Ask The Experts

The Loss of Redevelopment

Evan Reeves — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:58:13 +0000

With the elimination of California’s redevelopment agencies in December 2011, we are all left wondering what impact will this have on brownfield revitalization and urban development? CCLR’s Ignacio Dayrit weighs in:

Letter to the Editor – San Francisco Chronicle – January 5, 2012

Apart from the loss of funding for affordable housing like that provided by Habitat for Humanity (”Key Habitat for Humanity funds eliminated,” Jan. 3), the loss of redevelopment means the likelihood of more sprawl development, causing traffic, poor air and water quality, and the loss of open space, agricultural land and habitat. Redevelopment funds helped subsidize infill development. While infill is more expensive than sprawl, the environmental impacts are far less. But in order to develop in existing areas, more funds are needed to study impacts and appease neighbors, to upgrade infrastructure, to construct accompanying community-benefit projects, such as parks, and to clean up any toxic materials. Redevelopment also brings jobs and housing closer to existing neighborhoods, producing less traffic. It is true that many redevelopment agencies did not use their money wisely, leading to accusations that hastened their demise.
With Proposition 13, cities will look for other ways to generate revenue. With less funding to encourage infill, cities will sprawl (for the increased property taxes and development fees). Downtowns will decay, and there will be sprawl. We’ve seen this all before.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F01%2F05%2FEDC41MKPQR.DTL

Impact of Air District Regulation

Evan Reeves — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:00:43 +0000

I am a developer in the SF Bay Area. I am interested in acquiring a site in Oakland for a mixed use project, but it’s near the freeway and I heard that the Air District has just banned housing near freeways. Is this true?

Not exactly. I believe what you are referring to is guidance that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) promulgated recently on how to evaluate health impacts of air pollution from nearby sources such as freeways and refineries on potential new residential developments. The first thing to keep in mind is that what BAAQMD published is not a regulation or a formal rule, but rather guidance for use by your project’s permitting authority (likely the City Planning Department) in their environmental review of your project, to help them determine if air quality impacts warrant additional analysis under CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. So you’ll want to check with the city to see how they’re incorporating the new guidance into their CEQA process.

On a larger scale, however, BAAQMD’s new guidelines – which include quantitative thresholds indicating acceptable exposure levels for fine particulate matter (typically referred to as PM_2.5) – have added new fuel to a continuing public policy debate over regulating land use to control the health impacts of localized air pollution. In recent years, a growing body of research has shown that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) may cause serious detrimental health effects, including increased asthma risk, pulmonary failure, and bronchitis. Studies have also shown a connection between these health effects and proximity to heavily-trafficked roads; the vast majority of PM in major cities (80% by some estimates) comes from motor vehicle emissions, especially diesel. However, the science also shows a number of challenges with translating this connection to broadly designed regulation.

For one thing, PM is highly variable and can have very different effects depending on its composition. Currently, not much is known about the effects of different types of PM because it is difficult to separate out different components for study. What is clear is that some elements that make up PM are more toxic than others, but little information is available as to which elements should be avoided. Many air quality experts have cautioned against legislating on PM at this time, as there is not enough information on what types and sources of PM are actually harmful to human health.

There are also significant challenges in designing a scientifically defensible method for quantifying and individual’s actual exposure to PM. Studies have shown that PM exposure can vary greatly depending on a number of factors whose variability make them incredibly difficult to accurately model, including wind patterns, micro-climates, vehicle speed, topography, landscaping, and particle size.

Finally, policy makers must keep in mind that local land use policy can have broader impacts on the local and regional level. Especially given that local PM exposure is typically 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than the ambient air pollution levels urban dwellers are already exposed to, it is important to weigh the real public health benefits of such a policy against the potential for such a policy to drive good development out of urban areas and into suburban and greenfield sites. Not only could such a divestment from our urban communities have dire consequences on the quality of life for existing residents, but driving development to the suburban fringes would actually be counterproductive to the policy’s intent, leading to increased greenhouse gas and diesel emissions and putting the goal of protecting public health today at odds with protecting the environment and public health of tomorrow.

It is important to continue the public debate on the costs and benefits of controlling pollution exposure through land use regulation. However, until the scientific community can reach a consensus on how to reliably and accurately assess the real health effects of local PM exposure, it is premature to impose proscriptive land use restriction. In the meantime, the current guidance by the California Air Resources Board that any new residential project within 500 feet of a major freeway should evaluate air quality impacts is a reasonable approach that allows for site-specific analysis and minimizes unintended consequences.

