Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AQMP #2
illil 111111111111111111 lill 1111111 *NEW FILE* h November 27, 1978 D R A F T Southern California Association of Governments P\fvNSDCNu.s � syczF l�v<�opr 600 South Commonwealth Avenue Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Gentlemen: RE: The Draft SCAG-78 Growth Forecast Policy Summary Environmental Impact Report. Our comments on the Summary EIR are as follows: Major Energy Systems. Page I-11 The anticipated increase in demand for electrical energy is noted as are mitigation measures, including conservation or obtaining additional supplies. We understand that there is no definite schedule for new electrical -generating plants to meet demand from the mid-1980's on. It appears further that nuclear sources are going no where at this time. We believe, therefore, that the EIR should highlight the seemingly certain shortfall that appears likely between supply and demand of electrical energy. Marine Biology. Page I-16 (Table) Mention is made of a priority program for Newport Bay under the Draft 208 Plan. It appears to us that no adequate controls exist in -the 208 Plan to control upstream siltation and other pollutants coming into Newport Bay. We believe that mention should be made of this condition. Air Quality. Page I-16 (Table) Under the column headed "Mitigation Measures", it is stated that "implementation of Draft AQMP would reduce air pollution levels that Southern California Association of Governments Page Two November 27, 1978 meet federal standards by 1987... " Apparently, this sentence should read "would reduce air pollution levels to meet federal standards by 1987." The EIR, we believe, should mention that the AQMP relies on yet -to -be developed techniques to meet air standards. For some pollutants, the AQMP projections provide no margin for error. This means there is a reliance on all control measures being implemented and all operating as projected. Major Energy Systems. Page I-18 (Table) Under "Mitigation", conversion is mentioned and utilization of alterna- tive energy sources. There is no mention that alternative electrical energy sources complying with the AQMP, for example, will be available. There is no mention of nuclear power sources. We believe there should be mention of what alternative sources are anticipated and whether nuclear power is one of them. Growth Inducement. Page I-19. The growth -inducing aspects of the Plan mentioned here in would have a significant effect on the environmental quality addressed by the various efforts underway on the AQMP and 208, for example. We believe the paragraph on I-19 fairly well states some of the negative effects of the Growth Forecast Policy, but should point out the fact that the projected growth as a self -inducing effect makes achievement of environmental standards all the more difficult. 0 PR:jmb � �EW"Okr 0 °4 roa DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: • Department of Community September 22, 1978 Mayor Ryckoff Fred Talarico W Development Orange County Coordinating Committee Meeting - .September 21, 1978.- Pursuant to your request, I attended the Coordinating Committee meeting of Thursday, September 21st. The purpose of the meeting was: 1) to review the draft SCAG Development Guidelines (SCAG 78); and 2) to review the Preliminary Draft AQMP. The Committee called a special meeting for September 29, 1978, at 2:00 p.m., at 1020 N. Broadway, Santa Ana. At the special meeting, the Coordinating Committee will review county staff recommendations regarding the Preliminary Draft AQMP and attempt to arrive at an appropriate position on the AQMP. I would recommend that you attend this meeting if your schedule permits. SCAG 78 - Draft Development Guidelines The SCAG 78 Draft Development Guidelines were reviewed with the Committee by Gordon Palmer. These guidelines are being used in functional planning by SCAG (AQMP, 208. and Transportation). The "Draft" guidelines and EIR will be released in October with public hearings scheduled and adoption in January 1979. Highlights presented by Gordon Palmer included: 1) regional population increase of 3,000,000 by the year 2000; 2) Orange County population growth of 60% by the year 2000; 3) Riverside County population growth of 71% by the year 2000; 4) San Bernardino County population growth of 75% by the year 2000; 5) Los Angeles County population growth of 11% by the year 2000; 6) a projected 36% increase in housing units within the region; and 7) employment up 46%. SCAG 78 Draft policies propose to encourage urban area densities of 20 to 25 dwelling units per acre. This would be accomplished by the redevelopment of older single family residences. They project that -9% of all new construction within Orange County will be of this type. The SCAG 78 draft is presently being reviewed at the county by EMA-and the Forecast and Analysis Center. Preliminary Draft AQMP Jo.ann Applegate of the SCAQ MD reviewed generally the Preliminary Draft AQMP with the Committee and answered questions., Lists of preliminary rankings (attached) by SCAG staff, executive policy committees of SCAG and the SCAQ. MD Advisory Council were presented. It was indicated by Ms. Applegate that the October 78 plan is an- ticipated'to look very much like the recommendations of the EQURCC/.TUC list (attached). I TO: Ma0r Ryckoff - 2. • General Comments It was noted that low level staff at EPA and ARB believe that the AQMP is weak on Land Use Controls. 2. •It was noted that there is presently a bill on the Governor's desk (AB or SB-1736 or 3110 by Ayala) that would preclude the ARB from changing the plan submitted by SCAG. The Governor has recently signed a similar bill for ABAG. 3. It was mentioned that one of the tactics proposed would change from oil base paint to water base and this would allow for higher concentrations of potassium and calcium in waste water. It was noted that the assumed transportation system in the Draft AQMP includes: 1) L.A. people mover; 2) Wilshire Rail Starter Line; and 3) Bus -on -Freeway program. The implications of these assumptions on Orange County Transportation funds was discussed briefly. Respectfully submitted, Fred Ta 1 arIco FT/dt Attachments: 1.) EQURCC/TUC Ranking of Mesaures 2.) SCAQ MD Advisory Council Ranking of Mesaures 3.) SCAG transportation staff ranking of measures. 4.) Draft response to Orange County League of City's questions by SCAG staff. 5.) Press release 9/21/78 6.) Notice of public hearings D. Knight 9/20/78 � Mc�r•urc A �•II. 14 i II�-4 i 11-74 I SPECIAL EQURCC/TUC MEETING, Hydrocarbon 1987 Name Reduction Wood Flatstock 1.7 Gasoline Bulk Plants ].4 t Printing Oper. 15.1 More Stringent Auto Controls f 35 Refinery Fugitive 10.1 Automatic Traffic Control ( 1.0 Jet Aircraft Standards 40.4 Inspection/Maintenance i 70.3 Cut Back Asphalt 7.1 Expanded Carpool Program 6.8 Metal Cleaning 5.5 Leaky Process Systems 1.9 Metal Furniture Coatings 8.8 SCORING VALUES 0 = Definitely not 1 = Probably not 2 = Should be further considered 3 = Probably an attainment measure 4 = Definitely an attainment measure Ranking Recent Rule 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 SPECIAL EQRCC/TUC MEETING i t4eawrc • N Name Heavy -Duty Off -Road Std. 11-64 Off -Road Motorcycle 11-11) Relief Valves 11-1 Increase Air Passenger Load 11-11 Voluntary Trip Reduction Farm Equipment Utility Equipment II•sl Automobile Coatings II-!4 Auto Refinishing 11• 10 Tow Jet Aircraft 11-41 Paint Manufacturing II41 Increase Piggy Back II-1 Ground taxi II -II Electrify Railyards Pedestrian Facilities II-0 General Aviation Standards il•/1 Increase Average Truck Load 11 Eliminate Aircraft Delays Hydrocarbon W. Reduction Ranking, 4.8 3.3 1.6 3.3 0.2 3.3 .3 3.2 16.1 3.1 1.9 3.1 13.1 3.1 6.1 3.1 5.8 3.0 12.3 3.0 1.4 3.0 2.6 3.0 1.0 2.9 5.5 2.9 1.7 2.9 5.0 2.9 ' 6.3 2.8 1.9 2.8 0 Measure II -'lb 11- I'l II-60 11-bb il- 33 11-'l'3 II-(,•s • II-4!, 11- /4 11 •'sit 11 it? i SPECIAL EQRCC/TUC MEETING Hydrocarbon 1987 Name i Reduction Machinery Maintenance I 0.1 Fabric S Paper Fue. Transfer at Airports Electric Vehicles Oil Tank Cleaning Machinery Coatings Retrofit Farm Tractors Basic Wood Furniture Coatings Increase Bike Facilities Expanded Transit Ship Lightering Expand Highway Capacity .Early Retirement of Old Cars_ Furniture Coatings Motor Fuel Ethel/Meth Eliminate On -street parking Reduce APU Home Goods Delivery 9.0 0.5 23.5 1.0 0.1 1.5 0.4 3.5 3.0 0.2 7.2 7.7 2.7 0.1 Undetermined u H Rankin 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.. 6 2-6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 SPECIAL EQRCC/TUC MEETING Measure 9 II.40 n-4 II-I}t I I-}ia 11 Hydrocarbon 1987 Name Reduction Adhesive Manufacturing .9 Modified Work Schedules 4.8 Parking Management: .4 Marine Coatings 4.5 Coordinate Tanker Arrivals at Los Angeles; Undetermined Long Beach Harbor to Achieve Uniform Arrival Rate Rubber Products Manufacturing 0.8 Increase Use of Rail, Air, and Bus 1.3 for Intercity Travel. Retrofit Gasoline Powered Non -Farm Off -Road 1.9 Heavy Duty Vehicles Marine Operations 2.7 Auto -Free Zones 1.0 Chemical Manufacturing 1.9 Metal Coil Stock Coatings 2.9 Reduced Transit Fares 4.7 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing- 0.1 Tax Bunker Fuels 0.4 Natural Gas and Oil Production 0.3 P.anki n 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2'. 2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2-. 0 2.0 - 5 - SPECIAL EQRCC/TUC MEETING a. . r ,111 L 9/20/78 Hydrocarbon Moasure Name 1987 Reduction P.anking II-49 Appliance Coatings 0.4 2.0 II_H4 Pipeline Freight Transport Undetermined 1.9 II-/tt Incorporate Non -Residential Uses into Undetermined 1.9 Residential Areas II-!11 Ink Manufacturing 0.2 1.8 H-53 Vegetable Oil Processing 0.1 1.7 II-!1'l Industrial Coatings 0.1 1.6 11-b1 Solid Waste Handling 0.1 1.6 11• ttu Emissions Tax 5.6 - 39 1.8 Paratransit Undetermined 1.7 II-1t1 Parking Management 0.1 1.6 II-Hl 18 Year Old Licenses 22.2 1.6 II-3 Triple -Trailer Trucking 6.1 1.4 • II •(1!1 Aerospace Coatings 0.0 1.3 11-69 Automobile Operating Cost Increase (Gas Tax) 5.1 1.2 II-b/ Parking Management Increase Parking Surcharge 6.2 0.9 11-68 Congestion Pricing 2.0 0.7 0 0 LIST OF CONTROL MEASURES AS *NKED BY THE TACTICS AND SOATEGIES COMMITTEE OF THE SCAQMD ADVISORY COUNCIL HYDROCARBONS No. Control Measure in Further Not In Plan Study Plan H-1 Increased Air Passenger Load Factor X H-2 Jet Aircraft Ground Taxi Operations X H-3 Triple Trailer Trucking X H-4- Modified Work Schedules X" H-5 Parking Management, Carpool Preferential Parking X H-6 Modify New General Aviation Aircraft Engines X 4-7 Emission Standards, for New Non -Farm Heavy. Duty Off -Road Vehicles X H-8 Retrofit Gasoline Powered, Non -Farm, Off -Road Heavy Duty Vehicles X H-9 *Leaky Process Systems, Non -Refinery X H-10 Tow Jet Aircraft X H-11 Electrify Rail Yards X H-12 Fuel Transfer at Jet Airports X H-13 Voluntary Trip Reduction X 14-14 - - Weed• -F4 at-s t,eek-C-oe-t*ftgs- Omitted H-15 Emission Standards for Farm Equipment X H-16 Modify Jet Aircraft Engines: 1978 Standards X H-17 Exhaust Emission Controls, Existing Farm Tractor --Gasoline Powered X h'lt Inspection and Maintenance of Light Duty Vehicles X H-19 -"Relief Valves X H-20 *Metal Furniture Coatings X List of Control Measures Page 2 As Ranked by the Tactics and Strategies Committee of the SCAQMD Advisory Council In Further Not In No. Control Measure Plan Study Plan H-21 *Fabric and Paper Product Coatings X. H-22 Emission Controls, Utility Equipment X H-23 Increase Bicycle Facilities X H-24 Improved Technological Control for On -Road Vehicles X H-25 Eliminate Jet Aircraft Delays X . H-26 *Machinery Maintenance X H-27 Pedestrian Facilities X H-28 *Marine Coatings X H-29 *Gasoline Bulk Plants X H-30 *Refinery Fugitive Emissions X H-31 *Magnetic Wire Coatings X H-38--Metal-Procfuets-Coatings- Omitted -Comb. w/H-20 H-33 *Machinery Coatings X H-34 Expanded Employer Carpool Program X H-35 Automatic Traffic Control X H-36 Early Retirement of Old Cars X H-37 *Automobile Coatings X H-38 Reduce Use of Aircraft Auxiliary Power Unit X H-39 *Metal Coil Stock Coatings X 4-40,--Adhes4ve44anuf-ac-turi•ng Omitted, Comb. w/H-21 H-41 Reduced Transit Fares X H-42 *Metal Cleaning X H-43 *Printing Operations X List of Cont& Measures Page 3 As Ranked bye Tactics and Strategies Commie of the SCAQMD Advisory Council In Further Not In No. Control Measure Plan Study Plan H-44 *Cut Back Asphalt X H-45 *Furniture Coatings X H-46 *Chemical Manufacturing X H-47 * Patnt Manufacturing X H-48 *Rubber Products Manufacturing X H-49 '*Appliance Coatings X H-50 Natural Gas & Oil Product X H-51-- Ink- -Man ufacturi-ng- Omi tted H-52 *Industrial Coatings X H-53 Vegetable Oil Processing X H-54 *Automobile Refinishing X H-55 *Ship Lightering X H-56 Oil Tank Cleaning X H-57 *Pharmaceutical Manufacturing X H-58 Auto Free Zones X H-59 *Basic Wood Furniture Coatings X H-60 Electric Vehicles X H-61•--Sel-id- Waste- Hanfl4ng Omitted H-62 *Marine Operations X H-63 Expanded Transit Level of Service X H-64 Apply On -Road Motorcycle Emissions Standards to Off -Road Motorcycles X H-65 Aerospace Coatings X H-66 Tax Bunker Fuels X H-67 Parking Management: Increased Parking Surcharge X H-68. Congestion Pricing X List of Control Measures ���� As Ranked db the Tactics and Strategies CcJl��ttee of the SCA ID Advisory Council Page 4 1 No. ' Control Measure H-69 Automobile Operating Cost Increase (Gas Tax) H-70 Parking Management: Reduced Carpool Parking Cost H-71 Increase Use of Rail, Air, and Bus for Intercity Travel H-72 Increase Average Truck Loads H-73 Increase Truck Trailer Piggy -backing on Rail H-74 Eliminate On -Street Parking; Select Arterials Peak Hour H-75 Motor Fuel Blended with Methanol and Ethanol H-76 Paratransit H-77 Expand Capacity and Improve Flow on High- way Network H-78 Incorporate Non -Residential Uses into Residential Areas H-79 Employers Rideshare Program H-80 Emissions Tax H-81 18 Year Old Licenses H-82 Home Goods Delivery H-83 Coordinate.Tanker Arrivals H-84 Pipeline Freight Transport III rurcnei Plan Stuff X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X in an List of Conto Measures As Ranked by the Tactics and Strategies Committee of the SCAQMD Advisory Council Page 5 OXIDES OF NITROGEN n Further Not In No. Control Measure Plan Study Plan N-1 Energy Conservation; Commercial Institution & Industrial Audits X N-2 Energy Conservation Residential Retrofit X N-3 Energy Conservation; Solar Water Heater Retrofit -Electric X N-4 Energy Conservation Street Lighting X N-5• *New Residential Heaters X N-6 *New Water Heaters X N-7 *Cement Kilns X N-8 *Medium & Small'Steam Generators X N-g Gas Turbines X N-10 *Industrial Boilers X N-11 *Refinery Heaters X N-12 *Railroad Diesel Engines X N-13 *Marine Diesel Engines X N-14 *Glass Melting Furnaces X N-15 Energy Conservation, Solar Water Heater - New Residences X N-16 *Stationary Gasoline Engines X N-17 Energy Conservation, Marginal Cost Program X List of Controlleasures Page 6 As Ranked by the Tactics and Strategies Committee of the SCAQMD Advisory Council SULFUR DIOXIDE In Further Not In No. Control Measure Plan Study Plan S-1 Petroleum Coke Calcining, 80% Reduction X S-2- Iron Ore Sintering Operations, 70% Reduction X S-3.___F-1-Wd-C,a 4yti•aSrarMa9,409-Reduetiwo Omitted S-4 Refinery Fuel Burning Sources X S-5 Sulfur Content of Diesel Fuel X S-6 Electric Power Generating Equipment, 60% Reduction X S-7 Iron Ore Sintering Operations, 90% Reduction X S-8 Fluid Catalytic Cracking, 90% Reduction X S-9 Petroleum Coke Calcining, 90% Reduction X S-10 Electric Power Generation, 88% Reduction X * Tactics with revised calculations. t . List of ControMeasures Page 7 As Rdnked by the Tactics and Strategies Committee of the SCAQMD Advisory Council NON - TECHNOLOGICAL In Further Not In No. Control Measure Plan Study Plan T-1 New Source Offset Program Omitted T-2 New Source Offset Program X T-3 Seasonal Industrial Curtailment X T-4 Permits Conditioned Upon Location X T-5 Permits Conditioned Upon Time of Day Emissions X T-6 Permits Conditioned Upon Meteorological Forecasts X T-7 Indirect Source Controls X T-8 Indirect Source Review for Federal Facilities X T-9 Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for all Sources X T-10 Vehicle Repair as an Emissions Offset X NOTE: Particulate control measures were deferred by the committee until staff releases a statement in the October draft. C Preliminary Recommendations - South Coast Air Basin Mobile Sources DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE Measure Number Name 1987 Emissions Reductions* (tons/day) HC NOx CO 14-18 Inspection & maintenance of LDV I1-24 Improved Technological Control for Ord -road vehicles H-35 Automatic Traffic Signal Control Systems H-16 Modify jet aircraft engines to meet proposed 1987 fed'1 stds H Rideshare Program - L.A. Downtown People Mover Wilshire Rail Starter Line Bus -on -freeway program H-7 Emission Standards for all new non- farm Hvy-duty off -road vehicles H-64 apply on-rd motorcycle emissions - stds to off -road motorcycles H-1 Increased air passenger load factor H-13 Voluntary trip reduction program H-15 Emission stds for new farm equipmt. H-2 Jet aircraft ground taxi operation H-11 Electrify rail yards H-6 Modify new gen'l aviation aircraft engines H-72 Incr. avg. truck loads H Eliminate aircraft delays H#J Increased bicycle facilities H-36 Early retirement of older cars H-62 Marine operators" H-5 Parking mgmt:Carpool prefr. pkg N-13 Marine Diesel Engine controls TOTAL Emission Reduction by 1987 needed from all sources to meet federal standards * Adjusted effectiveness based on, technological improvements tOFO�ED G'U,LE SLt�C;f't�. PKti:eut FL�e�L �EQut���EFNt 70.3 73.1 35 1.0 40.4 .99 16.1 4.8 28 1.6 0.02 .3 11.3 1.9 0.7 1.0 0 5.5 22.1 5.0 0 0 3.5 7.7 7.8 0 .3 0 3.4 300 207 220 549.0 63.2 72 1.6 In 7.2 97.6 ►f 1566 Annualized Cost $100,000,000 Auto owners 200,000,000 Auto owners Funding Source 5,040,000 Local cities, counties, Caltrans 13,500,000 Private sector (airlines & aircraft mfg) 1,180,000 Priv. Sectr (Construction & landfill Indus.) 10,300,000 Private sector and consumer (Motorcycle mfg. and motorcycle owners) Savings Lower oprtg costs to a/lines & poss. lower fares 5,000,000+ Govt for promo. + undeter'd cost to P.Sec & citz. 1,110,000 Farming industry Savings Operating cost reduction for airlines 2,100,000 Railroad industry 3,000,000 Aircraft mfg. & general aircraft owners Savings Reduced operating costs for trucking industry 1,530,000 Government and airlines 10,000,000 Govt plus undertermined Private Sector costs 22,525,000 Government and Private Sector 8,400,000 Government and Maritime Industry No cost Emp-loyers 4,888,000 Maritime operators $388,573,000 0 MEMORANDUM E TO: Mark Pisano and Jeb Stuart FROM: David Di Julio DATE: September 15, 1978 SUBJECT: Draft 'response to questions•from Orange County Division, League of California Cities on AQMP. The following are the League Division's questions followed by the staff's proposed answers, Q-1. What is meant by city approval of AQMP Draft between October 15 and December 15? A-1. Approval of the AQMP means the following: a. The general concept of the AQMP is acceptable to the juris- diction and the plan should be submitted to the State and Federal governments. b. The jurisdiction supports the measures recommended in the Draft or substitutes other measures for adoption by the SCAG Executive Committee and the South Coast Air Quality Manage- ment District Board. c. The jurisdiction agrees that the growth forecasts to be mitigated by the AQMP are those contained in the SCAG Development Guide. d. The jurisdiction is agreeing to support state and federal implementation of the measures identified in the plan for implementation at those levels through the appropriate channels. e. The jurisdiction is agreeing to develop a schedule for adopting the plan. Q-2. What is meant by city adoption of AQMP Draft and what does this commit a city to? A-2. Though most of the AQMP measures do not require local government implementation, adoption of the AQMP means the jurisdiction agrees to: a. Implement local government tactics adopted by SCAG and • • DRAFT the District, or equivalent measures from the subregional plan, and b. develop and submit a schedule for accomplishing (a) Above. Q-3. What happens if a city takes no action at all with regard to approval or adoption? A-3. The response (positive, negative, or no action) of all juris- dictions will be recorded for the consideration by SCAG and the District, and will be transmitted as part of the plan. The SCAG Executive Committee and the District Board are required by State and Federal law to adopt a plan based on the actions• of local governments. Q-4. What happens if a city does not move toward implementation? A-4. If the AQMP is not being implemented it must be revised to include sufficient reduction measures or the sanctions on federal funds for transportation, housing and sewage treatment plants will be invoked by the Federal Government. The Clean Air Act allows citizens suits in federal court to require the EPA to en- force the provisions of the Clean Air Act including the sanctions. A poli of the plan is that sanctions should only apply to the juris- dictions or level of government which is not implementing the plan. It is hoped the State and Federal Governments will approve this policy. Q-5. What happens if a county, all cities in the county, or the entire region does not move to implement? A-5. Same as above, but no one has developed a clear policy on sanctions. Q-6. How does a city implement the plan? What elements of the plan will the city be asked to implement? Will they be able to choose what they want to implement? Will they be told what measures to implement? A-6. A city can implement the plan through adoption of ordinances, policy commitments, or other means which accomplish the tactics for implementation by local government in the plan, or equivalent tactics. The adopted AQMP will define which, if any, tactics should be implemented by local governments and will define an emission reduction target for such measures. The local governments are participating through the subregional planning process in the selection of the most reasonable measures for the AQMP. The option of adoption of tactics which provide an equivalent reduction for each jurisdiction is available. Local governments can also implement through supporting the District's adoption of regulations consistent with the AQMP. • DRAFT Q-7. Will cities be bound by the Orange County subregional plan (even though they have not approved it) if they approve the AQMP? A-7. Cities will be bound by the subregional plan to the extent that the tactics are adopted through the regional AQMP as approved by local governments. Q-8. Who will monitor compliance, report non-compliance, and recommend sanctions? A-8. The AQMP process is required under federal law to make annual reports on reasonable further progress. Only EPA or the courts can impose the sanctions if reasonable progress is not being made. Q-9. Will there be an emissions reduction goal for each jurisdiction or a set amount of pollution that each county and/or cities will have to reduce? A-9. We are not planning to develop overall reduction goals for each jurisdiction in this year's AQMP. After the most cost-effective least -impact set of measures are approved the tactics reduction goals will be grouped by implementing agency. It is proposed that the few local government tactics (not including implementation through SCAQMD) will be summed and each jurisdiction will be asked to adopt the recommended implementing ordinance, or equiva- lent measures. There are technical and policy questions still to be resolved in the determination of equivalency. Q-1.0. How and when will cities know what their overall pollution con- tribution is currently? A-10. The current inventory of emissions is complete for 6,000 small (5 km 5 km) grids through the region. As the computer programs are completed county totals, RSA and then city totals will be available. Due to the sizesan d shapes of cities, it is not likely that city totals will be available before January 1, 1979. In addition, AQMP staff cautions that city totals may be mis- leading. For example, the city of Burbank will include emissions from the Hollywood -Burbank airport which serves people through- out a much larger area than the Burbank city limits. The same. concept is true for Fontana and steel making emissions, El Segundo and oil refining, and for any city which has a freeway passing through it. The AQMP has focused on regional totals of emissions first because we all share in causing air pollution emissions in the region. Q-11. What is AQMP's connection with other programs such as the 208 Planning Program, the Regional Transportation Plan, and the Housing Allocations? • : • DRAFT A-11. The Development Guide forecasts are the common basis for all the otherprograms. The regional transportation plan amendments are being done in.conjunction with the AQMP. The sewage treatment plant impacts on air quality will be mitigated by the AQMP. The housing program is consistent with the Development Guide. Q-12. Why will if benefit cities to comment on the AQMP -Draft by October 1978? A-12. Before October 2, 1978, we will still be in the process of.deveToping the draft plan and changes can be readily incorportated and pre- sented as part of the draft plan. Comments and recommended 'changes will be received by the Execitive Committee and the District Board until adoption on January 31, 1978. Q-13. If cities choose to comment further after October 2, where will be the best opportunities for input? A-13. Comments can be made through workshops, public hearings, the CEQ process and through contact with your representatives on the subregional coordinating committee, the SCAG committees or District Board.' Q-14. Who will pay for the measures that cities will have to implement (especially in light of Prop. 13)? Are there special State or Federal funds set aside to assist in compliance? A-14. There are few measures which have been identified for direct city implementation. Much of those identified are energy savings measures which should pay for themselves. In Chapter XIII of the Draft we wi11 describe the sources which have been identified. If measures do require local expenditures, SCAG will work with local government to secure State and Federal funding. Q-15. Is SCAG working to secure such compliance assistance funds? A-15 SCAG and the District are investigating all possible resources to implement the plan and Chapter XIII will address this issue. For example, return of a larger portion of our gas tax to Southern California and use of loans from the California Pollution Control Financing Authority are being investigated. Q-16 What are the total realms of possible sanctions for refusal to comply? A-16 The mandates of the Clean Air Act are -described in Chapter II of the plan. A liberal reading of the act, such as might result from a citizens suit, could require that all federal funds to the region be curtailed. It is likely that highway and sewage treatment plant funds would not be available if the AQMP is not approved or implemented. DRAFT Q-17 What will this plan cost the SCA6 region? How much will the region benefit? A-17 The costs of devbloping_this plan are being borne by State and Federal funds. The costs of implementing the plan will depend on the tactics which are chosen by the process. The most cost effective set of measures will cost $325 million to implement. Staff has estimated that the implementation costs will range from $300 to $500 million. The plan calculates that air pollution damages costs the region a minimum of 1.4-2.0 billion dollars a year. By implementing the plan and cleaning up the air pollution we could save approximately one billion dollars a year and assure that more than one billion dollars in federal funds will continue to flow to the region. Q-18 What must be accomplished in order to qualify for an'extension to 1987 for compliance? A-18 The precise requirements and our responses are recorded in Chapter XI of the plan. In short, the requirements include the following: a. an industrial •siting program (it is proposed to be completed in conjunction with the District's new sources premit process), b. establishment of a specific schedule for an annual inspectiop , maintenance program for cars, c. identification of other measures necessary to attain standards by December 31, 1987. d. a commitment to use all available Federal, State or Local funds to meet basic transportation needs of the region, and e. a commitment to accelerate the implementation of transportation improvements. Q-19 How does our plan and process compare with efforts currently underway in other areas of the country? A-19 About 106 urban areas of the country - Los Angeles is considered to have the most serious problem - must produce a similar plan by January 1979. Since we have the most severe air quality problem, and a complex region, our plan is more comprehensive and difficult than any other plan. Notwithstanding the problems, the proposed plan will be reasonable and defensible. Where requirements can not be met the plan will provide a defensible explanation of what can be done. The plan does, however, show that achieving clean air is a possibility for this region. DRAFT Q-20 How does our Orange County subregional plan compare with that of other counties in our region? A-20 All the subregional plans are compared in Chapter 10 of the plan and in Table X of the Summary. 'In general, the plans are similar while respecting subregional differences. The Orange County Plan does not contain their recommendations in energy conservation because they are presently developing an energy plan. We understand that it will be added in;the future. Q-21 Is Orange County going to be forced, -.to pay for cleaning up pollution that comes here from L.A.? A-21 No, (air pollution is being controlled at the source), based on the maximum impacts.in the receptor area. All pollution including effects of growth will be controlled by the most cost effective, least impact method. Q-22 Is this just another plan that initiated from SCAG, has been developed by SCAG, and is being forced on local governments? A-22 No, this plan was mandated by the State and Federal government. The plan has been developed by working through the subregions, the subre- gional coordinating committees and their representatives at SCAG and the, District, all of whom are local officials. We believe this team approach is far superior to 'having it developed for us by EPA or ARB. Q-23 Why will the cities not receive a full 60 days to review this first draft before the next draft comes out? A-23 The AQMP schedule calls for more than 90 days review of the drafto plan between October 15, 1978 and the final transmittal to ARB to January 31, 1979. This is more than a 60 day period requested by cities through SCAG's recent General Assembly due to the complexity of the issue. Furthermore, distribution of the preliminary draft plan in August has in effect provided an additional 6-7 weeks of review time. Q-24 Why is the draft so long in coming out? A-24 This region has the most complex and difficult air quality problem in the country. The planning process started in March_, 1977. Never before has this region been provided with an inventory, an air quality model and a list of tactics upon which to develop policies to solve our problem. Developing this plan on the team approach described before is a time consuming task. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY BII NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA H. G. OSBORNE NOTICE CTOR AIR QUALITY WORKSHOPS IN ORANGE COUNTY T EL E PHONE: 834.367E AREA CODE 714 MAKING AOEPI:11 P.O. DO% 1046 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 FILE The Environmental Management Agency is co -sponsoring a series of workshops on t•hu draft Air Quality Management Plan, and on the subregional. plan prepared by the County of Orange. You can attend a workshop in your area to voice your opinions about the clean air measures included in the draft Air Quality Management Plan. The draft plan is now undergoing public analysis to determine response to the transportation, industrial, and energy conservation measures being considered for implementation in mid-1979. The preliminary plan, which demonstrates that air quality standards can be obtained, lists more measures than are necessary to reduce pollution to the allowable emissions level. The purpose of the workshops is to give the public the opportunity to pick the measures which make sense to them. The communts received at the workshops will bc: included in the draft plan to be released in October. The clean air alter- : have been laid out and the public must help identLfy the real personal lnlnpa�:ts of those alternatives. Huntington Beach Mcnlday Sept. 25, 7:30 p.m. Bas:emuut of the Police Dept. 2000 Main St. 1`u111 is ontl.lncr south aide of hldg. Fullerton Tuusday Sept. 26, 7:30 p.m. Main Library 353 W. Commonwealth St. Entrance on Amerige St. . �.7!9 Santa Ana Tuesday Sept. 26, 2:00 p.m. Board of Supvr. Hearing Room County Ball of. Administration 10 Civic Center Plaza Laguna Hills Wednesday Sept. 27, 7:00 p.m. Consumer Rm., Basement level Sears Roebuck Store Laguna Hills Mall E1 Toro Road. O F AQMP NOTICE AIR QUALITY WORKSHOPS IN ORANGE COUNTY The Environmental Management Agency is co -sponsoring a series of workshops on the draft Air Quality Management Plan, and on the subregional plan prepared by the County of Orange. You can attend a workshop in your area to voice your opinions about the cle n air measures included in the draft Air Quality Management Plan. The draft plan is now undergoing public analysis to determine response to the transportation, industrial, and energy conservation measures being considered for implementation in mid-1979. The preliminary plan, which demonstrates that air quality standards can be obtained, lists more measures than are necessary to reduce pollution to the allowable emisions level. The purpose of the workshops is to give the public the opportunity to pick the measures which make sense to them. The comments received at the workshops will be included in the draft plan to be released in October. The clean air alter- natives have been laid out and the public must help identify the real personal impacts of those alternatives. HUNTINGTON BEACH Monday Sept. 25, 7:30 p.m. Basement of the Police Dept. 2000 Main St. Public entrance south side of building FULLERTON Tuesday Sept. 26, 7:30 p.m. Main Library 353 W. Go=nwealth St. Entrance on Amerige St. LAGU?l� MILLS Wednesday Sept."27, 7 p.m. Consumer Room, Basement level Sears Roebuck Store Laguna Hills Mall E1 Toro Road Tuesday Sept. 26, 2 p.m. Board of Supvr. Hearing Room/County Hall of Administration 10 Civic Center Plaza Department of Community Development DATE: September 11, 1978 TO- Mayor Ryckof-f FROM: Fred Talarico SUBJECT: AQMP Briefing - September 6, 1978 Pursuant': to your request, I attended the AQMP Briefing held on September 6, 1,978 in Santa Ana. The following briefly summarizes the .information presented at the meeting: Supervisor Anthony: Supervisor Anthony opened the meeting with an introduction of staff present and summary of the AQMP planning process. He indicated that the official deadline for comments on the preliminary draft is October 2, 1978. He further indicated that comments should be made as soon as possible and prior to the above mentioned date if possible. Comments received by October 2, 1978 will be considered in the October draft and E.I.R. The next draft of the plan, with EIR, will be published on October 15, 1978. Super- visor Anthony offered county services to coordinate responses from the cities and stressed the need to comment at this stage of the planning process by indicating that our ability to affect changes . within the plan will diminish as the review process continues. Mark Pisano (SCAG Executive Director): Mr. Pisano reviewed the planning process for the AQMP. He indicated that between now and the beginning of October, SCAG will be reviewing comments on the preliminary draft submitted by all interested parties and will submit (October 15th) in the October draft, SCAG staff recommendations. Dave DiJulio (SCAG-AQMP Proqram Manager: Mr. DiJulio reviewed the comments of the "Summary" and "Chapter 9." He indicated that presently all measures are ranked by cost effectiveness only. He stated that the minimum cost to implement the plan would be $325 million dollars annually. He indicated that SCAG is working on.a "Fair -Share" allocation model, but that they are not positive that it will be technically feasible to develop such a model. Sandy Scott (County EMA): Sandy Scott indicated that his staff will be distributing copies of the entire AQMP to each city on Friday, September 8, 1978. The following meeting times for the -various groups interested in the AQMP were then announced: September 13, 1978 (12:30 p.m.) September 14, 1978 Orange County League of Cities Task Force 811 N. Broadway, Suite 614 Santa Ana Orange County League of Cities Meeting • TO: • Mayor Ryckoff - 2. • September 19, 1978 - City Contacts Meeting (2:00 p.m.) 1020 North Broadway Santa Ana September 21, 1978 - Coordinating Committee Meeting (2:00 p.m.) 10,20 North Broadway Santa Ana General Comments: 1. Subsequent to the meeting I met briefly with Ooanne Aplet (SCAG MD Planning Manager) to discuss the "off -set" rule which has been one of your major concerns. She indicated to me that the "AQMP Control Strategies" document page IX-295 to IX-297 contain the "off -set" consideration. In discussion she indicated that she will be in charge of reviewing all comments regarding this rule. 2. Sandy Scott indicated to me that if you desire,Phil'Anthony to make a presentation on the AQMP (approximately 15 minutes) he will be available after September 18th. 3. I will be reviewing the "AQMP Control 5 will provide you wi Respectfully submitted, Fred Talaric0 FT/dt CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Southern California Association of Governments 600 So. Commonwealth Ave., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90012 / REo�w9"'. Deep .?�' 10 1 OF Ppt� ca G'\ t' ei 11 Attention: Mr. Mark Pisano, Executive Director Gentlemen: Attached are initial comments on the Draft Air Quality Management Plan. Reconciling these comments and those from various local jurisdictions with the plan may be a momentous task. How.can SCAG, the District and the jurisdictions come together, and who makes final determinations? It is not clear what is expected of local, jurisdictions, and what costs they will be expected to pay. Overall, many of the control measures affect only small tonnages. of emission from many different sources at a relatively high cost per ton. Implementing such controls would be nonproductive and not cost effective. If implementing all or most of the measures in the Draft Plan is considered necessary to meet 1982 and 1987 standards, we believe this goal will not be achieved. It does not appear possible to implement all or most controls. . The only control• measure listed for large electric generating plants isS-6, for sulphur dioxide and that is rated negative under Feasbility/Financial because of increased costs of fuel. If ef- fective measures were taken for these large sources many or most of the small tonnage, high cost per ton measures could be deferred or even eliminated. These measures should include reducing the tonnages of emissions from the electrical generating plants, and until controls technology for NOx emissions is available. And be- cause NOx output from non-nuclear electric generating plants is large regardless of fuel burned, a program of economic incentives to phase -out their use should be developed to avoid modifying the equipment to extend useful life. No large new fossil -fuel burning generators should be permitted in the basin whether external com- bustion'or turbine. This approach will require conservation, con- tinued work on other sources and providing information to the public on the environmental trade-offs between conventional and nuclear power sources. No such effort has apparently been made. It is - City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 • Page -2- Southern California Association of Governments quite possible the public will endorse the'use of a potential environmental threat (nuclear) against an existing and certain threat (fossi.l fuel). Also, the power companies have,not provided data on the growth that care be accommodated with existing capacity. It is desirable that figures be prepared based on the SCAG popula- tion forecast showing separate effects on power demand.bf residen- tial, commercial and industrial growth. Regarding significant impacts, where control measures are assigned negative impacts, they may still be feasible actions. Some ex- amples are: 1. In N-9, a Cost effectiveness of $2,000/ton is estimated, and under Financial Technical Feasibility the impact is negative for the reason. it is not certain what the. financial or technical impacts might be." 2. In S-1 and S-2, a negative impact is assigned to Water Quality/Solid Waste. If only added cost is involved to dispose of the waste, thi's should be reflected in Cost Effectiveness, and a positive impact listed; depending on cost. 3. In S-6,.the use of low sulfur fuel is assigned a negative financial impact under Feasbility, because of increased costs for ultra low sulfur oil. Since fuel content may be in some cases the most effective measure available, it should not be ruled out for negative Feasibility, but kept in the inventory for Feasibility depending on effective- ness and cost compared to other measures.. We believe that Non -Technological measures, T-1 and T-2 are inappro- priate, particularly for large sources of emission. It would not be feasible to newly impact populated areas for reductions elsewhere. There are no data to indicate that specific areas would not experi- ence deterioration of air quality from implementation of this measure. It is very important that there be a continuing evaluation of dif- ferences within the basin. It is likely that different control measures will be appropriate for different areas within the basin. On Page I-5, at the bottom, it is stated that "The plan has suf- ficient control measures to assure annual increments of progress in reducing the air pollution emissions to meet air quality stand- ards . . .". On Page IX-6 bottom and IX-26 bottom, it is stated Page -3- Southern California Association of Governments that.the AQMP does not'contain enough measures to meet both federal and state NO2 standards. On Page I-30, it -is stated that Adoption of all proposed measures would result in attain- ment of ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide federal standards by 1987." On Page IX-60, Paragraph IX.3.6, it is noted that there are almost enough measures identified to attain the state S02 standard by 1987. We suggest that the standards should be met and that uncertainties and appropriate control measures should be addressed. We welcome the opportunity to submit comments on the plan, and will continue to participate in the effort to improve'air quality. Sincerely, ry PAUL RYCKOFF Mayor CC: South Coast Air Quality Management District Ms. Alice MacLain, President Orange County Division - League of California Cities Mr. Sandy Scott, Orange County Environmental Management Agency r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMENTS ON DRAFT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN September 25, 1978 CHAPTER I "SUMMARY" Page I-7 "Table III": This table indicates for most cases of pollution t at s ould "growth" not occur within the region that current control for the most part would allow the region to achieve the clean air standards. There should be discussed the alternative of no -growth from an environ- mental, political, social, and economic point of analysis. Additionally, the potential for allowing growth to pay•for pollution control should be considered.. The figures shown for daily emission tonnages are significantly lower than those in Table VIII, Page I-29. Whether or not the difference results from the assumption at bottom of Table VIII, it would be desirable to use consistent figures. Page I-14 "Top paragraph": In discussing the reductions in emission re- quire , it mentions that the models can be used to test the reduction ef- fects of certain sources, for example mobile, stationary and natural on air quality concentrations and -that these calculations will help define the most efficient overall control strategy. Will these models'be used for point• sources and by grids, as indicated on Page 44? Page I-39 "Table IX"- Control Measures: These controls do not include measures for large steam generators. It would appear that efforts to meet required standards would be greatly facilitated by providing such controls and by developing a plan to phase -out existing large generators as their useful lives are amortized. This would mean also that no new fossile fuel burning facilities of this magnitude should be permitted in the basin, by offset rule or otherwise. A reduction of 81 tons per day is projected for electric power generating equipment, a 60% reduction (S-6)•. The phasing -out of conventional generator facilities would avert concerns over the.use of high sulfur oil, the costs involved in requiring low sulfur oil and the emissions that would result even from low sulfur oil or natural gas. . Nontechnological Control'Measures: The new source offset programs', T-1 and T-2, would be appropriate only if the new permitted sources had zero additional impact on any populated areas. There appears to be no unpopulated area in SCAB which could safely take additional deterioration of air quality. This measure might be feasible for small sources such as dry cleaning plants, but does not appear appropriate for large sources. Page I-37 - Significant Impacts: For health effects the assumption is made t at eac of these control measures will have a positive impact because.air quality standards are health related." The nontechnological measures, Page . IX-70 and IX-71, T-1 and T-2 cannot be assumed to have a positive health impact, nor a positive effect in improving air quality. Page I-80 "Table X": This table reviews the recommended control measures approved by each subregion. The chart should be revised or deleted. Pres- ently it is too general and lumps together all approved measures. The degree of commitment varied greatly from region to region and within tactics. One subregion's policy to encourage an action is given the same weight as another's dedication to fund as required. The chart therefore misrepresents sub - regional policy and allows the reader to mi.sread local support for individual strategies. CHAPTER II "INTRODUCTION" Page II-3: The clean air act requirements for analysis of an "identification and commitment of manpower and resources for plan implementation" is not provided within the draft plan. Items identified at the bottom of the page "(a)" are not identified within the plan. Page II-13 and 14: The cost reductions from air pollution by pollutant receptors are dated 1974 and should be updated to the base data year to allow for meaningful comparison. Additionally, who directly benefits from cost' reductions'should be documented. CHAPTER III "GOVERNMENTAL SETTING" Page III-17: Local government approval section should be revised to indicate t at t e Preliminary Draft AQMP was submitted for local government review on September 11, 1978, for return comment by October 2, 1978, a fifteen- work-ing day period. CHAPTER V "EXISTING AIR QUALITY BASELINE - 1976" Page V-1177 "Figure 9�": The 1975-76 Inventory Summary indicates that the follow- ing pollutants are natural (areawide). THC - 43.9% RHC - 18.6%- Would these natural pollutants preclude attainment of clean air standards, and how have they affected determination of national clean air standards? This may be even more significant for Orange County (Pages V 26 and 27). Page V-21, Chapter V, Basyear Emission Inventory, Figure 13-Oxides of Nitrogen: Under stationary sources, the pie chart shows that power plants are responsible for 23.7% of the daily tonnage - 122.8 tons per day for SCAB and Ventura County. -2- This figure appears low. Page V-41, Table 5 Stationary Inventory, Power Plants are listed for 122.7 tons per day of NOx and 210.49 tons per day of SOx. These figures appear to differ somewhat from those in working paper 2B, Table VII. CHAPTER VI•I "FORECASTS" Page VII-82 "Appendix III": This appendix provides a five year capital improvements program proposed by SCAG Regional Airport Operators. SCAG should further document Orange County Airport proposals and the City allowed to input on determining growth forecasts. CHAPTER IX "AQMP CONTROL STRATEGIES" A. General Comments 1. It appears that the overall effect of the control strategies will be the lessening of local control. The cumulative effect of the strategies, if all were to be adopted, would be to put the City in a position of enforcing state and federal policy within a specific set of parameters. 