BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Update

Supervisor Lockyer Informational WorkshopSCS & CEQASCS & CEQA

March 19 2011March 19, 2011

Henry HilkenHenry HilkenDirector of Planning and Research

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Why Update the CEQA Why Update the CEQA G id li ?G id li ?Guidelines?Guidelines?

• Provide guidance to local lead agencies in evaluating air lit i t f l d d l tquality impacts of land use development

• Include thresholds of significance, analytical tools, mitigation measuresmeasures

• Last published 1999, update needed Attain health-based air quality standards for ozone and fine PM Reduce health impacts from toxic air contaminants and fine PM

Highest exposures to toxics & fine PM near roadways, industry GHG reductions to achieve AB 32, SB 375,

• Goal: encourage air quality beneficial land use– Support infill, TOD, mixed use

Mi i i bli h lth i t f d l t2

– Minimize public health impacts of new development

Transportation, Land Use and Air Quality

Transportation, Land Use and Air Qualityand Air Qualityand Air Quality

• Motor vehicles are largest source of air pollution in Bay Area -ozone PM toxics GHGsozone, PM, toxics, GHGs

• Continuing challenges: exceed health based AQ standards; local AQ impacts; GHGsQ p ;

• California vehicle fleet very clean–need to reduce vehicle use• Promote strategies that support 2007 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Source for SF Bay Area

Agriculture 1.10%

Transportation

40.60%

g pplivable communities– Infill, mixed use, TOD

By Source for SF Bay Area

Industrial 34.00%

Off-Road 2.80%

– Support MTC, ABAG, local programs– Help implement SB 375

Integrate AQ into local planning

3 Electricity

14.80%

Residential 6.60%

– Integrate AQ into local planning– Use caution near high concentrations

of pollutants

GHG ThresholdsGHG Thresholds Address critical void

No thresholds for GHGs in CEQA previously existed No thresholds for GHGs in CEQA previously existed

Legal scrutiny by AG, environmental groups

Based on AB 32 and Scoping Plan – allows statewide consistency

Thresholds options – land use projects Plan based – consistency with GHG reduction strategy OR

“Bright line” 1 100 metric tons/yr OR Bright line – 1,100 metric tons/yr OR

Efficiency based – 4.6 tons/service population/yr (residents & employees)

Credit for lower vehicle use/efficiencies of infill, mixed use projects

Thresholds will be revisited if/when State guidance available

Consistent w/Office of Planning & Research State CEQA Guidelines

4

Provides certainty: legally defensible approach, level playing field

Community Air Risk Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) ProgramEvaluation (CARE) ProgramEvaluation (CARE) ProgramEvaluation (CARE) Program

•Evaluate regional and gcommunity cancer and non-cancer health risks from toxic air contaminantscontaminants

•Supplements long-standing programs to reduce regional smog (ozone particulates)(ozone, particulates)

•Identify sensitive populations

•Focus health risk mitigation measures on locations with

5

higher risk levels and sensitive populations

Emissions and Modeled Emissions and Modeled Air Toxics (2005)Air Toxics (2005)Air Toxics (2005)Air Toxics (2005)

Risk-weighted Emissions Modeled Air Toxics Risk

6

Demographic & Health DataDemographic & Health DataPopulation under 18 Asthma Hospitalization Rates

7

Priority DevelopmentPriority DevelopmentAreas and Air ToxicsAreas and Air ToxicsAreas and Air ToxicsAreas and Air Toxics

Priority Development Areas Modeled Air Toxics Risk

8

Encourage Healthy InfillEncourage Healthy InfillEncourage Healthy InfillEncourage Healthy InfillPoor housing site

Good housing site

9

Public Health Impacts ofPublic Health Impacts ofPollution Near FreewaysPollution Near FreewaysPublic Health Impacts ofPublic Health Impacts ofPollution Near FreewaysPollution Near FreewaysPollution Near FreewaysPollution Near FreewaysPollution Near FreewaysPollution Near Freeways

• Health studies consistently show that living near highwaysHealth studies consistently show that living near highways has serious health consequences

– Children living near a busy highway more likely to develop th d h i ff i d th tt kasthma and wheezing, suffer increased asthma attacks.

– Exposure to traffic-related pollution, especially fine PM, significantly increases risk of heart attacks and premature death.

