On June 25, 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was revoking the Bay Area's clean air designation. In June 1995 the Bay Area had been declared in attainment of the national air quality standard for ground-level ozone, after five years with no violations of the standard. The summers of 1995 and 1996, however, brought 17 violations. After carefully considering public comments on the proposed change, the EPA determined that, even allowing for unfavorable meteorology, progress in controlling pollution lagged behind an increase in ozone-forming emissions.
To assess violations, each monitoring site in an air district is permitted 3 exceedances of the standard during 3 consecutive years, to allow for fluctuations in the weather. The fourth exceedance at a site in that period is deemed a violation.
Acting to protect public health, the EPA has presented the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) with conditions that must be met. By November 25, the Air District must submit its draft emissions inventories for VOCs and Nox to the EPA and the public. It must also submit an assessment of how much emissions will have to be reduced to meet the national ozone standard by the year 2000, as required by the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). It must adopt control measures necessary to meet the 2000 deadline.
By June 15, 1999, the state Air Resources Board must submit a revised State Implementation Plan to the EPA which includes the Air District's emissions inventory, attainment assessment, and adopted control measures and enforceable commitments to attain the standard.
Felicia Marcus, EPA Region IX Administrator, stated, "The Bay Area needs to find the best mix of additional measures to reduce air pollution and give the region's residents the public health protection they deserve. We're confident that this community can meet the challenge, given their history of aggressive regulatory and voluntary programs."
The Bay Area is in the unique position of having first been in nonattainment of the ozone standard, then in attainment, then back out of attainment. Nonattainment areas are classified under the CAAA as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. The EPA has decided that this classification system does not have to be used for the Bay Area's redesignation and has redesignated the region under the older general portion of the Act that has no classifications associated with it. This gives the EPA more flexibility in setting requirements and deadlines. The Air District is concerned, however, that without a classification, it may receive less federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding.
The EPA has been asked why it is requiring the Air District to attain the current federal ozone standard of 12 parts per hundred million (pphm) for 1 hour instead of waiting to plan for the newly-adopted standard of 8 pphm for 8 hours. The EPA's response is that it is committed to reducing exposure of people to unhealthful air. The data that will be the basis for classifying air districts as being in attainment or nonattainment of the new standard is now being collected. Areas that are found to be not in attainment must submit plans by 2003 to meet the new standard. Meanwhile, both the current national standard and a more stringent state standard (9 pphm for 1 hour) are in force; a new federal plan is due by June 15, 1999 for a November 15, 2000 attainment deadline.
Responding to redesignation, the Air District is reviewing its 1995 emissions inventory and technical information to assess the necessary emissions reductions. The Air District recently prepared the 1997 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) update aimed at attaining the more stringent state ozone standard required by the California Clean Air Act. With control measures from the CAP, successful voluntary programs such as the Air District's Spare the Air campaign and the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group's ECOPASS program (July/August Monitor), cleaner fuels and the phasing out of older, more polluting motor vehicles, the Air District is well on its way toward meeting the EPA's schedule.
"The Air District's mission to reduce emissions and protect public health will continue to be our top priority, as it has been in the past," said Ellen Garvey, the Air District's Executive Officer.
Adelia Sabiston
Ozone, the principal pollutant in smog, irritates the respiratory system, causing both acute and chronic symptoms. Children, the elderly, people with respiratory problems, and people exercising or performing physical work outdoors are especially susceptible.
Ground-level ozone is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOC) react chemically with oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in hot, sunny weather. VOCs come from a variety of sources, NOx from combustion processes. The largest single source of these ozone precursors is motor vehicles.
For more information:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Spare the Air '98 campaign began on June 15 with the first smog alert of the summer. As of July 26, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District had called 6 Spare the Air Days. On one of these, July 18, the national ozone standard of 12 parts per hundred million (pphm) was exceeded at 7 of the 13 monitoring stations—Gilroy, Livermore, Los Gatos, 2 in San Jose, and San Martin. The state standard of 9 pphm of ozone was exceeded at the Concord and Livermore stations on July 19, another Spare the Air day. Three stations, Gilroy, Livermore, and San Martin, recorded 1 or more exceedances on 5 non-Spare the Air days.
A Spare the Air alert is issued by the District by 10 a.m. the day before. When meteorologists predict hot, sunny weather with little or no air movement, ozone precursors emitted throughout the day are expected to accumulate and be converted to ozone, then trapped at ground level. Ozone levels peak in the late afternoon. On these days, people are asked to limit their use of motor vehicles, gasoline-powered equipment, aerosols, and solvent-based products.