2. The overall effect of the strategies would be to increase the cost of local government. The plan does not adequately address the major issues of: "Who pays for clean air?" "Who is causing pollution?" "Who benefits directly from funds expended?" "What is each jurisdiction's fair share of costs?" "Are Newport Beach residents being asked to pay for •pollution caused by industry many miles from the City?" An adequate response to these questions should be provided prior to the submission of the draft plan for adoption and imple- mentation. 3. A majority of the strategies contain too many unknowns (in - determinates) to allow for an adequate review and evaluation. Several of the strategies remain in theory or concept level and are beyond analysis capabilities at this time. -3- 4. A measure of general commitment to the implementation of any of the strategies is needed. For instance, a wholehearted effort by City "A" could easily be eliminated by token com- pliance by City "B". 5. Many control strategies are included for small sources and at varying cost effectiveness•. It does not appear practical to implement so many measures. Among the largest stationary sources are electric generating plants. Control measures are not pro- posed for these sources, with the exception of S-6. Control of these sources would make unnecessary many of the measures listed for smaller sources. Specific Concerns Chapter IX, AQMP Control Strategies, Page IX-6 Summary of Control Measures, (last paragraph) states that "The AQMP does not contain enough measures to meet both the Federal ozone standards and the State NO2 standard." On Page IX-26,there is the following "It appears certain that there are not enough measures to meet the Federal N09 standard by 1982." We believe that measures should be designed and implemented to meet these standards. Page IX-30, Oxides of Nitrogen Control Measures: Controls are listed for medium and small steam generators (N-8). As mentioned elsewhere, controls for large steam generators should be included. An effective program for these sources would mean that controls on many high cost effectiveness, or smaller sources, could be postponed or even eliminated. No new large con- ventional steam .generators should be permitted -in the basin by offset rule; or otherwise. On Page IX-60, Paragraph IX 3.6, it is noted that there are almost enough, measures identified to attain the State SO9. standard by 1987. At the bottom' of the page, in a footnote, it is mentioned that recently adopted measures would allow attainment of the S02 standard (assuming the availability of natural gas for use in power plants) and with some uncertainty, the sulphate air quality standard. It would be desirable that the uncertainties indicated be eliminated. #H-1 Pa a IX-82 : This strategy would decrease jet commercial operations y fo. To t e extent that this strategy would reduce jet commercial operations at Orange County Airport, the City may wish to support the strategy. The City must consider the potential 11% reduction impact on LAX increasing expansion pressure on Orange County Airport. #H-2 (Page IX-84): This strategy would affect jet aircraft ground taxi operations.' To the extent that this strategy would increase noise levels, the City would oppose this measure. #H-4 Pace IX-88 : This strategy would establish a four day, forty hour work weer. The City would oppose this measure at present. #H-5 Pa a IX-90 : This strategy would provide for carpool preferential parking. To the extent that this strategy is desired by the City,, it would require additional City staffing. The strategy would require changes to,the existing zoning code requirements and additional enforcement within City - operated lots. #H-6� (Page IX-92): Thi.s strategy would modify new general aviation air- crattengines. To the extent that this strategy would allow for maintenance or reductions in noise levels in addition to reduced emissions, the City will support. If reduced emissions equipment allowed for increased noise levels, the strategy would be opposed. #H-7 (Page IX-94 This strategy would require emission controls on con- struction ana landfill equipment. The City may experience increased costs for equipment and services. The City is willing to absorb increased cost. to some degree to support the strategy. #H-8 (Page IX-96): This strategy would require hydrocarbon exhaust con- trols on tractors, graders and loaders. Comments are the same as for #H-7 above. #H-10 (Page IX-100): This strategy would involve towing jet aircraft in lieu of taxi operation. To the extent that the strategy would reduce emissions and noise levels,'the City supports this measure. Any increase in noise level effected by the strategy would suggest City opposition. #H-13 Page IX-105): This strategy would -require a regional effort aimed at limiting future increases in trip -making. To the extent that the strategy would reduce emission and trips, the City will support. The strategy though, calls for $5,000,000 annual cost.to local government (see general comments). #H-16 (Pall): This strategy would modify jet aircraft engines to meet 78 fe eras reeggulation standards. Comments are the same as for H-6. #H-18 (Page IX-113): This strategy would require inspection and maintenance of fight -duty vehicles. The City may experience increased costs for equip- ment and services. The City is willing to absorb increased costs to some degree to support this strategy. #H-22 (Page IX-123): This strategy would require emission control for new utility equipment. The strategy will involve increased costs to the City as it replaces existing utility equipment. #H-23 (Page IX-124): This strategy would provide for increased bicycle trips by: 1) Increased annual funding 2) Require new buildings to provide facilities. 3) Encouraging shower/locker facilities at employment 4) Increased home deliveries 5) Bike path dedications in new developments. -5- To the extent that the strategy would reduce emissions and trips, the City will support. The strategy though calls for $10,000,000 annual cost to local government (see general comments). Additionally, the City may wish to review and comment on divergence of funds to improve bicycle system for any needed highway improvements. #H-24 (Page IX-128): This strategy would improve technological controls for on -road vehicles. This would involve an increase cost to the City. To the extent the City is willing to absorb costs, it will support this strategy. #H-25 (Page IX-130): This strategy is to eliminate aircraft delays, calls for airport site improvements. City's position Will depend on the effect on Orange County Airport. #H-27 (Page IX-133): This strategy involves a decrease use of auto by diversion to•pedestrian trips. To the extent that this strategy would reduce emissions and trips, City may wish to support. The strategy though, calls for $2,000,000 annual costs to local governments (see general com- ments). Additionally, to the extent that this would decrease funding for circulation system needed improvements, City may wish not to support. #H-28 (Page IX-135)_ This strategy would curtail organic solvent emissions from marine coatings. The City may wish, to oppose this strategy. The strategy would provide for a financial negative impact on remaining marine service and repair industry within Newport Harbor. #H-34 (Page IX-144): This strategy involves an.expanded employer carpool program. This strategy would cost $22,500,000 annually for public and private employers (see general comments). To the extent that this strategy would reduce emissions and trips and the City's willingness to absorb costs, it may wish to support the strategy. #H-35 (Page IX-146): This strategy calls'for automatic traffic control systems. Annualcosts to local governments - $5,040,000 (see general comments). To the extent that this would reduce funding For circulation system needed improvements, the City may wish to oppose. #H-38 (Page IX-154): This strategy affects jet aircraft ground operations. If this strategy would increase noise levels, City would oppose. #H-41 (Page Ig_ X-160): This strategy would reduce transit fares. Annual costs to local government/transit districts - $25,800,000 (see general comments). To the extent that this would reduce funding for circulation system needed improvements, the City may wish to oppose.. #H-•43 (Page IX-164): This strategy would affect printing operation. The impact on locaTgovernments is not indicated. City costs for conversion of existing equipment might be required. #H-44 (Page IX-165): This strategy would affect road construction. Annual costs to oca government are not indicated. 10 #H-50 (Page IX-173): This strategy affects natural gas and oil production. city may wish to support this strategy as a means of reducing emissions. #H-58 Page IX-182): This strategy would provide for auto free zones (26) within the region. There is no way to measure the potential impact of this strategy on the City. It would be necessary to identify precisely each auto - free zone. #H-60 (Page IX-184): This strategy involves the use of electric powered vehicles for 10% of all trips less than twenty miles'. Potential impact on City operations as a majority of City vehicle trips would be under twenty miles. Clear definition of implementation measures is.needed. If conversion to electric powered vehicles is mandated, substantial costs to the City would be involved. #H-60 (Page.IX-186, Electric Vehicles: Under significant impacts, environ- mental,air quality negative impact should be listed. Considerable electri- cal energy would be required for charging batteries. The NOx reduction, if the estimates are valid:, is insignificant, while the S02 and particulate emissions are increased. #H-62 (Page IX-189): This strategy involves controls on in -harbor and dock- . side transfer of petroleum products. The strategy has potential impacts on the harbor activities. The City may wish to stress pleasure/small craft exclusions from requirements. #H-63 (Page IX-190): This strategy involves significantly expanded levels of transit service within region. The estimated annual costs to local govern- ments would be $103,000,000•(see general comments). The costs of this pro- gram may reduce funds available for circulation system improvements. . #H-67 Page IX-197): This strategy involves increasing automobile costs y oubling existing parking costs in commercial and industrial centers. If this strategy were to be applied uniformly to regional shopping center/ financial areas (Newport Center), decreased retail sales and desirability could be assumed. Further, moneys siphoned off by surcharge would reduce disposable income. The strategy has a potential significant impact on the City's financial position. #H-68 (Page IX-200): This strategy involves economics disincentives to travel in congested areas (freeway tolls). To the extent that this strategy would provide an incentive to growth within our area, the City may wish to oppose. Increase evaluation of the impacts of the strategy is required. The reductions in omissions shown may be considerably lower than would be experienced. #H-69 (Page IX-202): The negative economic impacts maybe less•'than antici- pated. For example, this measure might force carpooling , or other efficien- cies, reducing the effect on employment and disposable income. Under social impact, equity, the assumptions may not be valid. #H-70 (Page IX-205a): This strategy involves reduced parking costs for carpools. The annual costs to local governments.and employees would be -7- 0 $86,400,000. This program has a potentially significant economic impact on the City (see general comments). The strategy would, though, provide for reduced emissions and trips. #H-71 (Page IX-2.5b): This strategy provides for increased use of rail, air, ancl Dus for inter -city travel. Potential City impact includes in- creased noise levels from aircraft operations/flights and loss of revenues/ transfer of funds from agencies which provide for circulation system im- provements. #H-74 (Page IX-211): This strategy would eliminate on- street'parking on arterials during peak periods. There should be defined exactly what arterials would be affected and the impacts on each. Additionally, the funding source must be defined and then analyzed by the City of potential impacts. #H-76 (Page IX-215): This strategy calls for the development of para- transit services. There should be provided detailed cost estimates and funding sources as this could provide a significant economic impact on local governments. To the extent that costs.and funding levels of circula- tion system proposals would not be affected, the City may wish to.consider supporting this strategy as a method of reducing emissions and trips. #H-77•(Page IX-217): This strategy involves expanding and extending the existing and p anned freeway network. There should be defined the extent of any proposed expansion or extension of the freeway network. The City will need to review closely for consistency with City policy. Potential economic impact to City$' In addition to environmental. Under significant impacts, social, equity, the negative impact may be invalid, particularly if combined with No.'s H-68, H-69 and H-80. The assumptions used to arrive, at this negative impact may not be valid. #H-78 (Page IX-219): This strategy involves incorporating non-residential uses into rest ential neighborhoods. The measure would be implemented through general plan and zoning changes. To the extent that this would be, achieved by regional, state or federal requirements, this should be opposed, as usurpation of local control. As a concept,this would be consistent. with adopted City policy - with local control. #H-79 (Pa a IX-220:: This strategy would require employees (w/over 100 employees to participate in ride -sharing programs. This program would involve increased costs to local governments in enforcement and participa- tion. Annualized costs and funding figures would be needed. #H-84 (Page IX-228): While this strategy does not appear to significantly impact the City, it would be necessary to determine and document potential routes, costs, environmental, social and economic impacts, the costs to local governments and other factors needed to allow for a reasonable review of the strategy. in #N-1 (Page IX-231): This strategy involves an energy conservation audit program. TTiis strategy would entail increased funding at local levels (see general comments). #N-2 (Page IX-234): This strategy would require a residential retrofit program for energy conservation measures. This program would entail in- creased funding at local levels (see general comments). #N-3 (Page IX-237):_ This strategy would require solar water heaters in a retrofit program for residences. Thi's program would require increased funding at local levels (see general comments). #N-4 (Page IX-240: This strategy would require the installation of energy conservation street lighting. This program would require substantial funding at local levels (see general comments). 11-5 Pa a IX-24� This strategy would curtail NOx emissions from resi- ential eaters. Increased local costs for review and inspection '(see general comments). #N-6 Pa a IX-245 • This strategy would require reduced NOx emissions from new water eaters (residential). Increased local costs for plan check and enforcement could be anticipated (see general comments). #N-8 (Page I.X-2477): Our comment on Page IX-30 applies for.this control measure. 1he assumptions used in indicating negative economic energy and feasibility impacts, seem to imply that -standards should be met with less or no cost. #N-9 (Page IX-249).: The combined cycle equipment that has been proposed for expansion or standby use at some steam plants employs gas turbines. Such expansion would add significant emission tonnages. The negative. impact listed for feasibility Financial/Technical raises a question as to, the emission reduction projected and as to the usefulness of the control measure itself. #N-13 (Page IX-255): This strategy includes modifications to marine -diesel engines. Potential impact on harbor activities. It would be necessary to define scale of strategy and enforcement program. #N-15 (Page IX-258)_ This strategy would require solar water heaters for new residences.• Impacts on the City would be economic, social and envirpn- mental. Enforcement jurisdiction, aesthetics and energy factors dictated at regional, state and federal levels of government. #N-16 (Page IX-260): This strategy would affect stationary gasoline engines. Some increased costs at local level might be anticipated. #N-17 (Page IX-261): This strategy should be defined. #P-2 (Page IX-266): This strategy involves control of fugitive dust from unpaved roads; bare fields, etc. The annualized annual costs do not appear reasonable -- documentation should be requested. 'Potential for growth in- ducing and environmental impact should be evaluated. #P-6 (Page IX-272): .This strategy involves the control of particulates from woodwor ing operations. To the extent that the City wishes to preserve his type of use, which presently exists in the Cannery Village, the City. may oppose. #P--7(Page IX-274 : This strategy is directed at the collection, processing and disposal of solid wastes.. What is cost to local governments? #T-1 (Page IX-295). The positive impact raised for environmental, air quality is questionable. As mentioned before, with large sources, it appears that implementation of this rule would result in an adverse impact on new areas. The SOHIO, Long Beach, project is termed an offset case, yet the power plant. where emissions are to be abated, is some distance away from the terminal. #T-2 (Page IX-297): As noted in #T-1, it does not appear possible for large sources to constitute a one to one offset in the same location and it will not be found feasible or possible to newly impact population areas with air pollution in a trade off. #T-4 (Pa a IX-299): This strategy would be to control permits based upon location. T e City opposes this strategy as it does not reduce emission and does remove land use decisions from local control. #T-5 (Page IX-300): This strategy would control the time of day that emis- sions are allowed. This measure does not seem advantageous. #T-7 Pa e IX-303 : This strategy involves indirect source controls. The ity opposes this strategy. The strategy implies loss of local control on land use decisions and no practical benefit from the strategy has been es- tablished. #T-B (Page IX-304): This strategy involves federal facilities (indirect source review thereof). The City may wish to consider,a modified version of this strategy that would require federal financing to meet air quality standards imposed on the City by the federal government. #T-9 (Page IX-305): There is no identification of the strategies beyond acronyms listed. Should be clarified. CHAPTER X "SUBREGIONAL PLANS" This section does not clearly identify how the subregional plans relate to the AQMP. The matrix developed also does not indicate the type of commitment -10- 0 made by the various subregions. Additionally, the subregional elements , are not identified as to 1) Who prepared each document? 2) If the subregional element was adopted, and, if so, by whom? 3) How much commitment does it -represent? 4) How does what the subregions have approved correspond to SCAG's preliminary draft? While we have participated in preparation of the Orange County subregional element, it does not have City approval, and approval should not be inferred. CHAPTER XI 9987 EXTENSION" Page gl:19 "Questions": This section outlines four questions dealing with transportation issues. The City may need to carefully review SCAG Regional Transportation Plan and/or modifications suggested within this section to ascertain what would be consistent with adopted City policy. CHAPTER XIII "RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT PLAN" This chapter should define the total resources necessary to implement the plan. While the plan is 2"-+ thick, exactly one page is devoted to implemen- tation. The •statement that it is premature to consider how the plan would be implemented in terms of financial resources is not reasonable. The statement that: "local government will adopt alternate revenue measures" is also not reasonable and is contrary to the concept of the recently voter approved tax limitation. Further, the statement that: "the state will assume responsibility for some functions formerly financed by local govern- ments," is not necessarily accurate in either the short or long run. Additional- ly, it suggests usurpation -of local control, which is undesirable. CHAPTER XVIII "SUMMARY: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT" The City requests a copy of the full EIR, and any attachment, to be received at the earliest date possible. -11- 0 It was previously indicated as appendices to the AQMP. not clear how local concerns plan. CHAPTER XIX "APPENDICES" that subregional plans were to be attached•. As indicated in our general comments, it is will be coordinated and combined into the made -by the various subregions. Additionally, the subregional elements are not identified as to 1) Who prepared each document? 2) If the subregional element was adopted., and, if so, by whom? 3) How much commitment does it represent? 4) How does what the subregions have approved correspond to SCAG's preliminary draft? The City has not reviewed this document at City Council level and subregional support should not be inferred from the preparation/adoption/submittal•of the subregional element. CHAPTER XI "1987 EXTENSION" Page XI-19 "Questions": This section outlines four questions, dealing with transportation issues. The City may need to carefully review SCAG Regional Transportation Plan and/or modifications suggested within this section to ascertain what would be consistent with adopted City policy. CHAPTER XIII "RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT PLAN" This chapter should define the total resources necessary to implement -the plan. While the plan is 2"1 thick, exactly one page is devoted to implemen- tation. The City may wish to suggest a plan be developed with an exact opposite ratio. The statement that it is premature to consider how the plan would be implemented in terms of financial resources is not reasonable. The statement -that: "local government will adopt alternate revenue measures" is also not reasonable and contrary to concept of the recently voter ap- proved tax limitation. Further, the statement that: "the state will assume responsibility for some functions formerly financed by local governments, is•not necessarily accurate in either the short or long run. Additionally, it suggests usurpation of- Tocal control, which is not definitely desirable. CHAPTER XVIII "SUMMARY: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT" The City requests a copy of the full EIR and any attachment, to be'received at the.earliest date possible. -11- [� aEW PpkT • p O Department of Community DATE: August 21, 1978 TO: Mayor Ryckoff FROM: Fred Talarico •1 Development SUBJECT: Orange County AQMP-Coordinating Committee meeting of Thursday, August 17, 1978 Pursuant to your request, I attended the Coordinating Committee meeting of August 17, 1978. The following actions were taken and items discussed: A. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the June 22, 1978 and July 17, 1978 meeting were approved after a minor typographical error was corrected. Air Quality Monitoring in Orange County Ed Camarena discussed Air Quality Monitoring Stations in Orange County. On July 16, 1978, SCAQMD deleted 8 stations within the district. The only station in Orange County to be deleted was the San Juan Capistrano station. These stations were closed due to budget constraints. (Attachments). C. Review SCAG Summary Matrix The SCAG summary matrix presented at the last meeting of the Coordinating Committee was discussed. Sandy Scott indicated" that his staff would closely review the matrix for any possible conflicts in how it represented previously adopted policies. Regional AQMP The prelimi'nary draft of the Regional AQMP being prepared by SCAG will not be available until September 1, 1978. Comments on this preliminary draft must be made as soon as possible as comments reviewed in late September/early October will not be included. SCAG representative indicated that he will bring to Coordinating Committee meetings the date.and times and places of all meetings on the preliminary draft of the regional plan. The Regional Plan being prepared by SCAG once adopted will have the force of law. It is this plan that the City of Newport Beach should concentrate its efforts on in the near future. -1- TO: Mayor Ryckoff - 2. Adjournment The meet` 2:00 p.m. Respectfr A F Senior FT/dt Attachmer THE ORANGE COUNTY AQMP COORDINATING COMMITTEE Thursday, August 17, 1978 2:00 P.M. COUNTY TRANSPORTATION BUILDING 1020 North Broadway Santa Ana, California AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of minutes of meeting of June 22, 1978, and July 17, 1978 3. Air Quality Monitoring in Orange County - Ed Camarena 4. Review of the SCAG Summary Matrix of Subregional AQMP Elements -- Sandy Scott 5. Regional AQMP - Preliminary Draft 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment to Thursday, September 21, 1978, at 2:00 P.M. County Transportation Building JG:em ,77 TABLE V AiUd 82A OF DAYS EXCEEDING FEDERAL STiANDARCS" 1987 � I �dOi oilr�ua cwo 020M a9 Chi �a r�rs� zstoa R4onoxWe M Anm My 19933 3 m Lespv 19q 73 071 Mao LA. NwCO 54 sa on Lon Beach *me is 43 ws 47 aa PPWVA IN 076 tmmx vmO to 614 — am MlaInw SOEA Do M 2 Lamemor AiNVA 902 0 (03 paws" %mav 195 33 ME Mce pkwa .146V no 43 2OUTp ERE ZONE M73 Axdogow ASNAM 49 22 $177 Lo Habra LABS 910 0 3195 COVA am COST 33 90 Sias El Toro TORO 65 - -3.31vs bm Jaen C. 8XA Vs 00 811ii gmtm Am C. WPJ 19s -. EASSTMA N ZONE, nIVERMDE 4137 Pm% ° ris PLOP 119 4138 Qeac UNDO 1g9 00 4149 PmOo Ptyk PRPK 155 1• - J 4141 Edon" HEME 94 — 4144 Akwowo PIVR 212 2 4149 PW?b PERT 1334100 6 MANN lea 41151 r� TSM 102 � -- 41E22 6i ngsa WN 125 — EASTERN 2OiN3, SM OMMARDINO 5151 ftn sarowdino MOD 104 R' Sim omvtm BARS 34 0 0ias pox"uKh aASOL 171 0 5100 VN9� VCVL co 0 — - 6173 l"+AAM CD W TS3 G* 6176 upkn9 UPLA 211 0 6170 Isaceud" . FOOT 103 V 8134 'g eaw / 6901E ' Im 1 b9"D1 I ste Grawy ^ � 5132 L9 4R ' 134 0' vuenaps VESCI 122 99 9) PWU.M W cis I4'v%w vecrmp 03 oxcwad .l;'i11 ppm. b! MUsMbW Of da 3 84(XW OW" a5t fd 9 yawl. ° Low Om IR m xqg a data. 00 Pt• il:li" Jim )xt to vftioon. VIOLATIONS OFOATE STANDARDS AND ANNUALWXIMUM HOURLY AVERAGES 1977 eon Fl1R Etst6o Location Code OBO" CARBON WONOXIDE4 DIOXIDE41 IVi PROO[N DIOXIDE Ile. METRMLITAN ZONE DAY3a1 MAXb1 DAYS MAXb1 DAY! MAXe1 DAYS MAXti) Cal Loa Angrlas CENT 113 021 26 27 0 0.063 05 0.90 060 Azusa ESGV 1S3 0.32 1 U 0 0.034 15 0.39 069 Hwbank E3FV 137 0.31 38 24 0 0.040 21 0.46 071 West L.A. NWO 40 0.13 11 22 0 MIM 42 0.56 072 Long Basch SOCO 12 0.15 17 20 0 0.051 28 OA3 074 Rowdy WSFV 173 0.34 23 25 0 0.034 12 OAO 075 Pon")" PWVA t(rb 0.32 2 15 0 0.023 22 0,35 076 La n" SitDCO 14 0.17 43 3a 0 0.052 20• OA3 -';0, aw 1--,%M* for SOEA G7 0.30 11 32 2 0.064 25 0.69 091 Newhall SCAV 176 0.33 0 13 0 0.023 0 0.24 032 Lawcester ANVA 03 0.23 0 12 00 - .0 0A8 603 Ponds" WSGV 147 042 a 2{3J� 0 0" 42 0.48 004 Lvnwood SCLA 19° 0.24° 68 so 0 OAO 13 0.33 M Piso Rivera 85GV 169 0.32 20 20 0 CA41 49 OAS SOMMERM ZONE 3178 Aftheim ANAH 40 0.19 12 20 0 0.035 9 029 3177 La Habra LAHO 73 0.2S 17 33 0 0.025 10 0.39 3185 Casts Mesa COST M 0.13 5 19 0 0.034 0 0.23 3194 El Two TORO 43 0.20 - - 0 GA17 - - -'i 3138 5®n Juan C. =A 0.22 0• 12• - - - - 3189 Laguna LGNA - - 0• 13• - - - - 3190 Los Alamitos LSAL 23• 0.130 - - 0 0.034 - -- 3191 Santa Ana C. SACM 09 020 - - 0 CA13 - - EASTERN ZO14E, RIVERSIDE 4137 Palm SPrings PLSP 04 021 0 9 - - - 4129 Indiu IPJDO to 0.10 0• 12• 0 OAIM 0 0.15 4140 Prcdo Park PRPK 169 0.331 0 19 - - - - 4141 Ph-r W memo 07 023 00 10' - _ 4144 Riverside RIVR 193 0.23 0 11 0 0.029 4 027 4149 Parris PERI 178 023 0 11 - _ - - 4150 11arWns SAWN 47 . 027 0 0 - -.a,►.4151 Tamocala TtEME 71 0.17 -,44152 E► ,xxA ELSM 122 023 - - - - - .. - EASTERN ZONE, SAN BERNARDINO 5151 &m Bernardino SNE3D 175 0.37 1 13 2 0.067 0 0.19 5153 Barstow OARS 42 020 0 •4 - - 1. 0.29 5105 Redlands REDL 131 0.33 0 10 - - 0 0.24 5103 Vietorville VCVL 79 022 0 15 - _ 0 0.10 ---;P• 5173 Chino CHIN 1es 0.37 0 13 - 3° 0.370 6175 Uplanel UPLA 103 0.39 0 9 0* 40 6173 Fontana FONT 192 0.29 00 100 8 0.0220 0 0. 5104 Eke 00&r GGBE es 022 0 15 - _ - - 5131 Lake Gregory LKGR 173 0.32 0 10 - _ - - �'r 5102 Yustipa YUCI 172 0.32 0 10 - a) DAYS - Number of dmys violating state standard for indicated coo mninent. i b) P.1AX. - single highest one hour (far S02 24-how) avbrage of the year in Ports per million. c) All violations are of the twolve hour standard. T6i one bur standard was not violated. d) All violations and maxima are of the a4bur stai&*A. The one hour szwowd was not violates!. i ,' Lass ou- t"V'4 irronta 4hs of da. U) C M M Air Monitoring Stations with Greatest Percent of Days Not Meeting the State Standa-rds Contaminant Lead Total Suspended Particulate Ozone Nitrogen Dioxide Carbon Monoxide Sulfate Sulfur Dioxides 1977 Percent of .Days At Forst Site&) 100% 82% 53%b) 16% 15% 14% 4% Location Pasadena Fontana Riverside, Upland Central Loa Angeles Lynwood Lennox Fontana a) Lead, total suspended particulate, and sulfate are sampled on every sixth day, or about 60 times per year. Ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide are stapled daily. The percentages given are the percent of sampling days which were in violation, except in the case of lead. The lead standard is in terms of monthly average concentration and the percent given is percent of months in violation. b) Note that althouGh ozone did not meet the standard on 53% of the days In 1977, this does NOT man that ozone was above the standard on 53% of the hours in 1977. If a single hour during any day is above the ozone standard, the day does not sweet the standard. Similar reasoning applies to nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. I n U City Council Aking September 25, 1978 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 19, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Preliminary Draft - "Air Quality Management Plan" August 1978, prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments and South Coast Air Quality Management District. Suggested Action If desired, direct staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature reflecting the City's position on the preliminary draft of the Air Quality Management Plan. Background During the past year SCAG and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) have been responsible for preparing a regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB includes all of Orange County and portions of Metropolitan Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Preparation of the AQMP is directly mandated by the Lewis Air Quality Management Act of 1976 and indirectly mandated by the 1977 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act. In adopting the Lewis Air Quality Act and the recent Clean Air Act Amendments, both the State Legislature and Congress recognized the importance of involving local governments in preparation and imple- mentation of the AQMP. To this end, SCAG has relied on subregional planning agencies (all affected County Planning Departments as well as the Los Angeles City Planning Department) to prepare subregional elements tailored to the unique physical, social and economic con- ditions of that subregion. The Preliminary Subregional Element for the—R*Tgl-o-n-a 1—A�-r—Q-u-a-1 ty—Ma-ne ge-ne-n-t-.P_7_a-m f o r Orange County was pre- pared by EMA, with assistance from a city staff review group (a representative of each Orange County city) and a County coordinating committee (Mayor Ryckoff served on this committee). Numerous public workshops were held throughout the County to provide further input. In April, 1978, the County Board of Supervisors approved the Sub - regional Element for submittal to SCAG to be incorporated in the regional AQMP. Upon adoption of the regional AQMP by the SCAQMD Board and the SCAG Executive Committee, the plan will be submitted to the State Air TO: City Council - 2. Resources Board (SARB) for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is required by the Clean Air Act and must indicate how California will meet federal air quality standards by 1982. Because of this requirement, the SIP must be approved by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If the SIP is not submitted and adopted by EPA prior to July, 1979, all federal grant money can be withheld from the region and cause EPA to prepare and implement th; its own plan. Plan Summary The portion of the 750 page draft AQMP which has received the most attention by the media and has the greatest impact on all residents of the South Coast Air Basin is Chapter IX. This—i-s"th-e—eh-a-pter .- *.h eh —identifies 128 specific control measures which can be imple- mented to meet federal a:ir quality standards. It is meant to be a "shopping list" describing all known control strategies to improve air qua yy,t�Wd"µre w{�a7�1's�tii �.p,1j4encompassing, the level of pol- lution 'huc--"dSiy he imp+eme'n ation of all these strategies is=-wells"k6%��r��� �x�it�satrovd the leve'1 required to meet federal standards. This was done to allow for the rejection of specific control measures which are not cost effective, politically or socially acceptable, or for any other reason, undesirable. The 128 control strategies deal with a number of pollution sources with varying degrees of control. The following identifies the nature and target of these strategies: Stationary Source Controls 52 strategies Motor Vehicle Emissions/Operation Control 19 " Parking/Transportation Management Control 16 " Nontechnical Control Measures 10 " Railroad and Ship Emissions/Operation Controls 9 " Aircraft Emissions/Operation Controls 8 " Energy Conservation Measures 8 Miscellaneous Controls 6 Because of the severity of the air pollution problem in the region, these strategies will, to varying degrees, affect all residents of the South Coast Air Basin. Additional automobile and industrial emission controls will increase the price of goods produced in the region ,-jrncreased.gas taxes, required inspection and maintenance pro- grams and parking surcharges will increase private transportation costs; Car pool and parking management strategies may impact the actual operations of City Hall as well as major private development!,, ands raising the minimum driving age to eighteen years could have extensive social impacts. Impact on the City of Newport Beach In order to allow the City Council an opportunity to analyze the poten- tial impact on the City of Newport Beach of these strategies, staff has broken them into the following groups: 1) Strategies which would require local implementation (funding). TO: 'City Gouncil - 3. 2) Strategies that have a potential for local imple- mentation (funding). 3) Strategies that have a potential indirect fiscal impact on the City. 4) Strategies that might have a direct impact on existing policies and/or the operations of the City. 1. LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION (H-4) Modified Work Schedules•(staggered starting time, flex -time; four-day/ten-hour work week) (H-5) Parking Management, Carpool Preferential Parking (reduce parking supply for single -occupant cars by 30% in all commercial/industria•1 employment centers in a region and reserve for ride -sharing vehicles) (H-13) Voluntary Trip Reduction Program (a regional promotional effort aimed at limiting future increases and trip making) (H-23) Increase Bicycle Facilities (decrease automobile trips through diversion to bicycle trips for all types of trip purposes) (H-27) Pedestrian Facilities (decrease use of auto by diversion to pedestrian trips, especially for short trips) (H-35) Automatic Traffic Signal Control Systems (computer controls on traffic signals for 6,000 local intersections and 600 CALTRANS controlled intersections) (H-58) Auto -Free Zones (restrict automobile circulation and parking within high intensity activity centers to reduce total vehicle miles traveled) (H-63) Expanded Transit Level of Service (expand transit level of service by adding 1,000 buses and 2,,200 route miles over the level as indicated in the Regional Transportation Plan) (H-74) Eliminate On -Street Parking (eliminate the use of on -street parking on selected arterials during peak hours) (H-76) Paratransit (development of paratransit services as a collec- 'tion mode in communities throughout the SCAG region) (H-78) Incorporate Non -Residential Uses Into Residential Areas (permit selected non-residential uses in residential areas to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and bring these services closer to residences, providing an opportunity to walk or bicycle to these facilities) (N-1) Energy Conservation: Commercial/Institutional and Industrial Audit Program (initiate comprehensive energy use audits and implement necessary changes to reduce energy consumption) TO: City Council - 4. F (N-2) Energy Conservation: Residential Retrofit Program (adopt city and county resale ordinances requiring energy conserva- tion, retrofit upon resale) (N-3) Energy Conservation: Solar Water Heater Retrofit Program (adopt city and county resale ordinances or other programs to require solar water heating equipment in existing resi- dential units) (N-4) Energy Conservation: Street Lighting (reduce fuel combustion - related emissions from electric power plants by reducing the amount of electricty used for street lighting) (N-5) Residential Heaters (this tactic is intended to curtail NOx emissions from new residential space heating systems by altering burner design) (N-6) New Water Heaters (this tactic will curtail NOx emissions from residential water heaters similar to N-5) 2. POTENTIAL LOCAL PARTICIPATION (H-34) Expanded Employer Carpool Program (expand the proposed Regional Transportation Plan employer carpool matching and promotional programs to include all firms in the SCAG.Region and double the capture rate used in the RTP Program) (H-41) Reduce Transit Fares (reduce transit fare to a flat twenty- five cents per trip on al'1 bus systems throughout the SCAG Region) (H-67) Parking Management: Increase Parking Surcharge (increase automobile operating costs by doubling existing parking costs in commercial/industrial centers within region, imposing a one dollar minimum. (H-68) Congestion Pricing (apply one dollar congestion toll during morning and evening peak periods - 6:30 a.m./8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m./6:30 p.m.,- to all autos using SCAG freeway system enroute to destination) (H-70) Parking Management: Reduced Parking Cost for Carpools (an $18 per month parking subsidy to each carpool parking within high employment centers) (H-77) Expand Capacity and Improve Flow on Highway Network (expansion and extension of the existing and currently planned freeway network to allow free flow at peak periods on all freeways, and attract enough traffic from surface streets to bring them to free flow) (H-79) Employers Rideshare Program (adopt regulations to require employers who employ more than 100 persons at any one location TO: C y Council - 5. to provide a rideshare option to the 25% of employees through the purchasing of bus passes and providing car- pool parking) 3. INDIRECT.FISCA'L IMPACT (H-7) Establish exhaust emission standards of all new off -road. heavy equipment. (H-8) Install hydocarbon exhaust controls on all existing gasoline - powered off -road non -farm heavy-duty equipment (retrofit). (H-18) Inspection and maintenance of light -duty vehicles. 'Either 1) full'mandatory; 2) at change ownership plus CHP random inspection; or 3) change of ownership. (H-22) Emissions control for new utility equipment (lawn and garden equipment). Require all new utility equipment to be electric -powered. (H-24) Implement more stringent vehicle (light -duty and heavy-duty) exhaust emission system. (H-36) Early retirement of older cars. The objective of this program would be to increase the rate at which older cars drop out of the vehicle fleet. (H-43) Change to printing operations. The purpose of the tactic is to limit organic solid emissions from printing operations. (H-44) Cutback asphalt. This strategy would limit the amount of solvent material used to make asphalt flow easier in road construction. (H-60) Electric vehicles. Strategy would require battery -powered vehicles'use for 10% of all trips less than twenty miles. (H-15) This tactic would eliminate fuel combustion -related emis- sions from new natural-gas fired water heaters by substi- tuting solar energy systems. (P-7) Solid waste handling.. Control techniques to be investigated are incineration and scrubbers. 4. IMPACT ON CITY POLICIES (H-1) Increase the jet commercial air passenger load factor to 70%. (H-2) Increased engine speed during idle and decrease engine use during taxiing operations by using fewer engines to taxi. (Jet aircraft ground taxi operations) (H-5) Parking management: Carpool preferential parking Reduce parking supply for single -occupancy vehicles by 30% in all TO: City Council - 6. E commercial/industrial employment centers in region and reserve for rideshare vehicles. (H-6) Modify new general aviation aircraft engines. Reduce emissions through improved combustion. (H-10) Tow jet aircraft in lieu of any taxi operations. (H-16) Modify jet aircraft engines to meet 1978 Federal Regulation Standards. (Retro•fit old engines and controls on new) (H-25) Eliminate aircraft delays through expanded facilities and improved scheduling. (H-28) To curtail organic solvent emissions from the construction and repair of ships. (H-38) Reduce auxiliary power unit usage for jet aircraft while aircraft on the ground. (H-62) Marine operations. In -harbor and dockside transfers o•f petroleum products will be investigated to reduce organic emissions. (N-13) Marine Diesel Engines. (Fuel modifications or engine modifi- cations.) (P-2) Fugitive dust. Non -point source controls by SCAQMD on fugitive dust. (Unpaved roads, bare fields, dirty streets.) (P-6) Woodworking operations. Controls to be investigated will include particulate collectors and scrubbers. (T-1) New source off -set program (Rev. #1). The policy of new source review compels the District to require the reduction - of emissions at least equal to the increase of new emissions caused by construction or expansion of new facilities. (T-2) New source off -set program (Rev. #2). Revise District new source rule (see T-1 above) to require that the trade-off ratio: a) be at least one-to-one in the vicinity of the project b) be greater for projects in high emission areas c) be greater for high growth areas d) provide for inter -pollutant trade offs. (T-4) Permits conditions upon location. Would reduce emissions in certain geographic locations. (T-5) Permits conditioned on time -of -day of emissions. TO: City 'Council - 7. • (T-7) Indirect source controls. Dis.trict controls on projects with either vehicular activity or the.generation of fossil - fuel electric power. (T-8) Indirect source review for federal faci-lities. (T-10) Tactic would allow vehicle repair as an emission offset under the new source offset programs (T-1 and T-2 above). AOMP Review and Approval Schedule August 1978 to January 1979 - Review, comment and approval by local governments - Review and comment by appro- priate agencies - Public review and comment September 13, 20, 28 and - Workshops on AQMP to be held October 4, 1978 in.conjunction with Southern California Lung Association October 15, 1978 - Release of Draft AQMP based on comments received by October 2, 1978 - Release of EIR October -November, 1978 - SCAG workshops on AQMP, Trans- portation, Water Quality and Development Guide Plans (to be scheduled) October 15 - December 15, - Local Governments asked to 1978 approve AQMP November 2, 1978 - SCAG Executive Committee approval of transmittal of AQMP for District review November 30, 1978 - End of CEQA review period December 1 - 15, 1978 - SCAG/District Board holds hear- ings on final draft AQMP January 4, 1979 - SCAG Executive Committee approves AQMP based on comments received by December 15, 1978 January 5, 1979 - District Board approves AQMP January, 1979 - Conflict resolution and revision of plan TO: City Council - 8. • January '31, 1979 - District Board adopts plan and submits it to ARB, EPA and State Legislature SCAG Executive Committee adopts plan and amends Regional Transportation Plan to include AQMP items February, 1979 - Local governments and agencies requested to begin adoption and implement the plan April, 1979 - ARB approves plan and submits it to EPA July, 1979 - EPA approves plan July, 1979 - SCAG and District amend plan to be consistent with approved plan and implementation of plan begins July, 1979 - Begin revision of AQMP to meet 1982 requirements Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By JAI FRE ALA RICO Senior Planner FT/kk E Department of Community Development DATE: September 20, 1978 TO: Mayor Ryckof.f. FROM: Fred Talarico SUBJECT: City Contacts Meeting of September 19, 1978 - AQMP On September 19, 1978, I attended the City Contact Meeting on the preliminary draft AQMP. The following information was presented at this meeting: Sandy Scott (EMA) A preliminary ranking of strategies has been accomplished by two committees of SCAG. These committees have ranked technological controls higher in terms of acceptability. This concurs with EMA Analysis. Sandy Scott indicated that the major problem with technological controls is that they require ARB and EPA actions. If these controls are not acceptable to ARB and EPA, heavy local responsibility can be anticipated. Sandy Scott suggested that each local jurisdiction analyze the documents in terms of the following: 1. Strategies that a.re not acceptable. 