BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Update

Supervisor Haggerty Informational WorkshopSCS & CEQA

January 29, 2011

Henry HilkenDirector of Planning and Research

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

2

Why Update the CEQA Why Update the CEQA Guidelines?Guidelines?

• Provide guidance to local lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of land use development

• Include thresholds of significance, analytical tools, mitigation measures

• 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– Minimize public health impacts of new development

3

Agriculture 1.10%

Industrial 34.00%

Off-Road 2.80%

Electricity 14.80%

Residential 6.60%

Transportation

40.60%

Transportation, Land Use and Air Quality

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

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

• California vehicle fleet very clean–need to reduce vehicle use• Promote strategies that support livable communities

– Infill, mixed use, TOD– Support MTC, ABAG, local programs– Help implement SB 375– Integrate AQ into local planning– Use caution near high concentrations of pollutants

2007 Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Source for SF Bay Area

4

GHG ThresholdsGHG Thresholds Address critical void

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 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

Provides certainty: legally defensible approach, level playing field

5

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

•Evaluate regional and community cancer and non-cancer health risks from toxic air contaminants

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

•Identify sensitive populations

•Focus health risk mitigation measures on locations with higher risk levels and sensitive populations

6

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

Risk-weighted Emissions Modeled Air Toxics Risk

7

Population under 18

Demographic & Health DataDemographic & Health DataAsthma Hospitalization Rates

8

Priority DevelopmentPriority DevelopmentAreas and Air ToxicsAreas and Air Toxics

Priority Development Areas Modeled Air Toxics Risk

9

Encourage Healthy InfillEncourage Healthy InfillPoor housing site

Good housing site

10

Public Health Impacts ofPublic Health Impacts ofPollution Near FreewaysPollution Near Freeways

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

• 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 determining exposure to air pollutants

•San Francisco ordinance on air quality and infill development

– Children living near a busy highway more likely to develop asthma and wheezing, suffer increased asthma attacks.

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

– 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.

Clean Air Communities InitiativeClean Air Communities InitiativeMultifaceted Approach to Cumulative Impacts

MONITORING&

MODELING

REGULATIONS& GUIDELINES

GRANTS&

INCENTIVES

ENFORCEMENT

OUTREACH&

EDUCATION

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

MODELING• Regional TAC Modeling• Local TAC Modeling• Regional PM and Ozone Modeling • Permit Modeling and Risk Assessment

OUTREACH/EDUCATION• Community Grant Program• Collaborate with Local Governments• Collaborate with Health Departments• CARE Program and Task Force • Community Meetings• Resource Teams• Collaborate with Community Groups• Wood Smoke Outreach

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

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

ENFORCEMENT• Diesel Enforcement Program• Inspection/Enforcement of District Regulations• Enforcement of CARB Regulations• Respond to Complaints• Inspection of Grantees

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

PRIORITY COMMUNITIES

12

• CARE program identifies 6 priority communities in Bay Area– High emissions, concentrations of toxics & vulnerable populations

• Quantitative thresholds or plan-based approach– Address new sources of pollution and new receptors near existing

sources (eg, freeways)– Thresholds address PM and toxic risk– Consider localized impacts – within 1,000 feet– Consider individual sources and cumulative impacts

• Promote infill, while protecting residents• Potential conflicts may often be resolved through site specific analysis and reasonable mitigation• Encourage community risk reduction plans

Local Community Risks and Local Community Risks and HazardsHazards

13

Supports community wide planning approach to reduce cumulative 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 Monitor progress Public involvement process

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

CRRP development and implementation

Community Community Risk Reduction PlansRisk Reduction Plans

1414

Technical Tools to Technical Tools to Support GuidelinesSupport Guidelines

Set of unprecedented technical tools/resources – unique in California and 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 Detailed Phased Modeling Methodology Roadway Risk Screening Tables Stationary Source Risk Screening Tables Community Risk Reduction Plan Guidance

Updating tools as new information becomes available District provides training classes for local staff District provides ongoing technical assistance to local staff, consultants

15

Extensive Outreach to Extensive Outreach to Develop GuidelinesDevelop Guidelines

11 local government workshops 11 public workshops Presentations to key officials and staff