Surveys have shown that more people get their information about Spare the Air days at their work place than from any other source. More than 650 Bay Area employers participate in the Air District's highly successful voluntary program.
Phone 1-800-HELP AIR or visit the website www.sparetheair.gov after 10 a.m. for Spare the Air alert status for the following day.
Adelia Sabiston
Construction contracts have been awarded to build the major elements of BART's extension to San Francisco International Airport (in airline shorthand, SFO). The first and largest contract covers construction of all the trackwork, track structures and subway boxes from Colma to Millbrae, as well as part of the aerial structure serving the airport, and communications and computerized control systems. The contractor, Tutor-Saliba/Slattery, will also build station shells in South San Francisco and San Bruno. The second contract went to Sverdrup/Conco to build the intermodal Millbrae station, which will include connections to buses and Caltrain.
In preparation for actual construction, other contractors have been working for over a year to prepare the area and relocate utilities. In addition, agreements were worked out with state and federal agencies to ensure protection of the endangered San Francisco garter snake and the threatened California red-legged frog, whose habitats are included in the extension alignment. Agreements were also signed between BART and the five cities the extension will cross. Several of these communities plan to capitalize on changes which will come with BART service. Millbrae plans economic development around the transit hub which will be created by the intermodal station. San Bruno will establish a joint city/BART police facility near Tanforan shopping center.
Fruitvale Transit Village Takes Shape
In a rare unanimous vote, BART directors approved the final arrangements needed for the completion of the Fruitvale Transit Village (Jan/Feb 1997 Monitor). The approval authorized the exchange of property between BART and the Fruitvale Development Corporation, a crucial part of property realignments which also include Union Pacific and the City of Oakland.
The Fruitvale Development Corporation was created by the Spanish Speaking Unity Council to oversee the Transit Village project. Over the past six years, the Unity Council has completed a lengthy list of planning and fundraising tasks, including approval of a grant to replace BART parking spaces displaced by the project. Over $30 million in funding and financing has been raised, with more pending. Sixty-seven units of senior housing which opened in June are already completely occupied. Work began in August on the intermodal facility at the Fruitvale BART station.
Still to come are the child care center, senior center, public library, office and retail space, and social services, including a clinic. These services will be housed in the Community Resource Center, which will begin construction in Spring 1999.
The Fruitvale project has already had an impact on the community. In adjacent business areas, a facade improvement and business assistance program has spruced up storefronts, attracted new businesses and jobs, and virtually eliminated vacancies in the immediate area.
It is this kind of community revitalization which appeals to Richmond officials, who are proposing a transit village near the underused Richmond BART station. Other possible locations for the transit village concept are MacArthur Station in Oakland, 16th Street in San Francisco, and stations at Pleasant Hill and El Cerrito Del Norte.
The MV Del Norte, the latest addition to the fleet of ferries operated by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD), has made its long-anticipated appearance in the Bay (Nov/Dec 1997 Monitor). The new vessel has a unique waterjet propulsion system which will allow it to make the Larkspur/San Francisco trip in only 30 minutes. However, the propulsion system experienced some shakedown problems which necessitated additional work, delaying its debut from the scheduled January date to September 8.
The catamaran is the first of its type for GGBHTD, but similar vessels operate on the San Francisco/Alameda/Oakland and San Francisco/Vallejo routes. These high-speed ferries are a key element in the proposals being discussed by the Bay Area Water Transit Task Force which would lace the Bay with fast, frequent ferry service to many different destinations.
Another key element is ready access to land-based transit. Golden Gate Bridge District plans to provide free bus shuttle service from outlying areas to the Larkspur Landing terminal, and roundtrip transfers between the ferry and San Francisco MUNI will also be free.
Responding to riders' requests, GGBHTD is scheduling late evening ferry runs between San Francisco and Larkspur to accommodate late commuters, or passengers avoiding traffic congestion during an evening out. The service began in July and will run for six months. Officials will then determine whether the trial has been successful enough to add the service permanently.
GGBHTD is testing a suicide barrier for the Golden Gate Bridge, the latest attempt to deter suicides from the landmark bridge without affecting either engineering or aesthetics (May/June 1996 Monitor). The design is a fence of horizontal wires 4 inches apart, fastened with a unique clip which prevents spreading the wires. Toward the top of the 11-foot height, the wires become looser, making it difficult to climb, and the supports curve inward.
