Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC)...the fuel, the CEAC emphasizes that staff should consider the impacts of the source of fuel, transportationof the fuel and other

Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC)

Community Environmental Advisory Commission

CEAC REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – THURSDAY, JULY 5. 2012 7:00 TO 9:00 PM

First Floor Conference Room, 2118 Milvia Street, Berkeley

I. Call to Order and Roll Call

II. Action Minutes Review/Adoption: Review and adopt minutes from the meeting of June 7, 2012

III. CEAC Action Tracker: Update on Joint Stanley Hall Diesel Spill Report

IV. Report from the Chair

V. Comments from the Public (3 minute limit)

VI. Agenda Prioritization: Commissioners may re-arrange agenda

VII. Reports from Subcommittees and Taskforces A. Watershed Management Plan B. Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP)

VIII. Toxics Management Division Report A. New Remediation Site on TMD Web Page: 1797 Shattuck Avenue

IX. Discussion/Action

A. Adoption of minutes of June 7, 2012 B. Funding for City’s Watershed Management Plan C. Toxic Air Contaminant Risk Mitigations for Berkeley Developments D. Discussion of 2012 Work Program

X. Announcements from Commissioners (3 minute limit) XI. Communications to Commission A. Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2011 Annual Report XII. Information Items: May be moved to action by majority vote

XIII. To be distributed

XIV. Next Agenda: Discussion/Action items proposed for future agenda

XV. Adjourn

PLEASE NOTE: PLEASE BE PREPARED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:00PM, IF NEEDED.

C/o Toxic Management Division – Planning and Development Department 2118 Milvia Street, Suite 300, Berkeley, California 94704

TEL: 510.981.7460 TDD: 510.981.6903 FAX: 510.981.7470 E-mail: [email protected]

Community Environmental Advisory Commission Meeting of July 5, 2012 Page 2

Communications Are Public Records: Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public records and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: email addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your email address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Portal Service or in person to Commission Secretary Nabil Al-Hadithy. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the Commission Secretary Nabil Al-Hadithy for further information.

SB 343 Disclaimer Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at Toxic Management Division, Planning Department located at 2118 Milvia St, 3rd Floor, 94704.

Please request information from Nabil Al-Hadithy, Secretary, at (510) 981-7460 or by email at [email protected].

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6346 (V) or 981- 7075 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.

CEAC ●Toxic Management Division ● Planning and Development Department Dept. 2118 Milvia Street, Suite 300, Berkeley, California 94704

TEL: 510.981.7460 TDD: 510.981.6903 FAX: 510.981.7470 E-mail: [email protected]

Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC)

DRAFT ACTION MINUTES - COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMISSION Regular Meeting of June 7, 2012

2118 Milvia St, 1st Floor, Berkeley 94704

Call to Order and Roll Call: Meeting called to order at 7:05 PM. Present: Brian McDonald (Chair), Juan Banales (Vice Chair), Laura August, Max Gomberg, Fred Schlachter, and Andrew Torkelson. Absent: None. Excused Absence: Jesse Yeh. Secretary: Nabil Al- Hadithy. Administrative Support: Mary Matambanadzo. Adjourned at 9:02 PM.

Public Comment (members of the public): Carole Schemmerling, Friends of Five Creeks

Agenda Prioritization: None. Subcommittee Reports: None.

Secretary’s Report: None.

Chair’s Report: Confirmed CEAC meeting on July 5, 2012 with recess in August.

Commission Actions: 1. Minutes for Approval

Recommendation: Adopt Minutes of May 3, 2012 with the addition of Mark Freiberg as an attendee and invitee. Action: Motioned/Seconded/Carried (Banales/Torkelson) Votes: Ayes: August, Banales, Gomberg, McDonald, Schlachter, and Torkelson.

Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None.

2. Approval of Joint Report on UC Berkeley Stanley Hall Diesel Spill Recommendation: Adopt joint report on Stanley Hall Diesel Spill, as presented, which includes revisions from the Community Health Commission Action: Motioned/Seconded/Carried (McDonald/Schlachter) Votes: Ayes: August, Banales, Gomberg, McDonald, Schlachter, and Torkelson. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None.

3. Add Clarification to Stanley Hall Joint Report Recommendation: In any emergency response, legal precedent and capabilities determine which agency heads a joint command. Action: Motioned/Seconded/Carried (Schlachter/Banales) Votes: Ayes: August, Banales, Gomberg, McDonald, Schlachter, and Torkelson. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None.

4. Proposal for the City’s Watershed Management Plan

Recommendation: Communicate to Staff and Public Works Commission the

Community Environmental Advisory Commission Regular Meeting of June 7, 2012 Page 2

following points on the City’s Watershed Management Plan: 1) Maintain a minimum the $700,000/year transfer from the General Fund to the storm water program that is set to expire in 2013 to achieve compliance with regulatory requirements. 2) Seek additional grants necessary to maintain permit compliance and collaborate with other institutions including UC Berkeley and East Bay Municipal Utility District. 3) Investigate whether any storm water management funds from prior bond issuances that have been repurposed to other City programs and redirect them to the storm water management program. 4) Place an emphasis on implementing upper watershed projects in the Watershed Management Plan to minimize storm water flow to minimize risks of flooding during high storm water flows. Action: Motioned/Seconded/Carried (Schlachter/August) Votes: Ayes: August, Banales, Gomberg, McDonald, Schlachter, and Torkelson. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None.

Other Actions:

• Request feedback from staff and PW Commission on CEAC Watershed recommendations from 6/7/12 meeting.

• Request staff develop a list of best (or priority) upper watershed projects of those listed in the Watershed Plan.

• Request PW staff identify storm water funds that were redirected to other programs not directly related to storm water programs.

• Request any information on plans for bonds for storm water projects. • Obtain copy of any polling conducted by the City on funding bonds for storm water

programs. • Obtain clarification on what storm water projects can be funded with a fee increase

rather than a bond. How much funds can be raised by a fee increase?

Announcements: • Schlachter: Anticipates being appointed to Energy Commission soon. • Schlachter: To teach a course for lay retired people on radiation through Osher

Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI) in association with Cal Alumni. • Gomberg: To circulate the sea level rise report due out June 22, 2012.

CEAC ACTION Tracker Date & Subject Actions : Status: Final Status

Page 1 (updated 6/28/2012)

Biodiesel City Use 3.5.09

Action: CEAC supports the latest plan from Staff to find a biodiesel solution for the City that meets the 5% carbon improvement by CARB calculations. In addition to the staff evaluation of the carbon content, quality and price of the fuel, the CEAC emphasizes that staff should consider the impacts of the source of fuel, transportation of the fuel and other impacts. CEAC recommends local sourcing of the fuel as an approved method of lowering carbon impacts. Finally, the CEAC would like staff to expedite the process of using lower carbon fuel.

Submitted to PW staff. Shared with Council and City Manager. PW taken some action and took response to Council.

City has stopped use of anything more than B5 due to incompatibility. City looking for good yellow grease biodiesel and local source.

Pacific Steel Casting Ongoing.

October 1, 2009 Send a report to ZAB providing background with executive summary of Pacific Steel. Follow up on the lack of response to CEAC Chair’s letter to ZAB. Ask AQMD attorney why they are delaying the release of the Odor Control Plan. When did CEAC take motion

ZAB to hear PacSteel on January 14th

ZAB considered PacSteel on April 22, 2010

Pacific Steel Casting 3.15.10

Adopted action 4.19.10 to council on AQMD enforcement and Odor Control Plan

Council 6.22.10. Delayed 6.21.10 9.21.10 Motion passed. Maio and Anderson wrote and letter sent 11.15.10

Biodiesel from Western States Oil. 5.6.10

Recommendation: Staff to investigate the concerns of Sirona Fuels. Lacking a satisfactory answer, this issue will be referred to Auditor for evaluation. CEAC report: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_Commissions/Commission_for_Community_Environmental_Advisory/CEAC2011-03-03_Item4_FINAL_Biofuels_Findings013111.pdf

3.3.11 Recommendation to city council to review OPIS and anti-trust charges.

Not submitted.

Report was not finalized.

CEAC ACTION Tracker Date & Subject Actions : Status: Final Status

Page 2 (updated 6/28/2012)

Stormwater Infrastructure

Commission requests information from PW Engineering info on Stormwater budget (assessment fees), with focus on funds and capital improvement of system.

Request made and report expected for 6.3.10

Response from PW included in CEAC Nov package.

Community Gardening

10.19.10 Arreguin presented Planning Commission with proposal.

Draft pamphlet for arsenic and lead sent to CHC and PC Feb 2012.

Community Risk Reduction Plan

3.3.11 CEAC Adopted for Council referral.

Removed from Council for further discussions

In discussions and outreach to community.

West Berkeley Project

3.3.11 CEAC Adopted for Council referral.

Adopted by Council 4.26.11. Also referred to CM for action.

Adopted a resolution to accept Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certification; and the first reading of an Ordinance amending BMC Chapter 23F.04, Definitions.

Asbestos demolition referral

3.3.11 CEAC Adopted for council referral.

Adopted by Council 4.26.11 US EPA says it sees no benefit outreaching to CARB or AQMD since locals have more stringent requirements (J permit). No response from AQMD. CARB promised but did not follow up. Stalemate. Staff sent US EPA another request to review their last statement.