2. Strategies that are acceptable. 3. Strategies that are acceptable and local governments are willing to fund. He further indicated that those items identified in the preliminary draft over which local government has control, are generally in- effective and costly. City Contacts A discussion period on the preliminary draft with the City Contacts ensued. Generally speaking, the City Contacts expressed similar concerns to those we have previously discussed. Respectfully submitted, �7 Fred Talarico FT/dt Attachment 0 H NOTICE AIR QUALITY WORKSHOPS IN ORANGE COUNTY The Environmental Management Agency is co -sponsoring a series of workshops on the draft Air Quality Management Plan, and on the subregional plan prepared by the County of Orange. You can attend a workshop in your area to voice your opinions about the cleat air measures included in the draft Air Quality Management Plan. The draft plan is now undergoing public analysis to determine response to the transportation, industrial, and energy conservation measures being considered for implementation in mid-1979. The preliminary plan, which demonstrates that air quality standards can be obtained, lists more measures than are necessary to reduce pollution to the allowable enisions level. The purpose of the workshops is to give the public the opportunity 'to pick the measures which make sense to them. The comments received at the workshops will be included in the draft plan to be released in October. The clean air alter- natives have been laid out and the public must help identify the real personal impacts of those alternatives. HUNTINGTON BEACH Monday Sept. 25, 7:30 p.m. Basement of the Police Dept. 2000 Main St. Public entrance south side of building FULLERTON SANTA AM Tuesday Sept. 26, 7:30 p.m. Tuesday Sept. 26, 2 p Main Library Board of Supvr. Hearn 353 W. Camnnwealth St. Room/County Hall of Entrance on Amerige St. Administration 10 Civic Center Plaza LAGUi l^, HILLS LLS Wednesday Sept. 27, 7 p.m. Consumer Roan, Basement level Sears Roebuck Store Laguna Hills Mall E1 Toro Road Department of Community Development DATE: August 21, 1978 TO: Mayor Ryckoff FROM:' Fred Talarico SUBJECT: Orange County AQMP-Coordinating Committee meeting of Thursday, August 17, 1978 Pursuant to your request, IAended.th.e Coordinating Committee meeting of August 17, 1978. The following actions were'taken and items discussed: A. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the June 22, 1978 and July 17, 1978 meeting were approved after a minor typographical error was corrected. Air Quality Monitoring in Orange County Ed Camarena discussed Air Quality Monitoring Stations in Orange County. On July 16, 1978, SCAQMD deleted 8 stations within the district. The only station in Orange County to be deleted was' the San Juan Capistrano station. These stations were closed due to budget constraints. (Attachments). C. Review SCAG Summary Matrix The SCAG summary matrix presented at the last meeting of the Coordinating Committee was discussed. Sandy Scott indicated that his staff would closely review the matrix for any possible conflicts in how it represented previously adopted policies. Regional AQMP The preliminary draft of the Regional AQMP being prepared by SCAG will not be available until September 1, 1978. Comments on this preliminary draft must be made as soo'n as possible as comments reviewed in late September/eaPly October will not be included. SCAG representative indicated that he will bring to Coordinating Committee meetings the date.and times acid places of all meetings on the preliminary draft of the regional plan. The Regional Plan being prepared by SCAG once adopted will have the force of law. It is this plan that the City of Newport Beach should concentrate its efforts on in the near future. -1- IT0: • Mayor Ryckoff - 2. • Adjournment The meeting was adjourned to Thursday, September 21, 1978 at 2:00 p.m. in the County Transportation Building. Respectfully, Fred 'TaIaricoo Senior Planner FT/dt Attachments THE ORANGE COUNTY AQMP COORDINATING COMMITTEE Thursday, August 17, 1978 2:00 P.M. COUNTY TRANSPORTATION BUILDING 1020 North Broadway Santa Ana, California AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of minutes of meeting of June 22, 1978, and July 17, 1978 3. Air Quality Monitoring in Orange County - Ed Camahena a.. Review of the SCAG Summary Matrix of Subregional AQMP Elements -- Sandy Scott 5. Regional AQMP - Preliminary Draft 6. Other Business ` 7. Adjournment to Thursday, September 21, 1978, at 2:00 P.M. County Transportation Building JG:em TABLE V • quIM 2A OF DAYS EXCEEDING FEDERAL STANDARDS" 197 METROPOLITAN-slowMLZONELe"dlow Code /Z� a) Cw►o b) Atonoxwo ow, Ann ESGV 193 3 074 0 E d o wsr- ► 102 on fraraono PWVA 100 12 am --V' coo � SOEA 03 26 Gel NGWMN SCRV ISO 2 � Lumaw �4NVA 102 0 Pa 1JsiY iss 23 f�8b Fks wwom SSW ISO 43 13Cmanx ZONE 3176 AxeA" ANAM 45 32 $177 La aabro LAMB 940 40 Sims C"m Rua COST � 20 310i El TWO TORO e8 --33100 &M Jw" C. PJCA 26 00 Foss 3100 LSAL 62• �• 3191 tv"m An• C. SdCRI 115 EASTERN ZONE, RIV2EMDff 4130 Its► INOO lag O• 414E Pro" Park ►RPK 165 10 " 4141 ""M HEp1E 94 4144 laidwoitl0 RiVR 212 2 4149 Parb PE RI 17m ti alit -9 TEMEE 1022 4152 Ems. Usk 135 P EASTERN ZONE, SAN DERNAROINO 5151 Zion owasrdino GMBD 184 2• Oise 85xrmw REOL 1711 0 e1W VkkW iMV VCVL to O -�-$1 5 uphw UPLA, 211 0 FONT 203 09 •-b eim4 wo Bow / OCOE • 103 1 Simi Lasko Ca►"ory LIWR ^� 0102 Yucb;po - YUCI 194 122 ®• A 01 t4wrbw of days 14a0ur cvorap 03 0xraodad .Ca pM. D! Nwrbw W d"s 64 0or avo" 0xc0adad 0 pprp, • Low titan 12 aom0w dots. •• PrW n kmy do* .&Aod to revision. VIOLATIONS OFWATE STANDARDS AND ANNUAOAXIMUM HOURLY AVERAGES 1977 Sbd" Location Code 03CN# CARBON d10NOXIDEW SULFUR DIOXIM Il NITROGEN DIOXIDE NO. METROPOLITAN ZONE DAYO MAXb) DAYS MAX b) DAYS MAX.d) DAYS MAXM 001 Loa Angeles CENT 113 021 26 27 0 0.063 65 0.00 060 Azusa ESGV 193 0.32 1 13 0 0.034 15 0.39 069 Burbank E3FV 137 0.31 36 28 0 OA40 ' 21 OAS 071 Weet L.A. NWCO 40 0.13 11 22 0 O.OW 42 0.56 072 Long Beech SOCO 12 0.15 17 20 0 0.051 28 0.43 074 Reseda W3FV 173 0.34 23 25 0 0.034 12 OAO 075 Pomona PWVA 165 0.32 2 15 0 0A23 22 04% 076 Lennox SWCO 14 0.17 43 30 0 0.052 29 OA3 - 080 "littie► SOEA 87 0.30 11 22 -2 0.064 25 0.09 031 Newhall SCAV 176 0.33 0 13 0 OA23 0 0.24' 092 Lancaaer ANVA 133 0.23 0 12 0• - .0 Om 03 Pasadena WSGV 137 0.3+2 8 23 0 0.034 42 0.48 084 Lynwood SCLA "0 024• 55 30 0 CAM 13 0.33 086 Idea Rivera SSGV 1Ml 0.32 20 20 0 0.041 48 OA6 SOUTHERN ZONE 3178 Ansksima ANAH 40 0.19 12 20 0 CAM 9 0:29 3177 La Habra LAHO 73 0.25 17 33 0 0.025 10 020 3185 Costa Uses COST M 0.18 5 18 0 0.034 0 0.23 3188.. El Toro TORO 43 020 - - 0 GA17 - - 3138 San Juan C. OJCA W 0.22 0• 120 - - - - 3189 Laguna LGNA - 00 130 - - - - 3190 Los Alamitos LBAL 38• 0.180 - - 0 0.036 - - 3191 Santa Arw C. BACN go 0.30 - - 0 OA13 - - EASTERN ZONE, RIVERSIDE 4137 Pdm Springs PLSP 94 021 0 9 4139 Ind'w INDO 88 0.10 00 120 0 OA04 0 0.15 4140 Prado Parlt PRPK 188 0.39 0 19 - - - - 4+r 4141 H=W HEMa 67 0.25 0• 100 - _ 4144 Riverside RIVR 193 0.23 0 11 0 OA28 4 027 4149 Parris PERT In 028 0 11 - _ - - 4150 Banning SAWN 97 0.27 0 e - _ - - -)► 4151 Temecula TEME 71 0.17 -- -,* 4152 Elsinore ELSN 122 0.23 - EASTERN ZONE, 3AN BERNAROINO 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 175 0.37 1 15 2 0.067 0 0.19 5155 Barstow BARS 42 020 0 •4 - - 1 023 5166 Redlands REDL 131 0.33 0 18 - _ 0 024 5108 Victorville VCVL 79 022 0 15 - .. 0 0.10 -�• 5173 China CHIN 112i OV 0 13 - _ 30 0.370 5175 Upland UPLA 193 0.38 0 9 0' 0.0240 3 0.29 $176 Fontana • FONT 192 0.39 00 10• 8• 0.1320 0 0.23 -1P 5194 INN Beer OGBE 95 022 0 15 - - - - 5181 Lake Gregory LKGR 173 0.32 0 10 - _ - - -+5182 Yucaips YUCI 172 0.32 0 10 - a) DAYS - Nureber of days violating state standard for indicated contaminant. b) MAX. - Single highest one hour (for S02 24 todr) average of the year in parts par million. c) All violations are of the twelve hour standard. hi one hour standard was not violated. d) All violations and maxima are of the 24aiour sta6a' kd. The one hour standard was not violated. • Leas thM twalvi inonihi of data. / Air Monitoring Stations with Greatest Percent of Days Not Meeting the State Standards Contaminant Lead Total Suspended Particulate Ozone Nitrogen Dioxide Carbon Monoxide Sulfate Sulfur Dioxide 1977 - Percent of .Days At Worst Sites) 100% 82S 53%b ) 18% 15% 149 4% Location Pasadena Fontana Riverside, upland Central Loa Angeles Lynwood Lennox Fontana a) Lead, total suspended particulate, and sulfate are sampled on every sixth day, or about 60 times per year. Ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide are sampled daily. The percentages given are the percent of sampling days which were in violation, except in the case of lead. The lead standard is in terms of monthly average concentration and the percent given is percent of months in violation. b) Note that although ozone did not meet the standard on 53% of the da a in 1977, this does NOT usan that ozone was above the standard on 53% of the hours 177. If a single hour during any day is above the ozone standard, the day does not meet the standard. Similar reasoning applies to nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. H ,M DATE: TO: "rum s Department of Community August 31, 1978 Paul Ryckoff Fred Talarico 0 Development SUBJECT: League of California Cities Orange County Division AQMP Draft Review Task Force Meeting of August 30, 1978 Pursuant to your request, I attended the AQMP Task Force meeting of August 30, 1978. Attached to this memorandum for your review is a copy of the meeting agenda and a copy of the "Summary Draft Air Quality Management Plan." The latter has been previously identified at Coordinating Committee meetings as the "Executive Summary." During the course of the Task Force meeting, the following items were discussed and actions taken: I. Bob Haskel (League): Mr. Haskel indicated that if the League wishes to comment as a group, the comments must be prepared and delivered to SCAG by the third week in September to have comments included in the October "Draft Plan." The October plan will be the plan submitted by SCAG to the District. II. Sandy Scott (County EMA): Mr. Scott reviewed both the state and federal requirements regarding Air Quality Planning. He then reviewed for the League the planning process as it has evolved in the Orange County subregion. III. Jack Green (SCAG): Mr. Green reviewed the AQMP timetable for the adoption of the plan. This information is included in the attached report on Page 3. He then indicated that the following sanction could be applied should the plan not be adopted by the deadline date: 1.) No federal grants after July 1, 1979, and 2.) No permit approvals can be issued by EPA for the construction of major projects. He furt1her indicated that several interest groups appear willing to go to `dourt to force compliance. Mr. Green then indicated that SCAG staff has reached a tentative conclusion that if a majority of the measures indicated'within the "Draft Plan" are implemented, there is a very good chance that Air Quality standards can be met by 1987. He indicated that Chapter 9 ("Tactics and Strategies") of the forthcoming plan will be the most important for the Task Force':s revi:ew.. IV. Pat Petersicia (SCAG): Mr. Petersicia of SCAG then reviewed with the Task Force the executive summary (attached). - 1 - R` TO: PaueRyckoff - 2. i V. Task Force Actions: The Task Force decided to meet September 13, 1978, at 12:30 p.m. at 811 North Broadway, Suite 614, Santa Ana to discuss what.position they should recommend to the League and what role they should follow in'thei•review process. VI. General Comments: 1. The county staff has set up a meeting on September 6, 1978, for all City Managers, Planning Directors and City contacts to discuss the review process and the plan. 2. The entire plan will be available at the county offices Friday, September 1, 1978. Tentative distribution is to all Mayors;, City Managers and Planning Directors. 3. Supervisor Phil Anthony will attend the Leagues meeting of September 14th to discuss the plan. d ,} Fred TalArico FT/dt Attachments: 1. Meeting Agenda 2. "Summary Draft Air Quality Management Plan." MEMBER CITIES ! , ANAHEIM Orange County Division • BBREA UENA PARK COSTA MESA CYPRESS FOUNTAIN VALLEY •LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES FULLERTON GARDEN GROVE HUNTINGTON BEACH 811 NORTH BROADWAY, SUITE 614, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 (714) 836.4601 1RVINE LAGUNA BEACH '• LA HABRA LA PALMA LOS ALAMITOS NEWPORTBEACH ' ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION PLACENTIA SAN CLEMENTE ' AOMP DRAFT REVIEW TASK FORCE_ SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO , SANTA ANA SEAL BEACH DATE: August 30, 1978 STANTON TUSTIN TIME: 12:30 p.m. VILLA PARK WESTMINSTER PLACE: OC Division Office YORBA LINDA A G E N D A I I. Call to Order II. Introductions around the table III. Purpose and task of Review Task Force IV. Background - Sandy Scott, Orange County. V. AQMP Status report - Jack Green, SCAG VI. Select Chairman VII. Set time and date of next meeting. , VIII. Adjourn of Orangle MEND I� F866123.1 DATE: August 29, 1978 TO 3 DEPT/DIST: Planning Release of the preliminary draft AQMP has been delayed to the week of September 4, so our scheduled meeting of August 31 is premature. We have arranged a briefing for city managers and planning directors to be held on September 6, 2:00 p.m. in the small Board Hearing Room located in the new County Hall of Administration. So perhaps the most efficient way to handle this is for you to join that briefing session, and then we can meet for a few minutes after to discuss the logistics of review and comment. A copy of the draft summary is enclosed to give you a head start on the briefing. SG:rb We'll see you on the 6th. 0 *ITY OF NEWPORT ACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES CGS V'130 9?i �c�y�A �tp min ROLL CALL ,' October 10, 1978 INDEX (f-)—A_]etter from J. Allan Robin enclosing a newspap�%r c 9ppin&- t�itl_ed "Dealing with realities" concerning thee-C-1 of ine's transportation plan. (Attached) a (g) A letter from the Orange Count Division of p G� the League of California Cities_enclosing_a copy of the Southern California Association e •p of Government's answers_ to the draft of the "Air Quality Management Plan." (Attached) (3071) (h) A resolution of the City of Tustin establish- ing its strong opposition to the lack of the State of California's concern for the impact of State mandated costs. /(14) (i) A letter from Darryl R. White, Secretary of the State Senate, enclosing a copy of the Senate's Concurrent Resolution No. 91, the wildland fire prevention program, which was adopted on August 21, 1978. (Attached) (2727) (j) Agenda of the Board of Supervisors meet ngs of October 3 and 4, 1978. (20) (k) Removed from the Consent Calendar. 5. The following claims for damages wer denied and the City Clerk's referral to the i urance carrier was confirmed: Claims (a) Claim of John Parker Dai h for property Daigh damage to his automobil on July 2, 1978 (3073) when he was stopped b a Newport Beach Police officer who legedly hit the back tail light with hi night stick. The incident occurre at Newport Boulevard and 20th Street. Id (b) Claim of Do ld Eugene Hallard for personal Hallard injuries a sustained from falling (3074) face do in the street due to catching his foot in a hole in the sidewalk on Washington Stree in Balboa. He is alleging City neg gence in the maintenance of the sidewalk. aim of John Everett Torian for property Torian amage on September 25, 1978 to his auto- (3075) obile when he swerved to miss hitting a ity vehicle and subsequently collided with nother City vehicle as he pulled back on /(d) he road. laim of Barry Reid for property loss of Reid is boat which was impounded and released (3075) to Mr. James Moore, who claimed to be the owner of the boat and had filed a stolen boat report with the Police Department. The Police Department allegedly accepted the report without conducting an investigatio as to ownership. Volume 32 - Page 257 CITOOF NEWPORT BEA COUNCILMEN So MINUTES yyy�yu'��c, G�� �F��9G�2 o urn: cni_ � 9�N�\y:p� October 10, 1978 INDEX 6. The City Attorney's referral to the County Counsel, and authorization to the County Counsel to appear and defend the interests of the City of Newport Beach in the following proceeding was confirmed: (a) Summons and Complaint of Elmer T. Rehr and Rehr Kay J. Rehr for Refund of 1971 taxes (2869) illegally collected; injunction, Case No. 29-80-15 in the Orange County Superior Court. (A report from the City Attorney) 7. The following request to fill personnel vacancies was approved: (A report from the City Manager) (1203F) (a) One Associate Civil Engineer position in the Public Works Department to fill a position now vacant. (b) One Assistant Civil Engineer position in the Public Works Department to fill a position now vacant. (a) One Engineering Aide II position in the Public Works Department to fill a position now vacant. ( One Equipment Mechanic I in the General Services Department to fill a position now vacant. (a) a Police Clerk I position in the Police De rtment to fill a position now vacant. (f) One cretary to the Police Chief in the Police Department to fill a position now vacant. (g) One Polic Officer in the Traffic Division of the Pol a Department to fill a position now vacant, (h) Two Police Of cars in the Patrol Division of the Police D artment to fill positions now vacant. (i) One Police Lieuten t in the Police Depart- ment to fill a posit on now vacant. 8. The following staff and co ission reports were received and ordered filed: (a) A report from the City Ma gar regarding Emergency the status of the 911 Emerg ncy Telephone Dialing Sys System. (Attached) 1 (1243) (b) Removed from the Consent Calen r. (a) A report from the Assistant to thit City Civil Manager that the Civil Service Boa d has Service Ed elected John J. McKerren as Chairma and (357F) Newton J. Ruston as Vice Chairman fob�1978- 79. (Attached) Volume 32 - Page 258 MEMBER CITIES ANAHEIM BRCA UUENA PARK COSTA MESA •CYPRESS FOUNTAIN VALLEY FULLERTON GARDEN GROVE HUNTINGTON 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) 836.4601 September 20, 1978 //-q(C ) TO: Mayors and City Managers FROM: Bob Haskell, Executive Director RE: SCAG's Answers to Orange County Division's AQMp Questions • Enclosed is a copy of SCAG's answers to our questions regarding the Preliminary Draft AQMP. These should be very helpful in reviewing and commenting on the draft. As you will notice, they are calling these "draft responses." We should be grateful they didn't begin with an "embryonic preliminary rough draft response."1 41 • £ SFp C�C•,;� 2 • 2 N`3Ypp7 � IgJB'- •IL MEMORANDUM • TO: Mark Pisano and Jeb Stuart FROM: David Di Julio DATE: September 15, 1978 SUBJECT: Qraft response to questions from Orange County Division, League of California Cities on AQMP. The following are the League Division's questions followed by the staff's proposed answers. Q-1. What is meant by city approval of AQMP Draft between October 15 and December 15? A-1. Approval of the AQMP means the following: . a. The general concept of the AQMP is acceptable to the juris- dicti on and the plan should be submitted to the State and Federal governments. b. The jurisdiction supports the measures recommended in the Draftorsubstitutes other measures for adoption by the ecutivestrict Board.ittee and the South Coast Air Quality Manage- mentc. The jurisdiction agrees that the growth forecasts to be mitigated by the AQMP are those contained in the SCAG Development Guide. ,I111'I,,d14:1,1n11 1!, a!irrritiq to 'support o.W1.11 and 1'r,111'V1 '1 imph-mouLatiOri of the measures idunLified in the plan for implementation at those levels through the appropriate channels. e. The jurisdiction is agreeing to develop a schedule for adopting the plan. Q-2. What is meant by city adoption of AQMP Draft and what does • this commit a city to? A-2, Though most of implementation, tadophe tion MP mof the AQMP meaneasures do not s therjurisdictgovernmente local jurisdiction agrees to: a. Implement local government tactics adopted by SCAG and 3 DRAFT • the District, or equivalent measures from the subregional plan, and b. develop and submit a schedule for accomplishing (a) above. Q-3. What happens if a city takes no action at all with regard to approval or adoption? A-3. The response (positive, negative, or no action) of all juris- dictions will be recorded for the consideration by SCAG and the District, and will be transmitted as part of the plan. bye SCAG State andcutive Federalolawttoeand adopt ae' District plan based Bon the actions red of local governments. Q-4. What happens if a city does not move toward implementation? A-4. If the AQMP is not -being implemented it must be revised to include sufficient reduction measures or the sanctions on federal funds for transportation, housing and sewage treatment plants will be invoked by the Federal Government. The Clean Air Act • allows citizens suits in federal court to require the EPA to en- force the provisions of the Clean Air Act including the sanctions. A policy of the plan is that sanctions should only apply to the juris- dictions or level of government which is not implementing the plan. It is hoped the State and Federal Governments will approve this policy. Q-5. What happens if a county, all cities in the county, or the entire region does not move to implement? A-5. Same as above, but no one has developed a clear policy on sanctions. Q-6. How does a city implement the plan? What elements of the plan will the city be asked to implement? Will they be able to choose whuL they want to 'implement? Wi'I'I Lhoy be told what lilt 1W.ur !. to implrmrnL? A-6. A city can implement the plan through adoption of ordinances, policy commitments, or other means which accomplish the tactics for implementation by local government in the plan, or equivalent tactics. The adopted AQMP will define which, if any, tactics should be implemented by local governments and will define an . emission reduction target for such measures. The local governments are participating through the subregional planning process in the selection of the most reasonable measures for the AQMP. The option of adoption of tactics which provide an equivalent reduction for each jurisdiction is available. Local governments can also implement through supporting the District's adoption of regulations consistent with the AQMP. 4 DRAFT Q-7, Will cities be,bound by the Orange County subregionat plan (even though they have not approved' it) if they approve the AQMP? A-7. Cities will be bound by the subregional plan to the extent that the tactics are adopted through the regional AQMP as approved by local governments. Q-8. Who will monitor compliance, report non-compliance, and recommend sanctions? A-8. The AQMP process is required under federal law to make annual reports on reasonable further progress. Only EPA or the courts can impose the sanctions if reasonable progress is not being made. Q-9. orla setre be amountnofmissions pollutionethation eachoal for each county and/orcitijurisdiction eswill have to reduce? A-9. We are not planning to develop overall reduction goals for each Jurisdiction in this years AQMP. After the most cost-effective least -impact set of measures are approved the tactics reduction q(ials will be grouped by implementing agency. It is proposed that the few local government tactics (not including implementation through SCAQMD) will be summed and each jurisdiction will be asked to adopt the recommended implementing ordinance, or equiva- lent measures. There are technical and policy questions still to be resolved in the determination of equivalency. Q-10. How and when will cities know what their overall pollution con- tribution is currently? A-10. '(he current inventory of emissions is complete for 6,000 small 5 km 5 km) grids through the region. As the computer programs are completed county totals, RSA and then city totals will be available. Due to the sizesand shapes of cities, it is not likely that city totals will he available before Onnuary 1, 1919, in ndilll Inn, AUMI' vinrr ,full tutlh 1110 1 Ily 11111114 luny lip ulia•• InniIillU, Jill' banug1lb, Ihb I'll,y fir 11n1'i«ull+ a11II Jill111du b1111bbIu0b from the Ilol'lywood-Burbauk airport which serves people Lhrough- out a much larger area than the Burbank city limits. The same concept is true for Fontana and steel making emissions, El Segundo and oil refining, and for any city which has a freeway passing through it. The AQMP has focused on regional totals of emissions first because we all share in causing air pollution emissions in the region. Q-11. What is AQMP's connection with other programs such as the 208 pl:nuliuu I,Iwuraul, the Reflional Transportation Plan, and the Housing Allocations? LJ 0 6 • • D R A F•,T A-11. The Development Guide forecasts are the common basis for all the otherprograms. The regional transportation plan amendments are being done in,conjunction with the AQMP. The sewage treatment plant impacts on air quality will'be mitigated by the AQMP. The housing program is consistent with the Development Guide. Q-12. Why will if benefit cities to comment on the AQMP Draft by October 9 A-12. Before October 2, 1978, we will still be in the process'of.devel,oping the draft plan and changes can be readily incorportated and pre= sented as part of the draft plan. Comments and recommended changes will be received by the Execitive Committee and the District Board until adoption on January 31, 1978. Q-13. If cities choose to comment further after October 20 where will' be the best opportunities for input? A-13. Comments can be made through workshops, public hearings, the CEQ process and through contact with your representatives on, the subregional coordinating committee, the SCAG committees or District Board. Q-14. Who wi•11 pay for the measures that cities will have to implement (especiango assist?incompliance? State or Federal funds setaside to A-14. There are few measures which have been identified for direct city implementation. Much of those identified are energy savings measures which should pay for themselves. In Chapter XIII of th-e Draft we will describe the sources which have been identified. If measures do require local expenditures, SCAG will work with local government to secure State and Federal funding. Q-15. Is SCAG working to secure such compliance assistance funds? A-15 SCAG and the District are investigating all possible resources to implement the plan and Chapter XIII will address this issue. For example, return of a larger portion of our gas tax to Southern California and use of loans from the California Pollution Control Financing Authority are being investigated. Q-16 What are the total realms of possible sanctions for refusal to comply? A-16 The mandates of the Clean Air Act are described in Chapter II of the plan. A liberal reading of the act, such as might result from a citizens suit, could require that all federal funds to the region be curtailed. -It is likely that highway and sewage treatment plant funds would not be available if the AQ14P is not approved or implemented. DRAFT 4 Q-17 What will this plan cost the SCAG region? How much will the region benefit? A-17 The costs of developing this plan are being borne by State and Federal . funds. The costs of implementing the plan will depend on the tactics which are chosen by the process. The most cost effective set of measures will cost $325 million to implement. Staff has estimated that the implementation costs will range from $300 to $500 million. The plan calculates that air pollution damages costs the region a minimum of 1.4-2.0 billion dollars a year. By implementing the plan and cleaning up the air pollution we could save approximately one billion dollars a year and assure that more than one billion dollars in federal funds will continue to flow to the region. Q-18 What must be accomplished in order to qualify for an extension to 1987 for compliance? A-18 The precise requirements and our responses are recorded in Chapter XI of the plan. In short, the requirements include the following: a. an industrial siting program (it is proposed to be completed in conjunction with the District's new sources premit process), b. establishment of a specific schedule for an annual inspection maintenance program for cars, • c. identification of other measures necessary to attain standards by December 31, 1987. d. a commitment to use all available Federal, State or Local funds to meet basic transportation needs of the region, and e. a commitment to accelerate the implementation of transportation improvements, Q-19 How does our plan and process compare with efforts currently underway in other areas of the country? A-19 About 106 urban areas of the country - Los Angeles is considered to have the most serious problem - must produce a similar plan by January 1979. Since we have the most severe air quality problem, and a complex region, our plan is more comprehensive 'and difficult than any other plan. Notwithstanding the problems, the proposed plan will be reasonable and defensible. Where requirements can not be met the plan will provide a defensible explanation of what can be done. The plan does, however, show that achieving clean air is a possibility for this region. I 7 • • I 0 URAF•f Q-20 How does our Orange County subregional plan compare with that of other counties in our region? A-20 All the subregional plans are compared in Chapter 10 of the plan and in Table X of the Summary. In general, the plans are similar while respecting subregional differences. The Orange County Plan does not contain their recommendations in energy conservation because they are presently developing an energy plan. ..We understand that it will be added in;:the future. Q-21 Is Orange County going to be forcedctto.pay for cleaning up pollution that comes here from L.A.? A-21 No, (air pollution is being controlled at the source), based on the maximum impacts in the receptor area. All pollution including effects of growth will be controlled by the most cost effective, least impact method. Q-22 Is this Just ioipthat initiated ' has been developed by SCAG,and bengforcedonlocalgovernments? A-22 No, this plan was mandated by the State and Federal government. The plan has been developed by working through the subregions, the subre- gional coordinating committees and their representatives at SCAG and the District, all of whom are local officials. We believe this team approach is far superior to having it developed for us by EPA or ARB. Q-23 Why will the cities not receive a full out? 60 days to review this first draft the'ne aft A-23 The AQMP schedule calls for more than 90 days review of the draft, plan between October 15, 1978 and the final transmittal to ARB in January 31, 1979. This is more than a 60 day period requested by cities through SCAG's recent General Assembly due to the complexity of the issue. Furthermore, distribution of the preliminary draft plan in August has in effect provided an additional 6-7 weeks of review time. Q-24 Why is the draft so long in coming out? A-24 This region has the most complex and difficult air quality problem in the country. The planning process started in March, 1977. Never before has this region been provided with an inventory, an air quality model and a list of tactics upon which to develop policies to solve our problem. Developing this plan on the team approach described before is a time consuming task. SENATE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE SACRAMENTO 95814 •DARRYL R. WHITE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE September 20, 1978 To Whom It May Concern: By direction of the California Senate, I am transmitting to you Senate Concurrent Resolution #91 adopted by the • California Legislature August 31, 1978. Sincerely, DARffil, R. WHITE Secretary of the Senate DRW:ig Enclosure 0, �/�1 SEP22 1978a•~ Corr o� NEW?ORT BEACH, / CALIF. C2- r •: ASSEAUGUST 22, 1978 AMENDED IN MBLX NE 20,1978 AMENDED IN SENATE No 91 urrent Resolution ' Senate one or Ayala Introduced by Se at man Keene) (Coauthor: Assem Y May 23, 1978 —J— — Relative to fire Concurrent Resolution No. 91 Senate lanniug prevention P . LEGISLA'nVE COU �al DId fire prevention Pro" ended, Ayala. 'kith - SCR 91', as am - city and county gram• ould -request each a local fire This measure w. , and to th 1g79 d for wil liand firg p°team by ]�o ember 30' e artment °f For prevention pTO� Quid also request the D p to cities and easure. w Information crams and to Them ake available specified estry to lannru 1g80� regarding counties on fire prevention February 16, b cities and report to the Legislature awls undertaken Y wildland fire prevention p7O counties• mittee: yes. erienced Fiscal com a edhomes WHEREAS, Many areas of the ed and dam g 1 es have 2 wildland fires which have destroy, ated 2,000 homes such 3 ana other structures; an any others damaged by WHEREAS, asince91 1, m n eoth 4 destroyed 'and, m developed • 5 been g conflagrations; Some cities and counties have 7 iEREAS> rograms which include identiclearance l 8 fire Preven fir Zones, hazardous reduction l' • •g hazardous - 97 30 u Department of Community Development DATE: September 15, 1978 TO: Mayor Paul Ryckoff FROM: Fred Talarico SUBJECT: Orange County League of Cities - Task Force Meeting - September 13, 1978, on the Draft - "AQMP" Pursuant to your request, I attended the League's "Task Force" meeting, September 13th, on the draft "AQMP." The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the League's role and the task force's role in the AQMP review process. After a discussion of alterna- tive strategies, the following three items were approved for recommendation to the League: The Task Force working with the County EMA staff would compile a list of grievances with the draft AQMP. Each city would be asked to respond to the draft plan, looking at what it could and could not accept. The League staff would work with the Leagues of adjacent counties to investigate commonalities of position. 3: The League would host a "work shop" subsequent to the release of the October 15th plan. The purpose of the work shop with elected officials would be to bring the AQMP process and plan implications to the surface. Attached to this report is 1) a letter to all Orange County City Managers and Mayors; and 2) a letter with attachments requesting information on the draft plan sent to SCAG from the League. Additionally, I have attached information for the Costa Mesa City Council by their staff, much of which is applicable to Newport Beach. i FRED TALARICO Senior Planner FT/kk n++n.. • W, MEMBER CITIES ANAHEIM BREA Orange County Division BUENA PARK COSTA MESA ESS FOUNTAIN VALLEY LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES FULLERTON GARDEN GROVE HUNTINGTON BEACH 811 NORTH BROADWAY, SUITE 614, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 (714) 836.4601 IRVINE LAGUNA BEACH LA HABRA LA PALMA LOS ALAMITOS ' NEWPORTBEACH ORANGE PLACENTIA SAN CLEMENTE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ' September 13, 1978 SANTA ANA SEAL BEACH STANTON TUSTIN VILLA PARK WESTMINSTER YORBA LINDA TO: Mayors and City Managers FROM: Bob Haskell, Executive Director RE: Preliminary Draft Air Quality Management Plan By now, you have all received a copy of the 700+ page preliminary Draft AQMP. SCAG informs us that, in order to have any real input in commenting on this draft, we must have our comments in by October 2, 1978. This deadline is apparently not flexible due to State and Federal deadlines. President Alice•MacLain recently sent the enclosed letter to Mark Pisano, Executive Director of SCAG, asking that certain questions be fully answered in writing for the cities in order that we may sensibly and expeditiously review the AQMP Draft document. We have heard no response as of yet --but we will certainly forward their answers to you as soon as they come in. In the meantime, the Steering Committee thought that the questions we asked SCAG would be useful to you even 'without the answers. You may wish to personally contact SCAG and request them to answer our questions. Getting answers to these questions in writing is very important before committing ourselves on the AQMP Draft. However, don't let this delay the input of any comments you may have on this draft. In fact, you may wish to note in your comments that we will not be able to take any official action approving or adopting an AQMP until the answers to our questions are provided in writing. Remember, OCTOBER 2 is the deadline for comments to be sent to SLAG. Now is our best chance to make our views known. MEMBER CITIES ANAHEIM jTE) BREA r" n �����®� Orange County BUENA PARK "- ' COSTA MESA CYPRESS ' CYPRESS FAIN VALLEY ^ �.r9.rAGUE ®F CALIFORNIA CITIES FULLERTON GARDEN GROVE HUNTINGTON BEACH 811 NORTH BROAOWAY, SUITS 614, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 82701 (714) 836r4601 , IR VINE LAGUNA BEACH LA HABRA LA PALMA , LOSALAMITOS NEWPORTBEACH i ORANGE PLACENTIA SAN CLEMENTE ' SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO , SANTA ANA SEAL BEACH September, 7..'1978 ' STANTON TUSTIN ' VILLA PARK WESTMINSTER , YORBA LINDA Mr. Mark Pisano Executive Director Southern Calif. Assn. of Governments GOO South Commonwealth Ave., Ste. 1000 ' ios Angeles, Ca. 90005 Dear Mark: In order for the Mayors and Councilmembers'to better concentrate on the business of reviewing the Draft AQMP by Ootober'2, many questions will need to be answered. I understand that workshops have and will be hold with staff and elected officials. xowever, contain questions have Como to the Division's attention that would be helpful to have immediate answers to while we review the Draft. Certainly, it we are to review the Draft in such a very short time frame, we should quickly answer those many questions which may otherwise bog us down. Therefore, I am enclosing a list of questions which I hope can be answered by your staff at the earliest possible convenience. The Division office will then copy and distribute our questions and your responses to our members so that they may refer back to them as needed. Please feel freo to add additional questions and answers that you feel may be beneficial to our members. If you have any questions about this request, please Contact our Executive Director, Bob Saskell. ,Thank you for your assistance. „ Sincerely, Alice Maceain' r President' AMac/ma Enclosure cot San�,� SCOtt j SupeL•viGOk Anthony, Councilman J'im Boam. 1. Wh&t is meant by city approval of AQMP Draft between October 15 and December 15? 2. What is meant by city adoption of AQMP.Draft and what does this commit a city to? 3. What happens if a city takes no action at all with regard to approval or adoption? 4. What happens if a city does not move toward implementation? 5. What happens if a county, all cities in the'cotinty, or the entire region does not move to implement? 6. How does a city implement the plan? What elements of the plan will the city be asked to implement? Will they be able to choose what they want to implement? Will they be told what measures to implement? 7. Will cities be bound by the Orange County subregional plan (even though they have not approved it) if they approve the AQMP? 8. Who will monitor compliance, report non-compliance, and recommend sanctions? 9. Will there be an emissions reduction goal for each jurisdiction or a set amount of pollution that each county and/or cities will have to reduce? 10. Now and when will cities know what their overall pollution contribution is currently? 11. What is AQMP's connection with other programs such as the 208 Planning Program, the Regional Transportation Plan, and the Housing Allocations? 12. Why will it benefit cities to comment on the AQMP Draft by Oatebex 2, 1978? 13. If cities choose to comment further after October 21 where will be the best opportunities for input? 14. Who will pay for the measures that cities will have to implement (especially in light of Prop. 13)? Are there special State or Federal funds set aside to assist in compliance? 15. Is SCAG working to secure such-ompliance assistance funds? 16. What are the total realms of possible sarchions for refusal to comply? 17. What will this plan cost the SCAG region? How much will the region benefit? 18. What must be accomplished in order to qualify for an extension to 1987 for compliance? 19. How does our plan and process compare with efforts currently underway in other areas of the country? 20. How..ddes our Orange'County subregional plan compare with that of other cdunties'in our region? 0 -1- r . 2w 21. Is Orange County going to be forced'to pay for cleaning up pollution that comes here from L. A.? 22. Is this just another plan that initiated from SCAG., has been developed by SCAG, and is being forced on local governments? 23. Why will the cities not receive a full 60 days to review this first draft before the next draft comes out? 24. Why is the draft so 1nx;g in coming out? 0 u 0 LOITY OF COSTA IESA f INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO City Council FROM September 7 19 78 Advance Planning RE: DRAFT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (FUR DISCUSSION AT THE SEPTEMBER 11, 1978 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION) BACKGROUND Dori— ng etheth past year SCAG and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) have been responsible for preparing a regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB includes all of Orange County and portions of Metropolitan Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Preparation of the AQMP is directly mandated by the Lewis Air Quality Management Act of 1976 and indirectly mandated by the 1977 amend- ments to the federal Clean Air Act. In adopting the Lewis Air Quality Act and the recent Clean Air Act Amendments, both the State Legislature and Congress recognized the importance of involving local governments in preparation and implementation of the AQMP. To this end, SCAG has relied on subregional planning agencies (all affected County Planning Departments as well as the Los Angeles City Planning Department) to prepare subregional elements tailored to the unique pt-;Isical, social and economic con- ditions of that subregion. The Preliminary Sl,)regional Element for the Regional Air Quality Management Plan for Orange Count] was prepared by EMA, with assist anoe from a city staff review group (a repreEantative of each Orange County city) and a County coordinating Committee (va-ieus elected officials chaired by Supervisor Anthony). Numerous public workshcjs were held throughout the County to provide further input. In April, 1978, thr County Board of Supervisors approved the Subregional Element for submittal to SCAG to be inoorpo:ated in the regional AQMP. Upon adoption of the regional AQMP by the SCPQMD Board and the SCAG Executive Committee, the plan will be submitted to the State Air Resources Board (SARB) for inclusion in the State Implementation Elan (SIP). The SIP is required by the Clean Air Act and must indicate how California will meet federal air quality standards by 1982. Because of this requirement, the SIP must be approved by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If the SIP is lot sub- mitted and adopted by EPA prior to July, 1979, all federal grant mom y can be withheld from the region and cause EPA to prepare and implement their own plan. PLAN SUMMARY The portion of the 750 page draft AQMP which has received the most attention by the media and has the greatest impact on all residents of the south coast air basin is Chapter IX. This is the chapter which identifies 128 specific control measures which can be implemented to meet federal air quality standards. It is meant to be a "shopping list" describing all known control strategies to improve air quality. Since the list is all encompassing, the level of pollu- tion reduced by the implementation of all these strategies is well below the level required W meet federal standards. This was done to allow for the re- jecticmi of specific control measures which are not cost effective, politically or socially acceptable, or for any other reason, undesirable. Continued..... .....Continued To City Council/Advance Planning Page Two t September 7, 1978 The 128 control strategies deal with a number of pollution sources with varying degrees of control. The following Table identifies the general nature and target of these strategies: Stationary Source Controls 52 Motor Vehicle Emissions/Operation Control 19 Parking/'1'ransportation Management Control 16 Nontechnical Control Measures 10 Railroad and Ship Emissions/Operation Controls 9 Aircraft Emissions/Operation Controls 8 Energy Conservation Measures 8 Miscellaneous Controls 6 Because of the severity of the air pollution problem in the region, these strategies will, to varying degrees, affect all residents of the south coast air basin. Additional automobile and industrial emission controls will increase the price of goods produced in the region; increased gas taxes, required inspec- tion and maintenance programs and parking surcharges will increase private trans- portation costs; car pool and parking management strategies may impact the actual operations of City Hall as well as major private developments and; raising the minimum driving age to 18 years could have extensive social impacts. The specific i„t.ucts of thcsc measures on Costa Mesa will be discussed in the follow- ing section. ROLE OF COSTA MESA The involvement o Costa Mesa and all local governments in the region with the draft AQMP is critical for the preparation of an acceptable plan. Language in the Clean Air Act states that the AQMP must: "...Include written evidence that the State, the general purpose local government or governments, or a regional agency designated by general purpose governments for such purpose, have adopted by statute, regulation, ordinance, or other legally enforceable document, the necessary require- ments and schedules and time tables for oonipliance, and are oannitted to implement and enforce the appropriate element of the plan..." (S712.