Updated CEQA Guidelines

Transcription

1 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 1 of 18 Updated CEQA Guidelines for Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine Particulate Matter Meeting July 7 th, 2011 Presented by Brian McDonald, Chair

2 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 2 of 18 Motivations CEQA Alternatives Criteria Summary Overview

3 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 3 of 18 Motivations Public health A 10 µg/m 3 increase in ambient PM 2.5 concentrations increased the all cause mortality rate by 17% in LA (Jerrett et al, 2005) A decrease in ambient PM 2.5 by 10 µg/m 3 over the 1970 s to early 2000 s associated with increased life expectancy by ~ 0.6 years (Pope et al, 2009) TACs from combustion are major contributors to short and long term non cancer health effects (BAAQMD) Berkeley has higher asthma rates than CA average, but lower than Alameda County (Berkeley DPH)

4 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 4 of 18 Motivations (cont.) Infill development ABAG consensus for infill development to limit sprawl and reduce GHGs. Can be located in areas with elevated concentrations of TACs and PM 2.5 Cangenerate new emissions (e.g. traffic) locally CEQA can be a barrier to new development

5 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 5 of 18 Environmental review e required ed for projects pojecswhere eea significant environmental impact can be demonstrated Air district (BAAQMD) develops Thresholds of Significance (TOS), to guide agencies in determining which h projects require CEQA review for air quality

6 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 6 of 18 Updated CEQA Guidelines BAAQMD adopted new thresholds of significance (TOS) for TACs, PM ,, and GHGs Refined risk analysis needed for compliance with CEQA of projects that exceed TOS Rules apply not only to new sources of emissions but also new sensitive receptors (e.g. residential development)

7 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 7 of 18 Project level options Project level refers to individual sites being developed, as opposed to plan level such as the West Berkeley Project. Two project level risk assessment approaches available: Perform site specific analyses in areas that exceed thresholds Perform a Community RiskReduction Plan consistent it t with CEQA Potential for a third option?

8 Community Risk Reduction Plans Purposes: (CRRP) (1) Planning tool to reduce exposure to TACs and PM 2.5 over time (2) Streamline environmental compliance for projects consistent with CEQA Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 8 of 18 Plan vs. project level risk assessment and mitigation. One tool to reduce air quality impacts, but not only one.

9 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 9 of 18 Elements of a CRRP Robust public participation p in developing ggoals and strategies. Defining planningareas. Developing base and target year emissions. Air quality modeling of current and future risks. Establishing exposure reduction goals. Identifying mitigation measures. Monitoring and updating gplan.

10 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 10 of 18 Impact of New CEQA Guidelines

11 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 11 of 18 West Berkeley Project Purpose: Remove obstacles for reuse of existing buildings Facilitate development of large land holdings

12 Suggested Criteria to Weigh Alternatives Costs for planning and public process Robustness of risk assessment Comprehensiveness of mitigations ii i Consistency in evaluating projects Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 12 of 18 Encourages CEQA consistent development

13 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 13 of 18 Summary & Next Steps City of Berkeley needs to consider which approach to choose in addressing the updated CEQA Guidelines Recommend city to consider a CRRP, or other alternative, that meets suggested criteria

14 This page left intentionally blank Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 14 of 18

15 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 15 of 18 ACTION CALENDAR July 12, 2011 To: From: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Community Environmental Advisory Commission Submitted by: Nabil Al-Hadithy, Secretary, Subject: Comply with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines RECOMMENDATION a. That Berkeley adopt the new thresholds of significance for both new sources and sensitive receptors of toxic air contaminants and PM 2.5 in the updated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. b. Choose an approach for meeting CEQA that follows Bay Area Air Qualtiy Management District (BAAQMD) recommended risk assessment techniques, 1 implements mitigations that improve public health, evaluates projects with consistent metrics for toxic air contaminants and PM 2.5, and encourages development of projects consistent with CEQA. c. Utilize a BAAQMD approved approach to meet these criteria. FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION The costs are considerable for staff time if the City pursues adoption of a Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP). The costs are both for staff time to manage the public participation process as well as a CEQA process to approve the CRRP. Significant cost savings may be achieved if the BAAQMD agrees to an alternative approach. Alternatives should be weighed to the current situation. CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS When using BAAQMD screening tools, areas of West Berkeley and parcels adjacent to major arterials such as San Pablo and University Avenues would require refined CEQA risk analyses for toxic air contaminants (TACs) and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) (see figure attached). 2 The West Berkeley Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) considered the effects of exposure to TACs and PM 2.5 and recommended the performance of site-specific risk analyses as well as broadly outlining a few mitigation options. While site-specific analyses are necessary in the near-term and can be useful for characterizing risk if done properly, recommends considering more comprehensive approaches to meet CEQA at a project-level (there are separate guidelines for plans), both in risk assessment and implementation of mitigations. To 1 See BAAQMD for recommended air quality modeling approaches: Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20Modeling%20Approach.ashx 2 See BAAQMD for screening tools: Research/CEQA%20GUIDELINES/Tools%20and%20Methodology.aspx

