Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAQMP #1111111111 lill 11111111111111111111111111 lill III III *NEW FILE* AQMP #1 DATE: TO: FROM: Department of Community Development June 30, 1975 R. V. Hogan-, Director SIVP1C�rnQ Fred Talarico, Senior Planner SUBJECT: AQMP Task Force Meeting - June 27, 1975 Meeting -_June 27th, The purpose of the meeting was, to attempt to achieve a consensus on the possible membership of a task force which would work with the Air Resources Board staff an an -Air -Quality Maintenance Plan. No consensus was :reached on the. membership of the 'task force. The Air Resources Board staff will be mailing information to the City summarizing the meeting and indicating future,meetings. Air Quality Maintenance'Plan The importance of the planning effort as proposed, is that it would replace existing' E.P.A. regulations on air quality', while implementing the 1970 Clean Air Act. The lan as -now envisioned would address: (I.) -parking management; (2� indirect and direct sources; (3) 208 water grants; (4) federal highway funding; (5) spheres of influence; and (7) major land use proposals. Attachments Attached are (1) an overview of the proposed Air Quality Maintenance Plan; (2) the proposed Plan Development Program; and (3) Possible Task Force Composition. Note: Contact at Air Resources Board is Dale Secord. 5 FT:jmb Att. (3) 0 t�L 600 Louth Commonwealth July 11, 1977 IOUTHERA CALIFORMA WOCIRiIOA Of GOVERRAIEAV Avenue • fuite 1000 • Lof Angelef • California . 90005.213/ Mr. Richard V. Hogan Director of Community Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is initiating its mandated review of local plans under Assembly Biil 250. This bill, passed in June 1976, set into motion a joint air quality planning effort between SCAG and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which was created under this act. One aspect of this planning involves the review of plans. Section 40467 of this bill stipulates that "The Southern California Association of Governments shall review, from an air quality standpoint, the various plans adopted or proposed by federal, state, and local agencies which may ,have a direct or indirect influence on air quality, such as the California Transportation Plan, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan, the State Energy Development and Conservation Plan, and county and city general plans." Following the review of plans, SCAG must develop a report summarizing its findings and recommendations and submit this report to the SCAQMD by December 31, 1977. Over the coming months SCAG will be reviewing local general plans and general plan elements consistent with the AB 250 directive. In some cases, we will be contacting your department for copies of your general plan or general plan elements should they not be on file at SCAG. Addi- tionally, during the review period we may be contacting you for addition- al information or to discuss issues stemming from our review. We look forward to your assistance during this review period. Your cooperation and active involvement in the process will help assure a more meaningful assessment of the air quality implications of planning in Southern California. Should there be any questions, please contact Patrick Petersilia on our staff. Sincerely, Frank Hotchkiss Director of Planning STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1709-111h STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 February 17, 1977 Public and Private Interest Organizations Boards of Supervisors Councils of Governments Mayors Air Quality Maintenance Planning Policy Task Forces Interested Individuals City and County Planning Directors Air Pollution Control Officers Local Agency Formation Commissions State and Federal Agencies Dear Friends: EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor You are invited and urged to give us your views on the Air Conservation Program which is being developed by the Air Resources Board. In September, 1976, we sent you a copy of the "Plan Development Program for an Air Conservation Program in California" (PDP) for your review and comments. Your comments are a most important part of the basis for Air Resources Board staff preparation of the initial phase of the program. Materials have been prepared and include proposals that outline some possible approaches to designing and implementing an air conservation program for California. These proposals will serve as a basis for discussion in informational workshops scheduled by the ARB for February and March. The informational workshops will give the ARB staff an opportunity to inform the public more fully of the total Air Conservation Program. The work- shops are also designed to provide the public an opportunity to comment on these proposals staff has generated for the Early Action Class A phase of the program. In the near future, staff will be holding public hearings to once more allow the public to review the development of the program after staff response to public concerns voiced at the workshops. Materials enclosed are: a schedule of workshops to inform you of locations and dates of the informational workshops; a Plan Development Program which has been revised to reflect staff response to public comments received after the first mailing of the PDP; a glossary of air pollution terms; the proposed criteria for selection of Class A areas; a list of proposed Early Action Class A areas, and; a proposed early action implementation program. The last three items pertain directly to the Early Action Class A phase of the Air Conservation Program. Materials developed for the workshops are working proposals designed to assist the public in providing a response to the program. Because clean air is desired by everyone and efforts for protecting clean air need broad support, we encourage Page 2 r February 17, 1977 you to attend one of the scheduled workshops and share your comments and opinions with us. If you need further information, please contact Gary Honcoop at (916) 322-6076. Sincerely, &) e . William C. Lockett, Planning Division Enclosures Chief 0 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0 G. BROWN JR., Governor AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1102 Q STREET P.O, BOX 2875 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812 February 23 - PLACERVILLE Board of Super. 331 Fair Lane Placerville, CA 0 E a AIR CONSERVATION PROGRAM o�ti�i u-lr ULE OF INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS March 21 - BISHOP Conf. Rm Co. Services Bldg. 207 W. South Street 95667 Bishop, CA 93514 March 7 - MONTEREY Casa Munras 700 Munras Avenue Monterey, CA 93940 March 9 - SACRAMENTO Water Resources Bldg. Aud. 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 March 10 - SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 2155 South Avenue So. Lake Tahoe, CA March 11 - EUREKA Caltrans 1656 Union Street Eureka, CA 95501 March 16 - SAN DIEGO S.D. Gas & Electric Co. 101 Ash Street San Diego, CA 92112 March 17 - SANTA BARBARA Planning Dept. Planning/Hearing Rm. 105 E. Anapamu Santa Barbara, CA 93101 March 18 - PALM SPRINGS The International Hotel 1800 East Palm Canyon Plam Springs, CA 92262 March 22 - FRESNO General Services Bldg. 2550 Mariposa St., Rm. 1036 Fresno, CA 93721 March 22 - ALTURAS Courthouse So. Court and Modoc Streets Alturas, CA 96101 March 23 - REDDING Caltrans 1657 Riverside Redding, CA 96001 March 24 - MERCED Merced County Library Gracey Room 2100 110" Street Merced, CA 95340 March 25 - SAN LUIS OBISPO Caltrans 50 Higura St., Rm. B-4 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 March 29 - LOS ANGELES Holiday Inn 9901 LaCienega Blvd., Papagayo Rm. Los Angeles, CA 90045 March 31 - SAN FRANCISCO Townhouse Hotel Market at Eighth Streets Garden Lounge San Francisco, CA 94103 (All workshops will be held between 7:00 and 10:00•p.m.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA D G. I AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1709-11th STREET (O A � A SACRAMENTO 95814 n February 17, 1977 LUREcEIVE� Public and Private Interest OrganizationsBoards of Supervisors Councils of Governments Mayors Air Quality Maintenance Planning Policy Task Forces Interested Individuals t City and County Planning Directors Air Pollution Control Officers - Local Agency Formation Commissions State and Federal Agencies Dear Friends: You are invited and urged to give us your views on the Air Conservation Program which is being developed by the Air Resources Board. In September, 1976, we sent you a copy of the "Plan Development Program for an Air Conservation Program in California" (PDP) for your review and comments. Your comments are a most important part of the basis for Air Resources Board staff preparation of the initial phase of the program. Materials have been prepared and include,proposals that outline some possible approaches to designing and implementing an air conservation program for California. These proposals will serve as a basis for discussion in informational workshops scheduled by the ARB for February and March. The informational workshops will give the ARB staff an opportunity to inform the public more fully of the total Air Conservation Program. The work- shops are also designed to provide the public an opportunity to comment on these proposals staff has generated for the Early Action Class A phase of the program. In the near future, staff will be holding public hearings to once more allow the public to review the development of the program after staff response to public concerns voiced at the workshops. Materials enclosed are: a schedule of workshops to inform you of locations and dates of the informational workshops; a Plan Development Program which has been revised to reflect staff response to public comments received after the first mailing of the PDP; a glossary of air pollution terms; the proposed criteria for selection of Class A areas; a list of proposed Early Action Class A areas, and; a proposed early action implementation program. The last three items pertain directly to the Early Action Class A phase of the Air Conservation Program. Materials developed for the workshops are working proposals designed to assist the public in providing a response to the program. Because clean air is desired by everyone and efforts for protecting clean air need broad support, we encourage 0 Page 2 February 17, 1977 you to attend one of the scheduled workshops and share your comments and opinions with us. If you need further information, please contact Gary Honcoop at (916) 322-6076. Sincerely, WC . William C. Lockett, Planning Division Enclosures Chief E STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1102 Q STREET P.O. BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812 AIR CONSERVATION PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS February 23 - PLACERVILLE March 21 - BISHOP Board of Super. Conf. Rm Co. Services Bldg. 331 Fair Lane 207 W. South Street Placerville, CA 95667 Bishop, CA 93514 March 7 - MONTEREY March 22 - FRESNO Casa Munras General Services Bldg. 700 Munras Avenue 2550 Mariposa St., Rm. 1036 Monterey, CA 93940 Fresno, CA 93721 March 9 - SACRAMENTO March 22 - ALTURAS Water Resources Bldg. Aud. Courthouse 1416 9th Street So. Court and Modoc Streets Sacramento, CA 95814 Alturas, CA 9610.1 March 10 - SOUTH LAKE TAHOE March 23 - REDDING Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Caltrans 2155 South Avenue 1657 Riverside So. Lake Tahoe, CA Redding, CA 96001 March 11 - EUREKA March 24 - MERCED Caltrans Merced County Library 1656 Union Street Gracey Room Eureka, CA 95501 2100 "0" Street Merced, CA 95340 March 16 - SAN DIEGO S.D. Gas & Electric Co. March 25 - SAN LUIS OBISPO 101 Ash Street Caltrans San Diego, CA 92112 50 Higura St., Rm. B-4 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 March 17 - SANTA BARBARA Planning Dept. March 29 - Planning/Hearing Rm. 105 E. Anapamu Santa Barbara, CA 93101 LOS ANGELES Holiday Inn 9901 LaClenega Blvd., Papagayo Rm. Los Angeles, CA 90045 March 18 - PALM SPRINGS March 31 - SAN FRANCISCO The International Hotel Townhouse Hotel 1800 East Palm Canyon Market at Eighth Streets Plam Springs, CA 92262 Garden Lounge San Francisco, CA 94103 (All workshops will be held between 7:00 and 10:00 p.m.) SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE Meeting Number 12 *7:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 1, 1976 SCAG, Suite 1000, loth Floor CNA Bldg., 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Los Angeles, California AGENDA 1. Report from Institutional Mechanisms Committee 0A0 ua oggPON' �� N�P+oGP��F• 2. SCAG Executive Committee Action on Policy Task Force Recommendation to Begin Search for a Project Manager 3. Work Plan Review (Possible Approval) 4. Draft Final Report 5. Status Report on Appointments to the South Coast Air Quality Management District * Members of the Tactics and Strategies Committee are asked to attend a brief meeting at 7:00 p.m. at SCAG (AW 11/17/76) SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE MEETING NO. 11 November 1, 1976 1. Jeb Stuart reviewed designations for the new SCAQMD Board. To date Councilmen Marvin Braude and Tom Heinsheimer have been appointed. Mr. Stuart also informed the PTF that air pollution control jurisdiction in the desert areas would be discussed at the next SCAPCD meeting on November 5. 2. Victor Magistrale, SCAG Assistant Director of Planning, presented an outline of the AQMP Work Plan. This document is being circulated within SCAG Committees. Comments have been received from the 208 Citizen Advisory Committee and the Environmental Quality and Resource Conservation Committee. Concern was expressed regarding budgeting, 208-AW conflict resolution, city role and designation of subregions. The Work Plan presentation served as a platform to raise questions about SCAG and SCAQMD roles. 3. In discussion of roles Supervisor Hansberger pointed out that the SCAQMD has the ultimate responsibility under AB 250, but not the planning expertise. He thus saw a client relationship as a logical one with the District contracting for planning services from SCAG. District personnel would participate in carrying out technical tasks within their area of expertise. Eva Dixon asked why the Specialist Committee recommendation was not accepted by SCAG. This recommendation calls for joint but unequal responsibility for tasks in the Work Plan. SCAG would be responsible principally for land use and transportation with the District responsible principally for those tasks traditionally under their jurisdiction. The Planning Team would report to both the SCAG Executive Director and the SCAQMD Executive Officer. Bart Meays, SCAG Acting Executive Director, stated it was more workable to have a project manager report to the SCAG Executive Director through the Director of Planning for tasks relating to land use and transportation planning. He mentioned a parallel relationship to the 208 Program Manager. Dan Lieberman, ARB AQMP Branch Chief, representing Mary Nichols, pointed out the need to have the project (AQMP 11/8/76) - 2 - manager close organizationally to the decision -makers. Jeb Stuart suggested two project managers - one for technical areas and one for land use and transportation with a joint task force uniting both sections. Eva Dixon moved that the PTF recommend to the SCAG Executive Committee that a search begin for a project manager with ARB allocating funds for such a purpose. This motion passed. The Policy ^ Task Force was emphatic tTiat h6 approval of any art of the Work Plan was intended ,as part of the motion. (Staff had earlier pointed out that at least partial approval of the Work Plan was necessary before ARB funds could be used.) 4. In other remarks PTF members expressed reservations about integrating AQM too closely with 208. 5. ARB staff distributed copies of the Intergovernmental Personnel Grant proposal to provide training in air quality and land use relationships. PTF members were asked to con- sider submitting letters of support on its behalf. 6. Pat Nemeth, Deputy Director, San Bernardino Planning Department, distributed final copies of that County's Air quality Plan. 7. Consideration of PTF role and the Final Draft Report were deferred until the next PTF meeting tentatively scheduled for December 1. 8. PTF members or alternates in attendance: Marvin Braude Dennis Hansberger_ Cathryn Geissert Lionel Hudson Bob Berliner Mark Braly Ed Blum Jim Cook E VA-Dixgli C. Freeman Allen Peter Fearey John English Judy Orttung Frank McCracken E SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE Meeting Number 11 7:30 p.m., Monday, November 1, 1976 SCAG, Suite 1000, loth Floor CNA Bldg., 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Los Angeles, California A G E N D A 1. Consideration of Future PTF Role 2. Draft AQNP Work Program - SCAG Staff 3. Report on Membership Appointments to the new Air Quality Management District Board ' RECEIVEDN` Community Development Dept OCT 2119761b,. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. C� v - Jeb Stuart, Chief Air Pollution Control Officer Southern California Air Pollution Control District 4. Draft Final Report - Phase I AQMP (AQMP 10/19/76) PROCEEDINGS SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE MEETING NO. 10 August 17, 1976 Judy Orttung reported on the recommendations of the Institutional Mechanisms Committee. The following recommendations of that Committee were unanimously approved by the Policy Task Force (PTF). a. That the PTF send letters to all appointing authorities urging selection of members of the new Air Quality Management District as soon as possible. b. That Santa Barbara and Ventura not be obliged to parti- cipate as members of the Policy Task Force. C. That the PTF send a letter to SCAG urging integration of 208 with AQMP. No objection was raised to other Committee recommendations. 2. Staff presented a concept on the PTF role which builds upon the suggestions of the Institutional Mechanisms Committee. Some felt it might be premature to define the role explicitly. Mary Nichols indicated ARB's continued support for the PTF as an effective outreach to the community. She stated that if the PTF wished to remain as advisors to ARB, this would be very appropriate. However staff support could not be provided on a continuing basis in Phase II. The PTF unanimously approved continuing its role at least until AB 250 goes into effect. Jeb Stuart, Chief APCO for the Southern California APCD, indicated support for a continuing PTF role either as a group or sectioned into technical and citizen committees. However, he expressed concern that the mechanism decided upon not interpose the PTF between the Chief APCO and the District Board. He also stated that the present Board is supportive of a continuing role. Chairman Braude expressed concern about dividing the PTF into technical and citizen committees. 4. Joe Doty of SCAG presented the draft Plan Program Preparation (PPP). He indicated that task descriptions had been added to reflect AB 250 requirements. A new draft which will deal with institional relationships in addition to technical tasks will be available in two weeks. L 5. The PTF had a range of comments on the staff slide show. Basically, less emphasis was wanted on health effects and more on possible effects of tactics and strategies. The PTF also wished to see more written into the script on their role. Staff indicated they would appreciate comments on the script 4nd would be communicating with individual PTF members about their ideas. 6. PTF members/alternates in attendance: Eva Dixon Bob Berliner Frank McCrackin C. Freeman Allen Marvin Braude Jim Daily Judy Orttung Bob Geoghegan Dick Wirth Mary Nichols Phil Hawthorne Jan Bush John English Mike Cushing No date was set for the next Policy Task Force Meeting. STATE Of CALIFORNIA EDMUND G, BROWN JR., Governor AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1709-11th STREET ' SACRAMENT,O 95814 September 27, 1976 Public and Private Interest Organizations RECEIVED Boards of Supervisors peY�j�pm nt Councils of Governments b Dept. Mayors — 0014 1g760- Air Quality Maintenance Planning Policy Task Forces. CITY Dp Interested Individuals NEWPORTSEACH, City and County Planning Directors CALIF. J/ Air Pollution Control Officers U% Local Agency Formation Commissions State and Federal Agencies Dear Friends: Attached for your information,.review, and comment is a Plan Development Program (PDP) which outlines the Air Resources Board's (ARB) proposed Air Conservatibn Program. The Air Conservation Program is being developed in response to a federal requirement for regulations to prevent significant deterioration -of air quality, and because the ARB believes such a program is desirable and necessary to fulfill ARB's legislative mandate to protect and enhance the ambient air quality of the State. Although it is a statewide program, the Air Conservation Program will focus primarily on areas with superior air quality. At this time, the POP proposes a program for classifying all areas of the State into one of four area classifications: Class A (no significant deterioration); Class B (minimum deterioration); Class C (agricultural areas); and Class D (urban/industrial areas). For each area, a specific set of strategies and policies will be developed that will, in the long term, preserve the desired level of air quality. The process is presented in greater detail in Section 4 of the attached document. The PDP describes a proposed two-phase approach for developing the Air Conservation Program. The process depends upon the involvement of all agencies and individuals concerned. The PDP itself will be changed to incorporate significant concerns raised by reviewing agencies and individuals. The first six -eight months after the PDP review will be devoted to an evaluation of the entire program and, simultaneously, an effort to identify and protect specific Class A areas will be undertaken. The following one and one-half years of the program will be used to develop an Air Conservation Program for the whole State. • i Page 2 September 27r 1976 Because it is possible the Air Conservation Program may affect significantly your areas of interest, we invite and encourage your comments on the program as presented in the PDP. All comments will be given careful consideration by the Air Resources Board. Please submit your comments by October 31, 1976 to: Dan LloberwAho chief Air Quality Maintenance Planning Branch Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 (916) 392-6076 In addition, i would appreciate it if you would complete and return the attached form. Vice Chairman Board Attachments AIR CONSERVATION PROGRAM PUBLIC RESPONSE FORM I would like to continue to receive information as the Air Conservation Program proceeds. Yes No i suggest the following individuals and/or organizations be placed on the mailing list to receive ACP materials: Additional comments on the Plan Development'Program: 0 Name Organization Address _ City Phone Zip RETURN TO: Dan Lieberman Ai-r Conservation Program Air Resources Board P.O: Box 2815 Sacramento,, CA 95812 OP C00;0( SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE Meeting Number 10 *7:30 p.m., Tuesday, August 17, 1976 SCAG, Suite 1000, loth Floor CNA Bldg., 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Los Angeles, California AGENDA 1. Institutional Mechanisms Committee - Recommendations 2. AQMP Staff Proposal for PTF Role 3. Comments on Future PTF Role; Transition Period fl i - Jeb Stuart, Chief Air Pollution Control Officer, Southern California Air Pollution Control District 4. SCAG Presentation of Draft AQMP Plan Program Preparation (PPP) 5. Concept for Constituency Communication - Slide and Oral Presentation - AQMP Staff * 7-7:30 Informal Policy Task Force Photo Session S RECEIVED Community Development Dept. AUG 1119760- Crry 4 . NEwPf:s nc►+o (AQMP 8/9/76) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS L U REGIONAL COOPERATION FOR REGIONAL PROBLEMS 600 SO. COMMONWEALTH AVE. • SUITE 1000 • LOS ANGELES, CA. • 90005 • 213/385-1000 Date: June 23, 1976 To: AQMP-PTF From: Frank Hotchkiss, SCAG Deputy Director of Planning Subject: Background materials to be discussed at June 30th PTF meeting Enclosed are the following: 1. Appointment letter to Specialist Committee 2. Specialist Committee Agenda Package which contains a first draft of the work plan 3. Summary of Specialist Committee Meeting nl held on June 21, 1976 4. PTF Member Comments on Plan Program Preparation received to date \.Y RFC Co FIV Fp J(/N2 epr7 "�r 0top 976� rF NCH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS UU REGIONAL COOPERATION FOR REGIONAL PROBLEMS 600 SO. COMMONWEALTH AVE. - SUITE 1000 - LOS ANGELES,t (Z,g--90005 - 213/385-1000 June 23, 1976 Dear c�QE I�Eo oe.-imp n��Y u:• uegt 'ItIN f Ne 017' o �9%6® CAUF EACH, Under the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments California was required to prepare a plan to achieve federal health related air quality standards. in i973 a federal court ruled that state plans must also maintain these standards. Since California's State Implementation Plan neither achieves nor maintains federal standards, the Air Resources Board created a policy ,task force for each of California's air basins to oversee the development of a new Air Quality Maintenance Plan. The South Coast/South East Desert Air Quality Maintenance Planning Policy Task'Force, which acts in an advisory capacity to the ARB in this area, is composed of elected officials and public members. It has three prirzry tasks: I. Develop'a long term forecast of emissions and air quality demonstra- ting the need for an air quality maintenance plan (completed May 26, 1976.) 2. Develop an AQMP work plan which identifies the work tasks and the necessary financial resources to guide the plan's development. 3. Select an agency or agencies to do the planning. On May 26, 1976 SCAG was conditionally designated by the Policy Task Force as the lead planning agency, subject to.the preparation of an adequate work plan. SCAG is currently preparing this work plan with in- volve:ent of the Air Resources Board, the Environmental Protection Agen- cy, and the Southern California Air Pollution Control District. A prelim- inary draft will be completed on July 15, 1976, and a final work plan will be submitted to the Policy Task Force in September. A committee of specialists has been created to review the work nian. Your name was suggested by a member of the PTF to Participate on the specialists committee and review our work to date. Committee members are asked to attend three meetings. The first will be held on Monday June 21, 1976 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., in the SCAG offices. It will consist of a general orientation session at afhich a very preliminary draft work plan .will be presented. You will be asked to iespond to the presentations in oral or written form. • A second meeting will be held July 19, 1976 to review the draft work plan which will be formally submitted to the PTF and ARB. The special- ists committee's comments will be presented to the PTF at its August meeting. A third meeting, a general conference open to the public, is planned for August 11, 1976. Members of the PTF and Specialists Committee will be asked to act as facilitators. Special attention will be given to those groups traditionally not involved in air quality issues ---minorities, the poor, and the.elderly. If you are interested in participating in this review effort, sim- ply attend Monday's meeting. For your information I have enclosed a num- ber of documents which will be helpful as background information for the Monday June 21st meeting. If any additional information would be help- ful please contact Mr. Joe Doty of SCAG at 385-1000 X323. We appreciate your continued interest in regional planning. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS UU REGIONAL COOPERATION FOR REGIONAL PROBLEMS 600 SO. COMMONWEALTH AVE. • SUITE 1100 • LOS ANGELES, CA. • 9fflq5-!;213/.385-1000 NOTICE OF MEETING NO. 1°El vt ��ity O."I AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN (AQMP) 1 JUN °u." .r. a°t -i SPECIALIST COMMITTEE NEwp t 2 0 1975� oRt BfAC Monday, June 21, 1976, 9:00 - 12.00 Noon 2 �AUF H' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS N 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90005 (CONFERENCE ROOM NOS. 29 & 30 - IOTH FLOOR) AGENDA 1. Call to Order - Ed Holden, Director of Planning 2. Background of Air Quality Maintenance Planning - Stephanie Trenck, Air - 10 mins. Resources Board 3. Specialist Committee Role - Ed Holden - 5 mins. 4. South Coast/Southeast Desert Phase II Work Plan Package 60 mins. A. Overall work plan package - Joe Doty, Regional Planner B. Discussion of Parts of Package I. Program Management Ed Holden II. Public Participation Joe Doty IV. AQMP/208 Integration " V. Program Coordination it VI. Adoption " ies - Frank Hotchkiss De 5. Work Activities , Deputy Y Director of Planning S. Group Discussion 55 mins. South Coast/Southeast Desert AQMP Phase II Workplan Package I. Program Management A description of the program management structure including: a. roles of participants b. conflict resolution procedures II. Public Participation A description of the public participation program III. Work Activities A definition of the work activities•to be performed including: a. planning approach b. tasks c. costs d. agency with lead responsibility e. sequence of activities IV. AQMP/208 Integration The mechanisms used to integrate common elements of the 208 and AQMP efforts and to insure consistency between the two planning efforts. V. Program.Coordination The relationship and coordination mechanisms of AQMP activities with other planning activities in the South Coast area which impact air quality. VI. Adoption Description of the decision making process to be used to adopt and ratify the AQMP. 6/15/76 • -2 • CHART I: State -Federal) Review Board AQMP Policy Task Force ORGANIZATION FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE AQMP PLANNING PROCESS Environmental I Protection Agency State Air Resources Board ISouthern California Association of Governments Executive Committee Environmental Quality & Resource Conservation Committee - . Citizens* Advisory Committee This diagram depicts the functional lines of authority and decision making. Composition, roles, communications and making relations are developed in the narrative part of this document. *This citizens advisory committee may be the same advisory committee for the 208 water quality program. 6/15/76 -3- I. AQMP Organization and Management Basic Questions: 1. What is the basic organization structure? 2. What are the roles of each part of the organization? 3. How are conflicts to be resolved? The following narrative addresses these questions in the context of the organization and management diagram of Chart I. The policy advisory process, as depicted in Chart I, involves the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Air Resources Board, a proposed State and Federal Review Board, the Executive Committee of SCAG, the AQMP Policy Task Force, SCAG's Environmental Quality and Resource Conservation Committee, a Citizens Advisory Committee, and may include other key entities such as the Southern California APCD and Caltrans, consultants and interagency working groups. Environmental Protection Agency and the State Air Resources Board Since legal authority for implementation of the Clean Air Act resides in these agencies, they are part of the AQMP process. Also regulatory mechanisms for air quality is the authority of these agencies. The role of these agencies is to guide the local AQMP process; institute regulatory mechanisms for air quality improvements or tradeoffs; provide financial support to the process; aid in formal and informal conflict resolution; institute and respond to federal and state laws; communicate with locally elected officials, general publics and special agencies. State -Federal Review Board The State=Federal Review Board was created to review the 208 planning program. Membership on this Board includes representatives of: State plater Resources Control Board Regional Water Quality Control Boards Air Resources Board Office of Planning and Research Environmental Protection Agency To formalize a mechanism for Federal -State agencies interaction, it is suggested that the same review board responsible for the 208 program review also be responsible for the AQMP review. This board is not a decision making board but acts to facilitate communications. The Southern California Association of Governments Executive Committee: Within the organization, the Executive Committee has primary responsibility for determining policy, resolving conflict and adopting plans in support of 6/15/76 -4 basic regional policies of the Association. The nineteen member committee includes elected officials representing the following jurisdictions: three from the City of Los Angeles, one from each of the six counties of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial; one from a representative city in each county, three at large delegates and one permanent at large delegate from the City of Long Beach. The Executive Committee's role in the management of the AQMP process is the primary decision and policy making responsibility. It accomplishes this by policy integration of Transportation, AQMP, 208 water quality planning as well as its planning role in its development guide for the region. Its responsibilities include final resolution of policy and program issues on the advice of the AQMP Policy Task Force, the Environmental Quality and Resources Conservation Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee. Communications between the Executive Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee and the AQMP Task Force can be direct or through the Environmental Quality and Resource Conservation Committee. In the event of conflict or emergency, communications may be direct to the Executive Committee. The Environmental Quality and Resource Conservation Committee ('EQRCC): The EQRCC is one of four major standing policy advisory committees at SCAG composed of 22 elected officials representing the cities and counties in the region. Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Executive Committee. The EQRCC will review policy and program recommendations of the AQMP Task Force and the Citizens Advisory Committee and make recommendations to the Executive Committee. This policy committee will also review all recommendations of the 208 program and will be in a position to integrate policy issues of the two programs. Citizens Advisory Committee_ As one part of a Public Participation program (explained in II), there will be a continuing Citizens Advisory Committee composed of representatives of interested/ concerned and affected publics. Members of the Advisory Committee will be appointed by the President with the concurrence of the Executive Committee. This Advisory Committee will also be the Advisory Committee for the 208 program. The committee will input all phases of both programs and will assist in implementation of various other aspects of the Public Participation Program. Communications to the Executive Committee via the Environmental Quality and Resource Conservation Committee. Air Quality Maintenance Plan Policy Task Force The Policy Task Force, composed of 15 elected officials and 13 non -elected members will serve as an advisory group to the EQRCC and the Executive Committee*. *An alternative proposal would be to merge the 208 Program Committee and the Po Policy Task Force. Elected officials request representatives on the Environ- mental Quality, and Resource Convservation Committee and non -elected officials would request membership on the Citizens Advisory Committee. Roles, duties and responsibilities of these committees became the functions of members of these committees. 