P t d l hildh d t i

– Pregnant women exposed to high levels of pollution from cars and trucks are more likely to experience problems with baby’s development, such as low birth weight.

• Pre-term and early childhood exposures to carcinogens are ten times more important than previously estimated

• Local land use decisions play an important role in

10

p y pdetermining exposure to air pollutants

•San Francisco ordinance on air quality and infill development

Clean Air Communities InitiativeClean Air Communities InitiativeMultifaceted Approach to Cumulative ImpactsMultifaceted Approach to Cumulative Impacts

REGULATIONS

MONITORING• Mobile Sampling Van• Ambient Monitoring Network

REGULATIONS• Indirect Source Rule• Toxics NSR

MONITORING&

MODELING

REGULATIONS& GUIDELINES

ENFORCEMENT

• Ambient Monitoring Network• Community Monitoring • Local Measurement Studies• Collaborate with Universities and Community Research Monitoring Programs• Portable Sampling Trailers

• Toxics NSR• 2588 Hot Spots Program• Source Specific Rules• Wood Smoke Rule

GUIDELINES• CEQA GuidelinesPRIORITY

COMMUNITIES

GRANTS&

INCENTIVES

OUTREACH&

EDUCATION

p g• Photochemical Monitoring

MODELING• Regional TAC Modeling• Local TAC Modeling• Regional PM and Ozone M d li

• Community Risk Reduction Plans• 2010 Clean Air Plan • General Plan Guidelines• SB375/SCS• Climate Protection Program/GHG Co-Benefits

COMMUNITIES

EDUCATIONModeling • Permit Modeling and

Risk AssessmentENFORCEMENT• Diesel Enforcement Program• Inspection/Enforcement of District Regulations• Enforcement of CARB Regulations• Respond to Complaints

OUTREACH/EDUCATION• Community Grant Program• Collaborate with Local Governments• Collaborate with Health Departments• CARE Program and Task Force • Community Meetings

• Respond to Complaints• Inspection of Grantees

GRANTS/INCENTIVES• Community Grant Program• Bay Area Clean Air Foundation• Resource Teams

• Collaborate with Community Groups• Wood Smoke Outreach

• Bay Area Clean Air Foundation• Carl Moyer Program• TFCA• Mobile Source Incentive Fund• I-Bond/Goods Movement• Climate Protection Grants

Local Community Risks and Local Community Risks and HazardsHazards

• CARE program identifies 6 priority communities in Bay Area

HazardsHazardsp g p y y

– High emissions, concentrations of toxics & vulnerable populations• Quantitative thresholds or plan-based approach

– Address new sources of pollution and new receptors near existingAddress new sources of pollution and new receptors near existing sources (eg, freeways)

– Thresholds address PM and toxic risk– Consider localized impacts – within 1,000 feetConsider localized impacts within 1,000 feet– Consider individual sources and cumulative impacts

• Promote infill, while protecting residentsPotential conflicts ma often be resol ed thro gh• Potential conflicts may often be resolved through site specific analysis and reasonable mitigation

• Encourage community risk reduction plans

12

g y p

Community Community Risk Reduction PlansRisk Reduction Plans

Supports community wide planning approach to reduce cumulative impacts

Risk Reduction PlansRisk Reduction Planscumulative impacts

Collaborative effort between local governments & Air District CRRP elements

Define planning area & consider future development plans Establish future goals, emission reduction targets Prepare emission inventories and modeling

Develop & implement emission reduction measures Develop & implement emission reduction measures Monitor progress Public involvement process

Air District preparing local emission inventories Air District preparing local emission inventories Pilot projects underway in San Jose, San Francisco Air District provide funds to local jurisdictions to support

CRRP de elopment and implementation13

CRRP development and implementation

Technical Tools to Technical Tools to S t G id liS t G id liSupport GuidelinesSupport Guidelines

Set of unprecedented technical tools/resources – unique in California and the nationand the nation

Tools/Resources available on District website: GHG Mitigation Measure Quantification GHG Off-Model Spreadsheet Calculator for projects GHG Reduction Strategy Guidance Offsite Mitigation Program Guidance g g Detailed Phased Modeling Methodology Roadway Risk Screening Tables Stationary Source Risk Screening Tables Stationary Source Risk Screening Tables Community Risk Reduction Plan Guidance

