BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Update

Transcription

1 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Update Supervisor Lockyer Informational Workshop SCS & CEQA March 19, 2011 Henry Hilken Henry Hilken Director of Planning and Research Bay Area Air Quality Management District

2 Why Update the CEQA 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 i i public health impacts of new development 2

3 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 2007 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 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 Transportation 40.60% Off-Road 2.80% Electricity 14.80% By Source for SF Bay Area Agriculture 1.10% Industrial 34.00% Residential 6.60% 3

4 GHG 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, 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 4

5 Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program Evaluate regional and community cancer and noncancer 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 5

6 Emissions and Modeled Air Toxics (2005) Risk-weighted Emissions Modeled Air Toxics Risk 6

7 Demographic & Health Data Population under 18 Asthma Hospitalization Rates 7

8 Priority Development Areas and Air Toxics Priority Development Areas Modeled Air Toxics Risk 8

9 Encourage Healthy Infill Poor housing site Good housing site 9

10 Public Health Impacts of Pollution Near Freeways Health studies consistently show that living near highways has serious health consequences 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. Pre-term and early childhood d 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 10

11 Clean Air Communities Initiative Multifaceted Approach to Cumulative Impacts 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 MONITORING & MODELING OUTREACH & EDUCATION REGULATIONS & GUIDELINES PRIORITY COMMUNITIES GRANTS & INCENTIVES ENFORCEMENT 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 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

12 Local Community Risks and Hazards 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 ed through site specific analysis and reasonable mitigation Encourage community risk reduction plans 12

13 Community Risk Reduction Plans 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 elopment and implementation 13

14 Technical Tools to Support 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 14

15 11 local government workshops 11 public workshops Extensive Outreach to Develop Guidelines 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 15

16 GHG thresholds Support for Infill, TOD 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 16

17 Case 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 17

18 Roadway Impacts Near The Uptown Highway 700 feet PM2.5 = ug/m3 Cancer = 10 in a million Castro 500 feet PM2.5 = 0.05 ug/m3 Cancer = 2.4 in a million West Grand 850 feet PM2.5 = 0.03 ug/m3 Cancer = 1.4 in a million Telegraph 100 feet PM2.5 = 0.13 ug/m3 Cancer Risk = 7 in a million Roads PM2.5 (ug/m3) CEQA Threshold Highway Highway Castro St 0.05 W Grand 0.03 Telegraph th St 0.13 Broadway 0.03 San Pablo Ave (Highway 100 feet PM2.5 = ug/m3 Cancer = 4 in a million Hazard = th Street 100 feet PM2.5 = 0.13 ug/m3 Cancer = 7 in a million Broadway 400 ft PM2.5 = 0.03 ug/m3 Cancer = 1.6 in a million Roads Cancer (cases per million) CEQA Threshold Highway Highway Castro St 2.4 W Grand 1.4 Telegraph 7 20 th St 7 Broadway 1.6

19 Permitted Sources Near The Uptown Air Heater PM2.5 = 0.01 ug/m3 Autobody Shop De minimus risk Gas Station 2 Cancer = 1.4 in a million Source PM2.5 (ug/m3) CEQA Threshold Generator Cogen Generator Generator Spray Booth De minimus risk Autobody Shop De minimus risk Backup Generator 1 Cancer = 0.6 in a million PM2.5 = 0.01 ug/m3 Cogen Plant PM2.5 = 0.1 ug/m3 Backup Generator 2 Cancer = 8 in a million Backup Generator 3 Cancer = 0.4 in a million PM2.5 = 0.02 ug/m3 Backup Generator 4 Cancer = 0.4 in a million PM2.5 = 0.02 ug/m3 Boiler De minimus risk Gas Station 1 Cancer = 1.5 in a million Backup Generator 6 Cancer = 2 in a million Backup Generator 5 Cancer = 1.1 in a million Air Heater Source Cancer (cases per million) CEQA Threshold Generator Generator 2 8 Generator Generator Generator Generator 6 2 Gas Station Gas Station 2 1.4

20 Case Study: Dublin Transit Center 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) Single Source Comparison Source Value CEQA Thresholdh BART Generator -PM2.5 - Cancer Generator 1 -PM2.5 - Cancer Generator 2 - PM Cancer 5 10 BART Generator Cancer = 0.09 in million PM2.5 = 0.2 ug/m3 All stationary sources within 1,000 feet also meet cumulative impacts thresholds RECOMMENDATIONS: Phase project construction to avoid Generator 2 residential development closest to freeway Cancer = 5 in million PM25 PM2.5 = ug/m3 until 2015 Generator 1 Proposed Land Use: Cancer = 9 in million Advise setback of 350 ft in 2015 Residential Commercial/Office PM2.5 = 0.04 ug/m3 Locate HVAC intakes away from freeway Open Space BART Parking

21 Board Adoption and Subsequent 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 Local gov t workshops Feb./March 2011 Work with ABAG and MTC to convene PDA/air quality work group 21

22 Regional Agency Collaboration 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 Regular 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 22

23 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 h density development Innovative parking strategies City of Santa Clara General Plan update Increased densities, TOD Develop climate action plan and CRRP 23

24 Next Steps 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 24 Good housing site