11 -5- II. Air Quality Public Participation Element Preliminary Concept Paper Concept: The public participation element of the air quality planning program will be based on three primary principles: 1. The program will encourage broad based public participation involving a cross section of affected/interested parties; 2. The program will reflect an on -going process of public participation and will encourage public input in all phases of the planning process, including further development of"public participation programs, plan development, evaluation and implementation. 3. Wherever appropriate, the program will be integrated with the public participation efforts of the 208 Water Quality Management Planning program. Program: The public participation program for air quality planning will focus on three components including public information, public contribution to the planning process and agency documentation and response to public input. Each is briefly described below: 1. Public Information: Press releases, general mailings, workshops, seminars and pub is presentations will be used to educate and inform the general public as to specific air quality issues and the process of planning efforts. It is anticpated that a newsletter, developed jointly with the 208 public participation program, will be issued periodically discussing developments in the two planning programs. 2. Public Input: Public hearings, surveys and workshops will be used to generate comment and input during the planning process. In addition, various ad hoc advisory groups may be convened to encourage public contributions during key phases of the planning process. Consideration will also be given to possible restructuring of the 208 Citizen's Advisory Committee to serve as a joint Water and Air Quality Advisory Group. 3. Response/Documentation: will be documented and give Tasks: n Preliminary tasks in public participation include: 1. Identification of affected/interested publics -(much of the work is completed by the 208 program). 6/15/76 • -6 • 2. Design an air quality logo to facilitate public recognition - (work is currently being done on the design of an integrated air quality - 208 logo). 3. Identify key points in the planning process where public input is critical. 4. Determine the geographic and organizational level for citizen involvement (i.e., city, county, pasin-wide, etc.). 5. Refine public participation work tasks and methods of implementation of the program. 6. Define major areas of program interface with the 208 public participation program. 7. Identify staff and budget resources necessary to effectively implement the program. 6/15/76 III. WORK ACTIVITIES p..✓,.:.+r, ` H/iFL�✓• __ ! !—��., _s t_l._� `` !-! ! � � i I f � _� �_ �� —F—i-: 1. i =--1 -,- �--'{ -I - - �- �--{- , I ! • --! � � , .-PecGtxyS. i� /9.7G '!.�fXnl,/i�7�'.r' i ..!. r { -;. iT.la/1978i ! _ j 1 •.;__f/.✓,�179...,1� ! --� , - - Ld— .T. -r-- 5pezeww -,W" oi7yia✓ 1 dAW y .. i , : ; � _ - ..: ! ;--- �_ I - i � .i ! _ ��7�iG/Li PtiGsfi7au5 ' Q�/h,FiH Uh4Yl'S— -! - ; - :... 1.—�-- -•� - , - 1 ": ;- : ! . .-- 5/✓/eGtwa��'/�.£r�ol/�[ES _VC P�:fr/_TEPNYrUES iSE�FCIIaJauni---•i--! O - . _! SU1bs 'RE6fW� � _- . � 'Edfl� .�rlcn/, � HHS��.�i!/EnIT. �E/,Q-i ,%• . i I - - -! .. 1 , 1 ! ! -I- " •. � _�_ a . '•...!-• - - ' I -.;..i j- ; I .�d9,w/lliav c.?{rE,PiH� : , Ccw'TnK/i �•6Y.44!o.!(� �.Ett^f.�f ; - - — - - t i 1" � --I - ! i I r Co jr-CYV/P4 11AJO. J%2✓l/�eh!% :%u2E_i. riay.s�2'7N/ , i nu..nnuunuuuunnuuu.qu, nununnuunnmm�miuunuunnnn..owunqunuuuunnnnnnuunnunu,uuu..,....,,,,h„h,,,h„ uun..nuunumuuuumua,h„hh,„„N,hmnnuxwuu nuuunu.wu.unuom� i t t 1 ..! .i� i �, tvro.V,G:�ea.�triaN.!yY' �. ._L ..r l �-•, i Ir- ! �._ I ! ! --i i f •� I -•I Floe/ wog 1 � `- � i •_.!-1-_!:.1:--�..�- I '- ;_i j • -t- �- '.i ''•_i !'_:Lwilaikk !iL< n/!ECaWA)t11A6 6U1U .4i5 :c@.✓O::Z&' a✓/97 ' � . l �,r✓f��E.,IT.I � I _ I �K'GY`!f'i7N _� � : ' -) {( � 1 t }j- -{ (f I , I C7U/UE: 1 i ! r ! t � ! � i I ; ! l✓roN�.z+� _ I . ! _ ! -! _ � I 1 r -- - t I I� �� ; I i � - H.+iflfysiS �/ i , ., - i-�- _4- --� ! - t -�--- • j � 1 _ r { f . --`-'--- -- a -•---------'--I--: F{i'..FieEAvsl� l_.� _!. _'_._ r-' �-- -_L.: _ ,__1 I-_ a--1 -.:--!-+--:-Y---�'---'._�- +-;--I'.j- i -!'-i � ' �F7.✓�icrrfnav f'�-'�!�/ ! I � I -; !-- { i - G � _. i .�� i •� _- I !`4 � ! � I R j i 4 I - ----------- J.-L- 6r/46-, fncrP.W774i —14 F1 -- I �I- -i . t .1 . . I.- -! -1- A 6 rotodur VWW 4 — —I �l'� , �i I Ed L41/+7/gq%I..i - I t —1 .1 A!. • 4 -4 —1— - F I #LJj O�j celmei ',;F' 14- S A&C W-Z%OAAV)1WlkI-e w+%rwriU'7'dcei T-L 14%y -- L I It � I.. � 000r: ioi7 ' ! ! I , - ,<l�orl. /4�8; . 1. " VPl 7. -E-1- It wee Phase 1 ! Phase 2 rl 6/15/76 6/15/76 PROTECT TRsk I Program Manwgement SCHEDULE aF TASKS 1 r, 1944 z cLtiZCn Pewticipat]OX 3 Air Data T Port 14ion)Lard Qse.,EmpJoyment, Mousing , and T,ra,.sportatior Data. ' S . Early Action Program 6 Air Goals anc) Standards 7 Cord)nyinq Planning Process 8 Institational�L�9al and FIrQhC6Q.1 Mecha,ni6»u q,;,d COb.str&LUtS 9 Pe✓elofinett of Alternatives 110 Modeling I Il Fva,l uat1or, and Tmpact Assessment of Alterratives ' 12 Plan SXnthesIs I )3 Play, Review., Adoption a.hd Tn,plemen.tatioyL am =4 ND T 7 . LIST OF TASKS 0_12_ 1. Program Management ' A. Identify agencies to be involved in plan management B. Identify roles and relationships of the agencies involved C. Propose structure for plan process D. Direct and monitor plan preparations E. Prepare staff and budget estimates 2. Citizen Participation A. Identify publics to be contacted B. Identify key points for public involvement and/or review C. Identify formats and forums for review D. Select participants in process E. Schedule appropriate meetings and other measures for citizen input and review 3. Air Data A. Prepare detailed data basis for: 1. Meteorological data 2. Air quality monitoring 3. Emissions inventory,_- B. Identify base year technical assumptions 4. Population, Land Use, Housing, Employment and Transportation Data A. Determine scale for data collection B. Compile, review, and summarize data for: 1. population 2. land use 3. housing 4. employment 5. transportation C. Obtain any needed data for base year 5. Early Action Program A. Review recommendations from Phase I AQMP B. Identify measures now in effect or contemplated C. Choose additional control and abatement measures for early action programs 6/15/76 • • -13- • 6. Air Goals and Standards A. Identify national and state standards to be met. B. Inventory other appropriate guidelines and goals 7. Continuing Planning Process A. Transportation Program B. Development Guide C. 208 Planning D. Other Planning programs 8. Institutional, Legal and Financial Mechanisms and Constraints A. Identify institutional frameworks in which AQMP will operate B. Identify legal and financial constraints C. Evaluate institutional arrangements for implementation 9. Development of Alternatives A. Establish methodology for structuring alternatives B. Land Use and transportation system alternatives 1. Forecast broad growth alternatives in areas of land use, population, housing, employment (PHEL) and transportation 2. Forecast transportation systems alternatives 3. Relate PHEL and transportation alternatives to emissions 4. Forecast emissions for each alternative C. Control and abatement tactics and strategies 1. Identify technological control measures for stationary sources 2. Identify technological control measures for mobile sources 3. Identify tactics and strategies for stationary sources 4. Identify tactics and strategies for mobile sources 5. Forecast emissions resulting from alternative control measures, tactics and strategies 6/15/76 • -14- • 10. Modelling A. Review models now or soon to be available for calculating: 1. Land use, population, housing and employment 2. Transportation 3. Air quality B. Select appropriate models C. Calibrate models chosen D. Determine sensitivity to spatial grid sizes and temporal intervals E. Run models for alternatives 11. Evaluation and Impact Assessment of Alternatives A. Establish methodology for evaluation B. Inventory evaluation criteria C. Select criteria in air, socio-economic, legal, institutional and financial areas. D. Assess impact of alternatives based on criteria E. Evaluate alternatives with respect to criteria chosen 12. Plan Synthesis A. Select growth alternatives, control measures, strategies, and tactics for AQMP B. Develop regional AQMP policy C. Develop local and regional guidelines for implementing AQMP D. Comment on compatibility with national, state and local regulations 13. Plan Review, Adoption and Implementation A. Disseminate plan B. Plan review by committee structure and public, private and concerned govern- mental agencies and public hearing process C. Develop adoption procedure for local and regional governmental agencies D. Plan adoption E. Plan implementation, 6/15/76 • -15- IV. AQMP/208 Integration To ensure coordination of air quality maintenance planning and 208 planning a series of cooperative agreements are recommended for: 1) joint representa- tion on the policy and technical committees; 2) review of the work plans; 3) the use common techical and demographic data; 4) an integrated public participation program; 5) 208 funding of common work tasks. 1. Examples of joint committee representation are: A. A representative of the AQMP Policy Task Force has been asked to serve on the 208 Program Committee B. The Southern California APCD is represented on the 208 Program Committee C. Several members of the Policy Task Force (Elected Officials) will serve on the 208 Program Committee. D. Several public interest groups represented on the Policy Task Force will be represented on the 208 Citizen's Advisory Committee. E. Both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Policy Task Force are serving on SCAG's Environmental Quality and Resource Conservation Committee. F. Several members of the Policy Task Force serve on SCAG's Executive Committee. G. The Task Force i 2. Status reports on AQMP and 208 work plans will be provided to the AQMP Policy Task Force, the 208 Program Committee, the Citizen's Advisory Committee, the Environmental Quality and Resource Conservation Committee, and SCAG's Executive Committee. This should aid the identification of common policy and tecnical issues of mutual concern. The 208 and AQMP work plans are also being developed by staff in a fashion so as to integrate common technical elements. The Policy Task Force is encouraged to assume a strong advocacy role in 208 workplan development so as to explicate the difficult environmental, economic, social and technical issues of air quality management. 3. The use of common technical and demographic data are enhanced by SCAG's involvement in 208 and AQMP. Staff to staff interaction will aid the development of uniform planning assumptions, data projections, and im- pact assessments. During the synthesis stage of the 208 planning process, SCAG will.in- corporate criteria prepared by the AQMP Policy Task Force, the Air Resources Board, and the Southern California Air Pollution Control District to evaluate the air quality impacts of alternative land use configurations. The responsible ai'r agencies will review and comment one the air quality assessments of tactics and strategies proposed to mitigate non -point sources of water pollution. 6/15/76 • -16- . The agencies agree to participate with SCAG in technical studies of mutual concern to establish compatible review and reporting procedures. Staff interaction, public hearings, policy reviews, and plan adoption procedures will also insure consistency. 4. The public participation program described in Section II facilitates critical public scrutiny and input into both planning programs. This should provide unique judgments and concerns on the interrelationships of air and water quality planning, and recommend points of coordination. 5. It is desirable to integrate 208 and AQMP planning because many work tasks are closely related. SCAG"s preliminary 208 work plan identified a num- ber of such tasks: Developing an appropriate data base, developing evaluative criteria and assessment techniques, tactics and strategies, structuring alternatives, modeling and forecasting, preparing impact assessments, public participa- tion programs, and preparing environmental impact reports. A major task of the working group and 208 staff will be to develop a more detailed description of the mutual areas of support and present this material to the policy task force and the 208 program committees for their concurrence. 6/15/76 -17- Program Coordination One mechanism to ensure integration among other planning efforts is through SCAG's Regional Development Guide which establishes regional goals and growth policies. SCAG-76, the most recent growth forecast, addresses pop- ulation, housing, generalized land use and employment for the SCAG region. The forecast data are for 1980, 1990, 1995, and the year 2000. As the comprehensive areawide planning agency and the hetropolitan Clearinghouse (A-95 Review) plans for the SCAG region are reviewed on the basis of their compatibility with these forecasts, so as to ensure consistency among various plans and programs. The SCAG-76 forecasts, which will be used in the AQMP and 208 planning process, have already been used by the South Coast (Coastal Zone) Commission, by SCAG in its regional housing allocation model, by water basin and facility plan- ning agencies, and by SCAG in the preparation of the regional transportation plan. As a common basis for planning and as a method for review of consistency among functional plans, the Development Guide will be a significant tool for coordinating air quality maintenance planning and 208 planning with other major planning and and management efforts. SCAG has a major responsibility as the designated regional transportation planning agency. Development of the regional transportation plan has sub- stantial impacts on growth, development and land use decisions. Further, there is a close link between the transportation planning efforts and the air quality issue. Coordination with the transportation planning efforts will be an important part of the AQMP planning process. As a part of its A-95 review responsibilities, SCAG reviews the following plans or projects for consistency and coordination with regional planning efforts. Countywide solid waste plans, Flood Control District projects, projects of the Metropolitan Water District and other water suppliers, Department of Water Resources projects, 201 facility plans, the proposed planning programs of local governments, proposed planning programs of the Southern California Air Pollution Control Districts, the Air Resources Board, and projects of the Burea of Reclamation, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, The Farmers' Home Administration and numerous other facility development and service plans. Throughout the AQMP planning programs a major effort will be made to iden- tify the technical relationships between these plans and air quality considerations. As the AQMP is formulated, forecasts other than SCAG-76 will be considered, and if appropriate, revisions to SCAG-76 will be, recommended. It is expected that as the AQMP progresses SCAG's goals, policies, and review procedures will be reused and strengthened as needed. 6/15/76 • -18 • VI. AQMP Adoption Process Basic Questions 1. Who will adopt the AQMP? Who will ensure adoption by the designated entities? 2. Are jurisdictions within the Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) required to adopt the Plan? 3. What is the responsibility of the adopting agency? Does adoption obligate that jurisdiction to implement the Plan? 4. Will a jurisdiction be penalized if it decides not to adopt and/or implement AQMP? Who will decide and impose the penalty? 5. How should an appeal process be addressed in the adoption procedures? Two alternatives have been identified regarding the basic adoption process. Additional alternatives may be developed as the Plan progresses. I. In accordance with the line relationships in Chart I. II. Adoption by those groups identified in I with the following additions: A. Adoption by every city and county within the AQMA. B. Adoption by Southern California Air Pollution Control District (SCAPCD) and the South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council (JCABCC). Alternative IIA requires various proportions of the total number of cities or population to adopt the AQMD. It is probable that the details of the adoption process will be worked out during the Phase II plan preparation. 6/15/76 SOUTH CENTRAL COAST 0 SOUTH COAST SOUTH COAST SOUTHEAST DESERT AQMA: • 1 o m y ss 1 ..ia f • `GIYM� PTF RECOMMENDED AQMA BOUNDARIES for PHASE II 6/15/76 41 H o A' C (:UN2 ce�A8197Summary of Meeting No.l ofry op61#CALIF EACH, SPECIALIST COMMITTEE The first meeting of the Specialist Committee was held on June 21, 1976. The purpose of this Committee was to review and comment on the Progress of the Work- ing Croup. A list of members and a complete copy of the materials presented to the committee is attached. The Specialists Committee took the following actions: 1. Adoption / Implementation Subcommittee - A subcommittee was created to exa- mine adoption / implementation mechanisms and issues. Expressed concerns included; 1) operational manuals for sub regional agency involvement 2)' The legality requirements for environmental impact reputs and procedures; 3) Responses of proposed lead agencies and implementing authorities. 2. Modeling / Data Base - A second subcommittee was created to explore the feasibility of modeling and determining data base needs and methodologies. 3. Socio / Economic Subcommittee - A third subcommittee was created to examine major socio economic issue. 4. Energy - The specialists committee indicated the work plan should place a heavier emphasis on energy. 5. Federal / State Program Review Board - The committee recommended that a member of California's Energy Resource Conservation and Development Commission be included on the Program Review Board. 6. AQMP / 208 Integration - It was the committee's consensus that a heavy em- phasis must be placed on AQMP / 208 integration. 7. A concern was expressed that the work plan purchase did not mention the integration / coordination of the South Coast / South East Desert Air Basin AQMP and the State Water Resources Control Board's program for non designated 208 desert area. 8. Future Meetings: Time Date 1. Adoption/Implementation Subcommittee 1:30 June 28, 1976 2. Modeling/Date Base Subcommittee 9:30 June 28, 1976 3. Socio/Economic Subcommittee 1:30 June 28, 1976 4. Meeting Jig Specialist Committee 9:30 July 19, 1976 u Summary of Meeting No. Specialist Committee June 23, 1976 Page Two These meetings will be held in the SCAG offices. Policy Task Force Members, Alternates, Staff and information please contact Mr. Joe Doty at SCAG All meetings are open to the Public. For additional (385-1000 Extension 323) Pl-an Program Preparation: PTF Member Comments 1. Mr. Robert Berliner --Commerce 2. Mr. Larry Crisco --Senior Citizens 3. Mr. Jim Daily --Standard Oil 4. Mr. Bob Kahn --Irvine Company 5. Mr. Peter Fearey--California Council For Environmental and Economic Balance RECElyEp� V1,1 Pmey Ceps nt JUN 2 g 1976a NEW CITYOR) EEAC CALIF, H' Mr. Robert Berliner Commerce COMMERCE STATEMENT ON PRINCIPLES Commerce supports in principle economically and technically feasible regulations which enable compliance with rigid emission standards and which promote the enforcement of and adherence to such standards, but disfavors regulations which limit the means, or which strictly prescribe the means, by'whibh such standards are to be met. Commerce further advocates thorough public airing of all proposed regulations with a view to modification to meet legitimate concerns of persons that will be affected by the proposed regulations. ALLIERENIOR CITIZENS CLUBS ACALIFORNIA 427 VEST FIFTH STREET —ROOM 402 LOS ANGELES 13, CALIFORNIA June 12,1976 Telephone. 624-6467 'Xz,. victor 11agistrale SLAG_ ,uite LOU 60(` a.. Commonwealth Ave. Los: Angeles„ Ca. 90005 year I°ir.. Magistrale. The: pata-ctice of selling used automobiles etas is"Vposes a very dangerous situation for every one. Many ¢f these sales are made to older people or teenagers@ endangering the lives of not- onnl'�y- the drivers of these. -oars but~ of octher people in the traff'lc. lanes.. -eublic vehicles for multiple occupancy are not allowed to; go, ont without inspection and/air reconditlonlzlg« It seems to me that if this was.mandatory in the case of the older cars; that it would rekult cleaner automobiles on the street. It would also)tend to meet one of our objectives.to:get more cars off the streets and highways. It seems that it might be considered and alternativetactic.. 51 �Zrely, r Larry Ch sco president. Home Address 4i�o2' Albury Ave. Lakewood, Ua,90719 Chevron Standard Oil Company of California, Western Operations, Inc. P.O. Box 97, El Segundo, CA 90245 Manufacturing Department El Segundo Refinery Thron Riggs General Manager C. P. Mehlum Manager of Operations W. E. Larson Chief Engineer June 8, 1976 £�j''RE_RN CALIFORNIA AS_OC. OF GOVERNMENT Air Quality Maintenance Plan Program Preparation Mr. Victor Magistrale Southern California Association of Governments 600 South Commonwealth, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Dear Mr. Magistrale: s,l 1 p 1976 At the May 26, 1976 meeting of the Air Quality Maintenance Plan Task Force, copies of the Plan Program Preparation were distributed. Members of the Task Force were asked to state to you in writing their particular concerns which should be addressed in the preparation, and also to appoint, if they desired, members for the Work Group and the Specialist Committee. As industry's representative, I would like to appoint the following persons: Work Group - Wendell Deeter, Atlantic Richfield Company, 515 S. Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Specialist Committee - William J. Hanson, Dow Chemical Company, 305 Crenshaw, Torrance, CA 90503 The primary concern which we have at the moment is the rather astounding change in mobile source emissions which is shown in the final report of the Boundaries and Forecasts Committee. We note that the table for present total hydrocarbon emissions from mobile sources is shown as 821 tons per day. This is in sharp contrast to the 1862 tons per day credited to this source as recently as November 1975, by the Southern California Air Pollution Control District. Recognizing that these numbers came from reputable organizations, it seems incredible that the difference can be so great, as the former number is almost 2.3 times the new number. It would be encouraging if one could assume that over 1000 tons per day of hydrocarbon could be eliminated from our local smog picture so easily by an eraser and a pencil. However, either the original emission calculation is correct, the new calculation is correct, or else the actual number is a calculation somewhere in between these two. In any case, if we are to embark upon our efforts to reduce pollution, we should have a finite beginning from which to work. Our other main concern is that the group may lose sight of the critical importance of maintaining a viable industry and commercial establishment in the Southern California area in their zeal to attack a single goal such as reducing air pollu- tion. We recognize that there are cautions that the economy must be considered r-- -2- along with the environment in EPA's AQMP instructions as well as others. We in the industry firmly believe that an acceptable environment and acceptable economic level can coexist. We will certainly do our part in working cooperatively to reduce pollution emissions through every reasonable and responsible effort which can be brought to bear upon the problem. JgZs, ,. DAILY JWD:eI cc: Ms. Stephanie Trenck, CARB Messrs. Wendell Deeter, Atlantic Richfield W. J. Hanson, Dow Chemical THE IRVINE COMPAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 June 9, 1976 Mr. Victor Magistrale, Assistant Director of Planning Southern California Association of Governments 600 South Commonwealth, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90005 Subject: Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP) - Plan Program and Preparation Dear Mr. Magistrale: Pursuant to the last AQMP Policy Task Force meeting, I am submitting my comments re- garding the composition of the work group/specialist committee and specific elements to be addressed within the Phase II work program of the AQMP. Work Group and Specialist Committee I suggest that the working group be expanded to include additional Southern California APCD staff (i.e., Ed Cammerena from Southern California APCD), who could add both technical expertise and regional context. Also, inclusion of the consultants to the Policy Task Force as members of the working committee would be helpful at the working level to insure continuity between the past programs and the next phase of the AQMP. The suggested organizational structure of the specialist committee appears to be loca- tionally rather than functionally oriented. However, this structure may be the most appropriate means of evaluating and assessing potential institutional mechanisms for implementation. Potential candidates from the Orange County area could be Dick Munsell (Orange County EMA) or Ed Cammeren•a. Also, it would be desirable to include some mem- bers representing private industry (i.e., Peter Fearey or Jim Cook) to insure that all viewpoints can be heard early in the plan preparation process. As a potential member representing educational institutions I suggest Dr. Scott Sammuelson from the University of California at Irvine. Dr. Sammuelson has done considerable work in the field of air quality and would be an excellent resource to the specialist committee. Issues to be addressed in Plan Program Preparation (PPP) The following elements briefly discussed in the Phase I program should be included in the PPP and should be investigated in depth during the Phase II process. I have sep- arated my comments into the three work areas investigated during the Phase I AQMP (Boundaries/Forecasting, Institutional Mechanisms, and Tactics/Strategies). 1. Boundaries/Forecasting There is a definite need to refine the air quality modeling techniques in order to project future air quality conditions and evaluation of various tactics and strategies. This model must be validated and tested before it can be applied to the AQMP process, SCAG June 9, 1976 Page 2 A revised emission inventory/projection is needed to reflect current conditions and also sub -basin emissions should be calculated. There is a need to take a look at areawide meteorology/topography and to define sub -area boundaries. 2. Institutional Mechanisms There is a need to review/identify the various potential institutions with respect to the alternative tactics and strategies. The legal authority/responsibility of potential institutional mechanisms should be investigated. There should be a review of the inter -relationship of the current planning programs/ process with respect to implementation of an AQMP program. The cost of implementing the AQMP through various institutional mechanisms should be made. 3. Tactics and Strategies The technical effectiveness of the recommended tactics/strategies from Phase I should be reviewed in detail. Also, an evaluation of the application of several tactics simultaneously (strategies) should be made. The potential timing for implementation should be identified for each tactic. The direct and indirect costs of implementing and maintaining the various tactics should be reviewed and evaluated. A measure of cost effectiveness or benefit/ cost ratio should be established. 3hconjunction with the institutional mechanism evaluation, a correlation and iden- tification of implementing agencies/organizations should be made. A review of all potential impacts as a result of implementation of a specific tac- tic should be included in the review process. There is a need to identify potential incentives to encourage implementation of air quality objectives. Tax advantages for special loan programs could be used effectively to induce specific changes which are consistent with air quality tactics/strategies. Investigation of additional tactics for both new and old sources of air pollution should be considered. The phase II program should support additional research in the field of emissions control to develop cost effective control equipment. • M• • • SCAG June 9, 1976 Page 3 I hope this information will be useful to you and your staff in preparation of the Phase II work program. Through the cooperative efforts of both the public and private sectors it's hoped that a balance between environmental goals and economic constraints can be met. if you would like to discuss this matter further please call me at 714)644-3193. Sincerely, Robert Kahn Alternate Land Development Representative, AQMP The Irvine Company RK:lab cc: Ms. Stephanie Trenck, ARE Mr. Jim Cook, Ernest Hahn, Inc. eCALIFORNIA COUNCIL for ENVIRONMENPAL & ECONOMIC BALANCE Edmund G. Brown Chairmau . James S. Lee rice-Chnirmau Robert V. Vallera Secretary Thomas C. Ellick Treasurer Michael R. Peavey Eracutive Director Soard of Directors M. E. Anderson Joseph E. Baird James B. Booe George T. Satiou Thornton F. Bradshaw Edmund G. Brown . M. B. Bryant W. Dean Cannon, Jr. At Capies John A. Cinquemani Jack T. Cox . John F. Crowley Emory C. Curtis 'Katherine Dunlap J. Howard Edgerton Ralph D. Fertig W. W Finley. Jr. Albert W. Gatov Robert Geisick J. E. Goetz Paul R. Haerle i Kenneth G. Hahn Werner Z. Hirsch Patricia Hitt . Harold R. Hochmulh Jack K. Horton Preston B. Hotchkis L. I- Hoyt . Eugene Jacobs Jack Jones Robert C. Kirkwood J. W. Komes ' Pete Kurbatoff H. M. Lawson James S. Lee Daniel M. Luevano Charles T. Manatt Jack Edward McKee Edwin Meese III Robert F. Miller Paul A. Miller Leo L. Mitchell Robert E. Morris James L t.lulloy Rosemary Park Leslie C. Parker Robert Pauiey Robert V. Phillips Anthony L. Ramos, R. R. Richardson William R. Robertson Barry E. Scherman Glenn T. Seaborg Shermer L. Sibley Robert Simpson James J. Twombiey Mason M. Warren Raymond L. Watson Jerry Whipple Le000ld S. Wyler 216 Market Street, Suite 930 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 495-5666 May 18, 1976 Mr. Dennis Hansberger t?�CtJJ'E 8 Board of Supervisors San Bernardino County r7 Civic Center Building San Bernardino, Ca.•92401 . Dear Dennis: I am concerned that the management structure Proposed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for Phase II of AQMP and for the 1120811 planning process gives inadequate attention to. a key factor -- public participation. Development and implementation of environmental - protection programs have created conflicts over the past several years. These conflicts have clearly demon- strated that to be successful, such programs must be accepted by the public., An effective method of gaining public acceptance is to involve the public directly in the development of the program. EPA learned this lesson the hard way. Programs such -as parking management and indirect source review were- unacceptable to local government, business, labor and a broad cross-section of the community. To their' credit, EPA learned from this experience. When EPA developed the air quality maintenance planning program they provided a strong public role in -the process. I feel AQMP Phase I, has. been a successful effort. Public agencies, local government, business, labor, en— vironmental and other community groups have been able to agree on a broad policy. At best, such a participative process results in an environmental management program that has broad public acceptance. At the least•it serves to clearly identify, early in the process, areas of con- flict based on mutual knowledge and understanding of the issues involved. My concern with the SCAG. proposal with the SCAG response to the state Water Control Board Conditions for Designation. answer to Statement of Condition A-3(a), the �DroRram management structure that the is primarily Resources SCAG in its Description o mac' 15t Affiliated nationally with Americans for Energy Independence - _ Mr. Dennis Hansberger -2- May 181, 1976 agency will use to manage and direct the planning process_, outlines a structure t at places the SCAG Executive Committee, composed exclusively of elected officials, as the basic body to review plan development, approve policy, conduct public hearings and adopt the final plans. The Environmental Quality and Resource Conservation Committee, a standing committee of SCAG, again'composed exclusively of elected officials, will serve as the "208" policy advisory"committee and will involve elected officials in policy review throughout the planning process. . • A "208" steering committee again composed of public" agency representatives exclusively, will provide the sole technical review and guidance to the "208" program. r In response to the state Water Resources Control Board Statement of Condition A-30), the definition of all advisory_ committees" 'that will b'e formed,' their rel"ationshI ' and 'access' 'to the decision ma 'ing process an t e recommertde mem ership or each advisory committeett, SCAG states, "The members of the citizens advisory committee will be selected by the executive committee. The function of the citizens advisory committee will include.review of program development and the final plan." ; This, to me, is not direct public involvement- at a policy level in the plan development._ •. In the' SCAG•statement of Preparation of an AQMP Work Plan for Phase II (dated 4/28/76), the structure outlined does not in- clude'any direct involvement of th'e AQMP "Policy Task Force in' the organization preparing a work program.:• The specialist committee does not include any interest: group, private sector or labor in- volvement. Although representatives of'these groups could well have expertise that would be helpful in developing the work plan. I would not be so concerned with. the structure of the organization to develop the work plan if I felt that the organization" to develop the plan itself would involve broad public participation. But -as ' indicated this is not .the case-. I would like to suggest an alternative management structure for the 208 program that would include major public participation. The program would be as follows: 1. A "208" Management Task Force - The major policy group ,for the regional program. Comprised of elected officials, public• agency representatives, and citizens groups. Responsible for the direction and completion of the area -wide waste water management plan and coordination with air quality maintenance plan. (AQMP could be integrated into this process if'deemed appropriate.) Mr. Dennis Hansberger -3- May 18, 1976 2. A Citizens Working Group - The regional citizens group linking local citizens organizations with the regional policy 'group comprised of citizen members of the 208 Management Task Force and citizen representatives of each local citizens organization established under the program. •3. A Technical. AdvisorX Committee - Linking county and ' other local public agency stat s with the regional policy group. Comprised of public agency members of the 208 Management Tasks Force and public agency representatives of each county and other major jurisdictions as well as regional, state and federal agency representatives and -special interest groups. I have attached a brief diagram outlining this'management structure. It goes without saying that AQMP and the 208 Program are' two of the most important and far-reaching environmental management program'§ undertaken in the Los Angeles Basin. To be successfully implemented they must have the knowledge, understanding and support of the community. We have developed through AQMP a process for obtaining that support. I would strongly urge you to use the model of the AQMP Policy Task Force in developing both Phase II of AQMP and the "208" Planning Process. No. single group - elected officials, businessmen, labor representatives, or environmentalists, has all of the answers. By working cooperatively we can insure that as many viewpoints as possible•have been incorporated into this most important environmental management program. Sincerely, Peter Fearey Deputy Director cc: John Bryson; Chairman, California Water Resources Control Board Paul DeFalco, Regional Administrator - EPA Executive Director - SCAG Tom Quinn, Chairman - Air Resources Board William Press, Executive Director Office of Planning & Research Marvin Braude, Councilman - City of Los Angeles. enc. PJF:pc • ': Environmental: Protection • Environmental for Approval - State Water Resouces Control Link Group Local Board for Certification* 208 ENVIRONMENTAL IMNAGEMENT * . PROGRAM —PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Air Resources Board for Approval ORGANIZATION DIAGRAM SCAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Approval SCAG ENVIRONMENTAL Approval QUALITY COMMITTEE 208 MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE REGIONAL CITIZENS WORKING GROUP STAFF LOCAL CITIZENS PROGRAM SPECIAL TASK FORCES Areawide Wastewater Management Plan ** Air Quality Maintenance Plan Regionai Policy Group REGIONAL Link TECHNICAL Groups, ADVISORY COMMITTEES LOCAL ' GOVERNMENTS Local l LOCAL AGENCY STAFFS SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE Meeting Number 9 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 30, 1976 SCAG, Suite 1000, loth Floor CNA Bldg., 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Los Angeles, California A GE.NDA 1. Tactics and Strategies Committee - Mark Braly, Chairman - Action Item: Consideration of Adoption of Committee Report "Preliminary Evaluation of Alternative Tactics and Strategies for the South Coast/Southeast Desert AQH P;" Tactics and Strategies for Further Study 2. Membership Committee Report - Bob Berliner, Chairman 3. SCAG Report on Plan Program Preparation Development - - Frank Hotchkiss, SCAG 4. Approach to Development of a Policy Task Force Report on AQ}`TP - Stephanie Trenck, ARB 5. Film - "Air Pollution - The Facts" - Lung Association a . (AW 6/22/76) %� NAP 0P��F' PROCEEDINGS 1t�1`ove SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE MEETING N0. 