2012 Workplan Approved 12.02.02 Due on 4.3.12 Council agenda as info item.

Complete 4.3.12

Safe Urban Gardening

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_City_Council/2012/06Jun/2012-06-26_Item_41a_Safe_Urban_Gardening_in_Berkeley.pdf

Due to Council 6.26.12 as an action item

Stanley Hall Diesel Spill

5.3.12 CEAC Adopted Joint CEAC/CHC Report

Submitted to Clerk 6.21.12 Due to Council 7.24.12

Office of the City Manager

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/manager

ACTION CALENDAR June 26, 2012

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Christine Daniel, City Manager

Submitted by: Zach Cowan, City Attorney Subject: General Obligation Bond Measure for Watershed and Related Street

Improvements

RECOMMENDATION

1) Adopt a Resolution Determining Public Interest and Necessity for Issuing a General Obligation Bond in the Amount of $30 Million for Watershed and Related Street Improvements and Submitting to the Berkeley Electorate a Measure to Authorize a General Obligation Bond for Those Improvements. 2) Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City of Berkeley to Incur Bonded Debt and Issue a General Obligation Bond for Watershed and Related Street Improvements for Environmental Quality and Flood Mitigation. 3) Determine whether to designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION If this bond measure were placed on the ballot and approved by two thirds of the voters, additional funds would be generated that would be used to fund watershed improvements, including related street work. The average annual amounts collected over the 30-year period the bonds are outstanding would be approximately $38, $82, and $116, respectively, for homes with assessed valuations of $330,500, $700,000 and $1 million. The cost to submit the measure to the voters at the November 2012 General Election is estimated to be approximately $26,000.

General Obligation Bond Measure for ACTION CALENDAR Street and Watershed Improvements June 26, 2012

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS At its meeting of May 29, 2012, the Council directed staff to bring this bond measure to the Council so that it can be placed on the ballot for voter approval. The proposed bond measure would authorize the issuance of $30 million in general obligation bonds. These funds would be used to implement various improvements identified in the Watershed Management Plan, which would mitigate flooding in West Berkeley and protect the environment by improving the water quality of storm water runoff. Funds would also be spent on related street work as the streets are an interrelated part of the system. No funds could be spent until any required environmental review of specific projects was completed. Specific projects that would be eligible for funding include improvements in the Codornices and Potter Creek watersheds. Modeling indicates that these are areas where improvements are critically needed and could significantly enhance storm drainage and water quality. For example, Green Infrastructure (GI) improvements could include strategically located surface level bio-retention measures (rain gardens, swales, bio-retention cells, permeable paving, etc.) within the parking strip, planter area of sidewalks, red zone curb-extensions, and in street medians as feasible. These GI features would drain into large underground storage pipes, which would fill during storm events and discharge metered flows into the existing storm drain pipelines through small openings. Modeling results indicate that this approach will be much more effective in locations east of Adeline/Shattuck, and installation will result in flood reductions throughout the watershed. Additionally, with respect to Codornices Park storage, modeling results indicate that large volume detention can reduce flow volumes and velocities within the creek corridor. This can be accomplished by offloading peak flows from the existing creek culverts within Codornices Park through the installation of 8 inline storage pipes, each 5-feet in diameter. Three storage pipes 224-feet long would capture high flows from the North Fork culvert; while five storage pipes 95-feet long would capture high flows from the South Fork culvert. The proposed pipes would be located under existing basketball courts, lawn area, and pathways. These amenities would be replaced atop the buried pipes. A new Eunice Pipeline with GI Storage under Henry Street would route stormwater collected by the Cragmont-Euclid storm drain pipeline branch into a new 30” diameter pipeline running down Eunice Street. This new storm drain pipe would turn south at Henry and discharge into four storage pipes (equivalent to 8-foot diameter by 550-feet long each) under Henry between Eunice and Berryman St. These pipes would discharge directly into the Codornices Creek culvert below Henry Street. Re-routing the stormwater at Eunice further relieves hydraulic loading on the open watercourse below Euclid. This approach in conjunction with the Codornices Park storage retrofits would decrease maximum discharge by 71 cubic feet per second.

General Obligation Bond Measure for ACTION CALENDAR Street and Watershed Improvements June 26, 2012

The measure would require the City Manager, as a part of the annual budget process, to provide comprehensive information to the Public Works Commission concerning expenditure of bond proceeds , listing all specific projects, and requiring the Public Works Commission to review that report and provide any findings and recommendations to the Council.

The 5 year street repaving plan and the Watershed Management Plan are interrelated for multiple reasons which include:

streets, with their curbs and gutters, guide the flow of surface water from storms to inlets which discharge to storm drains and to creeks;

any work on pavement needs to be done after work to underground facilities is completed, and

achieving Watershed Management Plan goals of improving water quality and flow capacity issues is heavily determined by how streets are reconstructed to apply Low Impact Development techniques.

The bond would require that any street work that is related to the watershed improvements would be consistent with “Complete Streets” principles and promote safe streets. For purposes of this measure, a “complete street” is one that accommodates all travelers, particularly public transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians (including individuals of all ages and individuals with mobility, sensory, neurological, or hidden disabilities), and motorists, to enable all travelers to use the roadway safely and efficiently. Finally, with respect to who can author arguments about ballot measures, Elections Code Section 9282(b) provides that “the legislative body, or any member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body…may file a written argument for or against any city measure.” The City Council may authorize the Council as a whole, or members of the Council, to submit arguments in favor of any measure placed on the ballot by the Council.

BACKGROUND See “Current Situation and its Effects”. RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION See “Current Situation and its Effects”. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED See companion report including further analysis of the draft bond measures. CONTACT PERSON Zach Cowan, City Attorney, 981-6998

Attachments: 1: Resolution Placing the Measure on the Ballot Exhibit A: Resolution Authorizing the City to Incur Bonded Indebtedness 2: Resolution Authorizing the City to Incur Bonded Indebtedness 3: City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis

Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. #,### –N.S.

DETERMINING PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ISSUING A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FOR WATERSHED AND RELATED STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND FLOOD MITIGATION AND SUBMITTING TO THE BERKELEY ELECTORATE A MEASURE TO AUTHORIZE A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS

WHEREAS, a the City Council has proposed for voter approval a general obligation bond measure to pay for street and watershed improvements; and WHEREAS, the Council has requested that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Presidential General Election; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to submit all measures to be placed upon the ballot at said consolidated election; and WHEREAS, this resolution is adopted pursuant to and in conformance with Chapter 7.64 of the Berkeley Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City has developed a Watershed Management Plan that represents an overall strategy to manage and improve overall watershed health within the City’s boundaries through improving creek habitat and water quality, coordinating with the Aquatic Park Improvement Program, and identifying and prioritizing infrastructure needs associated with aging facilities and capacity needs, and in particular utilizing Low Impact Development elements within the public right-of-way or streets, including various combinations of permeable pavement, rain gardens, and flow detention to reduce pollutants through settling, filtering, and biological treatment within existing footprint of the City’s streets; and WHEREAS, the 5 year street repaving plan and Watershed Management Plan are interrelated for multiple reasons which include:

streets, with their curbs and gutters, guide the flow of surface water from storms to inlets which discharge to storm drains and to creeks; any work on pavement needs to be done after work to underground facilities is completed, and achieving WMP goals of improving water quality and flow capacity issues are heavily determined by how streets are reconstructed to apply Low Impact Development techniques; and

WHEREAS, the City’s storm drain system and related street infrastructure is in need of significant repairs and rehabilitation in order to protect the environment and avoid future liability and damage to private property; and

WHEREAS, existing funds and funding sources are inadequate to permit implementation of the and Watershed Management Plan and related street improvements sufficient to improve the environment and avoid future liability and damage to private property. WHEREAS, the City Council has therefore determined that the public interest requires additional funding for construction of the physical improvements called for in the Watershed Management Plan as well as related street improvements; and WHEREAS, the full implementation of the Watershed Management Plan and construction of all required Improvements is estimated to cost well in excess of $30,000,000; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to include on the ballots and sample ballots the measure enumerated above to be voted on by the voters of the qualified electors of the City of Berkeley. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that full text of the measure and the City Attorney’s analysis shall be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters in the City of Berkeley. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the above enumerated measure requires a two thirds vote threshold for passage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication and printing of notices, pursuant to the requirements of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, the Government Code and the Elections Code of the State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County is required to perform necessary services in connection with said election. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to obtain printing, supplies and services as required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to provide such other services and supplies in connection with said election as may be required by the Statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said proposed measure shall appear and be printed upon the ballots to be used at said election as follows: CITY OF BERKELEY BALLOT MEASURE

Shall the City of Berkeley issue general obligation bonds not exceeding $30,000,000 to fund watershed and related street improvements, subject to prior environmental review under state law, with annual review of expenditures by the Public Works Commission? Financial Implications: The average annual cost over the 30-year period the bonds are outstanding would be approximately $38, $82, and $116, respectively, for homes with assessed valuations of $330,500, $700,000 and $1,000,000.

YES NO

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the text of the measure be as shown on Exhibit A and attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Attachment 2

RESOLUTION NO. ##,### – N.S.

AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BERKELEY TO INCUR BONDED DEBT AND ISSUE A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FOR WATERSHED AND RELATED STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND FLOOD MITIGATION

WHEREAS, this resolution is adopted pursuant to and in conformance with Chapter 7.64 of the Berkeley Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City has developed a Watershed Management Plan that represents an overall strategy to manage and improve overall watershed health within the City’s boundaries through improving creek habitat and water quality, coordinating with the Aquatic Park Improvement Program, and identifying and prioritizing infrastructure needs associated with aging facilities and capacity needs, and in particular utilizing Low Impact Development elements within the public right-of-way or streets, including various combinations of permeable pavement, rain gardens, and flow detention to reduce pollutants through settling, filtering, and biological treatment within existing footprint of the City’s streets; and WHEREAS, the 5 year street repaving plan and Watershed Management Plan are interrelated for multiple reasons which include:

streets, with their curbs and gutters, guide the flow of surface water from storms to inlets which discharge to storm drains and to creeks; any work on pavement needs to be done after work to underground facilities is completed, and achieving Watershed Management Plan goals of improving water quality and flow capacity issues is heavily determined by how streets are reconstructed to apply Low Impact Development techniques; and

WHEREAS, the City’s storm drain system and related street infrastructure is in need of significant repairs and rehabilitation in order to protect the environment and avoid future liability and damage to private property; and WHEREAS, existing funds and funding sources are inadequate to permit implementation of the Watershed Management Plan and related street improvements sufficient to improve the environment and avoid future liability and damage to private property. WHEREAS, the City Council has therefore determined that the public interest requires additional funding for construction of the physical improvements called for in the Watershed Management Plan; and

WHEREAS, the full implementation of the Watershed Management Plan and construction of all required Improvements is estimated to cost well in excess of $30,000,000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the People of the City of Berkeley that the public interest requires the issuance of a general obligation bond in the amount of $30,000,000 to fund construction of the Improvements described below. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the People of the City of Berkeley that: A. Proceeds of bonded indebtedness shall be used to construct the following facilities (“Improvements”): 1. Installation of Green Infrastructure (GI), as it is defined in the Watershed Management Plan. GI includes, but is not limited to: (a) surface level bio-retention measures (rain gardens, swales, bio-retention cells, permeable paving, etc.) within the parking strip, planter area of sidewalks, red zone curb-extensions, and in street medians as feasible; and (b) large underground storage pipes, which would fill during storm events and then discharge metered flows into the existing storm drain pipelines. 2. Installation of inline storage pipes. 3. New pipelines and storage pipes. 4. Street work related to the Improvements. For purposes of this measure, “Improvements” shall also include design, permitting, administrative and overhead costs. B. No Improvements may be constructed, and no funds may be spent for construction, until the specific Improvement to be constructed has undergone the required environmental review.

C. The Improvements shall be constructed in a manner that promotes safe streets and considers the needs of all modes and all users and conforms to “Complete Streets” requirements to ensure that projects are designed and constructed to benefit all modes of travel by improving safety, accessibility, and convenience for all users of the entire width of the street right-of-way. For purposes of this measure, a “complete street” is one that accommodates all travelers, particularly public transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians (including individuals of all ages and individuals with mobility, sensory, neurological, or hidden disabilities), and motorists, to enable all travelers to use the roadway safely and efficiently.

D. Each year as part of the budget process: (1) the City Manager shall provide to the Public Works Commission a comprehensive report of expenditures of bond proceeds, listing all specific projects on which they have been expended; and (2) the Public Works Commission shall review the information provided by the City Manager and report to the City Council its findings and recommendations if any. BE IT FURTHER AND FINALLY RESOLVED by the People of the City of Berkeley that:

A. The estimated cost of the Improvements to be funded by any bonds issued pursuant to this measure is $30 million, although the total cost of all Improvements identified in the Watershed Management Plan is in excess of $100 million.

B. The amount of the principal of the general obligation indebtedness (the "Bonds") to be incurred shall not exceed $30 million.

C. The estimated cost may include legal and other fees and the cost of printing the Bonds and other costs and expenses incidental to or connected with the issuance and sale

of the Bonds. D. The proceeds of the Bonds authorized to be issued by this resolution shall be

used to finance construction of the Improvements and to pay any fees and costs in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, including but not limited to, legal fees and bond printing costs.

E. The maximum rate of interest to be paid on the Bonds shall not exceed eight percent (8%).

Attachment 3 City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis

This bond measure would authorize the issuance of $30 million of general obligation bonds. Bond proceeds would be used to construct various water quality and flood mitigation improvements described in the City's Watershed Management Plan, as well as related street improvements. The types of improvements that would be constructed would include: 1. Green Infrastructure (GI) improvements, including but not limited to: (a) surface level bio-retention measures (rain gardens, swales, bio-retention cells, permeable paving, etc.) within the parking strip, planter area of sidewalks, red zone curb-extensions, and in street medians as feasible; and (b) large underground storage pipes, which would fill during storm events and then discharge metered flows into the existing storm drain pipelines. 2. Inline storage pipes under streets and other public property. 3. New storm drain pipelines None of these improvements could be constructed, until it has undergone the required environmental review. Bond proceeds would also be used to pay for street work related to the improvements. The improvements would be coordinated to the extent feasible with work under the 5-year street repaving plan, and would be constructed in a manner that promotes safe streets and considers the needs of all modes and all users and conform to “Complete Streets” requirements to ensure that projects are designed and constructed to benefit all modes of travel by improving safety, accessibility, and convenience for all users of the entire width of the street right-of-way. Because the street repaving plan is updated annually, and the Watershed Management Plan is expected to be updated periodically, the measure would allow bond funds to be spent to implement the plans as they are updated from time to time.

Finally, the measure would require the City Manager, as a part of the annual budget process, to provide a comprehensive report as to how bond proceeds have been spent, listing all specific projects, to the Public Works Commission, which would then review that report and provide any findings and recommendations to the City Council. Financial Implications The year after the first bonds are issued, the tax rate required to meet the estimated debt service would be 1.58¢ per $100 of assessed valuation. This rate is expected to decrease each year (assuming one bond series) with the average 1.165¢ per $100 of assessed valuation during the 30-year issue. The estimated annual tax for a home with an assessed valuation of $330,500 would be $52 the first year after bonds are issued and average $37.80 over the 30-year life of the bonds. s/ZACH COWAN Berkeley City Attorney

Office of the City Auditor

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-6750 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-6760 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Auditor

ACTION CALENDAR June 26, 2012

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Ann-Marie Hogan, City Auditor

Subject: Investing in Sustainability: Streets Audit Follow-up and Stormwater

RECOMMENDATION Consider the information from last year’s performance audit, "Failing Streets: Time to Change Direction to Achieve Sustainability," as part of decisions on revenue ballot measures. FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION If City infrastructure is not repaired and rehabilitated at a sustainable level, unfunded needs will continue to escalate and future generations may be denied essential services because of the high cost of delayed repairs.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS In Fiscal Year 2014, the City is projecting to budget $3.6 million dollars for street rehabilitation. Our 2011 audit demonstrated that the condition of the streets is not sustainable at this funding level. Twelve percent of the City’s streets are currently “failed,” and unmet needs are about $46 million. Continuing to fund at this level would result in an increase in “failed” streets from 12 to 21 percent, and an increase in unfunded needs from $46 million to nearly $71 million, at the end of five years. This is because fixing streets before they fail costs $36,000 to $309,000 per mile, but reconstructing a failed street costs $1.15 million per mile. BACKGROUND Council is considering a $30 million bond measure to fund needed improvements to the City’s streets and watersheds. If about 75% of the proceeds are spent on watershed improvements and 25% on street work over the course of five years, according to the City Manager, the measure would add $1.5 million to the annual street rehabilitation budget for 5 years. If the ACTC measure also passes in November, an additional $2.2 million in funding for Berkeley streets would be gained, bringing available funds to $7.3 million. Our audit shows that, at $7.5 million for five years, the result would be that street conditions, as measured by the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), will not improve at all, and the most deteriorated streets (the ones that need reconstructing, at $1.5 million per mile) will simply be left to fail, increasing the percentage of failed streets from 12 to

Investing in Sustainability: Streets Audit Follow-up and Stormwater ACTION Calendar June 26, 2012

14 percent and keeping the unfunded need at $46 million. (Appendix C, pp. 29 and 32 of the November 15, 2011, audit report). Conditions would deteriorate more sharply in year six. Actual results could be worse, given that the audit was based on last year's information (meaning that the starting balances of the unfunded needs are greater now). Data in StreetSaver® did not include soft costs (staff time to oversee the contractors who perform the work). If streets were assigned $2.5 million more from bond funds or other sources, for a budget of $10 million, the PCI would improve from 63 to 68 in five years, and the unfunded need would go down to $32 million (page 33). A PCI of 63 is at the low end of “Fair,” and 68 is at the high end; “Good” starts at 70, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Again, it should be noted that these projections are based on 2011 balances. These estimates also assume that the City will use the recommended data-driven decision making methods for prioritizing street repairs. Our office did not audit clean stormwater, and it is entirely possible that additional funding is needed to keep the stormwater unfunded need from escalating and to avoid paying fines. Stormwater may be similar to streets in that delaying repairs might create a need to completely replace infrastructure, at a higher cost. For competing priorities that involve new construction, the cost of waiting for a future election or unexpectedly robust changes in the economy would probably be less significant than the cost of deferring maintenance and repairs on existing infrastructure. RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION Council has previously directed the City manager to implement these recommendations: 1.1 The City Manager should recommend options to the City Council to improve the

City’s pavement condition index to a certain level over a specified timeframe. The recommendation should include: • The desired average citywide PCI and timeframe within which to achieve it. • Potential funding strategies to meet the PCI goal within the desired timeframe. • A commitment to provide to the commission and Council an annual progress

report on the PCI as part of the Five-Year Street Plan.

