no mention or any discussion in the IS’ Air Quality element of the SLOAPCD’s CEQA cancer
risk thresholds of significance, either for the potential health impacts resulting from project-specific TAC
emissions or in cumulative combination with DPM emissions generated regularly by diesel trucks operating
routinely near the project location2. DPM will be emitted regularly by project-serving trucks once the project is
operational, and those emissions will combine with nearby truck emissions to increase health risks to levels
potentially exceeding the SLOAPCD’s TAC significance thres holds. Yet without discussion of the air district’s
cumulative TAC thresholds or what would, for the proposed project, constitute a cumulatively significant
increased cancer risk contribution (“the straw that would break the camel’s back”), the IS provides no evidence to
justify its determination that the project will not result in cumulatively significant increased health risks for
assisted-living facility residents.
Both qualitatively and quantitatively the number of DPM-emitting trucks operating proximate to the proposed
assisted-living facility is relevant to determining the potential significance of increased cancer risks to older
sensitive receptors who will live at the assisted-living facility. Unfortunately, the IS provides substantially and
unacceptably conflicting estimates for the project’s average daily trips (ADT) from which heavy-duty truck trip
numbers can be derived. At IS pg. 36, the project’s ADT is estimated at 3765. At IS pg. 387 it is estimated at
1930. At IS pg. 344 emissions estimates for onroad mobile sources were based on 2313.89 average trips per
weekday.
If the AADT value of 3765 is accurate, the CalEEMod emissions estimates found in the IS would be low by 39%
based on the discrepancy; this is a potentially significant underestimate, particularly for evaluating the potential
for DPM from project-serving diesel vehicles to combine with heavier -than-average diesel concentrations in the
project vicinity due to increased truck traffic (primarily on State Hwy 227).
To estimate diesel truck trips proximate to the project we obtained Caltrans AADT estimates for Hwy 227
between its northern terminus and Crestmont Drive 3. AADT on Hwy 227 at Crestmont is 14,200 and 11,000 on
the portion immediately to the north where the Hwy begins. The average AADT of these two values is 12600.
To derive the numbers of heavy-duty trucks (>14000 lbs GVWR) nearest Tank Farm Road on Hwy 227, we
utilized the nearest Caltrans AAD T for heavy-duty trucks (Edna/227, just south of the project area); truck counts
at that location range (east v. west off of 227)between 6% - 8% of total AADT. Assuming an average heavy-duty
2 SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012) identifies a pro ject-specific TAC threshold of 10 increased cancers per million for
sensitive receptors, and 89 per million for cumulative cancer increased risks for sensitive receptors. See SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook pg. 3-7.
3 See Caltrans 2017 AADT estimates for CA highways at http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/
Air Quality Review and Comments for the “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of
San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019
Page 4 of 6
truck proportion of 7% of all AADT applied to the average AADT of 12600 vehicles/day for traffic on Hwy 227
nearest the project site, the numbers of heavy-duty trucks operating each day is estimated to be 882.
Added to this best-guess estimate in the absence of any truck trip discussion in the IS will be heavy-duty diesel
trucks that pass on Tank Farm Road within 30’ of the project’s assisted-living residents’ living quarters. The
great majority of heavy-duty trucks are diesel-powered, and additional heavy-duty truck traffic will occur each
day on Tank Farm Road; we have requested related truck trip information from the City and continue to await
their response. Alternatively, total “Average Daily Motor Vehicle Volume” is made available in the City’s
ARCGIS traffic data system at
http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=f808ee341ad743259b9f7b455cd7b6
9b; Tank Farm Road is a major city thoroughfare with 16,774 vehicle trips/day. Using CalEEMOD’s generic
~14% share of the total onroad vehicle fleet for heavy-duty vehicle types, approximately 2348 heavy-duty
predominantly diesel-powered vehicles would be expected to operate on Tank Farm Road each da y in addition to
the 882 derived from Caltrans AADT data for Hwy 227 nearest the project. Using this approach, combined diesel
truck emissions proximate to the project area would result from 3230 truck trips/day.