8 May 26, 1976 1. Mark Braly, Chairman of the Tactics and Strategies Committee, reported that the Tactics and Strategies final draft report would be mailed out June 4 for review and comment by the full Policy Task Force by their next meeting. Mr. Braly indicated an EAP had been adopted by the Committee which called for implementation as soon as possible. Included in the EAP is new source review measure. Mr. Braly indi- cated that the Committee felt a new source review rule should be uniformly defined throughout an area and that it should be more stringent than the present SCAPCD rule. He then asked for adoption of the EAP. Mr. McCrackin expressed concern about the definition of an EAP as a program to be implemented as soon as possible. He felt early study or priority consideration was warranted, but not immediate implementation. Late in the meeting discussion again ensued on the meaning of EAP. Mary Nichols, ARB Board Member, indi- cated that EAP could fit in with the EPA requirements for submittal of all achievable emission limits measures by July, 1977. With the general understanding that EAP did not mean immediate implementation, the EAP was adopted. 2. Frank McCrackin, Chairman of the Boundaries and Forecasting Committee, reviewed the limited purposes of the Boundaries and Forecasting report. He indicated it was to help identify problem areas, such as measurement of vehicular emissions and modeling, provide a review of AQMP boundaries, and determine the likelihood that air quality standards would be exceeded. Within this framework, Mr. McCrackin indicated the report could be very valuable. He also indicated more final copies will be available shortly. Late in the meeting, the subject returned to the Boundaries and Forecasting report. Mr. Braly expressed concern about adopting an EAP based upon possibly inadequate data. Mr. McCrackin indicated that the basis for his concern was that the definition of EAP be something less than immediate implementation. (AQMP 6/1/76) 0 Judy Orttung, substituting for Chairman Dennis Hansberger, summarized the Institutional Mechanisms Committee recom- mendations on SCAG's Plan Program Preparation (PPP). They are the following: a. Each PTF member state in writing their particular concerns of air quality that should be addressed in the PPP. b. Each PTF member nominate and appoint, if they desire, members for the Work Group and Specialist Committee. These recommendations were adopted without objection. 4. Victor Magistrale, Assistant Director of Planning for SLAG, presented the PPP and summarized progress to date. He encouraged PTF members to provide input by telephone or in writing within the next two weeks. Contact persons are either himself or Joe Doty. (Telephone 213-385-1000) Stephanie Trenck, ARB AW staff, commented that the PPP met the concerns of the Institutional Mechanisms Committee. The PTF approved the PPP as developed to date. 5. Stephanie Trenck then reported that the ARB wishes to use the AQN process to consider measures for meeting state air quality standards. In addition to state standards for Federal criteria pollutants, the state has established standards for hydrogen sulfide, lead, visibility, and sulfates. Mary Nichols indicated that these standards are goals rather than legal requirements. No objections were raised. 6. Frank Covington, EPA Assistant Regional Director for Air Programs and hazardous Materials, spoke on EPA air quality concerns. He indicated the importance of building a broad base of support for adopting air quality measures. He emphasized the public health aspects of air quality. In response to a question by Chairman Braude, Mr. Covington assured the PTF that there is a solid statutory base for AQ,MP. 7. Judy Orttung and Marvin Braude were nominated for the 208 Program Committee. The SCAG Executive Committee will select one of these persons. 8. Peter Fearey raised the question of an Executive Summary. This was discussed by PTF members in the context of increasing public awareness about the AQMP process. Staff indicated they would develop some ideas on the matter. - 2 - 0 SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE Meeting Number 6 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 24, 1976 SCAG, Suite 1000, loth Floor DNA Bldg., 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Los Angeles, California A G E N D A 1. Boundaries/Forecasting Committee Report - Report on Preliminary Findings of Emissions Inventory and Air Quality Forecast qtt Rem"r (86 2. Tactics/Strategies Committee Report to It RcRwr" 3. Institutional Mechanisms Committee Report - Possible Action Item: 2t'60rt0�Sg A. AQNP Phase II Agency DesignationG A'5z o 4. Consideration of SCAG's Response to Condition of Designation for 208 Wastewater Quality Planning 5. SCAG-The Regional Transportation Plan and Air Quality - Tad Widby, SCAG K RCommun ant y® pOVo PI MAR 3.7 (AQMP 3/15/76) • 0 INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS COMMITTEE Notions on the floor: NO 1. t. That SCAG be the lead agency for AQI`1P; That SCAG designation be conditional upon completion of an adequate AQP'F Work Program with special consideration given to a public participation element; / / L 14-_ /.-.n.F L%e .tir ,wS�1w1� S%611d1'�4 1 C.V £� Cv i Go ti A-�a�� 'Fdw4AVAA"C�01J That the Policy Task Force continue in znw f4a c' olw-lN5 t Z;r "-the AQKP process; That the APCIs be involved in the planning process. fio� DO O That funding b`z�6-,808 be provided to yw - SCAG for the�APhase (I Work Progs�devvelo meen�t; �k s he Wo� � That the Work Program b submitte to the PTF at its May meeting, and That SCAG provide a progress report on Work Program. development at the PTF April meeting. C' ' r .'J yy3 V \ / • 1 amx VI L Y�+�'1/,iy j/.J I �'G/�.'�� M a * q � PTJ .TV.tii 11 � iO� rb f � State of California Air Resources Board o What are the requirements? - Clean Air Act requires long-term maintenance of air quality - Need to attain as well as maintain air quality standards - Need to integrate land use/transportation policies with air quality planning o What areas and what pollutants are involved? - South Coast - Pollutants for which the area is identified: Particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen dioxide - Geographic composition of area: Orange County Ventura County Those portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Santa Barbara Counties lying in the South Coast Air Basin, as defined in the State Implementation Plan, Revision 5 - Southeast Desert - Pollutant for which the area is identified: Photochemical oxidants - Geographic composition of area: Coachella Valley portion of Riverside County, and that portion of San Bernardino County in the Southeast Air Basin south of latitude 350 10'N and west of longitude 1150 45'W o What are the functional arrangements for AQl"IP? - 27 member Policy Task Force comprised of elected officials and public members - Technical Advisory Committee comprised of staffs of various governmental agencies, private organizations and public groups who have planning or air pollution related expertise - Staff to be determined by the level of commitment of local government and organizations to the effort o What will the AQJ4P include? - Analysis of the region's air quality problems through 1995 - Sources of pollution - Description of regional air quality - Ranges of expected air quality - Development of regional air quality goals - Dates for achieving clean air goals for each pollutant - Interim goals - reducing the number of days with unhealthy air - Analysis of technical, land use, transportation and administrative mechanisms available to meet air quality goals - Selection of strategies to meet air quality goals - Implementation of strategies - agreements of responsibility to take action 10/,6/75 L 0 o How will the program be initiated? - Phase I - 6 months - pre -planning and definition of air quality problem - Phase II - as expeditiously as practical (2-year estimate) - plan development and implementation o What are the Phase I Tasks? - Define the region's long-term air quality problems - Validate or redefine boundaries of AQMA - Determine a governmental mechanism capable of developing and implementing an AQMP - Prepare a Phase lI Work Program Which agencies may be involved at the local and regional level? - COGs, Regional Transportation Agencies, APCDs, Cities and Counties, Citizen and Special Interest Groups, CalTrans, Coastal Commissions, State Water Resources Control Board, Special Districts, ARB and EPA o Why do we need an AQ)V? - To provide a framework for decision making on transportation plans, clean water projects, parking facilities, indirect sources, industrial development, and other projects which must be consistent with clean air goals - To provide for the implementation of MA and CEQA as they relate to air quality impact of developmental projects - To provide for maximum local decision making on how healthy air will be achieved and maintained - To insure that the achievement of healthy air is in consonance with other societal goals o Whom can you contact for further information? - Air Resources Board AQ11P Team 28 Civic Center Plaza, Room 640 Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 558-4075 .• Air, QUALITY MAINTENANCE POLICY TASr. FORCE FORMATION • Affiliation( July 7, 1975 Phone Number. i. Which one of the following three task force composition options do you favor? OPTION ONE [ ] This first option consolidates the major recommendations coming out of the 12 discussion -groups on.June 27. ,This alternative considers participation of elected officials balanced by broad public representation. The constituted task force at Its option, could form a steering committee from the total group to cut down on the number of times for the full group to meet. If you have suggestions as to how this task force should be modified, please make them by adding or deleting representation an the list below. -Suggested Number, ELECTED OFFICIALS of Members City of Los Angeles i one City in each county in the air basin 6 One Supervisor from each county in the air 6 - basin Southern California Association of Govemmentsf t (to represent a city) ' PUBLIC MEMBERS one from each of the following categories: Industry public Utilities Public Interest^Civic Commerce Labor Senior Citizen Agriculture.' Environment Low Income Land Development Health Minority. 12 Suggestions for additional representatives: Total 26 OPTION TWO The second option is a recommendation made by one discussion group at the June 27 meeting. It is offee red here as an option since the recommendation varied so signi- ficantly from others presented that day. The task force would be composed of 13 members representing the following categories: - r Air Pollution Control District Land Development Business Urban and regional planning Environment Health Urban recipient of air pollution Government Industry Rural recipient of air pollution Transportation Labor -Suburban recipient of air pollution OPTION THREE [ ] The third option was proposed by the Southern California Association of Governments_ This option would designate SCAG's Air Quality Task Force as the nucleus for the AQMP Policy Task Force with the addition of members of the South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council. if you choose this option, please make suggestions for public participation. ELECTED COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES San Bernardino Board of Supervisors - one supervisor South -Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council (one supervisor from each air pollution control district) ' ELECTED CITY REPRESENTATIVES Los Angeles County - Arcadia, Claremont, Long Beach, Los Angeles City Council, Los Angeles Mayor's Office, Montebello, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Torranca Orange County - Carden Grove and La Habra - Riverside County - Palm Springs, Riverside San Bernardino County - Upland ' . Ventura County - Fitlmore, Ojai Suggestions for, Public Participation: - s 2. What organizations (name) do you recommend to be included as public ,embers category? (Applicable to all options.) 9. The following organizations were recarwended for inclusion an a technical advisory coewittes: Do you have any additional suggestionsT • SCAG staff Air Pollution Control,Districts staff city and County Planning i Public Works Department staff League of Citles•staff CalTrans . Air Resources Board' Transit District staff " University experts in fields of air poltution,1transportatTon, economics, planning Please identify d••staff person in your organizallon whom we can contact •as.this process proceeds. .. Please return this Questlonnalre ty duly 18, 1975 to AONP Task Force, Air Resources Board, 1709 - lith Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN lR., Governo, AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1709 — I Ith STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 S Ct0,0 00V!/ July 7, 1975 ca £,ova' ID yps'D1 Chairman, South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council , Mayor, City of Los Angeles President, Los Angeles City Council President, Southern California Association of Governments . All County Supervisors in South Coast Air Basin Mayor, each city in South Coast Air Basin Public Organizations with an interest in air quality planning Individuals who attended June 27 meeting SUBJECT: Questionnaire on the Composition of the South Coast Air Basin Air Quality Maintenance Plan - Policy Task Force Dear friends: On June 27, the Air Resources Board hosted a meeting which many of you or your representatives attended to initiate an air quality maintenance planning (AQMP) process for the South Coast Air Basin. The immediate purpose of the meeting was to determine the composition of a policy task force. This task force will meet several times during the next six months and will have the assistance of a technical advisory group. Its responsibilities include (1)identification of air quality, problems in the basin, (2) development of an initial AQMP policy framework, (3) analysis of air quality data, (4) analysis of AQMP boundaries, and (5) recommendation of procedures and personnel to develop specific air quality maintenance strategies and plans. The June 27 meeting revealed a strong consensus that elected officials and citizens groups should be involved in the planning process to assure that long range air quality goals are integrated with other public programs and priorities. Time did not permit the group to reach agreement on the size and composition of the task force. Therefore, I proposed that the ARB staff analyze and evaluate the suggestions developed by each afternoon discussion group. The attached ballot/questionnaire outlines the three major options identified by the staff's analysis. The first of these is an attempt to distill the recommendations made by a majority of the discussion groups into a basic framework with various elements that may be modified. The second option was proposed by one discussion group that sought a smaller, more efficient organization. The third option was presented on behalf of Southern California Association of Governments. a "2- I urge you to consider each of these options thoughtfully and to return your response by July 18 so that we may proceed with the process. The ARB staff will be pleased to answer any questions regarding the questionnaire or the AQMP process ((916) 322-3806). Thank you for your help and cooperation. Mar N' hols Member Air Resources Board Attachment L__ QUESTIONNAIRE ON Name_ AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE POLICY TASK FORCE FORMATION Afflllat July 7, 1975 Phone Number 1. Which one of the following three task force composition options do you favor? OPTION ONE [ ) This first option consolidates the major recommendations coming out of the 12 discussion groups on June 27. Als alternative considers participation of elected officials balanced by broad public representation. The constituted task force at Its option, could form a steering committee from the total group to cut down on the number of times for the full group to meet. If you have suggestions as to how this task force should be modified, please make them by adding or deleting representation on the list below. ELECTED OFFICIALS City of Los Angeles One City in each county in the ai One Supervisor from each county i basin Southern California Association o (to represent a city) PUBLIC MEMBERS one from each of the Industry Public Utilities Commerce Labor Agriculture Environment Land Development Health Suggested Number r n f of Members 1 basin 6 the air 6 Governments i following categories: Public Interest -Civic Senior Citizen Low Income Minority 12 Suggestions for additional representatives: Total 26 OPTION TWO [ ) The second option is a recommendation made by one discussion group at the June 27 meeting. It is offered here as an'option since the recommendation varied so signi- ficantly from others presented that day. The task force would be composed of 13 members representing the following categories: Air Pohlutlan Control District Land Development Business Urban and regional planning Environment Health Urban recipient of air pollution Government Industry Rural recipient of air pollution Transportation Labor Suburban recipient of air pollution OPTION THREE [ ) The third option was proposed by the Southern California Association of Governments. This option would designate SCAG's Air Quality Task Force as the nucleus for the AQMP Policy Task Force with the addition of members of the South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council. If you choose this option, please make suggestions for public participation. ELECTED COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES San Bernardino Board of Supervisors - one supervisor South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council (one supervisor from each air pollution control district) ELECTED CITY REPRESENTATIVES Los Angeles County - Arcadia, Claremont, Long Beach, Los Angeles City Council, Los Angeles Mayor's Office, Montebello, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Torrance Orange County - Garden Grove and La Habra Riverside County - Palm Springs, Riverside San Bernardino County - Upland Ventura County - Fillmore, Ojai Suggestions for Public Participation: Suggestions for additional representatives: Total 26 OPTION TWO [ ) The second option is a recommendation made by one discussion group at the June 27 meeting. It is offered here as an'option since the recommendation varied so signi- ficantly from others presented that day. The task force would be composed of 13 members representing the following categories: Air Pohlutlan Control District Land Development Business Urban and regional planning Environment Health Urban recipient of air pollution Government Industry Rural recipient of air pollution Transportation Labor Suburban recipient of air pollution OPTION THREE [ ) The third option was proposed by the Southern California Association of Governments. This option would designate SCAG's Air Quality Task Force as the nucleus for the AQMP Policy Task Force with the addition of members of the South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council. If you choose this option, please make suggestions for public participation. ELECTED COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES San Bernardino Board of Supervisors - one supervisor South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council (one supervisor from each air pollution control district) ELECTED CITY REPRESENTATIVES Los Angeles County - Arcadia, Claremont, Long Beach, Los Angeles City Council, Los Angeles Mayor's Office, Montebello, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Torrance Orange County - Garden Grove and La Habra Riverside County - Palm Springs, Riverside San Bernardino County - Upland Ventura County - Fillmore, Ojai Suggestions for Public Participation: OPTION THREE [ ) The third option was proposed by the Southern California Association of Governments. This option would designate SCAG's Air Quality Task Force as the nucleus for the AQMP Policy Task Force with the addition of members of the South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council. If you choose this option, please make suggestions for public participation. ELECTED COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES San Bernardino Board of Supervisors - one supervisor South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council (one supervisor from each air pollution control district) ELECTED CITY REPRESENTATIVES Los Angeles County - Arcadia, Claremont, Long Beach, Los Angeles City Council, Los Angeles Mayor's Office, Montebello, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Torrance Orange County - Garden Grove and La Habra Riverside County - Palm Springs, Riverside San Bernardino County - Upland Ventura County - Fillmore, Ojai Suggestions for Public Participation: -1- 1. What organizations (name) do you recomnaad to be Included at public members category? (Appilcable to all options.) 3. The following organizations were recommended for Inclusion on a technical advisory committee: Do you have any additional suggestionst SCAD staff Air Pollution Control Districts staff City and County Planning a Public Works Departmant staff League of Cities staff CaITram Air Resources board Transit District staff University experts In fields of air pollution, transportation, econmics, planning 4. Please Identify a staff person In your orgahlzation whom we can contact as this process proceeds. Name Departmer. /Agency Address Phone City =Ip 5. Convents. Please return this Questlonnalra by July 10, 1975 to AQMP Task Forest Ale Resources Board, 1709 - llth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Interactive Media Hearing for the South Coast Air Basin for Fiscal Year 1976-77 Funding Requested: $90,658 Grantor: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Washington, D.C. Applicant: California Air Resources Board 1709 Eleventh Street Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 322-6076 William Lewis, Executive Officer William C. Lockett, Project Director Submitted: November 28, 1975 INTERACTIVE MEDIA FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Applicant: California Air Resources Board ABSTRACT The California Air Resources Board is the primary agency for dealing with the problems of air pollution in California. This responsibility includes the development of materials (i.e., news releases, press conferences, fact sheets, brochures, films, etc.) for informing the public of the causes of air pollution, alternative methods of air pollution control, and responsi- bility of citizens and industry to comply with State pollution control laws and regulations. The 6-county South Coast Air Basin contains 490, of the total State popula- tionThis population concentration and its peculiar topographic configuration which, combined with meteorological conditions and frequent temperature inversions, causes the most severe smog conditions in the State. The Air Resources Board is currently participating in Phase I oP the EPA - mandated air quality maintenance planning process (AQi4P). This new process is seriously underfunded and requires a citizen participation mechanism. This work program proposes one mechanism - televised public hearing - to obtain input and evaluation of AQMp by South Coast Air Basin residents. The program utilizes television with other media to present long-range air quality options to the South Coast Community with feedback mechanisms in the process. This mechanism provides both critical education on the air pollution problem in the South Coast Air Basin as well as an oppor- tunity for citizens to be heard in developing solutions that may involve changes in their life style. -1- 0 INTERACTIVE MEDIA FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Applicant: California Air Resources Board INTRODUCTION The air quality maintenance planning process (AQMP) reaches into the long-range timeframe of 10, 20, and 30 years. Without this long-range perspective, short- term plans may not be able to provide adequate solutions. Public participation is both a required and an integral part of California's recently initiated air quality maintenance planning process. Public education in air quality problems is key to meaningful participation. The more centralized and expert -dominated the planning process becomes, the less citizen participation in the formulation of public policy, the greater the liklihood that the developing plans will not reflect "real" public needs and not be implementable. Without adequate public feedback mechanisms, planning for human needs is only a symbolic act. Ignoring the ever-increasing need for information in the system -- even negative feedback -- increases the opportunity for uncorrected, weak plans to be developed which are not implementable. Public decision -makers need to make a massive effort at increased public partici- pation. Involving representative blacks, chicanos, women, elderly persons, handicapped persons, and low-income persons as advisors is not enough. The ritualistic public hearing process at which experts and official groups testify is not sufficiently attended by the general public to obtain a wide cross-section of public opinion. The California Air Resources Board is energetically soliciting input and evaluation of the air quality maintenance planning process. The proposed plan combines an imaginative adaptation of television with other media to present long-range air quality options to the South Coast Air Bastin community with feedback mechanisms in the process. This would provide education on the air pollution problem in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) as well as a real opportunity for citizens to be heard in developing solutions that may involve change in their lifestyles. THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD AND AIR QUAIJ.TY ht4INTENANCE PLANNING Historic.illy, the California Air Resources Board has been a leadar in developing air quality programs. In Spring, 1975, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) embarked on an effort: to davolop comprehensive long-range plans to attain and maintain healthy levels of air quality for California's urban areas. Federal, regulations require that an air quality maintenance plan (AQNP) be developed in those areas (AQMAs) where attainment or maintenance of the standards by 1977 are not predicted and/or where grorith and developma nt in the 10-year period 1975-85 may interfere with either attainment or maintenance of the standards once achieved. One such area is the South Coast Air Basin (see Map #1). -2- '• r4. "u � 1ntv.n SOUTH �.` sax ?ar[ags�..D I ♦� dd .=+-.vi tins e r CENTRAL is w..i• .� . .... I COAST •.;':,y `y' r f '� 1 ... �.. 1 Lo t `]�* • s •A Y E i _ 9 E R M A A C 1 Y 0 c a 4 3 AAA :�. \ ��e s t. vE r TOAA s\\��~♦\1j....t SOUTHEAS'. \ D • J .nxa. SOUTH COAST"• ve•a souls,, COAST old @ 6eey.�iad r 43,C�lt a "(\^J\ �" MZA rl��' btu ]•..' I_ t Y P E P l t t .:[..1%� 1.. :41R)a JV Ci i..a vx o SAN. ••i••: v...�r:a:o C'sEPr v��e���s r6O Y'•'1 ]ak Ek0STATE �. .iy.x4 ..y,t• DIEGO _ SaY D:EvO � .• ems• ...t.aas���� MAP #1 01 INTERACTIVE MEDIA FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Applicant: California Air Resources Board Through the AQMP process, the ARB is working to bring together the best tools to attain clean air in the longer term. These tools include technical control of stationary and mobile pollution sources as well as the integration of transportation and land use planning into the decisionmaking processes. Land use and transportation planning have been primarily the responsibility of local government. The ARg is attempting to bring together citizens and economic interests as well as representatives of local governments in task forces to develop cooeprative programs to achieve and maintain air quality in the longer term through the integration of air quality considerations into land use and transportation planning decisions. The AQMP process will also attempt to define the interrelationships between air quality and other socio-economic and energy concerns. The South Coast Air Basin is a metropolitan AQMA containing 49% of the total state polulation (10 million persons), 6% of the State's land area, and produces 38% of the total tonnage of air pollutants. This geographic area is characterized by chronically poor air quality. Concentrations of all the commonly -measured pollutants frequently exceed air quality standards in this air basin. This densely populated air basin is particularly plagued by California's biggest air quality problem - photochemical oxidant. To meet federal standards, the ARB anticipates that a 70% reduction will be required In oxidant levels in critical air areas. To do this, planners and decision - makers must take a closer look at proposed strategies for vehicular control devices; growth disincentives; land use patterns; and long-term transportation plans. The Air Resources Board demonstrated its commitment to public participation in the AQMP process by including citizens and elected officials as equal members of the South Coast Air Basin AQMP Policy Task Force. Individual caucuses were held not only with traditionally environmentally aware groups (League of Women Voters, environmentalists, land developers) but also with the low-income, minority, and senior citizen communities. Attendees at these caucuses selected their own Polic; Task Force representative. An ongoing public participation program is also planned to further inform the public of air quality and related issues and to solicit input to decisionmaking. Throughout the AQMP process, the need for adequate citizen input has been reiterated particularly for the South Coast Air Basin. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We propose linking commercial marketing techniques with governmental practice to stimulate and encourage public participation in the air quality planning process. -4- INTERACTIVE MEDIA FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Applicant: California Air Resources Board Using a televised public hearing by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) as a model, the ARB proposes to televise in January 1977 a two-hour public hearing incorporating the concept of "interactive media". Utilizing the unique communication capabilities of public television in conjunction with other market indicators for the South Coast AQMP process, our objectives are: to reach more than 100,000 people via public television station KCET to publish and distribute a descriptive pape°r on the AQMP process and AQMP objectives . to elicit feedback as evidenced by: - responses to the ballot/questionnaire - questions of public hearing panel members - recorded testimony - letters of program recognition addressed to this agency or to the television station to reach into the Mexican -American community of 331 million by providing a bilingual radio broadcast coincident with the telecast to develop a longer -term citizen participation program component by determining the interest level and assessing the most successful outreach technique Mass media, as opposed to face-to-face dialogue, are primarily one-way channels of communication to an audience which cannot respond. Neither can the audience provide direction to programming to fill their needs nor register evaluation or program validity. Interactive media provides 2-way communication with a mass audience, preferably with maximum ease and minimum formality. Working in cooperation with KCET-Channel 28, a public broadcasting system station in the Los Angeles area, the ARB would utilize a resource already funded by the federal government. KCET has expressed interest in broadcasting this public hearing and has participated during concept formulation (see KCET letter attached). KCET - Los Angeles KCET is one of the major producers of national programming for the public broadcasting system. KCET handles all the recording and retransmission functions as the Pacific Time Zone control center for PBS. KCET is a non-profit corporation which has been in existence for thirteen years with a current membership of nearly 100,000 subscribers and an estimated weekly vie;iing audience of almost 1,000,000 persons. KCET's broadcast signal is now received by 91% of the homes in the -5- INTERACTIVE MEDIA FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Applicant: California Air Resources Board greater Los Angeles area. KCET's broadcast signal coincides with the designated SCAB AQMA boundaries (see Map #2). KCET has produced major programming in many fields and for wide audiences, receiving virtually every award of excellence offered for telecommunication in sports, public affairs, drama, music, documentaries, and children's programming. According to Arbitron Television Estimated of December 1974, 91% of the homes in the Los Angeles metropolitan area have sets equipped to receive KCET's UHF signal. It is estimated that in an average week, 8049000 homes view KCET while 430,000 homes view KCET during prime time (7:30 - 11:30 p.m.). Year around, KCET actively engages in fund raising to support public programming. Because of the annual auction, KCET has a potential for nearly 100 incoming telephone lines accessible from one number. These are arranged in a bank in KCET's largest studio which permits viewers to see operators receiving calls from the living room audience, in response to broadcast from that very studio - a complete and instantaneous feedback loop. This system is easily adaptable to enable citizens and their governments to talk to each other. Public television broadcasting has a significant level of federal funding. It is our intention to maximize that investment by pairing innovative programming and governmental processes through media manipulation and market analysis. Compared with conventional public hearings, the use of public television offers many advantages. The proposed televised hearing will 1) Open the hearing process to many people who could not participate in the usual public hearing process without a significant increase in the frequency and location of hearings. Additional hearings in new settings could present new material rather than repeating the previous material to a new and small audience. 