1.2 The Department of Public Works should use StreetSaver® to develop strategies for meeting the target PCI. To ensure the reliability of the StreetSaver® scenarios, staff should: • Update the StreetSaver® unit costs annually, including soft costs, such as

administrative costs.

Investing in Sustainability: Streets Audit Follow-up and Stormwater ACTION Calendar June 26, 2012

• Ensure the Five-Year Street Plan includes strategies that will achieve the Council-adopted PCI goal.

• Include annual costs for preventive maintenance in the Five-Year Street Plan.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED Council is weighing the cost and benefit of several revenue ballot measures. Regarding street rehabilitation, the recommended data-based prioritization of street repair would fix the streets before they fail (before the $36,000 to $309,000 cost per mile for fixing a street becomes the $1.15 million per mile cost of reconstructing a street). If, instead of using data-driven prioritization, the City were to focus on repairing the most deteriorated streets (which residents might likely expect), even if funding were increased, the overall PCI will not improve and the unfunded need would rise instead of falling, because streets that need lower-cost repairs would deteriorate to the point of needing the most expensive repairs.

CONTACT PERSON Ann-Marie Hogan, City Auditor, 981-6750

Attachments: 1: "Failing Streets: Time to Change Direction to Achieve Sustainability" (Pavement Life

in Years, page 6 of report; Sample Scenarios Appendix C pp. 29,32, &33: See November 15, 2011 Council item for full report)

City of Berkeley - Watershed Management Plan (WMP) CEAC Watershed Subcommittee Recommendations: Gomberg and Torkelson

Recommendations:

1. Maintain the $700,000/year transfer from the General Fund to the storm water program that is set to expire in 2013.

2. Seek additional grants necessary to maintain permit compliance. 3. Investigate whether any storm water management funds from prior bond issuances

that have been r epurposed to other City programs can be r eturned to the storm water management program.

4. Place an emphasis on implementing upper watershed projects in the Watershed Management Plan to minimize storm water flow.

A primer on the California Environmental Quality Act and

Community Risk Reduction Plan

What is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state and local agencies to evaluate

the environmental impacts of government actions.

What government actions require CEQA?

CEQA is often triggered for larger new development projects, general plans, and community

plans.

How do cities meet CEQA?

First an initial study identifies the potential environmental and other impacts of a project.

Depending on the severity, a more thorough review may be required. This is done by creating

an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR is a public process and focuses only on the

adverse impacts identified in the initial study. The EIR must include feasible alternatives and

mitigations which can reduce the effects, where possible. Where impacts cannot be mitigated,

a project can go through with legislative approval.

What environmental impacts are studied?

Topic areas range from air quality, transportation, water quality, aesthetics, noise, culture, etc.

What is a Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP)?

A Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) is a plan that addresses the air quality component of

an EIR. With community involvement, a CRRP estimates concentrations of toxic air

contaminants, sets acceptable levels of risk, and identifies mitigations to improve public health.

Where is a CRRP useful?

Recent changes to CEQA have made air quality considerations in industrial and high traffic areas

a required component of evaluation. A CRRP is useful where a city is planning infill

development, and in areas with high levels of toxic air contaminants.

How is Berkeley air quality?

West Berkeley is classified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as a community

most at risk to toxic air contaminants due to its proximity to the freeway, rail, and industry.

How is a CRRP different than an EIR?

A CRRP focuses on one element of an EIR, exposure to toxic air contaminants, and is done over

an area of the city rather than for a single project. An EIR is still required for projects; however,

the air quality component can be satisfied by the CRRP if it is consistent with the plan.

What is the status quo without a CRRP?

In the absence of a CRRP, a major development or city plan must conduct separate air quality

risk evaluation to comply with the new CEQA guidelines. This places pressure on staff to

provide a measure of health risks with less than needed air sampling. Air quality analyses are

conducted over a few weeks, whereas proper ambient air quality monitoring spans 18 months.

How is a CRRP helpful?

Absent a CRRP, the air quality evaluation of CEQA has to be done with less robust data and

evaluations that a CRRP provides. A CRRP provides these evaluations using existing monitoring

and air quality modeling analyses based on data known from the Air District.

Other benefits of a CRRP?

Another major benefit is the flexibility afforded to cities in mitigating impacts from air pollution.

For example, San Francisco is examining ways to install air filtration systems on existing

households. Also, air quality risks are assessed over an area, not just for new development.

Environmental Justice Air Quality Coalition Immigrant Power for Environmental Health and Justice Bay Area Clean Air Task Force Contra Costa Asthma Coalition Environmental Law and Justice Clinic Regional Asthma Management and Prevention Initiative

BAEHC Priority Recommendations on BAAQMD Draft Guidelines for Community Risk Reduction Plans

August 2010

To reduce health risks burdening Bay Area communities from cumulative exposures to multiple pollutants, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has proposed that local jurisdictions, in partnership with BAAQMD, develop and implement area-wide Community Risk Reduction Plans (CRRPs) to guide land use planning. While CRRPs may present an important strategy to identifying and reducing risks, the Bay Area Environmental Health Collaborative (BAEHC) believes that stronger enforceable action is necessary to protect health and reduce inequities in overburdened areas. The following priority recommendations are intended to improve the development, implementation and enforcement of CRRPs. Pollution Reduction Goals and Targets Prioritize reducing risk and eliminating health inequities for the most exposed and sensitive

populations. Implement stringent measures for maximum achievable reductions within the strictest

timeframes. In areas with high health risk, no new pollution should be permitted, with limited exceptions for

essential services and projects that would result in net reductions. Reductions must be in addition to those already mandated under applicable federal and state

requirements, with no pollution trading allowed. Public Participation Impacted communities must be ensured timely opportunities to participate at every step, with

power to influence CRRP development and monitor plan compliance. Impacted communities must be ensured opportunities to review proposed projects under the

plans, including access to timely information, public notice and comment, and the right to appeal.

BAAQMD Accountability BAAQMD must have strong oversight of and accountability for CRRPs to ensure that planned

reductions are achieved and that CRRPs are effectively enforced. BAAQMD must still prioritize reducing health risk in impacted communities through swift

development, implementation and enforcement of stringent pollution reduction measures.

BAEHC CRRP Recommendations Page 1 of 8 August 2010 BAAQMD must ensure that health protection goals are paramount.

BAEHC CRRP Recommendations Page 2 of 8 August 2010

BAEHC Recommendations on BAAQMD Draft Guidelines for Community Risk Reduction Plans

August 2010 The following recommendations submitted by the Bay Area Environmental Health Collaborative (BAEHC) are intended to strengthen the draft guidance proposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD or District) for local jurisdictions and lead agencies developing Community Risk Reduction Plans (CRRPs): “Draft Guidelines: Community Risk Reduction Plans for Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) (May 2010).”1 These recommendations are also intended to clarify and improve the process by which BAAQMD will oversee the development, implementation and enforcement of CRRPs. Please note BAEHC has prepared a set of priority recommendations for CRRPs as well. To reduce cumulative air exposures and health risks burdening Bay Area communities, BAAQMD has proposed that local jurisdictions, in partnership with the District, develop and implement area-wide CRRPs to guide land use planning and decisions. While CRRPs may present an important strategy to identifying and reducing health risks, stronger enforceable action is necessary to protect health and reduce inequities in overburdened areas. To address existing health risks in Bay Area communities, BAAQMD and local jurisdictions must take a more proactive approach to cumulative risk reduction. BAEHC believes that no new pollution should be permitted in the most impacted areas, with limited exceptions for essential services and projects that would result in net reductions. Unless CRRPs include real, enforceable measures to reduce risks and improve health outcomes in “hotspot” areas, inequities will persist. Additionally, objectives for CRRPs should incorporate a restorative element for affected communities, including a shift from toxic polluting industries to clean renewable and sustainable technologies. Finally, a broad public process must ensure timely and informed participation by affected community members at every possible stage of planning and implementation.

CRRP Development

County Health Departments as Key Partners. County Departments of Public Health (DPHs) should have a formal role as key partners in the development and oversight of CRRPs. DPHs and public health officials should be engaged with lead planning agencies as early in the process as possible.

Local Community Planning Board. As modeled by the public process for the California Goods Movement Action Plan,2 representatives from the most affected communities must have the opportunity to participate in the formal planning process, be privy to all proceedings and information, and be able to contribute to the draft and final plan. Lead agencies should establish a Community Planning Board (CPB) comprised of residents in the most affected communities, relevant civic organizations (including neighborhood associations, environmental health and justice organizations, social justice and faith-based organizations) and community leaders. Lead agencies should consult with the CPB to help designate other individuals and organizations that should be included in the public outreach process. Lead agencies should convene the CPB and other designated community and health advocates to identify hotspots and sensitive sites in the affected community, social, economic, cultural and other demographic factors that should be considered as reduction goals and targets are established, and recommendations to

1 Prepared by ICF International for BAAQMD (May 2010), available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Task%20Force%20Meetings/051910%20TF/20100519_TF_CRRP_Guidelines.ashx 2 See final Goods Movement Action Plan (Jan. 2007), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/gmp.htm

BAEHC CRRP Recommendations Page 3 of 8 August 2010

improve health outcomes. Lead agencies should include these recommendations as an appendix to the CRRP, explaining how they have been incorporated into the plan. The CPB should have authority to approve and request revisions to a proposed plan before final approval by the lead agency.

