BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Update Bay Area Planning Directors Association March 25, 2010

1. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines UpdateBay Area Planning Directors AssociationMarch 25, 2010 Henry Hilken Director of Planning and Research Dave Vintze Air Quality Planning Manager Bay Area Air Quality Management District

2. Why Update the CEQA Guidelines? • Attain health-based State and national ambient air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter • Recent more stringent standards • Public health impacts, especially from fine PM • Noncompliance threatens federal transportation funding • Localized public health impacts associated with toxic air contaminants • Near roadway health studies verify adverse health impacts • GHG reductions needed to achieve SB 375, AB 32, Governor’s Executive Order • Local land use decisions influence transportation emissions

3. Transportation, Land Use and Air Quality • Motor vehicles are largest source of air pollution in Bay Area - ozone, PM, toxics, GHGs • Region still exceeds health based AQ standards • Low hanging fruit is long gone – need emissions reductions from all sources • California vehicle fleet is very clean – need to reduce vehicle use • More efficient land use will be critical to improve air quality, reduce GHGs 2007 Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Source for SF Bay Area

4. Air District Land Use Goals • Promote strategies that support livable communities • Support mixed-use, infill, transit-oriented development • Minimize greenfield development • Increase transit use, walking, cycling • Reinforce MTC, ABAG, and local programs • FOCUS/PDAs, MTC TOD policy, SB 375 are critical to AQ and GHG improvements • Seek to coordinate local AQ studies with local planning processes • Use caution planning residential, schools, sensitive uses near areas with high emissions – busy freeways, ports, refineries, etc. • Potential conflicts may often be resolved through site specific analysis and mitigation • Site planning/setbacks, project phasing, diesel retrofits, idling limits, truck routes, HVAC, etc.

5. Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program • Evaluate regional and community cancer and non-cancer health risks from toxic air contaminants • Identify sensitive populations • Focus health risk mitigation measures on locations with higher risk levels and sensitive populations

6. Cancer Toxicity-Weighted Emissions (2005) By Pollutant By Source Category

7. Emissions and Modeled Air Toxics (2005) Modeled Air Toxics Risk Risk-weighted Emissions

8. Demographic & Health Data Population under 18 Asthma Hospitalization Rates

9. Priority DevelopmentAreas and Air Toxics Priority Development Areas Modeled Air Toxics Risk

10. Clean Air Communities InitiativeMultifaceted Approach to Cumulative Impacts REGULATIONS & GUIDELINES • 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 • REGULATIONS • Indirect Source Rule • Toxics NSR • 2588 Hot Spots Risk Threshold • Source Specific Rules • Wood Smoke Rule • GUIDELINES • CEQA Guidelines • 2009 Clean Air Plan • General Plan Guidelines • SB375/SCS • Climate Protection Program/ • GHG Co-Benefits MONITORING & MODELING ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY COMMUNITIES OUTREACH & EDUCATION GRANTS & INCENTIVES • ENFORCEMENT • Diesel Enforcement Program • Inspection/Enforcement of District Regulations • Enforcement of CARB Regulations • Respond to Complaints • Inspection of Grantees • OUTREACH/EDUCATION • Community Grant Program • Collaborate with Local Governments • Collaborate with Health Departments • CARE Program • Task Force Meetings • Cumulative Impacts Working Group • District Health Officer • Community Meetings • Resource Teams • Collaborate with Community Groups • Wood Smoke Outreach • 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

11. CEQA Guidelines Role • Provide guidance to local lead agencies conducting air quality analyses in environmental documents • Include thresholds of significance, analytical tools, mitigation measures • Last published 1999, update needed • More stringent AQ standards • Local impacts of air toxics and fine PM • Greenhouse gases • Goal: encourage air quality beneficial land use • Support infill, TOD, mixed use • Minimize public health impacts of new development • Attain State and National AAQS

12. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds • Address critical void • No guidance on GHGs in CEQA currently exists • Legal scrutiny by Attorney General, others • Based on AB 32 and Scoping Plan • Thresholds options – land use projects • Plan based – consistency with local climate action plan • “Bright line” – 1,100 metric tons/yr • Efficiency based – 4.6 tons/service population/year (residents & employees) • Take credit for lower vehicle use/efficiencies of infill, mixed use projects • Interim thresholds – revisit if/when State guidance available

13. Importance of GHG Thresholds • Consistent with and implement recent State Office of Planning and Research CEQA Guidelines • OPR encourages addressing GHG in CEQA docs, but doesn’t recommend threshold • Significance determination must still be made even without significance thresholds • State CEQA Guidelines “encourage lead agencies to rely on thresholds established by local air quality management districts” • Currently ad hoc approach to evaluating GHG impacts • Guidelines provide certainty in determining significance of impacts and consistency in mitigation • Provide legally defensible approach to analyzing GHG impacts • Provide level playing field throughout Bay Area • Supported by Attorney General and major environmental groups

14. Local Community Risks and Hazards • CARE program identifies priority communities in Bay Area • High emissions, concentrations of toxics, PM • Vulnerable populations • Seek to reduce impacts from land use, transportation decisions • Promote infill, while protecting residents • Address new sources of pollution and new receptors near existing sources (eg, freeways) • Thresholds address: • Cancer risk • Fine particulate concentrations • Cumulative impacts • Encourage community risk reduction plans

15. Community Risk Reduction Plans • Supports community wide planning approach to reduce cumulative impacts • Collaborative effort between local governments and Air District • CRRP Elements: • Defined CRRP Planning Area • Goal or Reduction Target, e.g., • No Net Increase/Net Reduction • Percent Reduction from Baseline Conditions • Equivalent to Regional Average Risk • Emission Inventories • Risk Modeling • Emission Reduction Measures • Monitoring and Updating Mechanism • Public Involvement Process

16. Developing CRRPs/Support Local Planning Activities • District staff to work closely with local government staff • District • Emissions inventory & modeling • Identify areas with high emissions, exposures • Assist with mitigation • Local government • Planning/policy framework • Public outreach • Assist with mitigation • Initiate pilot projects – San Jose, San Francisco • Integrate with and assist local planning • Support FOCUS, PDAs, infill • Coordinate CRRPs with general plan updates, specific plans, etc. • District budget funds for local government assistance • CRRP planning & mitigation measures/risk reduction • District provide technical resources • District retain consultants to assist with CRRP development

17. Case Study: 1501 15th Street, SF Project Characteristics: • 40 residential units • ~10,500 sq. ft. retail • Mission District, near BART, excellent bus service

18. Case Study: 1501 15th Street, SF Notes: Default assumptions from San Francisco’s analysis. Proposed methods considers access to local retail, transit, mix of uses, jobs in area, and street network density. This method also includes adjustments to reflect SF’s required TDM measures.

19. Vehicle Trip Rates • Recent studies support trip rate and VMT reductions • Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California. Lund, Cervero, Wilson. Report funded by a Caltrans Transportation Grant. Jan. 2004. • TOD residents and employees use transit more than residents and workers in the surrounding city, by a factor of 4.9 and 3.7, respectively. • TOD residents and employees use transit at higher rates when charged for workplace parking, feeder buses are available, and transit travel times are comparable to highway travel times. • Trip-Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California. ABAG, et al. Report prepared for Caltrans. June 2009. • Observed lower vehicle trip rates in the AM and PM peak hour in infill locations when compared to ITE trip rates for residential and commercial uses.