2) Inform and educate viewers on air pollution problems and the benefits and liabilities of proposed strategies 3) Identify and explain the air pollution problems of the South Coast, thus providing the viewers with first hand experience and improved understanding 4) Improve acceptability and effectiveness of proposed solutions by obtaining input from a wide cross-section of the public 5) Provide an opportunity for persons not represented by special -interest organizations and who might otherwise be unaware of a public hearing to express their opinions and to question community leaders and technical experts in the field of air pollution control -6- S (. aavotr /Aa . W—\l — �— — — -- a r'+C �S 4•I•iA.4` _ Snb.Er Ym.♦ !9 P r.. RrynR � Ilc`�CR \�� 9 r�J e FORESTVENTURAI LOS ANGEU as IULuiYlniu �w KCETIS BROADCAST SIGNAL MAP n2 A LITSLFEOCIt A] A•• � �y rf r.n LOS ANGELES COUNTY'-,.,63 u Yt tleema.....+ e I 1L/l.C'Allt IR TFhr[rw a L�.ra t. I aLnFxo >;lY �• Sn AAt HflYPORT 6FACH' +�T`..ii I N .. r.n.n0 . �.. i UCVNA F CWIH D N ,r E a EIM.ou - '- C'rL L ...e.� GRAx W:: d{ ... ay roatm � i ADEI7JFF0 nCTGAYRLE L` V I C T o R m APM VALLEY ) \ A / V A L L E Y Yr 395 V L1pY/ , iLLl&T!]R ramv+ax i :Yr Y ` • v+Ltd -�6_TA I 01 !1 INTERACTIVE MEDIA pOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Applicant: California Air REsources Board Communicate the members of community and political Obtain valuable feedback and suggestions for refinement or change in proposed air quality strategies Present pre—recorded film of public officials, special technical experts who may express alternate viewpoints presented by the panel or the AQMP process Present educational material and develop public policy directions an informal and entertaining manner. INTERACTIVE MEDIA FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Applicant: California Air Resources Board THE HEARING As currently conceived, the hearing would include several features: Ballot/Questionnaire Tabloid In cooperation with local public agencies, ARB proposes to publish an over- view of the strategies proposed to alleviate air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin. This publication will be distributed in advance of the televised hearing. This publication will feature a•ballot/questionnaire to assess individual needs and priorities. Responses will be analyzed by support staff currently available at ARB headquarters in Sacramento. Advertising and Target Market Stimuli Public service announcements, TV magazine listings, employees' pay envelope enclosures, newspaper ads, special interest newsletters, direct mail cam- paign, trade journals, collegiate newspaper ads, and Los Angeles city -owned utility bill enclosures are available alternatives to stimulate the resi- dents of the SCAB AQh1A to view and participate in this hearing. Interactive Media Public Hearing In January, 1977, interactive media would be used to enable the public to ask questions of a panel of specialists in air quality/land use/transportation planning, as well as local and state decision makers. At this time it is anticipated that the Governor of California and the Chairman of the Air Resources Board would participate as well as other recognized political figures from local and regional agencies. Questions received by telephone would be taken by volunteer operators, sorted into batches of similar interest, and representative questions then submitted to the public officials and technical experts. The volunteers would be selected from agency personnel familiar with the AQMP process and hearing objectives. To qualify as a public hearing, viewers would be encouraged to submit testimony via the phone lines on issues relevant to the AQMMP process. This would be accomplished by equipping incoming phone units with recording devices as appropriate. Later, all testimony will be trans- cribed and established as a public record of the process. This public record would be utilized for policy development during Phase 11. Bilingual Broadcast During Fall, 1976, ARB efforts will be directed at locating a -9- INTERACTIVE MEDIA FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Applicant: California Air Resources Board Spanish-speaking radio station(s) to broadcast the audio portion of the public hearing simultaneously with the telecast. Approximately 3-1/2 million Spanish-speaking persons live in this target area. They are primarily owners of older automobiles and many are residents of blighted urban areas with minimal access to public transportation. Consequently, they represent a very large target group of presently contemplated strategies. It is essential that provisions be made for the participa- tion of this segment of the public in the hearing process. Hearing Follow-up An adjourned public hearing following traditional procedures will be held within 2 weeks subsequent to the telecast. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider testimony submitted during the public hearing. This subsequent hearing will be announced on the air and viewers will be en- couraged to attend and to lobby for their particular interests. It is our intention to assist local citizens in developing a range of alternatives available to them. It is important for them to know the air quality problems of the SCAB and their impact; however, it is equally important that each recognize the politics of the problem and that each individual has a responsibility and an opportunity to be heard. The Production The proposed project will be a composite of pre-recorded and live material designed to illustrate and explain the South Coast air quality problem and present viable control strategies. It is intended that the project be educational, localized, and flexible. Film clips will be used as a 10-15 minute presentation to provide the audience a reasonably equal information base on the air quality planning issues. This pre-recorded material will be the educational lead-in for the live presentation. The content would include: - explanation of basic air quality processes and pollutant movement within South Coast Air Basin. - description of pollutants generated by automobiles and stationary sources. - health effects of air pollution. - explanation of California Air Pollution Emergency Plan and of some localized plans formulated by local agencies and employers, to be used during smog alerts. -10- 9 0 INTERACTIVE MEDIA FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Applicant: California Air Resources Board roles of planning agencies in South Coast Air Basin for long term air quality attainment and maintenance. - alternate proposed strategies under consideration by government and citizens. The production will be facilitated by KCET in cooperation with the Air Resources Board. KCET will provide a staff producer, film and production crew as well as use of the studio facilities and,air time. ARB and KCET will select a host/moderator for this program. A policy task force composed of elected officials, citizens, and special interest groups is now operative in the South Coast Air Basin. This policy task force is responsible for developing a structure and process for Phase II of the AQMP process. The institutional mechanism that is selected for the Phase II framework will also provide the steering function for this project. -11- INTERACTIVE MEDIA FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Applicant; California Air Resources Board BUDGET* Total Request $ 90,658 Total ro ect Cost $113,322 Comparing these costs to the costs of a traditional public hearing or series of public hearings is difficult. A hearing can be held for much less cost but with limited public access. It is our intent to provide the best possible information to the most citizens, and to obtain a maximum quantity and quality of citizen advice. Therefore, the funds which can be spent are limited only by their availability. In this case, the television - telephone combination seems intuitively to be the most effective tool for reaching significant portions of the South Coast population. The cost of a hearing for 500 people may be only $250 or $0.50 per person. This program is expected to reach 100,000 persons or roughly $1.13 per person. The effectiveness of the larger audience justifies the cost. AIR RESOURCES BOARD --------------- *---------------------------- $ 68,322 Staff and Overhead** 36,572 (Includes Cons u t ng Producer (60 days @ 100/day) Staff Project Director (6 mos. @ 1,000/mo.) Public Information Office support, AQMP State Team, Policy Task Force Members, and Clerical Support, etc. It is anticipated that Shirley Goodman (WTTW) would contract with the ARB as a consulting producer. Ms. Goodman produced the proto- typical Illinois hearing and brings this experience to our credit. An active environmentalist and veteran producer, Ms. Goodman has indicated strong interest in working with the California Air Resources Board. Working with KCET`s staff producer, Taylor Hackford, she will consult intermittently over the 6 months performance period. • Equipment-Recorders/Telephones 7,000 • Film, Videotape, & Related Costs 1,250 Graphics & Animation 10000 ' Advertising & Public Notices 15,000 • Travel-Sacto. to L.A. & Return 11200 (15 trips x 8000/trip) Miscellaneous 300 *Federal Match Requirement will be in -kind support services. **Indirect Cost Rate of 31.33% estimated against Personal Service total included. -12- INTERACTIVE MEDIA FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Applicant: California Air Resources Board KCET_------------------------------------------$ 45,000 KCET provided this estimated evaluation for a television host; a KCET staff producer; film crew (location and in -studio; videotaping; pro- cessing and editing of film segments; use of studio and phone banks; as well as 2-hours of prime time. Without knowing the exact time of broadcast and depth of program detail, it is impossible to have a more definitive budget. -13- • 0 INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS COMMITTEE February 10, 1976 SUMMARY 1. The Committee received and accepted the minutes of a subcommittee meeting on Public Participation in Phase II. 2. The Committee approved the following public participation goals: a. A major commitment and effort shall be made to increase public awareness, understanding and involvement during plan preparation. b. The public to be reached shall include organizations and groups traditionally interested in air quality as well as those not having this traditional interest. c. The public shall be involved at all stages of the planning process including work plan development, determination of assumptions to be used in technical analysis, initial selection of strategy alternatives, impact assessment, selection of the best alternative strategies, final strategy selection and adoption, and determination of implementation mechanisms. Additionally, the adopted plan shall provide for continuing public review of implementing agency(s) performance. d. The planning program for Phase II shall provide for public attitude assessment on air pollution and its effects, and social and economic impacts which may result in order to attain and maintain air quality standards. e. During the planning process as many media as can be employed effectively shall be used to increase public awareness, understanding and involvement. f. The media of radio and television especially, shall be utilized in order to reach and obtain response from the greatest number of people on the regional issue of air pollution. g. Elected officials, as representatives of the public, shall be kept aware and involved in the planning process. (AQt'D' 2/17/76) 0 0 - 2- 3. The Committee approved a resolution supporting ARB's grant application to the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare proposing a televised public hearing to obtain input and feedback on long-range air quality options (attachment #1). The Committee urged that the public feedback be directed towards the agency selected to complete the Phase II AQMP planning and that the Phase II planning agency have a public participation program. 4. A major topic of discussion was the selection of the institutional mechanism for carrying out the responsi- bilities of Phase II. The relationship of the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Program to Air Quality Maintenance Planning was reviewed. Selection of the Phase II institutional mechanism will be the major item on the next Institutional Mechanisms Committee agenda. 5. AQMP staff provided the Committee with a review of Phase I tasks and responsibilities. The report (attachment #2) illustrates the linkages among the three working committees of the Policy Task Force. 6. The Committee was also provided a copy of the Preliminary Air Quality Maintenance Plan Work Program recently com- pleted by the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (BAAPCD) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 7. Next Institutional Mechanisms Committee Meeting: (tentative) March 4, 1976 2 p.m. ARB Conference Room 9528 Telstar Avenue ,El Monte, California r*7 SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT Air Quality Maintenance Planning Institutional Mechanisms Committee Resolution No. 1 WHEREAS, the Committee on Institutional Mechanisms believes a major effort is required to increase public awareness, understanding and involvement during Phase II Plan preparation. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Committee supports the attached grant application of the Air Resources Board and recommends that the full Policy Task Force also support such application to obtain public involvement in the planning process. (AQMP 2/1?/76) REVIEW OF PHASE I TASKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Policy Task Force, acting in an advisory capacity to the Air Resources Board, has undertaken to provide the following outputs: 1. An overview forecast of emissions and air quality sufficient to establish the need for a long-term air quality maintenance planning program, provide a broad definition of the Region's long-term air quality problems, and validate the boundaries for the AW. 2. A statement of long-term and interim air quality goals accompanied by a statement of land use, trans- portation, public participation, and. technical goals consistent with and supportive of air quality goal achievement. 3. A recommendation of the planning mechanism to be used in Phase II. 4. A Phase II Work Program with sufficient detail to identify resources needed to carry out the program. 5. An initial determination of tactics and strategies to be analyzed in Phase II together with an overview assessment of effectiveness, and social and economic impact. A methodology for Phase II assessment of tactics/strategies is also to be provided. Before proceeding, it should be pointed out that the production of Output 2 is problematic. The Clean Air Act amendments, which may revise time schedules for meeting air quality goals, are presently being considered in Congress. These amendments are the single most important determinant for establishing long-term and interim goals within the South Coast Air Basin. Without this information, it is not possible to establish goals with the cer- tainty that they will meet the requirements of the law, especially for oxidant. Nevertheless, approaches to formulating these goals should be investigated. Additionally, assessment of the capability of available strategies to reduce emissions may permit some ten- tative goal statements. To simplify the task of completing Phase I, the Policy Task Force Chairman created three committees, each having responsibility for specific outputs. The Committee on Boundaries and Forecasting has the responsibility for Output 1; the Tactics and Strategies (AQjKf' 2/5/76) f 0 - 2 - Committee has the responsibility for Output 5; and the Committee on Institutional Mechanisms has the responsibility for Outputs 2, 3 and 4. Outputs, of each committee can be improved by, and in some cases require, input from other committees. Additionally, intermediate and by-products of one committee may assist another committee, thus improving the quality and level of detail in the final work product. however, given the brief time frame allowed for Phase I tasks, the work of each committee must proceed con- currently. Nevertheless, linkages between committees can be defined and an iteractive process set up to improve quality and consistency of outputs throughout the process. Linkages are indicated below: A. Tactics/Strategies Committee to Institutional Mechanisms Committee 1. Tactics analyzed by the Tactics/Strategies Committee will assist in formulation of a work program and deter- mining reasonableness of goals. 2. Methodology identified to analyze social and economic effects should be incorporated in a work program document. 3. Early action implementation programl (tentatively available April 19) 4. Supplemental goals' (tentatively available April 19) 5. Identification of resource needs to cgm lete analysis of tactics and strategies in Phase II (tentatively available April 19) 6. Research needs identified for Phase II Work Programs (tentatively available April 19) B. Tactics/Strategies Committee to Boundaries/Forecasting Committee 1. Identification of technical information needed to better evaluate effectiveness of tactics and strategies in Phase II (same as A.6) (tentatively available April 19) C. Institutional Mechanisms to Tactics/Strategies Committee 1. Preliminary Goals Statement so that tactics selection is responsive to goals. (by March meeting of Institutional Mechanisms Committee) �By-products which may result from consultant analysis and Committee decisions. 2Potentially a part of a legal analysis carried out by a consultant to assess implementing authority available for tactics/strategies. r :- - 3 - 2. Preliminary Work Program with resource needs identified. (Tactics and strategies will be analyzed within the Work Program framework.) (by March meeting of Institutional Mechanisms Committee) 3. Existing legal authorities for early implementation program.2 (Product may not be available by May 28.) D. Institutional Mechanisms Committee to Boundaries/Forecasting Committee 1. Preliminary Work Program with resource needs identified to be used as a framework for constructing a detailed Phase II Technical Work Program. (by March meeting of Institutional Mechanisms Committee) 2. Preliminary goals statements for review and comment (by March meeting of Institutional Mechanisms Committee) E. Boundaries and Forecasting Committee to Tactics/Strategies Committee 1. Source information in existing inventories and projections so that the Tactics/Strategies Committee may attach an appropriate level of confidence to the technical effective- ness of tactics analyzed and importance of classes of tactics. (tentatively available April 1) F. Boundaries and Forecasting Committee to Institutional Mechanisms Committee 1. Long-range Technical Work Program responsive to the pre- liminary Work Program. (May 1) 2. Stateme.� of data needs to be included in the Work Program. (May 1) 3. Supplemental Goals3 (May 1) 3An anticipated by-product of the overview forecast and long-range Technical Work Program development. 0 • BOUNDARIES AND FORECASTING COMMITTEE February 11, 1976 SUMMARY 1. Those attending were: Frank McCrackin, So. Calif. Edison - Chairman John English - Santa Barbara APCD Kenneth Howell - Riverside County Farm Bureau Jack Nevitt - SCAPCD Dr. James Edinger - UCLA Richard Spicer - SCAG Alan Stazer - SCAPCD Robert Day - So. Calif. Edison Jim Miller - Orange County Environmental Management Agency John Grisinger - ARB, AW Staff 2. Jack Nevitt provided information on progress of SCAPCD in developing the emissions inventory since the last meeting. John Grisinger summarized the meeting between Dr. Trijonis and the SCAPCD staff to review the emissions inventory. A summary of this meeting is attached. Dr. Edinger added that he had additional information on transport of pollutants to the Coachella Valley. 3. John Grisinger pointed out that the maximum oxidant concen- trations in the Antelope Valley (at Lancaster APCD Station) presently exceed the standards to the same extent as the SDAB-AW portion of San Bernardino County. He stated that it appeared as if the Los Angeles County portion of the SDAB should be considered for inclusion in the SDAB AQMA. Jack Nevitt told the committee that no emissions inventory for the Los Angeles County portion of the SDAB has been pre- pared for the AW effort and that it would be very difficult to develop such an inventory in the remaining time. It was decided that a qualitative discussion of the future air quality problems in that area be included in the report to the Policy Task Force with a discussion of the possible addition of the area to the AQx1A. 4. It was decided that a draft copy of the emissions inventory would be released to the Tactics and Strategies Committee for use by their consultant with the understanding that it is still a draft and several changes are being considered by SCAPCD. Transmittal will be handled by the ARB-AW Staff. (AW 2/17/76) 0 0 - 2 - 5. Richard Spicer summarized his work on the economic growth factors for use in emission forecasting. All data is now available to SCAPCD. Mr. Spicer warned that aircraft industry growth projections, based on the most recent studies, appear too high in comparison with more recent forecasts in other economic sectors. 6. Robert Day discussed the status of obtaining forecasts of fuel consumption from the electric utility companies. Data should be complete shortly. Initial data indicates a down- trend in fuel consumption by powerplants in the SCAB. Emission factors to be used will be worked out by SCAPCD and Edison. 7. Jack Nevitt discussed his work in developing workload esti- mates for use in obtaining pass-thru funds for SCAPCD for the extra work imposed by AW* Needed justification and procedural matters will be looked into by ARB AQMP Staff and made available to Jack Nevitt. 8. John Grisinger reported that his work on present air quality is completed as far as the data necessary for the future air quality analysis. Other information will be available for inclusion in the committee report to the PTF. 9. A copy of "Review of Phase I Tasks and Responsibilities" by the AW Basin Staff was passed out for information and review. Frank McCrackin requested that a copy be sent to all committee members not in attendance. 10. Next meeting will be held on March 10, 1976, at 7:00 P.M. in the ARB Lab, 9528 Telstar Avenue, E1 Monte. The primary item on the agenda will be review of the. rough draft report to the PTF. Copies will be made available earlier in the day to anyone wishing to review it prior to the meeting. TACTICS AND STRATEGIES February 51 1976 SUMMARY 1. The Committee reviewed and approved a list of criteria for evaluation of tactics and strategies. The criteria and their definitions will be used by the consultant in providing a review of the effectiveness and impacts of tactics. The criteria list also provides the members of the Tactics and Strategies Committee with a common set of definitions to assist in the evaluation of tactics. The selected criteria list includes the following general areas: Technical considerations, Administrative considerations, Economic considerations, Societal considerations, Resource considerations, and Political considerations. 2. There was a general discussion of tactics. Discussion centered around four categories: a. Stationary sources emissions (industrial operations, power plants, refineries, homes, etc.) b. Mobile sources (automobiles trucks, buses, motorcycles, airplanes, lawnmowers, etc.3 c. Land use utilization (how and in what way land is used in the airshed and how many people to accommodate in the region) d. Mobile transportation systems (the use of mobile sources and the infrastructure that supports these sources) 3. Staff reviewed the Phase I tasks and responsibilities of the Policy Task Force and the three committees. The linkages between committees were identified. Next meeting: Wednesday, February 18, 1976 - 6:00 p.m. Discussion of Tactics and Strategies (AW 2/17/76) SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE Meeting Number 5 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 18, 1976 SCAG, Suite i000, loth Floor CNA Bldg., 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Los Angeles, California AGENDA 1. Committee Reports A. Boundaries/Forecasting - Frank McCrackin B. Institutional Mechanisms - Dennis Hansberger C. Tactics/Strategies - Mark Braly 2. Utilization of Pass-Thru Funds - ARB 3. Review of 208 - Vic Magistrale, SCAG 4. The Embattled Cell and Air Quality - Russell P. Sherwin, M. D. Hastings Professor of Pathology, USC School of Medicine/Lung Association *Note: Effective February 91 1976, the ARB Air Quality Maintenance Planning Staff will be located at Air Resources Board, 9528 Telstar Avenue, E1 Monte, California, 91731. The new telephone number will be 213-575-6962. (AQ}`1P 2/9/76) arm . INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS COMMITTEE MEETING January 14, 1976 Pending Conclusions: 1. That the Air Quality Maintenance Planning Program requires the active participation of SCAG and the APCDs. 2. That the alternatives being actively,considered are the following: a. Regional Air Resources Boards responsible to ARB b. Ad Hoc Model (Ventura and San Diego) c. AB 250 d. SCAG as a lead agency coordinating with the APCDs in data collection and policy formulation. (Air Quality Maintenance Plannin and Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning The latter alternative is the one toward which the Committee is leaning. 3. That, if SCAG is selected the lead agency, the Policy Task Force should continue through Phase II in an ad hoc advisory capacity to the Executive Committee of SCAG for air quality maintenance planning. (Note: The Policy Task Force is presently advisory to ARB. The PTF will go out of existence after Phase I recommenda- tions are sent to ARB on May 28, 1976.) Original Mechanisms Analyzed: The Committee conclusions were reached after staff presented a summary of a three-day critique session held January 7-91 1976. Mechanisms analyzed by staff were the following: (1 SCAG �2 Integration of the APCDs within SCAG 3 208-AQi„LP (4) SB 98 (5 A.B. Preprint No. 1 (6 San Diego Model C7 A.B. 250 8 Ventura Model 9 PTF Continuation (10) APCD-BCC 2 .. ' V The Regional Air Resources Board Model is the only one of the four not analyzed by the staff during the critique session. Rather, a committee member introduced this model at the committee meeting. Characteristics, Strengths and Weaknesses of Mechanisms Being Actively Considered: A. Regional Air Resources Board ARB 1. Characteristics This mechanism would be similar to the Regional Water Resources Control Board - State Water Board Model. The Regional Board would function as an agency of the State and have general planning responsibility, as well as review and denial authority over those projects which could adversely affect air quality. Appeals from regional decisions could be made at the State level. Membership to the Regional Board could be some combination of locally elected and appointed members. The APCD could function either as a part of the Regional Board or separate from it. This would be a permanent change. 2. Strengths (a) Direct line of authority to the State agency responsible for air resources, thus increasing likelihood of repre- sentation. (b) If cities are represented, greater voice for them in air quality decision -making. (a) Operational Model from which to learn. (Regional Water Quality Control Boards) 3. Weaknesses (a) Possible duplication of APCD function. (b) Possible additional layer of government. (c) Some loss of local government sovereignty. B. Ad Hoc Model (abstracted from Ventura and San Diego) 1. Characteristics This model would bring together major interests/agencies within the Aq-1A. County and city governments, SLAG, the APCDs, transportation agencies and the public would all participate. Agencies which are the principal implementers r � � 10 - 3 - would be present at the planning stages. There would be no lead agency and the plan itself would have to receive concurrent approval by participants. An inter- disciplinary,, interagency staff would be formed to carry out the planning task. Local government would contribute to the financial support of the program. 2. Strengths (a) No new legislation required. (b) By definition, major interests represented; planners and implementers represented. (c) No new level of government. (d) Forces internal conflict resolution. (e) Operating models from which to learn. (f) Synergism from interdisciplinary interagency par- ticipation. (g) Task oriented. 3. Weaknesses (a) No legislation holding it together, thus making it a fragile mechanism. (b) No lead agency; potential implementation problems. (c) Basin -scale creates logistical and other coordination problems. (d) Time needed to set the mechanism in place with roles clearly identified. (e) Plan reiterations may be difficult to carry out after the team finishes its work. C. AB 250 1. Characteristics This legislation would create a permanent four -county Air Quality Management District with city representation on the governing board. In addition to performing the regulatory functions of the present APCD, the new District • D. -4- would be required to prepare an air management plan. Cities, counties, SLAG, ARB and CALTRANS would parti- cipate in plan development. SCAG would have a major role although it would be secondary to the District role. 2. Strengths (a) Plan development would be mandated as would a continuing planning process. (b) Strong lead agency with implementing authority. (c) City participation. (d) SCAG's strengths are brought into the process. (see D.2.b.) 3. Weaknesses (a) Ventura and Santa Barbara not included as legis- lation now written. (b) Local government implementing role not specified. (a) AQMP Phase I -Phase II continuity not assured because legislative passage uncertain. 1. Characteristics In this mechanism, the Policy Task Force would become an ad hoc advisory body to the Executive Committee of SCAG for Air Quality Maintenance Planning. The AW would be closely coordinated with areawide waste treat- ment management planning required under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. (Assuming SCAG is designated as the 208 planning agency.) EPA policy, derived from interpretation of Congressional intent, provides that planning under Section 208 and the Air Quality Maintenance Planning program must be closely coordinated and mutually supportive. 2. Strengths (a) Programmatic Strengths (1) Data Base Coordination (2) Time frames similar r,. 0 -5- (3) EPA requires 208-AQMP coordination (4) Partial funding source available (5) Overlap in jurisdictional area (6) Phase I -Phase II continuity (7) Section 208 stresses implementation.and management process development (8) No new legislation needed (9) Provides for control strategy coordination (b) Institutional (SCAG) Strengths (1) SCAG is the comprehensive planning agency for almost all the area covered by the AQJ4A. (2) SCAG is the regional transportation agency and the A-95 review agency. (3) Cities would be represented. (4) SCAG does regional growth forecasting. (5) No new layer of government. (6) SCAG able to manage a citizen information/ participation program on a regional scale. 3. Weaknesses (a) SCAG is not an implementing agency. (b) Section 208 Work Program undefined. E TACTICS AND STRATEGIES COMMITTEE MEETING January 8, 1976 SUMMARY The following items were covered at the meeting: 1. Chairman Braly reviewed key points of a briefing by Leon Billings, Aide to the Senate Public Works Committee, on the Senate's version of amendments to the Clean Air Act. 2. The Committee evaluated the consultant proposals and has recommended to the full Policy Task Force that the firm of Planning Environment International, a division of Alan M. Voorhees (PEI/AMV) be selected for the evaluation of tactics and strategies. Initial discussion by some committee members indicated a desire to hire a firm with strong technical back- ground. The Technical Advisors and AW Staff pointed out that while technical understanding was important, the consultant task to assist the Tactics and Strategies Committee in fulfilling their charge in the limited time frame would be conceptual and organizational in nature. Representatives of the three firms - Planning Environment International (PEI/AMV), Pacific Environmental Services (PES), and Environmental Research and Technology (ERT) were given an opportunity to describe -the strong points of their proposal. Committee members were given the opportunity to ask specific questions regarding the consultant proposals. The Committee's recommendation was based on the following considerations: a. The consultant's understanding of the air quality problems of the South Coast, the AW process and the specific charge of the Tactics and Strategies Committee. b. A creative approach by the consultant in devising an evaluation methodology. c. A multidisciplinary team (AW 1/13/76) 0 .2- d. The firm's experience on projects of a smaller nature. e. The experience of the personnel assigned to the project on a continuing basis and the relevance of their experience to the tasks described. The final Committee vote was: PEI/AMV - 5 votes; E&T - 2 votes; PES - 1 vote; 2 abstentions. 