Pollution-Free Housing for All: Coalition-Based Research,Education,and Advocacy for Healthier Housing in Transportation and Land Use Planning in the San Francisco Bay Area

Abstract

Over the next 25 years, the San Francisco Bay Area is expected to add two million new people, mostly in compact urban centers along transportation corridors. While this approach supports regional climate change mitigation goals, it also poses hazards to community health by siting new housing near sources of air pollution such as freeways, rail yards, ports, and distribution centers. This will exacerbate poor health outcomes in low-income communities of color, where many already live in housing with unsafe levels of indoor and outdoor pollution. In recent years the Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative (DDD)—a regional coalition of environmental justice advocates, public health departments, and researchers in the Bay Area—has advanced a campaign to win pollution-free housing for all through policy change that secures healthier housing siting, design, and mitigations to reduce toxic exposure. DDD worked to answer two interrelated questions: 1) How can land use conflicts be avoided so that sensitive uses like housing are better sited and designed to reduce exposure to outdoor pollution? and 2) What tools are available to improve indoor air quality in new and existing housing in locations with poor outdoor air quality? By engaging regional planning agencies and affordable housing advocates, coalition members identified and advanced policies to build health-protective measures into local and regional transportation and land use planning guidelines. It also assesses strategies used to build a broader coalition of advocates, agencies, and decision makers to support pollution-free housing for all by reducing exposure to transportation-related pollutants in housing.

I. Introduction

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships that leverage credible secondary research have played a key role in advancing policy and systems change to promote environmental health.¹ As an approach to environmental justice research, CBPR engages communities that are disproportionately impacted by toxic pollution in the research process and translates the results of this research into action to address these impacts.² Scholars have emphasized the role of CBPR partnerships between environmental justice advocates and researchers in democratizing the science informing environmental decision making.^3,4 This article discusses the work of the Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative (DDD)—a regional coalition of environmental justice advocates, public health departments, and researchers in the San Francisco Bay Area—to advance healthier housing siting and development practices through coalition-based research, education, and advocacy with regional planning agencies and decision makers. Co-authored by active DDD members, the article draws on participant observation and content analysis of agency documents to assess the strategies and outcomes of DDD's work to reduce the health impacts of transportation-related pollutants in housing.

A. Freight transport and community health

Freight transport, or the movement of products and raw materials via truck, train, ship, or plane, is a major source of toxic diesel pollution and other adverse impacts that disproportionately affect low-income communities, communities of color, and workers. Land use and transportation planning decisions that direct freight truck and train traffic into residential areas can result in land use conflicts between sensitive land uses like housing, schools, and health care facilities and freight-related land uses like ports, freeways, and rail yards. These land use conflicts materialize in the daily lives of residents of freight-impacted communities in the form of cumulative health impacts from noise, traffic congestion, and pedestrian safety hazards. Exposure to diesel pollution has also been linked to serious health conditions like asthma, cancer, heart disease, and reduced lung function in children. Freight traffic also contributes to reduced walkability and bikeability, neighborhood blight, and economic decline in neighborhoods hosting freight-related land uses.⁵

Residents of freight-impacted communities bear the brunt of adverse impacts of freight transport operations, yet reap relatively few of the economic benefits of these operations. An analysis of 11 freight-impacted communities in California revealed that these communities have an average median income of less than 70% of the state average, and that nearly four out of every five residents in these communities are people of color.⁶ The California Air Resources Board estimates that, each year, freight transport causes 2,400 people to die prematurely, 2,830 people to be admitted to the hospital, 360,000 missed workdays, and 1,100,000 missed days of school.⁷

In the San Francisco Bay Area, the majority (80%) of airborne cancer risk is associated with exposure to diesel particulate matter. Diesel emissions and their health impacts, including increased cancer risk, are concentrated in communities adjacent to the Port of Oakland, eastern San Francisco, and the I-880 freeway corridor in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. These freight-impacted communities also have large populations of low-income residents and contend with some of the highest childhood asthma hospitalization rates in the region. Low-income residents tend to have less access to health insurance, undermining their ability to cope with the cumulative health impacts of diesel pollution and freight transport operations in their communities.⁸