Consultation with County Health Departments, BARHII. Lead agencies should consult with DPHs to identify existing health issues, sensitive and vulnerable populations, health inequities, and demographic factors that should be considered as reduction goals and targets are established. DPHs should propose recommendations to improve health outcomes in the affected community. Lead agencies should also consult with public health official members of the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII)3 to identify health inequities in the region and recommendations for improved health outcomes. Lead agencies should include DPH and BARHII recommendations as an appendix to the CRRP, explaining how they have been incorporated into the plan.

Consultation with Public Health Organizations. Lead agencies should consult with not-for-profit public health organizations to help identify sensitive and vulnerable populations, health inequities and recommendations to improve health outcomes in the affected community. Lead agencies should include these recommendations as an appendix to the CRRP, explaining how they have been incorporated into the plan.

Consultation with BAAQMD. Lead agencies should consult with BAAQMD to identify areas with the highest pollutant concentrations and highest risk, as well as high risk sources and source categories likely responsible for contributing to cumulative health risk. BAAQMD should identify recommendations to reduce relevant exposures and health risks. Lead agencies should include BAAQMD recommendations as an appendix to the CRRP, explaining how they have been incorporated into the plan.

General Plan. CRRPs should be developed and incorporated as part of the local jurisdiction’s general plan.

Reduction Goals and Targets

Measurable Goals, Targets, Indicators. Plans must include measurable, demonstrable and verifiable pollution reduction goals and targets and indicators of progress within a strict timeline. Indicators of progress including milestones for measurable reductions in exposures should be required.

Consultation. Reduction goals and targets may be established only after the entities described above have been consulted.

Eliminating Disparities. A minimum requirement and key objective of reduction goals and targets should be substantially reduced cumulative health risks and impacts for the most exposed residents and most sensitive and vulnerable populations, with a goal of eliminating disparities.

Improved Health Outcomes. Reduction goals and targets should include specific indicators of improved health outcomes and reduced health inequities. Lead agencies should collaborate closely with County DPHs to define and measure indicators and outcomes.

All Available Measures. A key objective should be maximum achievable reductions by limiting new pollution and requiring all available reduction and mitigation measures.

Timeframe. Strict timeframes should be identified for maximum achievable reductions in the most impacted communities. The lead agency, in consultation with BAAQMD

3 NOTE: BARHII issued a report on “Health Inequities in the Bay Area,” available at: http://www.barhii.org/press/download/barhii_report08.pdf, and also developed a “Healthy Planning Guide” to help planning and public health departments collaborate on developing strategies to promote healthier communities, available at: http://www.barhii.org/resources/downloads/barhii_healthy_planning_guide.pdf.

BAEHC CRRP Recommendations Page 4 of 8 August 2010

where appropriate, should identify specific timeframes for each measure to be implemented in the plan, as well as other applicable (federal and state) requirements that will become effective during the plan’s timeline.

No New Pollution. No new pollution should be allowed in the highest impact areas, with limited exceptions for essential services or projects that would result in a net reduction in emissions.

Surplus Reductions. Reductions achieved must be in addition to those required under state and federal regulations. Lead agencies should not claim credit for reductions achieved as a result of other state and federal requirements.

Permanent Reductions. Plans should ensure that reductions achieved are real and permanent. Local jurisdictions should not be able to permit new pollution to return to baseline levels.

CRRP Approval

Measurable Goals, Targets, Strategies, Measures of Progress. CRRPs must include measurable and demonstrable reduction goals and targets including specific indicators of progress within a specific timeline, as well as specific reduction strategies and measures.

Consultation. Before CRRPs may be approved by a lead agency or BAAQMD, lead agencies must demonstrate that they have consulted with all appropriate entities, including the Community Planning Board, in developing the plan.

Local Community Planning Board. The CPB should have authority to approve and request revisions to a proposed plan before final approval by the lead agency.

Public Comments. Before CRRPs may be approved by a lead agency or BAAQMD, lead agencies must demonstrate in written responses to comments that they have addressed and incorporated all public input according to the public participation guidelines below.

BAAQMD Approval. Before a CRRP may be approved by a local agency or BAAQMD, BAAQMD must certify findings determining that the CRRP contains all appropriate elements, comprehensive cumulative health risk analysis, all reduction measures and strategies, meets CRRP guidelines, adequately projects anticipated reductions, and that the lead agency consulted all appropriate entities.

Technical Issues

Area of Influence. BAAQMD should include specific guidance on what conditions would require a source beyond 1000 feet to be included in the area of influence.

Baseline. The baseline year established should be relevant to current economic and regulatory conditions and pollutant exposure levels.

Reduction Measures and Strategies, Mitigation

More Stringent Thresholds. Lead agencies should adopt more stringent “thresholds of significance” under CEQA, including cumulative thresholds, for proposed projects in the most exposed and high-risk areas. No new pollution should be allowed in the highest impact areas, with limited exceptions for essential services or projects that would result in net reductions in emissions.

Surplus Reductions. Reduction measures and strategies should go beyond and must be in addition to what is already anticipated to be required under other local, state and federal laws and regulations. Lead agencies should not claim credit for reductions achieved as a result of other requirements.

Maximum Achievable Reductions. All available mitigation measures should be incorporated into the CRRP, implemented and enforced by lead agencies and BAAQMD. Maximum achievable reductions should be prioritized in the most impacted areas.

BAEHC CRRP Recommendations Page 5 of 8 August 2010

Local Measures. Local mitigation measures should be identified for specific problem areas (e.g., truck routes, idling enforcement, construction rules, etc.) as well as for specific types of projects.

Consultation with BAAQMD. Lead agencies should consult with BAAQMD to identify effective potential mitigation measures that should be required for each area and type of project, as well as existing sources.

Consultation with Technical Experts. Lead agencies should consult with other technical experts and available resources to identify effective mitigation measures for specific types of projects.

Consultation with County Health Departments. Lead agencies should consult with DPHs to determine appropriate reduction measures and strategies, and include these recommendations as an appendix to the CRRP, explaining how they have been incorporated into the plan.

Odor, Nuisance Enforcement. Lead agencies should incorporate stronger odor and nuisance laws to address community concerns and complaints about local sources, and increase enforcement of such provisions.

Preventing New “Hotspots.” Lead agencies should take care not to merely shift pollution from one area to another, in effect creating new “hotspots.”

Public Participation

General. Residents in the affected community should have informed and timely opportunities to participate in the development, approval, oversight and review of CRRPs, at both the local and regional levels.

Local Community Planning Board. As described above, representatives from the most affected communities must have the opportunity to participate in the formal planning process, be privy to all proceedings and information, and be able to contribute to the draft and final plan, as modeled by the public process for the California Goods Movement Action Plan.4 Lead agencies should establish a Local Community Planning Board (CPB) comprised of residents in the most affected communities, relevant civic organizations (including neighborhood associations, environmental health and justice organizations, social justice and faith-based organizations) and community leaders. Lead agencies should consult with the CPB to help designate other individuals and organizations that should be included in the public outreach process. Lead agencies should convene the CPB and other designated community and health advocates to identify hotspots and sensitive sites in the affected community, social, economic, cultural and other demographic factors that should be considered as reduction goals and targets are established, and recommendations to improve health outcomes in the affected community. Lead agencies should include these recommendations as an appendix to the CRRP, explaining how they have been incorporated into the plan. The CPB should have authority to approve and request revisions to a proposed plan before its final approval by the lead agency. Lead agencies should seek the approval of the CPB before adopting the plan and regularly report on progress, compliance and enforcement, providing opportunities for the board to propose revisions to the plan based on local needs. Members of the CPB should receive stipends for their time and participation.

Consultation before Approval. Before CRRPs may be approved by a lead agency or BAAQMD, lead agencies must demonstrate that they have consulted with all appropriate entities (as described above) in developing the plan.

4 See final Goods Movement Action Plan (Jan. 2007), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/gmp.htm

BAEHC CRRP Recommendations Page 6 of 8 August 2010

Extensive Public Process. Before CRRPs may be approved by a lead agency or BAAQMD, lead agencies must demonstrate that they have engaged in an extensive public process including public workshops and comprehensive multilingual outreach to affected residents to invite informed participation, and consideration and incorporation of all appropriate input. The public must have more than the standard 30 days to review and comment on the draft plans under CEQA (e.g., 60-90 days at minimum).

Response to Comments. Before CRRPs may be approved by a lead agency or BAAQMD, lead agencies must demonstrate that they have addressed all public input. Responses to public comments should be included as an appendix to the CRRP, describing changes made to the plan based on input received and explaining which recommendations have or have not been incorporated and why.

BAAQMD CRRP Advisory Group. BAAQMD should establish a CRRP Advisory Group comprised of residents in impacted CARE communities, community leaders, public health and environmental justice advocates, to review and provide input on the development, approval, implementation and enforcement of CRRPs. BAAQMD should convene and consult the CRRP Advisory Group before approving the plans, and in conjunction with annual review by the BAAQMD Board of Directors. BAAQMD should report to the advisory group on lead agencies’ progress towards reduction goals and targets and compliance with CRRPs, providing opportunities for the advisory group to propose revisions to the plans during the annual review.

Reporting. Lead agencies should regularly report on their progress towards achieving reduction goals and targets, using clear indicators of progress and milestones, and documenting ongoing compliance with CRRPs with required findings (see Monitoring and Accountability below). Reports should be submitted to BAAQMD and the Local Community Planning Board, and made easily accessible by the general public, via website, email, by mail upon request.