As noted above, CalEEMod relies on vehicle fleet information to estimate a project’s share of onroad vehicle
emissions. IS pg. 213 of 428 shows that of all 13 onroad vehicle classes, from the lightest-duty passenger
vehicles up through the heaviest class of heavy-duty trucks, the heavy-duty vehicles which are predominantly
diesel powered (over 14000 lb. GVWR) comprise very close to 14% of the total fleet mix. Multiplying the 3765
average annual trips/day for the project identified at IS pg. 36 by .14 to estimate the number of heavy-duty,
predominantly diesel vehicles operating to, from, and for the project each day yields 527. These 527 “worst-
case”, predominantly heavy-duty, DPM-emitting diesel vehicles serving the operational project each day would
represent only a minor portion of all diesel vehicles operating within 500’ of the project’s assisted-living sensitive
receptors.
When added to the 882 heavy-duty truck trips/day we derived above for Hwy 227, total “worst-case” DPM with
the potential to cause an exceedance of the SLOAPCD’s 89 increased cancers per million TAC risk threshold
would be generated by ~1400 heavy-duty vehicles operating in proximity to the project’s sensitive receptors. The
higher bound estimate, using non-project initiated daily truck trips derived above for AADT on Tank Farm Road,
pushes that total diesel truck daily trip value up substantially.
In the absence of any DPM-related analysis and discussion in the IS’ Air Quality element our “best guess”
estimation process reflects the potential for cumulative DPM exposures to the project’s assisted-living sensitive
residents to result from roughly 1400 to over 3000 predominantly diesel vehicles operating routinely and
proximately; the related increase in cumulative TAC health risks in the immediate vicinity of project residents
will combine additively with background DPM for the larger area. While DPM-related health risks for the larger
area are pre-existing, project-related DPM will combine with those to create even greater cumulative health risks.
Unfortunately, no discussion is found in the IS regarding this potentially significant health risk impact issue.
Air Quality Review and Comments for the “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of
San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019
Page 5 of 6
Recent court decisions that place most pre-existing environmental conditions outside the purview of proposed-
project CEQA review will not pre-empt CEQA’s mandate for a cumulative impact assessment where there is a
potential that a project’s impacts which are not individually significant may nonetheless constitute a considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As we have noted, however, the IS appears to have failed to
describe in any measure what would constitute a considerable contribution to cumulative TAC-related health risk,
nor does it provide the SLOAPCD’s TAC thresholds of significance or any related discussion of whether the
project’s TAC impacts will exceed the air district’s cumulative TAC threshold.
Based on our “best guess” approach in the absence of substantive TAC-related information in the IS, heavy-duty
truck trips/day range of about 1400 – 3000 proximate to the project. Given the relatively high toxicity of diesel
emissions from the potentially high numbers of diesel vehicles that will operate routinely on State Highway 227
and on Tank Farm Road there exists clear potential for significant health risk impacts to the project residents, and
therefore a comprehensive health risk assessment (HRA) must be prepared. Without an accurate HRA, the Lead
Agency and the public cannot be assured that the project will not exceed relevant acute and chronic health risk
thresholds of significance.
II. Air Quality Mitigations Are Unenforceable as Written
At IS pg. 187, the report by Rincon Consultants, Inc. states that air quality mitigations for construction emissions
“would provide for the use of” lower-emitting equipment. “Would provide for” simply means in real-world
terms that MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2 are voluntary measures and not mandatory since the statement would
otherwise be written as “must provide for” or similar.
Additionally, at IS pg. 185, the Rincon report used to estimate the project’s emissions and their potential to cause
impacts has AQ mitigation measur es listed under the heading “Recommendations”. Recommended use of AQ -1
and AQ-2 means that the measures are discretionary, and therefore will fail to provide the certainty of actual
emission reduction benefits required under CEQA Guidelines. In real-world terms a “recommended” mitigation is
not enforceable and can be expected to be ignored by construction fleet operators operating routinely older, more
fully capitalized higher-emitting onroad and offroad diesel vehicles.
At IS pg. 14, air quality mitigation measures to reduce the project’s significant emission impacts to less than
significant levels “are recommended”---but not required. Recommended mitigations are no more enforceable for
actual emission reductions than mitigation components without metrics to measure real progress, or those that rely
on discretionary implementation with use of terms such as “recommended”, “may”, “should”, “could”, etc.