(a)(10).) In order to ensure the development of a final plan which is in concert with the goals and implementation capabilities of the City, Costa Mesa'a participation in the review of a draft plan is essential. Representatives of SCAG have re- quested that each local jurisdiction review all 128 control strategies for possible local impacts. The question they would like the Council to answer is: What specific control measures would the residents, businessmen and decision - makers within Costa Mesa be willing to support to attain clean air? The res- ponses to this question are anticipated to weigh heavily in the selection of specific control measures included in the final plan. Although this type of review would be desirable, the limited review period (comments must be received by SCAG before October 21 1978), prohibits such an analysis. Instead, the Staff review has concentrated on those issues which require implementation or which, if implemented by other agencies, has a potential of impacting the operation of the City. These strategies are listed below. Continued..... r ..:..Continued To City Council/Advance Planning Page Three September 7, 1978 Strategies Identified for Local Implementation (H-4) Modified Work Schedules (staggered starting times, flex -time, 4-day/10-hour work week) (H-5) Parking Management, Carpool Preferential Parking (reduce parking supply for single -occupant cars by 30% in all commercial/industrial employment centers in a region and reserve for ride -sharing vehicles) (H-13) Voluntary Trip Reduction Program (a regional promotional effort aimed at limiting future increases and trip making) (H-23) Increase Bicycle Facilities (decrease automobile trips through diversion to bicycle trips for all types of trip purposes) (H-27) Pedestrian Facilities (decrease use of auto by diversion to pedestrian trips, especially for short trips) (H-35) Automatic Traffic Signal Control Systems (computer controls on traffic signals for 6,000 local intersections and 600 CALTRANS eontroled inter- sections) (H-58) Auto -Free Zones (restrict automobile circulation and parking within high intensity activity centers to reduce total vehicle miles travelled) (H-63) Expanded Transit Level Of Service (expand transit level of service by adding 1,000 busses and 2,200 route miles over the level as indi- cated in the Regional Transportation Plan) (H-74) Eliminate On -Street Parking (eliminate the use of on -street parking on selected arterials during peak hours) (H-76) Paratransit (development of paratransit services as a collection mode in communities throughout the SCAG region) (H-78) Incorporate Non -Residential Uses Into Residential Areas (permit selected non-residential uses in residential areas to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and bring these services closer to residences, providing an opportunity to walk or bycicle to these facilities) (N-1) Engergy Conservation: Commercial/Institutional and Industrial Audit Program (initiate comprehensive engergy use audits and inplement necessary changes to reduce energy oonsunption) (N-2) Energy Conservation: Residential Retrofit Program (adopt city and county resale ordinances requiring energy conservation, retrofit upon resale) (N-3) Energy Conservation: Solar Water Heater Retrofit Program (adopt city and county resale ordinances or other programs to require solar water heating equipment in existing residential units) Continued..... .....Continued Page Four City Council/Advance Planning September 7, 1978 (N-4) Energy Conservation: Street Lighting (reduce fuel combustion - related emissions from electric paver plants by reducing the amount of electricity used for street lighting) (N-5) Residential Heaters (this tactic is intended to curtail NOx emissions from new residential space heating systems by altering burner design) (N-6) New Water Heaters (this tactic will curtail Nox emissions from residential water heaters similar to N-5) STRATEGIES FOR PCTERI`IAL LOCAL PARTICIPATICN: (H-34) Expanded Employer Carpool Program (expand the proposed Regional Transportation Plan employer carpool matching and promotional programs to include all firms in the SCAG Region and double the capture rate used in the RTP Program) (H-41) Reduce Transit Fares (reduce transit fare to a flat 25 cents per trip on all bus systems throughout the SCAG Region) (H-67) Parking Management: Increase Parking Surcharge (increase auto- mobile operating costs by doubling existing parking costs in commerical/industrial centers within region, imposing a one - dollar minimum) (H-68) Congestion Pricing (apply one -dollar Congestion Toll during morning and evening peak periods (6:30 a.m.-8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m.) to all autos using SCAG freeway system enroute to destination) (H-70) Parking Management: Reduced Parking Cost For Carpools (an $18 per month parking subsidy to each carpool parking within high employment centers) (H-77) Expand Capacity And improve Flaw On Highway Network (expansion and extension of the existing and currently planned freeway network to allow free flow at peak periods on all freeways, and attract enough traffic from surface streets to bring them to free flaw) (H-79) Employers Rideshare Program (adopt regulations to require employers who enploy more than 100 persons at any one location to provide a rideshare option to the 25% of employees through the purchasing of bus passes and providing carpool parking) Numerous other strategies could affect Costa Mesa indirectly. Measures such as new emission controls for tractors and construction equipment, emission taxes on automobiles based on total emissions and miles driven, increased gasoline taxes may increase the cost of doing business for the City. However, because of their indirect nature, these measures were not studied in depth at this *4mo Continued..... .....Continued To City Council/Advance Planning Page Five September 7, 1978 COUNCIL ACTICN The draft AQMP is scheduled for discussion at the September 11, 1978 Study Session. A brief introduction to the AQMP and discussion of the above refer- enced strategies will be presented for Council review. This item is also scheduled for Council consideration at the September 18, 1978 meeting. Formal action by the Council (in the form of a letter or resolution) will be taken at that time. A number of other interested parties are also reviewing the AQMP for possible impacts on local jurisdictions. The EMA is conducting an indepth evaluation of the proposed strategies with an emphasis on local im- plementation responsibilities and costs. Discussions with EMA Staff members indicate that this analysis should be completed by September 15, 1978. Also, the Orange County division of the League �f Cities has initiated an independent review program. last week, Councilwo:,,_._ nertzog am representatives of the Planning Department attended one meeting to discuss possible League action. Another meeting is scheduled for September 13, 1978. Information obtained from these sources will be made available to the Council prior to the September 18, 1978 Council meeting. RMR:js cc: City Manager City Attorney Public Services Director Fire Administration Building Safety Director Planning Director City Clerk ATY OF COSTA 9ESA INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM September 14 19 78 TO City Council - FROM Advance Planning RE: COM &M ON PRELIMINARY DRAFT AIR'QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (AQMP) Attached is a draft Position Paper which includes comments regarding the Preliminary Draft AQMP. In addition to offering a critique of the control measures identified in the �plan, the Paper also indicates City support for the AQMP process and requests additional information regarding funding for the measures which require local implementation. This item will be considered at the September 18, 1978 meeting. on Wednesday, the orange County Division of the League of California Cities held a meeting to discuss a possible League position. It was decided that the League would become the coordinator of all City generated review documents and be res- ponsible for developing a unified position based on the information obtained from these documents. Also, the League will be sponsoring a workshop on the Draft AQMP for local officials after the October Draft AQMP is distributed. RECOMMENDATICN The PPlann'ing Staff recommends adoption of the attached Position Paper. Upon adoption, copies of the Paper would be forwarded to the League of Cities office for subsequent transmittal to SCAG. The review of the suggested control measures was limited to those measures which have potential for direct impacts on Costa Mesa. Additional comments regarding measures not included in the Position Paper of concern to the Council can be in- cluded prior to transmittal. RMR:js Attachment cc: City Manager City Attorney Public Services Director Fire Administration Building Safety Director Planning Director City Clerk CITY OF COSTA MESA POSITION PAPER PRELIMINARY DRAFT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN This P s on Paper has been prepared in response to the Preliminary Draft Air Quality Management Plan issued by the Southern California Association of Govern- ments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Comments of the City of Costa Mesa regarding the information contained in the preliminary draft and possible impacts of the suggested control measures are noted for consideration in the Draft AQMP scheduled for release in october, 1978. Because of the limited review period, this Paper will focus on those issues which require local govern- ment implementation or offer direct benefits to the City. Although a complete review of all suggested control strategies for both direct and indirect impacts on the residents, business community and decision makers of Costa Mesa would be desireable, such an analysis is beyond the scope of this Paper. AQMP PROCESS The City o Costa Mesa recognizes the critical nature of the air pollution prob- lem in the South Coast Air Basin and the need for a comprehensive, region wide plan to correct the problem. In order for plans such as these to be effective, all interests (both public and private) which will be required to carry out the mandates of the plan should be involved in preparation, review and adoption of the final document. The reliance of SCAG and SCAM on subregional coordinating committee and local government input into the AQMP process significantly increases the practicality and applicability of the plan. Continued review and subsequent adoption of the plan by all concerned agencies will demonstrate the commitment of a region to improve its air quality. IMPLEMENTATICN CONSTRAINTS Since the passage o Proposition 13 all local governments are viewing demands for action and increased services with a critical eye. This is applicable for requests submitted by local citizens as well as other governmental agencies. The desires of a local government to reach a predetermined goal or to establish new goals must be tempered with the realities of severely constricted revenues. As such, some of the control strategies included in the preliminary draft which may have been accepted prior to June, 1978 are now rejected because of high costs and low returns. It is obvious the Federal government is concerned about the availability of re- sources to implement the suggested control measures (§172(b)(7) of the Clean Air Act). However, the preliminary draft is equally obvious in its lack of discussion regarding this same issue. In order for the City of Costa Mesa to make firm commitments to implement any of the identified measures, additional cost estimates and supplemental revenue sources must be identified and included in the Final AQMP. - CONTROL MEASURES - - e City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the numerous control measures identified in Chapter IX of the Preliminary Draft AQMP for possible impacts and immplemen- tation responsibilities. The following subsections discuss those specific measures which the City recommends for inclusion in the Draft AQMP. Again, these oonments should not be construed as commitments for action by the City without further investigation.DISCU pp nn y PJp V THIS IS A STAFF DOCUMENT AND DOES NOT REFLECT OFFICIAL CITY POLICY r : • The following measures are recommended for inclusion into the Draft AQMP and relate to programs currently being implemented by the City of Costa Mesa; progress based on availability of funds. (H-23) Increase Bicycle Facilities (completion of the City's Master Plan of Bikeways will encourage increased use of bicycles as alternate modes of transportation). (H-35) Automatic Traffic Signal Control Systems (localized computer system is in operation along Harbor Boulevard. Expansion of centralized or addition- al local systems on other arterials is anticipated). (H-74) Eliminate on -Street Parking (parking currently prohibited along arterial highways). (H-78) Incorporate Non -Residential Uses into Residential Areas (the CL, Commercial Limited, Zone was established to allow the location of support commercial uses in both industrial and residential areas. All planned development zones allow mix of complementary land uses. Policies for mixed land use developments may be incorporated into current General Plan review). (N-4) Energy Conservation: Street Lighting (recently initiated project will replace existing mercury vapor lights with high pressure sodium lamps). The following measures are recommended for inclusion in the Draft AQMP and involve potential savings if implemented: (H-4) Modified Work Schedules (may encourage carpooling and ease congestion but require agreement between City and Employee Associations). (N-1) Energy Conservation: Audit Program (implementation of necessary energy conservation measures will reduce operating expenses for City and local businesses). (N-2) (N-3) - Energy Conservation (implementation will increase purchase price of new (N-5) and resale homes but result in net savings over life of structure). (N-6) (N-15) The following measures are recommended for inclusion into the Draft AQMP and would be considered for implementation by the City of Costa Mesa pending demon- strated demand and available funding: (H-13) Voluntary Trip Reduction Program (support regional promotional effort). ------- (i-27)- Pedestrian Facilities (improve and/or construct sidewalks, crosswalks and overcrossings to improve pedestrian -safety and encourage pedestrian activity). (H-44) Cutback Asphalt (use of light petroleum fractions or thin solvent material to make asphalt flow easier, for faster application for public improve- ment projects. Used by CALTRANS and many County road departments. DISCUSSION ®OCUMEoy 064LV THIS IS A STAFF DOCUMENT AND DOES NOT REFLECT OFFICIAL CITY POLICY (H-58) Auto -Free Zones (possible inclusion in Redevelopment and Town Center areas) . (H-76) Paratransit (develop local=oriented transit system to meet specialized transportation needs and serve as a collector for regional transit system). (H-79) Employers Rideshare Program (provide ride -share option to 25% of employ- ees through purchasing bus passes). The following measures are recommended for inclusion in the Draft AQMP and will provide direct benefits to the City of Costa Mesa; but do require the coordination of other agencies. (H-1) (H-2) (H-6) (H-10) Aircraft Emissions/Operations Controls (each measure could impact the (H-12) operation of Orange County Airport and reduce pollution generated by (H-16) this facility). (H-25) (H-38) (H-77) Expand Capacity and Improve Flow on Highway Network (completion of Costa Mesa and Corona del Mar Freeways will improve traffic flow and reduce pollution in Costa Mesa). (S-6) Electric Power Generating Equipment - 60% Reduction (a 60% reduction in maximum sulfur content in pacer plant fuels will reduce pollution from SCE Huntington Beach Generating Station, located upwind from Costa Mesa). The following measures are recommended for exclusion from the Draft AQMP: (H-68) Congestion Pricing (collection of tolls at each freeway on -ramp during morning and evening peak hours may increase congestion on local suface streets). (H-69) Automobile operating Cost Increase - Gas Tax (measure is opposed until alternative transportation systems are available). (H-80) Emissions Tax (regressive tax for poor with older cars. Opposed until alternative transportation systems are available). (H-81) 18-Year Old License (increase minimum driving age to 18 years could create undesireable social impacts. Oppose until alternative transpor- tation systems are available). (H-82) Home Goods Delivery (conditioning of business licenses to require home delivery for large stores is unacceptable until specific costs and re- sultant emission reductions can be determined. THIS IS A STAFF DOCUMENT AND DOES NOT REFLECT OFFICIAL CITY POLICY September 15, 19.78• Mayor Paul Ryckoff iW., : " Fred Talarico Orange County League of Cities - Task force Meeting - September 13, 1978, on the Draft � "AQMP" Pursuant to your request, I attended the League's "Task Force" meeting, September 13th, on the draft "AQMP." The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the League's role and the task fo.rce's role in the AQMP review pro.ceas. After a discussion of,altsrna- tive strategies, the following three items were approved for recommendation to the League: 1, The Task Force working with the County bMA staff would compile a list of'grievances with the draft AQMP. Each city wool-d be asked to respond to the draft plan, looking at what it could and could not accept. , 2. The League staff would work with the„ Leagues of adjacent counties to.inve�stigate commonalities, of position. , 3. The League would host, a "work shopp"•subse,quent to, the release'of the October 15th'plan. Th'e purpose of the work shop with elected officials'woul'd be to bring the AQMP process,and plan implications to the surface. , Attached to this report is A) a Letter, to, all Orange, CQ,u1Tty City Managers and Mayors; and 2) a letter with attachments requesting information on the draft 'plan sent to 5CAG.from the League. Additionally, I have attached information for thc,Costa'Melsa• City Council by their staff, much of which is applicable to Newport Beach. FRED TALARICO Senior Planner FT/kk Attachments .- DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: • Department of Community Development September 11, 1978 Mayor Ryckoff Fred Talarico AQMP Briefing - September 6, 1978 Pursuant: to your request, I attended the AQMP Briefing held on September 6, 1978 in Santa Ana. The following briefly summarizes the information presented at the meeting: Supervisor Anthony: Supervisor Anthony opened the meeting with an introduction of staff present and summary of the AQMP planning, process. He indicated that the official deadline for comments on the preliminary draft is October 2, 1978. He further indicated that comments should be made as soon as possible and prior to the above mentioned date if possible. Comments received by October 2, 1978 will be considered in the October draft and E.I.R. The next draft of the plan, with EIR, will be published on October 15, 1978. Super- visor Anthony offered county services to coordinate responses from the cities and stressed the need to comment at this stage of the planning process by indicating that our ability to affect changes within the plan will diminish as the review process continues. Mark Pisano (SCAG Executive Director): Mr. Pisano reviewed the planning process for the AQMP. He indicated that between now and the beginning of October, SCAG will be reviewing comments on the reliminar draft submitted by all interested parties and will p y submit (October 15th) in the October draft, SCAG staff recommendations. Dave DiJulio (SCAG-AQMP Program Manager: Mr. DiJulio reviewed the comments of the "Summary" and "Chapter 9." He indicated that presently all measures are ranked by cost effectiveness only. He stated that the minimum cost to implement the plan would be $325 million dollars annually. He indicated that SCAG is working on a "Fair -Share" allocation model, but that they are not positive that it will be technically feasible to develop such a model. Sandy Scott (County EMA): Sandy Scott indicated that his staff will be distributing copies of the entire AQMP to,each city on Friday, September 8, 1978. The following meeting times for the various groups interested in the AQMP were then announced: September 13, 1978 (12:30 p.m.) September 14, 1978 Orange County League of Cities Task Force 811 N. Broadway, Suite 614 Santa Ana Orange County League of Cities Meeting - 1 - T0: • Mayor Ryckoff - 2. September 19, 1978 (2:00 p.m.) September 21, 1978 (2:00 p.m.) General Comments: City Contacts Meeting 1020 North Broadway Santa Ana Coordinating Committee Meeting 10,20 North Broadway Santa Ana Subsequent to the meeting I met briefly with. Ooanne Aplet (SCAG MD Planning Manager) to discuss the "off -set" rule which, has been one of your major concerns. She indicated to me that the "AQMP Control Strategies" document page IX-295-to IX-297 contain the "off -set" consideration. In discussion she indicated that she will be in charge of reviewing all comments regarding this rule. 2. Sandy Scott indicated to me that if you desire,Phil'Anthbny to make a presentation on the AQMP (approximately 15 minutes) he will be available after September 18th. 3. I will be reviewing the "Summary: Draft Air Quality Management Plan", the "AQMP Control Strategies", and the AQMP Preliminary Draft" and will provide you with staff comments as soon as possible. Respectfully submitted, Fred Talarico FT/dt a►�e fto con( tue to monitor the action. ,o j_�• 3, 41e - F J icy Task Force South Coast State Local Polto rea h Dalelitl Secord, I Maintenance Planning. (Fred was trying Santa Ana, and will continue.) r1 L-A r" City Council Meeting July 14, 1975 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 8, 1975 TO: City Council STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 8(c)l FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Information: "Air Quality Maintenance Plan" Background: On June 27, 1975, staff attended a State Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Basin, State/Local Task Force Meeting. The Air Resources Board's stated purpose of the meeting was as follows: "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 ........• 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 attainment 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. Land Use and transportation controls have been primarily the responsibility of local government. For this reason, the ARB is attempting to bring representatives 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 1•and use and transportation development decisions." Air Quality Maintenance Plan As proposed by the Air Resources Board (ARB) the Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMP) will be developed in two phases. Phase I, will establish a framework for coordination between state, local and federal agencies. An Air Quality Maintenance Plan development process will be the output of Phase I. The actual development of air quality maintenance plans will occur in Phase II. M TO: City Council - 2 Comment The major focus of the June to reach a consensus on the will prepare the air quality indicated to staff that the be addressing several of the (a) parking management �b) stationary and indirect c) spheres of influence (d) transportation (highway (e) major land uses. 27, 1975 meeting was an attempt composition of the Task Force that maintenance plan. It was plan (AQMP) and this Task Force will following points: sources funding) A consensus on the membership of the Task Force was not reached at the meeting. Attached to this memorandum is: (1) possible South Coast Air Basin, Air Quality Maintenance Plan, Task Force Composition; (2) Air Quality Maintenance Plan Overview; and (3) the proposed Plan Development Program for Phase I. AB250 A recent development in air quality planning was the State Assembly's passage of AB250. The bill is currently in the Senate's Local Government Committee. Staff has been informed by the State Air Resources Board staff that the bill as proposed would make regional pollution control mandatory. The Southern California Association of Governments would be given authority over land use, transportation and energy as they relate to air quality planning, but implementation powers would remain with the cities and counties. The exact relationship that would exist between the Task Force and the Southern California Association of Governments has not yet been determined. It is staff's intention to continue to monitor the development of the Task Force, the air quality maintenance planning effort, AB250, and provide you with additional information as it becomes available. No City Council action is required at this time. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT V. >R�dfi, Di rector RVH:FT:jmb Att. Y Y i SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN i AQMP TASK FORCE FORMATION MEETING Los Angeles Convention Center June 27, 1975 Afternoon Discussion Outline I Possible South Coast Air Basin AQMP Policy Task Force Composition One member, South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council + One member, Southern California Association of Governments One member, Los Angeles City Council One member, £rom•one city council in each county in air basin One supervisor from each county in the air basin One member, Orange County Transit District One member, Southern California Regional Transit District Other special districts - One public member in each of the following areas: Environment Health Agriculture Low Income Minority Senior Citizen ndustry Commerce Labor Land Development Other One member, each regional water quality control board in air basin One member, Air Resources Board One member, each regional coastal zone commission in air basin I p-O-O^O-O^O-OHO^O^O-O Does this makeup provide adequate representation? If not, what other groups, or agencies should be represented? Is there an alternative task force structure that should be considered? Should there be a subbasin AQMP process? If so, how? (Over) How should the AQMP process relate to any future basinwide air pollution control agency? What individuals and agencies would be appropriate on an AQMP technical advisory committee? What staff can be identified now to participate in the AQMP process? What issues should the policy task force consider in addition to those listed in the proposed program (PDP)? -2- State of California Air Resources Board AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN (AQMP) OVERVIEW o History of the Program - 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 Objective of the AQMP - Incorporate air quality into long-range comprehensive planning - Provide for State, local and citizen participation in air quality planning - Attain and maintain healthy levels of air quality - Fulfill federal requirements for AQMPs o What will the AQMP include? - Analysis of.th6 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 o How will the program be initiated? - Phase 1 - 6 months - planning and definition of air quality problem - Phase ii - 2 years - Plan development and Implementation o What is the timing of Phase 17 - Formation of Policy Task Force at initial meeting in June, 1975 - Technical staff to begin operation in July, 1975 - Phase I completion by December 31, 1975 o What are the Phase 1 Tasks? - Establish Regional AQMP task forces with Policy Direction and Technical Staff - Define the region's long term air quality problems - Identify relationship between AQMP and other local and regional policies - Determine Phase II work program and develop a governmental mechanism capable of developing and implementing an AQMP o Which agencies will be involved at the local and regional level? - COGs, Regional Transportation Agencies, APCDs, Cities and Counties, Citizen and Special Interest Groups, CalTrans, SWRCB, Special Districts, ARB and EPA. o Why do we need an AOMP7 - 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 NEPA 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 (IUPP-AOMP 6/75) 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 G Kern Counties (San Joaquin Air Basin) Monterey County AQMP Task Force Air Resources Board 1709 llth Street Sacramento March 211, 1975 (Revised 4/29/75 Clarification) 0 • Plan Development Program for Phase 1 Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMP) Content Page Introduction 1 A. Objectives 4 B. Participants 4 C. Phase I Organization and Work Program 5 D. Timetable for Phase I Development 9 E. Planning Assumptions 9 F. Legal Requirements 9 G. Persons with Project Responsibility 9 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 ai.r 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 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) -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 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 502 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 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 phases. Phase 1, outlined in this PDP, will establish a framework for coordination between 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 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 all SACRAMENTO METROPOLIS FRAW11- STANISLAU-S - B' SAN JOAQUIN — CA3,IFORN7 A AIR RZSOU3iC.�S BoF1333 AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREAS... DESIGNATED BY ARB REVISION 5, STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 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 & 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 or Governments, cities, 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 S Lta-Local AQMP Task Forces will be established in the South Coast. Air Ua in, San Francis-0Bay Area Air Basin, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMA, Spin Diego Air Ba:;in, San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (3AQMA's), and the Monterey County AQ.A,A. -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 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 -vocal AQMP Task Forces. j. Coordinate formal Phase I Plan adoption by State and submittal to EPA to fulfill fede:ai AQP.P 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 Coordination with other federal programs SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AQMA's Riverside - FIGURE I SCHEMATIC OF PHASE I AQNP RELATIONSHIP AND ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AIR RESOURCES BOARD AQMP TASK FORCE SAS I N ,.AOSK 0WICES SAN FRANCISCO SAN DIEGO SACRAMENTO MONTEREY BAY AREA AIR BASIN METROPOLITAN COUNTY AQMA AQMA AQMA AQMA * Dotted lines represent possible links to agencies of State government such as, CalTrans Districts, regiorl water quality boards, etc, j FRESNO AQMA OPR STATE POLICY COMMITTEE STATE NICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE * KERN COUNTY AQMA 0W SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN AQMA Is STANISLAUS SAN JOAQUIN COUNT`? AQ% I • I -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 It 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 asdefinedby 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 oa,d policies and areas of conflicting 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 It. (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. ME (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 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 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 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 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 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 5 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 tv,,o phase approach to AQMP development. This PDP deals with Phase I 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 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 V City Council Meeting July 14, 1975 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 8, 1975 STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 8(c)l TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Information: "Air Quality Maintenance Plan" Background: On June 27, 1975, staff attended a State Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Basin, State/Local Task Force Meeting. The Air Resources Board's stated purpose of the meeting was as follows: "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 ......... 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 attainment 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. Land Use and transportation controls have been primarily the responsibility of local government. For this reason, the ARB is attempting to bring representatives 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." Air Quality Maintenance Plan As proposed by the Air Resources Board (ARB) the Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMP) will be developed in two phases. .Phase I, will establish a framework for coordination between state, local and federal agencies. An Air Quality Maintenance Plan development process will be the output of Phase I. The actual development of air quality maintenance plans will occur in Phase II. 0 W TO: City Council - 2 Comment The major focus of the June 27, 1975 meeting was an attempt to reach 'a consensus on the composition of the Task Force that will prepare the air quality maintenance plan. It was indicated to staff that the plan (AQMP) and this Task Force will be addressing several of the following points: (a) parking management b) stationary and indirect sources c) spheres of influence (d) transportation (highway funding) (e) major land uses. A consensus on the membership of the Task Force was not reached at the meeting. Attached to this memorandum is: (1) possible South Coast Air Basin, Air Quality Maintenance Plan, Task Force Composition; (2) Air Quality Maintenance Plan Overview; and (3) the proposed Plan Development Program for Phase I. AB250 A recent development in air quality planning was the State Assembly's passage of AB250. The bill is currently in the Senate's Local Government Committee. Staff has been informed by the State Air Resources Board staff that the bill as proposed would make regional poll'ution control mandatory. The Southern California Association of Governments would be given authority over land use, transportation and energy as they relate to air quality planning, but implementation powers would remain with the cities and counties. The exact relationship that would exist between the Task .Force and the Southern California Association of Governments has not yet been determined. It is staff's intention to continue to monitor the development of the Task Force, the air quality maintenance planning effort, AB250, and provide you with additional information as it becomes available. No City Council action is required at this time. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT V.�n, Director RVH:FT:jmb Att. 0 ! SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AQMP TASK FORCE FORMATION MEETING Los Angeles Convention Center June 27, 1975 Afternoon Discussion Outline Possible South Coast Air Basin AQMP Policy Task Force Composition One member, South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council One member, Southern California Association of Governments One member, Los Angeles City Council One member, from -one city council in each county in air basin One supervisor from each county in the air basin One member, Orange County Transit District One member, Southern California Regional Transit District Other special districts - One public member in each of the following areas: Environment Health Agriculture Low Income Minority Senior Citizen lnndustry Commerce Labor Land Development Other One member, each regional water quality control board in air basin One member, Air Resources Board One member, each regional coastal zone commission in air basin 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0^0^0-0 Does this makeup provide adequate representation? If not, what other groups, or agencies should be represented? Is there an alternative task force structure that should be considered? Should there be a subbasin AQMP process? If so, how? (Over) How should the AQMP process relate to any future basinwide air pollution control agency? What individuals and agencies would be appropriate on an AQMP technical advisory committee? What staff can be identified now to participate in the AQMP process? What issues should the policy task force consider in addition to those listed in the proposed program (PDP)? -2- State of California Air Resources Board AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN (AQMP) OVERVIEW o History of the Program - 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 Objective of the AQMP - Incorporate air quality into long-range comprehensive planning - Provide for State, local and citizen participation in air quality planning - Attain and maintain healthy levels of air quality - Fulfill federal requirements for AQMPs o What will the AQMP 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 o How will the program be initiated? - Phase 1 - 6 months - planning and definition of air quality problem - Phase ii - 2 years - Plan development and Implementation o What is the timing of Phase I? - Formation of Policy Task Force at initial meeting in June, 1975 - Technical staff to begin operation in July, 1975 - Phase I completion by December 31, 1975 o What are the Phase I Tasks? - Establish Regional AQMP task forces with Policy Direction and Technical Staff - Define the region's long term air quality problems - Identify relationship between AQMP and other local and regional policies - Determine Phase II work program and develop a governmental mechanism capable of developing and implementing an AQMP o Which agencies will be involved at the local and regional level? - COGs, Regional Transportation Agencies, APCDs, Cities and Counties, Citizen and Special Interest Groups, CalTran5, SWRCB, Special Districts, ARB and EPA. o Why do we need an AQMP? - 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 NEPA 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 (LUPP-AO.M? 6/75) 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 211, 1975 (Revised 4/29/75 Clarification) 0 Plan Development Program for Phase I Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMP) Content Introduction Page A. Objectives 4 B. Participants 4 C. Phase 1 Organization and Work Program 5 D. Timetable for Phase I Development 9 E. Planning Assumptions 9 F. Legal Requirements 9 G. Persons with Project Responsibility 9 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 aLr 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 `enefits 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 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 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 phases. Phase I, outlined in this PDP, will establish a framework for coordination between 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 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. -3- • I SACRAMENTO METROPOLI SAN ' FRANCISCO STANISLAUS — BAYAREA SAN JOAQUIN' AC%tAMENTO'r W IN c T Si''4+`'►sri� ry CALL FCS NI A AXR RESOU31CMS S'A:1 v33D AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREAS... DESIGNATED BY ARB REVISION 5, STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FRESNO VALLEY a % "Y KERN MONTEREY KERN CO. � , • gyp• � '`�yI�+Ay�[Y� ,'_ `• �., .. �..s i �'• 1 r�'•� ��r , "�d%��+fir "^,•`. rtr . t r r RI '-IDE r EA SA AN SOUGH CDXST"' Ile SAN DIEGO r i CALL FCS NI A AXR RESOU31CMS S'A:1 v33D AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREAS... DESIGNATED BY ARB REVISION 5, STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FRESNO VALLEY a % "Y KERN MONTEREY KERN CO. � , • gyp• � '`�yI�+Ay�[Y� ,'_ `• �., .. �..s i �'• 1 r�'•� ��r , "�d%��+fir "^,•`. rtr . t r r RI '-IDE r EA SA AN SOUGH CDXST"' Ile SAN DIEGO r i The actual development and implementation of air quality maintenance plans will occur in Phase It. 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 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 & 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 Or uovernments, cities, 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 viith other federal agencies such as Federal Highway Administration, Housing and Urban Development and Urban Mass Transit Adninistration and will participate in the Joint State -Local AQMP Task Forces where appropriate. Joint State -Local A2tiP Task Forc,.s Ill ll be established in the South Coast Air ll,a_;in, Sin Francisco Day Area Air Basin, Sacramento Metropolitan AQt1A, Snn Dingo Air Basin, San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (3AQMA's), and the Monterey County AVA. u -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 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 1 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. 1. Participate in develo'ping 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 FIGURE I SCHEMATIC OF PHASE I AQMP RELATIONSHIP AND ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AIR RESOURCES EPA BOARD oordination ith other ederal programs OPR STATE POLICY COMMITTEE STATE AQMP TECHNICAL ADVISORY TASK FORCE COMMITTEE I �' 0000 ASIN KR�CE S r„000 �tfSoo SAN FRANCISCO SAN DIEGO SACRAMENTO MONTEREY SAN JOAQUIN tSOLITHCOAST BAY AREA AIR BASIN METROPOLITAN COUNTY VALLEY AIR AQMA AQMA AQ`tA AQMA BASIN AQMA's * Dotted lines represent possible links to agencies of State government such as, CalTrans Districts, regio al water quality boards, etc. �i FRESNO COUNTY KERN COUNTY STANISLAUS AQMA AQMA SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY aQHA • • -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 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 cnd policies and areas of conflicting 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. (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 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 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. M 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). 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 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 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 te:o phase approach to AQMP development. This POP deals with Phase 1 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 f � , STUDYISESSION AGENDA ITEM - Council Meeting of July 14, 1975 Written 1. Report from D.C.D. re formation of South Coast State/Local Policy Task Force for Air Quality Maintenance Planning,(Oeeting held by State Air Resources Board in Los Angeles June 27, 1975.). W T% PpRr 'z Department 14, DATE: June 30, 1975 of Community Development TO: R. V. Hogan, Director FROM: 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 on 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 plan as now envisioned would address: (1) 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) P,ossible Task Force Composition. Note: Contact at Air Resources Board is Dale Secord. ifs FT:jmb Att. (3) SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AQMP TASK FORCE FORMATION MEETING Los Angeles Convention Center June 27, 1975 Afternoon Discussion Outline Possible South Coast Air Basin AQMP Policy Task Force Composition One member, South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council One member, Southern California Association of Governments One member, Los Angeles City Council One member, from one city council in each county in air basin One supervisor from each county in the air basin One member, Orange County Transit District One member, Southern California Regional Transit District Other special districts - One public member in each of the following areas: Environment Health Agriculture Low Income Minority Senior Citizen lfndustr-y7Commerce Labor Land Development Other One member, each regional water quality control board in air basin One member, Air Resources Board One member, each regional coastal zone commission in air basin o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o Does this makeup provide adequate representation? If not, what other groups, or agencies should be represented? Is there an alternative task force structure that should be considered? Should there be a subbasin AQMP process? If so, how? (Over) How should the AQMP process relate to any future basinwide air pollution control agency? what individuals and agencies would be appropriate on an AQMP technical advisory committee? What staff can be identified now to participate in the AQMP process? What issues should the policy task force consider in addition to those listed in the proposed program (PDP)? -2- 0 • State of California Air Resources Board AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN (AQMP) OVERVIEW o History of the Program - 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 Objective of the AQMP - Incorporate air quality into long-range comprehensive planning - Provide for State, local and citizen participation in air quality planning - Attain and maintain healthy levels of air quality - Fulfill federal requirements for AQMPs o What will the AQMP 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 o How will the program be initiated? - Phase 1 - 6 months - planning and definition of air quality problem - Phase II - 2 years - Plan development and Implementation o What is the timing of Phase I? - Formation of Policy Task Force at initial meeting in June, 1975 - Technical staff to begin operation in July, 1975 - Phase I completion by December 31, 1975 o What are the Phase I Tasks? - Establish Regional AQMP task forces with Policy Direction and Technical Staff - Define the region's long term air quality problems - Identify relationship between AQMP and other local and regional policies - Determine Phase II work program and develop a governmental mechanism capable of developing and implementing an AQMP o Which agencies will be involved at the local and regional level? - COGs, Regional Transportation Agencies, APCDs, Cities and Counties, Citizen and Special Interest Groups, CalTrans, SWRCB, Special Districts, ARB and EPA. o Why do we need an AQMP? - 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 NEPA 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 (LUPP-AQMP 6/75) Iw. 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) 0 tu. Plan Development Program for Phase I Air Quality Maintenance Plans (AQMP) Content Page Introduction 1 A. Objectives 4 B. Participants 4 C. Phase I Organization and Work Program 5 D. Timetable for Phase I Development 9 E. Planning Assumptions 9 F. Legal Requirements 9 G. Persons with Project Responsibility 9 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- Pstic 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 henefits 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) -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 S02 NO2 South Coast Air Basin X X X X X San Francisco pay Area Air Basin X 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 *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 180 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" (POP) is prepared to fulfill the requirements of the Office of Planning and Research's state planning coordination process. The POP 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 two�hases__. Phase 1, outlined in this POP, will establish a framework for coord naT— tTon between 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 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. w ' '°`I :• '4 -ASS, 4, i . t �CrtA�Td';`a C vALLijYt • " •d SAGRAMENTO METROPOLIS SAN FRANCISCO STAN I SLAUS - BAY ABEA SAN JOAQU I N•"'--' MONTEREY -3- CALIFORNI A AIR RESOURCES BOARD AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREAS... DESIGNATED BY ARB REVISION 5, STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN r•°14 .