BAAQMD Annual Review. BAAQMD must conduct an annual review of lead agencies’ progress towards reduction goals and targets and ongoing compliance with CRRPs, as described below (Monitoring and Accountability, BAAQMD Role). The BAAQMD Board of Directors should certify compliance with CRRPs at a public hearing, ensuring an opportunity for the public and BAAQMD CRRP Advisory Group to review and provide input and propose revisions to CRRPs during the annual review process.

Monitoring and Accountability

Tracking. Lead agencies must track pollution reductions, in coordination with BAAQMD, and maintain records on compliance with CRRPs. Lead agencies must document progress towards achieving specific reduction goals, targets and milestone indicators. Lead agencies must document specific required findings before permitting new projects in the plan area.

Required Findings. Lead agencies must make specific required findings documenting compliance with CRRPs on an area-wide and project-by-project basis. First, lead agencies should quantify reductions achieved in the plan area, in consultation with BAAQMD as appropriate, and identify the sources of reductions. Second, lead agencies should document findings of maximum achievable reductions for each proposed land use permit in the plan area, including a determination that the project would not cause or contribute to individual or cumulative health risk. Project findings should require an alternatives assessment including a no-project option, and thorough evaluation of all available mitigation measures.

Reporting. Lead agencies must report to BAAQMD and make available to the public records and required findings demonstrating ongoing compliance with CRRPs.

BAEHC CRRP Recommendations Page 7 of 8 August 2010

Consistent with the required findings, records should track pollution reductions and sources of reductions, progress towards reduction goals and targets using specific milestones and indicators of progress, and project specific findings. Reports should be made available via website, email and by mail upon request.

Enforcement. Lead agencies and BAAQMD should create clear accountability mechanisms to assure that compliance with CRRPs is verified and that CRRPs are properly enforced. BAAQMD should have clear authority to enforce compliance.

BAAQMD Annual Review. BAAQMD should conduct an annual review of lead agencies’ progress towards reduction goals and targets and ongoing compliance with CRRPs. BAAQMD staff should independently review the lead agency’s required findings and report on the lead agency’s compliance with the plans. BAAQMD staff should also report on air pollution permitting activity in the plan area. The BAAQMD Board of Directors should certify compliance with the plans at a public hearing, ensuring an opportunity for public review and input. BAAQMD should have authority to incorporate revisions to the plans for compliance or greater reductions. The CRRP Advisory Group should have the opportunity to propose revisions to CRRPs during the annual review.

CRRP Updates, Revisions

Updates. Plans should be updated generally at least every two years, and within six months after new information is provided by other regulatory agencies.

Revisions. Revisions to plans should be made when a significant new pollution problem is identified, when BAAQMD determines that revision is necessary to achieve planned reductions, or to reflect changes in land use.

BAAQMD Authority. BAAQMD should have clear authority to incorporate revisions to CRRPs for greater reductions or compliance.

Public Process. Updates and revisions should be subject to a public process with an opportunity for input from the Local Community Planning Board, affected community residents, and public health officials and advocates.

Land Use. Changes in land use should not undermine and should be linked to CRRPs. Plans should be revised and updated to reflect changes in land use.

CEQA

More Stringent Thresholds. CRRPs should be more comprehensive than planning and review under CEQA and should aim to reduce risk beyond what CEQA requires. Because the District’s cumulative impact thresholds continue to allow high levels of health risk, lead agencies should adopt more stringent risk thresholds than the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation of existing risks through maximum achievable reductions should be prioritized in the most impacted areas.

No Significant Impacts. Lead agencies and BAAQMD must ensure that no potentially significant impacts will result from approval of individual projects, either individually or cumulatively. Any new pollution proposed in high impact areas should be considered to have “significant” adverse effects under CEQA.

Streamlining. Before a land use project may be approved in the plan area, the lead agency must make specific required findings (see Monitoring and Accountability above) ensuring compliance with the plan. Lead agencies must ensure that development is not expedited at the expense of public health when relying on streamlined CEQA review.

Public Participation. The public should still be afforded an opportunity to review proposed projects in the plan area, including public notice, comment, and the right to appeal under CEQA.

BAEHC CRRP Recommendations Page 8 of 8 August 2010

BAAQMD Role

General. BAAQMD should be integrally involved in the development, approval, implementation, oversight and enforcement of CRRPs. BAAQMD should provide technical support and financial resources to local jurisdictions as they develop, implement and evaluate the progress of CRRPs in reducing air pollution health risks.

Mitigation. BAAQMD should provide technical and financial support to local jurisdictions to advise appropriate mitigation measures and evaluate available technologies for mitigation.

Consultation and Public Process. BAAQMD should provide financial support to local jurisdictions as they develop CRRPs using appropriate consultation and public processes. BAAQMD should not approve CRRPs unless lead agencies demonstrate that such processes were followed.

BAAQMD CRRP Advisory Group. BAAQMD should establish a CRRP Advisory Group, as described above. BAAQMD should convene and consult the advisory group before approving plans and before annual review by the Board of Directors. BAAQMD should report to the advisory group on lead agencies’ progress towards reduction goals and targets and compliance with CRRPs, including indicators of progress and required findings, as described above.

Reporting. BAAQMD should require lead agencies to report progress towards reduction goals and targets, using specific milestones and indicators of progress, and records demonstrating compliance with CRRPs, including area-wide and project-specific required findings.

Enforcement. BAAQMD should have clear authority to verify and enforce compliance with CRRPs, and should take a strong role to assure that CRRPs are properly enforced.

BAAQMD Annual Review. BAAQMD should conduct an annual review of lead agencies’ progress towards reduction goals and targets and ongoing compliance with CRRPs. BAAQMD staff should independently review the lead agency’s required findings and report on the lead agency’s compliance with the plans. BAAQMD staff should also report on air pollution permitting activity in the plan area. The BAAQMD Board of Directors should certify compliance with the plans at a public hearing, ensuring an opportunity for public review and input. A new Board committee should be established to take the lead on CRRP review, oversight and enforcement. Members of the committee should include Board members from affected CARE communities. BAAQMD should have authority to incorporate revisions to the plans for compliance or greater reductions. The CRRP Advisory Group should have the opportunity to propose revisions to CRRPs during the annual review.

Revisions. BAAQMD should have authority to incorporate revisions to CRRPs for greater reductions or compliance. The BAAQMD CRRP Advisory Group should have the opportunity to propose revisions to the plans during the Board of Directors annual review

Areas with no CRRPs

For affected areas that lack capacity and resources, BAAQMD should partner with lead agencies to develop CRRPs with which local jurisdictions will comply.

For affected areas with no CRRPs, BAAQMD should ensure that no new pollution is permitted to exacerbate existing exposures, with limited exceptions for essential services and projects that would result in net reductions in emissions.

City and County of San Francisco Gavin Newsom, Mayor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Mitchell H. Katz, MD, Director of Health ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION Rajiv Bhatia, MD, MPH, Director of EH

1390 Market Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone 252-3800, Fax 252-3875

Protecting Sensitive Uses from Roadway Air Pollution Hot Spots 

Article 38 of the San Francisco Health Code (2008) 

Frequently Asked Questions 

Why is air pollution near roadways a public health problem? 

Air pollutant exposures and health effects are much higher for people living near freeways and other busy roadways.  Public health research has consistently demonstrated that children living within 200 meters of freeways or busy roadways have poorer lung function and more asthma and respiratory symptoms than those living further from freeways.  For example, a recent study in the San Francisco Bay Area found that children living within 75 meters of a freeway had almost four times the prevalence of asthma when compared to children living more than 300 meters away from freeways.  

Do state and federal air quality rules protect residents from such hazards? 

No.  Air pollution hot spots from traffic are not prevented by current state and federal air quality regulations.  In 2005, the California Air Resources Board issued guidance recommending that localities avoid placing new sensitive uses within 500 feet of freeways; however, this guidance is voluntary.  San Francisco is the first jurisdiction in the country to create a law to protect future residents from roadway air pollution hotspots. 

What does the new law require? 

The law requires that sponsors of new developments take the following actions to avoid health impacts to residents when they propose to place new residential uses near freeways and other busy roadways: 

o Assessment of air pollution from traffic, using modeling tools, at project sites  

o Design of the building or ventilation systems to preserve good indoor air quality 

Who is sponsoring the new law?  

Supervisor Tom Ammiano introduced the ordinance in July 2008.  The San Francisco Asthma Task Force and the Bay Area Clean Air Task Force have both endorsed the new law.  The Planning Department and Department of Public Health, who collectively developed procedures and guidance for the protection of sensitive uses from roadway air pollution hot spots in 2007, provided technical support for the legislation.   

What are the health and social benefits of the legislation? 

The legislation will prevent avoidable lung disease and premature death in residents living near busy roadways.  The ventilation requirements can also help reduce indoor allergen levels for people with 

Page 2 of 5

sensitive conditions like asthma.  In addition, implementation of ventilation system enhancements and maintenance requirements will provide assurance of safety for residents of developments near busy roadways.  

What must developers do to meet the requirements of the legislation?  

The procedures required by this legislation are analogous to the existing health code requirements for clean‐up of sites with contaminated soil and water.  The legislation requires an assessment of traffic‐related contributions to air pollution at potential sites for residential projects of 10 or more units in certain traffic pollution impacted zones of the City (See Map for Traffic Impacted Areas).  The legislation further requires that traffic‐attributable air pollution levels be compared against a specified action‐level; if pollutant levels are above this action level, the building must be designed to reduce the outdoor PM 2.5 levels by 80% in indoor spaces.    