At IS pg. 15, the component parts of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 “shall be implemented” as part of the project’s
approval process, yet one of the components renders the entire mitigation measure unenforceable due to its
discretionary nature:
Air Quality Review and Comments for the “NWC Broad & Tank Farm Mixed -Use Commercial/Assisted-Living Center Initial Study; City of
San Luis Obispo; April 26, 2019
Page 6 of 6
“Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the
engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be
eligible by proving alternative compliance ” (emphasis added).
No information is provided with this option to indicate what “alternative compliance” will provide the quantities
of pollutant reductions necessary to legitimize the IS’ claim that the project’s construction emission impacts will
be reduced to less than significant levels, nor is there a ny metric to ensure such.
Finally, no information is found in the IS regarding what agency will enforce AQ mitigation claimed to reduce the
project’s significant emissions to less than significant levels. The offroad equipment mitigation appears to only
recommend use of Tier 3 and 4 offroad equipment for the initial and relatively higher emitting phases of project
construction, while onroad diesel vehicles are recommended to operate at 2007 or later model years. The IS fails
to assign responsibility to the SLOAPCD’s enforcement personnel who should be capable of identifying and
confirming Tier 3 and 4 offroad engines, and 2007 and later heavy-duty diesel trucks. It is very unlikely that City
code enforcement personnel are trained to confirm use of those types of equipment necessary to produce the
claimed emission benefits for AQ-1 and AQ-2, nor does the IS state that the City would be responsible for their
enforcement. Similarly, while other CEQA projects around CA have mandated similar measures and required the
use of a qualified environmental coordinator to ensure such reductions throughout the project’s construction
process, no such requirement is found in the Tank Farm IS.
As written, the AQ mitigation measures identified an d described in the IS appear to be unenforceable due to
discretionary language use, fail to provide the necessary metrics to measure real emission reductions needed to
justify the IS’ claim of less-than-significant emission impacts, and provide no direction on what responsible,
qualified party will be used to ensure their effective implementation.
For all these reasons, there is no basis in fact upon which to conclude the project will have no significant air
quality or human health effects.
Sincerely,
Greg Gilbert
Autumn Wind Associates
8
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
Greg Gilbert
Autumn Wind Associates
Greg Gilbert is director and founder of Autumn Wind Associates, located northeast of Sacramento, CA.
AWA provides expert review, analysis, and estimation of potential air quality and related environmental
impacts of proposed land-use development projects involving indirect- (mobile) and stationary (operating
under air agency permit) sources of air pollution. He has consulted on air quality land use planning,
mobile, and stationary source matters and projects to private and public clients since leaving public
service as an air agency manager in 2000. Previously, he was national marketing director for an
emissions catalyst products and technology firm with international markets in mobile and stationary
sources. Between 1990 and 2000 Mr. Gilbert was employed in two California air agencies, most recently
as project manager in the Mobile Source Division of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD). While at SMAQMD Mr. Gilbert was responsible for managing
development and implementation of the agency’s heavy-duty diesel vehicle low-emission incentive
program that would later evolve into the statewide Moyer Program; the evaluation of land use-related air
quality emission impacts and control strategies, development of California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) thresholds of significance and mitigations to reduce, offset, or eliminate air quality impacts of
new land use; development of air-related CEQA guidance; and creation of the first air quality CEQA
mitigation fee program with percentage-based emission reduction mitigation choices provided to the
developer.
Since 2001, AWA has provided consulting expertise to private entities and air agencies, conducted
research on construction practices and equipment emissions, assisted with development of CEQA land-
use guidance documents and mitigation strategies for CA air quality agencies, and provided analysis and
modeling of potential air quality impacts identified primarily in Mitigated Negative Declarations and
Environmental Impact Reports for proposed land use development projects throughout California. Mr.
Gilbert reviews and provides expert written and testimony on CEQA- and development-related project-
specific environmental analysis, mitigation, and documentation for a wide range of public-, private-, and
environmental-sector clients, including law firms specializing in CEQA-NEPA cases.