B. History of the Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative

The Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative is a regional coalition of over a dozen community-based organizations, environmental advocacy groups, and public health departments working to reduce exposure to diesel pollution in low-income and communities of color in the San Francisco Bay Area. DDD was launched in October 2004 with a regional convening in Oakland, CA of over 100 environmental justice, community, public health advocates, and local and regional agency staff. DDD has focused on strengthening collaboration between public agencies and impacted communities to reduce the adverse impacts of freight transport operations on community health and quality of life. The coalition's leadership and decision-making structure reflects DDD's commitment to environmental justice principles. A Steering Committee comprised primarily of leaders and organizations from freight-impacted communities sets DDD's strategic priorities, while its two issue-based committees on Idling and Freight Transport carry out the coalition's programmatic work to advance these priorities.

DDD's founding members included the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project (WOEIP), Urban Habitat, the Community Strategies for Sustainability and Justice (CSSJ) Program at the Pacific Institute, and the Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP) Program at the Public Health Institute. The coalition's early work built on past collaborations among these organizations to assess and address the health impacts of freight transport operations on low-income and communities of color. In 2003 CSSJ staff worked with WOEIP co-chairs and community leaders in West Oakland to design and carry out a diesel truck count study to estimate diesel pollution levels at heavily trafficked intersections in the neighborhood. An accompanying indoor air monitoring pilot study found that West Oakland homes had elevated black carbon levels when compared to a home in a more affluent area of Oakland.⁹ Subsequent advocacy efforts based on these studies culminated in the passage of a local ordinance to re-route diesel trucks away from residential areas in West Oakland.¹⁰

DDD's membership grew to include several other community-based organizations and environmental advocacy groups, two county public health departments, and the regional district office of a federal environmental regulatory agency. In 2006 DDD members worked with CSSJ staff and community-based organizations across California on a statewide report assessing the adverse impacts on and costs to public health of freight transport operations. This “Paying With Our Health” report also emphasized strategies to finance mitigation measures to reduce the adverse health impacts of freight operations, such as charging a fee on each freight container moving through California's ports to cover mitigation costs.¹¹ DDD members leveraged the findings in this report to support their state advocacy efforts to inform the development of a Goods Movement Action Plan by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans).

DDD's advocacy work has emphasized three primary strategies to reduce disproportionate exposure to toxic diesel pollution, namely: 1) reduce pollution at its source; 2) move pollution away from people; and 3) move people away from pollution. Policy solutions that reduce diesel pollution at its source include improving idling regulations and expanding the use of zero-emissions technologies in diesel trucks, trains, ships, cargo, and construction equipment. Solutions that move pollution away from people include adopting local ordinances that re-route diesel trucks away from residential areas and relocating freight-attracting land uses away from residential areas. Solutions that move people away from pollution include siting housing at a health-protective distance from existing freight-related land uses and integrating public health considerations into freight transport decision making.

II. Discussion

A. Overview of SB 375 policy implementation efforts

A focus of DDD's advocacy work in recent years has been to advance public health considerations in the regional implementation of California state climate legislation SB 375. Enacted in 2008, SB 375 mandated a realignment of transportation, housing, and land use planning priorities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks. Heavy-duty trucks, which account for over one-third of the Bay Area's particulate matter emissions, are excluded from SB 375's mandate. SB 375 implementation efforts incentivize compact infill housing development near existing transportation corridors as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while accommodating projected population growth. The Association of Bay Area Governments has projected that, over the next 25 years, the San Francisco Bay Area region's current population of seven million will grow by another two million people. Since freight transport infrastructure in the Bay Area is often co-located with public transit infrastructure like the region's commuter rail system, building additional housing in close proximity to existing transportation corridors could expose more residents to toxic diesel pollution.¹²

DDD's SB 375 advocacy efforts have focused on maximizing the co-benefits to health of greenhouse gas reduction strategies that also reduce exposure to toxic co-pollutants like diesel particulate matter. In its advocacy DDD has targeted the SB 375 implementing agencies in the Bay Area, namely the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). DDD members have worked with agency staff to shape analyses informing decision making and have partnered with other social justice advocates to strengthen public participation in SB 375 implementation.