20. 1501 15th Street, San Francisco Highway 101 PM2.5 = 0.20 ug/m3 Risk = 0.08 in a million Roadway Impacts: Paint Booth De Minimus Risk Back-up Generator 1 Risk = 8.3 in a million Back-up Generator 2 Risk = 0.8 in a million Stationary Sources: Paint Booths De Minimus Risk Paint Booths De Minimus Risk CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: South Van Ness Avenue PM2.5 = 0.12 ug/m3 Risk = 0.01 in a million NOTE: Spray and paint booths that comply with the District regulations have de minimus risk and consequently, the risks were not added to the cumulative evaluation

21. Case Study: Ohlone Mixed Use, San Jose • Project Characteristics: • 800 apartments • 30,000 sq. ft. commercial use • Midtown San Jose • Near Light Rail, good bus service

22. Case Study: Ohlone Mixed Use, San Jose Notes: Default assumptions from project DEIR. Proposed methods considers access to local retail, transit, mix of uses, jobs in area, and street network density.

23. Ohlone Mixed Use Development, San Jose Roadway Impacts: Highway 82 PM2.5 = 0.15 ug/m3 Risk = 8.4 in a million Dry Cleaners Risk = 7.5 in a million Chronic Hazard = 0.02 Paint Booths De Minimus Risk Soil Vapor Extraction System De Minimus Risk Stationary Sources: Paint Booths De Minimus Risk Marble Manufacturing Chronic Hazard = 0.06 Acute Hazard = 0.02 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: Highway 280 PM2.5 = 0.70 ug/m3 Risk = 42 in a million NOTE: Spray and paint booths and soil vapor extraction systems that comply with the District regulations have de minimus risk and consequently, the risks were not added to the cumulative evaluation

24. Case Study: Japantown Corp. Yard, San Jose • Project Characteristics: • 600 apartments • 30,000 sq. ft. commercial use • 20,000 sq. ft. community use • Downtown San Jose • Near Civic Center VTA Station, excellent bus service

25. Case Study: Japantown Corp. Yard, San Jose Notes: Default assumptions from project DEIR. Proposed methods considers access to local retail, transit, mix of uses, jobs in area, and street network density.

26. Japantown Redevelopment Project, San Jose E.Taylor Street Impacts (assumed 20,000 vehicles/day): Freight Railroad Line PM2.5 = 0.09 ug/m3 Risk = 49 in a million Hazard = 0.02 Freight Rail Line Impacts: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: Portable Soil Vapor Extraction System Risk is de minimus NOTE: Portable soil vapor extraction system has de minimus risk and consequently, the risks were not added to the cumulative evaluation

27. Resources to Assist Local Governments • URBEMIS off-model excel spreadsheet • URBEMIS training classes • Mitigation measure quantification study • Trip/VMT reduction research for high density infill • Technical assistance during project review • CRRP methodology guidance • Construction emission screening tool • GHG reduction strategy guidance (OPR)

28. GHG Reduction Strategy • Revised State CEQA Guidelines GHG Plan Elements: • A) Quantify existing and projected GHG emissions • Establish level below which contribution is not cumulatively considerable • Analyze GHGs from anticipated actions • Measures implemented on project-by-project basis that will achieve desired level • Monitor Plan’s progress • Adopt in public process following environmental review

29. Local Agency Comments on Guidelines • Comments • GHG threshold could impede infill/PDA projects • Local risk and hazard thresholds could impede infill/PDAs • Provide more information on criteria for “qualified” Climate Action Plans and Community Risk Reduction Plans (CRRPs) • Limited local staff resources and expertise • More outreach, more time • Responses • GHG thresholds support infill • Efficiency based option • Take credit for efficiencies of infill, mixed use • CRRPs, local analysis will assist infill planning • District developing criteria for climate plans and local risk plans • District will provide training and ongoing support on technical tools • Schedule extended/ additional workshops, meetings, training

30. Next Steps • Workshops in each county with local staff – April • Additional meetings with local officials, staff, interested stakeholders – ongoing • Provide technical resources and training to local staff – April/May • Seek Air District Board approval of significance thresholds in June 2010 • Air District provide technical assistance to lead agencies - ongoing