� F JOACIV VALLEY „ KERN CO SOUTH COJKSf ' 7 SAN DIEGO .L FRESNO NW.,Tk WE EA SAN ' E. IARWr f / 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. Ob ectives i. 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 o—mittee will include representatives from the Office of Panning and Research, State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Water Resources, Solid Waste, Agriculture, Energy Commission, Coastal Tone Commission, CalTrans, Housing b 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 Councils of Governmentsl cItles, counties, air pollution control districts, coastal zone commissions, citizen groups and other affected/ interested local agencies. The AkB 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 1. 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. k 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. Cit-izen 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 -focal 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 rdinatio h other eral programs SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AQMA' s Riverside— FIGURE I SCHEMATIC OF PHASE I AQMP RELATIONSHIP AND ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AIR RESOURCES BOARD AQMP TASK FORCE �^ ASI N 00T, OWOOCE S SAN FRANCISCO SAN DIE00 SACRAMENTO BAY AREA AIR BASIN METROPOLITATI AQMA AQMA A(ZMk * Dotted lines represent possible links to agencies of State government such as, CalTrans Districts, regiory water quality boards, etc. 1 MNTEREY COUTITY AQ*fA OPR STATE POLICY COMITTEE STATE NICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE * SM JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN AQMA I s • .41 FRESNO COUNTY KERN COUNTY STANISLAUS AQYA AQMA SAN JOAQUIY S COUNTY AQMIA t i -7- b. C. 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. Development of an Initi policy areas to be cons Phase II including: ework - Identification of analysis and adoption in (1) Goals - The long-term goal is to achieve and maintain healthy air as refined 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) Inte ration with Social and Economic Considerations including consideration of energy conservation. Initial analysis of social and economic factors to identify mutually supportive goals oiid policies and areas of conflicting policies. 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. (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 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. $. 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. 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). 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 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 quallty 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 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 I plan to attend the AQMP Policy Task Force formation meeting. June 27 -.'Los Angeles Convention Center, 1201 S. Figueroa, L.A. ORGANIZATION NAIL: City of Newport Beach REPRESENTATIVE: R. V. Hogan Please return this form to: Air Resources Board ; Attn: Dan Lieberman 1709 llth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 STATE OF C�t-ORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY AIR RESOORC 7709-77th STREET SACRAMENTO 95014 June 12, 1975 Donald McInnis, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mayor McInnis: EDMUND G. BROWN 1R., Governor RECEIVED nJ 61975a,. or C4 of ge7vpor. SUBJECT: Formation of South Coast State/Local Policy Task Force for Air Quality Maintenance Planning Federal Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations Sections 51.12, 51.18) require that an air quality maintenance plan be developed in areas where the national air quality standards are not expected to be met in 1977 or maintained in the 10-year period 1975-85. The Air Resources Board plans to form a joint State/local policy task force to develop the first phase of an air quality maintenance plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin and a portion of the Southeast Desert Air Basin (see enclosure) designated as the Riverside -San Bernardino Air Quality Main- tenance Area. We invite you as a representative of your organization to participate in an initial meeting to determine the composition of the task force and consider the resources available to carry out the first phase of the process. The meeting will be held on June 27, 1975 at 9:00 a.m. at the Los Angeles Convention Center, 1201 S. Figueroa, Room 217B. Air pollution is a critical concern of all citizens in Southern California. In the past various air pollution programs have been imposed on local government in a disorderly manner. The AQMP is a chance to bring order out of chaos. Because the AQMP will affect the lives of all people and governmental organizations in the region, local elected officials as well as representatives of environmental, labor, business, minority and health organizations need to participate in developing AQMP policy. With such participation, the South Coast Air Basin can demonstrate the commitment to have healthy air in the long term required by the Clean Air Act and at the same time assure that growth and development can proceed in a manner cor Ar j Page 2 June 12, 1975 We anticipate that the South Coast Air Basin AQMP Policy Task Force will be formed at the meeting on June 27 and initial participants in the process will be identified. ARB staff will provide liaison with the task force as well as work with designated local staff from participating agencies in carrying out program work elements. A plan development program for the process and tentative agenda for this first meeting is attached with this letter. If you need more information, please contact Anne Renner of the ARB staff at (916) 322-6076. Please respond on the attached form if you or a representative plan to attend. I hope you can attend and look forward to seeing you the 27th. Mary Nitho19, gembe Air Resources Board Attachments cc: Congressmen, Legislators City & County Managers & Planning Directors Public Works Directors Air Pollution Control Officers STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1709 - 1Ith STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 _ 1 O co GQero��• June 12, 1975 1 eyG Chair, South Coast Air Basin Coordinating Council G President, Southern California Association of Governments Mayors of all cities in the South Coast Air Basin and in the 1\ A Riverside -San Bernardino Air Quality Maintenance Area �' County Boards of Supervisors in the South Coast Air Basin Community organizations with an interest in air pollution State, Regional, and local agencies whose decisions may impact upon air quality SUBJECT: Formation of South Coast State/Local Policy Task Force for Air Quality Maintenance Planning Federal Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations Sections 51.12, 51.18) require that an air quality maintenance plan be developed in areas where the national air quality standards are not expected to be met in 1977 or maintained in the 10-year period 1975-85. The Air Resources Board plans to form a joint State/local policy task force to develop the first phase of an air quality maintenance plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin and a portion of the Southeast Desert Air Basin (see enclosure) designated as the Riverside -San Bernardino Air Quality Main- tenance Area. We invite you as a representative of your organization to participate in an initial meeting to determine the composition of the task force and consider the resources available to carry out the first phase of the process. The meeting will be held on June 27 1975 at 9:00 a.m. at the Los Angeles Convention Center, 1201 S. Figueroa. Room�2177B. Air pollution is a critical concern of all citizens in Southern California. In the past various air pollution programs have been imposed on local government in a disorderly manner. The AQMP is a chance to bring order out of chaos. Because the AQMP will affect the lives of all people and governmental organizations in the region, local elected officials as well as representatives of environmental, labor, business, minority and health organizations need to participate in developing AQMP policy. With such participation, the South Coast Air Basin can demonstrate the commitment to have healthy air in the long term required by the Clean Air Act and at the same time assure that growth and development can proceed in a manner consistent with economic, social and environmental needs. i J Page 2 June 12, 1975 We anticipate that the South Coast Air Basin AM Policy Task Vorce will be formed at the meeting on June 27 and initial participants in the process will be identified. ARB staff will provide liaison with the task force as well as work with designated local staff from participating agencies in carrying out program work elements. A plan development program for the process and tentative agenda for this first meeting is attached with this letter. if you need more information, please contact Anne Renner of the ARE staff at (916) 322-6076. Please respond on the attached forjL if you or a representative plan to attend. I hope you can attend and 3#k forward to seeing you the 27th. Mary Air Attachments cc: Congressmen, city a count Public Works Air Pollution y Legislators Managers a Planning Directors Directors Control Officers g �JL A ti G14, TENTATIVE AGENDA SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN �a STATE/LOCAL POLICY TASK FORCE FORMATION MEETING NI'k LOS ANGELES CONVENTION CENTER Chair: Mary Nichols, Board Member, Air Resources Board June 27, 1975 9:00 - 9:30 9:30 - 10:30 INTRODUCTION TO PROPOSED AQMP PLANNING PROCESS Air Resources Board Environmental Protection Agency PRESENTATIONS OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 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 IDENTIFICATIO'. OF POLICY TASK FORCE COMPOSITION 4:00 QUESTIONNAIRE ON -`AIR QUALITY MAINTENNE TASK FORCE FORMATI July 7, 1975 /.S POLICY _ Affiltatton/r/4J'x&` Phone Number 11. 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 on 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 jn the air 6 basin Southern California Association of Governments 1 (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 [x] 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 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 Torrance Orange County - Garden Grove and La Habra Riverside County - Palm Springs, Riverside San Bernardino County - Upland Ventura County - Fitlmore, Ojai Suggestions for Public Participation: 0 2. What organizations (name) do you recommar4 to be included as public members category? (Applicable to all options.) 3. The following organizations were recommended for inclusion an a technical advisory committee: Do you have -any additional suggestions? SCAG staff Air Pollution Control Districts staff city and County Planning S Public Works Department staff League of Cities•staff _ CalTrans Air Resources Board Transit District staff University experts in fields of air pollution,,transportatton, economics, planning 4. Please identify a staff person in your organization whom we can contact.as this process proceeds. Address PJAE City tip,2lvlO�' . 5. Comments. 2 Please return this Questionnaire by July 18, 1975 to AQHP Task Force, Air Resources Board, 1709 - llth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. � T J It 1 c rY Duv, -ant � Novs I978F�- a NEWF CITY TYOF H, JOUTHERn CRLIFORRIR CAL[. .9 RJJOCIRTIOn OF GOVERnmERT/ 600 Louth Commo iqlt,t 8venuq,<, 000 • Lor Rn9eler • California • 90005 •213/385-1000 October 31, 197& Dear Public Official and Other Interested Persons: I am pleased to transmit to you one copy of the "Environmental Setting - SCAG Region." This volume provides baseline information regarding the SCAG - region for your use in reviewing the draft environmental impact reports and draft plans for the SCAG-78 Development Guide Growth Forecast, the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan for the South Coast Planning Area, and the Air Quality Management Plan. These plans, and amendments to the Regional Trans- portation Plan also under consideration at this time, address the related issues of air and water_qual:ity, transportation, and development and growth in this region.. The plans have been prepared by SCAG and participating agencies in the region, while the environmental impact reports for these plans have been prepared by consultants. The full draft environmental impact report and plans (or summaries) will be mailed to you or your agency under separate cover. This setting is being mailed separately rather than included as part of each of the environmental documents to save resources and simplify this review process by reducing the amount of paper you receive, since the same setting is applicable to all of the environmental impact reports. Copies of these documents have also been placed in'Regional Depositories. We ask that .you comment on these plans by December 15, 1978. To facilitate this, SCAG will be holding workshops and public hearings during the next two months on the plans and environmental impact reports noted above. These meetings, held in each County, will focus on the plans which are applicable to that County. The remaining workshops will be from November 8 - November 17 and the public hearings are scheduled from December 4 - December 15. A schedule of the times and locations of the meetings are enclosed. We want to hear from you and urge you to participate in the workshops and public hearings. Finally, we think there is a great deal of information in this Setting volume which you will find very useful to your jurisdiction or agency as you prepare environmental impact reports for plans and projects. One of SCAG's functions is to provide information on the overview of the region and we hope that you will use this document either as a source of reference or as part of a "master" environmental impact report. Using the information in this way may reduce costs to your staffs in preparing other environmental impact reports. 76%00-- s We appreciate the time and effort many of you have already spent in the development of these plans and environmental impact reports. We look forward to your continued participation as we complete this step in the process. Sincerely, James Wilson President l AA�_ P) shaping the future of the region: cm c�oo�cionm(NcJ E- gh PUBLIC MEETINGS Workshops All these workshops will discuss the Air Quality Management Plan, 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, SCAG-78 Growth Forecast Policy, Amendments to the Regional Transportation Plan and Environmental Impact Reports. Oct. 30 Nov. 11 Nov. 15 Nov. 17 RIVERSIDE COUNTY: 9:00 - 2:00 p.m., Commons, University of California, Riverside LOS ANGELES COUNTY: 9:00 - 12:00 Noon, Rosemead Community Center, 3936 N. Muskatel, Rosemead SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: 7:00 p.m., Lower College, San Bernardino ORANGE COUNTY: 10:00 - 1:00 p.m., Newport Realtors, 401 N. Newport Blvd., Newport Special Workshops These workshops address the plans as noted: Commons, California State Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of Nov. 8 IMPERIAL COUNTY: 7:00 - 9:00 p.m., Chamber of Commerce, 1100 Main St., E1 Centro (Development Guide & Amendments to the Transportation Plan & EIR) Nov. 14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: 7:30 p.m. Webster School Cafeteria, 3602 Winter Canyon Rd., Malibu (water quality) Nov. 15 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Pasadena Lung Association 7:30 - 9:30 p.m., Faculty Dining Room, Pasadena City College, 1570 E. Colorado, Pasadena (air quality) Nov. 16 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: 7:30 p.m. Wilson High School Multi -Purpose Room, 16455 Wedgeworth Dr., Hacienda Heights (water quality) VENTURA COUNTY: Date and meeting place to be announced. (Development Guide & Amendments to the 'Regional Transportation Plan & EIR) Hearings Unless otherwise indicated, hearings are scheduled from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. for the Air Quality Management Plan and 4-8 p.m. for the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, SCAG-78 Growth Forecast Policy, and Amendments to the Regional Transportation Plan. All hearings include Environmental Impact Reports. Dec. 4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 500 W. Temple St., Los Angeles Dec. 6 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Chambers of the Board of Supervisors, 175 W. 5th St., 2nd Floor (use rear entrance), San Bernardino Dec. 8 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: West Covina City Council Chambers, 1444 Garvey Ave., West Covina Dec. 12 IMPERIAL COUNTY: Chamber of Commerce, 1100 Main Street, E1 Centro (4-8 p.m. only; Development Guide and RTP Amendments) Dec. 13 VENTURA COUNTY: Lower Plaza Assembly Room, County Government Center, 800 S. Victoria, Ventura (3-6 p.m. only; Development Guide and RTP Amendments) Dec. 14 ORANGE COUNTY: Board Hearing Room, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana Dec. 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 14th Floor, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside Forfurther Information on these workshops and hearings, as well as on SCAG's plans, call the SCAG Community Relations Office at (213) 385.1000. 600 !. Commonwealth Rve.,bite 1000, Lo r Rngelex, Co 90005 /auntiRn Caufoitwx wocunonoroovianmtmi ua t ;uoR\. es �QpG V\F 600 VF9 fp r . 0 fC AffOCIAT_ Avenue • fulte 1000 • Lot Angeler • Colirornlo • 90005.213/385-1000 October 30, 1978 Dear Public Officials and other interested persons: The attached report analyzes the environmental impacts of the Draft SCAG-78 Growth Forecast Policy. It was pre- pared for SCAG by the consulting firm of Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall. Copies of the Draft SCAG-78 Growth Forecast Policy were mailed to every city and county planning departments with- in the region, library depositories throughout the region, and to numerous SCAG committee members, special districts, interest groups and individuals. The draft forecast and draft EIR will be the subject of workshops held in November and public hearings in Dec- ember. Final action on the two reports is scheduled to occur at the Executive Committee meeting in January or February, 1979. The Draft SCAG-78 Forecast is'an important part of the Draft 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Plan and Draft Air Quality Management Plan, as well as draft amendments to the Regional Transportation Plan. We urge your review of the the draft forecast and EIR, particulary within the' context of these other draft plans. A portion of already been departments, persons. See the draft EIR`s distributed to libraries, and Preliminary Env alternatives analysis has city and county planning numerous other interested ironmental Assessment of S 1978. There is also a separate Environmental Setting section, which has been distributed to the Mayors and County Supervisors of the region, regional library de- positories, and various SCAG committee members and state and federal agencies. Please respond to SCAG regarding the draft forecast and draft EIR by December 15, 1978, and direct any comments to Dennis Masyczek, Development Guide Program Manager. We appreciate very much your past reviews and recommendations and thank you for your attention to this next step in the coordination of regional and subregional growth forecast policy. Sincerely, y 7, James Wilson President JW:DM:aw , *county of Oran• MEMO TO- City Contact Staff AQMP DEPT/DIST: SUBJECT:nraft Comments AQMP ® F860-124.2 DATE:September 26, 1978 Please find enclosed draft comments for SCAG and SCAQMD on the preliminary draft AQMP. We have developed these draft comments and will be presenting them to the County Coordinating Committee, Thursday, September 28th, at which time weam ` will discuss general comments and concerns. This document is for your revie .y9I RECEIVED Go ., muy Dau„ L.p,nent Rapt. SEt w6 19781�- CITY or NEWpORT BEACHCALIF- 1i i 0 SUPERVISOR. FIRST (DISTRICT PHILIP L. ANTHONY ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P.O. BOX 687, SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 PHONE: 834.3110(AREA CODE 714) RCu �Aiun YD 8 Devclup,nent Dept. SEP 26 1978w- September 26, 1978 C1T T Of NEWPCAUF- TOt Subregional AQMP Committee Members Attached is the B14A staff developed draft comment to SCAG and the SCAQMD on the preliminary draft AQMP. The draft attempts to summarize our collective concerns under the general cate- gories of: 1) effectiveness of local government actions, 2) local government burden, 3) energy conservation and 4) funding. This general concern approach assumes that our individual and specific comments will be conveyed directly to SCAG and the SCAQMD. On Thursday, September 28, we will discuss whether these general comments adequately express our concerns, and we will have the opportunity to add more specificity to our com- mittee response to SCAG and the District. Also enclosed for your use is a set of tabular strategy im- pact worksheets that'have been developed by the CAO's office. These have proven to be very helpful in our county -wide review. May I suggest that you review the staff comments and make notes to identify any differences or changes you would like to make. This will aid us in developing a comprehensive and complete response to the preliminary draft AQMP. Sincerely, Philip L. Anthony Supervisor, First District and Chairman, Orange County AQMP Coordinating Committee PLA:cb DRAFT COMMENT ON THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT AQMP RCommuniy & DoveWPment (Orange County AQMP Coordinating Committee) Dept. SEP u� 1978 L NENP A F'CH, We appreciate the opportunity to comment formally on the preliminary draft AQMP. It is at this early stage of plan formulation that local/subregional needs and concerns can be addressed most responsively. The Orange County AQMP coordinating Committee has been working closely with the regional AQMP staff, and so our ysews on the plan and on the process are known already. We are confident that the AQMP staff is taking account of those views in developing the October draft document. However, we do want to reiterate our comments for the record. la The preliminary analysis indicates that local government actions to control air pollutants generally are ineffective, costly, and potentially disruptive fiscally and socially. Those measures which result in the greatest pollutant reductions,. most cost effectively, tend to be additional technological controls. Reliance on technological controls has the further advantage of spreading costs through the market place instead of further burdening the government taxing structure. The Coordinating Committee supports development of a final AQMP that will be based on cost effectiveness, pollutant reduction potential, and costing efficiency, consistent with general feasibility and acceptability. Local governments are ready and willing to share in the effort to achieve the standards, but measures included in the plan for local implementation must be shown to be necessary and competative effectively with other potential measures. 2) Following from the above, the potential burden of air pollution control to be born at the local level is unclear. Local governments will be affected by the plan in three ways. First, local governments will be required to adopt and implement measures over which they have vested jurisdiction, e.g. H-23, increase Bicycle Facilities. They will also be required to implement measures adopted and imposed by other jurisdictions, e.g. the SCAQMD proposal for cutback asphalt.processes. And finally, local governments will be impacted by any changes in the business and industrial base that may occur through implementation of the plan. More adequate recognition and analysis of this three -fold impact is necessary for informed local judgements of the plan. 1 Page -2- It is also unclear to what extent measures requiring state and federal action, and those which rely on some form of voluntary compliance, will be accept- able for the SIP. The Coordinating Committee strongly supports the inclusion of such measures, specifically H-18, Inspection and I Maintenanee of Light Duty Venicles (full annual); H-24, Improved Technological Controls for On -Road Vehicles; H-16 Modify Jet Aircraft Engines: 1978 Standards; and H-13, Voluntary Trip Reduction. These four measures, which are better than average in terms of cost effectiveness produce an aggregate HC reduction of 162 tons/day; more than half the HC reductions shown by the preliminary analysisas being needed to achieve federal standards by 1987. Failure to include any of these measures in the final SIP will require substitution of many less cost effective, much less productive measures, such as can be implemented by local governments, to attain the standards. The AQMP must make clear to ARB and EPA that this region supports the actions necessary at their level of jurisdiction, and that we have both programs and commit- ments to back the voluntary measures in the plan. 3) Energy conservation mcanures in the plan will be evaluated in cooperation with the Orange County Pner-v Cnnnittee. ti�.•Yeve_r, two comments are in orc?er at this point. First, estimates of cost savings, although technically correct in an -anivalized sense, do not reflect the initial capital . to realize the long term cost savings, and second, it is not clear that local governments have the authority to alter building codes for purposes of energy conservation/air quality improvement. Health and Safety Code Section 17958 requires that the governing body of every city or county adopt building ordinances and requirements that are the same as those adopted by the State Commission of Housing and Community Development (pursuant to Code Section 17922). The purpose of Section. 17922 is to achieve uniformity of building codes throughout the state, since uniformity would reduce housing costs and encourage efficiency of the housing construction industry. According to the legislature, this uniformity however, can be achieved within a framework of local autonomy. Local governments are allowed to modify local codes to some extent, based on differences in local conditions. A July 1977 advisory opinion of the State Attorney General held, however, that "local conditions" refers I to topography and geography, and does not include political, social, or economic phenomena. State and local officials have differing opinions as to whether a county or city imposing stricter • Page -3- building standards than state law for energy conservation purposes is in conflict with the State Housing Act. Therefore, inasmuch as a question of legal authority does exist, it would seem more appropriate to elicit state action in altering building codes. 4) Funding for the plan has been discussed inadequately in the preliminary draft. This is an especially critical deficiency from the standpoint of local governments. The soector of Proposition 13 notwithstanding, local governments increasingly are being constrained to providing only basic levels of goods and services. Local governments do not have the resources, or the taxing potential, to finance air pollution control. Measures included for local adoption mutt be backed by some external source of implementation funds. For example, two local government measures to control hydrocarbons seem generally to be acceptable; H-23, increase Bicycle Facilities; and H-35, Automatic Traffic Control. The measures carry a combined annualized cost of $15 million which clearly is beyond the fiscal capability of local governments Inclusion of these measures in the plan must be contengent upon availability of state and federal transportation monies, perhaps in the form of a more equitable return of gas tax revenues generated from this region. Overall, the SCAQt•v and SCAG AQMP staffs have done a commendable job in the face of inordinant technical difficulties and unrealistic time deadlines. However, the preliminary document now gives us a starting point from which to develop a reasonable and appropriate plan for this region. Be assured the Orange County AQMP Coordinating Committee will follow closely that development. 6 0 Description of AQMP Strategy Impact Worksheet September 26, 1978 RECEIVa) t_p,pniunity \' p„,ciooment Oapt. SEp 9.61978P' CITY OF NEWPOAUF5AQHR I The worksheet is divided into eight major columns. The first three columns, the control number, the measure and the emission reductions in ton/year, are the same as those provided for in the Draft Air Quality Management Plan. The fourth column, Local Government Impact, is intended to identify those measures which impact local government directly e.g., you will have to put scrubbers on your boilers, or those which, if adopted, will result in the loss of some local authority. The indirect column is intended to identify those strategies which may impact industries within your respective community The Implementing Agency Column identifies the agency that will have to adopt implementing rules and regulations. It is not intended to identify those agencies that will have to take actions as a result of those rules. The Acceptability Column is intended to establish your assessment or judge- ment as to whether a particular measure should be included in the plan. The Implementation Column indicates whether the measure can be implemented before or after 1982. The comments in the last column are those of staff and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Board of Supervisors or its members. AQMP STRATEGY IMPACT I-JORKSHEET No CONTROL EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOW T IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- IMPLE- COMMENTS MEASURE IMPACT* ABILITY MENTATION *** HC NOx CO sox PART D I (NONE FED STATE DIST LOCAL OTHER < 32 $2 Nontechnological 1 I New Source offsei 5300 3500 3000 2200 Program - Revision #1 (1987) 10600 7000 6000 4400 2 New Source Offse Program - Rev. j #2 3 Seasonal Indus- 10% Ei iss ioi s redt ction during X trial Curtailmen criti al season, from 1 bor in- 1 X i tensi e ind strie . No added costs above normal infl tion. 4 Permits Condit- Undet rmine pendi ng SPE cific X 1 ioned upon Loca- case tudie . X tion i . 5 Permits Condi-• Undetfrminec pend ng sp cific X 1 X tioned on Time case tudie . of Day of Emissions 6 Permit Condi- Undet(rminec pending fu ther X 1 X tioned Upon study. Meteorological Forecasts *•D Direct Impact ** Private Sector *** 0 I - Indirect Impact e finitely not A4,+iP STRATEGY IMPACT WORKSHEET No CONTROL EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOJ'T IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- IMPLE- COMMENTS MEASURE IMPACT* ABILITY MENTATION ** HC NOx CO Sox PART D I NONE FED STAT DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 > 82 Nontechnological� i (cont`d.) 7 Indirect Source Undet rmine pend.ng ext ensive X 'X 0 1 7. District should stay out of Controls studi s and discussion cf issues land use. in ma y div rse f'rums Irior to devel ping onsen us. 1 8 Indirect Source Undet rmine pond ng specific X X 2 X Review for Fed— case i tudie . eral Facilities 9 BACT for all Undet rmine . X X 3 X j Sources 10 Vehicle Repair Undet rmine X X 1 X 10. It would take a lot of manhours I As An Emissions to provide such a service, and Offset it would therefore cost a lot of money. i * D = Direct Impact I = Indirect Impact ** Private Sector *** 0 = Definitely not 1 = Probably not 9 = Drn iF l.. '++ { n n n i AQMP STRATEGY IMPACT WORKSHEET - No CONTROL EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOW T IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- IMPLE- COMMENTS MEASURE IMPACT* ABILITY MENTATION *** RC vox CO sox PART D I NONE FEDISTAT - DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 > 82 Sulphur Dioxide. (cont`d.) 9 Petroleum Coke 800 X X X f I Calcining - 90% Red. 0 Electric: Power 13800 X X I 1 X Generating Equip- i ment - 88% Red. i * D = Direct Impact ** Private Sector *** 0 = Definitely not I = Indirect Impact 1 = Probably not AQMP STRATEGY IMPACT WORKSHEET r, l No CONTROL EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOV'T IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- IMPLE- COMMENTS MEASURE IMPACT* ABILITY MENTATION AC NOx CO sox PART D I NONE FED STAR DIST LOCAL ** OTHER < 82 ) 82 Sulphur Dioxide 1 Petroleum Coke 6500 X X X Calcinating - 80% Reduction 2 Iron Ore Sinter- 2810 X X X ing Operations - 70% Reduction " 3 Fluid Catalytic 13100 X X X Cracking - 80% Reduction 4 Refinery Fuel 1710 X X X Burning Sources 5 Sulfur Content 12000 X X X of Diesel Fuel 6 Electric Power 29565 X X 3 X Generating Equip ment - 60% Red. 7 Iron Ore Sinter- 400 X X X ing Operations - 90% Reduction 8 Fluid Catalytic 3280 X. X X Cracking - 90% Reduction u = uirecz impact -I = Indirect Impact ** Private Sector Definitely not Probably not Probably,an attainment measure No CONTROL MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOV`T IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- ABILITY *** IMPLE- MENTATION COMMENTS ** xC NOx Co sox PART D I NONE FED STATE DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 82 ' Particulates 1 Cooling Towers 100.0 x X 2 X 1 2 Fugitive Dust 7500 X X 0 2. Measure is to vequa.VO.Wc,ka. 3 Pharmaceutical 100 X X 2 X Manufacturing 4 Rubber Products 1000 X X 2 X Manufacturing 5 Paint Manufactg. 50 X X 1 X 5. Doubtful measure in that it repre- sents only 50 tons/year at $4,000/ 6 woodworking 30 X X 1 X ton. Operations 6. Doubtful measure in that it repre- sents only 3 tons/year at $6,000/ 7 Solid waste- 360 X X 2 X ton. Handling 8 I Fine Particulate. i 360 x x 2 x * D = Direct impact 'I = Indirect Impact ** Private Sector *** 0 = Definitely not 1 = Probably not 2 = Probably an attainment measure 3 = Definately an attainment measu AQMP STRATEGY IMPACT WORKSHEET No CONTROL EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOV'T IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- IMPLE- COMMENTS MEASURE IMPACT * ABILITY MENTATION *** HC NOx CO Sox PART D I NONE FED STAT DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 > 82 Oxides of Nitrogen 1 Energy Conser- 310• 4470 3040 760 X X X 2. X vation: Commer- cial, Institu- tional, & Indus. Audit Prog. (1987) 730 5180 1430 -1800 1 2 Energy Conserv. 340 4420 3310 860 X X 2. This would.require public partici- Residential pation at a level for above any - Retrofit Prog, thing we have experienced to date. E(1987) 540 2090 1060 1330 3 Energy Conserva- 100 900 960 210 X X X 2 X tion: Solar [,rater Heater Re- trofit Prog. (1987). 100 120 190 210 4 Energy Conserva- 10. 91. 96. 21.3 X X X 2 X • tion: Street Lighting (1987) 6.6 8. 12. 14. 5 Residential 3600 X X 2 X. Heaters 6 New Water 2520 X X 2 X Heaters i * D = Direct Impact ** Private Sector *** 0 = Definitely not I = Indirect =mpact 1 = Probably not 2 = Probably an attainment measure No CONTROL MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOV'T IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- ABILITY IMPLE- MENTATION COMMENTS HC NOx CO SOx pART D I NONE FED STAT DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 > 82 Oxides of Nitrogen (cont'd.) 7 Cement Kilns 33C X X 2 X •Med. & Sm. Steam 150000 X X 2 X Generators 9 Gas Turbines '140 X X 2 X ` 10 Industrial 18000 X X 2 X Boilers 11 Refinery 18000 X X 2 X 'seaters 12 Railroad Diesel 2040 X X X 2 X Engines '13 Marine Diesel 1222 X X X 2 X Engine Glass Melting 1080 X X 2 X (Furnaces 15 Energy Conserva— 140 1 X X X- 2 X (tion: Solar [dater Heater Pro . (New Residences) (1987) 500 3 * D = Direct Impact 1 = Indirect Impact ** Private Sector *** 0 = Definitely not 1 = Probably not 2 = Probably an attainment measure 3 = Definately an attainment measure AQMP STRATEGY IMPACT WORKSHEET_ No CONTROL MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOVIT IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- AGILITY *** IMPLE- MENTATION . COMMENTS ** HC NOx CO ' Sox PART D I NONE FED STAT DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 ' > 82 Oxides of Nitrogen (cont'd.) 16 Stationary 400 X X 2 X Gasoline Engine i Energy Conserva- tion, Marg. Cost ` I i i Program i * D = Direct impact ** Private Sector *** 0 = Definitely not i = indirect impact 1 = Probably not ) — nw i,_, i.. n.. .,i-'F'1'I+M'prti' *nocurA AQMP STRATEGY IMPACT WORKSHEET No CONTROL EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOW T IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- IMPLE- COMMENTS MEASURE IMPACT* ABILITY MENTATION I *** HC NOx Co sox PART D I NONE FED STATE DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 > 82 Hydrocarbon Control Measures 1 Inc. Air (1987) 840 548 1600 X X 1 X This is riot a mandated program. Passeng. Load Fc r. 21 Jet Aircr- Gr. 3650 10400 X X 1 X This is not a mandated program. Taxi Operation . Triple Trailer 2184 4524 24960 X X 2 X Trucking (1987) 1903 4243 22308 t 4 Mod. Work Sch. 1750 1170 1460C X X 1 X We can all agree to do this but I doubt that we will be willing to 5 Parking Mgmt: 110 130 875 15 22.5 X X X 2 % do more than we are. This is a Carpool Pref. , "soft" measure. Parking (1987) 6 Modify New Gen. 2849 35624 X X X 2 X Aviation Aircr. Engines 7 Emission Stand. 1500 9700 26300 X X X 3 X for All Non -Farm Hvy-Duty'Off-Roa • Vehicles 8 Retrofit Gas. 1314 29600 X X. X 2 X Powered Non -Farm Off -Read Heavy Duty Vehicles 9 ILeaky Process X X 2 X This would be hard to enforce. Systems, No n= * D-= Direct impact ** Private Sector *** 0 = Definitely not 1 = indirect impact 1 = Probably not 2 = Probably_an attainment measure No i CONTROL MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOW T IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- ABILITY *** IMPLE- MENTATION COMMENTS HC Nox Co Sox PART D I NONE FED STATE DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 > 82 Hydrocarbon ' (cont'd.) 10. Tow Jet Aircraft 4490 5800 X X X X 2 X Electrify Rail 2008 8067 2628 1387 475 X X X 1 X 11. Unless the industry can get fed - Yards eral funding or we limit this !1' measure to new yards only, I 2 Fuel Transfer At 183 X X 2 X don't see much hope for this. Airports Further, I don't know if this is a net reduction in that the power 13 Voluntary Trip 4025 4675 31775 X X 2 X plants will be required to gener- Reduction Prog. ate additional power. 14� Wood Flatstock 13. I doubt this would have much I Coatings impact. 15 Emission Stand. 539 218 5616 X X 2 X for Farm Equip. (Gas & Diesel) Modify Jet Airc .14748 360 23202 ' X X 2 X Eng. to meet '7 Fed. Reg. Stand. 17 Exhaust Emiss. 548 219 X X 2 X L7. lie can'expect strong opposition Cont. for Exist. from the industry. Farm Tractors - Gasoline Powere * D = Direct Impact I = Indirect Impact ** Private Sector *** 0 1 2 3 Definitely not Probably not Probably an attainment measure Definately an attainment measure AQMP STRATEGY IMPACT WORKSHEET No CONTROL MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOV'T IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- ABILITY IMPLE- MENTATION COMMENTS ** xC NOx CO Sox PART D I NONE FED STAT DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 > 82 Hydrocarbons (cont'd.) 18 Inspect. & Maint.27412 17301244696 X X 3 X 18. The only issue here is - should Light -Duty Veh. it be a centralized or de- (1987) 25660 26682 00385 centralized system? � Relief Valves 400 X X 2 X 20 Metal Furniture 150 Coatings i 21 Fabric & Paper 20 X X 2 X 21. A doubtful reasure in that it Prod. Coatings represents only 20 tons/year. 22 Emission Cont. I 4708 471 41827 .1 10.3 x X 2 X for New Utility Equipment 23 Inc. Bicycle 1825 1478 19710 X X 1 X 23. Beacause of Prop. 13, most local Facilities government may have a problem with this one. Imp. Tech. Cont. 23700 23000 47500 X X 2 X for On -Road Veh. 25 tliminate•Aircr. 694 171 X X 2 X Delays 26 Machinery Maint. 25 X X 2 X Z6. A doubtful reasure in that it represents only 25 tons/year. * b = Direct Impact Private Sector • *x* 0 = Definitely not I = Indirect impact 1 = Probably not • 9 = D—hahly z^ t-Ylinrr-nt mgcacurP Hlti ,Y Jl AA ttu, iPGnt„ r.yrthJncrI No CONTROL MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOV'T IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- ABILITY IMPLE- MENTATION COMMENTS HC NOx CO sox PART D I NONE FED STAT DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 > 82 Hydrocarbons (cont'd.) 27 Pedestrian 876 164 1679 X X 0 27. There are limited funds. Why Facilities should we allow these funds to (1987) 621 146 1204 be spent like this in L.A. when all of the other counties no 28 Marine Coatings 1170 X X 2 X doubt could use the funds on other projects with better re- 29 Casoline Bulk 5000 X X 2 X sults? Plants 30 Refinery Fugitiva 3700 X X 2 I Emissions 31 Magnetic Wire 300 X X 2 X Coating 32 Metal Products 25 X X 2 X 32. A doubtful measure in that it Coatings represents only 20 tons/year. 3 Machinery 20 X X 2 X 3. A doubtful measure in that it Coatings represents only 20 tons/year. 34 Expanded Employe 2425 2825 19175 350 475 X X X 2 X Carpool Program 35 Automatic Traffi 474. 511 4380 X' X X 2 X 35. Once again funding may be a Signal Cont. Sys problem. * D = Direct Impact ** Private Sector .I = Indirect Impact Definitely not Probably not Probably an attainment measure Definately an attainment measure AQMP STRATEGY IMPACT WORKSHEET No CONTROL MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOW T IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- ABILITY *** IMPLE- MENTATION COMMENTS ** HC NOx CO sox PART D I NONE FED STAT I DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 > 82 Hydrocarbons (cont'd.) 36 Early Retirement 490. 423. 4140. X X 2 X 36. Some parts of this recommenda- of Older Cars tion should be looked at. I (1987) 360. 374. 3044. 7 Automobile 361. 260. 3475. X X 2 X � Coatings ' (1987) 189.9 f35. 1912 38 Reduce Aux. Powr 43. 2 235 834. X X X .1 X Units (APU) Usage for Jet Air crafts 39 Metal Coil Stock 750 X X 2 X Coatings 40 Adhesive Manuf'g 222 X X 2 X 41 Reduced Transit 1730. 2007. 13687. 248.2 339,.5 X X 0 41. This should not be included un- Fares less Fed's are willing to provi,'. additional funds. 42 Metal Cleaning 1430 X X 2 X 43 Printing Opera- 10000 X X 2 X tions 44 Cutback Asphalt 3500 X X 2 X *'D = Direct impact I = indirect impact ** Private Sector *** 0 = Definitely not 1 = Probably not 2 = Probably.an attainment measure No CONTROL MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOW T IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- ABILITY *** IMPLE- MENTATION COMMENTS ** HC Nox Co sox PART D I NONE FED STAT DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 ) 82 Hydrocarbons (cont'd.) 45 Furniture 700 X X 2 X Coatings 6 Chemical Mfg. 700 X X 2 X 47 Paint Mfg. 360 X X 0 i7. The district has just held hearings on this matter and has 48 Rubber Products 300 X X 2* X adopted what it feels to be Mfg. reasonable rules. 49 Appliance 100 X X 2 X f i Coatings 50 Natural Gas & 10*0 X X X X Oil Production 51 Ink Man{i£actur'g 44 X X 2 X 1. A doubtful measure in that it represents only 44 tons/year. 2 Industrial 36 X X 1 X 2. A doubtful "catch-all" measure Coatings that represents only 36• tons/year. 53 Vegetable Oil 10 X X 1 X 3. A doubtful measure in that it rep - Processing resents only 10 tons/year and costs $6,000/ton. 54 l Automobile Re-- 4000 X X 2 X finishing L55 Ship Lightering 700 X X X X 2 X * D = Direct Impact •I = Indirect Impact ** Private Sector *** 0 1 2 3 = Definitely not = Probably not = Probably an attainment measure = Definately an attainment measure n.tu No CONTROL MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOV'T IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- ABILITY IMPLE- MENTATION COMMENTS HC NOx CO sox PART D I NONE FED STATq DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 > 82 Hydrocarbon (cont'd.) Oil Tank 350 X X 2 X Cleaning I S�7 Pharmaceutical 30 X. X 1 57. A doubtful measure in that it Manufacturing represents 30 tons/year at $6000/ton. 58 Auto -Free Zones 354 412.4 810.5 5L 69.4 X X 0 58. There is nothing wrong in looking into this but, we should not ' 59 Basic Wood 100 X X 2 X commit ourselves to actually Furniture doing it. Coatings 60 Electric veh. 8578 913. 70100 r X X 2 X 61 Solid Waste 36 X X 0 61. A bad measure in that it repre- Handling sents only 36 tons/year at " $10,000/ton. 62 Marine Operation 700 X X X X. 2 X 1 Expanded Transit 1095 1314 8800 160 219 X X 0 63. Unless Feds have indicated there Level of Service are substantial funds coming "down the pike." 64 Apply On -Road 343 7.3 584 X X 2' Motorcycle Emsn. Stand. to Off - Road Motorcycles D = Direct Impact' ** Private Sector. I = indirect Impact 0 _ 2= 3= Definitely not - Probably not Probably an attainment measure Definately an attainment measure No CONTROL MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOW T IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- ABILITY IMPLE- MENTATION COMMENTS ** HC xox Co sox PART D I NONE FED STATE DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 > 82 Hydrocarbon (cont'd.) 65 Aerospace 100 X X 1 X 65. High cost/ton -- $40,000/ton. Coatings 66 jTax Bunker Fuels --- X X 1 j 67 Parking Mgmt. 1550 1825 12325 225 300' X X X 1 Inc. Parking Sur -Charge , 68 (Congestion 505 575 4000 X X 1 (Pricing !` 69 i Automobile 5% 182, 215 1460 0 �36.5 X X 1 j Operating Cost Inc. (Gas Tax) ! 70 Parking Mgmt.: 27. 32 220 X X X 1 Reduced Parking Cost for Car- ols 71 lIpnc. Use of Rail 460 365 1100 X X X X X 0 71. This is a dream. jAir, & Bus for Intercity Travel 72 Inc. Truck Avg. 1965.6 4056 22464 X X X 1 72. This would require too much Loads government control. *-D = Direct impact . ** Private Sector *** 0 = Definitely not 1 = indirect 1-mPact 1 = Probably not 2 = Probably an'attainment measure -{•to imm�n+ man VirP AQMP STRATEGY IMPACT WORKSHEET No CONTROL MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOW T IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- ABILITY • IMPLE- MENTATION COMMENTS ** HC NOx CO SOx PART D I NONE FED STAT DIST LOCAL OTHER < 82 ) 82 Hydrocarbon (cont'd.) 73 Inc. Truck 958 1984.7 1095 X X 1 Trailer Piggy- X 73.