After testing to determine whether the design is actually an effective barrier, it must meet state and federal regulations concerned with historic and cultural aesthetics. Public opinion is also being solicited. Cost is also a factor in the final decision—it is estimated that $2-3 million will be needed to install the barrier on one or both sides of the bridge.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
BART-SFO: 650-689-8365
Fruitvale: Patty Hirota, 510-464-7581
GGBHTD: Mary Currie, 415-257-4548
In 1988, 68% of voters in the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) approved Measure AA, a $225 million bond initiative. Funds were earmarked according to the EBRPD Master Plan for protection of open space, wildlife, shoreline, and the expansion of park properties and trails for use by the general public.
Bond issues, in increments of $45 million each at three-year intervals, began in 1989. The final issue will be in 2001. Each bond has a lifetime of 25 years. (A taxpayer with property assessed at $200,000 currently pays $16.20 per year for the Measure AA bonds.)
The District recently issued a "10-Year Report Card" showing "straight A's" for how Measure AA monies have been invested, managed and leveraged throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Accomplishments include:
Based on the District's performance to date, the goal of 27,500 acquisition acres set out in the original Master Plan will not only be met, but exceeded.
Of further significance are the matching grants acquired from federal, state and local sources. "Because of the existence of the AA funding source, we were able to attract matching funds from grants totaling nearly $80 million at no additional costs to taxpayers," according to EBRPD assistant general manager of public affairs Rosemary Cameron.
As outlined in the Master Plan, Measure AA's total $225 million authorization was allocated to two goals. Seventy-five percent ($168 million) was earmarked for regional park projects, of which $126 million was for park and trail acquisition, and $42 million was for facility construction and renovation. The remaining 25% ($56 million) was to be granted to East Bay cities and recreation agencies on a per capita basis for local park and recreation facility acquisition, development and rehabilitation.
The Report Card shows:
"It's clear that the EBRPD's Directors have given voters of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties an extremely impressive return on their investment," said District General Manager Pat O'Brien.
At issue now is the District's need for an additional $7 million, which could come from a parcel tax on the November, 1998 ballot. Revenues would help pay for operations and maintenance of existing parks, enable the opening of new parklands, and permit hiring of additional park rangers and police to enhance public safety. "We need to preserve our investment," Cameron said.
Opening thousands of acres of new park property to public access may create further funding needs. An extension of Measure AA may appear on a future ballot.
Gail Schickele
For more information:
Rosemary Cameron, EBRPD, 510-635-0138 Ext. 2003, 250 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, CA 94605-0381, http://www.ebparks.org
Report Card facts were confirmed in a June, 1998 audit by Walnut Creek CPA firm Maze & Associates.
by Guest Writer Wendi Kallins
The return of rail transit to the North Bay is on the horizon as both Marin and Sonoma Counties vote on transportation improvements in November. In May, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors voted to place a transportation program on the November ballot; Marin's Supervisors followed suit in June.
A spirit of cooperation is prevailing in both counties as traditionally divergent interests have valiantly searched for common ground. Both measures will be supported by broad-based coalitions comprised of business, environmental and civic leaders from prominent North Bay organizations.
The transportation program proposed in both counties is based on the Sonoma/Marin Multi-Modal Transportation and Land Use Study, prepared over a two-year period by the innovative land-use planner Peter Calthorpe. The report proposed a balanced comprehensive package of transportation improvements, including rail transit, that would address current traffic issues, while planning for a future of alternative choices.
The centerpiece of the study proposal was a 53-mile rail system running from Healdsburg to Larkspur Landing, with a series of stations in the populated areas of the region. The rail line would be fed by improved local bus systems. New and upgraded bicycle and pedestrian paths plus a north/south express route for bicycles were also part of the mix.
In addition, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes for carpools were recommended through Petaluma, through San Rafael, and from Cotati to Windsor. State Highways 12 and 116 as well as many of the arterial roads were also slated for improvements.
To assure the success of the transportation plan based on the study, environmental concerns needed to be addressed. Environmental organizations in both counties were largely responsible for the defeat of transportation ballot measures in 1990. Sonoma environmentalists insisted on a solid program for rail, while Marin's environmentalists were concerned about development in the baylands.
In Sonoma County, talks between environmentalists and business leaders were testy at first, both parties needing to overcome years of animosity. The turning point came last summer when the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce commissioned a poll which showed overwhelming support by Sonoma County voters for the combined package of rail and road improvements. Neither mode could stand alone and win the hearts of voters.