3. The Committee reviewed a second draft of a list of criteria for evaluation of tactios/strategies. Staff was instructed to revise the criteria to incorporate additional committee suggestions. SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING' POLICY TASK FORCE Meeting Number 5 A 7:30 p-m-, Wednesday, February 18, 1976 SCAG, Suite 10002 Idth Floor CNA Bldg., 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Los Angeles, California A G E N D A, 1. Committee Reports 0 A. Boundaries/Forecasting - Frank McCrackin .CMM1fil;MS 111Y1Me 4 "L-0046E4p ... ear cart' Pat &ram- VVWA 0%4& S. B. Institutional Mechanisms - Dennis Hansberger C. Tactics/Strategies - Mark Braly 2. Utilization of Pass-Thru Funds - ARB• • 3. Review of 208 - Vic Magistrale, SCAG 4. The Embattled Cell and Air Quality - Russell P. Sherwin, M. D. Hastings Professor of Pathology, USC School of Medicine/Lung.Association *Note: Effective February 91 1976, the ARB AirQQuality Maintenance Planning Staff will be located at Air Resources Board, 9528 Telstar Avenue, E1 Monte, California, 91731. The new telephone number will be 213-575-6962• (AQMP 2/9/76) WAS QW� rCy O�d-^tCtbCC'Mchrt'�1Ai�' ex.T�t �►7C`Seu�i"c� SCCC�a Srxs�wr� w4 7-o 1 sc,rt;fj 3�Zi Q Stti!lM.t�i'S OF t -Xj ® #to rOvwrvaw i u S..Ca/C; Ojr - ,rait;ou t7r,tT/�a1' (� eW4* / 46#Uu t ► kw D .0 ec.r UTILIZATION OF PASS -THROUGH FUNDS; POTENTIAL PROJECTS FOR PHASE I -PHASE II AQMP ARB AQMP Basin Staff Utilization of Pass -Through Funds ARB originally estimated that approximately $150,000 out of $270,000 in federal pass -through funds would be available for the South Coast/Southeast Desert (SC-SED) AQMP effort. Since that time ARB has developed funding proposals for the remaining California AQMAs totalling approximately $80,000. In addition to this, $21,000 has been allocated for the SC-SED AQMP effort. Thus approximately $170,000 is still available for AQMP work statewide. After examining the AQMP picture statewide it is ARB staff opinion that the area with the greatest need for the remaining funding is the SC-SED AQMA, and that the remaining $170,000 is available for use in this area. EPA has indicated that this funding is available only for fiscal year 1975-76. This means that, if all or a portion of the funds are to be utilized for the current AW efforts, complete work programs need to be contracted for by June 1976. However, EPA will allow work contracted in fiscal 75-76 to be completed in fiscal year 1976-771 if tasks are identified which necessitate a longer timeframe than feasible for completion by the end of Phase I. Thus the pass -through funding is available to fund work necessary in the early stages of Phase II. In order to complete additional contracts by June 1976, staff feels that the Policy Task Force needs to consider potential funding proposals at the February meeting. To Assist the PTF the basin staff has identified a number of potential projects for consideration. Staff would like the PTF opinion on the viability of the proposed work and PTF approval to continue to develop the proposals, which are currently in a conceptual stage, to more detailed work programs. If directed, the staff will further develop proposals for consideration by appropriate committees at their respective next meetings. In addition, staff welcomes PTF input in identifying alternative projects which merit consideration. Potential Projects for Phase I -Phase II AW 1. Legal Analysis of Potential AQMP Strategies - Estimated amount $50,000 This project would involve the hiring of a consultant to analyze the legal basis and problems involved in various units of government adopting and implementing (AQMP 2/18/76) 0 - 2 - AQMP strategies. The study would utilize the work of the Tactics and Strategies Committee to identify strategies which will be considered in the AW. It would then analyze the ability of various units of government to implement each strategy and identify legal problems or conflicts that might interfere with such implementation. The study would be completed within the first six months of Phase II and would be utilized in the planning process to identify: �1) strategies having the firmest legal basis, 2) conflicts needing resolution before strategies can be implemented and (3) units of government, to be involved in the development of each strategy. 2. Technical Work Performed by the SCAPCD - Estimated amount $70s000 This work item includes a number of elements which would be performed by SCAPCD staff. These are listed below: a. Ongoing AW work - $30,000 The SCAPCD is presently devoting staff resources to the completion of various Phase I tasks. The district has received'.some funding from its 1975-76 EPA federal grant for this purpose but estimates that funding will not be sufficient to cover the actual expenses incurred. District staff has estimated that they will expend approximately $30,000 of staff time in excess of the funds received for this work. The APCD has indicated that it feels the use of EPA pass -through funds to compensate the district for these expenses is appropriate. ARB will support the district if the PTF approves such an expenditure of funds. b. Additional Technical Work needed early in Phase II - $30,000 ARB and APCD staff have identified several projects which will be needed .early in Phase II. Several deal with evaluation of the emission inventory, including: an analysis of the utility of converting the inventory to a seasonal basis, an estimate of the "degree of uncertainty" in the current inventory and an evaluation of process losses and solvent evaporation emission categories for their adequacy in estimating reactive hydrocarbon emissions. All these studies would be utilized early in Phase II to better define what adjustments need to be made in the emission inventory for the AW effort. -3- In addition, the district would provide analysis of air transport paths and patterns within the SC/SED AQUs. This effort would be used to delineate potential zones for sub-AQKk level planning. c. Work Program Development - $10,000 The APCD will need to be involved in the writing of the Phase II work program, especially the technical efforts. This funding would provide the APCD with resources for this effort. 3. Development of a Phase II Work Program Estimated Resources - $20,000 ARB staff feels that the development of a Phase II work program will require greater resources than those currently available to the AW team or proposed in 2.c. above. A consultant, or governmental agency, possibly SCAG, could be contracted with to assist in this effort. Work program development, even if under- taken by a consultant, is more reasonably done after identification of a planning mechanism. By waiting until this designation is made, the complex management and institutional relationships and agency task sequencing can be more accurately identified. However, ARB staff recommends that the PTF consider setting aside the suggested funding for developing the work program so that the resources are available when needed. If so directed by the PTF, staff will further develop this proposal to keep this option available. 4. Ventura County AW Work Estimated amount - $149000 Ventura County is developing an AQMP for that County on an accelerated schedule. The Ventura County APCD is devoting significant staff time to this effort under a combined 208 water planning/AW work program. Orig- inally, the APCD anticipated that 208 funds would be available for their efforts. However, unforeseen delays in the Ventura 208 program make it unlikely that 208 funding will be available in fiscal 75-76. Ventura County APCD staff has contacted ARB staff concerning the possi- bility of funding their 1975-76 AQ;1P efforts via the AQMP pass -through. ARB staff believes that Ventura's efforts merit such consideration and will, if the expenditure is approved by the PTF, recommend to EPA that such a request be approved. Policy Task. Force South Coast and Southeast Desert AQMP County Supervisors: Los Angeles: ED Orange: Robert Battin (Laurence Schmit, Alternate) Riverside: Al McCandless (Donald Schroder, Alternate) San Bernardino: Dennis Hansberger Santa Barbara: Frank Frost Ventura: Ralph Bennett) Cities: Los Angeles County: Marilyn Ryan, Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes Orange: Roy Holm, Mayor, Laguna Beach Riverside: Ben Lewis, Mayor, City of Riverside San Bernardino: Lionel Hudson, Councilman, City of San Bernardino Santa Barbara: Ventura: Richard Bozung, Councilman, Ventura (Loren Godfrey, Councilman, City of Fillmore, Alternate) City of Los Angeles: 3K Council Representative: Marvin Braude •-Y� CflrycAAjr)AI Mayor's Office: Thomas Bradley (Norm Emerson, Alternate) SCAG: Cathryn Geissert, Councilwoman, City of Torrance; lice C>lr�K'�rE�c.zl Public Members: Agriculture: Kenneth Howell, Riverside County Farm Bureau Civic: Judy Orttung, Riverside County League of Women Voters Commerce: Robert Berliner, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Environment: Anhabelle Wilson, Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter Health: Eva Dixon, Lung Association Industry: J. W. Daily, Standard Oil of California Labor: T. A. Cinquemani, L.A. Building & Trades Council Land Development: James Cook, California Business Properties Association Low Income/Minority:(two representatives) - Jess Ramirez (Interim), Elvin Ricks, Consultant, (Robert Joiner, Alternate) Public Utilities: F. A. McCrackin, Southern California Edison Co. Senior Citizen: Larry Chrisco, Allied Senior Citizen Clubs of California (Roger Watson, Orange County Community Development Council, Alternate) 10/15/75 SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE Meeting Number 4 7:30 p.m., Thursday, January 15, 1976 SCAG, Suite 1000, loth Floor CNA Bldg., 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Los Angeles, California A G E N D A 1. Committee Reports 4 A. Institutional Mechanisms - Dennis Hansberger B. Boundaries/Forecasting - Frank McCrackin C. Tactics/Strategies - Mark Braly Action Item: Approval of Consultant 2. 201 Status Report - Ed Marra, EPA Parking is available on the street. ✓ RFc Oeye/o it O JAN1eAi NFwpa�n, of 1g�6► RT o�F �Qy. (AQMP 1/9/76) 1 • • SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS SUBCOMMIT DECEMBER 10, 1975 ACTIONS - A combined staff consisting of members from ARB, APCD, SLAG, City of Los Angeles, League of California Cities and San Bernardino County has been formed. - This staff will meet for 4-8 days in early January to provide a working paper for the subcommittee. - ARB will see if a consultant can be hired to aid the staff. - The staff will report back to the subcommittee in mid -January with an alternatives paper considering who could plan and who could implement the AQMP and what combinations would work best TENTATIVE GOALS 1. The xcchanism(c) elected must account for and coordinate the existing federal, state and local institutions involved in air pollution control. 2. The mechanism(s) selected be appropriate to the types of pollutants (primary, secondary) the source (point, transportation, land use, etc.) and projected reductions (no need for long-term institutions to solve short-term pollutants). 3. The mechanism selected must be able to balance air quality goals with other societal goals (employment, security, etc.) as well as other planning goals (energy, land use, transportation). 4. The institutions selected must be able to establish specific objectives, monitor and evaluate progress, and to police the overall plan. 5. The mechanism selected must be able to coordinate a series of single purpose programs since there is no one magic technological answer. Further, the mechanism must be able to determine the multi -effect impact of suggested single purpose programs. 6. To develop a work program with funding recoimnendations for Phase II of the AQMP. SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE Meeting Number 3 SLAG, Suite iUUO, luth r'loor CNA Bldg., 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Los Angel ea. Cya..litammi a ' FINAL AGENDA 1. Committee Reports A. Institutional Mechanisms - Dennis Hansberger B. Boundaries/Forecasting - Frank McCrackin C. Tactics and Strategies - Mark Braly Action Item: Approval of Request for J'roposal 2. Expansion of the Technical Review Committee 3. Reports on CalTech Conference "Strategies for Air Pollution Control in the South Coast Air Basins" and the PTF sponsored "Air Quality Seminar" Parking is available on the street RECc cD \ L t . e" b-PL DEC 9 19750- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. / (AW 12/5/75) M R i STATE or CALIPI AIR RESOURCES BOARD AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING PROGRAM 28 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 640 SANTA ANA, CA 92701 TELEPHONE: p14) 5584075 November 19, 1975 Dear Friend, `VG EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor You are invited to attend an Air Quality Seminar to be held at 8:45 a.m. on Saturday1 Novembeerr22 1975 in the Auditorium of the State Office Building, 107 S. Broadway, Los An7eles. The Seminar is designed primarily to meet the needs of —€he Air Quality Maintenance Planning Policy Task Force members; however, because of your special interest in the subject, you may also wish to attend. The tentative agenda -is attached. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Trenck Team Leader AW, South Coast Attachment TENTATIVE AGENDA AIR QUALITY SEMINAR Saturday, November 22, 1975 Auditorium 107 South Broadway, State Bldg. Los Angeles 8:45 AM Coffee 9:00 Statement of Purpose - Councilman Marvin Braude, Chairman, Policy Task Force 9:10 Air Quality Standards A. Ambient Air Quality Standards - Dave Healy, Air Programs Branch, EPA: Federal Standards ARB, Division of Technical Services: California Standards B. Motor Vehicle Emission Standards - Bill Rhea, Enforcement Division, EPA: Federal Standards - John Chao, Division of Vehicle Emissions Control, ARB: California Standards 10:15 Air Pollution Sources Emissions Inventory and Emission Trends - Sandy Weiss, Southern California APCD - Phil White, Ventura APCD - John English, Santa Barbara APCD 10:45- 11:00 Break 11:00 Meteorology - Donald Lust, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (AQMP 11/19/75) 0 - 2 - 11:15 Air Quality Data Summary and Trends - - Margaret Brunelle, Southern California APCD - Phil White, Ventura APCD - John English, Santa Barbara APCD 11:45 General Discussion 12:00- 1:30 PM lunch 1:30 Air Quality Modeling - John Grisinger, Air Resources Board 1:45 Citizen Participation 2:15 Break 2:30 Air Quality Strategies - Vic I4agistrale, SLAG: Transportation & land Use - Dick Kenny, Division of Vehicle missions Control, ARB: Mobile Sources - J. A. Stuart, Southern California APCD: Stationary - Phil White, Ventura County APCD: Growth Policies 3:30 AQMP as an Element of Comprehensive Regional Environmental Management - Dr. Eugene Leong, Alan M. Voorhees & Associates 3:45 General Discussion SOUTH COAST/SOUTH2AST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE MEETING AGENDA 7:30 p.m., Thursday, November 13, 1975 State Office Building, Room 1122 107 South Broadway Los Angeles, California 1. Report on Steering Committee Meeting 2. Committee Assignments - Technical Person Assignments and Introductions 3. Air Quality Seminar 4. Resolution on Affirmation of the South Coast -Southeast Desert Area as an Air Quality Maintenance Area 5. Update on Revisions to the Clean Air Act 6. Presentation by Larry Taylor, Director of the San Diego Air Quality Planning Team 7. Federal Guidelines on National Ambient Air Quality Standards - October 20, 1975 Federal Register S. Break up into Subcommittees (SCAB AQMP 11/7/75) ;r EDMUND G. BROWN JR, Governor f STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD rwVLLi� 1709-111h STREET J EECE/ SACRAMENTO 95814 O0m CEO beve%unlfy October 6, 1975 cea>70n: OCT 141975.a.. NEW ORT aF r/ Z CALI' EACH" �' Dear Friends: Subject: FSrst Meeting of South Coast AQMP Policy Task Force The effort to initiate locally developed air quality maintenance plans (AQMP) for the South Coast and a portion of the Southeast Desert Air Basins is proceeding well. The majority of the Policy Task Force (PTF) members have been identified and the first AQMP PTF meeting has been scheduled. This meeting will be held Qctober 16, 197_5,, at_7,:$0_p,,m. 0, Room 1122 of the State Office Building, _I South Broadway, L_ _Cos An ec� les. The public may attend this meeting. An AQMP will provide a framework,for decision making on transportation plans, clean water projects, parking facilities, indirect sources, industrial development, and other projects which must be consistent with clean air goals. An AQMP will maximize local decision making on how healthy air will be achieved and maintained. An AQMP is needed to insure that achievement of healthy air is in consonance with other societal goals. We encourage your continued participation in this cooperative effort. If you have any questions, please contact Stephanie Trenck or Dale A. Secord of our South Coast AQMP Team at (714) 558-4075. Attachment + SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE MEETING AGENDA 7:30 p.m., Thursday, October 16, 1975 State Office Building, Room 1122 107 South Broadway Los Angeles, California 1. Presentation of AQMP process. Special focus on role and tasks of Policy Task Force. Mary Nichols, Member, Air Resources Board. 2. Election of permanent officers. 3. Consideration of a Phase I Work Program; EPA pass -through funding. 4. Discussion of the respective roles of the Policy Task Force, TAC, and ARB AQMP Basin Staff. 5. Set next meetin ,. •_ �� _ice__ f� Policy Task Force South Coast and Southeast Desert AQMP County Supervisors: Los Angeles: Orange: Robert Battin (Laurence Schmit, Alternate) Riverside: Al McCandless San Bernardino: Dennis Hansberger Santa Barbara: Frank Frost Ventura: Ralph Bennett Cities: Los Angeles County: Marilyn Ryan, Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes Orange: Roy Holm, Mayor, Laguna Beach Riverside: San Bernardino: Lionel Hudson, Councilman, City of San Bernardino Santa Barbara: Ventura: Richard Bozung, Councilman, Ventura City of Los Angeles: Council Representative: Marvin Braude Mayor's Office: Thomas Bradley (Norm Emerson, Alternate) SCAG: Cathryn Geissert, Councilwoman, City of Torrance Public Members: Agriculture: Kenneth Howell, Riverside County Farm Bureau Civic: Judy Orttung, Riverside County League of Women Voters Commerce: Robert Berliner, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Environment: Annabelle Wilson, Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter Health: Eva Dixon, Lung Association Industry: J. W. Daily, Standard Oil of California Labor: T. A. Cinquemani, L.A. Building & Trades Council Land Development: James Cook, California Business Properties -Association Low Income: Minority: Public Utilities: F. A. McCrackin, Southern California Edison Co. Senior Citizen: 10/6/75 California. rolls out program to curb air pollution By Patricia Sanderson Port California's most heavily populated and polluted metropolitan areas have found a unique way to try to clean up their air. Funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration, and spurred by EPA's parking manage- ment regulations, which are due to appear in the Federal Register this month, four areas —San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacra- mento —are at the midpoint in pre- paring parking management plans. The program was the brainchild of EPA's Region 9 office in San Francisco. Federal grants were made to the transportation planning agency in each metropolitan area —which, in every case but one, was the council of governments. The COGS in turn are developing regional guidelines for acceptable plans while passing most of the funds on to cities, and in one case a county, to assist with develop- ment of local plans. Among other things, federal reg- ulations require the development, approval, adoption, and enforcement of a local parking management plan. Such a plan must take into account existing and planned parking supply, transit service, zoning laws, car-pool programs, and, in particular, a sense of how each city wants to grow. For example, the plan should offer incen- tives to car pooling and discourage use of single -occupancy automobiles. Some of the plan's features may require legislative changes. Zoning regulations that require a minimum number of parking spaces per square foot of commercial space may need to be revised, for instance. In -lieu pay- ments for transit service may become an option for developers instead of parking spaces. Businesses wishing to expand may find it more economi- cal to pay for transit service rather than additional real estate. San Diego, which has a surplus of parking facilities, may need to put a freeze on more facilities and change zoning regulations to stipulate a maximum rather than a minimum number of parking slots per square foot of space. San Francisco, in contrast, has a tight parking supply coupled with a heavily utilized mass transit system. Thus the city may need staggered work hours, a heavily publicized car-pool program, and revised parking rates to favor car pools and short-term users and to dis- courage single -commuter parking. 'Sacramento has had very success- ful car-pool and van -pool programs sponsored by the state department of transportation' (CalTrans). CalTrans involved 1,365 people in car pools during the first eight months of the programs. Some 5.5 million vehicle - miles per year are being saved through these efforts. Los Angeles, with both the greatest population and the worst air pollu- tion, faces the greatest challenge. Downtown Los Angeles is balancing intensive physical redevelopment with public health needs to reduce airborne contaminants. Exclusive bus lanes, ramp metering, and a fairly extensive downtown network of mini- buses are the city's first steps toward easing congestion. Smaller cities have also received funds for transportation planning. Long Beach and Brea received pass - through funds from the Southern California Association of 'Govern- ments (SCAG) to develop prototype plans for medium and small cities, respectively. San Bernardino County, the nation's second largest county by area, also has EPA/UMTA/SCAG funds for parking management planning. All of the areas preparing plans share air quality problems. In fact, areas were chosen for parking management programs if their pollu- tion was caused by heavy automobile emissions. Parking management reg- ulations are one part of the overall Transportation Control Plan (TCP) regulations originally published by EPA in November 1973. The California Air Resources Board has designated each of the TCP areas as an Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) for one or more of the five pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards have been set. The areas so designated are those pro- jected to have serious problems in attaining or maintaining the stan- dards for one or more of these pollutants through 1985. If local agencies in polluted areas fail to develop acceptable parking management plans, an air quality review will be required for each new or modified facility with 250 or more parking spaces for which construction is begun after January 1, 1976. No such facility will be built unless its owner can demonstrate to EPA or its designated review agency that the facility would not increase vehicle• miles traveled. Failing that, the owner must try to minimize the increase in vehicle -miles. Facilities serving mass transit, such as park -and -ride lots, would be given automatic approval. Parking management plans have several advantages, both for admin- istration and health. Implementation of an EPA -approved plan removes from EPA the burden of reviewing each facility. Further, the tools developed as part of the plans can help cities make other vital decisions about transportation and land use. Finally, a carefully developed plan can become a significant part of the Air Quality Maintenance Plan each AQMA must develop jointly with the California Air Resources Board. Task forces now are being formed in each of the designated areas to develop an air quality maintenance plan and an air management process that will pull various federal, state, regional, and local air quality regulations together into a coherent package. None of the parking management drafts is finished, although draft plans are expected early this summer. EPA expects to have approved a majority of the plans in time for their adoption and implementation by local agencies by January 1976. How well the new plans will work is, still unknown. But if they do work, Cali- fornia's experiment may point the way for air quality and transportation planning efforts across the country. Patricia Sanderson Port, an urban planner, coonlinates California's parking management efforts for EPA. PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM for PHASE I AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANS FOR CALIFORNIA AND San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin South Coast Air Basin San Diego Air Basin Sacramento Metropolitan Area San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Fresno & Kern Counties (San Joaquin Air Basin) Monterey County . AQMP Task Force Air Resources Board 1709 llth Street Sacramento March 24, 1975 (Revised 4/29/75 Clarification) W►' low Development Program for Phase I Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMP) Content Page Introduction 1 A. Objectives 4 .Sn, D. Participants 4 C. Phase I Organization and Work Program D. Timetable for Phase I Development Planning Assumptions F. Legal Requirements Persons with Project Responsibility INTRODUCTION The Air Resources Board (ARB) is embarking on an effort to develop comprehensive long-range plans for attaining and maintaining healthy levels of air quality for California's urban areas. Federal Regulations (CFR 51.72, 51.18)' require that an air quality maintenance plan be developed in areas where attainment or maintenance of the standards by 1977 are not predicted and/or where growth and development in the ten year period 1975-85 may interfere with either attainment or maintenance of the standards once achieved. In those areas of the State which are unable to attain the national Clean Air Standards by 1977, a long-term plan should provide for attain- ment as well as maintenance. In the past, the ARB's plans have been directed toward short-range goals, that is, meeting the standards by 1977 and have not included long-range land use and transportation controls. However, these goals are unreal- istic for most metropolitan areas. For this reason, the time has come to bring together our best tools to attain clean air in the long term. These tools include technical control of pollution sources, both industrial and automobile, as well as transportation and land use controls. The projection of automobile emissions in the long term indicates that the 'anefits from technical control of automobile emissions will "bottom out" around 1985 (or a later date depending on extension of control dates) and'that after 1985, air pollution will increase as a result of increasing numbers of auto- mobiles and increasing numbers of vehicle miles traveled. Land Use and transportation controls have been of local government. For this reason, the ARB tives of local government together to form task programs to achieve and maintain air quality in integration of air quality considerations into development decisions. Such a process needs to between air quality and other social, economic primarily the responsibility is attempting to bring representa- forces to develop cooperative the long term through the land use and transportation indicate the interrelationships and energy concerns. (3/25/75) a -2- In June, 1973, the EPA promulgated regulations (40 CFR 51.12) requiring State Implementation Plans to be amended to identify those areas which, due to current — air quality and/or projected growth rates, may have the potential for exceeding any national ambient air quality standards within the ten-year period 1975-85. In June, 1974, the ARB adopted Revision 5 to the Implementation Plan recommending that EPA designate the following as air quality maintenance areas (AQMAs): (as of this date, the EPA has not officially designated these areas). AQMA Particulate South Coast Air Basin X San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin X San Diego Air Basin X Sacramento Metropolitan Area* San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties Fresno County Kern County Monterey County Riverside - San Bernardino POLLUTANT Oxidant X X X x X X X X X CO S02 NO2 X X *Includes Sacramento County, Yolo-Solano Unified Air Pollution Control District, and the Valley Area of Placer County. Plans for Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMAs) are presently due to be submitted to EPA by June 18, 1975. However, final guidelines are not expected to be promul- gated by EPA until May, 1975. A two phase approach is anticipated with deadlines to be negotiated between the states and EPA. The ARB's proposed AQMP program sets December 31, 1975, as the target for completing Phase I outlined In this plan development program. This "plan development program" (PDP) is prepared to fulfill the requirements of the Office of Planning and Research's state planning coordination prucess. The PDP will be submitted to the Office of Planning and Research to be forwarded to appropriate local, regional and state agencies for early review and comment. The POP outlines the organization and processes proposed to develop Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMPs) for the purpose of insuring the long-range attainment and maintenance of healthy air In California. AQMP development will occur in twohases. Phase I, outlined in this POP, will establish a framework for coord nai tion between state, local, and federal agencies. Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces wilt be established in areas of the State with critical air quality problems --air quality maintenance areas (map attached). Each task force will have responsibility for developing a Phase I AQMP in its area. A State Policy advisory committee, composed of agency and departmental representatives is proposed to integrate long-range air quality planning with the State's environ- mental and social policies. A State technical advisory committee, with participants from the same agencies Is proposed to work with the ARB Task force in integrating appropriate plans, programs and techniques with the AQMP process. SAORQMENTO METROPOLI SAN nmclSCO STAN I SLAUS - BAY AREA SAN JOAQU I N' —'— MONTEREY -3- 0 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREAS... DESIGNATED BY ARB REVISION 5, STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN l �. • t ti ./O rp ..A 4 G �+•�Z'" IV F• iOA I VALLEY y III KERN- CO FRESNO SOUTH COf[SI". // > 'SAN DIEG0�5� ~. KERN • 1, ai I IDE �EOARW,mn SAN' .......4k , ) 0 -4- The actual development and Implementation of air quality maintenance plans will - occur in Phase II. An AQMP development process will be the output of Phase I. �" r A. Ob ectives 1. Provide a mechanism for incorporating air quality considerations into the comprehensive planning process at the local and regional levels. Phase I will provide the basis to extend current planning efforts (the State Implementation Plan -(SIP)) into longer -range strategies (i.e. 20-25 year time frame). Insure local governmental and citizen participation In Air Quality Management. Provide a planning mechanism for attainment/maintenance of the State air quality standards in those areas of the State not projected to meet such standards in the long term under current programs. 4. Fulfill the requirements of the federal government for the long-term attainment/maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in those areas not expected to meet the standards in the period 1975 to 1985. B. Participants in Phase I 1. State Agencies: The Air Resources Board is the lead agency via a State AQMP Task Force. The State Po1ic�C_o_m_mittee and State Technical Advisor Committee will include representat-- tuns from the Of ice of Panning and Research, State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Water Resources, Solid Waste, Agriculture, Energy Commission, Coastal Zone Commission, CalTrans, Housing 6 Community Development, Public Utilities Commission, Health and Welfare, and other affected/interested agencies. 2. Local Agencies: Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces* will be composed of representatives from ounc s o vernmen s, c es, counties, air pollution control districts, coastal zone commissions, citizen groups and other affected/ interested local agencies. The ARB as well as other State agencies will also be represented on the AQMP Task Forces. The exact composition of each task force will evolve in Phase I. 3. Federal Agencies: The Environmental Protection Agency - will coordinate with other federal agencies such as Federal Highway Administration, Housing and Urban Development and Urban Mass Transit Administration and will participate in the Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces where appropriate. * Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces will be established in the South Coast Air Basin, San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMA, San Diego Air Basin, San Joaquin valley Air Basin (3AQMA's), and the Monterey County AQMA. E -5- ""9V 4. Citizen Groups: Citizen groups with a concern for air quality will be invited to partici- pate in the basin AQMP task forces in order that the plans devdlopdd address the broad concerns of the area's citizenry. C. Phase I Work Program and Organization 1. Organization Figure I is an organization chart which shows the relationship of the various agencies and task forces in the Phase I AQMP. The ARB/AQMP task force will provide the leadership for Phase I. The composition of each Joint State -Local AQMP Task Force will be determined at meetings with interested agencies in each AQMA to be held tentatively in May 1975. The ARB will initiate meetings by written invitations to councils of governments, counties, cities, air pollution control districts, basin coordinating councils, health departments, citizen groups and other concerned organizations in each AQMA. 2. Functions of the State AQMP Task Force a. Coordinate and provide liaison for AQMP activities at the basin, State and federal levels. b. Initiate the formation of each Joint State -Local AQMP Task Force. c. Provide leadership in each Joint State -Local AQMP Task Force in the development of the Phase I of the AQMP. d. Provide technical staff support to basins with limited resources. e. Define criteria for technical assumptions to be used in the Phase I AQMP. f. Evaluate ARB programs in relation to the AQMPs. g. Work with State Policy Committee to integrate State and AQMP policies with State conservation, development, social and economic policies. h. Assist in the re -analysis of AQMAs (in work program C.3.a) and monitor and evaluate Phase I AQMP program development. Participate in developing criteria for analysis of social and economic impacts of AQMP in cooperation with Joint State-}ocal AQMP Task Forces. j. Coordinate formal Phase I Plan adoption by State and submittal to EPA to fulfill federal AQMP requirements. 