-This is a voluntary program which •, Backing on Rail government cannot mandate and . therefore should not be included 74 Eliminate On- — -- -- __ __ X X 0 in th plan. Street Parking 75 Motor Fuel -- -- -- X X 2 X Blended with Methanol and Ethanol ' 76 Paratransit -- -- -- X X 1 X 77 Expand Capacity 2628 4709 29200 X X X 1 X 77. For fuiure highways only. & Improve Flow on Highway Net- work 8 Incorporate Non- -- -- -- X X 1 X 78. Local government may want to• Residential Uses look at this but it should not into Residential be in the plan. Areas 79 Employers Ride- -- -- -- share Program X X 2 X 80 Emissions Tax -- -- -- X X 2 R * D = Direct Imoact 1 = indirect impact . ** Private Sector. *** 0 1 2 3 = Definitely not Probably not = Probably an attainment measure No CONTROL . MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS/YR) LOCAL GOV'T IMPACT* IMPLEMENTING AGENCY ACCEPT- ABILITY *** IMPLE- MENTATION COMMENTS HC NOx CO sox PART D I NONE FED STATE DIST LOCAL OTHER < 32 > 82 Hydrocarbon (cont'd.) 81 18 Year Old 8091 4796 50005 X X 0 81. Dream world. Licenses Home Goods -- -- -- X X 0 .82. Government would not want to ' Delivery mandate such a measure and there fore it should not be in the planI 83 Coordinate Tankr -- -- — X X X 1 X 83. Without Coast Guard willingness Arrivals at LA/ to put such a program this Long Beach Harbo cs, measure should not be in the ply 84 ' Pipeline Freight -- -- -- X X X 2 X Transport I * D = Direct Imoact I = Indirect Impact ** Private Sector *** 0 = Definitely not 1 = Probably not 2 = Probably an attainment measure mounty of Orange MUD ® F850.123.1 •ko DATE: Aepmber 22 1978 TO- City —Contact Staff DEPT/DIST: AQMP FROM R. Bilbey rt�;7 SUBJECT: Data Changes in Draft AQMP It is important that you are aware of a number of significant changes that have recently•occurred in the draft AQMP which you are presently reviewing. The impact of some of these changes will be considerable, as it would appear that the present list of preferred strategies may now not be enough for the region to meet the standards on schedule. Specifically the changes noted here occur in Chapter 9 of AQMP "Control Strategies." p. IX-8, Hydrocarbon Control Measure #H-1 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is changed from 2.3 to 0.3 p. IX-8, H-10 Strategy is removed from consideration � ._ p. IX-8, H-12 �o Strategy is removed from consideration P. IX-8, H-14 Q-oeo"p'' Strategy is a current SCAQMD•rule 0, p. Ix-lo, x-17 \c, Strategy is removed from consideration p. IX-10, H-19 ro Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 1.2 to 0.2 p. IX-10, H-20 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is increased from 0.6 to 8.8 p. IX-10, H-21 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is increased from 0.1 to 9.0 p. IX-10, H-23 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 5.0 to 3.5 p. IX-10, H-24 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 65.0 td 35.0 p. IX-12, H-27 Strategy is removed from consideration p. IX-12, H-29 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is decreased from 19.2 to 1.4 p. IX-12, H-33 Strategy removed from consideration City -Contact Staff Data Changes in Draft AQMP Page 2 p. IX-12, H-34 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is -reduced from 9.7 to 6.8 p. IX-12, H-35 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 1.3 to 0.9 p. IX-12, H-36 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced -from 9.6 to 2.7 p. IX-12, H-37 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced,from 15.0 to 6.1 p. IX-12, H-38 Strategy is removed from consideration p. IX-14, H-43 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 32.1 to 15.1 PO IX-14; H-44 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 13.5 to 7.1 p. IX-14, H-55 Strategy removed from consideration p. IX-16, H-61 Strategy removed from consideration p. IX-16, H-63 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is decreased from 3.0 to 2.6 p. IX-18, H-74 Strategy removed from consideration p. IX-18, H-75 Strategy removed from consideration p. IX-18, H-79 Strategy removed from consideration These changes also should be made in Table 11, Hydrocarbon Control Measures (Listed in Order of Tons/Day Reduction) p. IX-22, 23. RB:ac MEMBER CITIES ANAHEIM BREA BUENA PARK COSTA MESA CYPRESS FOUNTAIN VALLEY FULLERTON GARDEN GROVE HUNTINGTON 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 YORBA LINDA • • Orange Count Division � Y LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 811NORTH BRPADWAY,SUITE 614,SANTAAt i,CALIFORNIA 92701 (714)836.4501 September 20, 1978 TO: Members of the OC Division AQMP Task Force FROM: Bob Haskell, Executive Director RE: SCAG's Answers to Orange County Division's AQMP.Questions Enclosed is a copy of SCAG's answers to our questions regarding the Preliminary Draft AQMP. These should be very helpful in reviewing and commenting on the draft. As you will notice, they are calling these "draft responses." We should be grateful they didn't �eging with an "embryonic preliminary rough draft response."! / RECEIVED Corr. ... unrty Dev:.lopment Dept. SEP 21 1978 M- CITY OF \ NEWPORT BEACH, t Cb �/ CEIVED M E M 0 R A N D U M — — — — — — — — — — DBygoPt. . SEP � �• 1918°' ciT T BEADH, TO: Mark Pisano and Jeb Stuart NEWPCA1iF 'U c� FROM: David Di Julio DATE: September 15, 1978 SUBJECT: Draft response to -questions -from Orange County --Division, League of California Cities on AQMP. The following are the League Division's questions followed by the staff's proposed.answers. Q-1. What is meant by city approval of AQMP Draft between October 15 and December 15? A-1. Approval of the AQMP means the following: a. The general concept of the AQMP is acceptable to the juris- diction and the plan should be submitted to the State and Federal governments. b. The jurisdiction supports the measures recommended in the Draft or substitutes other measures for adoption by the Executive Boommittee and the South Coast Air Quality Manage- mentc. The jurisdiction agrees that the growth forecasts to be mitigated by the AQMP are those contained in the SCAG Development Ggide. d. Tho juri;.dict"101i .ir agroo-Inq to support si;ato and fodoral implementation of the measures identified in the plan for implementation at those levels through the appropriate channels. e. The jurisdiction is agreeing to develop a schedule for adopting the plan. What is meant by city adoption of AQMP Draft and what does this commit a city to? A-2. Though most of the AQMP measures do not require local government implementation•, adoption of the AQMP means the jurisdiction agrees to: a. Implement local government tactics adopted by SCAG and a RAFT the District, or equivalent measures from the subregional plan, and b. develop and submit a schedule for accomplishing (a) above. Q-3. What happens if a city takes no action at all with regard to approval or adoption? A-3. The response (positive, negative, or no action) of all juris- dictions will be recorded for the consideration by SCAG and the District, and will be transmitted as part of the plan. The SCAG Executive Committee and the'District Board are required by State and Federal law to adopt a plan based on the actions of local governments. Q-4. What happens if a city does not move toward implementation? A-4. If the AQMP is not':being implemented it must be revised to include sufficient reduction measures or the sanctions on federal funds for transportation, housing and sewage treatment plants will be invoked by the Federal Government. The Clean Air Act allows citizens suits in federal court to require the EPA to en- force the provisions of the Clean Air Act including the sanctions. of the plan is that sanctions should only apply to the juris- dictions or level of government which is not implementing the plan. It is hoped the State and Federal Governments will approve this policy: Q-5.. What happens if a county, all cities in the county, or the entire region does not move to implement? A-5. Same as above, but no one has developed a clear policy on sanctions. Q-6. How does a city implement the plan? What elements of the plan will the city be asked to implement? Will they be able to choose what they want to Implement? Will they be told What 111NIM rQ:I I:o 'Iwplr lvI10 A-6. A city can implement the plan through adoption of ordinances, policy commitments, or other means' which accomplish the tactics for implementation by local government in the plan, or equivalent tactics. The adopted AQMP will define which, if any, tactics should be implemented by local governments and will define an emission reduction target for such measures. The local governments are participating through the subregional planning process in the selection of the most reasonable measures for the AQMP. The option of adoption of tactics which provide an equivalent reduction for each jurisdiction is available. Local governments can also implement through supporting the District's adoption of regulations consistent with the AQMP. A policy DRAFT Q-7. Will cities be,.bound by the Orange County subregional plan (even though they have not approved it) if they approve the AQMP? A-7. Cities will be bound by the subregional plan to the extent that the tactics are adopted through the regional AQMP as approved by local governments. Q-8. Who will monitor compliance, report non-compliance, and recommend sanctions? A-8. The AQMP process is required under federal law to make annual reports on reasonable further progress. Only EPA or the courts can impose the sanctions if reasonable progress is not being made. Q-9. Will there be an emissions reduction goal for each jurisdiction or a set amount of pollution that each county and/or cities will have to reduce? A-9. We are not planning to develop overall reduction goals for each jurisdiction in this years AQMP. After the most cost-effective least -impact set of measures are approved the tactics reduction goals will be grouped by implementing agency. It is proposed that the few local government tactics (not including implementation through SCAQMD) will be summed and each jurisdiction will be asked to adopt the recommended implementing ordinance, or equiva- lent measures. There are technical and policy questions still to be resolved in the determination of equivalency. Q-10.• How and when will cities know what their overall pollution con- tribution is currently? A-10. The current inventory of emissions is complete for 6,000 small (5 km 5 km) grids through the region. As the computer programs are completed county totals, RSA and then city totals will be available. Due to the sizesan d shapes of cities, it is not likely that city totals will be available before January 1, 1979, In nddiLion, AQMP gl:nfr rnut•luu, 1:1at ril•,y tul.n'Is uln,y ho 11d,- IeaaIIIIg, Ion' dxaug1la, Wu o'11.y or hnl1hrfillk wllI 1110ode em1NIo a from the Ilollywood-Burbank airport which serves people through- out a much larger area than the Burbank city limits. The same concept is true for Fontana and steel making emissions, El Segundo and oil refining, and for any city which has a freeway passing through it. The AQMP has focused on regional totals of emissions first because we all share in causing air pollution emissions in the region. Q-11, What is AQMP's connection.with other programs such as the 208 Planning program, the Regional Transportation Plan, and the Housing Allocations? • D R A 44t r IJ. A-11. The Development Guide forecasts are the dommon basis for all the;. otherprograms. The regional transportation plan amendments are being done in,conjunction with the AQMP. The sewage treatment plant impacts on.air quality will'be mitigated by the AQMP. The housing program is consistent with the Development Guide. Q-12. Why will if benefit cities to comment on the AQMP Draft by October 1978?. Arl2. Before October 2, 1978, we will still be in the process'of.devel.oping the draft plan and changes can 'be readily incorportated and pre- sented as part of the draft plan. Comments and recommended changes will be received by the Execitive Committee and the District Board'until adoption on January 31, 1978. Q-13. If cities choose to comment further after October 2, where will' be the best opportunities for input? A-13. Comments can be made through workshops, public hearings, the CEQ process and through contact with your representatives on, the subregional coordinating committee, the SCAG committees or District Board. Q-14. Who will pay for the measures that cities will have to implement (especially in light of Prop. 13)? Are there special State or ' Federal funds set aside to assist in compliance? A-14. There are few measures which have been identified for direct city implementation. Much of those identified are energy savings measures which should pay for themselves. In Chapter XIII of the Draft we will describe the sources which have been identified. If measures do require local expenditures, SCAG will work with local government to secure State and Federal funding, 0-15. Is SCAG working to secure such compliance assistance funds? A-15 SCAG and the District are investigating all possible resources to implement the plan and Chapter XIII will address this issue. For example, return of a larger portion of our gas tax to Southern California and use of loans from the California Pollution Control Financing Authority'are being investigated. Q-16 What are the total realms of possible sanctions for refusal to comply? A-16 ' The mandates of the Clean Air Act are described in Chapter II of the plan. A liberal reading of the act, such as might result from a citizens suit, could require that all federal funds to the region . be curtailed. It is likely that highway and sewage treatment plant funds would not be available if the AQMP is not approved or implemented, 4 • :•� DK.AFT Q-17 What will this plan cost the SCAG region? How much will the region benefit? A-17 The costs of developing_ this plan are.being borne by State and Federal funds. The costs of implementing the plan will depend on the tactics, which are chosen by the process. The most cost effective set of measures will cost $325 million to implement. Staff has estimated that the implementation costs will range from $300 to $500 million. The plan calculates that air pollution damages costs the region a minimum of 1.4-2.0 billion dollars a year. By implementing the plan and cleaning up the air pollution we could save approximately one billion dollars a year and assure that more than one billion dollars in federal funds will continue to flow to the region. Q-18 What must be accomplished in order to qualify for an extension to 1987 for compliance? A-18 The precise requirements and our responses are recorded in Chapter XI of the plan. In short, the requirements include the following: a. an industrial siting program (it is proposed to be completed in conjunction with the District's new sources premit process), b. establishment of a specific schedule for an annual inspection maintenance program for cars, c. identification of other measures necessary to,attain standards by December 31, 1987. d. a commitment to use all available Federal, State or Local funds to meet basic transportation needs, of the region, and e. a commitment to accelerate the implementation of transportation improvements. Q-19 How does our plan and process compare with efforts currently underway, in other areas of the country? A-19 About 106 urban areas of the country - Los Angeles is considered to have the most serious problem - must produce a similar plan by January 1979. Since we have the most severe air.quality problem, and a complex region, our plan is more comprehensive and difficult than any other plan. Notwithstanding the problems, the proposed plan will be reasonable and defensible. Where requirements can not be met the plan will provide a defensible explanation of what can be done. The plan does, however, show that achieving clean air is a possibility for this region. w • �, D R A (..1 Q-20 How does our Orange County subregional plan compare with that'`of ' other counties in our region? A-20 All the subregional plans are compared in Chapter 10 of the plan and in Table X of the.Sumnary. 'In general,'the plans are similar while respecting subregional differences. The Orange County Plan does not contain their recommendations in energy conservation because they are presently developing an energy plan. ...We understand that it will be added ini;the future. Q-21 Is Orange County going to be.foreed,,to.pay for cleaning up pollution ` that comes here from L.A.? A-21 No, (air pollution is being controlled at the source), based on the maximum impacts in the receptor area. All pollution including effects of growth will be controlled by the most cost effective, least impact method. Q-22 Is this just another plan that initiated from SCAG, has been developed by SCAG, and is being forced on local governments? A-22 No, this plan was mandated by the State and Federal government. The plan has been developed by working through the subregions., the subre- gional coordinating committees and their representatives at SCAG and the District, all of Whom are local officials. We believe this team approach is far superior to 'having it developed for us by EPA or ARB. Q-23 Why will the cities not receive a full 60 days to review this first draft before the'next draft comes out? A-23 The AQMP schedule calls for more than.90 days review of the draft, plan between October 15, 1978 and the final transmittal to ARB J n January 31, 1979. This is more than a 60 day period requested by cities through SCAG's recent General Assembly due to the complexity of the issue. Furthermore, distribution of the preliminary draft plan in August has in effect provided an additional 6-7 weeks of review time. Q-24 Why is the draft so long in coming out? A-24 This region has the most complex and difficult air quality problem in the country. The planning process started in March, 1977. Never before has this region been provided with an inventory, an air quality model and a list of tactics upon which to develop policies to solve our problem. Developing this plan on the team approach described before is a time consuming task. 6&unty of Orange MEMO • ® FSSO.123.1 DATE: September 220 1978 TO. City -Contact Staff DEPT/DIST: AQMP F R. Bilbev Uti- SUBJECT: Data Changes in Draft AQMP It is important that you are aware of a number of significant changes that have recently occurred in the draft AQMP which you are presently reviewing. The impact of some of these changes will be considerable, as it would appear that the present list of preferred strategies may now not be enough for the region to meet the standards on schedule. Specifically the changes noted here occur in Chapter 9 of AQMP "Control Strategies." p. IX-8, Hydrocarbon Control Measure #H-1 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is changed from 2.3 to 0.3 r p. IX-8, H-10 Strategy is removed from consideration Y pC-8, H-12 �a Strategy is removed from consideration C, Ie' p. IX-8, H-14 e o'.F o IP Strategy is a current SCAQMD-rule _ no 0 OYY p , H-17 Strategy \� Strategy is removed from consideration ( P. IX-10, H-19 �N _. Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 1.2 to 0.2 IX-10, H-20 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is increased from 0.6 to 8.8 �11 p. IX-10, H-21 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is increased from 0.1 to 9.0 P. IX-10, H-23 `— Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 5'.0 to 3.5 L, P. SIX-10, H-24 -- Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 65.0 td'35.0 L -( p.IIX-12, H-27 Strategy is removed from consideration I p. IX-12, H-29 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is decreased from 19.2 to 1.4 �1 IX-12, H-33 Strategy removed from consideration • • City -Contact Staff Data Changes in Draft AQMP Page 2 �. p. IX-12, H-34 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is -reduced from 9.7 to 6.8 �- p. IX=12, H-35 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 1.3 to 0.9 p. IX-12, H-36 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 9.6 to 2.7 p. IX-12, H-37 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 15.0 to 6.1 _ p. 3X-12, H-38 Strategy is removed from consideration p. TX-14, H-43 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 32.1 to 15.1 p.�IX-14; H-44 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is reduced from 13.5 to 7.1 p. IX-14, H-55 Strategy removed from consideration p. IX-16, H-61 Strategy removed from consideration rr , f p. IX-16, H-63 Emission Reduction (Tons/Day) is decreased from 3.0 to 2.6 U p. IX-18, H-74 `Strategy removed from consideration p. TX-18, H-75 I— Strategy removed from consideration p. IX-18, H-79 Strategy removed from consideration These changes also should be made in Table 11, Hydrocarbon Control Measures (Listed in Order of Tons/Day Reduction) p. IX-22, 23. RB:ac C) F o / ANGS AIR QUALITY WORKSHOPS IN ORANGE COUNTY The Environmental Management Agency is co -sponsoring a series of workshops on the draft Air Quality Management Plan, and on the subregional plan prepared by the County of Orange. You can attend a workshop in your area to voice your opinions about the clear air measures included in the draft Air Quality Management Plan. The draft plan is now undergoing public analysis to determine response to the transportation, industrial, and energy conservation measures being considered for implementation in mid-1979. The preliminary plan, which demonstrates that air quality standards can be obtained, lists more measures than are necessary to reduce pollution to the allowable envisions level. The purpose of the workshops is to give the public the opportunity to pick the measures which make sense to them. The comments received at the workshops will be included in the draft plan to be released in October. The clean air alter- natives have been laid out and the public must help identify the real personal impact. of those alternatives. HUNTINGTON BEACH Monday Sept. 25, 7:30 p.m. Basement of the Police Dept. 2000 Main St. Public entrance south side of building FULLERTON Tuesday Sept. 26, 7:30 p.m Main Library 353 W. Commonwealth St. Entrance on Amerige St. LAGUI t^ 11I 1S Wednesday Sept. 27, 7 p.m. Consumer Room, Basement level Sears Roebuck Store Laguna Hills Mall E1 Toro Road Tuesday Sept. 26, 2 T Board of Supvr. Hearn Room/County Hall of Administration 10 Civic Center Plaz, 011 V (look up statement for verification) • n R DRAFT S oe o eF COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT /, cARFe�go9 :AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN y The plan itself was just received on September 18, 1978. Pre- viously, we were supplied copies of working paper 2B, Baseyear Emission Inventory and Summary: Draft Air Quality Management Plan. The general comment with respect to the Summary, is that there appears no consideration for evaluation of area differences within the basin. It is possible that different approaches and different control measures may be appropriate for different areas within the basin. Some detailed comments on the Summary are as follows. On Page 5, at the bottom, it is stated that "The plan has suf- ficient control measures to assure annual increments of progress in reducinS,the air pollution emissions that the air quality standards..." It does not appear certain that standards will be attained by 1982 or 1987. On Page 30, Chapter IX Control Strategies: It is stated that "Adoption of all proposed measures'would result in attainment of ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide Federal standards of 1987." In Table III, the 1987 emission totals for NOx are shown as 1,011 tons per day and for fo 323 tons per day. These figures appear different than those shown in Table IX. On Page 14, top paragraph: In discussing the reductions in emissions required, it mentions that the models can be used to test the reduction effects of certain sources, for example mobile/stationary and natural on air quality concentrations and that these calculations } • -2- will help define the most efficient overall control strategy. Will these models be used by grids, or in oer ;m@ overall basin effect? On Page 28, Table VIII: Figures for emission totals for station- ary and mobile sources, for NOx and SOx, appear to be different•than those in working paper 2B - Baseyear Emission Inventory.. Table IX - Oxides of Nitrogen Control Measures: These controls do not include measures for large steam generators. It would appear that efforts to meet required standards would be greatly facilitated by providing such controls and by developing a plan to phase -out existing large generators as their useful lives are amortized. This would mean also that no new fossile-fuel burning facilities of this magnitude'�ould be permitted in the basin, by offset rule or otherwise. 7 , A reduction of 81 tons per day is projected for electric power generat- ing equipment, a 60% reduction (S-6). The phasing -out of conventional generator facilities would avert concerns over the use of high sulfur oil, the costs involved in requiring low sulfur oil and the emissions that would result even from low sulfur oil. 11 Ll DRAFT GENERAL As noted in the Orange County League of Cities' letter of September 7, there are questions of interest to us. Reconciling of comments from various local jurisdictions may be a momentous task.• How can SCAG, the District and the jurisdictions- come together, and who makes final determinations? It is quite likely, overall, many of the control measures affect only small tonnages of emission from many different sources at a high cost per ton. Implementing such controls would be nonproductive and politically difficult and not cost effective. The only control measure listed for large electric generating plants is S-6, for sulfur dioxide and that is rated negative under Feasibility/Financial because of increased costs of fuel. If effective measures were taken for these sources many or most of the small tonnage high cost per ton measures could be deferred_ or even eliminated. The measures could include reducing the tonnages of emissions from the electrical generating plants and or phasing out their use as their useful life is amortized out. If implementing most of the measures in the Draft Plan is considered.. necessary to meet 1987 standards, we believe this goal will not be achieved. It is not clear, what is expected of local jurisdictions, and whether they will be expected to pay the costs.imposed. May revise comment in Ch. IX, Page 9-31 on Controls and comments in Summary. Since controls technology for NOx emissions is not yet perfected, and because NOx output from electric generating plants is large regardless of fuel burned, a program of economic incentives to phase -out their use ment should be developed to avoid modifying the equip/ to extend useful life. No large new fossil fuel burning generators should be permitted in the basin 0 -2- whether external combustion or turbine. This approach will require conser- vation, continued work on other sources and providing information to the public on the environmental trade-offs between conventional and nuclear power sources. No such effort has apparently been made. It is quite possible the public will endorse the use of a potential environmental threat (nuclear) against an existing and certain threat (fossil fuel). Also, the power companies have not provided data on the growth that can be accommodated with existing capacity. It is desirable that figures be pre- pared based on the SCAG population forecast showing demand effect on power of the residential, commercial and industrial growth individually. J South Coast AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS 9420 TELSTAR AVENUE. EL MONTE. CALIFORNIA 91731 • (213) 443.3931 July 20, 1978 � N of 0 � Mr. Paul Ryckoff, Mayor RCO ,'a113 t City of Newport Beach Dept. 19��► City Hall `2 s 3300 Newport Blvd. �V c��v p EpcN Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Ryckoff : `o ff--fi_% � Thank you for your letter of July 10 commenting on certain tactics in Working Paper #4 - Future Air Quality. Since this report was a joint effort of the District and SCAG, we will respond to your questions on the two tactics we developed and SCAG will comment separately on the third tactic. Pa e 116 NO Tactic #4: The estimate of the annual NOx emis- sion re uction o ,000 tons, is about 3% of the 1975 total NOx emission tonnage from all sources in the South Coast Air Basin. By 1982 it should represent slightly more, about 3.3%. Control technology is not yet at the stage where large steam generator facilities can be controlled to the 90% limit as set forth in the demonstration requirements of Rule 475.1. However the approximately 50% NOx reduction called for in this tactic to control small and medium size steam generators is attainable with present technology. Currently, the Exxon Corporation will guarantee 40 - 50% NOx reduction from boilers fitted with its thermal DE NOx system without catalyst. Pa e 141, 142, Non-technolo ical Tactic #1: It is a require- ment o t e District s Rule Z13, New Source Review, that any industry seeking expansion or a new installation in the District must first utilize the best available control technology before any tradeoffs are considered. In implementing the tradeoff pro- visions of the rule,the District certainly intends to permit • Mr. Ryckoff -2- July 20, 1978 emission increases only in areas where they will not have a significant adverse impact, and to avoid causing one area to suffer to benefit another. YS evitt Director Evaluation & Planning JSN:la cc: D. Di Julio - SCAG ' CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH " July 13, 1978 Orange County Environmental Management Agency• Post Office Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Attention: Mr. George Osborne Director Re: The Preliminary $ubregional Element for the Regional Air Quality Management Plan Gentlemen: f r Participation by cities is encouraged, and this City has participated in the Regional Air Quality Management Plan Committee meetings. leading to the prepar- ation of this element. Its representatives have suggested a number of revisions, -- some of which have been used in the report. From our point of view, the improvement goals for the basin must not allow deter- . ioration of air quality in parts of the basin_ The offset rule, for example, could work to the extreme disadvantage of particular areas. We believe the re- port should be revised to incorporate greater direction for air quality management' planning, -and with emphasis on incentives at least equal to regulation as a means for cities and counties to achieve air quality improvement in conjunction . with regional authority. Attached are comments on the report-. We believe there.is an opportunity to pro- vide substantive direction for air quality improvement and we endorse the concept . of City and County involvement in the Air Quality Management Plan preparation. Very truly yours, PAU�FF� Mayor PR:pg Attachment • � p�o� Fib, 6 beep ��Jty . ✓U� ept eat 6 NFwpo r�OP 194,k cgRFaFgcy,. V City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 [ i . ;AIR QUALITY•PLANNING IN ORANGE COUNTY A Preliminary Subregional Element for the REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Comments by the City of -Newport Beach July 13, 1978 . Summary - Page ii There is a sentence stating, "Air' -quality is the region is improving due largely to the employment of technological controls on stationary and mobile sources of emissions." This sentence should begin with the phrase, "By some standards air quality in the region is improving, etc." Summary - Page iii The second paragraph reads, "Local governments can have significant effect on the decisions, etc." This sentence should read, "Local governments can have some effect on the decisions, etc." In the third paragraph on the subject of analysis of strategies and tactics being coordinated with that being done by other agencies, the second sentence reads, "Alternative air pollution mitigation programs and measures are then evaluated according to their effectiveness, their socioeconomic and environmental impacts, and their feasibility." It is difficult, in.our opinion, to evaluate the effective- ness of mitigation programs. The socioeconomic impact is similarly not a simple matter. The public may be willing to pay for cleaner air, to some extent at least. Introduction - Page 3 In the middle of the last paragraph, it is stated that, "In many cases, those developing control measures were in no position to -implement them." And it -says, "Without authority to implement or to compel implementation, the SIP process was reliant on the support of local implementing agencies." This must mean the old Air Pollution Control Districts'Which had authority only for stationary sources. . It goes on to say that, "since many air quality measures, especially transportation controls, are counter to traditional priorities, local support was not forth- coming." This statement seems to require clarification since the APCD's had author- ity with respect to stationary -sources only. 'It is possible that with more informa- tion being available to the public, that local support would have been forthcoming. Page 7 The paragraph headed, "Relationship to Comprehensive Planning" should be deleted. It does not seem totally necessary to include the definition in this document of the essence of planning nor the action required to determine the collective dir- ection of a society. 1 s. In.the next paragraph,.beginning with, "Air quality planning, etc.", there are statements we believe inappropriate for this document, and suggest that this • Comments by the City of Newport,Beach July 13, 1978 Page 2 paragraph be deleted down through the sentence saying, "Air quality planning in Orange County is intended to function consistent with this notion of many and varied perspectives." •In our opinion, the object,of•this exercise is cleaner air. Air quality planning should have a defim to single purpose'and not be considered as a "perspective for consideration in decision making" or as only providing a "particular focus." ' Page 11 The second paragraph beginning, "The essential point to be gleaned, etc.",'should be rewritten. Apparently all that is meant here is that -air pollution - knows no county boundaries. The balance of this paragraph, beginning with the sentence', '"For this reason, it is inappropriate to tie the County's air quality planning, etc.", should be deleted. This seems to be -saying that we need not be concerned with our own air quality. As a matter of fact, regional goals cannot be looked on as a standard other than cleaner air for all the basin which requires -each part to clean up its emissions. Some areas of greater emissions may have to effect greater reductions than others, and it is incorrect for the County to set as a goal appropriate 'reduction of emissions in proportion -to regional air quality goals. It would be appropriate to set immediate goals of no increase in tonnage of emissions from stationary sources,•and a scaled reduction to meet clean air standards. Page 20-24 - Analysis and Evaluation Framework This entire section should be rewritten. It begins with an approach to the logic of decision -making as'considered appropriate to the field of air quality: It states twice that information must -be appropriate, also that it must be comprehensible, concise, accurate and comparable among alternatives. It correctly states (con- servatively) that, "air -quality -is a complex technical problem." Then comes this remark, "presenting this kind of information to decision -makers tends to overwhelm the other factors that should be considered." One might ask, who decides what information is appropriate, -comprehensible, and accurate for the comprehension of decision -makers? ; Under Effectiveness, judgement is to be made by three indicators, emission re- duction, cost per ton reduction, and cost per ton per capita.. Not listed is the only real measure --improvement in air quality. At the very least, the rela- tionship of emission reduction to'improvement in air quality should be addressed. Under Impacts are listed•economic, social and environmental. By environmental is meant effect on energy and water quality, for example, not air quality. The stress on economic and social impacts may be inappropriate in this report, since the regional and local political entities will assess these aspects automatically. Under FeasS:.:,,',, it states air pollution mitigation measures."may be effective and have desirable environmental impacts, but the ultimate test is whether it .Comments by City of Newport,Beach July 13, 1978 Page 3 is feasible .to implement." .This is followed by.five measures of fea§ibility. It should'be the tenor of this report that air pollution mitigation measures are desirable, not may be effective or desirable. Page 26•- Stationary Source'Controls In this paragraph it is noted that local.governments (except counties) have been marginal participants in stationary source control for two•reasons: A third reason is that while stationary sources are.site.specific as indicated, the emis- sions effect on air quality may fall elsewhere due to meterology, and the local jurisdictions have.had little incentive to exercise restrictions. Page 27 - B 0 The discussion here of the offset.rule covers very important points. It is important that the revisions to rule 213 and its administration be done as is proposed by EMA. Page 28 - Effectiveness This sentence should read, "Overall emissions reduction in the basin will not be directly affected to any measurable extent. Page 28 - Impacts This paragraph should read, "To the extent that.locai.interests and concerns are more adequately considered in the district's rule making, and especially in offset determination, the air quality of the county should be preserved or en- hanced." It must be emphasized that the offset strategy may degrade air quality .in some area. Page'28 - Feasibility The following sentence should be added to this p ctrateav may impact some area:or areas, it may n Page 32 - Feasibility_ The following sentence should be added, "Howevi orincioally outside the jurisdiction of the soi Page 33 - Feasibility The following sentence -should be added, " i e offset rate ." impact falls entive for 1 f: Comments by City of Newport Beach July 13, 1978 Page 4 Page 34 - Strategy 1 The second sentence in the second.paragraph reading, "However, the overall air quality benefits that can be achieved through a local redistribution of pollutant sources is negligible!" should be deleted. Page 35_ Second Paragraph The third sentence beginning, "However, permanently limiting growth to some level below that capacity, etcl" should be deleted. The reason for this is that down, zoning has been upheld in a number of court cases. Page 35 - Effectiveness The first sentence should read as follows, "Growth limitations can reduce emis- sions directly in that emissions are a function of population and energy generation." The following sentence should be added at the end of this paragra "Down zonina may be utilized to meet constraints of services availabilitv and Page 37, 38 - Strategy III The action suggested here in A and B appears to inject government regulation into social patterns and custom to a degree that may well be unacceptable. It is one thing to propose costly means to improve the environment, and the public may be willing to pay up to some point for cleaner air. But integrating land use by government fiat seems to be a risky social experiment, as is the require- ment for affordable housing. It is not likely all jurisdictions will revise general plans or zoning to accomplish these tactics. Page 39 - Effectiveness The'second sentence beginning, "However, more polluting industries may locate in another area of the jurisdiction, etc." should be deleted. The reason for this deletion is that if the regulation were basin -wide, the emissions reduction would be beneficial basin -wide and beyond.• . Page 49-••ProgramiDevelopment The first sentence should read,' "One of the principal functions of this air quality planning program is to develop programs, etc." Page 50 - Local Government Coordination The fourth line should read, "will help assure that air quality improvement measures,. etc." The reason for this addition is that the Orange County Air Quality Planning efforts are not certain to implement improvement•measures•in a coordinated efficient and effective manner, but will to the extent possible, as -indicated - on the preceding page. ! MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County AQMP Coordinating Committee FROM: Jack Green SUBJECT: Change of Time and Date of Coordinating Committee Meeting DATE: October 25, 1978 The meeting of the Coordinating Committee has been changed from Thursday, October 26th, to Thursday, November 2, 1978, at 2:00 P.M. at the County Transportation Building. The Final Draft AQMP went to the printer on Monday, October 23rd, and copies will be available for distribution to committee members at the November 2nd meeting. � RECEIVED' OCT261978� Mayor City of Newport ,C `�. Beach .!� Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Southern California Association of Governments 600 So. Commonwealth Ave., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90012 Attention:. Mr. Mark Pisano, Executive Director Gentlemen: Ca p<(6�6 ��GN Il o r Attached are initial comments on the Draft Air Quality Management Plan. Reconciling these comments and those from various local jurisdictions with the plan may be a momentous task. How.can SCAG, the District and the jurisdictions come together, and who makes final determinations? It is not clear what is expected of local, jurisdictions, and what costs they will be expected to pay. Overall, many of the control measures affect only small tonnages, of emission from many different sources at a relatively high cost per ton.' Implementing such controls would be nonproductive and not cost effective. if implementing all or most of the measures in the Draft Plan is considered necessary to meet 1982 and 1987 standards, we believe this goal will not be achieved. It does not appear possible to implement all or most controls. The only control measure listed for large electric generating plants is S-6, for sulphur dioxide and that is rated negative under Feasbility/Financial because of increased costs of fuel. If ef- fective measures were taken for these large sources many or most of the small tonnage, high cost per ton measures could be deferred or even eliminated. These measures should include reducing the tonnages of emissions from the electrical generating plants, and until controls technology for NOx emissions is available. And be- cause NOx output from non-nuclear electric generating plants is large.regardless of fuel burned, a program of economic incentives to phase -out their use should be developed to avoid modifying the equipment to extend useful life. No large new fossil -fuel burning generators should be permitted in the basin whether external com- bustion'or turbine. This approach will require conservation, con- tihued work on other sources and providing information to the public on the environmental trade-offs between conventional and nuclear power sources. No such effort has apparently been made. It is Cif), Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 ,W Page -2- Southern California Association of Governments quite possible the public will endorse the*use of a potential environmental threat (nuclear) against an existing and certain threat (fossi.l fuel). Also, the power companies have not provided data on the growth that can be accommodated with existing capacity. It is desirable that figures be prepared based on the SCAG popula- tion forecast showing separate effects on power demand.of residen- tial, commercial and industrial growth. Regarding significant impacts, where control measures are assigned negative impacts, they may still be feasible actions. Some ex- amples are: 1. In N-9, a cost effectiveness of $2,000/ton is estimated, and under Financial Technical Feasibility the impact is negative for the reason."it is not certain what the. financial or technical impacts might be." 2. In S-1 and S-2, a negative impact is assigned to Water Quality/Solid Waste. If only added cost is involved to .dispose of the waste, this should be reflected in Cost Effectiveness, and a positive impact listed; depending• on cost. In S-6,.the use of low sulfur fuel is assigned a negative financial impact under Feasbility, because of increased costs for ultra low sulfur oil. Since fuel content may be in'some cases the most effective measure available,'it should not be ruled out for negative Feasibility, but kept in the inventory for Feasibility depending on effective- . ness and cost compared to -other -measures.. We believe that Non -Technological measure's, T-1 and T-2 are inappro= priate,. particularly for large sources of emission. It would not be feasible to newly impact populated areas for reductions elsewhere. There are no data to indicate that specific areas would not experi- ence deterioratipn of air quality from implementation of this measure. It is very important that there be a continuing evaluation of dif- ferences within the basin. It is likely that different control measures will be appropriate for different areas within the basin. On Page I-5, at the bottom, it is stated that "The plan has suf- ficient control measures to assure annual increments of progress in reducing the air pollution emissions to meet air quality stand- ards .