B. Coalition-based research to assess health impacts of SB 375 implementation

In 2011 DDD members worked with staff of the CSSJ Program at the Pacific Institute on a report that assessed potential land use conflicts of developing more housing in close proximity to freight transport infrastructure. This report, entitled “At a Crossroads in Our Region's Health,” mapped freight transport-related land uses in Priority Development Areas slated for infill development that overlapped with communities with highest health risk from toxic air contaminants as designated by the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).¹³ CSSJ staff coordinated the coalition's involvement in the research process through agenda items at monthly DDD Freight Transport Committee meetings to share and solicit feedback on draft methods and results with DDD members. CSSJ staff also participated in coalition meetings to maximize the relevance of research methods and results for DDD's SB 375 advocacy efforts.

RAMP obtained regional land use designation data from ABAG, which CSSJ staff then used to identify and map freight-related land uses in Priority Development Areas that overlapped with CARE communities throughout the region. Health-protective buffer distances developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) were applied around these freight-related land uses to assess how much of the land being prioritized for infill development was too close to these land uses to be suitable for sensitive development. CARB's recommended health-protective buffer distances range from 500 feet around freeways to 1,000 feet around distribution centers and rail yards.¹⁴ Buffer distances of 1,500 feet around seaports and 2,000 feet around airport facilities were also applied based on previous emissions inventories and health impact assessments for the Port of Oakland.¹⁵

This analysis found that nearly half (42%) of the land within designated Priority Development Areas in the region is located in communities bearing the highest health risk from toxic air contaminants. Of the Priority Development Area land overlapping with these highly impacted communities, three-fourths (74%) is located outside of the health-protective buffer distances around freight-related land uses. One out of every three acres of this land is zoned as residential or mixed residential/commercial, indicating that more suitable parcels for infill housing development can be found at a health-protective distance from diesel sources.¹⁶

The report also includes local and regional policy recommendations for siting new housing developments away from freight transport hazards as well as incorporating mitigation measures into the design of proposed developments to reduce diesel exposure. Healthy planning recommendations include siting sensitive land uses like multi-family housing outside of health-protective buffer distances around freight-related land uses, while prioritizing commercial and light industrial development more compatible with freight-related land uses within these buffer areas. The report also outlines recommendations to prioritize the allocation of regional transportation funding to projects that include healthy planning or mitigation measures to reduce exposure to diesel pollution. Lastly, the report lists potential mitigation measures for proposed housing developments in close proximity to freight-related land uses. These measures range from installing high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) indoor air filtration and air monitoring systems, to notifying prospective residents of the health risks associated with living near freight-related land uses.¹⁷

C. DDD advocacy to advance healthier housing siting and development

DDD members met with ABAG and MTC planning staff at strategic venues to share the methods, results, and recommendations in the report. These advocacy efforts informed the development of performance targets and measures included in the region's SB 375 implementation plan (Plan Bay Area) and transportation investment criteria. DDD members leveraged their participation in the 6 Wins Network, a regional coalition of advocates working to advance social equity goals in SB 375 implementation in the Bay Area co-convened by DDD founding member Urban Habitat, to develop and deliver public comment on regional planning documents. RAMP co-chaired the Healthy and Safe Communities Network of 6 Wins, creating a conduit for DDD's priorities to shape 6 Wins' equity scenario for Plan Bay Area. The final ten performance targets in Plan Bay Area include a voluntary target to reduce premature deaths from particulate matter emissions as well as to achieve greater particulate matter emissions reductions in impacted areas.¹⁸

In October 2012 MTC's Programming and Allocations Subcommittee approved the inclusion of health-protective guidance criteria for allocating One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding. OBAG funds are intended to incentivize local jurisdictions to advance regional greenhouse gas reduction goals and performance targets for Plan Bay Area. Allocation criteria include granting favorable consideration to projects in jurisdictions with affordable housing strategies or policies for Priority Development Areas that overlap with either freight transport infrastructure and/or populations exposed to toxic air contaminants as identified by BAAQMD's CARE Program. The included language also favorably considers projects in these areas where local jurisdictions employ best management practices to mitigate particulate matter and toxic air contaminants exposure.¹⁹

In April 2013 DDD members presented the methods and results in the report to ABAG and MTC planning staff to integrate an analysis of proximity to sources of toxic air pollution into the Fair Housing Equity Assessment (FHEA) for the Bay Area. The FHEA process informs the equitable distribution of affordable housing allocations to accommodate population growth projections across the region. BAAQMD staff offered to map proximity to sources of toxic air pollution for the racially concentrated areas of poverty identified through the FHEA analysis.