Determining Underutilized Property

Ignacio Dayrit — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:21:30 +0000

What methodology is typically used to identify ‘underutilized parcels’? - Daniel W. , County Planner

While there is no formal definition of “underutilized property” (the Federal definition applies only to Federally-owned land) you can rely on several measures, the most common used are economic or fiscal in nature, and usually refers to properties that can be put into a higher and/or better use in a financial, fiscal, community, social or environmental standpoint. And it would also depend on the needs of the community.

With the above as a caveat, a combination of any of the following have been used as measures of under-utilization. The final determination rests with the community and its priorities:

For the following, comparison of properties in similar zoning /land use designations, per square foot
- Sales, property, business license or other taxes
- Employees
- Residential units
Vacancy, or partial vacancy
Non-conforming properties in higher use land use designations (i.e., grand-fathered industrial property in commercial district)

Successful Grant Writing – Brief Update

Evan Reeves — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:10:59 +0000

The EPA ARC Grant Announcements are out! If you are applying for a grant we can’t stress enough the importance of reading through the FAQ.

You can find it online at:http://epa.gov/brownfields/proposal_guides/FY12_FAQs.pdf.

If you would like our assistance with your application, please contact CCLR as soon as possible at 415-398-1080.

Properties Hindered By Perceived Contamination

Evan Reeves — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:02:58 +0000

Our community has many viable but vacant buildings in its downtown. It is possible that the owners of these buildings are asking too high a rent or purchase price, but we are concerned that perceived site impairments may be a factor. How do we validate this argument and how can we improve the situation?

First, you should determine if the owner is in fact asking too much. This can only be confirmed by comparing the asking price with comparable buildings in the area. If the rent or purchase price is on par with similar properties, then a perception that the property is contaminated (valid or not) may be hindering the reuse of the property, and thus it is a brownfield.

Second, determine if the perception of the property as impaired is valid. Assuming that the building is in good condition, there may be a perception that the property is impaired by other factors, such as location in an industrial area or potential exposure or release of toxic substances. If this is the case, local governments can obtain technical or financial assistance from the US Environmental Protection Agency, or their state partners, to conduct environmental site assessments. A site assessment can establish the type and extent of contamination on the site, if any; knowing this information can give potential owners the confidence to purchase the property. Please contact your state environmental protection office, the EPA regional office or CCLR for more information. You can visit CCLR’s resource pages for contact information in your state.

Livability Principles

Ignacio Dayrit — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:33:22 +0000

I keep encountering “The Livability Principles” in Federal grant announcements, such as HUD’s Sustainable Communities Grant Program and the EPA’s ARC Grants Program. How is redeveloping a brownfield consistent with these “Livability Principles”? – Nancy R., Development Associate

As background, the U.S. EPA partnered with HUD and DOT to help improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide. The goals of this Partnership for Sustainable Communities include discouraging sprawl and encouraging location efficient investments, smart growth practices, and green infrastructure development. The Partnership established six livability principles that serve as a foundation for interagency coordination:

(1) Provide more transportation choices; (2) Promote equitable, affordable housing; (3) Increase economic competitiveness; (4) Support existing communities; (5) Leverage federal investment; and (6) Value communities and neighborhoods.

Brownfield redevelopment promotes these goals in several ways. Below are just a few:

Location, location, location. By their nature, most brownfields exist in developed areas, and therefore redevelopment of these properties supports existing communities. Due to their typically central or developed location, many brownfield sites already have access to the infrastructure and transportation network of the community, and are more accessible to job and population centers than undeveloped (i.e., greenfield) sites. This results in buildings which are closer to desired amenities and markets, leading to lower transportation costs and improved air quality from reduced vehicle use. Many brownfield projects are also taking advantage of their central location and mixed-use planning to create bikeable and walkable communities.

Affordability and leveraging. The Federal partners and many state agencies provide incentives to redevelop brownfield sites for residential use. When leveraged with local incentives and programs, communities are able to develop affordable housing. Brownfield projects improve environmental problems through cleanup and assessment, in addition to creating housing and accessing transportation, which makes them excellent opportunities for coordinating federal investment.

Economic competitiveness. The presence of brownfield sites tend to drag down neighborhoods and discourage investment in a community. Revitalizing these sites not only brings government resources, but also private investment into a community, thus improving the economic competitiveness of a neighborhood. Brownfield projects often generate new economic activity and community-serving amenities that increase local tax revenues and create jobs both during construction and after development.

Sustainable redevelopment practices. The Partnership promotes sustainable building practices that can be applied in planning and redevelopment. These include renewable energy, green building practices, low-impact development, recycling/reconstruction of building materials and green remediation – all of which can be implemented in brownfield redevelopment.