Updating tools as new information becomes available

1414

District provides training classes for local staff District provides ongoing technical assistance to local staff, consultants

Extensive Outreach to Extensive Outreach to Develop GuidelinesDevelop Guidelines

Extensive Outreach to Extensive Outreach to Develop GuidelinesDevelop GuidelinesDevelop GuidelinesDevelop GuidelinesDevelop GuidelinesDevelop Guidelines

11 local government workshops11 bli k h 11 public workshopsPresentations to key officials and staff MTC, ABAG, JPC Mayors’ conferences City managers City managers Bay Area Planning Directors

12 Board of Directors meetings 12 Board of Directors meetingsNumerous meetings with local officials, staff,

stakeholders15

stakeholders

Support for Infill, TODSupport for Infill, TODpp ,pp ,• GHG thresholds

Acknowledge efficiencies of infill take credit for lower vehicle trips– Acknowledge efficiencies of infill – take credit for lower vehicle trips, energy efficiency, etc.

– GHG efficiency threshold supports larger infill projects

• Risk and hazards thresholds– Extensive outreach to local gov’t, developers to improve

understanding receive feedbackunderstanding, receive feedback– Community risk reduction plans integrate with local planning activities– Extensive technical support documents assist evaluations– Case studies confirm thresholds are achievable, while health

protective• Many projects pass screen level evaluations

16

Many projects pass screen level evaluations• Many additional projects pass with more site specific analysis and/or

reasonable mitigation

Case Study: The Uptown, OaklandCase Study: The Uptown, Oakland

Project characteristics: 700 multifamily units, 14,000 sq. ft. retail, downtown Oakland

Step 1 – Determine 1,000 foot radius

Step 2 – Identify local roads (>10,000 vehicles/day) and f t bfreeways to be evaluated

Step 3 – Identify local permitted sources

17

permitted sources

Roadway Impacts Near The UptownRoadway Impacts Near The UptownHighway 980 @ 700 feet West Grand Avenue @Highway 980 @ 700 feet

PM2.5 = 0.096 ug/m3Cancer = 10 in a million

West Grand Avenue @ 850 feet

PM2.5 = 0.03 ug/m3Cancer = 1.4 in a million

Roads PM2.5 (ug/m3)

CEQA Threshold

Highway 980 0.10 0.30

Highway 123 0 08

Castro Street @ 500 feet

PM2.5 = 0.05 ug/m3

Cancer = 2 4 in aTelegraph Ave @

100 feet

Highway 123 0.08

Castro St 0.05

W Grand 0.03

Telegraph 0 13Cancer = 2.4 in a million

20th St t @ 100 f t

100 feetPM2.5 = 0.13 ug/m3Cancer Risk = 7 in a

million

Telegraph 0.13

20th St 0.13

Broadway 0.03

20th Street @ 100 feetPM2.5 = 0.13 ug/m3

Cancer = 7 in a million

Roads Cancer (cases per million)

CEQA Threshold

Highway 980 10 10

Highway 123 4

San Pablo Ave (Highway 123) @ 100 feet

PM2 5 = 0 08 ug/m3

Broadway St @ 400 ftPM2.5 = 0.03 ug/m3

Cancer = 1.6 in a million

Highway 123 4

Castro St 2.4

W Grand 1.4

Telegraph 7PM2.5 0.08 ug/m3Cancer = 4 in a million

Hazard = 0.02

g p

20th St 7

Broadway 1.6

Permitted Sources Near The UptownPermitted Sources Near The UptownSource PM2.5

(ug/m3)CEQA Threshold

Generator 1 0.01 0.30

Cogen 0 1

Autobody ShopDe minimus risk

Cogen 0.1

Generator 3 0.02

Generator 4 0.02

Air Heater 0 01

Gas Station 2Cancer = 1.4 in a

million

Air HeaterPM2.5 = 0.01 ug/m3

Air Heater 0.01

Source Cancer (cases per million)

CEQA Threshold

Spray BoothDe minimus risk

Autobody ShopDe minimus risk

BoilerDe minimus risk

Gas Station 1 million)