•. .". On Page IX-6 bottom and IX-26 bottom, it is stated . s Page -3- Southern California Association of Governments that.the AQMP does not'contain enough'measures to meet both federal and state NO2 standards. On Page I-30, it is.stated that "Adoption of all proposed measures would result in attain- ment of ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide federal standards by 1987." On Page IX-60, Paragraph IX.3.6, it is noted that there are almost enough measures identified to attain the state SOp standard.by 1987. We suggest that the standards should be met and that uncertainties and appropriate control measures should be addressed. We welcome the opportunity to submit comments on the plan, and will continue to participate in the effort to improve -air quality. Sincerely, PAUL RYCKOFF Mayor CC: South Coast Air Quality Management District Ms. Alice MacLain, President Orange County Division - League of California Cities Mr. Sandy Scott, Orange County Environmental Management Agency Page I-7 "Table III": This table indicates for most cases of pollution that Should "growth" not occur within the region that current control for the most part would allow the region to achieve the clean air standards. There should'be discussed the alternative of no -growth from an environ- mental, political, social, and economic point of analysis. Additionally, the potential for allowing growth to pay -for pollution control should be considered.. The figures shown for daily emission tonnages are significantly ' lower than those in Table VIII, Page I-29. Whether or not the difference results from the assumption at bottom of Table VIII, it would be desirable to use consistent figures. Page I-14 "Top paragraph": In discussing the reductions in emission re- qu re , it mentions that the models can be used to test the reduction ef- fects of certain sources, for example mobile, stationary and natural on air quality concentrations and that these calculations will help define the most efficient overall control strategy. Will these models be used for point• sources and by grids, as indicated on Page 44? Pa ec� I-39 "Table IX"- Control Measures: These controls do not include measures for large steam generators. It would appear that efforts to meet required standards would be greatly facilitated by providing such controls and by developing a plan to phase_ out existing large generators as their.. useful lives - are amortized. This would mean also that no new fossile•fuel • burning facilities of this magnitude should be permitted in the basin, by offset rule or otherwise. A reduction of 81 tons per day is projected for electric power generating equipment, a 60% reduction (S-6). The phasing -out of conventional'generator facilities would avert concerns over the.use of high sulfur oil, the costs involved in requiring low sulfur oil and the emissions that would result even from low sulfur oil or natural gas. Nontechnological Control Measures: The new source offset programs, T-1 and T-2, would be appropriate only if the new permitted sources had zero additional impact on any populated areas. There appears to be no unpopulated area in SCAB which could safely take additional deterioration of air quality. This measure might be feasible for small sources such as dry cleaning plants, but does not appear appropriate for large sources. Page I-37 - Significant Impacts: For health effects the assumption is made t at eac of these control measures will have a positive impact because •air quality standards are health related." The nontechndlogical measures, Page IX-70 and IX-71, T-1 and T-2 cannot be assumed to have a positive health 9 impact, nor,a positive effect in improving air -quality. Page I-8800 "Table X": This table reviews the recommended control measures approved by each subregion. The chart -should be revised or deleted. Pres- ently it is too general and lumps together all approved measures. The degree of commitment varied greatly from region to region and within tactics. One subregion's policy to encourage an action is given the same weight as another's dedication to fund as required. The chart therefore misrepresents sub - regional policy and allows the reader to misread local support for individual strategies. CHAPTER II "INTRODUCTION" Page II-3: The -clean ai•r act requirements for analysis of an "identification and commitment of manpower and resources for plan implementation" is not provided within the draft plan. Items identified at the bottom of the page "(a)" are not identified within the plan. Page II-13 and 14: The cost reductions from air pollution by pollutant - receptors are dated 1974 and should be updated to the base data year to allow for meaningful comparison. Additionally, who directly benefits from cost reductions'should be documented. CHAPTER III "GOVERNMENTAL SETTING" Pa a III-17: Local government approval section should be revised to indicate t at t e Pre iminary Draft AQMP was submitted for local government review. on September 11, 1978, for return comment by October 2, 1978, a fifteen work- ing day period. CHAPTER V "EXISTING AIR QUALITY BASELINE - 1976" Page V-17 "Figure 9": The 1975-76 Inventory Summary indicates that the follow- ing pollutants are natural (areawide). THC - 43.9% RHC - 18.6% Would these natural pollutants preclude attainment of clean air standards,. and how have they affected determination of national clean air standards? This may be even more significant for Orange County (Pages V 26 and 27). Page V-21, Chapter V, Basyear Emission Inventory, Figure 13-Oxides of Nitrogen: Under stationary sources, the pie chart shows that power plants are responsible for 23.7% of the daily tonnage - 122.8 tons per day for SCAB and Ventura County. -2- • This figure••appears low. Page V-41, Table 5 Stationary Inventory, Power Plants are listed for 122.7 tons per day of NOx and 210.49 tons per day of SOx. These figures appear to differ somewhat from those in working paper 2B, Table VII. CHAPTER VII "FORECASTS" Page VII-82 "Appendix III": This appendix provides a five year capital improvements program proposed by SCAG Regional Airport Operators. SCAG should further document Orange County Airport proposals and the City allowed to input on determining growth forecasts. CHAPTER IX "AQMP CONTROL STRATEGIES" A. General Comments 1. It appears that the overall effect of the control strategies will be the lessening of local control. The cumulative effect of the strategies, if all were to be adopted, would be to put the City in a position of enforcing state and federal policy within a specific set of parameters. 2. The overall effect of the strategies would be to increase the cost of local government. The plan does not adequately address the major issues of: "Who pays for.clean air?" "Who is causing pollution?" "Who benefits directly from funds expended?" "What is each•jurisdiction's fair share of costs?" "Are Newport Beach residents being asked to pay for pollution caused by industry many miles from the City?" An adequate response to these questions should be provided prior to the submission of the draft plan for adoption and imple- mentation. 3. A majority of the strategies contain too many unknowns (in - determinates) to allow for an adequate review and evaluation. Several of the strategies remain in theory or concept level and are beyond analysis capabilities at this time. -3- 4. A measure of general commitment to the implementation of any of the strategies is needed. For instance, a wholehearted effort by city -"A" could easily be eliminated by token com- pliance by City "B". 5. Many control strategies are included for small sourcesand at varying cost effectiveness. It does not appear practical to implement so many measures. Among.the largest stationary sources are electric generating plants. Control measures are not pro- posed for these sources, with the exception of S-6. Control of these sources would make unnecessary many of the measures listed for smaller sources. Specific Concerns Chapter IX, AQMP Control Strategies, Page IX-6 Summary of Control Measures, (last paragraph) states that "The AQMP does not contain enough measures to meet both the Federal ozone standards and the State NO2 standard. On Page IX-26,there is the following "It appears certain that there are not enough measures to meet the Federal NO2 standard by 1982." We believe that measures should be designed and implemented to meet these standards. Page IX-30, Oxides of Nitrogen Control Measures: Controls are listed for medium and small steam generators (N-8). As mentioned -elsewhere, controls for large steam generators should be included. An effective program for these sources would mean that controls on many'high cost effectiveness, or smaller sources, could be postponed or even eliminated. No new large con- ventional steam generators should be permitted -in the basin by offset rule; or otherwise. On Page IX-600 Paragraph IX 3.6, it is noted that there are almost enough, measures identified to attain the State S02 standard by 1987. At the bottom of the page, in a footnote, it is mentioned that recently adopted measures would allow attainment of the S02 standard (assuming the availability of natural gas for use in power plants) and with some uncertainty, the sulphate air quality standard. It would be desirable that the uncertainties indicated be eliminated. r Pa a IX-82:This strategy would decrease jet commercial operations Tote extent that this strategy would reduce jet commercial tions atOrange County Airport, the City may wish to support the strategy. ity must consider the potential 11% reduction impact on LAX increasing expansion pressure on .Orange County Airport. �N,%ssi©uS vz--a.`=a #H-2•(Paae IX-841: This strategy would affect jet aircraft ground taxi operations.' To the extent that this strategy would increase noise levels, the City would oppose this measure. #H-4 (Pape IX-88 This strategy would establish a four day, forty hour work week. T e City would oppose this measure at present. #H-5, Pa a IX-90 This strategy would provide for carpool preferential par ing. To t e extent that this strategy is desired by the City, it would' require additional City staffing. The -strategy would require changes to the -4- • 0 r de IeT'7j existing zoning code requirements and additional enforcement within City - operated lots. #H-6 (Page IX-92 : This strategy would modify new general aviation air- cra t-engines. IV the extent that this strategy would allow for maintenance or reductions in noise levels in addition to reduced emissions, the City will support. If reduced emissions equipment allowed for increased noise levels, the strategy would be opposed. #H-7 (Page IX-94): , This strategy would require emission controls on con- struction and landfill equipment. The City may experience increased costs for equipment and services. The City is willing to absorb increased cost to some degree to support the strategy. #H-8 Pa a IX-96 : tro s on tractors, above. lieu emis This strategy would require hydrocarbon exhaust con - graders and loaders. Comments are the same as for #H-7 rcraft in e levels,'the_�City ,.supports this measure. Any increase - #H-13 (Page IX-105): This strategy would -require a regional effort aimed at-iimRing future increases in trip -making. To the extent that the strategy would reduce emission and trips, the City will support. The strategy though, calls for $5,000,000 annual cost.to local government (see general comments). #H-16 (Page IX-111): _This strategy would modify jet aircraft engines to meet 1$18 federal- regulation standards. Comments are the same as for H-6. #H-18 (Page IX-113): This strategy would require inspection and maintenance Of fight -duty vehicles. The City may experience increased costs for equip- ment and services. The City is willing to absorb increased costs to some degree to support this strategy. #H-22 (Page IX-123): This strategy would require emission control,for new utility equipment. The strategy will involve increased costs to the City as it replaces existing utility equipment. #H-23 (Page IX-124): This strategy would provide for increased bicycle . trips by: 1)' Increased annual funding c,o N5 2) Require new buildings to provide facilities. �15'_ n���` 3) Encouraging shower/locker facilities at employment 4) Increased home deliveries 5) Bike path dedications in new developments. -5- To the extent that the strategy would reduce emissions and trips, the City will support. The strategy though calls for $10,000,000 annual cost to local government (see general comments). Additionally, the City may wish to review and comment on divergence of funds to improve bicycle system for any needed highway improvements. #H-24 (Page IX-128): This strategy would improve technological controls for on -road vehicles. This would involve an increase cost to the City. Syr' To the extent the City is willing to absorb costs, it will support this �ttl�s`' strategy. #H-25 (Page IX-130): This strategy is to eliminate aircraft delays, calls #or airport srovements. City's position will depend on -the effect on Orange County Airport. #H-27 (Page IX-133): This strategy involves a decrease..use of auto by diversion to pedestrian trips. Tc,_the-extant that this strategy would ��if� reduce emissi•ons-and-t•ra.ps;�G�"y„may wish to support. The strategy though, �l calls for $2,0�000�ual costs t l-dcal governments (see general com- rnents)._Addffionally, to the extent that this would decrease -.funding for .ci•rciiation system needed improvements, City may wish not to support. #H-28 (Page IX-135). This strategy would curtail organic solvent emissions from marine coatings.. The City may wish to oppose this strategy. The strategy would provide for a financial negative impact on remaining marine.. - service and repair industry within Newport Harbor. #H-34 (Page IX-144): This strategy involves an•expanded employer carpool - t �, program. This strategy would cost $22,500,000 annually for public and 5 �£ o private employers (see general comments). To the extent that this strategy would reduce emissions and trips and the City's willingness to absorb costs, it may wish to support the strategy. #H-35 (Page IX-146): This strategy calls'for automatic traffic control fP comments). nToathe—costs extent thatlocal eneral th�sewouldtreduce�fund�ng 00 fiorecirculation system needed improvements, the City may wish to oppose. tF r,w I .. .._ .#H-38.. Page—I-X 1.54) T-^-Thi`5"sfrate,gy affect's jet aifc- aft ground -operations... Qiq�Zt'ig-strateF::wou'd"increa`se noit*al-(!vLiIg—C-ity°'woul'd-,oppose #H-41 (Page IX-160): This strategy would reduce transit fares. Annual costs to local government/transit districts - $25,800,000 (see general comments)..' To th8 extent that this would reduce funding for circulation system needed improvements; the City may wish to oppose.. #H-•43 (Page IX-164): This strategy would affect printing operation. The jev 3, &fir impact on ocal governments tired�cated. City costs for conversion agpexisting equipment m9 be reQu #H-44 (Page IX-165) This strategy would affect road construction. Annual r costs to fioca government are not indicated. 14- -6- 0 r #H-50 (Page-IX-173): This strategy affects natural gas and oil production. My may wish to support this strategy as a means of reducing emissions. #H-58 (Pape IX-182): This strategy would provide for auto free zones (26) Within the region. There is no way to measure the potential impact of this - strategy on the City. It would-be necessary to identify precisely each auto - free zone. #H-60 (Page IX-184): This strategy involves the use of electric powered vehicles for Oq of all trips less than twenty miles'. Potential impact on City operations as a majority of City vehicle trips would be under twenty miles. Clear definition of implementation measures is._needed. If conversion to electric powered vehicles is mandated, substantial costs to the City would be involved. #H-60 Pa a IX-186, Electric Vehicles: Under significant impacts, environ- mental, air quality negative impact should be listed. Considerable electri- cal energy would be required for charging batteries. The NOx reduction, if the estimates are valid-, is insignificant, while the S02 and particulate emissions are increased. #H-62 (Page IX-189): This strategy involves controls on in -harbor and dock- side transfer of petroleum products. The strategy has potential impacts on the harbor activities. The City may wish to stress pleasure/smal•1•craft' exclusions from requirements. #H-63 (Page IX-190): This strategy involves significantly expanded levels ' ir�aR of transit service within region. The estimated annual costs to local govern- p�;�G£� ments would be $103,000,000•(see general comments). The costs of this pro- gram may reduce funds available for circulation system improvements. #H-67 (Page IX-197): This strategy involves increasing automobile costs y doubling existing parking costs in commercial and industrial centers. If this strategy were to be applied uniformly to regional shopping center/ financial areas (Newport Center), decreased retail sales and desirability could be assumed. Further, moneys siphoned off by surcharge would reduce disposable income. The strategy has a potential significant impact on the City's financial position. #11-68 (Page IX-200): This strategy involves economics disincentives to travel in congested areas (freeway tolls). To the extent that this strategy would provide an incentive to growth within our area,Ahe City may wish to oppose. Increase evaluation of the impacts of the strategy is required. The reductions in omissions shown may be considerably lower than would be experienced. #H-69 (Page IX-202): The negative economic impacts may be less•'than antici- pati� For example, this measure might force carpooling , or other efficien- cies, reducing the effect on employment and disposable income. Under social impact, equity, the assumptions may not be valid. #H-70 (Page IX-205a). This strategy involves reduced parking costs for carpools. The annual costs to local governments and employees would be -7- $86,400,000. This program has a potentially significant economic impact on the City (see general comments). The strategy would, though, provide for reduced emissions and trips. #H-71 (Pape IX-2-5b): This strategy provides for increased use of rail, air• an us for inter -city travel. Potential City impact includes in- creased noise levels from aircraft operations/flights and loss of revenues/ transfer of funds from agencies which provide for circulation system im- provements. #H-74 (Page_IX-211): This strategy would eliminate on-street'parking on arteria s—durrng-p'ek'p'eriods�" TFie"re should' be tlefinedwexactly what arterials would be aftected..and�the,.Impactsaon.each. -Additional Ty, the ...aVsf ~funding"s'oti'r'ce must be defined and then analyzed by the City of potential.. impacts. #H-76 (Page IX-215)• This strategy calls for the development of Para transit services. (here should be provided detailed cost estimates and funding sources as this could provide a significant economic impact on local governments. To the extent that costs,and funding levels of circula- tion system proposals would not be affected, the City may wish to.consider supporting this strategy as a method of reducing emissions and trips. #H-77 Pa a IX-217 : this strategy involves expanding and extending the ex st ng an p anned freeway network. There should be defined the extent, of any proposed expansion or extension of the freeway network. The City will need to review closely for consistency with City policy. Potential economic impact to City; in addition to environmental. Under significant impacts, social, equity, the negative impact may be invalid, particularly if combined with No.'s H-68, H-69 and H-80. The assumptions used to arrive. at this negative impact may not be valid. #H-78 (Page IX-219): This strategy involves incorporating non-residential uses into rest entia neighborhoods. The measure would be implemented through general plan and zoning changes. To the extent that this would be - achieved by regional, state or federal requirements, this should be opposed• as usurpation of local control. As a concept,this would-be consistent, with adopted City policy - with local control. #H-79 (Pa a IX-2 : This strategy would require employees (w/over 100 YY' �.. �... •.. k employees. toKparti°cip'ate`"in ride=sharing prdgrams:�Ths prognam,vLould •invol.ve. increased.costs-to-�loca�l�Ngovernments�in,enforcement and par ticipa- • tion.• Annualized costs and funding figures would be needed. imoPage IX-228): While this strategy does not appear to significantly impact t e City, it would be necessary to determine and document potential routes, costs, environmental, social and economic impacts, the costs to local governments and other factors needed to allow for a reasonable review of the strategy. -8- #N-1 (Page IX-231): This strategy involves an energy conservation audit program. T�iis strategy would entail increased funding at local levels (see general comments). #N-2 (Page IX-234): This strategy would require a residential retrofit program for. energy conservation measures. This program would entail in- creased funding at local levels (see general comments). #N-3 (Page IX-237): This strategy would require solar water heaters in a retrofit program for residences. This program would require increased funding at local levels (see general comments). #N-4 (Page IX-240: This strategy would require the installation of energy conservation street lighting. This program would require substantial funding at local levels (see general comments). #N-5 (Page IX-243): This strategy aentia heaters. Increased local general comments). would curtail NOx emissions from resi- costs for review and inspection (see #N-6 Pa a IX-245 • This strategy would require reduced NOx emissions from new water eaters (residential) Increased local costs for plan check and enforcement could be anticipated (see general comments). #N-8 (Page I,X-2477: Our comment on Page IX-30 applies for..this control measure. 1he assumptions used in indicating negative economic energy and feasibility impacts, seem to imply that standards should be met with less or no cost. #N-9 (Page IX-249).: The combined cycle equipment that has been proposed for expansion or standby use at some steam plants employs gas turbines. Such expansion would add significant emission tonnages. The negative. impact listed for feasibility financial/Technical raises a question as to the emission reduction projected and as to the usefulness of the control... measure itself. #N-13 (Page IX-255): This strategy includes modifications to marine•diesel engines. Potential impact on harbor activities. It would be necessary to define scale of strategy and enforcement program. #N-15 (Page IX-258): This strategy would require solar water heaters for new residences.,,Impacts on the City would be economic, social and environ- mental. Enforcement jurisdiction, aesthetics and energy factors dictated at regional, state and federal levels of government. (Page IX-260)_ This.strategy would affect stationary gasoline engines. Some increased costs at local level might be anticipated. #N-17 (Page IX-261): This strategy should be defined. MA 19 #P-2 (Page IX-266): This strategy involves control of fugitive dust from unpaved roa s; are fields, etc. The annualized annual costs do not appear reasonable -- documentation should be requested. 'Potential for growth in- ducing and environmental impact should be evaluated. #P-6 (Page IX-272): .This strategy involves the control of particulates from w— oodworKing operations. To the extent that the City wishes to preserve his type of use, which presently exists in the Cannery Village, the City may oppose. #P-7 Pa a IX-274 : This strategy is directed at the collection, processing an isposa of solid wastes.. What is cost to local governments? rmhep (Pa4e IX-295): The positive impact raised for environmental, air quality uestionable: As mentioned before, with large sources, it appears that ementation of this rule would result in an adverse impact on new areas. SOHIO, Long Beach, project is termed an offset case, yet the power plant where emissions are to be abated, is some distance away from the terminal. #T-2 (Page IX-297): As noted in #T-1, it does not appear possible for -large sources to constitute a one to one offset in the same location and it will not be found feasible or possible to newly impact population areas with air pollution in a trade off. #T-4 Pa a IX-299 : This strategy would be to control permits based upon ocation. a ,ty This this strategy as it does not reduce emission and does remove land.use decisions from local control #T-5 (Page IX-300): This strategy would control the time of day that emis- sions are aT owe This measure does not seem advantageous. #T-7 Pa a IX-303 : This strategy involves indirect source controls. The ity opposes t is strategy. The strategy implies loss of local control on land use decisions and no practical benefit from the strategy has been es- tablished. #T-8 (Page IX-304): This strategy involves federal facilities (indirect source review thereof). The City may wish to consider,a modified version of this strategy that would require federal financing to meet air quality standards imposed on the City by the federal government. #T-9 (Page IX-305): There is no identification of the strategies beyond acronyms listed.` Should be clarified. CHAPTER X "SUBREGIONAL PLANS" This section does not clearly identify how the subregional plans relate to the AQMP. The matrix developed also does not indicate the type of commitment -10- • 1• made by the Various.subregions. Additionally, the subregional elements are not identified as to 1) Who prepared each document? 2) If the subregional element was adopted, and, if so, by whom? 3) How much commitment does it -represent? 4) How does what the subregions have approved correspond to SCAG's preliminary -draft? While we have participated in preparation of the Orange County subregional element, it does not have City approval, and approval should not be inferred. CHAPTER XI 111987 EXTENSION" Pace XI=19 "Questions": This section outlines four questions dealing with transportation issues. The City may need to carefully review SCAG Regional Transportation Plan and/or modifications suggested within this section to ascertain what would be consistent with adopted City policy. CHAPTER XIII "RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT PLAN" This chapter should define the total resources necessary to implement the plan. While the plan is 2"+ thick, exactly one page is devoted to implemen- tation. The statement that it is premature to consider how the plan would be implemented in terms of financial resources is not reasonable. The statement that: "local government will adopt alternate revenue measures" is also not reasonable and is contrary to the concept of the recently voter approved tax limitation. Further, the statement that: "the state will' assume responsibility for some functions formerly financed by local.govern- ments," is not necessarily accurate in either the short or long run. Additional- ly, it suggests usurpation of local control, which is undesirable. CHAPTER XVIII "SUMMARY: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT" The City requests a copy of the full EIR and any attachment, to be received at the earliest date possible. -11- • i 0 It was previous as appendices I not -clear how 1 plan �c A Preliminary Staff Recommendations - South Coast Air Basin Mobile Sources 1987 Emissions e Reductions* (tons/day) Name HC NOx CO Annualized Cost Inspection and Maintenance of LDV 61.9 64.3 483.1 $100,000,000 Improved Technological Control for On -road Vehicles 52.1 80.6 542.1 200,000,000 Automatic Traffic Signal Control Systems 1.0 Q 9.0 5,040,000 Modify jet aircraft engines to meet proposed 1978 federal standards 28.5. O 28.9 13,500,000 Rideshare Program Cost allocated - L.A. Downtown People Mover {,0 17.3 20.1 136.4 to transporta- --Rail Starter Line tion plan rather r-Bus-On-Freewa Pro ram than AQMP Emission Standards for all New Non -Farm Heavy - Duty Off -Road Vehicles 4.8 28 72 1,180,000 Apply On -Road Motorcycle Emissions Standards To Off -Road Motorcycles 1.6 0 1.6 10,300,000 Increased Air Passenger Load Factor 0.5 0 2.2 Savings Voluntary Trip Reduction Program 12.1 14.0 95.3 5,000,000+ Emission Standards for New Farm Equipment 1.9 0.7 18 1,110,000 Jet Aircraft Ground Taxi Operation 2.0 0 14.2 Savings Electrify Rail Yards 5.5 22.1 7.2 2,100,000 Modify New General Aviation Aircraft Engines 5.0 0 97.6 3,000,000 Increase Average Truck Loads 4.2 9.4 36.7 Savings Eliminate Aircraft Delays .4 0 2.3 1,530,000 Increased Bicycle Facilities 3.7 3.1 40.5 10,000,000 Early Retirement of Older Cars 9.6 1.9 76.8 22,525,000 Marine Operations 7.8 0 0 8,400,000 Parking Management: Carpool Preferential Parking .3 .4 2.6 No Cost Marine Diesel Engine Controls 0 3.4 0 4,888,000 Total 226.2 M. 1666.5 $388,573,000 Emission Reduction by 1987 Needed from all Sources to Meet Federal Standards *Adjusted effectiveness based on technological improvements 9/22/78 DRAFT -SUBJECT TO CHANGE Funding Source Auto owners Auto owners Local cities, counties, Caltrans Private Sector (airlines and aircraft manufacturers) Private Sector (Construction and Landfill Industries) Private Sector and Consumer (Motorcycle Manufacturers) Lower Operating Costs to Airlines & Possibly lower air fares Government for promotion +•undetermined cost to Private Sector and citizenry Farming Industry Operating Cost Reduction for Airlines Railroad Industry Aircraft Manufacturers & General Aircraft Owners Reduced Operating Costs for Trucking Industry Government and Airlines Government Plus Undetermined Private Sector Costs Government and Private Sector Government and Maritime Industry Employers Maritime Operators C STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS SCAG CAO SCAQMD X X r X X X, X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X K X X X, X' X X X, Name Wood Flatstock Gasoline Bulk Plants Printing Oper. More Stringent Auto Controls Refinery Fugitive Automatic Traffic Control Jet Aircraft Standards Inspection/Maintenance Cut Back Asphalt . Expanded Carpool Program Metal Cleaning Leaky Process Systems Metal Furniture Coatings SCORING VALUES 0 = Definitely not 1 = Probably not 2 = Should be further considere 3 = Probably an attainment meas 4 = Definitely an attainment me. Hydrocarbon 1987 Reduction* Rankin 1.7 Recent Rule 1.4 3.9 15.1 3.7 35 3.7 10.1 3.6 1.0 3.6 40.4 3.6 70.3 3.6 7.1 3.5 6.8 3.5 5.5 3.4 1.9 3.4. 8.8 3.4 Measure rr H-7 . H-64 H-19 ✓ H-1 13 it -is H-22 11-37 11-54 H-10 F1-47 I1-73 -2 1i-27 H-6 H-72 1 11-25 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS SCAG CAO SCAQMD X •X •X X X X X U X X I X X X X• X X X X U k x X X, X X X X X X a X Name Heavy-Outy•Off-Road Std. Off -Road Motorcycle Relief Vales Increase Air Passenger Load Voluntary Trip' Reduction Farm Equipment Utility Equipment Automobile Coatings Auto Refinishing Tow Jet Aircraft Paint Manufacturing Increase Piggy Back Ground taxi Electrify Railyards Pedestrian Facilities General Aviation Standards Increase Average Truck Load Eliminate Aircraft Delays Hydrocarbon 1987 Reduction Rankin 4.8 3.3 1.6 3.3 0.2 3.3 .3 3.2 16.1 3.1 1.9 3.1 13.1 3.1 6.1 3.1 5.8 3.0 12.3 3.0 1.4.. 3.0 2.6 3.0 1.0 2.9 5.5 2.9 1.7 2.9 • 5.0. 2.9 6.3 2.8 1.9 2.8 Measure N 11-26 11-21 H-12 11-60 1-56 11-33 H-17 H-59 II-23 11-63 11-55 H-77 • 36 H-45 H-75 H-74 II-38 11-82 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS SCAG CAD SCAQMD X X X X F4 ,X X X X X H X, X X FI 1,1 FA ? X X Name Machinery Maintenance Fabric & Paper Fue. Transfer at Airports Electric Vehicles Oil Tank Cleaning Machinery Coatings Retrofit Farm Tractors Basic Wood Furniture Coatings Increase Bike Facilities Expanded Transit Ship Lightering Expand Highway Capacity Early Retirement of Old Cars Furniture Coatings Motor Fuel Ethel/Meth Eliminate On -street parking 'Reduce APU Home Goods Delivery Hydrocarbon 1987 Reduction 0.1 9.0 0.5 23.5 1.0 0.1 1.5 0.4 3.5 3.0 0.2 ' 7.2 7.7 2.7 Undetermined Undetermined 0.1 Undetermined Rankin 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 ,2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 I Measure STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 11 SCAG CAO SCAQMD 11-40 11-4 11-5 X X 11-28 X X �3 H-48 X X 11-71 H-8 X H-62 X H-58 �46_ X H-39 X X 11-41 H-57 11-66 H-50 X l - Hydrocarbon 1987 Name Reduction Adhesive Manufacturing .9 Modified Work Schedules 4.8 Parking Management: •4 Marine Coatings 4.5 Coordinate Tanker Arrivals at Los Angeles; Undetermined Long Beach Harbor to Achieve Uniform Arrival Rate Rubber Products Manufacturing Increase Use of Rail, Air,and Bus for Intercity Travel. Retrofit Gasoline Powered Non -Farm Off -Road Heavy Duty Vehicles Marine Operations Auto -Free Zones . Chemical Manufacturing Metal Coil Stock Coatings Reduced Transit Fares Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Tax Bunker Fuels - Natural Gas and Oil Production 0.8 1.3 1.9 2.7' 1.0 1.9 2.9 4.7 0.1 0.4 0.3 Rankin 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 a I Hydrocarbon 1987 Measure STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Name Reduction 11 SCAG CAD SCAQMD 11-49 I Appliance Coatings 0.4 H-II4 i , Pipeline Freight Transport Undetermined H-78 ? Incorporate Non -Residential Uses into Undetermined Residential Areas H-51 Ink Manufacturing 0.2 * 53 Vegetable Oil Processing 0.1 11-52 Industrial Coatings 0.1 11-61 Solid Waste Handling 0.1 11-80 ? Emissions Tax „_ 5.6 - 39 11-76 ? Paratransit Undetermined ii-70 Parking Management 0.1 11-31' ? 18 Year Old Licenses" 22.2 3 X Triple -Trailer Trucking 6.1 H-65 Aerospace Coatings -0.0 11-69 Automobile Operating Cost Increase (Gas Tax) 5.1 11-67 ! Parking Management Increase Parking'Surcharge 6.2 H-68 Congestion Pricing - 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.7 .' Result of Test Ranking of Measures for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Emission Reduction Measure i SCAG CAO SCAQMD Name (Tons/Day) Ranking N-6 x x New Water Heaters 6.9 3.8 N-5 x x New Residential Heaters 42.9 3.6 N-7 i x X Cement Kilns 0.9 3.5 N-y x x Energy Conservation: Commercial, 14.2 3.4 Institution & Industrial Audits 11 x x Refinery Heaters 49.5 3.3 N-10 LT X Industrial Boilers 69.2 3.3 N-2 x Energy Conservation:Residential Retrofit .5.7 3.2 N-14 LT x Glass Melting Furnaces 3.0 3.1 N-15 i LT Energy Conservation: Solar Water Heater-- 1.4 2.9 New Residences N-8 LT x Medium & Small Steam Generators 48.1 2.7 N-4 x Energy Conservation: Street Lighting 0.02 2.6 �17 x x _Energy Conservation: Marginal Cost Program Undetermined 2.2 N-3 x Energy Conservation: Solar Water Heater 0.3 2.2 Retrofit Program N-12 LT Railroad Diesel Engines 5.6 2.1 N-13 LT Marine Diesel Engines 3.4 2.1 N-.16 LT Stationary Gasoline Engines 1.1 1.9 N-9 LT x Gas Turbines 3.9 1.9 LT = Long Term 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 NEWPORTSEACH ORANGE PLACENTIA SAN CL EMENTE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SANTA ANA SEAL BEACH STANTON TUSTIN VILLA PARK WESTMINSTER YORBA LINDA Orange County Division LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA C S/'/'�-- 811 NORTH BROADWAY, SUITE 614, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA92701 (714) 835.4801 TO: OC Division AQMP Task Force FROM: Bob Haskell, Executive Director September 29, 1978 RE: Meeting Wednesday, October 4, to determine if comments can be made to SCAG from the Division on the AQMP Preliminary Draft Since October 6 is the deadline for commenting on the current draft of the AQMP, it will be necessary for us to meet on Wednesday, October 4, at 1200 p.m., to review city comments received thus far and determine whether significant commonality exists in order to forward Division comments to SLAG. I apologize for not notifying you sooner of this meeting, but the city comments have just now begun to come in. Your attendance at this meeting will be very much appreciated. If you desire a lunch, please contact Marie by Tuesday. The meeting will be held in the Division Office at 811 N. Broadway, Suite 614, Santa Ana. '�aiq� fW,y A& Oct, ARt?By 14 Preliminary Recommendations - South Coast Air Basin Mobile Sources Lf%rNna1: '� :-r'.r-7 1987 Emissions Reductions* Measure (tons/day) Number Name HC NOx CO Annualized Cost -18 Inspection & maintenance of LDV 70.3 1-24 Improved Technological Control 35 for Ot-road vehicles H-35 Automatic Traffic Signal Control 1.0 Systems H-16 Modify jet aircraft engines to 40.4 034 meet proposed 1987 fed'l stds Rideshare Program L.A. Downtown People Mover Wilshire Rail Starter Line 16.1 Bus -on -freeway program H-7 Emission Standards for all new non- 4.8 farm Hvy-duty off -road vehicles H-64 apply on-rd motorcycle emissions 1.6 stds to off -road motorcycles H-1 Increased air passenger load factor -3 H-13 Voluntary trip reduction program 11.3 H-15 Emission stds for new farm equipmt. 1.9 H-2 Jet aircraft ground taxi operation 1.0 H-11 Electrify rail yards 5.5 H-6 Modify new gen'l aviation aircraft 5.0 engines H-72 Incr. avg. truck loads 5 Eliminate aircraft delays 23 Increased bicycle facilities 3.5 H-36 Early retirement of older cars 7.7 H-62 Marine operators 7.8 H-5 Parking mgmt:Carpool prefr. pkg .3 N-13 Marine Diesel Engine controls 0 TOTAL — Emission Reduction by 1987 needed from all sources to meet federal stanoaros 300 * Adjusted effectiveness based on 22,0 technological improvements P0050 V_U,LE 5bAaCA0 73.1 549.0 $100,000,000 200,000,000 5,040,000 .99 63.2 13,500,000 28 72 1,180,000 0.02 1.6 10,300,000 Savings 5,000,000+ 0.7 18 1,110,000 0 Savings 22.1 7.2 2,100,000 0 97.6 3,000,000 Savings 0 1,530,000 10,000,000 0 O 22,525,000 8,400,000 No cost 3.4 0 4,888,000 $388,573,000 207 1566 DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE Funding Source Auto owners Auto owners Local cities, counties, Caltrans Private sector (airlines & aircraft mfg) Priv. Sectr (Construction & landfill Indus.) Private sector and consumer (Motorcycle mfg. and motorcycle owners) Lower oprtg costs to a/lines & poss. lower fares Govt for promo. + undeter'd cost to P.Sec & citzr Farming industry Operating cost reduction for airlines Railroad industry Aircraft mfg. & general aircraft owners Reduced operating costs for trucking industry Government and airlines Govt plus undertermined Private Sector costs Government and Private Sector Government and Maritime Industry Employers Maritime operators • PUBLIC MEETINGS Workshops All these workshops will discuss the Air Quality Management Plan, 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, SCAG-78 Growth Forecast Policy, Amendment$ to the Regional Transportation Plan and Environmental Impact Reports. Oct. 30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY: 9:00 - 2:00 p.m., Commons, University of Califorpia, Riverside Nov. 11 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: 9:00 - 12:00'Noon, Rosemead Community Center, 393E N. Muskatel, Rosemead Nov. 15 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: 7:00 p.m., Lower Commons, California State College, San Bernardino Nov. 17 ORANGE COUNTY: 10:00 - 1:00 p.m., Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of Realtors, 401 N. Newport Blvd., Newport Special Workshops These workshops address the plans as noted: Nov. 8 IMPERIAL COUNTY: 7:00 - 9:00 p.m., Chamber of Commerce, 1100 Main St., E1 Centro (Development Guide & Amendments to the RTP) Nov. 14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: 7:30 p.m. Community Room, Malibu Civic Center, 23533 W. Civic Center Way, Malibu (water quality) Nov. 15 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Pasadena Lung Association 7:30 - 9:30 p.m., Faculty Dining Room, Pasadena City College, 1570 E. Colorado, Pasadena.(air quality) Nov. 16 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: 7:30 p.m. Wilson High School Multi-Purpo$e Room, 16455 Wedgeworth Dr., Hacienda Heights (water quality) VENTURA COUNTY: Date and meeting place to be announced. (Development Guide &Amendments to the RTP) Hearings 1 Unless otherwise indicated, hearings are scheduled from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. for the Air Quality Management Plan and 4-8 p.m. for the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, SCAG-78 Growth Forecast Policy, and Amendments to the Regional Transportation Plan. All hearings include Environmental Impact Reports. .: Dec. 4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 50Q W. Temple St., Los Angeles Dec. 6 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Chambers of the Board of Supervisors, 175 W. 5th St., 2nd Floor (use rear entrance), San Bernardino Dec. 8 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: West Covina City Council Chambers, 1444 Garvey Ave., West Covina Dec. 12 IMPERIAL COUNTY: Chamber of Commerce, 1100 Main Street, E1 Centro (4-8 p.m. only; Development Guide and RTP Amendments) Dec. 13 VENTURA COUNTY: Lower Plaza Assembly Room, County Government Center,, 800 S. Victoria, Ventura (3-6 p.m. only; Development Guide 4nd RTP Amendments) Dec. 14 ORANGE COUNTY: Board Hearing Room, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana Dec. 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 14th Floor, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside ' 0 OUR ENVIRONMENT IS THREATENED As a Southern California resident, you know that urban sprawl, traffic congestion, smog and water pollution are some of the problems that now threaten what was once a uniquely attractive environment. BUT, DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEING DONE TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS? — --------The- Sout-her-n--Ca-1-:1-for_n1 ISCAG1_ is working to solve a variety of environmental and economic problems. As part of this effort, SCAG has drafted four major plans which address related issues in transportation, air and water quality, development and growth. HELP SHAPE THE FUTURE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCAG's four major plans will have a decisive impact on the future of our region. Before these plans are adopted, we want to hear from you. You can participate by attending a public meeting in your area. The plans will be reviewed in public workshops, and formal public hearings will follow. LAST CALL TO ADD YOUR VOICE The four areawide plans are scheduled for final adoption in early 1979. That's why we want to hear from you now. Bring your concerns to the meetings scheduled in your area. If —you would like copies of any of the plan summaries, you may send in the enclosed post card. TIMES AND LOCATIONS OF MEETINGS ARE LISTED ON THE BACK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CITIES AND COUNTIES WORKING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW A RlfOCIAT 600 Louth Commonwealth Avenue •fulte 1000 • loi Angel*/ • California . 90006.213/385-1000 From`the�ffice.of .' City Clerk „- TODAY'S:MAIL Date: - 77. 17—.7 Attn:COrYI'- South Coast AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTR'. DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS 9420 TELSTAR AVENUE. EL MONTE. CALIFORNIA 91731 • (213) 443.3931 The Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 (Jest Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 v��b `9no JUG ctt oa�FON, JAMES BEAM MEMBER, SCAQMO BOARD July 14, 1978 Under the Federal Clean Air Act and State law the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Association of Governments must prepare and implement an Air Quality Management Plan to attain air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin by 1982. These two organizations are currently developing this plan with the advice and assistance of local govern- ment and the•public at large. Here in Orange County the input of local governments is being accomplished through the Orange County AQMP Coordinating Committee. Five of the ten members are appointees of the Orange County'Division of the League of California Cities. The other five members represent the County of Orange. Later this year the plan will be 'submitted to the SCAG Executive Committee and the SCAQMD Board for adoption and -then forwarded to the California Air Resources Board by January 1979. The strategies being considered for attaining air quality standards are based principally on achieving further reductions in emissions from stationary and mobile sources. However, certain transportation and land use measures are being considered which may affect growth and development in your community and throughout the basin. Since these land use and transportation measures should be of considerable interest to your City Council, Supervisor Phil Anthony, Chairman of the Orange County AQMP Coordinating Committee and I as your representative of the SCAQMD Board feel that we ,should keep your Council informed on' -the content of this important Date 7-i-7!Rlan and its potential impact on your city. To that end, pervisor Cg=IESSENT TO: Anthony will be contacting you in the near future to a ,is`eI-Y. rt� F]-Y mayor 01 m3nager 45 Attorney Q P 171 Director 0 CvmDev Director o-�ti'��C- ❑ Other v Counofinen- Page 2 of an AQMP briefing program available for presentation to City Councils in Orange County during August. This will comprise a fifteen minute review of the Orange County sub -regional component of the AQMP and a preview of the regional AQMP which will be released for local review and comment in September. If you have further questions on the .plan or the briefing program, you or your staff may contact either Supervisor Anthony of myself. Cordially yours, 9JAMEtBEAM Member of the SCAQMD Board Vice Chairman, Orange County AQMP Coordinating Committee Mayor pro Tem, City of Orange JB/gr cc: City Manager DRAFT .• • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Pisano and Jeb Stuart FROM: David Di Julio DATE: September 15, 1978 SUBJECT: Draft 'response to-questions•from Orange County Division, League of California Cities on AQMP. The following are the League Division's questions followed by the staff s proposed answers. Q-1. What is meant by city approval of AQMP Draft between October 15 and December 15? A-1. Approval of the AQMP means the following: a. The general concept of the AQMP is acceptable to the juris- dictionand the plan should be submitted to the State and Federal governments. b. The jurisdiction supports the measures recommended in the Draft or substitutes other measures for adoption by the District Bommittee and the South Coast Air Quality Manage- mentc. The jurisdiction agrees that the growth forecasts to be mitigated by the AQMP are those contained in the SCAG Development Guide. d. The jurisdiction is agreeing to support state and federal implementation of the measures identified in the plan for implementation at those levels through the appropriate channels. e. The jurisdiction is agreeing to develop a schedule for adopting the plan. Q-2. What is meant by city adoption of AQMP Draft and what does this commit a city to? A-2. Though most of the AQMP measures do not require local government implementation, adoption of the AQMP means the jurisdiction agrees to: a. Implement local government tactics adopted by SCAG and DRAFT the District, or equivalent measures from the subregional plan, and b. develop and submit a schedule for accomplishing (a) above. Q-3. What happens if a city takes no action at all with regard to approval or adoption? A-3. The response (positive, negative, or no action) of all juris- dictions will be recorded for the consideration by SCAG and the District, and will be transmitted as part of the plan. The SCAG Executive Committee and the District Board are required by State and Federal law to adopt a plan based on the actions of local governments. Q-4. What happens if a city does not move toward implementation? A-4. If the AQMP is not being implemented it must be revised to include sufficient reduction measures or the sanctions on federal funds for transportation, housing and sewage treatment plants will be invoked by the Federal Government. The Clean Air Act allows citizens suits in federal court to require the EPA to en- force the provisions of the Clean Air Act including the sanctions. A policy of the plan is that sanctions should only apply to the juris- dictions or level of government which is not implementing the plan. It is hoped the State and Federal Governments will approve this policy. Q-5. What happens if a county, all cities in the county, or the entire region does not move to implement? A-5. Same as above, but no one has developed a clear policy on sanctions. Q-6. How does a city implement the plan? What elements of the plan will the city be asked to implement? Will they be able to choose what they want to implement? Will they be told what measures to implement? A-6. A city can implement the plan through adoption of ordinances, policy commitments, or other means which accomplish the tactics for implementation by local government in the plan, or equivalent tactics. The adopted AQMP will define which, if any, tactics should be implemented by local governments and will define an emission reduction target for such measures. The local governments are participating through the subregional planning process in the selection of the most reasonable measures for the AQMP. The option of adoption of tactics which provide an equivalent reduction for each jurisdiction is available. Local governments can also implement through supporting the District's adoption of regulations consistent with the AQMP. DRAFT Q-7. Will cities be bound by the Orange County subregional plan (even though they have not approved it) if they approve the AQMP? A-7. Cities will be bound by the subregional plan to the extent that the tactics are adopted through the regional AQMP as approved by local governments. Q-8. Who will monitor compliance, report non-compliance, and recommend sanctions? A-8. The AQMP process is required under federal law to make annual reports on reasonable further progress. Only EPA or the courts can impose the sanctions if reasonable progress is not being made. Q-9. Will there be an emissions reduction goal for each jurisdiction or a set amount of pollution that each county and/or cities will have to reduce? A-9. We are not planning to develop overall reduction goals for each jurisdiction in this year's AQMP. After the most cost-effective least -impact set of measures are approved the tactics reduction goals will be grouped by implementing agency. It is proposed that the few local government tactics (not including implementation through SCAQMD) will be summed and each jurisdiction will be asked to adopt the recommended implementing ordinance, or equiva- lent measures. There are technical and policy questions still to be resolved in the determination of equivalency. Q-10. How and when will cities know what their overall pollution con- tribution is currently? A-10. The current inventory of emissions is complete for 6,000 small (5 km 5 km) grids through the region. As the computer programs are completed county totals, RSA and then city totals will be available. Due to the sizesand shapes of cities, it is not likely that city totals will be available before January 1, 1979. In addition, AQMP staff cautions that city totals may be mis- leading. For example, the city of Burbank will include emissions from the Hollywood -Burbank airport which serves people through- out a much larger area than the Burbank city limits. The same. concept is true for Fontana and steel making emissions, E1 Segundo and oil refining, and for any city which has a freeway passing through it. The AQMP has focused on regional totals of emissions first because we all share in causing air pollution emissions in the region. Q-11. What is AQMP's connection.with other programs such as the 208 Planning Program, the Regional Transportation Plan, and the Housing Allocations? V • • DRAFT A-11. The Development Guide forecasts are the common basis for all the otherprograms. The regional transportation plan amendments are being done in.conjunction with the AQMP. The sewage treatment plant impacts on air quality will be mitigated by the AQMP. The housing program is consistent with the Development Guide. Q-12. 