16 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 16 of 18 address this issue, the has recommended considerations the city should take into account when choosing an approach. The recognizes that the city should be given opportunity to weigh the costs and benefits of different approaches. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was passed in 1970 and requires state and local agencies to consider environmental impacts in decision-making. CEQA requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be performed by a lead agency in cases where a project could have a significant impact on the environment. The thresholds of significance for TACs and PM 2.5, adopted by BAAQMD in December, 2010, guide the lead agency in determining whether a project has an environmental effect that is significant or less than significant (CEQA Guidelines ). Historically, the thresholds have only applied to new sources of emissions; however, the new guidelines also include ones for new sensitive receptors. These receptor-oriented thresholds, which came into effect on May 1, 2011, apply to new development projects where sensitive populations to TACs and PM 2.5 could reside. The California Air Pollution Controls Officers Association (CAPCOA), which represents the 35 local California air quality agencies defines sensitive receptors as those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time include schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities (these sensitive land uses may also be referred to as sensitive receptors). 3 BACKGROUND The receptor-oriented thresholds, are already in effect as of May 1, 2011, and apply to new development projects such as schools, nursing homes, residential housing, etc. This means that air quality analysis will be required for more projects. Currently, the city has two air district approved means to address the updated CEQA Guidelines at a project-level. 4 One is to perform site-specific risk analyses for new sensitive receptors (e.g. residential projects) in areas where thresholds are exceeded. This is the suggested mitigation strategy for reducing exposure to TACs and PM 2.5 in the West Berkeley Project Environmental Impact Report. 5 Another is to conduct a planlevel analysis, or Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP), as outlined by BAAQMD. The objective of a Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) is two-fold: (1) to create a 3 See CAPCOA: content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/capcoa_hra_lu_guidelines_ pdf 4 See BAAQMD website for adopted Thresholds of Significance tables: Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Adopted%20Thresholds%20Table_December% ashx 5 See City of Berkeley for West Berkeley Project EIR:

17 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 17 of 18 planning tool that reduces exposure to TACs and PM 2.5 over time, and (2) to streamline environmental compliance under CEQA. A CRRP requires the following elements: 6 Robust public participation in developing goals and strategies of the plan. Definition of planning areas and identification of sensitive receptor areas. Development of base and target year emissions for TACs and PM 2.5. Air quality modeling of current and future risks. Establishment of risk and exposure reduction goals consistent with CEQA Guidelines. Identification of measures to reduce emissions. Procedures for monitoring and updating the inventory, model, and reduction measures. BAAQMD identifies the following reasons why a CRRP should be done: 7 A CRRP identifies health risks to the community not previously recognized in all developments. Individual projects that conform under an adopted CRRP are not required to perform a separate risk analysis or significance determination under CEQA because standard mitigations are approved through the CRRP process. A CRRP allows for consistent treatment of risks for new development. A CRRP provides flexibility by allowing projects to be judged within the context of a plan s progress. A consideration Berkeley must also weigh is the cost required for planning and public process. If the City wants to adopt a CRRP, it would be a local responsibility. The Air District would lend technical support and guidance. could serve as an intermediary for public participation. Currently the cities of San Francisco and San Jose have a grant and are working with BAAQMD to develop their own CRRPs, and have taken initial steps to reduce exposure to TACs and PM 2.5. Alternative CEQA analysis approaches to site-specific analyses or a CRRP could be considered but would need to be approved by BAAQMD. RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The Air District s Board of Directors adopted thresholds of significance that became effective on June 2, 2010 except for the risk and hazards thresholds for new receptors, which were to be effective on May 1, See BAAQMD for CRRP Guidelines: and Research/CEQA GUIDELINES/Community Risk Reduction Plans.aspx 7 See BAAQMD for CRRP Guidelines: and Research/CEQA GUIDELINES/Community Risk Reduction Plans.aspx

18 Discussion/Action Item 2 - Page 18 of 18 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED The and the Secretary are currently evaluating different means by which to meet the updated CEQA Guidelines, including the feasibility of a CRRP. will report back to council once an evaluation has been completed. CITY MANAGER See companion report. CONTACT PERSON Brian McDonald, Chair Community Environmental Advisory Commission, Nabil Al-Hadithy, City of Berkeley Toxics Management Division, Attachments: 1: Map of Areas Needing Environmental Review