The benefits derived from the redevelopment of a particular brownfield site are location- and use-specific, so if you are applying for a grant, be sure to provide specific examples of how your project is supporting these principles. This post should help get the ideas rolling, but get into the details of your project: How is local perception of the site hindering economic growth? How many or what kind of jobs will your project create? Which transportation options are in close proximity to the project? How many and what kind of new housing opportunities will it provide? What new businesses are anticipated after redevelopment? Use facts and figures to tell your story.

For further information about the benefits of brownfield redevelopment (many of which are consistent with the livability principles), please check out CCLR’s Land Recycling 101.

Regulatory Agency Concern

Ignacio Dayrit — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:09:19 +0000

My community would like to apply for an EPA site assessment grant. However, we are concerned about the US EPA becoming involved as the regulatory agency on our site – is our fear valid? – Jacob M.

Since 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency has provided hundreds of assessment and cleanup grants throughout the United States under the brownfield program, but so far as this expert is aware, the EPA has never assumed regulatory authority over any of these awardees’ properties. A state or local regulatory agency has served as the lead agency in every case. The grants program is run by the brownfields unit, a non-regulatory branch of the EPA.

Successful Grant Writing – Update

Ignacio Dayrit — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 21:54:34 +0000

The number one question that people always ask us is: How do I successfully complete for brownfield funding? Communities and organizations often feel they have applied again and again, but just don’t get the grant. In January, we addressed this issue, but with the pending release of a new round of EPA Assessment, Cleanup, and RLF funds, I have a few more tips for you.

First, you have the opportunity to obtain feedback from your EPA Regional staff on the strengths and weaknesses of your grant application. You can find your regional contact person through the following link: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/regcntct.htm. Be sure to act fast though as the window closes approximately 60 days after the grants are announced!

Second, participate in in-person or remote funding and grant workshops. EPA Regions 8, 9 and 10 will host six grant writing workshops beginning in August 2011. There are also in-person workshops sponsored by state and EPA staff. Registration is available here: http://www.epa.gov/region9/brownfields/grants/images/WesternBfWorkshop.pdf

Lastly, CCLR provides peer review assistance for free. CCLR finds that our review improves the quality of an application and increases competitiveness of a grant application significantly. Please contact me at 415-398-1080 for assistance.

Good luck!

What if I’m Not in your Region?

Evan Reeves — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 20:11:23 +0000

CCLR is frequently approached by stakeholders looking for brownfields solutions in regions outside the Western US, and therefore out of CCLR’s primary service area. Here are some contacts that may be able to provide the assistance you are looking for:

Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) Providers:

New Jersey Institute of Technology—EPA Regions 1, 2 and 3
CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT, NJ, NY, PR, USVI, DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV
973-642-4165
tab@njit.edu
http://www.njit.edu/tab/

Enterprise Corporation of the Delta—EPA Regions 4 and 6
AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, AR, LA, NM, OK, TX, and TN

Dee Jones
601-944-1100
djones@ecd.org
http://www.hope-ec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107&Itemid=66/

Kansas State University—EPA Regions 5 and 7
IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI, IA, KS, MO, NE
Sabine Martin
785-532-6474
smartin1@k-state.edu
http://www.engg.ksu.edu/chsr/outreach/tab/

EPA’s Regional Brownfield Coordinators: http://brownfieldstsc.org/contacts.cfm?tabS=2.

State Brownfield Contacts (via EPA): http://brownfieldstsc.org/contacts.cfm?tabS=3.

Brownfield Clean Up and Renewable Energy

Ignacio Dayrit — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:57:02 +0000

I live in a community just outside city boundaries, with a total of about 50 homes on medium sized plots of land. There is a brownfield site that was once used for dumping waste, fuel, and other chemicals from over 50 years ago, and it is essentially just sitting there, building up rubble. The owner is asking a reasonable price for the land, but it is the clean up that scares us. We would like to embark on a communal building project that would utilize the site to install solar power for the community upon approval from the utility company. What resources are available to us to turn this dirt around into a renewable energy generating plot? – Parker M., community member [paraphrased]

You have a 2 part question – one related to brownfields, and another related to renewable energy.

The appropriate cleanup for the site would first need to be determined. In order to determine your options, you will need to know the history of the site and who will eventually own the site. There are competitive and in-kind technical assistance grants available to public agencies and non-profits with real property interest on the site. The responsibility for cleanup and any future responsibility would be determined after environmental assessment studies are completed. For more information on who to contact in your area and how to begin a brownfield cleanup, contact CCLR (Ignacio Dayrit) at 415-398-1080 x107.

Renewable energy is the second part. The project needs a feasibility study. There is technical assistance available through the National Renewable Energy Laboratories (nrel.gov) and their local partners. There is a Technical Assistance Program (TAP) from the US Department of Energy – the local representative (you may have to work through the city/county energy representative) can be found here.