Generator 1 0.6 10

Generator 2 8

Generator 3 0.4

Backup Generator 1Cancer = 0.6 in a

millionPM2.5 = 0.01 ug/m3

Backup Generator 6Cancer = 2 in a million

Gas Station 1Cancer = 1.5 in

a million

Generator 4 0.4

Generator 5 1.1

Generator 6 2

g

Cogen PlantPM2.5 = 0.1 ug/m3

Backup Generator 2Cancer = 8 in a million

Backup Generator 5Cancer = 1.1 in a million

Gas Station 1 1.5

Gas Station 2 1.4

Cancer 8 in a million

Backup Generator 3Cancer = 0.4 in a million

PM2.5 = 0.02 ug/m3

Backup Generator 4Cancer = 0.4 in a million

PM2.5 = 0.02 ug/m3

Case Study:Case Study:Dublin Transit CenterDublin Transit Center

Case Study:Case Study:Dublin Transit CenterDublin Transit CenterDublin Transit CenterDublin Transit CenterDublin Transit CenterDublin Transit Center

Source Value CEQA Th h ld

Single Source ComparisonRecommend 500 ft buffer north of I-580

Reduced to 350 ft buffer by 2015 based on reduced

diesel emissions (will Threshold

BART Generator - PM2.5- Cancer

0.20.09

0.310

G t 1

based on 2012 emissions (AADT

219,000)

diesel emissions (will decrease further in future)

Generator 1- PM2.5- Cancer

0.049

0.310

Generator 2PM2 5 0 1 0 3- PM2.5

- Cancer0.15

0.310

All stationary sources within 1,000 feet also meet cumulative impacts thresholds

BART GeneratorCancer = 0.09 in

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Phase project construction to avoid residential development closest to freeway until 2015

millionPM2.5 = 0.2 ug/m3

Generator 2Cancer = 5 in millionPM2 5 0 1 / 3 until 2015

• Advise setback of 350 ft in 2015

• Locate HVAC intakes away from freeway Proposed Land Use:

Residential Commercial/Office

Open Space BART Parking

PM2.5 = 0.1 ug/m3 Generator 1Cancer = 9 in millionPM2.5 = 0.04 ug/m3

Board Adoption and Board Adoption and Subsequent ActivitiesSubsequent ActivitiesSubsequent ActivitiesSubsequent Activities

Extensive discussions with Board of Directors during 2009, 2010

District Board of Directors approved significance thresholds June 2, 2010 Most thresholds effective immediately

Risk & hazard thresholds for new receptors effective May 1 2011 Risk & hazard thresholds for new receptors effective May 1, 2011

Since adoption, District staff working closely with city & county staff, regional agency staff, consultants, developers, etc. Responding to inquires, providing data & technical assistance

Many meetings and presentations

Tracking implementation Tracking implementation

Reviewing CEQA documents, submitting comments

Local gov’t workshops – Feb./March 2011

21

Work with ABAG and MTC to convene PDA/air quality work group

Regional Agency Regional Agency CollaborationCollaboration

Regional Agency Regional Agency CollaborationCollaborationCollaborationCollaborationCollaborationCollaboration

Convened Air Quality/PDA workgroup with ABAG & MTC Identify air quality concerns in Priority Development Areas Support plan level efforts to address air quality impacts and

CEQACEQA Streamline CEQA review of PDAs Coordinate with SB 375 process

Regular staff meetings among ABAG, MTC, BAAQMD Model to calculate benefits of transportation measures in PDAs

R i l t ff ti ith B A Pl i Di t Regional agency staff meeting with Bay Area Planning Directors Association (BAPDA) Coordinate regional programs

22 Support local planning and development

Examples of Good Projects Examples of Good Projects Examples of Good Projects Examples of Good Projects

• Alameda County Climate Action Plan– Set GHG vehicle emissions target for residential projects– Aggressive building efficiency requirements and incentives

• Union City Station Area Plany– Compact, energy efficient, TOD development

• Dublin Climate Action Plan– Mixed use higher density near BART– Mixed use, higher density near BART– Green building ordinance, aggressive waste reduction goals

• Treasure Island Redevelopment PlanC t hi h d it d l t– Compact, high density development

– Innovative parking strategies• City of Santa Clara General Plan update

23

– Increased densities, TOD– Develop climate action plan and CRRP

Next StepsNext StepsNext StepsNext Steps Support community-wide planning through CRRPs and climate

ti laction plans Collaborate with regional, local agencies on community-wide

planning in PDA communities Provide technical support to local gov’t, developers

24Poor housing site Good housing site