3. Functions of the Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces a. Identification of the air quality problems in the AQMA. This process will include: (1) Definition of air quality planning assumptions including: emission EPA irdinatio h other eral programs SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AQMA's Riverside— FIGURE I SCHEMATIC OF PHASE I AQHP RELATIONSHIP AND ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AIR RESOURCES BOARD AQMP TASK FORCE r� A S I -e"S K 0 AIC E S SAN FRANCISCQ SAN DIEGO SACRAMENTO 1 BAY AREA AIR BASIN METROPOLITA! AQ`W AQMA AQMA * Dotted lines represent possible links to agencies of State government such as, CalTrans Districts, regio� water quality boards, etc. FRESNO i AQMA COUNTY AgMA OPR STATE POLICY C0109TTEE STATE LAICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE * SMN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN AQMA' s h ' KERN COUNTY STANISLS AQMA [SANCJOAAU.NQ OUNTY it factors, air quality baseline, growth factors, and air quality forecasting methodologies. (2) Evaluation of the initial ARB AQMA forecast of air quality through 1985 (Revision 5 to the State Implementation Plan, June 13, 1974). Extension of forecasts to 1995. (3) Development of optimistic and pessimistic forecasts of emissions in order to define possible ranges of future air quality. (4) Analysis of AQMA boundaries and redefinition where appropriate. (5) Identification of the data needs for Phase II AQMP development. b. Development of an Initial AQMP Policy Framework - Identification of policy areas to be considered for further analysis and adoption in Phase II including: (1) Goals - The long-term goal is to achieve and maintain healthy air a�eflned by the National and State ambient air quality standards. However, the timetable of the Clean Air Act is unachievable in most of California's metropolitan areas. The AQMP task forces need to recommend achievement dates. (2) Interim Goals or Targets. Develop interim goals and dates for attain- ment/maintenance as a management tool based on analysis of alternative strategies. (3) Land Use and Transportation Policies to Achieve Air Quality Goals. (4) Technical Policies to Achieve Air Quality Goals. (5) Ints ration with Social and Economic Considerations including cons deration o energy conservation. Initial analysis of social and economic factors to identify mutually supportive goals and policies and areas of conflictrng policies. . c. Establishment of a governmental mechanism for Phase II which: (1) Defines and commits the necessary resources and identifies each agency's responsibility in Phase 11. (2) Provides for Phase II development, strategy selection and plan Implementation. (3) Provides for intergovernmental coordination in the AQMP development process. (4) Defines the role of citizen participation in the AQMP development process. (5) Enables the adequate analysis of the social and economic impacts of the AQMP. N -a 0 (6) Provides for continuous plan monitoring with evaluation and revision at least once every two years after completion of fi�r,sbo' AQMP. d. Development of a Phase 11 AQMP Work Program for submittal to EPA. To Include: (1) Adoption of Policy Framework. (2) A program for the analysis of specific strategies and alternative combinations of strategies which include; (a) technical analysis --what increment of improved air quality will be achieved by various strategies? (b) governmental analysis -- what governmental framework or mechanism is needed to implement the strategy? (c) economic impact analysis -- what will it cost government? How will it impact on the economy? (d) social impact analysts -- how will the various strategies affect individuals and communities? (a) time frame -- how long will tt take? What are optimistic and pessimistic achievement forecasts? (3) Preparation and adoption of AQMP to achieve and maintain air quality in the long term. (4) Adoption of necessary governmental mechanism or mechanisms. 4. Function of the State Policy Committee a. Define the relationship of the AQMP to other State programs and functional policies. b. Identify and coordinate the resolution of potential conflicts between the AQMP process and other State programs, policies and goals. c. Provide a mechanism for involving State agencies in the AQMP process so that State and AQMP activities are coordinated wherever possible. d. Agree on common assumptions. 5. Function of th- State Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) a. Provide technical input and feedback on the AQMP process to the ARB and Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces. b. Provide staff level liaison between the State AQMP Task Force and the various State agencies which can support or be affected by the AQMP process. -9- 0 c. Define common planning assumptions. D. Timetable for Phase I development The preliminary timetable for the AQMP process begins with the submittal of this PDP proposal followed by a period of review and comment during March, April and May. The Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces will be initiated in late May with staff to be assembled in June. The work program should begin by July 1. Phase I should be complete by December 30, 1975. This timetable assumes EPA will extend its deadline (currently June 18, 1975). E. Planning assumptions and trend projections to be used in the p_lan. Planning assump- tions and trend projections will be identl-fied in cooperation with the Joint State - Local AQMP task forces and the Technical Advisory Committee as a part of Phase 1. Legal Requirements Regulating AQMP development 1. State Level Requirements The California Health and Safety Code (Sections 39270-39276) requires coordinated air pollution control plans to meet the State and national. ambient air quality standards be developed for each air basin. Some basin plans do not provide for achievement of all air quality standards. Although the AQMP mechanism is not cited in the current statutes, it is a logical supplement to basin plans to insure achievement and maintenance of air quality standards in the long term. Federal Level Requirements a. The Clean Air Act b. EPA Promulgations (CFR § 51.12, 15.18, 6/18/73). These regulations currently require the State develop and submit an AQMP by June 18, 1975. However, it is expected that EPA will shortly promulgate new regulations which will modify this deadline and dictate a two phase approach to AQMP development. This PDP deals with Phase I of a two phase approach. c. Federal Highway Administration regulations (CFR § 770.200 through 770.206) require consistency of federally funded highway projects with the State Implementation Plan of which the AQMP must be a part. If no AQMP's are developed,, this funding may be in jeopardy. G. Persons with Project Responsibility The initial ARB/AQMP Task Force is composed of the following individuals: NAME PHONE Daniel Lieberman, Task Force Manager 916-322-6076 Gary Agid, Air Sanitation Engineer 322-6024 Cathy Carlson, Air Pollution Specialist 322-6017 Carolyn Green, Planner 322-6076 Iris McQueen, Administrative Assistant 322-6076 Anne G. Renner, Planner 322-6076 John Schaffer, Civil Engineer 322-6038 Mike Scheible, Air Sanitation Engineer 322-6076 TENTATIVE AGENDA SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN STATE/LOCAL POLICY TASK FORCE FORMATION MEETING LOS ANGELES CONVENTION CENTER Chair: Mary Nichols, Board Member, Air Resources Board June 27, 1975 9:00 - 9:30 REGISTRATION 9:30 - 10:30 INTRODUCTION TO PROPOSED AQMP PLANNING PROCESS Air Resources Board Environmental Protection Agency PRESENTATIONS OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council Southern California Association of Governments Local Government Officials 10:30 - 10:45 COFFEE BREAK 10:45 - 11:30 CITIZENS AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS 11:30 - 12:00 AIR RESOURCES BOARD STAFF PRESENTATION ON THE AQMP PROCESS AND THE TASK OF THE CAUCUSES FOR STARTING PHASE I. EXPLANATION OF PURPOSE OF AFTERNOON CAUCUSES. 12:00 - 1:30 LUNCH 1:30 - 3:00 INDIVIDUAL GROUP CAUCUSES Citizens - Government Officials - Agency Staff 3:00 - 4:00 CAUCUS REPORTS TO MAIN GROUP AND IDENTIFICATION OF POLICY TASK FORCE COMPOSITION 4:00 ADJOURNMENT RIVERSIDE-SAN BERNARDINO AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREA OF THE SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN SCALE -MILES T77= (ARB LUPP/AQMP 6/75) 11 • N2 PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM for PHASE I AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANS FOR CALIFORNIA AND San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin South Coast Air Basin San Diego Air Basin Sacramento Metropolitan Area San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Fresno & Kern Counties (San Joaquin Air Basin) Monterey County AQMP Task Force Air Resources Board 1709 llth Street Sacramento March 24, 1975 ° r g (Revised 4/29/75 Clarification) Plan Development Program for Phase I Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMP) Content Page Introduction I A. Objectives y B. Participants q C. Phase I Organization and Work Program 5 ti 1r., D. Timetable for Phase•l Development 9 E. Planning Assumptions Legal Requirements Persons with Project Responsibility INTRODUCTION The Air Resources Board (ARB) is embarking on an effort to develop comprehensive long-range plans for attaining and maintaining healthy levels of air quality for California's urban areas. Federal Regulations (CFR 51.72, 51.18) require that an air quality maintenance plan be developed in areas where attainment or maintenance of the standards by 1977 are not predicted and/or where growth and development in the ten year period 1975-85 may interfere with either attainment or maintenance of the standards once achieved. In those areas of the State which are unable to attain the national Clean Air Standards by 1977, a long-term plan should provide for attain- ment as well as maintenance. in the past, the ARB's plans have been directed toward short-range goals, that is, meeting the standards by 1977 and have not included long-range land use and transportation controls. However, these goals are unreal- istic for most metropolitan areas. For this reason, the time has come to bring together our best tools to attain clean air in the long term. These tools include technical control of pollution sources, both industrial and automobile, as well as transportation and land use controls. The projection of automobile emissions in the long term indicates that the benefits from technical control of automobile emissions will "bottom out" around 1985 (or a later date depending on extension of control dates) and that after 1985, air pollution will increase as a result of increasing numbers of auto- mobiles and increasing numbers of vehicle miles traveled. Land Use and transportation controls have been of local government. For this reason, the ARB tives of local government together to form tas k (3/25/75) In June, 1973, the EPA promulgated regulations (40 CFR 51.12) requiring State Implementation Plans to be amended to identify those areas which, due to current air quality and/or projected growth rates, may have the potential for exceeding any national ambient air quality standards within the ten-year period 1975-85. In June, 1974, the ARB adopted Revision 5 to the Implementation Plan recommending that EPA designate the following as air quality maintenance areas (AQMAs): (as of this date, the EPA has not officially designated these areas). AQMA South Coast Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin San Diego Air Basin Sacramento Metropolitan Area* San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties Fresno County Kern County Monterey County Riverside - San Bernardino POLLUTANT Particulate Oxidant CO so NO2 x x X x x x x x X X X x x X X X X X X *Includes Sacramento County, Yolo-Solano Unified Air Pollution Control District, and the Valley Area of Placer County. Plans for Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMAs) are presently due to be submitted to EPA by June 18, 1975. However, final guidelines are not expected to be promul- gated by EPA until May, 1975, A two phase approach is anticipated with deadlines to be negotiated between the states and EPA. The ARS's proposed AQMP program sets December 31, 1975, as the target for completing Phase I outlined in this plan development program. This "plan development program" (PDP) is prepared to fulfill the requirements of the Office of Planning and Research's state planning coordination process. The PDP will be submitted to the Office of Planning and Research to be forwarded to appropriate local, regional and state agencies for early review and comment. The PDP outlines the organization and processes proposed to develop Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMPs) for the purpose of insuring the long-range attainment and maintenance of healthy air in California. AQMP development will occur in two phases. Phase I, outlined in this PDP, will establish a framework for coordinat on etween State, local, and federal agencies. Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces will be established to areas of the State with critical air quality problems --air quality maintenance areas (map attached). Each task force will have responsibility for developing a Phase I AQMP in its area. A State Policy advisory committee, composed of agency and departmental representatives is proposed to integrate long-range air quality planning with the State's environ- mental and social policies. A State technical advisory committee, with participants from the same agencies is proposed to work with the ARB Task force in integrating appropriate plans, programs and techniques with the AQMP process. N SAGRQMENTO METROPOLI SAN RmciSCO STANISLAUS - BAVAREA SAN JOAQUIN- c Ai. U 7ICRAMBIiD°f� ...:= • • MONTEREY -3- CA.LIFOR NI A AIR RE190IIRCE8 BOARD l AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE • i AREAS.. . ., N DESIGNATED BY ARB ri:.�, REVISION 5, STATE ...•'I:� N, IMPLEMENTATION PLAN r. ` 1G 1� UOyL8 , / r ^ VALLEY ('fit «` r ;y, ,CS .. •cr,..: :, tx KERN CO 'SOUTH COYCST"' !. IL AN r. DIEGO FRESNO KERN yp r. t f 1, �i RI IDE 9 EA SAN 'IEFOARWNQ %fitt �e a� ,---f--Z% _- n, ev.y ../•f 0 -4- 0 The actual development and implementation of air quality maintenance plans will occur in Phase 11. An AQMP development process will be the output of Phase I. A. Objectives 1. Provide a mechanism for incorporating air quality considerations Into the comprehensive planning process at the local and regional levels. Phase I will provide the basis to extend current planning efforts (the State Implementation Plan -(SIP)) into longer -range strategies (i.e. 20-25 year time frame). 2. Insure local governmental and citizen participation in Air Quality Management. 3. Provide a planning mechanism for attainment/maintenance of the State air quality standards in those areas of the State not projected to meet such standards in the long term under current programs. 4. Fulfill the requirements of the federal government for the long-term attainment/maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in those areas not expected to meet the standards in the period 1975 to 1985. B. Participants in Phase I 1. State Agencies: The Air Resources Board is the lead agency via a State AQMP Task Force. The State Policy Committee and State Technical Advisory omm tteeee will include representatives from the Office of Planning and Research, State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Water Resources, Solid Waste, Agriculture, Energy Commission, Coastal Zone Commission, CalTrans, Housing S Community Development, Public Utilities Commission, Health and Welfare, and other affected/interested agencies. 2. Local Agencies: Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces* will be composed of representatives rom Councils of Governments* c t es, counties, a-ir pollution control districts, coastal zone commissions, citizen groups and other affected/ interested local agencies. The ARB as well as other State agencies will also be represented on the AQMP Task Forces. The exact composition of each task force will evolve in Phase I. 3. Federal Agencies: The Environmental Protection Agency - will coordinate with other federal agencies such as Federal Highway Administration, Housing and Urban Development and Urban Mass Transit Administration and will participate in the Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces where appropriate. Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces will be established in the South Coast Air Basin, San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMA, San Diego Air Basin, San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (3AQMA's), and the Monterey County AQMA. 4. Citizen Groups: Citizen groups with a concern for air quality will be invited to partici- pate in the basin AQMP task forces in order that the plans developed address the broad concerns of the area's citizenry. C. Phase I Work Program and Organization 1. Organization Figure i is an organization chart which shows the relationship of the various agent-ies and task forces in the Phase I AQMP. The ARB/AQMP task force will provide the leadership for Phase I. The composition of each Joint State -Local AQMP Task Force will be determined at meetings with interested agencies in each AQMA to be held tentatively in May 1975. The ARB will Initiate meetings by written invitations to councils of governments, counties, cities, air pollution control districts, basin coordinating councils, health departments, citizen groups and other concerned organizations in each AQMA. 2. Functions of the State AQMP Task Force a. Coordinate and provide liaison for AQMP activities at the basin, State and federal levels. b. Initiate the formation of each Joint State -Local AQMP Task Force. c. Provide leadership in each Joint State -Local AQMP Task Force in the development of the Phase I of the AQMP. d. Provide technical staff support to basins with limited resources. e. Define criteria for technical assumptions to be used in the Phase I AQMP. f. Evaluate ARB programs in relation to the AQMPs. g. Work with State Policy Committee to integrate State and AQMP policies with State conservation, development, social and economic policies. h. Assist in the reanalysis of AQMAs (in work program C.3.a) and monitor and evaluate Phase I AQMP program development. I. Participate in developing criteria for analysis of social and economic impacts of AQMP in cooperation with Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces. j. Coord-inate formal Phase I Plan adoption by State and submittal to EPA to fulfill federal AQMP requirements. 3. Functions of the Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces a. Identification of the air quality problems in the AQMA. This process will include: (1) Definition of air quality planning assumptions including: emission EPA rdinatio h other eral programs SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN A!4', A's riverside— FIGURE I SCHEMATIC OF PHASE I AQMP RELATIONSHIP A'ID ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AIR RESOURCES BOARD AQMP TASK FORCE :- ���ASIN,XeSK OAOCES SAX FRA?!CISCO SAN DIEGO SACRAMEENTO EAY A;,EA AIR BASIN '=TROPOLITA`; A Z,'&k A14MA AQ-1 * Dotted lines represent possible lie:.c to agencies of State government such as, CalTrans Di->tricts, regiu� water quality boards, etc. FRWTO 1 AZYA OPR STATE POLICY CO`D!ITTEE STATE LAICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE * WrTITY A4:!A KERN 041R!TY AQ!!A SAN JOAQUI VALLEY AIR BASI`.7 A,4%A' s STANISLAUS SA : SOAQnI'I COUNTY m t :I h -7 • factors, air quality baseline, growth factors, and air quality forecasting methodologies. (2) Evaluation of the initial ARB AQMA forecast of air quality through 1985 (Revision 5 to the State Implementation Plan, June 13, 1974). Extension of forecasts to 1995. (3) Development of optimistic and pessimistic forecasts of emissions in order to define possible ranges of future air quality. (4) Analysis of AQMA boundaries and redefinition where appropriate. (5) Identification of the data needs for Phase II AQMP development. b. Development of an Initial AQMP Policy Framework - Identification of policy areas to be considered for further analysis and adoption in Phase it including: (1) Goals - The long-term goal is to achieve and maintain healthy air as defined by the National and State ambient air quality standards. However, the timetable of the Clean Air Act is unachievable in most of California's metropolitan areas. The AQMP task forces need to recommend achievement dates. (2) Interim Goals or Targets. Develop interim goals and dates for attain- ment/maintenance as a management tool based on analysis of alternative strategies. (3) Land Use and Transportation Policies to Achieve Air Quality Goals. (4) Technical Policies to Achieve Air Quality Goals. (5) Integration with Social and Economic Considerations including consideration of energy conservation. Initial analysis of social and economic factors to identify mutually supportive goals and policies and areas of conflicting policies. c. Establishment of a governmental mechanism for Phase it which: (1) Defines and commits the necessary resources and identifies each agency's responsibility in Phase II. (2) Provides for Phase it development, strategy selection and plan implementation. (3) Provides for intergovernmental coordination in the AQMP development process. (4) Defines the role of citizen partic-i•pation in the AQMP development process. (5) Enables the adequate analysis of the social and economic impacts of the AQMP. (6) Provides for continuous plan monitoring with evaluation and revision at least once every two years after completion of first AQMP. d. Development of a Phase ii AQMP Work Program for submittal to EPA. To Include: (1) Adoption of Policy Framework. (2) A program for the analysis of specific strategies and alternative combinations of strategies which include: (a) technical analysis --what increment of improved air quality will be achieved by various strategies? (b) governmental analysis -- what governmental framework or mechanism is needed to implement the strategy? (c) economic impact analysis -- what will It cost government? How will it impact on the economy? (d) social impact analysis -- how will the various strategies affect individuals and communities? (e) time frame -- how long will it take? What are optimistic and pessimistic achievement forecasts? (3) Preparation and adoption of AQMP to achieve and maintain air quality in the long term. (4) Adoption of necessary governmental mechanism or mechanisms. 4. Function of the State Policy Committee a. Define the relationship of the AQMP to other State programs acid functional policies. b. Identify and coordinate the resolution of potential conflicts between the AQMP process and other State programs, policies and goals. c. Provide a mechanism for involving State agencies in the AQMP process so that State and AQMP activities are coordinated wherever possible. d. Agree on common assumptions. 5. Function of the State Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) a. Provide technical Input and feedback on the AQMP process to the ARD and Joint State -local AQMP Task Forces. b. Provide staff level liaison between the State AQMP Task Force and the various State agencies which can support or be affected by the AQMP process. 11 -9-. 0 c. Define common planning assumptions. D. Timetable for Phase I development The preliminary timetable for the AQMP process begins with the submittal of this POP proposal followed by a period of review and comment during March, April and May. The Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces will be initiated in late May with staff to be assembled in June. The work program should begin by July 1. Phase I should be complete by December 30, 1975. This timetable assumes EPA will extend its deadline (currently June 18, 1975). Planning assumptions and trend projections to be used in the plan. Planning assump- tions and trend projections will be identified in cooperation with•the Joint State - Local AQMP task forces and the Technical Advisory Committee as a part of Phase 1. F. Legal Requirements Regulating AQMP development 1. State Level Requirements The California Health and Safety Code (Sections 39270-39276) requires coordinated air pollution control plans to meet the State and national ambient air quality standards be developed for each air basin. Some basin plans do not provide for achievement of all air quality standards. Although the AQMP mechanism is not cited in the current statutes, it is a logical supplement to basin plans to insure achievement and maintenance of air quality standards in the long term. 2. Federal Level Requirements The Clean Air Act b. EPA Promulgations (CFR currently require the 1975. However, it is new regulations which phase approach to AQMP a two phase approach. § 51.12, 15.18, 6/18/73). These regulations State develop and submit an AQMP by June 18, expected that EPA will shortly promulgate will modify this deadline and dictate a two development. This POP deals with Phase i of c. Federal Highway Administration regulations (CFR § 770.200 through 770.206) require consistency of federally funded highway projects with the State Implementation Plan of which the AQMP must be a part. If no AQMP's are developed, this funding may be in jeopardy. Persons with Project Responsibility The initial ARB/AQMP Task Force is composed of the following individuals: NAME PHONE Daniel Lieberman, Task Force Manager 916-322-6076 Gary Agid, Air Sanitation Engineer 322-6024 Cathy Carlson, Air Pollution Specialist 322-6017 Carolyn Green, Planner 322-6076 Iris McQueen, Administrative Assistant 322-6076 Anne G. Renner, Planner 322-6076 John Schaffer, Civil Engineer 322-6038 Mike Scheible, Air Sanitation Engineer 322-6076 RIVERSIDE-SAN BERNARDINO AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREA OF THE SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN SCALE -MILES SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN STATE/LOCAL POLICY TASK FORCE MEETING Los Angeles Convention Center, Room 217E June 27, 1975 Chair: Mary Nichols, Air Resources Board 9:00 - 9:30 REGISTRATION AND COFFEE 9:30 - 9:40 WELCOMING ADDRESS Maurice Wiener, Deputy Mayor City of Los Angeles 9:40 - 10:00 PROPOSED AQMP PLANNING PROCESS INTRODUCTION Mary Nichols, Member Air Resources Board Frank Covington, Director Air and Hazardous Materials Division Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 10:00 - 10:45 PRESENTATIONS BY ELECTED OFFICIALS 01tr1AlRMtNJ Dennis Hansberger, Supervisor, San Bernardino County Southern California Association of Governments --V NortorcYuung-love, Supervisor, Riverside County r- South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council Frank Frost, Supervisor uTo (�rNTU��1 Santa Barbara County oG•CocWTAie�jrr David Cunningham, Councilman} w5ci,s Tncc ps City of Los Angeles (pW KA \� 5-u„� e'C Ufa �tsn ra Ed Edelman, Supervisor > No.` kN q, ccNdpNCG Los Angeles County Richard Bonzung, Councilman) vj1,erS 51'1'� -tr imftmda/C City of Ventura Marilyn Ryan, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes President, Environmental Quality Committee Los Angeles County Chapter of the League of Cities coV`� T WA7•T \hTG SA NC"P�=4r1�✓cc� 10:45 - 11:45 CITIZENS AND SPECIAL 'INTEREST GROUP PRESENTATIONS Annabell Wilson, Air Pollution Coordinator Sierra,Club, Angeles Chapter Larry Chirsco, President Allied Senior Citizens Club Judy Orttung, Past President League of Women Voters of Riverside Henry Dotson, President Los Angeles Chapter, NAACP Bill DuBois, Director of Natural REsources California Farm Bureau Gladys Meade California Lung Association John E. Brown, Jr., Director Western Regional Citizens Participation Council William Robertson, Assistant Secretary -Treasurer Los Angeles Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO Don Miller, Los Angeles County Chamber of Commerce Mark Braly, Vice -President Planning and Conservation League 11:45 - 12:00 ARB STAFF PRESENTATION ON TASK OF THE CAUCUSES 12:00 - 1:00 LUNCH 1:00 - 2:30 GROUP CAUCUSES 2:30 - 2:45 COFFEE 2:45 - 4:00 CAUCUS REPORTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF POLICY TASK FORCE MEMBERS 4:00 ADJOURNMENT 0 Santo a�t�t � gV er edl ;State Law 4jay �.-D ssolve- Panel d SANT4 ANA- "'. Directors'.of- the fledgling four- county Southern' California 'air pollution control dis- Wet will, meet formally for the -first time Wednesday but their efforts may soon prove to be an exercise in futility The voluntary unification attempt by Orange, Riverside, -San ties could-be-Bd alt a fatal bld Los ow if eles he s ate• legislature, passes Assembly Bill 250 in the coming weeks. The 3emblymmean Jerry fLewis f 11 Rs. Redlands) would not only make re- ponal pollution control mandatory )ut would also give -tough -land use >lanning controls -to a regional entity. that I ole Ts a -Sou ern Cal forni, Association of Governments (SCAG). The u�settthof dscssionathe-meingk week, which ivill startat 7p.m. in the Pomona Municipal,Courthouse. : Lewis, measure cleared the As- sembly on a 551&vote and is now be- ing consideied•by;the state Senate's Local GovernmentCommittee! A spokesman for. Lewis said it is Possible the measure will -get to the Senate floor before the end of July. THE SPOKESMAN admitted that even in its currently -amended form, AB 250 would pre-empt any local at.to form a causional agency e of its more far-reaching re. quirements. Mike Cushing, chief aide to Orange County Supervisor Robert Battin, said the voluntary. agency will go foreward anyway. Battin-was in- strumental in forming the agency and will serve as a director. "This may indeed prove an exercise in futility if AB 250 passes, but it was felt that it would at least be a lever to gain some measure of local control rover our pollution problems," Cushing said. , GUSHING SAID founders of the Voluntary agency actually met in- formally for theflrsttimelast Wednes. day to iron out initial problems nd ,come up with some kind of funding 'formula. The membership of the board`of directors also was tendes tatively set. dl de1Los Angpanel will i eles Su -Pete Schabarum and Kenneth Hahn, Riverside Supervisor Al McCandless and San Bernardino Supervisor Den - MS Hansberger. ' The.votingrarrangement is similar to that proposed .in Lewis' bill. Each Los -Angeles 'supervisor would have two votes,. Battin would have two votes and the others one vote each., AS A CHECKand balancer, an item before the board would requirea ma. jority of counties in addition to a ma- jority of votes for passage. Los Angeles Counof thety will be most based on firsthe f6rmulaoCushing ]acid . out. _ The LA share "would be $241,700 compared to $58,700'for Orange Coun- ty,' $24,700 for San Bernardino and_ $18,200•for Riverside. UNDER LEWIS, measure, Cushing noted, Orange County would pay more and get less voting power. When the voluntary agency. was first proposed, it included Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. But' supervisors in those counties chose not to join the regional effort. Los Angeles sbpervisors charged that state offici boards to try and als urged the two scuttle the voluntary agency in return for a status as their own regional -unit under)the pending legislation. l• r LOS ANGELES TIMES '� �7t1iSD`A_ 1F�MORNING;.'.)UL•Y�l;r,1975":~� ��:, �'�•:"..:.� �we`_�'—"[+^^�`N•i�� '.'__v. T.�;.n�ir.�F_.�..'.w�}.u} � :'•�t•.T-. X.r IJ.: o ve W�`�= Kam'. ",''•rim , A �`tU:SrSiai'e�. �0#ficieis; :::;":• �Told� Devise Crisis - pro iiin:I-One:Pvloniii . 3�^A:federal'�udge; moved. to;, K a ,their om;e.between'iSimxiay:,state and- ' 'offices.iaiiet•;,recreational'�•facilities.r =would.�effectfvel}. r ti countesmog � 'emergenmes.•_: _ 'a=-':s . ;.; 4,: <.-"I4seems They (ttieARB3'told-Mr4" ?Train to•go chase himself,'.' said Gray,.;; who :inyited. attorneys: for EPA.to:, -seek. a:xourt-order under, the Clean:. -:Air Act fording the state: to act: ' ,The judge.set aJuly 28.hearing ate 'whicli•he directed EPA and ARB of-' ficials=°to report orr specific actions'. 'they are: taking to -.come up with -a s ,--The: idge's,action.-came..-ia the., ware of a•breakdown in: negotiations - between_EPA~a d'_AR tor -'resolve — the eme gency,plan dispute =-Aftw,: indicating la st^month',that= they probably -'would' ,be willing -to' taste responsibility for drafting a plan 'for California within •four;months, Please Tar to PSge _G. Col. i•.'; • 0 Task Force Members Dennis Hansberger, Robert Battin Cathryn Geissert Ben Lefvis Judy Orttung Elvin Ricks Marilyn Ryan Technical Advisors Donald Hagman Eugene Leong INSTITUTIONAL' MECHANISMS Chairman BOUNDARIES AND FORECASTING Task Force Members Frank McCracken, Chairman Frank Frost Roy Holm Kenneth Howell Lionel Hudson Los Angeles County Alfred McCandless Nyle Utterback Technical Advisors James Edinger John Trijonis Ron Wadda Task Force Members Representative TACTICS AND STRATEGIES Mark Braly,.Chairman. Ralph Bennett Bob Berliner Dick Bozung Larry Chrisco John Cinquemani James Cook Technical Advisors David Conn Richard Perrine Phillip White J. W. Dailey Eva Dixon Jess Ramirez Annabelle Wilson 0 • DEFINITION OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF TACTICS AND STRATEGIES The criteria list and their definitions have been approved by the Tactics and Strategies Committee to assist the consultants in providing a review of the effectiveness and impacts of tactics. The criteria list also provides the members of -the Tactics and Strategies Committee with a common set of definitions to assist in the evaluation of tactics. It should be noted that the order of criteria does not reflect a ranking of their importance - each committee member, based upon their own interests and values, will place more importance on certain considerations. This criteria list was intended to be all inclusive. Some of the evaluation criteria are not relevant for certain tactics. A. Ability of Tactics to Reduce Emissions 1. Magnitude of emission category affected by tactic 2. Effectiveness of tactic in reducing emissions on a percentage basis: An estimate of the potential for a tactic to reduce pollutant emissions without regard to other tactics (from that source category) 3. Emission Reduction: Product of effectiveness times the source category contribution to emission 4. Reliability: Level of confidence that tactic will be as effective as estimated 5. Intra-media effects: Synergistic effects on emissions of other pollutants B. Administrative Considerations 1. Time frame: Length of time necessary to fully implement a tactic and to achieve associated emission reductions 2. Level of implementation: Local, basinwide, state or national application 3. Legislative: Necessity to enact new legislation 4. Consistency: Supportive of ongoing parallel planning programs 5. Institutional: Complexity or coordination necessary to effect tactic 6. Flexibility: Ability to respond and adapt to changing conditions and/or objectives over time (AQFR' 2/9/76) C. Economic Considerations 1. Administrative costs: Implementation, operational and enforcement costs 2. Consumer costs: Equity considerations, capital costs, operating costs 3. Cost/effectiveness: Cost per emissions reduced 4. Availability of funding D. Societal Considerations 1. Employment: Effects of a tactic/strategy on employment; which industries affected; geographic considerations 2. Special populations: Consideration of elderly, school children, hospital patients, and other sensitive popu- lations (e.g., those with respiratory or cardiac problems) 3. Mobility/accessibility 4. Direct benefits: Reduction in air pollution damage E. Resource Considerations 1. Energy conservation 2. Use of land: Conservation for agricultural land, park land, open space, etc. 3. Other natural resources F. Political Considerations 1. Perceive urgency: Policymakers' perceived urgency of the air quality problem in terms of the views of their different constituents and relative to other problems of society 2. Intergovernmental relations: Impacts on existing inter- governmental relations, i.e., Federal -State, Federal -local, State -local, etc. 3. Planning, management and regulatory agencies: Impacts upon relations with other agencies, e.g., land use, transportation, etc. 4. Policies and regulations: Potential conflict with existing policies and regulations, e.g., land use policies, capital improvement programs, etc. • .. r Tt,TE OF CAUFC. NIA—TNE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Gnvmn.r $17,TE VdATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ; P.0. 