As a result, a "shotgun marriage" forced the two rival interests to form a coalition called Citizens for Traffic Relief, made up of representatives from the environmental, business and agricultural communities as well as bus and bike advocates, the League of Women Voters, and public safety agencies. This group worked out a balanced package of improvements to present to the Board of Supervisors.
However, as the debate entered the public arena, the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce, joined by prominent paving contractors, called for more money to widen Highway 101 in the stretch of road coined "the Novato Narrows" by its proponents. This controversial segment, running through agricultural land and open space between communities in the two counties, was not included in the Calthorpe study because it was considered a state responsibility.
The new group, calling themselves Citizens for a Better 101, asked the Sonoma supervisors to raise the sales tax increase to ¾ cent from ½ cent in order to fund this section. Citizens for Traffic Relief countered that voters were likely to reject such a high tax increase. The supervisors decided to limit the tax increase to ½ cent, but to add wording that would allow widening of Highway 101 all the way to the county line, and to extend the rail line to Cloverdale.
In addition, a land use protection measure will appear on Sonoma's November ballot to protect properties south of Petaluma by freezing existing zoning and ensuring that freeway improvements will not fuel growth in the community separator. Petaluma voters will also vote on an urban growth boundary measure.
Marin County appointed a broadly representative Steering Committee of 24 people including elected officials, environmentalists, business leaders, transit activists and the League of Women Voters. A poll commissioned by the committee found that 58% of Marin's voters supported a general purpose ½-cent sales tax increase and 75% agreed with the transportation program.
The Steering Committee fleshed out details of the program with additions made to satisfy concerns of its members. These include a new neighborhood shuttle bus system using smaller buses to feed the train and ferry systems. Since school traffic has exacerbated the morning commute, shuttle routes would be designed to coincide with school hours and would also be available to take kids to afterschool activities.
Funding is also designated for paratransit services and for improvements and maintenance of local roads and streets. Main thoroughfares would receive paving and circulation enhancements.
The rail line runs through the baylands, one of Marin County's most important environmental assets. In a conceptual breakthrough, the committee agreed to include $55 million for purchase of sensitive lands along transportation routes to reduce future traffic demand. This is the first time that transportation and land use have been linked in a transportation ballot measure.
In another innovative move, the Board of Supervisors and the City of San Rafael set up a process for jointly planning the St.Vincents/Silviera lands, two hotly contested bayland properties north of San Rafael. A 14-member committee comprised of various interest groups including the property owners will hammer out the details of the zoning and land use issues.
Marin's measure does not include funding for the "Novato Narrows" despite intense lobbying by business interests on both sides of the county line. Marin Supervisors argued that the highway is outside of local jurisdiction. Instead, they wrote a letter to Caltrans endorsing the use of State and Federal monies to address this stretch of road. Congress recently approved $9 million for the Narrows as part of its TEA 21 package, and Caltrans approved $15 million.
In each county, the ballot will contain two measures. One will raise the sales tax ½ cent for the county's general fund. The other will be an advisory measure that outlines how any new revenues should be used for both transportation and land use purposes. A specific sales tax for transportation would preclude the inclusion of the land use provision and would require a 2/3 vote for passage. A general sales tax requires only a majority vote.
In June the 6th District Court of Appeals upheld this mechanism, first used in Santa Clara County in 1996. In a very strong ruling, the court stated that nothing in the general tax measure indicated that it was a special tax; one judge noted that the advisory measure was "a sign of good government" for giving voters a say in how they wanted their taxes spent.
Both counties now must look to the voters for approval of a general sales tax increase if the program is to be implemented. With a broad-based coalition supporting the measures in both counties, the chances of success are high. If the Sonoma County tax passes and Marin's measure does not, it is likely that there will be renewed pressure to spend all of the money on the highway. If the measure fails in Sonoma, commuters may be facing toll roads instead. Neither prospect is very desirable. Most people now agree that a comprehensive mix of transportation choices is the only solution to traffic problems in the North Bay.
For more information:
Web sites:
www.pressdemo.com/101/101.html
Information and a video on the Calthorpe study:
North Bay Environmental Institute, 415-488-4101 phone, 415-488-0926 FAX, wkallins@igc.apc.org, P.O. Box 201, Forest Knolls, CA 94933
Information on the tax measures:
Sue Beittel, Marin County League of Women Voters, 415-459-0292, 412 D St., Ste. B, San Rafael, CA 94901
Ann Dubay, Sonoma County Citizens for Balanced Transportation, 633 First St., Santa Rosa, CA 95404, 707-524-2127, fax 707-545-6914, e-mail annd@santarosachamber.com
Saving San Francisco Bay may not have been enough. Policies curtailing extensive filling and other development of the edges of the Bay could still inadvertently leave the region with damaged or contaminated habitats which weaken the environmental fabric of its central feature. A new blueprint for a "shared vision" of improved ecosystems around the Bay, the San Francisco Estuary Baylands Ecosystem Goals, seeks to address this problem.