If required, mitigating traffic related pollutants is feasible using available technology.  The performance standard required by the law can be accomplished in several ways using existing building technologies: 

1. Using lower floors for commercial use and upper for residential 

2. Setback of buildings from roadway air pollution source 

3. Location of fresh air ventilation sources at a non‐polluted site 

4. Filtration of fresh air ventilation sources 

5. Recirculation and filtration of indoor air 

The above requirements in the new law mirror those in current San Francisco Department of Public Health procedures to analyze and prevent negative health impacts associated with locating new residential uses near busy roads.   

Does the legislation have any economic impacts? 

Yes, but the net economic impacts for San Francisco as a whole are positive.  The law will prevent avoidable health care spending, for example, for hospital charges for prevented asthma attacks.  Additional costs created by requirements for filtration of air add only marginally to the cost of ventilation systems because existing residential construction standards already require some form of mechanical fresh air ventilation to address issues of traffic noise.  The Office of the Controller has 

Page 3 of 5

determined that the legislation has neutral to positive impacts on the economy, the development community, and future residents of the City.  Depending on the system, costs for the developer and the resident for installation and maintenance range from approximately $50‐700 per year per unit.  The economic benefit of the reduction of premature death is approximately $2,100 per unit per year.  The Controller has determined that the net economic benefit of the rules is $1,400 per unit per year. 

Who can conduct the air quality assessments? 

Air quality assessments can be conducted using well established air quality modeling tools used by many environmental assessment professionals.  The Department of Public Health (SFDPH) has conducted air quality assessments for developers for a modest fee ($1560 ) to meet these assessment requirements.  In 2007, the San Francisco Planning Department began requiring developers of sensitive uses near busy roadways to conduct air quality site assessment and mitigate air pollution impacts under SFDPH guidance.   

Are ventilation systems required in all areas identified in the potential hazard map? 

No. Special ventilation/filtration systems or alternative forms of mitigation would be required only if air quality assessment indicates that roadway‐attributable fine particulate air pollution is in excess of 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter.  This will occur only in a subset of the area indicated in the map above.  Of the 20 projects that SFDPH has evaluated to date, we have found that only about 25% of the locations evaluated actually exceed the action level. 

How can filtration systems be installed with conventional heating, cooling, and ventilation systems? 

The following are examples of the modifications to conventional systems required: 

Type of Heating and Ventilation System  Modification(s) Required 

Radiant floor heat or electric wall heat with make up fresh air via z‐duct 

Ventilation system fan; supply/return ducts; MERV 13 filter on return air: outside makeup air upstream from MERV 13 filtration. 

Forced air gas heat make up fresh air provided via z‐duct 

Install MERV 13 filter on return air,  outside makeup air upstream from  MERV 13 filter;  fan upgrade.  

Heat pump with makeup from z‐duct  Install MERV 13 filter on return air  outside makeup  air upstream from  MERV 13 filter;  fan upgrade  

Central mechanical ventilation, heating and cooling system for building 

Install MERV 13 filter on return air & filter make up air. 

Page 4 of 5

All filter installations require fan enclosure.  Ensuring a tight building envelope will reduce infiltration and increase energy efficiency.  The following figure illustrates a conventional forced air heating system with return air filtration and filtration of make up.   

Systems capable of meeting the requirements of the new air quality legislation are presently produced by a variety of national manufacturers including: Lennox, American Standard, Fantech, Honeywell, Trane, Carrier, and Aprilaire.   

Do ventilation systems require maintenance to insure proper function? 

Yes. These systems would be maintained in the same manner as existing filtration systems on forced air furnaces.  It is the responsibility of the property owner or owners to maintain the system.  Failure to change the filters would result in decreased air movement due to filter pressure loss.  Pressure gauges can be installed with the ventilation system to monitor filter loading and indicate when filter replacement is necessary. 

Are there examples of residential developments in the United States that have installed such ventilation systems? 

There are numerous examples listed below of residential buildings with whole house ventilation coupled with filtration found in residential green building projects across the United States.  Examples include the Solaire in Battery Park City, New York, City Center Condos in Salt Lake City‐HEPA filtration, the Kalihari Condos in Harlem, New York City, the Brookside Green Condos in Bourne Massachusetts, and the Ecos on Delaware, in Kansas City, Missouri. 

Does the new law support San Francisco “green building” goals and requirements? 

Healthful indoor air quality is fundamental to green building goals, and the adequate ventilation and, if necessary, air filtration should be integral part of any residential green building program.  San 

Page 5 of 5

Francisco’s Green Building Ordinance does not contain any requirements for protection against air quality hot spots; however, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes the importance of whole house ventilation and air filtration as they impact indoor air quality in its “Energy Star Program”.  In the EPA’s “Energy Star Specifications” the ventilation and filtration guidance is as follows:  

• Sec. 4.15   Provide mechanical whole‐house ventilation meeting all ASHRAE 62.2 requirements. 

• Sec. 4.18   HVAC filters shall be rated MERV 8 or higher at 295 feet per minute according to ASHRAE 52.2. 

Will the new law affect developers’ responsibilities under the California Environmental Quality Act? 

Typically, all large scale residential developments undergo some form of environmental review under CEQA, and the new law may reduce the need or scope of environmental review.  As part of environmental review, the San Francisco Planning Department currently requires all residential projects that are potentially subject to air quality hot spots to assess and mitigate exposures, including through ventilation system changes.  The new ordinance provides a uniform mitigation procedure which could help a developer avoid producing a timely and expensive Environmental Impact Report.   

Will existing ventilation requirements for noise control be affected by the new law? 

Most areas in the potential air quality hazard zone also have existing environmental noise levels that trigger requirements under Title 24 for acoustical insulation.  These acoustical standards found in the California Building Code, Section 1207.12, Airborne Sound Insulation, create separate but similar demands for fresh air ventilation systems.   

“If interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air‐conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment.  The ventilation system must not compromise the dwelling unit or guest room noise reduction” 

Requirements for filtration under the new law are generally consistent with the ventilation requirements under this standard. 

Does the California Building Code require ventilation systems for all residential buildings?   

Not currently.  After July 2009, Title 24 will require mechanical ventilation, apart from window ventilation, for all low‐rise residential construction in part to reduce energy loss related to heating and cooling. 

“Ventilation for Indoor Air Quality.  All dwelling units shall meet the requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.2. Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low‐Rise Residential Buildings.  Window operation is not a permissible method of providing the Whole Building Ventilation required in Section 4 of that Standard” 

San Francisco Health Code

ARTICLE 38: AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND VENTILATION REQUIREMENT FOR URBAN INFILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS Sec. 3801. Short Title.

Sec. 3802. Findings.

Sec. 3803. Definitions.

Sec. 3804. Applicability of Article.

Sec. 3805. Potential Roadway Exposure Zone and Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map.

Sec. 3806. Air Quality Assessment and Air Quality Report.

Sec. 3807. Ventilation Requirement.

Sec. 3808. Maintenance of Documents by Director.

Sec. 3809. Rules and Regulations.

Sec. 3810. Maintenance Requirement.

Sec. 3811. No Conflict with Federal or State Law.

Sec. 3812. Severability.

Sec. 3813. Undertaking for the general welfare.

SEC. 3801. SHORT TITLE.

This Article shall be entitled "Air Quality Assessment and Ventilation Requirement for Urban Infill Residential Developments."

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3802. FINDINGS.

(a) Motor vehicles are a major source of air pollution in the United States, particularly in urban areas;

(b) Pollution from motor vehicles imposes severe health burdens on children and families living near freeways and busy roadways. Health research has consistently shown that persons living in close proximity to freeways or busy roadways have poorer lung functions and are more susceptible to develop asthma and other respiratory problems, compared with persons living at a greater distance;

(c) To avoid the health problems associated with exposure to roadway pollution, the California Air Resources Board recommends avoiding the placement of residential and other sensitive uses within 500 feet (approximately 150 meters) of busy freeways and other busy roadways. However, significant residential development in the state is occurring in urban infill sites, near freeways or busy arterial roadways, potentially increasing these residents' exposure to air pollutants and their associated health risks; and

(d) This situation is exacerbated in the City of San Francisco, which, by virtue of being located on a peninsula, has a limited amount of land available for new residential development.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3803. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Article, the following words shall have the following meanings:

(a) "Building" means a new structure containing ten or more dwelling units as those terms are defined in the San Francisco Building Code.

(b) "Department" means the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

(c) "Director" means the Director of the San Francisco Department of Public Health or the Director's designee.

(d) "Local Roadway Traffic Sources" means traffic generated on roadways within 500 feet from the site.

(e) "PM 2.5" means solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air, that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter.

(f) "Potential Roadway Exposure Zone" means those areas within the City and County of San Francisco which, by virtue of their proximity to freeways and major roadways, may exhibit high PM 2.5 concentration attributable to Local Roadway Traffic Sources.

(g) "Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map" means a map, prepared and periodically updated by the Director and available to the public in the Department's website, depicting the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone.

(h) "Site" means a parcel of land as defined in the San Francisco Building Code.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3804. APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE.

This Article shall apply to newly constructed buildings containing ten or more dwelling units located within the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone, and that have been determined to have a PM 2.5 concentration at the proposed site greater than 0.2 ug/m3 attributable to Local Roadway Traffic Sources, as defined herein.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3805. POTENTIAL ROADWAY EXPOSURE ZONE AND POTENTIAL ROADWAY EXPOSURE ZONE MAP.

(a) Pursuant to Section 4.110 of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, the Director shall create a Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map, depicting the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone.