80X 100 • SACRAMENTO 95801 y d 4 In Reply Refer To: 401:BD JAN 2 9 1976 Mr. Ray Remy Executive Director Southern California Association of Governments 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 DESIGNATION OF THE SOUTH COAST 208 PLANNING AREA The State Water Resources Control Board, at its January 22 meeting, designated the boundaries of the South Coast 208 planning area and designated, subject to conditions, the Southern California Association of Governments as the 208 planning agency for the area. Enclosed are copies of the Board's designation resolution, "Program for Development and Implementation of Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans --Part I, Designated Areas and Agencies", and the staff "Amplification of Policy on 208 Planning in Designated Areas". These latter two items are referenced in the conditions of desig- nation. This material was provided informally to Messrs. Holden and Magistrale of your staff following the January 22 State Board meeting. I call your attention to those conditions of designation which must be fulfilled within 90 days of the date of the Board's desig- nation. In making the designation, Board Members expressed the position that there should be no extension of the 90-day period. It is, therefore, imperative that you concentrate your initial efforts on this portion of the conditions of designation. In recognition of your agency's statements and the concern of local governments, the Board also specified that your submittal in fulfillment of the 90-day conditions must include an approxi- mation of the total dollar amount of anticipated 208 grant funds that will be required for direct support of SCAG staff and the general duties that would be performed by that staff. You will note that the Board's designation resolution directs that I am to transmit this designation to EPA for consideration of approval and funding after the Board has approved the manner and substance of your agency s compliance with the conditions of designation. The Board recognizes that willful noncooperation Pair. Ray Remy —2— JAN 7 9 1976 on the part of other agencies can impede your ability to comply with the conditions of designation. Accordingly, the Board has instructed that I notify the major units of governments of the Board's expectation and strong desire for their cooperation with you in meeting the conditions of designation. Should you have any questions, please contact Bill Davis of our planning staff. Bill B. De r Executive Officer Enclosures (3) cc: See attached list STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 76- 1 DESIGNATING A SECTION 208 PLANNING AREA AND AGENCY FOR THE SOUTH COAST AREA WHEREAS: 1. On March 12, 1975, the Executive Officer of the State Water Resources Control Board, acting pursuant to the State Board's authority under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, identified the South Coast Area as a potential areawide planning area. 2. Testimony received at the public hearing held on April 3, 1975, indicated a lack of support for a comprehensive multibasin planning effort and the State Board on May 15, 1975, reaffirmed the earlier designation of the Ventura Regional County Sanitation District, designated the San Diego Creek -Newport Bay Watershed, and continued the nondesignation of the remaining portion of the South Coast Area. 3. The Environmental Protection Agency has approved and funded the designation of the Ventura Regional County Sanitation District, but has not approved the designation of the Newport Bay -San Diego Creek Watershed which area continues to be undesignated and in need of additional water quality control planning. 4. By notice dated August 4, 1975, and mailed to known interested parties in the South Coast Area, the Executive Officer summarized the Board's actions subsequent to the April 1975 public hearing; stated the Board's position that local support of a designation must exist if areawide plans are to be implemented; expressed recognition of the need for comprehensive planning; provided specific information regarding funding level for the program; and clearly suggested that local agencies should start working together in order to achieve a designation. 5. The Board believes the following issues to be central to con- sideration of designation of an areawide planning area and agency in the South Coast portion of the State: (a) The major remaining problems to be addressed are management of nonpoint sources of water pollution, and coordination of water quality and air quality control programs with the land use planning and decision -making process; (b) If a designation is made, all of the area within the remaining nondesignated portion of the South Coast Area, that is Los Angeles and Orange Counties and the western portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, should be included. RESOLUTION NO. 76-1 (a) Support of local governments, including appropriate special districts, is necessary, for the success of 208 planning in the South Coast Area; (d) What is needed in the South Coast Area is a program to establish a local -state partnership for development of necessary water quality management plans, and a process for continuing coordination of air -water quality planning with local land use decision making. 6. Testimony received as a result of a second public hearing, which was held on November 17, 1975, in Los Angeles at the request of Southern California Association of Governments and in response to several proposals for designation, indicates that the follow- ing are viable alternatives: (a) Continued nondesignation of the area with the necessary planning being accomplished through a state managed process which provides funding support for local agencies partici- pation during the two-year planning period via contractual arrangements, and (b) Designation of the entire South Coast Area utilizing an existing regional agency, and (c) Designation of two areas and agencies -- one consisting of the Santa Ana River Basin, including all of Orange County, with the Santa Ana Basin Natural Resource Alliance as the planning agency, and the other consisting of the Los Angeles County portion of the Santa Clara River Basin (Basin 4A) and all of the Los Angeles River Basin (Basin 4.B), with the City and County of Los Angeles as the planning agency. 7. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research and the Air Resources Board have expressed support at a Board workshop for the designation of the entire South Coast Area with the Southern California Association of Governments as the designated planning agency for such area. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Board establishes the following program goals and principles as the Board's policy for planning in the South Coast Area in response to Section 208 of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Aet: (a) The primary goal of this planning effort during the next two to three years in the South Coast Area should be the develop- ment of a state -local partnership and process which: Coordinates air and water quality planning with land use planning and decision making; 2 F RESOLUTION NO. 76-1 • Does not replace but rather improves upon the capabilities of existing planning and decision -making processes to operate within the context of a coordinated state -local environmental management program; and . Provides for maximum participation of local governments in the state -level environmental planning and policy - making functions. (b) In developing a program to achieve this goal, the following principles should apply: . Regulatory institutions are, for the most part, already in place and should be used in implementation of manage- ment plans developed for the South Coast Area; . Planning should be carried out through existing statutory authorities and structure; and • Management plans are not self -implementing and can be implemented only if state and local agencies accept and exercise the roles provided by the process. 2. That the Board designates as the South Coast Areawide Planning Area, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A hereto, that area lying within the boundaries of the Los Angeles County portion of the Santa Clara River Basin (Basin 4A), the entire Los Angeles River Basin (Basin 4B), all of Orange County, those portions,of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties lying within the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin 8), and that portion of south- western Riverside County lying between the Santa Ana River Basin and the San Diego Areawide Planning Area. (See Exhibit B) 3. That the Board designates, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A hereto, the Southern California Association of Governme•its as the areawide waste treatment management planning agency for the South Coast Area. 4. That the Board directs the Executive Officer to withhold transmittal of the above designations to the Environmental Protection Agency until the Board has approved the manner and substance of compliance with the Board's conditions of designation. 5. That the Board intends to withdraw the designations contained herein unless the Board determines compliance with the conditions of designation. I RESOLUTION NO. 76-1 6. That the Board directs the Executive Officer to report the statue of compliance with the conditions specified herein at a Board Workshop in May 1976, 7. That the Board rescinds Resolution No. 75-34, adopted by the Board on May 15, 1975, and which designated the Newport Bay Area as a 208 planning area and designated the Newport - Irvine Waste Management Agency as the planning agency for such area. CERTIFICATION The undersigned, Executive Officer of the State Water Resources Control Board, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on January 22, 1976. Bill B. Don Executive Officer 4 • EXHIBIT • STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 76-1 January 22, 1976 CONDITIONS OF DESIGNATION Following are the general conditions prescribed by the Board for the designation of the South Coast Areawide Planning Area and the designation of the Southern California Association of Governments as the planning agency for the South Coast Areawide Planning Area. Specific conditions also are prescribed by the Board and follow the general conditions. If the designated agency complies with these conditions to the satisfaction of the Board, the designation will be forwarded to EPA for approval. If the Board determines that the designated agency has failed to comply with conditions prescribed at the time of designation by the Board, the Board will terminate its designation and assume responsibility for the required planning in the area. General Conditions: A. Within 90 days of the date of designation by the State Water Resources Control Board, the designated planning agency shall submit to the Board for approval: (1) A description of the procedures and process that will be used to: (a) Integrate areawide waste treatment management planning and air quality maintenance planning activities for purposes of•workplan preparation; (b) Ensure consistency between the areawide waste treatment management plan and air quality maintenance plan(s); (c) Provide for coordinated implementation of areawide waste treatment management and air quality maintenance plans. This description shall include the agreements executed with the major units of government needed to implement the procedures and process and evidence that those governments endorse the procedures and process. As used herein, major units of government shall mean at least those agencies listed in Specific Condition A. (2) Description of the intergovernmental relationships that will exist during the planning process, including: (a) Definition of the decision -making process, including the provisions for conflict resolution during plan development and approval phases; 0 2 (b) Definition of the roles of local general-purpose governments, regional agencies, and special districts during plan development and approval, in the selection and evaluation of alternative plans, and in selection of the final management plan; (c) Executed agreements with major units of government necessary to implement the intergovernmental relation- ships and evidence that those units of government endorse and agree to participate in such relationships. (d) The intergovernmental relationships established for the planning process shall provide that agencies responsible for the collection, treatment, and/or disposal of sewage shall certify that those portions of the areawide plan which specify sewage collection, treatment, and disposal systems or facilities are the optimum system or facilities for the area and that implementation of the areawide plan will not delay the construction of waste treatment and disposal facilities needed to meet an -order of any Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the State Water Resources Control Board, or which may be needed to implement further the applicable basin water quality control plan or meet the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Where such certification cannot be given, the reasons for noncertification shall be specified to the desig- nated planning agency, together with the changes which must be made in order to obtain such certification. This requirement may be waived by the Board if the Board determines that such certification is not in the best interests of environmental protection in the South Coast Areawide Planning Area or any portion thereof. (3) Description of the program designated agency will use ning process, including: management structure that the to manage and direct the plan - (a) Definition of the roles and relationships between all involved organizational units within the designated agency; (b) Definition of all advisory committees that will be formed, their relationship and access to the decision making process, and the recommended membership of each advisory committee; (c) Definition of the procedures to be used in soliciting proposals for work and selection of consultant services; Im (d) Definition of the duties, authorities, and minimum qualifications of the 208 Project Manager and the procedures to be used in selection of the Project Manager. (e) Evidence of concurrence in the program management structure by major units of government. (4) Description of the planning approach that will'be used in formulating the areawide plan, including: (a) The means and methods for incorporation of land use considerations to assure that land use planning recognizes air quality and water quality constraints; (b) The means and methods for incorporation of the results of planning by utility agencies (e.g., water supply, waste treatment and disposal, transportation, and energy) in development of the plan; (c) A description of the means and methods for assessing the social, economic, and environmental impact of implementing existing and alternative land use -utility service plans; (d) The specific issues that will be addressed during the planning program; (e) Evidence of concurrence in the planning approach by major units of government. (5) Description of the procedures and arrangements for coordi- nating areawide planning with other major planning and management efforts in the area including, but not limited to, municipal waste treatment facility planning under Section 201, regional water quality control planning under Section 303(e), solid waste management planning, and coastal zone management planning. Such procedures shall not duplicate such efforts and shall not delay implementation of such plans. In addition to the foregoing, the Southern California Association of Governments shall at all times: (1) Comply with the provisions of, and execute all agreements required by, the Board's "Program for Development and Implementation of Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans -- Part 1, Designated Areas and Agencies" and the "Amplification of Poiicy on 208 Planning in Designated Areas" dated November 25, 1975. The subject policy requires, among other things, the establishment of a Program Review Board consisting of state and EPA repre- sentatives. 4 (2) Closely coordinate its priate Regional Water adequate provision for the planning process. planning process with the appro- Quality Control Board and make Regional Board participation in (3) Concentrate the scope of the planning on development of management controls for nonpoint sources not provided in basin water quality control plans and coordination of water and air quality with land use decision —making to achieve water and air quality goals and standards. (4) Assume as a given for the planning process that water quality standards shall be attained and with respect to factors external to the designated area, planning by the State and enforcement action by the Regional Boards will control such factors so that standards shall be achieved at the boundaries of the 208 area. (5) Assure that the form and content of the water quality control and management portions of the areawide plan are in a form which is acceptable to, and can be adopted by, the appropriate agency including the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and shall conform to the provisions of federal and state law and regulation. C. If the agreements and concurrences required by these conditions are not obtainable, the designated agency shall define the deficiencies and shall provide a full description of the reason for lack of such agreements or concurrence. Specific Conditions The following specific conditions shall apply together with the foregoing general conditions as indicated below. A. The Southern California Association of Governments shall provide for full participation and concurrence of at least the following agencies in the planning process and shall specifically name these agencies in the submittals required by the General Conditions of the designation: Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside . City of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County . Orange County Sanitation Districts Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority . Metropolitan Water District . Los Angeles County Flood Control District . California Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego Regions South Coast Air Basin Air Quality Maintenance Planning Policy Task Force . Newport -Irvine Waste Management Planning Agency B. The Southern California Association of Governments shall coordinate its planning process with the process being used by the County of Los Angeles in preparation of the latter's general plan. The procedures and process required under the general conditions of designation shall include the procedures for such coordination. C. The Southern California Association of Governments shall execute an agreement with the Ventura Regional County Sanitation District for the conduct of planning in the Ventura County portion of the area. Such agreement shall be executed within 90 days of the date of designation by the State Water Resources Control Board. D. Membership in the Southern California Association of Governments shall not be made a condition of participation in the planning process resulting from this designation. E. Adequate opportunity shall be provided for the participation of affected parties in the planning process. F. Preparation of the areawide plan shall be coordinated with the South Coast Air Basin Air Quality Maintenance Planning Policy Task Force, the planning program of the California Department of Water Resources, the planning programs of the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards --Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego Regions, and the Metropolitan Water District. The procedures and process required under the general conditions of designation shall include the procedures for coordination with the programs named in this condition. Y/ srr• _ I: -nor t . _ AYARGOSA- `�� r T E a TMNAYINT t a L A E TULF J '♦` RIYER I(^ - is _ '^ PARI�YP _ 111 Coco. — -- -♦, VGA i .i o..n..,\ j�• l .. - _ _ J " • •� `RXITE RIVER t ^INDIAN —_—_—_— __.—_—_ —� YE�QUITE • J r SEARLES - -- ♦ \ ♦♦\. i . POSO 'a EOEEK LEACR ` _ - t MtLTUR IVAXMH KENM`` `. ♦t ••• ��` RIVET t ,• - ! � PE fwLYOMT.• •'•'{ CUDDENACK 50lERlOR INCTCLE, PC'Aq J t i ♦� n� _. _ _ _ �... ... _� • \ F 5 A N -B E R N A R O I. O NOTE I '; :`�• �.• ! ANTELOPE .+ YOJAYE•- ' z ' I, - L — _:.ao:a_.--•.'—�.—_—_.J.• � sSROKDYEIL t IJ ud T, .. ._. E s E A B A R A: �"•r:- ,O J A v E LAVIC BRISTOL SANTA CL CA4LEAIAS • '- -_-- - .� BESSEMER _ `. ,.. ie 'R' M1-- - �� _ .CREYEIIUEYIS _Svbeaer. Ventura. ••••- •E NAND CADI2 - ,,, • L O s DEAD" � ...,.� Area SOUTH _ - -EARRS01- _ ~ •• •y_.. % _ - JOSEOA DALE ** LOS AY LES-S.A�XA- sAN s[PNwDiNO• ` •-•= TICE �NtF�NIIIEL AC* "T'-5 SANTA AAA RIVER _=_r_—_— COAST + •' " �, SA JACUI�U�VALLEY • - +., ►NITEYATEF FA y ; R V - S a D ♦ E E 9 KIVYMD Cy O AREA _ - z � O SAN "% S*TA NARLARIVN EAST+'SALTOM SEA' •b H H I-H CsJ apo — -- — O m Kz0 —San- — — ram:. _ — ftR LUS REr NEST !3Atz LTON iV O -SEL O W H O F �] �; w CARLSBAD - SAN DIEWITO \O O� Ej PZ1 _ -ARZA BORRE60 = .- 1 1 7 liegor - .SLR --- -\\\ °•so wf,el ? A`wA SOUTH o¢a• l saN ee LUIs CENTRAL ` ORISPO � \ nsno ee¢x COAST [ W/ \00 pu0[ •eue w:. ///� r--f \ �•. i „Il a3 �, nuLW BA R S A RA N E R L•Y•+rw V E N T U RA•\ mu ra[YWL u+n r•w "'i \\ NAT'L CHANNEL RLaNDS mr}Ri, Nail VON [ SOUTH COAST <oeoxs .4 del+r •`� SOUTH COAST no-.a+r ez.[x • uw+i ees[* SOUTHEAST DESERT AOMAs \ro—& \ n S A NDIEGO �./ SRN 01EGO o:a m inv a ena S E R N A R 0 1 N 0 SOUTHEAST MID Y 1 aeszox JO'MAI�REE AYL. WON,t elm sYis R I V T S I DIE �fex[ 0 n[YLl L `• • nUi� �. I I M P E R I A L DESERT SAN i„ E40 STATE .nr•Wu eanm Paftl]` •1 �J 1] #2 (Revised 4/29/75 Clarific< o PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM �� ,J�C1oGPv`A for N PHASE I AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANS FOR CALIFORNIA AND San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin South Coast Air Basin San Diego Air Basin Sacramento Metropolitan Area San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Fresno 6 Kern Counties (San Joaquin Air Basin) Plan Development Program for Phase I Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMP) Content Page Introduction 1 A. Objectives 4 B. Participants Phase I Organization and Work Program D. Timetable for Phase I Development E. Planning Assumptions F. Legal Requirements G. Persons with Project Responsibility INTRODUCTION The Air Resources Board (ARB) is embarking on an effort to develop comprehensive long-range plans for attaining and maintaining healthy levels of air quality for California's urban areas. Federal Regulations (CFR 51.72, 51.18) require that an air quality maintenance plan be developed in areas where attainment or maintenance of the standards by 1977 are not predicted and/or where growth and development in the ten year period 1975-85 may interfere with either attainment or maintenance of the standards once achieved. In those areas of the State which are unable to attain ' the national Clean Air Standards by 1977, a long-term plan should provide for attain- ment as well as maintenance. in the past, the ARB's plans have been directed toward short-range goals, that is, meeting the standards by 1977 and have not included long-range land use and transportation controls. However, these goals are unreal- istic for most metropolitan areas. For this reason, the time has come to bring together our best tools to attain clean air in the long term. These tools include technical control of pollution sources, both industrial and automobile, as well as transportation and land use controls. The projection of automobile emissions in the long term indicates that the benefits from technical control of automobile emissions will "bottom out" around 1985 (or a later date depending on extension of control dates) and that after 1985, air pollution will increase as a result of increasing numbers of auto- mobiles and increasing numbers of vehicle miles traveled. Land Use and transportation controls have been primarily the responsibility of local government. For this reason, the ARB is attempting to bring representa- tives of local government together to form task forces to develop cooperative programs to achieve and maintain air quality in the long term through the integration of air quality considerations into land use and transportation development decisions. Such a process needs to indicate the interrelationships between air quality and other social, economic and energy concerns. (3/25/75) 0 -2- In June, 1973, the EPA promulgated regulations (40 CFR 51.12) requiring State Implementation Plans to be amended to identify those areas which, due to current air quality and/or projected growth rates, may have the potential for exceeding any national ambient air quality standards within the ten-year period 1975-85• In June, 1974, the ARB adopted Revision 5 to the Implementation Plan recommending that EPA designate the following as air quality maintenance areas (AQMAs): (as of this date, the EPA has not officially designated these areas). AQMA POLLUTANT Particulate Oxidant CO South Coast Air Basin X X X San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin X X San Diego Air Basin X X X Sacramento Metropolitan Area* X X San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties X Fresno County X Kern County X X Monterey County X Riverside - San Bernardino X Sot NO2 X X *Includes Sacramento County, Yolo-Solano Unified Air Pollution Control District, and the Valley Area of Placer County. Plans for Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMAs) are presently due to be submitted to EPA by June 18, 1975. However, final guidelines are not expected to be promul- gated by EPA until May, 1975. A two phase approach is anticipated with deadii_nes to be negotiated between the states and EPA. The ARB's proposed AQMP program sets December 31, 1975, as the target for completing Phase I outlined in this plan development program. This "plan development program" (PDP) is prepared to fulfill the requirements of the Office of Planning and Research's state planning coordination process. The PDP will be submitted to the Office of Planning and Research to be forwarded to appropriate local, regional and state agencies for early review and comment. The PDP outlines the organization and processes proposed to develop Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMPs) for the purpose of insuring the long-range attainment and maintenance of healthy air in California. AQMP development will occur in two hases. Phase i, outlined in this PDP, will establish a framework for coord nat on etween State, local, and federal agencies. Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces will be established in areas of the State with critical air quality problems --air quality maintenance areas (map attached). Each task force will have responsibility for developing a Phase I AQMP in its area. A State Policy advisory committee, composed of agency and departmental representatives is proposed to integrate long-range air quality planning with the State's environ- mental and social policies. A State technical advisory committee, with partic-ipants from the same agencies is proposed to work with the ARB Task force in integrating appropriate plans, programs and techniques with the AQMP process. 0 SAGRAMENTO METROPOLIS SAN FRANCISCO STAN I SLAUS — BAY AREA SAN JOAQU I M""—`— MONTEREY -3- CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD �Z:�.,�:,WS •.. rye �•+)� �ti .... • r•^ � • ski pia -JOA VALLEY ERN ,t��,., AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREAS... DESIGNATED BY ARB REVISION 5, STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN rV- - ' 30UTH COX'51`'" 'SAN DIEGOW FRESNO KERN N� 1 "t I I DE r EA SAN "L E*AWNP • -4- 0 -a The actual development and Implementation of air quality maintenance plans will occur in Phase II. 'An AQMP development process will be the output of Phase I. A. Objectives 1. Provide a mechanism for incorporating air quality considerations into the comprehensive planning process at the local and regional levels. Phase 1 will provide the basis to extend current planning efforts (the State implementation Plan -(SIP)) into longer -range strategies (i.e. 20-25 year time frame). 2. Insure local governmental and citizen participation in Air Quality Management, 3. Provide a planning mechanism for attainment/maintenance of the State air quality standards in those areas of the State not projected to meet such standards in the long term under current programs. 4. Fulfill the requirements of the federal government for the long-term attainment/maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in those areas not expected to meet the standards in the period 1975 to 1985. B. Participants in Phase I 1. State Agencies: The Air Resources Board is the lead agency via a State AQMP Task Force. The State Policy Committee and State Technical Advisory Committee will include representatives from the Office of Planning and Research, State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Water Resources, Solid Waste, Agriculture, Energy Commission, Coastal Zone Commission, CalTrans, Housing S Community Development, Public Utilities Commission, Health and Welfare, and other affected/interested agencies. 2. Local Agencies: Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces* will be composed of representatives rom councils of Governments, c es, counties, air pollution control districts, coastal zone commissions, citizen groups and other affected/ interested local agencies. The ARB as well as other State agencies will also be represented on the AQMP Task Forces. The exact composition of each task force will evolve i-n Phase I. 3. Federal Agencies: The Environmental Protection Agency - will coordinate with other federal agencies such as Federal Highway Administration, Housing and Urban Development and Urban Mass Transit Administration and will participate in the Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces where appropriate. * Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces will be established in the South Coast Air Basin, San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMA, San Diego Air Basin, San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (3AQMA's), and the Monterey County AQMA. -5- 4. Citizen Groups: Citizen groups with a concern for air quality will be invited to partici- pate in the basin AQMP task forces in order that the plans developed address the broad concerns of the area's citizenry. C. Phase I Work Program and Organization Organization Figure I is an organization chart which shows the relationship of the various agencies and task forces in the Phase I AQMP. The ARB/AQMP task force will provide the leadership for Phase I. The composition of each Joint State -Local AQMP Task Force will be determined at meetings with interested agencies in each AQMA to be held tentatively in May 1975. The ARB will Initiate meetings by written invitations to councils of governments, counties, cities, air pollution control districts, basin coordinating councils, health departments, citizen groups and other concerned organizations in each AQMA. 2. Functions of the State AQMP Task Force a. Coordinate and provide liaison for AQMP activities at the basin, State and federal levels. b. Initiate the formation of each Joint State -Local AQMP Task Force. c. Provide leadership in each Joint State -Local AQMP Task Force in the development of the Phase I of the AQMP. d. Provide technical staff support to basins with limited resources. e. Define criteria for technical assumptions to be used in the Phase I AQMP. f. Evaluate ARB programs in relation to the AQMPs. g. Work with State Policy Committee to integrate State and AQMP policies with State conservation, development, social and economic policies. h. Assist in the reanalysis of AQMAs (in work program C.3.a) and monitor and evaluate Phase I AQMP program development. I. Participate in developing criteria for analysis of social and economic impacts of AQMP in cooperation with Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces. j. Coordinate formal Phase I Plan adoption by State and submittal to EPA to fulfill federal AQMP requirements. 3. Functions of the Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces a. Identification of the air quality problems in the AQMA. This process ncIude: (1) Definition of air quality planning assumptions including: emission EPA ordinatio th other deral programs SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN A:4MAI s Riverside — FIGURE I SCHEMATIC OF PHASE I AQ?W RELATIONSHIP AND ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AIR RESOURCES BOARD AQMP TASK FORCE AJIN ,OW-r K 10A06ES J Salt FRANCISC0 SAN DIEGO SACRA!C!1TO BAY A^EA AIF. BASIN :MTRMLITAN Aq%1A AjMA AQ:"A * Dotted lines represent possible lin,.. to agencies of State government such as, CalTrans Districts, regiu. water quality boards, etc. FRES'�4 + At�TiA OPR STATE POLICY MD1ITTEE STATE ;LAICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE * COUNTY AgMA KERN COMITY Aq:fA SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASI'i A14MA' s STANISLAUS SAN 3OAQUI'. CCURTY A4.!A L] -7- factors, air quality baseline, growth factors, and air quality forecasting methodologies. (2) Evaluation of the initial ARB AQMA forecast of air quality through 1985 (Revision 5 to the State Implementation Plan, June 13, 1974). Extension of forecasts to 1995. (3) Development of optimistic and pessimistic forecasts of emissions in order to define possible ranges of future air quality. (4) Analysis of AQMA boundaries and redefinition where appropriate. (5) Identification of the data needs for Phase II AQMP development. b. Development of an Initial AQMP Policy_ Framework - Identification of policy areas to be considered for further analysis and adoption in Phase II including: (1) Goals - The long-term goal is to achieve and maintain healthy air as 7-fined by the National and State ambient air quality standards. However, the timetable of the Clean Air Act is unachievable in most of•California's metropolitan areas. The AQMP task forces need to recommend achievement dates. (2) Interim Goals or Targets. Develop interim goals and dates for attain- ment maintenance as a management tool based on analysis of alternative strategies. (3) Land Use and Transportation Policies to Achieve Air Quality Goals. (4) Technical Policies to Achieve Air Quality Goals. (5) integration with Social and Economic Considerations including consideration of energy conservation. Initial analysis of social and economic factors to identify mutually supportive goals and policies and areas of conflicting policies. c. Establishment of a governmental mechanism for Phase it which: (1) Defines and commits the necessary resources and identifies each agency's responsibility in Phase Ii. (2) Provides for Phase 11 development, strategy selection and plan implementation. (3) Provides for intergovernmental coordination in the AQMP development process. (4) Defines the role of citizen partic-i,pation in the AQMP development process. (5) Enables the adequate analysis of the social and economic impacts of the AQMP. (6) Provides for continuous plan monitoring with evaluation and revision at least once every two years after completion of first AQMP. d. Development of a Phase 11 AQMP Work Program for submittal to EPA. To Include: (1) Adoption of Policy Framework. (2) A program for the analysis of specific strategies and alternative combinations of strategies which Include: (a) technical analysis —what increment of improved air quality will be achieved by various strategies? (b) governmental analysis -- what governmental framework or mechanism is needed to implement the strategy? (c) economic impact analysis -- what will it cost government? How will it impact on the economy? (d) social impact analysis -- how will the various strategies affect individuals and communities? (e) time frame -- how long will it take? What are optimistic and pessimistic achievement forecasts? (3) Preparation and adoption of AQMP to achieve and maintain air quality in the long term. (4) Adoption of necessary governmental mechanism or mechanisms. 