DDD launched its Pollution-Free Housing for All campaign in September 2013 to advance health-protective planning guidelines and mitigation measures that support healthier housing siting and development practices in freight-impacted communities. DDD has leveraged its participation in the 6 Wins Network to convene several meetings with affordable housing advocates to discuss the recommendations in the report. Concerns raised by affordable housing advocates have included how to finance health-protective mitigations given rising land costs in the Bay Area and the recent decline in funding available for affordable housing development since the dissolution of California's redevelopment agencies in February 2012.

Most recently DDD members contributed to a public comment letter developed by 6 Wins Network advocates on MTC's County Transportation Plan guidelines for Priority Development Areas. These guidelines are intended to assist county Congestion Management Agencies in the Bay Area with developing county transportation plans consistent with Plan Bay Area. The draft guidelines include a recommendation that county investment and project lists assess and consider all transportation modes including freight transport infrastructure.²⁰ DDD members are currently tracking the county transportation planning process in Alameda County, including the countywide Goods Movement Plan being developed by the Alameda County Transportation Commission, to advance health-protective priorities and meaningful participation of freight-impacted communities in this process.

III. Conclusion

The DDD has combined coalition-based research, education, and advocacy to effectively advance public health considerations in local and regional transportation, housing, and land use decision making. This approach has engaged leaders of freight-impacted communities in secondary research using data collected by the regional agencies responsible for implementing this policy to inform decision making. This approach has also enabled DDD to use its identity as a collaborative comprised of community-based organizations, researchers, advocates, public health departments, and government agencies to provide an avenue for members to engage directly in policy advocacy or lobbying activities that may not have been able to otherwise. In focusing on critically appraising the data and analyses that regional agency staff generate to inform decision making, DDD members emphasized advocacy activities to educate agency staff and decision makers about the potential health impacts of SB 375 implementation.

DDD also created broader political traction for its work by leveraging its participation in the broader 6 Wins Network of advocates working to advance social equity goals in SB 375 implementation. This movement-building strategy was key to advancing DDD's advocacy priorities given that its focus issues—namely, freight transport infrastructure and toxic co-pollutants like diesel particulate matter—were excluded from SB 375's mandate. Participating in the 6 Wins Network also enabled DDD members to build relationships with affordable housing advocates in order to assess the viability of proposed health-protective measures and policy solutions. Working with other 6 Wins advocates focused on issues within SB 375's mandate, like infill housing and transportation investments, enabled DDD members to advance policy solutions to reduce exposure to toxic diesel pollution within cross-sectorial regional advocacy efforts to shape infill development priorities in SB 375 implementation. This approach strengthened 6 Wins' overall strategy to advance multiple social equity objectives by including a focus on protecting public health along with improving access to public transit and affordable housing.

DDD's work to date contributed to a number of advocacy outcomes that include public health considerations in regional SB 375 implementation, such as the voluntary performance target to reduce premature deaths from particulate matter exposure in Plan Bay Area. DDD's planned work will focus on incorporating health-protective measures into the county, city, and site-specific development decisions that shape health outcomes in freight-impacted communities. Ultimately, DDD's Pollution-Free Housing for All campaign strives to ensure that no one in the Bay Area will have to choose between living in affordable housing and breathing clean air.

Footnotes

IV. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative members who contributed their time and thoughts to developing the work discussed in this paper. We would also like to thank Ogonnaya Newman from West Harlem Environmental Action (WE ACT) as well as two anonymous reviewers for their comments on initial drafts of this article.

V. Author Disclosure Statement

Several of the authors are paid employees of the organizations whose work they discuss in this article. Ms. Garzón was motivated to write this article as part of her dissertation on the role of participatory research partnerships in environmental justice activism. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to disclose.