If the goals are realized, many parts of the Bay would be changed. Salt ponds in both the north and south bay would become managed saline ponds or tidal marsh. While farming and grazing might continue in some areas, they would do so as management options for land intended to harbor waterbirds. Tidal marsh would completely border the Suisun Marsh and the Contra Costa shoreline.
Identified as a need by the San Francisco Estuary Project in 1993, the Goals Project began in 1995. Its report is now moving from draft to final version. It was created by over 100 participants, representing federal, state and local agencies, academia, and the private sector, organized into five focus teams; a Resource Managers Group, made up of representatives from state and federal resource agencies, oversaw the project. The groups were augmented by a hydrogeomorphic advisory team, and a science review group.
The project focused on San Francisco "baylands", those lands near the Bay which are subject to tidal action, from the lowest tidal flats to the uplands reached by only the highest of tides. The baylands ecosystem includes adjacent areas from the deep bay water to non-tidal uplands and tributary streams. In conjunction with the Goals Project, the San Francisco Estuary Institute developed a detailed documentation of historical and current habitats, the Bay Area EcoAtlas. The EcoAtlas, available online at SFEI's website (http://www.sfei.org), allows users to understand and visualize habitat distribution and use throughout time.
The Resource Managers Group decided to base goals on species needs; data were readily available on many of the species and habitats, and the group agreed that goals which protected many types of plants and animals would produce other environmentally desirable results. From almost 400 species of fish and wildlife, 120 key species were selected to represent the complex ecosystem. Two dozen habitats were identified, some of them defined for the first time for the project. Project groups assembled qualitative and quantitative data on species and habitats, and prepared initial habitat recommendations followed by habitat goals.
Underlying the final goals is the tenet that no further loss of wetlands should occur in the ecosystem of the baylands. The report presents a general vision and site-specific recommendations to move the region toward a target sometime before the end of the next century.
All of the recommendations were based on a common set of ecological design principles. Key concepts state that restoration should:
Habitat restoration and enhancement is dependent on a number of factors. Climate components, such as sea level, wind, temperature and rainfall, control the availability of sediment, and the supply, salinity and evaporation rate of water. Topography also controls distribution of sediment and water by directing tidal flow and rainfall runoff or penetration. Land use affects habitat both directly and indirectly, through manmade structures, pollution, fragmentation of habitat, introduction or overharvest of certain species, and disturbance of wildlife.
Design and management considerations include techniques necessary to maintain habitats which are not naturally self-sustaining. Managed habitats, such as ponds managed for waterfowl or shorebirds, are usually substitutes for historical habitats. Management may help vary water level and supply, or control vegetation through mowing or grazing. Monitoring is essential to determine if a habitat needs management or is self-sustaining.
Implementation of the goals is both crucial and complicated. Among the technical and policy considerations are:
After the goals are adopted, they will be adopted by other agencies or used in a number of ways. San Francisco Bay Joint Venture's implementation strategy incorporating material from the project will be released in Fall 1998. The Joint Venture is a public-private partnership begun in 1996 to promote the acquisition, restoration and enhancement of Bay Area wetlands and associated habitats. It is one of 15 similar groups operating under the auspices of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is preparing recovery plans for tidal marshes in Central and Northern California, and for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover. The plans will probably include recommendations similar to those in the Goals Project. Soon after 2000, U.S. Fish and Wildlife is also scheduled to begin preparing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
A regional wetlands planning process is scheduled to begin in Fall 1998, aimed at protecting, enhancing, restoring and creating wetlands in the Bay-Delta estuary. The scope is being developed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and U.S. EPA. Among other efforts, it will consider a coordinated way to implement the Goals Project recommendations.
"The [ecosystem] goals are long-term recommendations that will take decades to implement," concludes the report. It recommends periodic evaluation and revision of the goals, using a process which may be established in the regional wetlands plan. That plan is the next step down the road toward fully saving San Francisco Bay.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
Peggy Olofson, Project Manager, San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project, c/o San Francisco Estuary Project, 510-622-2454. Report online: www.sfei.org/sfbaygoals