4. Function of the State Policy Committee a. Define the relationship of the AQMP to other State programs died functional policies. b. identify and coordinate the resolution of potential conflicts between the AQMP process and other State programs, policies and goals. c. Provide a mechanism for involving State agencies in the AQMP process so that State and AQMP activities are coordinated wherever possible. d. Agree on common assumptions. 5. Function of the State Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) a. Provide technical input and feedback on the AQMP process to the ARB and Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces. b. Provide staff level liaison between the State AQMP Task Force and the various State agencies which can support or be affected by the AQMP process. • -9- c. Define common planning assumptions. D. Timetable for Phase I development The preliminary timetable for the AQMP process begins with the submittal of this POP proposal followed by a peribd of review and comment during March, April and May. The Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces will be initiated in late May with staff to be assembled in June. The work program should begin by July 1. Phase I should be complete by December 30, 1975. This timetable assumes EPA will extend its deadline (currently June 18, 1975). E. Planning assumptions and trend projections to be used in the plan. Planning assump- tions and trend projections will be identified in cooperation with the Joint State - Local AQMP task forces and the Technical Advisory Committee as a part of Phase I. F. Legal Requirements Regulating AQMP development 1. State Level Requirements The California Health and Safety Code (Sections 39270-39276) requires coordinated air pollution control plans to meet the State and national ambient air quality standards be developed for each air basin. Some basin plans do not provide for achievement of all air quality standards. Although the AQMP mechanism is not cited in the current statutes, it is a logical supplement to basin plans to insure achievement and maintenance of air quality standards in the long term. 2. Federal Level Requirements a. The Clean Air Act b. EPA Promulgations (CFR § 51.12, 15.18, 6/18/73). These regulations currently require the State develop and submit an AQMP by June 18, 1975. However, it is expected that EPA will shortly promulgate new regulations which will modify this deadline and dictate a two phase approach to AQMP development. This POP deals with Phase 1 of a two phase approach. c. Federal Highway Administration regulations (CFR 5 770.200 through 770.206) require consistency of federally funded highway projects with the State Implementation Plan of which the AQMP must be a part. If no AQMP's are developed, this funding may be in jeopardy. G. Persons with Project Responsibility The initial ARB/AQMP Task Force is composed of the following individuals: NAME PHONE Daniel Lieberman, Task Force Manager 916-322-6076 Gary Agid, Air Sanitation Engineer 322-6024 Cathy Carlson, Air Pollution Specialist 322-6017 Carolyn Green, Planner 1322-6076 Iris McQueen, Administrative Assistant 322-6076 Anne G. Renner, Planner 322-6076 John Schaffer, Civil Engineer 322-6038 Mike Scheible, Air Sanitation Engineer 322-6076 SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE Meeting Number 8 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 26, 1976 SCAG, Suite 1000, loth Floor CNA Bldg., 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Los Angeles, California AGENDA 1. Tactics and Strategies Committee - Early Action Program Report 2. Boundaries and Forecasting Committee 3. Institutional Mechanisms Committee A. PTF Participation in Plan Program Preparation: Committee Recommendations �O� Ec voo ,o en Q' cJ y�o4�. ,col oFFpo�' 1. Each PTF member state in writing their particular issues and concerns of air quality that should be addressed in Plan Program preparation. 2. Each PTF member nominate and appoint, if they desire, members for the Work Group and Specialist Committee. B. SCAG Plan Program Progress to Date C. State Air Quality Standards and the AQMP Process - Stephanie Trenck, ARB 4. Federal Regulations for Air Quality Maintenance Planning - Frank Covington, EPA Assistant Regional Director for Air Programs and Hazardous Materials (AQMP 5/21/76) .f 0 • PROCEEDINGS SOUTH COAST/SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING POLICY TASK FORCE MEETING NO. 7 April 28, 1976 1. PTF Chairman Marvin Braude announced the appointment of Membership Committee members. They are Bob Berliner, Chairman, Dennis Hansberger, Katy Geissert, Annabelle Wilson and Jim Daily. 2. Mark Braly, Chairman of the Tactics and Strategies Committee, gave a detailed report on the selection of tactics .for the Early Action Program and tactics for further study. He suggested that SCAG address the EAP in their Work Program. He indicated that rather than make a formal recommendation on an EAP at this time, the Tactics and Strategies Committee must consider its definition of such a program and approaches for implementation. Annabelle Wilson presented a minority report urging that the PTF consider New Source Review as part of the EAP. This proposal will be reconsidered by the Tactics and Strategies Committee at its next meeting. 3. The final draft report of the Boundaries and Forecasting Committee was presented by Committee Chairman Frank McCrackin. Based on this report, he asked the PTF to approve A. Initiation of Phase II AQMP B. Addition of northeastern Los Angeles County to the Southeast Desert AQMA C. Addition of NO2 and particulates as pollutants for which standards are likely to be exceeded by 1985 in the South- east Desert AQMA D. Approval of Final Report preparation, release, and trans- mittal to EPA Items A through D were approved with the stipulation that graphics be improved to better display the relative amount of pollutants from each County, as suggested by Eva Dixon. ARB staff will confer with Mrs. Dixon and Chairman McCrackin on appropriate graphic presentation. ARB staff will also be responsible for printing, distribution and transmittal of the report to EPA. (AQKP 5/3/76) - 2 - 4. Victor Magistrale, Assistant Director of Planning for GCAG then presented 80AG's initial thoughts on Work Program Development. He asked for approval of conceptual approach, organization method, timing and review. He also requested the PTF name individuals to serve on the special committee and asked for PTF participation in a general conference recommended to be held in mid -July. The PTF members expressed several concerns. Mike Cushing, speaking as staff for Supervisor Battin of Orange County, felt that local govern- ments were not adequately represented in the Working Group. He was also concerned about incremental approvals. (If the PTF approved the organization and concept, then it would be very difficult to change directions later.) Mr. Cushing also wanted to be assured that local governments had a role in the Phase II planning program. Peter Fearey believed it was premature to approve the concept since it was only received that evening. He also expressed concern that AQMP remain an active public participation program with strong PTF involvement in Work Program. Judy Orttung recommended that the Work Program issue be assigned to a committee. Chairman Braude suggested either an overseer committee or the Committee on Inctitutional Mechanisms. A motion was approved that the matter be assigned to the Institutional Mechanisms Committee. 5. The PTF approved the allocation of $120,000 pass -through funds to SCAG for Phase II planning purposes. It was made clear that the PTF wished to retain control over the funds for purposes of allocating them to specific work program tasks as will be iden- tified in an approved Work Program. 6. The PTF also unanimously approved a $30,000 payment to SCAPCD for its work on the Boundaries and Forecasting Report. This approval clarified and reinforced an earlier in concept approval. 7. The next Policy Task ,Force meeting will be held at SCAG, 600 S. Commonwealth, Los Angeles, on Wednesday, May 26, 19761.7:r0 p.m., 8. Policy Task Force members or alternates in attendance Mr. Braude Mr. McCandless Ms. Orttung Mr. McCrackin Mr. Chrisco Mr. Rowell Mr. Wirth Ms. Dixon Mr. Ramirez Mr. Cook Ms. Mr. Wilson Berliner Mr. Mr. Rouge Magistrale Mr. Braly Mr. Fearey (AQMP 5/3/76) IWcounty of Orange DATE: June 2, 1978 Orange County AQMP TO- City Contacts DEPT/DIST: FROM: Robert Bilbey EMA/AOMP SUBJECT: AQMP Land Use Control Workshop Please be advised that the next city contact workshop will be held June 7, 1978, at 2 p.m. in the Community Room of the City of Orange Main Library, 401 E. Chapman (N.E. corner of Chapman and Center). Note that the subject of this workshop will be AQMP land use control strategies and not transpor- tation, as was originally intended. The land use briefing paper, for your review, will be available on Monday, June 5, 1978, and will be delivered to you prior to the meeting date. We look forward to your participation at this workshop. RB:dlm STATUS OF POPULATION PROJECTION ISSUES • IN OF ENT WEPA, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES SWRCB, AND ARB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ATTACHMENT 7'4-B ALTERNATIVE POSSIBLE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTIONS June 1, 1978. 1. Seek State certification of SCAG 76. 2. Call for project -by -project use by state of SCAG 76 and other appropriate forecasts until adoption of SCAG 78 as part of AQMP & 208. Call for State use of other forecast (such as E-150). Table item until State and Federal position more clear. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends alternative 7#2 or alternative #4, above. Planning Directors Committee recommends alternative #2. Situation deemed too unclear and interim to warrant alternative #l. Alternative #3 would run counter to currently adopted and ongoing regional plans. Background E/C attachment for May meeting discussed; EPA proposal to require use of Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) projections for sizing wastewater treatment works. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) proposal to permit use of adopted 208 forecast, other COG adopted forecast, or State E-150 forecast for sizing waste treatment. State Air Resources Board (ARB) proposal to require consistency between city/county general plans and regional land use and population forecasts wherever air quality planning being under- taken pursuant to Clean Air Act amendments. At the Air/Water Program Review Board meeting on May 8, Frank Covington of EPA regional office indicated his office would seek to exempt this region from the required use of BEA forecasts. Staff will continue to monitor this matter. At the same May 8th meeting, John Bryson, Chairman of the SWRCB, said it was not intended to permit funding of capacity at E-150 level, though it still appears State regulations do permit this. Staff will seek further clarification and, in the meantime, recommends actions as dis- cussed at the beginning of this memo. Note that July i is presently date for decision on which forecast to use. Staff is communicating with ARB people to get clarification on their proposed consistency requirement. Staff will provide further status reports on these issues as new. information becomes available. The attached table shows different population levels in different forecasts. Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Riverside/San Bernardino4] Ventura Total SCAG Region SCAG-76 GROWTH FORECAST KILICIES MIMED TO OTHER ALTERNATIVES FOR THE YEAR 2000 SCAG-76 SCAG Modified/ BEA l State2 Local- State2 Revised (BEA Plus 10%) E-150 E450 E-0 (1976/77) (1972) (1977) (1978) (1974) 116,000 7,905,000 2,656,000 866,000 960,000 11,826 ,0001 792,000 13,295,000 -- 3 9,115,700 (10,027,200) 2,033,000 (2,241,800) P1,602,400 {1,762,600} 505,800 (556,300) 13,261,900 (14,587,900) 129,000 8,045,500 2,758,100 910,000 1,034,800 11,994,8001 807,300 13,734,700 129,000 8,335,637 2,979,596 888,691 1,293,657 [2,182,348] 801,243 14,427,824 103,800 7,269-7 2,025,700 630,318 777,730 C ,408,04I1 504,886 17 , 31101 lProposed EPA regulations allow designated 208 area disaggregations to exceed U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) projections by up to 10H. 2California Department of Finance Projections. 3BEA disaggregates to SMSA's only. 4Current BEA disaggregations combine these two counties. EPA proposed regulations allow the 208 agency to disaggregate projections below the county level. SCAG: 5J3/78 r OF N G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA H. G. OSBORNE DIRECTOR TELEPHONE:(714) 034.2306 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4046 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 FI LE We want to thank those of you who joined us on May 25 for the workshop of stationary source controls. The kind of dialogue that was established is vital to our ongoing efforts in air quality planning, and so we look for- ward to your continuing involvement. The next scheduled workshop will be June 8, 9:30 a.m., in Room G-220 (ad- jacent to the Personnel Office), 625 N. Ross, here in Santa Ana. The topic for the morning will be land use controls. We will follow with a session on transportation source controls on June 15, same time, same place. Briefing papers for these two workshops can be obtained in advance by calling 834-3669. For those of you who are unable to attend the morning meetings, there will be an evening session on June 14, 7:00 p.m. at 1020 North Broadway, Suite 100, Santa Ana. The focus on this evening workshop Will be transportation con- trols, however we will devote some time for discussing the other topics which you may have missed. Thanks again for your assistance in getting our job done. very truly yours, H.G. Osborne, Director SS:dlm R CE,"" eo DB�`oBp4 191��' JV� �oesPDN, NEAP rPu\� of ®range* M lam! O City Contacts for TO, Air Ouality Planning DEPT/DIST: FROM: Sandy Scott SUBJECT:- Stationary Source Controls ® FB50-123.1 DATE: May 28, 1978 Many thanks to those of you who attended, or were represented at our first meeting together. We also appreciated the telephoned comments that we received from some of you who couldn't join us. Our next meeting will be May 24 1978 2:00 p.m. at 811 N. Broadway Room" 200, Santa Ana. (Sorry about the short lead-time, but as you know we are operating under some insane deadlines). At that time we will be giving over the strategies discussed in the attached briefing paper and develop- ing recommendations to present to the Orange County AQMP Coordiating Com- mittee on May 25, 1978. This is your chance to significantly offset the direction that we will be in air quality control, so please plan to be there or have someone there to speak for you. Looking ahead, we expect to meet June 8 to discuss transportation source controls, and June 14 for a session on land use controls. We'll confirm those dates when we meet Wednesday. See you then. SS:dlm Attachment REo ,, YD i v Deg loPIt DePt.19?8�„ r;U off T gEPpY1,C` 4, T16wP Gp1.1r. . , I LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN THE CONTROL OF STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTANTS (A Briefing Paper) Orange County Environmental Management Agency May 1978 RECEtv�D S' pev °PDep; e t Mpy �g 197�w C Ctt jkxcol \- NEW pP�1F. FOREWORD In April 1978, the Environmental Management Agency published a background document on "Air Quality Planning in Orange County". The purpose of the document was twofold. In a limited context, it was designed to satisfy the County's responsibility as a designated subregional agency for air quality management planning as defined by the Lewis Air Quality Management Act of 1976. The County Board of Supervisors approved the document for this use on April 19, and it was submitted to the Southern California Association of Governments as the preliminary subregional element for the regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Its broader purpose, however, was to provide a foundation for discussion of air quality issues as they affect and are affected by local decision making, and to form a platform from which to initiate actions to improve the air environment in Orange County and in the Southern California region. The initial purpose having been accomplished, use of the document is now focussed on the broader work ahead. "Air Quality Planning in Orange County", in part described the responsibilities and authority that local decision makers have in the field of air quality control. This description suggested some basic air quality strategies, or general approaches, that local governments might pursue in the areas of stationary source controls, land use controls, and transportation source controls. The work ahead is to identify those strategies which will be pursued, design appropriate tactics or measures to accomplish the objectives of the strategies, and to adopt and implement the measures. It is evident that this work is the business of continuous planning, one that must constantly respond to changing environmental conditions and socioeconomic circumstances. However, as an initial task, the general strategies can be agreed upon, and the tactics screened for those which warrant immediate implementation and for those which merit further study. 'Toward this end, a series of workshops and meetings, supported by briefing papers, are being conducted, the results of which will be reported to the County Board of Supervisors for action prior to July 1978. This is the first briefing paper in the series, and it deals with local parti- cipation in the control of stationary sources of air pollutants. An open public workshop will be held on May 25 at 9:30 am in Room G-220 - adjacent to the Personnel Department, 625 North Ross, Santa Ana. Companion papers and workshops will follow for transportation source controls and for land use controls. -i- • 0 STATIONARY SOURCE CONTROLS In the mid-1940's, agricultural experiments at U. C. Riverside identified a causal link between air contaminants and reduced crop yield. This, combined with visual evidence of air pollution, led to the first formally organized efforts to control the emission of contaminants into the air. Because of the state of knowledge at that time, control efforts were directed only toward stationary sources of emissions. Los Angeles county was first into the field when, in 1947, it requested explicit authority from the State Legislature to impose stationary source controls. The Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District was thus formed, followed three years later by the Orange County APCD. Regional authority superseded county authority in 1976 with the formation of the multi -county Southern California APCD, which was then reorganized under the Lewis Air Quality Management Act into the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Through this almost 30 years of stationary source control experience, local governments (except counties) have tended to be marginal participants for two reasons. First, legal authority was vested, primarily, 1n the APCD's and then the SCAQMD. Statutorially, this placed local governments in a subordinate position vis-a-vis the control agency; and second, the technical complexities of air pollution control are such that local governments generally cannot devote adequate staff and monitary resources to be principals in the effort. These two factors of authority and resources have been the major guides in developing the following discussions. "Air Quality Planning in Orange County" lists a set of potential strategies which local governments may employ in the control of stationary source emissions. These strategies are described below along with rudimentary evaluations and staff recommendations. The evaluations represent rough qualitative judgements (+ for positive, n for none or neutral, - for negative, and u for uncertain or unknown) of the three major criteria headings described in "Air Quality Planning in Orange County." Prior to any formal implementation action, a more complete analysis and evaluation will be performed in support of each recommendation. The staff recommendations are suggested as possible positions on each strategy that could be brought before the Board of Supervisors. This paper, and the immediate effort which it supports, are preliminary intended to elicit discussion and participation in the development of air quality improve- ment programs for Orange County. -2- STRATEGY o Review and comment on South Coast Air Quality Management District rules and regulations, as appropriate. , The district operates through an open public process wherein any interested party can comment on new and revised rules and regulations. Most of the regulating decisions and actions of the district are technology specific and not of local interest. There are however, district rules and regulations that carry policy and operational implications for local decision makers. For example, Rule 701 et. seq. (emergency episodes) directly proscribes many local activities, including government operations, under extreme air pollution conditions. Such curtailment carries an implied enforcement responsibility for local governments, and a potential loss in revenues associated with business activities. It is evident that the design or modification of district rules and regulations, such as 701 et. seq., should be of concern to local decision makers. However, local agencies are hampered from participating in district rule making because of inadequate staff and by the lack of an organizing vehicle for collective participation in the review and comment process. Participation is further com- plicated in that district rules, such as for emergency episodes, often simply implement EPA and/or ARB directions. The Orange County air quality planning staff can assist in developing more adequate participation. The staff now receives and reviews all proposed rule changes or new rules. The results of these reviews can be distributed to concerned agencies for individual comment. A consensus or composite report can then be prepared by county staff for pre- sentation to the district. Evaluation Effectiveness (n) Overall emissions reductions will not be directly affected to any measurable extent. Impacts(+) To the extent that local interests and concerns are more adequately considered in the district's rule making, the economic, social and environmental characteristics of the county should be preserved or enhanced over what might otherwise occur. Feasibility (+) County staff is now performing this work and can readily expand the effort to engage and coordinate other local agency comments. Staff Recommendation Direct the county air quality planning staff to engage and coordinate local agency review and comment on SCAQMD rules and regulations. -3- STRATEGY o Develop, with the SCAQMD, a new source review procedure that will include participation by affected local governments. Under the provisions of subsection (e)(2) and (e)(3) of district rule 213, as revised January 7, 1977, a new source, or modified or expanded source, which adds 15 pounds of pollutants per hour (150 lb/hr for carbon monoxide) to the region's atmosphere, with approved control devices in operation, shall not be permitted unless the added pollutants are "offset" by reducing a greated amount of emissions from other sources. The district has no authority to approve or disapprove the site or sites of permitted and offset sources. However, source approval and site selection are functionally related. And, as has been evidenced in the case of the SOHIO project, the site selected for the approved emissions source and the location of sources to be reduced to provide offset may have significant localized effects. Local governments can now participate in these decisions through the open public process of the SCAQMD. However, the potential magnitude of the local impacts may warrant a more formal role for local juris— dictions in the offset decision making process. If this strategy is adopted, possible revisions to Rule 213 will be explored with the district. Evaluation Effectiveness (n) Overall emissions reductions will not be affected to any measurable extent. Impacts (+) The possibility of adverse localized impacts of offset decisions will be lessened with more effective participation by local jurisdictions. Feasibility (+) This strategy would provide only a participation framework for existing local concerns. Staff Recommendation Approve the strategy as stated. —4— STRATEGY o Incorporate SCAQMD permit requirement into local government permit systems. This strategy was originally suggested as a way of assuring local government participation in the control of local sources of stationary emissions, and to assist the district in identifying those operations which require district permits. Several possible ways have been proposed to implement this strategy. At one extreme, the issuance of local building permits could be conditioned on satisfaction of SCAQMD permit requirements. Another approach would forma communications link whereby local agencies would inform permit applicants of possible district requirements, and then transmit appropriate applicant information to the district. Another possibility would be to include a district permit check as an integral part of fire marshal inspections. During 1975, the County of Orange experimented with integrating the permit systems of the then Orange County AND and the county's Environmental Management Agency with very negative implications for the first two implementation proposals. Two basic problems arose. First, and foremost, the number of applicants who fall under the permit requirements of both agencies was very small, grossly diluting any expected gains from process integration. And second, the timing of the two agency permit requirements do not coincide. The county has opted for the third approach of fire marshal checks for district permits. This involves the county in the process of stationary source control, and it provides the district with an additional check on operations requiring permits. F.valnati nn Effectiveness (+) Un-permitted sources may be discovered which might otherwise go uncontrolled. Impacts (n) This strategy merely provides a check for compliance with legally enforceable rules. Feasibility (-,+) Experience in Orange County indicates that the first two implementation approaches are not feasible administratively. On the other hand, fire marshal inspections are feasible. A small group of skilled professionals, with legal access to operating facilities, can be easily trained to include district permit checks in their inspections. Staff Recommendation Approve the practice of fire marshal checks for district permits by all fire jurisdictions in the county. -5- STRATEGY o Analyze major stationary sources for possible control under section 40449 of the Lewis Act. As has been indicated, the SCAQMD has principal responsibility for and authority over stationary sources of air pollutants in this region. However, that authority is not entirely preemptive of local statutory authority. The Lewis Act states, in section 40449, that: "(a) No provision of this chapter is limitation on the power of any city or county included, in whole or in part, within the south coast district to adopt any ordinance with respect to air pollution control which is stricter than the rules and regulations adopted by the south coast district board and not in conflict therewith. The south coast district board shall enforce any such ordinance." Two interpretations or aspects of this provision arise in practice. First, local governments can impose control requirements, on currently controlled sources, that are more strict than district requirements. And second, local governments can impose control requirements on sources that do not now require controls under district rules and regulations. In the first instance, this apparent local statutory authority is rendered moot in that the district is required to impose "best available technology and administrative practice" in the control of stationary sources. If a local jurisdiction were to demonstrate that more stringent control technology and/or practice is reasonably available for a particular source, the district would be compelled to adopt the more stringent control, negating the need for a local ordinance. For a local juris— diction to impose, by ordinance, a more stringent requirement without technical justification would invite legal challenge as arbitrary and capricious. This, then, is not considered to be a valid interpretation of this strategy in practice. In the second instance, however, local jurisdictions clearly have the authority to extend controls to unregulated sources. This might be particularly applicable as an air quality mitigation measure for new development. Evaluation Effectiveness (+) Controls would be extended to currently unregulated sources. Impacts (u) The added cost of control compliance could encourage small and/or marginal operators to locate in adjacent jurisdictions depriving local residents of convenient access to needed services and simply displace the emissions to another area. Feasibility (+) Local governments have authority to enact such control ordinances, and the district has the statutory responsibility to enforce them. Staff Recommendation Propose that local jurisdictions consider extending control requirements to currently uncontrolled sources as an air quality mitigation measure. -7- • STRATEGY o Review local taxing structures and service provisions for incentives to non- polluting industries. o Review local taxing structures and other incentives to encourage phasing out of older, more polluting stationary sources of emissions. These corollary strategies are directed toward developing a "cleaner" economic base to support the county's growing population. Although the enabling legis- lation for local taxing is restrictive, local governments can provide financial benefits to industries which will not add directly to the air pollution burden of the region. Conversely, local governments can provide financial incentives for phasing out older, more polluting operations. Service benefits, zoning preferences, etc., can also encourage these corollary objectives. Eval vati nn Effectiveness (u) A transition to a cleaner economic base could result. However, if the total industrial base of the region remains unchanged, polluting industries not locating in Orange County would still operate in another part of the air basin with the result that emissions would be displaced but not necessarily reduced. Impacts (u) Transition implies a period of disruption and adjustment. The socioeconomic impacts of this strategy must be carefully analyzed. Feasibility (u) Provisions of the tax enabling legislation may restrict implementation of this strategy. Staff Recommendation Approve the strategy for further study. SS.-sj062b(l) -8- MEMBER CITIES ANAHEIM BREA BUENA PARK COSTA MESA CYPRESS FOUNTAIN VALLEY FULLERTON GARDEN GROVE HUNTI NGTON BEACH IRVINE LAGUNA BEACH LA HABRA LA PALMA LOS ALAMITOS NEWPORTBEACH ORANGE PLACENTIA SAN CLEMENTE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SANTA ANA SEAL BEACH STANTON TUSTIN VILLA PARK WESTMINSTER YORSA LINDA Orange County Division LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 811 NORTH BROADWAY, SUITE 614, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 (714) 835.4E01 TO: OC City Managers February 14, 1978 FROM: President John Garthe REs Designation of city staff contact person for AQMP The enclosed copy of a request from the Director of the EMA is self-explana- tory. it would be appreciated if you would advise the Division office of the staff person designated by your city as the contact person for the Air Quality Management Plan, in order that we may put together the requested list. Your help is greatly appreciated. U 0 0 UNTY OF CAM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA February 3, 1978 H, 0. OSBORNE DIRECTOR Mr. John Garthe, President Orange County Division League of California Cities 811 North Broadway, Suite 614 Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Mr. Garthe: TELEPHONE: 004-0070 AREA CODE 714 MAILING ADDNEDD: P.O. Box 4040' SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 PILE The County of Orange has been designated the local government agency responsible for preparing the Orange County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) according to the requirements of AB-250 (1976). The League's appointees to the AQMP Coordinating Committee are currently involved in closely monitoring the plan preparation work from a policy oriented viewpoint. In addition we would like to reinforce the cities' involvement at the staff level. We_propose to utilize existing organization structures rather than forming yet another staff committee for purposes of sharing information on the AQMP. We believe that an effective format for this process will be to schedule brief but regular status reports at meetings of the following groups: Orange County City Engineers Association Orange County City Planning Directors Association Orange County Transportation Commission/Technical Advisory Committee In an effort to establish channels of quick information exchange with each city we believe a list containing the name and telephone number of one key contact person would be effective. We would then be able to provide timely information through these people. In turn, these liaison people could directly contact our staff on any AQMP questions that may arise. Your assistance in obtaining such a telephone list of key city staff that are designated as AQMP contact persons would be greatly appreciated. Jerry Bennett of Advance Planning is responsible for coordinating this effort and may be reached at 834-6921 should you desire additional detailed information. The air quality program will have significant impacts on all of us and we are particularly interested in your views, reactions and suggestions particularly as to others who would desire to be briefed on the AQMP subject. Very truly yours, A. G. O<sb Director RGM:JEB:bd cc T. L. Jenkins, OCTC AQATF �.—.— . i,..-..1� Y'�' "—f'IY.^�''.�t���n+.'R1.q wwr.n+.urv�..M�+�Yw.Tu.�1w^'I i t in•,,1,y.V�+-..+1.^-+,^.a++-+.+.nr...�....n.w+...+ti,1+ �5^"^""^'?*,s7-71 7 .1i �....-...-�..