MTC, ABAG, JPC Mayors’ conferences City managers Bay Area Planning Directors

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

stakeholders

16

Support for Infill, TOD• GHG thresholds

– 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 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• Many additional projects pass with more site specific analysis and/or reasonable

mitigation

17

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 freeways to be evaluated

Step 3 – Identify local permitted sources

Roadway Impacts Near The UptownRoadway Impacts Near The UptownHighway 980 @ 700 feet

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

San Pablo Ave (Highway 123) @ 100 feet

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

Hazard = 0.02

Castro Street @ 500 feet

PM2.5 = 0.05 ug/m3

Cancer = 2.4 in a million

West Grand Avenue @ 850 feet

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

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

Cancer = 7 in a million

Telegraph Ave @ 100 feet

PM2.5 = 0.13 ug/m3Cancer Risk = 7 in a

million

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

Cancer = 1.6 in a million

Roads PM2.5 (ug/m3)

CEQA Threshold

Highway 980 0.10 0.30

Highway 123 0.08

Castro St 0.05

W Grand 0.03

Telegraph 0.13

20th St 0.13

Broadway 0.03

Roads Cancer (cases per million)

CEQA Threshold

Highway 980 10 10

Highway 123 4

Castro St 2.4

W Grand 1.4

Telegraph 7

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

Generator 3 0.02

Generator 4 0.02

Air Heater 0.01

Source Cancer (cases per million)

CEQA Threshold

Generator 1 0.6 10

Generator 2 8

Generator 3 0.4

Generator 4 0.4

Generator 5 1.1

Generator 6 2

Gas Station 1 1.5

Gas Station 2 1.4

Spray BoothDe minimus risk

Autobody ShopDe minimus risk

Backup Generator 1Cancer = 0.6 in a

millionPM2.5 = 0.01 ug/m3

Cogen PlantPM2.5 = 0.1 ug/m3

Backup Generator 2Cancer = 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

Backup Generator 5Cancer = 1.1 in a million

Backup Generator 6Cancer = 2 in a million

Gas Station 2Cancer = 1.4 in a

million

BoilerDe minimus risk

Air HeaterPM2.5 = 0.01 ug/m3

Autobody ShopDe minimus risk

Gas Station 1Cancer = 1.5 in

a million

Case Study:Case Study:Dublin Transit CenterDublin Transit Center

Source Value CEQA Threshold

BART Generator - PM2.5- Cancer

0.20.09

0.310

Generator 1- PM2.5- Cancer

0.049

0.310

Generator 2- PM2.5- Cancer

0.15

0.310

Single Source Comparison

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

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Phase project construction to avoid residential development closest to freeway 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

BART GeneratorCancer = 0.09 in

millionPM2.5 = 0.2 ug/m3

Generator 2Cancer = 5 in millionPM2.5 = 0.1 ug/m3 Generator 1

Cancer = 9 in millionPM2.5 = 0.04 ug/m3

Recommend 500 ft buffer north of I-580

based on 2012 emissions (AADT

219,000)

Reduced to 350 ft buffer by 2015 based on reduced

diesel emissions (will decrease further in future)

21

Board Adoption and Board Adoption and Subsequent 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

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 Reviewing CEQA documents, submitting comments Work with ABAG and MTC to convene PDA/air quality work group

22

Regional Agency Regional Agency CollaborationCollaboration

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

CEQA Streamline CEQA review of PDAs Coordinate with SB 375 process

Weekly staff meetings among ABAG, MTC, BAAQMD Model to calculate benefits of transportation measures in PDAs Regional agency staff meeting with Bay Area Planning Directors

Association (BAPDA) Coordinate regional programs Support local planning and development

23

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 Plan– Compact, energy efficient, TOD development

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

• Treasure Island Redevelopment Plan– Compact, high density development– Innovative parking strategies

• City of Santa Clara General Plan update– Increased densities, TOD– Develop climate action plan and CRRP

24

Next StepsNext Steps Host local government workshops – Feb. 17, 22, 23

Alameda County: Feb. 23, 2 - 4 p.m., at MTC Support community-wide planning through CRRPs and climate

action plans Collaborate with regional, local agencies on community-wide

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

Poor housing site Good housing site