(b) The Director shall from time to time update the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map, to account for changes in circumstances that lead to changes in the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone, including, but not limited, to:

(1) Construction of new roadways in residential areas;

(2) Changes in traffic patterns in the City's roadway system; or

(3) Specific scientific data showing that certain areas should be included in the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map.

(c) The Director shall post the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map in the Department's website, and make paper copies of the map available to the public upon request.

(d) In creating and updating the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map, the Director shall follow the procedures of Section 3809, and shall make specific findings explaining how the boundaries of the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map meet the definition of Section 3803(f).

(e) The current Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map is attached to this Ordinance as Attachment A.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3806. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND AIR QUALITY REPORT.

(a) Projects meeting the conditions of Section 3804 shall have performed an Air Quality Assessment, to evaluate the concentration of PM 2.5 from Local Roadway Traffic Sources at the site. All locations at the site where residential buildings or construction may occur shall be

evaluated. The Department shall develop guidance, pursuant to Section 3809, setting forth what types of analyses shall be conducted. The project sponsor shall follow the Department's guidance, unless an alternative proposal is approved in writing by the Director.

(b) At the completion of the Air Quality Assessment required by Section 3806(a), an Air Quality Report shall be submitted to the Director. The Air Quality Report shall contain the following information:

(1) The names, addresses and professional expertise of the persons who conducted the Air Quality Assessment;

(2) An explanation of the methodology used in the Air Quality Assessment; and

(3) The results of the Air Quality Assessment.

(c) Review by the Director. The Director shall determine whether the Air Quality Report required by this Article was conducted as required by this Article, and whether the Air Quality Report is complete. If the Air Quality Report was not conducted as required by this Article or does not comply with the requirements of this Section, the Director shall notify the project sponsor in writing within 30 days of receipt of the Air Quality Report, indicating the reasons the report is unacceptable. A copy of the notification shall be sent to the Director of building Inspection.

(d) Finding of No Dangerous PM 2.5 Concentration. If the Air Quality Report indicates that the concentration level of PM 2.5 from Local Roadway Traffic Sources at the site is less than 0.2 ug/m3, the Director shall provide the project sponsor with written notification that the project has complied with the requirements of this Article.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3807. VENTILATION REQUIREMENT.

(a) If the Air Quality Report indicates that the concentration level of PM 2.5 from Local Roadway Traffic Sources at the site is greater than 0.2 ug/m3 the project shall:

(1) be designed, or relocated on the site in a way that would avoid residential exposure to PM 2.5 concentration from Local Roadway Traffic Sources greater than 0.2 ug/m3, as demonstrated by the Air Quality Report, or

(2) submit to the Director a Ventilation Proposal, prepared by a licensed design professional, to install in the project a ventilation system to meet the requirements of San Francisco Building Code Section 1203.5 Building permit documents submitted to the Department of Building Inspection shall incorporate designs and details necessary for the construction of such ventilation system.

(b) The Ventilation Proposal shall explain in detail how the project will achieve the standards mandated by San Francisco Building Code Section 1203.5. The Ventilation Proposal shall include a statement signed by the licensed design professional who prepared it, certifying that in his or her judgment the ventilation system proposed will be capable of removeing>80% of ambient PM 2.5 from habitable areas of dwelling units.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3808. MAINTENANCE OF DOCUMENTS BY DIRECTOR.

The Air Quality Report, Ventilation Proposal, Certification and related documents shall become part of the file maintained by the Department. Such file shall be available to the public upon request.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3809. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

(a) Adoption of Rules. The Director may adopt, and may thereafter amend, rules, regulations and guidelines that the Director deems necessary to implement the provisions of this Article. For the purposes of this Article, a public hearing before the Health Commission shall be held prior to the adoption or any amendment of the rules, regulations and guidelines recommended for implementation, including creation and amendments to update the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map. In addition to notices required by law, the Director shall send written notice, at least 15 days prior to the hearing, to any interested party who sends a written request to the Director for notice of hearings related to the adoption of rules, regulations and guidelines pursuant to this Section.

In developing such regulations, the Director shall consider, inter alia, State and federal statutes, regulations and guidelines pertaining to the health effects of roadway air pollutants. The Director shall also consult with the Planning Department's Environmental Review Officer at least 30 days prior to initiating any amendments or modifications to these rules or regulations, including changes to the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map, and shall seek such officer's concurrence on any proposed change.

The Director shall also, from time to time, consult with the Green Building Task Force, to coordinate and resolve any potential conflicts that may arise between the Green Building Ordinance and this Ordinance.

(b) Guidelines for Regulations. Rules, regulations and guidelines may address among others, the following subjects:

(1) Minimum standards for acceptable Air Quality Assessment tests. The minimum standards shall be designed to assist interested persons including, but not limited to, the Director of the Department of Building Inspection, other state and local public agencies and licensed

design professionals, to evaluate whether analyses, other than those required by Section 3806(a) must be conducted to detect the presence of harmful roadway air pollutants;

(2) Minimum education and experience requirements for the persons who prepare Air Quality Assessments pursuant to Section 3806(a) and Ventilation Proposals pursuant to Section 3807; and

(3) Creation and Periodic Updates of the Potential Roadway Exposure Zone Map.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3810. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT.

(a) The ventilation systems installed pursuant to Section 3807 shall be properly maintained, following standard practices, and as specified by the manufacturer.

(b) Project sponsors shall preserve documentation of their actions installing and/or maintaining the ventilation systems for five years after installation.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3811. NO CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LAW.

Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement, power, or duty in conflict with any federal or state law.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3812. SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Article is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Article. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed this Article and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Article would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

SEC. 3813. UNDERTAKING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE.

In adopting and implementing this Article, the City and County of San Francisco is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. It is not assuming, nor is it imposing in its officers and employees, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury.

(Added by Ord. 281-08, File No. 080934, 12/5/2008)

Disclaimer: This Code of Ordinances and/or any other documents that appear on this site may not reflect the most current legislation adopted by the Municipality. American Legal Publishing Corporation provides these documents for informational purposes only. These documents should not be relied upon as the definitive authority for local legislation. Additionally, the formatting and pagination of the posted documents varies from the formatting and pagination of the official copy. The official printed copy of a Code of Ordinances should be consulted prior to any action being taken. For further information regarding the official version of any of this Code of Ordinances or other documents posted on this site, please contact the Municipality directly or contact American Legal Publishing toll-free at 800-445-5588.

Community Environmental Advisory Commission

2118 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7460 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7470 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=10312

INFORMATION CALENDAR April 3, 2012

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC)

Submitted by: Nabil Al-Hadithy, Secretary, CEAC

Subject: CEAC Work Program for 2012

INTRODUCTION The mission of the CEAC is to develop a plan, prioritize strategies and make recommendations for environmental protection, hazardous materials and reduction, with outreach to and education of the public, small businesses and industry. Consistent with its mission, on February 2, 2012, the CEAC adopted the 2012 Work Program, per the Commissioner’s Manual as follows:

I. Promote urban gardening through developing educational material on best practices.

II. Evaluate and comment on the Watershed Management Plan. III. Address new Air District guidelines for Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine

Particulate Matter. IV. Enable implementation of the Climate Action Plan by providing research,

education to the public, and policy recommendations. V. Other

In accordance, with budgetary concerns, the CEAC has sought to reduce costs by increasing coordination with other commissions, prioritizing agenda items, and reducing clerical work on staff by assuming more responsibility on agenda packet preparation, information gathering, and prioritizing items to be sent to Council. With these considerations in mind, the CEAC believes the aforementioned items are pressing environmental matters that warrant attention in the upcoming year. CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS In 2010 and 2011, the CEAC did not create a Work Program. The CEAC has developed a Work Program in 2012 as a cost saving measure and to improve accountability. BACKGROUND Context for each of the work program items listed are provided below: I. Urban and community gardening is listed as a greenhouse gas reduction strategy in

the City of Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan. The CEAC seeks to promote this activity

CEAC Work Program for 2012 INFORMATION CALENDAR April 3, 2012

Page 2

while also identifying simple ways to reduce health risks arising from lead and arsenic contamination in Berkeley soils. The CEAC has and will continue to work with experts and stakeholder groups to develop educational material for the public.

II. The Department of Public Works (PW) recently released the first version of the

Watershed Management Plan (WMP). On November 3, 2011, the CEAC received a presentation by PW and a request to provide public comment and input on the public process. A subcommittee was appointed by the Chair to identify potential recommendations and ways to engage community stakeholders.

III. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) approved new guidelines

for Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine Particulate Matter that came into effect June 2011. The CEAC will continue to gather information on compliance with the new guidelines and make recommendations pertaining to mitigating health impacts from air contaminants.

IV. In accordance with the Climate Action Plan’s goal of reducing our entire

community’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 2000 levels by 2050, the CEAC has begun and will continue to work to implement the vision laid forth by the plan. This year the CEAC plans to educate the public on available resources for water conservation and reuse provided by EBMUD. In addition, the CEAC is working with the office of sustainability to form a campaign to engage big users of water. Finally, the CEAC will be reviewing current water conservation policies in the city of Berkeley and, if needed, recommend use of additional conservation policies proven successful in other cities or countries.

V. The CEAC will continue to explore issues upon request by Council, the Public, and

City Staff. At the request of Staff, the CEAC has begun to post in its agenda packet new remediation sites for public review and comment starting in December 2011.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION As described above.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Unknown at this time. CONTACT PERSON Nabil Al-Hadithy, Hazardous Materials Manager, 981-7461