'Why will if benefit cities to comment on the AQMP Draft by October 1978? A-12. Before October 2, 1978, we will still be in the process of. devel.oping the draft plan and changes can be readily incorportated and pre- sented as part of the draft plan. Comments and recommended changes will be received by the Execitive Committee and the District Board until adoption on January 31, 1978. Q-13. If cities choose to comment further after October 2, where will be the best opportunities for input? A-13. Comments can be made through workshops, public hearings, the CEQ process and through contact with your representatives on the subregional coordinating committee, the SCAG committees or District Board. Q-14. Who will pay for the measures that cities will have to implement (especially in light of Prop. 13)? Are there special State or Federal funds set aside to assist in compliance? A-14. There are few measures which have been identified for direct city implementation. Much of those identified are energy savings measures which should pay for themselves. In Chapter XIII of the Draft we will describe the sources which have been identified. If measures do require local expenditures, SCAG will work with local government to secure State and Federal funding. Q-15. Is SCAG working to secure such compliance assistance funds? A-15 SCAG and the District are investigating all possible resources to implement the plan and Chapter XIII will address this issue. For example, return of a larger portion of our gas tax to Southern California and use of loans from the California Pollution Control Financing Authority are being investigated. Q-16 What are the total realms of possible sanctions for refusal to comply? A-16 The mandates of the Clean Air Act are described in Chapter II of the plan. A liberal reading of the act, such as might result from a citizens suit, could require that all federal funds to the region be curtailed. It is likely that highway and sewage treatment plant funds would not be available if the AQMP is not approved or implemented. • DRAFT Q-17 What will this plan cost the SCAB region? How much will the region benefit? A-17 The costs of devbloping this plan are being borne by State and Federal funds. The costs of implementing the plan will depend on the tactics which are chosen by the process. The most cost effective set of measures will cost $325 million to implement. Staff has estimated that the implementation costs will range from $300 to $500 million. The plan calculates that air pollution damages costs the region a minimum of 1.4-2.0 billion dollars a year. By implementing the plan and cleaning up the air pollution we could save approximately one billion dollars a year and assure that more than one billion dollars in federal funds will continue to flow to the region. Q-18 What must be accomplished in order to qualify for an extension to 1987 for compliance? A-18 The precise requirements and our responses are recorded in Chapter XI of the plan. In short, the requirements include the following: a. an industrial siting program (it is proposed to be completed in conjunction with the District's new sources premit process), b. establishment of a specific schedule for an annual inspection maintenance program for cars, c. identification of other measures necessary to attain standards by December 31, 1987. d. a commitment to use all available Federal, State or Local funds to meet basic transportation needs of the region, and e. a commitment to accelerate the implementation of transportation improvements. Q-19 How does our plan and process compare with efforts currently underway in other areas of the country? A-19 About 106 urban areas of the country - Los Angeles is considered to have the most serious problem - must produce a similar plan by January 1979. Since we have the most severe air,quality problem, and a complex region, our plan is more comprehensive and difficult than any other plan. Notwithstanding the problems, the proposed plan will be reasonable and defensible. Where requirements can not be met the plan will provide a defensible explanation of what can be done, The plan does, however, show that achieving clean air is a possibility for this region. • D R A F T Q-20 How does our Orange County subregional plan compare with that of other counties in our region? A-20 All the subregional plans are compared in Chapter 10 of the plan and in Table X of the Summary. 'In general, the plans are similar while respecting subregional differences. The Orange County Plan does not contain their recommendations in energy conservation because they are presently developing an energy plan. We understand that it will be added inithe future. Q-21 Is Orange County going to be forcedr.to pay for cleaning up pollution that comes here from L.A.? A-21 No, (air pollution is being controlled at the source), based on the maximum impacts in the receptor area. All pollution including effects of growth will be controlled by the most cost effective, least impact method. Q-22 Is this just another plan that initiated from SCAG, has been developed by SCAG, and is being forced on local governments? A-22 No, this plan was mandated by the State and Federal government. The plan has been developed by working through the subregions., the subre- gional coordinating committees and their representatives at SCAG and the, District, all of whom are local officials. We believe this team approach is far superior to having it developed for us by EPA or ARB. Q-23 Why will the cities not receive a full 60 days to review this first draft before the next draft comes out? A-23 The AQMP schedule calls for more than 90 days review of the draft, plan between October 15, 1978 and the final transmittal to ARB fn January 31, 1979. This is more than a 60 day period requested by cities through SCAG's recent General Assembly due to the complexity of the issue. Furthermore, distribution of the preliminary draft plan in August has in effect provided an additional 6-7 weeks of review time. Q-24 Why is the draft so long in coming out? A-24 This region has the most complex and difficult air quality problem in the country. The planning process started in March, •1977. Never before has this region been provided with an inventory, an air quality model and a list of tactics upon which to develop policies to solve our problem. Developing this plan on the team approach described before is a time consuming task. u r1 `rR NA-p- G fTy cta , q, lq.79. t U%i�-tE L �L7 j� �rcd ����ctcb `pj(L1- L'�ARwW 30t-� VV(,00L-evnt3 AqY #,E711F 1A16rojt/ .TbffA) IJ• SLdTA cIrrr. L A ctr/ vic X evia,6 c i l Y o f /-'[. C.6. v7'IA- G > d l ywn .1 q�ighs� C17y o� �`oury�att� V'�u.�i �V 'Ile ' S U P E R V I S O R, P' I R' S T D ,1 5 T R, I C T PHILIP L. ANT'HONY ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING V�`� SIB NORTH SYCAMORE, SANTA AN'A, CRLIPORNIA 92701t, PHONE: 834-31101AREA CODE 714) �� � C August 30, 1978 Honorable Paul Ryckoff, Mayor City of Ptewport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mayor Ryckoff: The long awaited preliminary draft of the Regional Air Qua 1ity'Management , Plan (AQMP) is just over the horizon. -The complete document is now'expected to be available sometime during the'week of September 4. We will have avail- able by September 1 copies of the IIAQMP.Summary" and IIAQMP Control Strategies." Your city can arrange to pick up copies of these pieces of the plan by call- ing the CMA Air quality Planning staff at 834-3669. The significance of the AQMP and its potential impact on local government cannot be overstated. The intent and the letter of the law mandating the AQMP clearly require that a plan shall be developed that will attain the federal air'quality standards in Southern California. The law indicates that the plan should be formulated at the local level. Failing that, however, the Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have the authority to Impose a T plan an us. With this prospect of state and federal intervention in our local affairs, and given the financial problems that we are all -facing Just to maintain an adequate level'of basic services, it is imperative that, we make our needs and concerns- known through critical -review and 'comment on the preliminary draft. Unfortunately,'our time to deal with this version of the plan is limited, close of comment being set for October 9. To help give your City a head'start on the review., we have hhave arranged a special two hour brief. nqc on the plan for SepMbgr 6 2.00 4m., in the small Board Hearing R6c located in the new County Hell of Agm'in'istration.• Staff members ,from EMA, SLAG and the SCAQMD will be on hand to distribute copies of the preliminary draft and to discuss' the contents of the plan. ,,They will also describe the review and adoption process and answer any questions that your city may have. By copy of this letter, we are inviting-youuryCity Manager and Xeur Planning Director to .represent your afty at this briefing. Your-staff`coritac"t for air quality planning also will be attending. Besides communication through your staff personnel, you and the other members of the council can be involved directly in this review and comment process. Air Quality Management Plan August 302 1978 Page Two Mayor Pro Tam James Beam, City of Orange, and I again will 6e available to brief the council on the AQMP beginning on September 18, Please .contact my office if you would like to schedule such a briefing. In addition, we will be speaking at the September 14 meeting of the League of Cities. The AQMP.is very important .for 01 of us9,esped ally in view of the long- range implications, and we stand ready to help you in any way that we can. If you need technical support for your review and comment, need further information, or have any questions, please call my office or -the EMA'Air Quality Planning staff. We look forward to working with you. very truly yours, Philip L. Anthony Supervisor, First District PLA:ec cc: City Manager Planning Director E 1 Wi SU hE RV I50 R, FI R51' 0I5 TR I c-r I;HI'trP L. ANTHONY ORANGE COUNTY AD),IINIBTRATION BUILDING IS ,NORTH SYCAMORE. SANTA ANA, CAL PORN IA 92701 PHONE; 834.3110(AREA CODE 7149 August 30, 1978 Honorable Paul Ryckoff, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 i Dear Mayor Ryckoffr The long awi ted preliminary draft of the Regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is just over the horizon. The complete document i-s now expected to be available sometime during the week of September 4. We will have avail- able by September 1 copies of the 11A(14P Summary" and "AQMP Control Strategies. Your city can arrange to pick up copies'of these pieces of the plan by call- ing the EMA=Air Quality Planning staff at 04w3669. The significance of the AQMP and its potential impact on local goverment cannot be overstated. The -intent and the letter of the law mandating the AQMP clearly require that a plan shall be 'developed that will attain the federal air quality standards in Southern California. The law indicates that the plan should be formulated at the local level, failing that, however, the Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have the, authority to impose a plan on us. With this prospect of state and federal intervention in our local affairs, and given the financial problems that we are all facing just to maintain an adequate level of'basic services, it is imperative that we make our needs and concerns known through critical review and comment on the preliminary draft. Unfortunately, our time to deal' with this version of the plan is limited, close of comment being set for October,2. To help give your city a head start on the review, we have arranged a special two hour briefing on the ,plan for September 6, 2:00 p.m. in the small Board Hearing Room located in the new County Hall of Administration. Staff members from EMA, SCAG and the SCAQMD will be on hand to distribute copies of the preliminary draft and to discuss the contents'of the plan. They will also describe'the review and adoption process and answer any questions that your city may have,. By -copy of this letter, we are inviting your City Manager and your Planning Director to represent your city at this briefing. Your staff contact for air quality planning also will be attending. Besides communication through your staff personnel, you and the other members of the council can be involved -directly in this review, and comment process. Air,Quality Management Plan August 30, 1078 Page Two ' Mayor Pro Tem James Beam, City of Orange, and I again will be available to brief,the council on the AQMP beginning on September 18, -Please contact my office if you would like t4 schedule such a briefing. In addition, we will be speaking at the September 14 meeting of -the League of Cities, ' The AQMP'ts very important for all of us, especially itt view of the long- +'; range implications, and we stand ready to help you in any way that we can. If you need technical support for your review and Comment, need further' Information,, or have any questions, please call my office or the EMA Air Quality Planning staff.. We look•forward.to working with you. Very truly yours, Philip L. Anthony Supervisor, Pirst District PLA:ec cc: City Manager Planning Director f K RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES z o Z AQMP SUB -REGIONAL ELEMENTS i r z Uj (7 W (N f- W Z V) W Z ZD Z Z O Z H O w J W W i J W W O W U W W O^ ¢ W Z E • Z J (D W Z J W W J H W N J d' W w_ I d � C.D N : Z • Q W Q W (D W 0' W m W W Z H fn VI Z 9 W Z K Y C. CD O O O H C[ N OU 3 TRANSPORTATION Transit Improvement `+ Park and Ride X X X X X 50 Subsidize systems X X X X X Encourage private participation X X X Expand transit X X X X X 72 Support rail transit X X Support exclusive bus lanes in certain corridors X X X 56,58,72 Support regional transit development X X X 72 Wort interjurisdictional transfer services X X X Transit Management And Efficiency improvements Bus shelters X X X Bus benches X X X Improved scheduling X X X X 72 I RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES Z o W CD ¢ a' AQMP SUB -REGIONAL ELEMENTS o } o co W Z W Z F _. Z O Z �, im F-- 4' Z H UJ p_ O W .J W W 7- ..J W W Z O W C.) E W W O ME:Z� cC W Z W d O m U W Z J U W Z_ I W W J . W N J 0' W W_ I Cl- U N O Z Q W Q W C J W a_, W m W W Z H to 1n Z W Z W :h& of: C> CD J O J O _� O- ' ¢ (N O U 3 TRANSPORTATION (cont.) X X X Expand public awareness Iieve transit movement X X X 72 Monitor VMT changes X X Non -work transit usage X 72 Subsidize minimum transit fare structure X Comprehensive review of the system X Rideshare Program / High ccu� pancy Vehicle W dize X X X X 55 Preferential parking X X X X 68 Use of government vehicles X Private sector participation X X X 55 Automobile / Parking disincentives X X X X 68 Commuter Computer X X X X 55 Preferential lane treatment X X ^ RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES > 0 W 0 AQI•iP SUB -REGIONAL ELEMENTS CD LlI Ld W Z O-� Z LY% Z W d -1 LU .J LU O LU W W 'Y LU re Ql (11 =' (:J % J W J N J "I W J Uj L Z Vf T 4 W �L Itl (D W (1_ LU (A W Of 1 N N Z W LL LL' K O U O J O J O or: 0.' t/) TRANSPORTATION (cont.) System Improvements �jNi'ghway Int�'F`section modifications X X 53 Improved signalization ' X X X X X 53 emoval of stop signs X Establish county wide traffic coordinating committee X X Expand uniform traffic control program X X X 53 Expand freeway ramp metering X X X 52 Expand by-pass freeways missing links X X X X X Use of one-way streets On -street parking limitations X X Peak period truck restrictions X X Reversible traffic lanes X Par;;ing Management ."-free zones on selected streets X f F (TABLE X-1) cont. RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES Z W F I- AQAIP SUB -REGIONAL ELEMENTS o o CD V) I- W Z V) F- W Z Z F- =) U 1- Z M I- cr� Z H n. p .S J W W Z J W W:E: O W U E W W p:2:: Q W Z• E Z W a p M U W Z _J U W Z J W W .J . W N J Q' W UJ -J d E( D N = Z ' QW Q W UW af:W mW WLU V) O (n O Q 7 Z N p d' O Ix 3 TRANSPORTATION (cont.) o THIS TACTIC ALSO LISTED UNDER ANOTHER HEADING Study feasibility of auto control zones X X X 60 Esurage improvement of access to major airports X X a Staggered work hours/4 day week X X X Review of parking facilities X X 70,92 Preferential parking for ride share vehicles X X X 55,68 Travel Reduction Ban drive -up type service X *�ging travel demand X X 53,55,56 Gasoline limitation X 66 Use of railroads/pipelines to move goods and comodities X X Relocating landfill to reduce VMT X .I r RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES z o r } AQMP SUB -REGIONAL ELEMENTS o o C W Z W Z O Z Z � Z H � O Uj Q J W W E —1 w W� O w V L w W 0:= 4 w ZT_ Z W n. CDm C7 W Z J U' W Z J 4J W —1 H W N J n_ w l t i J C} to =D Z • < W C W C7 w K W C3 W W Z -- (n O 1n O Z ¢ C W 7 r+ Z Q a: Y K OU - —1 _..1 O cn 3 TRANSPORTATION (cont.) Travel Substitutes X V&tary trip reduction programs Redevelop neighborhoods/community bicycle/pedestrian circulation systems/transit stops X X X X X Use of PRT systems X X Improved pedestrian/bicycle safety X X X X Provide secure bicycle storage facilities X X X X Shuttle services X X creased use of mail/phone shopping X Pricing Measures Taxing parking X X X Reimbursement of transit fares X 64 Strict enforcement of 55 mph limit X Merchant validation program X i RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES AQMP SUB -REGIONAL ELEMENTS • • V) J W W'-.--_ C:3 W Z J <� W n O r In J W W � U` W 7- J <[ W N O > z i O W UL LLI W- J C7 W Z O r ` �t- W W W __ H W f n J d W w > H K } C:) z a i <C LJ �� 11= W W J M W Z N C5 K 2-1 w H Q W Z W Q. O m_ d I n O Z C Z X K K O O (TABLE X-1) cont. ENERGY CONSERVATION o THIS TACTIC ALSO LISTED UNDER ANOTHER HEADING Improve efficiency home heating, cQ,Qling and insulation X X Support conservation and development of new energy sources X X Encourage more efficient energy usage by commerce/industry X X Support water conservation X X X Support efforts for solid waste conversion to fuel X ®Development of law emission fuel efficient engines X I lop low -pollution fuels X Street light improvements X X Encourage alternative parking lot construction materials X Solar energy program X X Retrofit existing buildings with solar energy systems X X X Give tax incentives for solar energy usE X X X RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES AQMP SUB -REGIONAL ELEMENTS ' E' Z o Uj W Z J W W� C-0 W Z. J GW V) O T W Z J W LU E C9 W Z J Q W V) O r ZD O W U E W LU J (DLU 4 T ? W LJ C3 ',_ W N J 2'W o U o Q UJ Z E K UJ W J MW Z N W ¢ a. GL CD C:: � Q W [1 Z co a Z V) = Z W Z -- OU 3 (TABLE X-1) cont. ENERGY CONSERVATION (cont.) Evaluate local solar energy production a#protecting solar rights X Res ructure exterior lighting X X Reduce non -essential lighting X X Efficient use of process steam and waste heat X Street design for conservation X X Better insulation -electric resistance heaters X Landscape with drought -resistant plants X ack thermostats at night X X R0ax dress code X X Facilitate use of fresh air for ventilation X X Educate public for energy conservation X X X Automatic light shut-off for buildings X Devise and implement programs to encourage use of clothes lines X RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES AQMP SUB -REGIONAL ELEMENTS ` W Z J W WF (7W ZJ ¢W N O r W Z J W W F_ U' W Z J ¢ W N O r Z O W OF W UJ-1 (7W Z O r ' Z W W oc �-+W to-, MW > N o z H O= Z C W z_F_ a W W J COW Z Q N W v CD Cr_' Z W p W Q p m C9 N Z Z W H Y 3 (TABLE X-1) cont. ENERGY CONSERVATION (cont.) o THIS TACTIC ALSO LISTED UNDER Use Community Development Block Grant ANOTHER HEADING Funds for lower income energy related airs X Use natural lighting whenever possible X X Have janitorial staff light only immediate work area X X Ban wasteful use of energy X Provide appliance efficiency labeling X Coordinate vacation schedules X Install drive checklists for energy conservation in all vehicles X *lyze and modify solid waste sewage, ste collection and disposal for maximum energy savings X X 44 e Flexible work hours/4 day week X X X Strict energy conservation in all government buildings X Increase density level within new developments X Revise city building codes X F- RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES w AQMP SUB -REGIONAL ELEMENTS o i r o c� <n i— �-- z t— H a t- z w � J W W L .J W w�: O w V L UJ W M- Q W Z:E „7 m (D W Z J C7 W Z —i w w J — W V) _1 M Ld w J �, g C.} V) :w) Z • Qw Q W C7 W Ww M W w Z H Z w K Y O J O J O 0' C V) O O U 3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT Transportation S;le - occupancy vehicle disincentive X Parking surcharges X X X 92 Purchase vehicles based on fuel economy/lowest emissions X X X Vehicle fleet maintenance and equipment inspection X X 74,83 Retrofit of agency equipment X Replacement of agency equipment X X 47 Energy Conservation Incl ded Under E ergy onservation • Public Information Include Air Quality impacts in driver education programs X Develop programs for individual effort to improve air quality X X X Energy conservation programs X X X RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES z o W CD c <Ir } } AQMP SUB -REGIONAL ELEMENTS o o (N f— W z U) F- W z Z F- z C-) I— z CD I— z Z W a. = K < In —1 W W E —1 W W E CD C.1 .L W W 0 '= <!: W :I_ 'IF::Z W a co CD W Z —1 CD W Z J W W J W to J Of W J d CD En Z Z • ¢ W <C W CD W Z R' W W m W W Z tN O N CDO 7-. ¢ K cc: N 3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (cont.) State - Federal Aatory vehicle inspection/maintenanc program X Reduce competitive constraints between national, regional, and local transit X Other Monitor development of low -pollution fuels as substitutes for natural gas and petroleum distillates X Purchasing agent procure combustion designed for low air quipment llution emission, non -reactive solvents, degreasers and paints X X Participate in AQMD decision making X Support emission control enforcement X Promote development of "cleaner" industrial base for counties X Revise offset rule 1 to 1 in affected areas X (TABLE X-1) cont. RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES C) Li1 CD AQMP SUB -REGIONAL ELEMENTS C:)C-)o CD W Z W Z Z U F- Z M 1- C 7_ UJ fZ-. d. p W Q J W W ;_ J W W 7- C) W C) ,•+ L J W c S W Z r Z M 0- C) � CD W Z J CD W Z J W W J W to J 0� W W J Z Z • Q W ¢ W C7 W Z O C W W CO W W VN C) N C) 0 H ¢ p: a O C7 2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (cont.) © THIS TACTIC ALSO LISTED UNDER ANOTHER HEADING Check for SCAQMD permits during fire Wshal inspections X LAND USE PLANNING Encourage increased residential densities when appropriate X X X Provide industrial/commercial revitalization program X X awe Community Development Block Grant mounds for major repairs and upgrading residential structures X X Use multi -purpose centers for new intensive commercial uses X X X Growth management techniques X Slow growth/timed development X Subdivision regulations X RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES AQMP SUB -REGIONAL ELE14ENTS • o� V) 1- w z J W W L (7 W Z J Q W V) O J � <n F- W 2-1Z J W W t (.5 W Z J C W V)< O J > H O W U W W J CD W 0 O U F Z W L J O i W V) J � W W r � 1,7 o I- �' Z c[ W ' E W W_ J M WLLJ Z Q V) w co CK� z w n. O �. Q Z W d O CO n' `3 U Z Ie � O O U 3 (TABLE X-1) Cont. LAND USE PLANNING (cont.) X Hazard zoning Cuter zoning X X X Annexation X Coordination with transportation planning X Performance zoning X Locate new employment centers close to probable employee residential areas X X Neighborhood commercial in residential areas X X X ign residential areas to facilitate us service X X X Planning review process for air quality consideration X Encourage urban infill X X X Incorporate VMT reduction in general plans X X i RECOMMENDED CONTROL MEASURES AQMP SUQ-REGIONAL ELEMENTS ' } oL) N F- W Z J W W � C7 W Z- QW N O J C.), fn }-- w Z -I W W S C7 W Z J Q W N O -I Z i- O Z O W UE W W J U` W Q 0 , O _ OU {- Z W W 0^ . W V1 .J W W .-i W o CD, I- o=Z < W Z's' K W W -1 MW Z ¢ N Z W p �. 4 Z W Cl C. ca n- C7 N = Z Y CD C) CD 3 (TABLE X-1) Cont. LAND USE PLANNING (cont.) e THIS TACTIC ALSO LISTED UNDER ANOTHER HEADING R�1 ire energy conservation on L ditional permits X X Control amount/distribution of: growth and development X X X Locate sensitive receptors in areas of best air quality X Revise ordinances/regulations to provide incentives to non-polluting industries X X 145 Revise ordinances/regulations to provide transportation efficient land use patterns X X X Olusion of air quality considerations in general plans X X o Relocation landfill to reduce VMT X List landscaping plants selected on the basis of resistance to pollution and capable of removing pollution X X NIE7` OM CITIES ANAIM �ange -. BREA County Divi0o l BUENABUEPARK COSTA MESA ' CYPRESS FOUNTAIN VALLEY LEAGUE OF r A LII ORNIA CITIES FULLFRTON GARDEN GROVE HUNTINGTON BEACH 623A, 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701, (CITY HALL) 1714) 8344099 IRVINE LAGUNA BEACH , LA HABRA LA PALMA 1975 3 b Se temer P Date 19/5 LOSALAMITOS , eSs�P NEWPORT BEACH COPIES SENT T0: ORANGE PLACENTIA Mayor SAN CLEMENTE ® Manager SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SANTA ANA gAttorney SEAL BEACH Honorable Mayor and [f P w Director TUSTIN STANTON Members of the City •Council CcmOav Director VILLA PARK ri Other WESTMINSTER YORBA LINDA Dear fellow Council Members: �%�},Counctlmen We have been advised by the State Air Resources Board that it is initiating an Air Quality Maintenance Plan process for the South Coast Air Basin. The notification includes the following statements: It is recommended that there be representation from one city in each county in the Air Quality Maintenance Area. The task force will meet several times during the next six months. It's responsibilities will include reviewing the suitability of the initial AQMA designation; recommending, as appropriate, modification of the AQMA boundaries; preparation and implementation during Phase 2; approving a work program for Phase 2; identifying staff resources and fiscal resources for Phase 2; reviewing various strategies for the Phase 2 planning process. Because of the time frame, we would like to request that the customary advance notice be waived, and that our representative be named at the next Executive Meeting September 11. We invite you to submit names to the League Office, 623A, Santa Ana Civic Center, Santa Ana 92701, prior to the September 11 meeting if possible. If not, advise Winston Updegraff or me at the Division meeting. Very truly yours, \y. a Jessterez ,4� Fj President JFP:m' �J%. �1 I'v) 3 , .,,AMEND ol'?AMENR �,CALMORM _ASSEMBLV.B1 MBLY MAY .4k1�48'RECUL:&R SESSION - a n, Liw,lg- "Idiftrift iii-each-df t1f&dbunti6singludec, ih.,Vho1&btin part*-,--"' v �fivithin- the-SouthnC64st -'This bill4ould:creatErin, that. air: basin- the S6utlfGO"t d, C)'Quality' Maxiagerneiit:Dis�et-Wiii�spdec�ified pbw�,er_�&',dnd: ii t begim,,,, .''ties. -The dis�ct:-'couici lab, operation. UntbaiLF' e4rfiary 1. and — .,,The district, ing'dheral,wouldhave the powers d duties of,a county ak pollution control district'and,the powers and, duties not in conflict thbrewith*Y.es'ted in a regional dir. pollu-,,-- 2250 15- 47 m d6n0cohtr6l; d! j6iktibns�,iad it- difles,6titich, C-Ou" , I - .1 iii.1- I :'discietbrij Y:1-, eacIi�oviity; inch to _apgint ;a hiev the county ,"V.ii-s�addiiitoCha6ieiaofI �i - 1. 14 - .V and-Safety-C4de,,tb,rba: . .... .. 7F Z ArticleA 2-am U-; l .,."- the iver ,th "dii �k 5-.; Pe6pW otil n t .,In -tOatrnbsp hL erp erital w- 7-- ,p T3geographica �;Fb)Thatx C ra ita requiredIA ftneclby-k;`f*461., -4g e t prianceitnev,pperation-ot. -wi,4,acmevmgot arnbientair.,q fiftfto Vqirhihirital'j, b` dget rye=4. oop %44 tibn,nor-crftte,-hhy.,bblfr��;'-�'�,;� 26A fandad§ -g 4r .'66aL4geuby.',f6f any,cosW.,:.•,-.-- * :. -. 2K WjjiiaS-. 'IF ap 6::;y of.16blid.,�healt ftan-d 31,stiAdar&-sl•io d.not,b- e; a 1�1*1�1:1 t�y - .tc. ' - is ailde CL 6onipfeh.enslve;� asiamo 35 be-devek )Ped ur -- oulldo 36-e, -,'abatefferitip ,t5dsE g6i ent 37 - :,'w 'cHmi res tin eacb -ar" j cinkmith'Sectio 08:-,`-i6Jtate fibidihtali,q-b-all Divasi&26,of the:ealth '". 39,-. iie.ii,,,sotirbes'oP,emis-sioni:a 40_to with the i b e, consistent -3d -50 r.3958 • '5 ;: people Ai&Qtjaliky{:l a?iagement° �ti'%r`ii:F.^,itt�frF�,�::`::'�i.�,'�..'.j�,..�`i�^i ,- Y'�r:" �•� nc-is�ands'cleclaies�<thak;the- _ . inia have=a prmiary:interest °' x: ,,;i i; 9�eiietrnneatal'EakhegpiibliG�ieace ':Health;,„safety,aricl ' : `' E; ' �welf"aie�o the~p�ople�of; �.�L � '- .lU'.` r the•statBrs�tc:`di;�''=.a fiY`�:.',+..;,7;��.;�;�'�.� y,-::,i2•:tr<,', •'�' �. 'gi1 � �•, p�, , 5 d:deClare$:,'it'.°:'aaa_. 'd j ll 39580:5 ;_ 1lie' ,.,,.,��77��ture.iurtlierfinilan . k: •!. I,.'12,r,M $r.`Tl1a ti1� SS1u"'4GQast"5i�r;M$asil�^. Y 4i7UU4,::. aLboundaries::.:;,.;: ><:` .13 "gebg=aphical".entity„Rok ieffectei� liy,;;litic es �4�atiieYl�asivaelbtiowledg'ed,=to; liavethe inostz' ,;s 15i"ciitic$l a�rpolli bxuprabTex i i the nation causeiiTiy Yel4a:r"zt- I' 2Y. l..yrd'. }r operatigrxo€; f tithe-ba§in'u= on motoivefiicTesa u� y.ryy���{� 'F(v� p�.f, � bf llUt1022 at UenC .-_Of.k'%��p,',i `'. :.staYv....,��icytS(iUrCrF.x'.:'S'�'':4-•`i- t.: K ed ?. :18'aa;atos Iieztc uiveisionsthat;Zap aenaTcontaminauts„aiicl 19 ttiie=large •aniounk of+stinshme that t ansfoimbf%ychicular: se , . "' 20''`exkesss./qq/p' nonvefr'cirlarer�aissioa�:iritaavanetyofiL= s , by n 0�� _a�i�4' d a�. F R'J 7 i�t'�i,�[.T ID• ��urt;"Yf(^ k.-4a`�- T;(y--�� 1` cI�emf `call 21:.;xdeIeteiious«_ <f. s< CtmeIIt• Othe'. Of :22i'r'�Co=AryCongressnptbrgugh='tlie.ena the °!ts; . 231e4aitlirYtic°of1�7a;as inaiidakecirileadlines-foi;the';.ya `. <.. oframbieiikau� uality stzrifiaids'aricl.jiaainwide 'rk-. `*„,^�� 24;-kdcillt'„mg .r ;. ii3+u ei� ,.r �-5-r.�x..., r �. �;: :'t", �e:"�%h 25::intergavernineiital� cooperation vt t achieve;, [tlio§e �dY'�i�ch,'yl.....r �:. _ 'y....-]__•�7���t x.. n4- clz•'. ;•-c•' 1 r[... s�.`'=fy'�•_. J„`. .:v ' 26 'J'. tiLLl(lAL4.Y 'St 'r}' ': r5.9?'Rc{' r, �';y: .7J:1�'axr .14C 4,.",µ. wb k,�n4'j .`.."b _ 4 b11- :. ''G d '1'Lha krl the �a sand°� federal; gave �n�nentse l�aV.� a•.agf ` , sts 27t': � ( tatex r.....::..- .� l• �1J!.rr .U�J•.`. I:• .�Jx.. ,... :t n• r- , ti+,' 28 proiniilgate'', rent ;air i quality si�iidaicls :,for `tlie , �' public „' 29+='Pro..Cection=o£^puMid;,health iancl;thaYtit„issiri yes. ,, �,• ,..�,;Y G. _' v ; ' 30.r irate"re"st „tha those standardsr'iie:;-ine andr drat; those: — ,•,.',y'. �, �; ram. '•$'i,.-.-....-^'-�i'�..[.-�';^s."�c.•,.. '{:;�•;,.:i' exceeded: `" x;',r,:;' , :3 32 stariiiards;shouTd riot be ;�• ->,.,. :;F:. x r,. Y 32,: _' =(e) rThat''ii order taractiieve and:maintauz --=the; ''ambient�:air ,'.quality :Y`:'taridaids;` 33::.;withiir r alth 34':, eorriprehens ve liasifiwide -qua ty��manageinent 35 must be developed`6i?d,implernentedao provide for..the'''.': : trol «: 1' 36 .rapid•.:abafement': of. existing:., emissi6h' levels to -:levels'. 'ct. ;'. ;- 37'. which.will result in the achievement arid,mairitenance of alt fi + : x 38 ,,thestate ariibient airquality•standards-andto ensure,that- alth 39-.new�sources o£emissions are -planned and operated so:as ; "'; 40 -to be consistent with the'basWs air qualfty:goalsn; r ,,- x • •..' - ;` .'. - ' _ -t•• _ . . `.2 250 45 53 • 4 , s-,f'i� +ti 4 `. -.'Y ',, J - 'ri=..w.• ' .. lA..•L. n )• '•'AB-250 '. :':tt.-cs•-''fir'Tf•;rv"�tl ya�.",�'ti'I`-,,.'+},, .• s, {V'. -1,1:;':�`(fl;-Tliat`y'ig;rordex�j'tat.�successfiilly.-;"develop.�.'ancl.`.'-,T 2 iiinplenient''a <mea9dingfril:'3tiategy .for` achieving and .= ,. 3"maintaining ambient 7 sir;Y quality= •stand'ards,,:f 16ca1 . . ;,4 governmeriti; ia--the South; Cmfs Air' Basin -'must-' lie =5' delegated`:additional-fauthority=froi Wifier'-stat in:`the 'f:&':control,' of� yehiculai- sbuices anil must="retaiii."existing c•- 7 authority-�to ,a'set ; s[ gent",emissi 7 :,? . it '41� �'. d'n ti,.rF* 'ib:`+' •.�, .jY.l:.:a "ls ^.: f' ` °;8 �'Sioiivehicular•'source's �`,YM �-�•••�"c'i`• - %f, ,^'^?+ tG �•.•.t", .,,' ; successftillyimplement ;. 1w.I10V:d6mpfeh'ensiV6_, progri=.for'=--the.`: achievement; ,hand i >^ 11:T'niaintenance of 'ambient 'air-'ijiiality:'staridards-in the", 12- South�:Coast'Ain Basin;;tlfewresponsibilities ;gf::Iocal: and .: I3=~,' iegional authorities==espect to, '6Z6ntrol v;;14' must lie,,f Ay,iiii grated'into-aa-,agency ' ;with .basinwide z, . yr 15 `authority; governed by iepiesentatives of coign . .,-� �.;16xmgovernments:a .P1 .��c s ;-:.,.;,. < �`:-�t;•� •�.i8�=;:�:�(a)�;"Distract'.��'ineaiisF�:tfie=�Soutlr}'CoaitL�Air �'Qeiality�::,,', Mara einenbDistriot. ' g »: s xlioai d:' o� the . r.. ,-(1i•)r�,"Distiictrlioar'cl� meiins.;the`•distric#- 21: South: Coast Ali Quality g Maas ement District.: ,•.i .2 ;('c),'iPlan? :riieans the districtairquality aianagemen"' :plan:=_ '%"} wt yT%f'.'(+' -y `, s••'.�+ i_ J•• .•�C.'•.,7ti. wS.i: �'1.-�_.tiL5',! 23 24 w'"39581..' There.-> °hereby�created:'the.South' Coast Au'.; �' 25, Quality Management Districi 'coiriprised'of,'the: area'of ; `26 -the. South Coast -Air Basin;.,as; described in. Section 60104 •;' • ., df TitI'e`17=ofthe Califorip `Adxniniitrative-C6de;:as 28''brtihereafter, amended: The ;district-'- y' ?not• begin 29`operationuntil:Vebiiary;'1;1976,�-4't- 30 " 39581.1a `The t.egislature ecognizes Ehe of desire, ttie `31,:;`$eerd Boaidsof Supervisgrsrof'the�'C'ounties'•df%Ventui`a ,'; 32,-,' nd-Santa•Barbara to• be~gaclnded iri"thementiietyfrog.: , 33' the South CoastAir.Basin;and tojbe exempted from the•a• • ' 34 • ;jurisdictor of regional; 9gericies controlling airpollution' 35 in the'air•basin:•_, i rc- ,:',,..,'__ 36 - '.'However 1the"two, counties. sl all•'r6miin: under the 37 jurisdiction o£ the, district until such time as the State Air., 38 -Resources Board :revises : the boundaries. of the South 39 Coast Air Basin'to'exdude from.the basin e'ither-Ventura Itura 40 County or. those portions. of Santa Barbara County, 'or 2 250 55 56 ' 5 77 both,;which.are,curiend r 42 ' of. such action byx z13, bound4rips.df the district .4 conform to'the,,boun 5 ! of, he " ,6;. _ re+rise the ies of t^. :..7a ' ie 3sneie e! le �777 a.18. `.rnreachingany..'deci ' };9 basrn,;;the=Stata�lir-�Reso ' :.ten.-•_ :r- � s .. ... dlFk` G 16*1 6. • 17"�;� 204{.bi LL2]{1�--oi 2 , l� 24 _. _(b) One' member•:o£; 2&.appointed••by the,Mayor. confirmation of the, city, i 30 . '(c)•',Qne: member- o£ ;31.:-,Cbuncil of Los ;Angeles,. 32==appouated.by. thecitjrsel 33'a ,(d)', One, -member. ap' 34, bea reel boards of supeivis 35 `whole' or in part, within tl 36 -.be:a member, of -the apIx 37. (6) - Ore member of. 38; Counties of Riverside, S '39 , Santa Barbara - appointed 40 of each of.those counties: �._ _ __ i ] � �-+-.ter SY•� -1 � .•.iJ. ' .. -1 both,.which are:currently'within-the,basin. In the event- _,2_,o£ such:taction by the.,State:Air.Resources•Board;,•the 3. --boundaries of thelstrictrpursuant to.Section 39581, shall Aconform. to'•tiieboundarie&of the'basin.''•r,;.•t:.? ":• S,• ; ,4nj,_deeisie� eF ,i e.State Eeseerees••: a se 6 • , 3e rise 41�e be iesef #fie iaeie sla be evade sel* ex ; ,..the b" efAwjiest,s ale teebrkeA k4ermatien- 8 :&a is dgganYdecijohtvreyisetheboundariesofthe ",-• 9 basin,: the•StateAirResourcesBoard shall-base.itsactidd,- 1% npon,:therbestaie ble,technical` information; and,tbe.,.''=_ 11•i of ectwAich theexeli on.ofeither:oxbothcoontiesfolri_"` 12 ,`the barn'worild haKe:upon the effik ent operation.- 13 : district -and the•-pinposes- of.'tA&,article asset forik ; 14 Sections &qW and 39M5 ,15.` 39581.5:; .The board..of supervisors' of a, county thatzis � 16..oiily .inducied,in•part;within,the''districtraay.coatraci= 17 •' with.tlie districttaperform. airpollution control function _. -- . 18 ;;ia that area of the countynotincludedwithin the -district ,- ' 19 • an& the,'district; mayT peiform.:such <functions ; for- the.,: ,• ' 20'.couaty;.Such area; howevei; shall,not be ileeined a.part.':; .'21.,of the: district ' =:: `.:• :.;:: a': u x - rF. : 22F. �39582:��Jhe district�shall,.be governed-b'y.a district;'',`" 23 board consisting consisting.of ITirae hers appointed, as follows:;�- -'' 24.' . ' . (a)%,Two-•: members — appointed„ : by ,,th6, �%Board' , of _ 25 Supervisciis of; the,,0ourity of Los, Angeles, cvha shall be, ' 2S members of the;board,of"supervisors :::`;< ;; ^•: ':;::. " 27 •' ,'(b) One member oi?,the:City_Cpuncil of :T:os.Angelesi 28- appointed-bythe Mayoi :of �Los,Angeles,;•subject to the",*'. 29 confiiznation of the. city'council :: t4; rr,r:,> ;c;,;,- 30 ••••- (c)..One�r# ember'of air .-eiiy.,.council, except the 31, Council, of Los Angeles„;in the''_Courit}r-'of,-.Los'.Angeles,,• 32: appointer&by the cityselection committee o£that count):._ - 33 (d) • One,•meinber: appointed -:by .each::of. the -other' 34: �ear� boards of supeivisors�of. the- counties" included, in, ' 35 whole-orpart, within' the district; which" member shall 36 be a. member of the appointing board of. supervisors. 37 _, '. (e) One member of, any city council iri each of the . 38 • Counties of Riverside; San, Bernardino, Ventura, and 39 Santa Barbara, appointed by'the city, selection committee 40 of, each of, those counties..,, .. - 2 250 65 58' 0 0 TW6,-riem'-b6 k94,, theky6itkz se eftion', .0 e ittee; of. 'ag.'c th&. co ty 6jj�&Afigih6�6166t�,-ind oh ben, �an3Kcityl 1:3 - that tl 't ier 136 "Itri- _-Tc.4�,th col sh& __�ei 0 t Y. On4i - h 0 4 t 4 i2e ;sha IV, M� .reasonable` and :aWai] r*���'.,d 27"' ._'Af4pie .32 pe orrma Sucka" tytjo 33�:;6y a-reddent, biYv� terms as 'CO12i&;�U 35— -servi�',moi&-.tb'= tw6 'The I lAgise-ldturi'.._ rlh-Tecen't_-eff6rts': .."-37-- "395W-:,,The e.' 38,,,bf'the^Sbutli,-,Cdist:Air--'Basiif CbordiriaW9-,Coufic' 39• iiiiifyth'e-cotmty-distriet'in ffie-SoiitivCoast A:iiBasminto 40, a iingk.agency, and the-&irictboa'rdis her . ebydirect6d 2 2W 75 -27 xteptis:btl thefdis *6t�sh 1-bave-s 36, yested in, a,countY-distric '37'.,�'(commeri6ing-vidi,,'Sec t 08, °stich powers- . and duties'l .39,' in- a`regional,*district ii s] 40,"chapter'j,. I 1 'to utilize•the•; Z.-the coordinai .3 ... that, the:,tran :y4` :thecountydi -6= -V.Tare," .,9- district-wil '0 Y, :39583,4 . :11? :peifors"n,ib ff 1.2Y-With'th p :14il a?esult4ni 15 :l policieC of - <lgwdistxict =_ e • •18."'•`aat1lOT�t�?: t u.''a : `I9?^';distiiccts;;:i d ;20•:x,are�nicTo 'ts 2(1�' w'aL33958��' e 23";petii%n� o 24;,!"ei+idence� 25' �putili�:he ut e - 26 reasonab! 27 eeliierei 28'+=standards 29' ^ sesd +tee e d ' 30 'e ea eel the 31r d es 32'- Such.'a ndexp'erience.ofthe members:o£-.. land itsAechnical staff to; ensure'•'- pollution -control; -functions from., e districtisas,smooth and orderly ;' „.', .:'• districincluded,'iui whole shall,continu:to e-PerforizL:iis•air :::..•;_' iori,'in that part: of •thc-'chanty ` ibelmdLi W1976- each: bbu, nty4ciiSti`ict;. hall r: �Gontioi-activities-i ,-Co,nforrinance• -wt ssiiicurxed'liy`a�-bounty' :-. . �. .•:,•.•'""_�cxt��iitd/A'':rii,rc)innM'�F1.:.i l',ir state Board'wliicli�petitiom incivaes. ;_.;�=:z-;; - Gh'the. statebgaid determiries;�,after a : b: 4 ,' _� �G;thesilistarict'board"haS' nbt-takenii;a114 : �:;. ;;_ ail:able%ac#ioii�=''►�;•;�:�`-�' � ;;f`- acliieve& the state''ari bienC'atr quality ',: i�d%stri e}ei�ei�eftlse�s;•" -_ .. NO Sa4 35 - the-• districts shall +haveisuch :powers;::andi ' 36 vested iit a county district treated pursuan -to: ChapEei:2 orts , 37 .'•'(commencing,"with;Section--24198) -of.-Division.• 20,.,and:' to 38 'such Powers aril duties'; not--` conflict theiewith:vested: into 39 in a regional ;district,67:specified in, otlier. articles of this .. ted . 40L ' chapter` ,' '- 2 250 95 62' ' '. ' '.AB-250�' _ _•t. 44.-" 1 f .1 . - •i.'�', _ Y • 'y •4 • •'ay" • i ':1`a;_•'351i8431;_a:The;pro�isions--of :Chapter'6(oommeneing;.,:_ • ' l,-'growth:and;developnie `'�i:2^ _ with�Section-39260) -of-1& 1l isberebyincorporated into' ' .,;''.' 2,:.maximurri _ezterit feasib -3:••.this:article,asiffull}rset,'•forth'herein:-N::;<-x.:%:' -`:z: , S. maintaining;theair„cqu -395M 4'.:_.;'Not later:than:Ianuary'30, 1977, :the.-distric#''.;' ' 4f, :In' :the'event,that:,; th ,44'.% ,•"'5 board Zaltad'bptidistrictitules and`regulationsahat are:.: -;:. 5r,achiedement�of a §fate iti.contlict with-federal'and'stateaaws "and rules and=',`. „' 6; January 1;-1980;,tlie•plan regulatiois;X&Jxadoption�-and':° approv%P.oft;tiie:plan;,� .: 7,•'.selgievee�ent r Sa such xules; arici regulations shall be amended, _if necessary, 8• , ;=_areYeen_ ~.g-. ,.::,9�:tb�Cbnform�;ta:the.plan:;:?-�'�•'•�a��.._' ..h,_;w;•;.,<��,�xp! >.,;:; �:t':,'ri' , y.i,: t'`=ylO MTV 39584i ".» Tlie district bda d--ihallyadop- they' necessary"; _ prb-si-M >;.illz rul�saiid';regulations.;taimplement::the'A:Pollutioni.;:• ;, 11 :hePewer:eE;s,ee, 12;'Etriergency:Gontingene)�Elandeveloped.bytheS,tatetlir ,.:; - 3 12;- Pe68 `13.,�eskrie;, :t3 ,Resources k.; _ �t tea, kS'.: ;; .,-, n :39584.8:= ^l?tirsuarit: 'toyits .authorit .i:underx-S`ectionL'« -14 "-,eealre}y:eri' 15's,39584S6. to, implemerifi. then `Aix �Pollutibn, )iii eigency:' „` 15�idegrade :tie': '. 16'zs'Qontiagency'Plan,'o£'the:.State:AiaaResouices=Board;!thei '16:; .compliancekschedule'for =,,;'17.;,"irict.board:mayrad6ptrulesaiidregulations,to:limittheL ',• 17i earliestdatepossiAl by' ` ;11? 18 aoperationof inotoi vehicles within'the district�du'ring'th ' ;,.''' ' 4`' ;18'±:available eontiok'meas periodwhen an au 'pollution:•emeigency-lias.been€called :..: :19;>it r395&56_ Noprottisiori "_ as defined;'by;tliah' lan 'Sueh'•rules and=regulations shalLw:' :' `20{ the .power o the -:ba 2 ,notYa 1 }fa.?.thi eration:sof.°aiithorized.-•eiiiergency =' ppP', op 21 ,vncluded,;,;ii x>holegiin ` •. 22 `vehicles; as defuied in Section-165' ofthe Vehicle Code,'gr', : ,. , _ ; 22 �. anyorder, zule; orregula ' M. rrepair.veliicl'es ofa ubfic utifi °i w" `<=:4 :Y M k '' ;= 23;: control'ivluchisstricter. NotlaterthanJanuary_30;1978,4thedistrict : 24;vboard4nd;not.M eorlflic 25. board shall adopt a.=district.airqualityxnanagement`.plari: ; 25 =shall enforce any sttch p a..26::.ta achieve-an�%,maintain' the, state; ainbient,•airxquafity�r, ; 26r,',.., 395&SS�: aExcept�'as:q,< 27 = standazds for.:the;district i, _.ati `4'- ::: .•' w�__ "� 27, re ardin theta oinhn 8 8 PP. - . , a;(•h)t•. The:pTan shall•be prepazed:by the district', ivi 'the : ; . 28;?Sectiozi 39585'6"ze ardin g cooperation arid:active paiticipition:of•theecounties and: '~:'.' - 29^-zvles; andregzrlatibns,th :,30oities withu?;Elie; district;;:the\�Southein:r•Galifornia . 30 . board„ofsu ervisors :oF p 31; t. Association.o£ Governments; -the=<State:.�-Air.Resources, 31:_-in•part,':tuithirz Mif ,distri ,B'oaid;•: and the -Department: of:.Transpoitation:;, ,, i t° ; '=' 32 T�Y'1;197 : witlxrespect, .32, =' 33 ; :. 39585:2. ;•; - Until: the plan :is adopted;• then district" lioazd' 4 ' 33 > drat part ql the, county. 34.,e ;,'39586::�rThe;,�FSouth •34-,shall;enforce4provisions'oftbe•state's:implementatiori- 35, plan adopted by: the. State•Air-Reso'rces:Board that are,- 35--.6overnments, with the'p 36 •'applicable to, the•district. ..- = _-.=•, ,e', -' =' 36 ' cities-included`,within,, 37 .' r39585.4. ;The'=` pl'ari.;shall'include-;;�deadlinesit for. 37;,elements: '"o£r=+ahe^.pr '38 ~-compfiance with the state ambient air quality standards. 38 transportation,'--- growth 39 for -the district as seett as pessihle, at the earliestpossible: 39 ; 'energy,. and related-plax 40 ;date—, and shall, include -provisions t6:ensiire: that future- 40• shall be t,transmitted io. - :y' n' n r '_ •' •' .. '2 250 95 64 .• .. , . m) Led 1a11. icy ,or Ian t ty he dces io the 1 growth'and development.;within the district haze; goal of J' 2:,maximwin,extent. feasible;- consistent with the the -air, quality :standards.. ...' . • 3 maintaining'. not resultz in the - 4'- In , the 'event •that:. the ,plan w111 standard liY 5: achievement=of.a.:state-arnbient,air giialitY'• 6. January 1,1980� epl�contain £er #� 7� to ael eft ef 10 .. 59586Cr=•:: erz%ree sie•' '• . " 11. the power' e:a,ee 12- r� "tl �e tea = Lek- M*1*1- 14 pew . eel=:ex erii`ef =the 15 �r that.schedule at I .compliance sFtsjule ),iachy"� n ofall reasonable and 17" earr est date:posefble by app s: '. ^:. .•,:: 18 • available•contri measures and techriologles r.. tation 19•; :39585:6.: „`No'Provlsion.,Of:this• er..article is a.,lirai y the powof.;the:board:"of sapervi ors: of:`.a: coon in"dluded,'' is whole;:orin part,' withia, the district to adopt:;; .,.:;;: �, anyorder;.iule;.:orregulationwrthrespeof.to-aii pollution==''''<: t -than those a 23 control which isstricte dopted by the•district ; :; .' '•:`' cfiherewith:;The district;board.: 24; board;and-notan.coht 25 . shall enforce any such order.-,'rule;:or.-regulatiori; ,,: Except as provided in : Section; boardsaandla . •; 27, regarding the :appointment of•hearing•, 28 iSection395856regardingtheadoptionofstricter-orders; 29 rules, and regulations than-those:of the districtboard, the,' '•' 30 board.ofsupervisorsofany,countyincluded,,ln,ivh'ole•or'-;': 3 uz.part, within-.thi�dfstrictshaII.have:noauthorityafter•,. , 32 July i,1976. with'respect to the corilzol ofairpollution iri and«v 33 that part of the ,county Included within. the -district, Will : 34 „39586. ,;The �Sh thee articiPation' of the counties acid are= ' 35 . Governments, with the: p P re are' "the:..i- - 36 cities included .within, 'the .district; - an prepafg . • e ; 37 -elements of the preliminary P for growth .and development, land rise; irdss 38 .transportation,, gr 'elements. The• elements,; ird q 39' energy, and re eke ture., 40 shall be `transmitted to the district board ; ' wiOt 2 250 110' 67 95 64 - - • r 1 .fir, ;•w -yi7�,^ . ��•. _: �v�6ew::y,'Y-,� '! 'i^e''"'!.' - J. fir; a�,.:Y.��:.� e�'uY, ,°V'^•%432:>!:� :ply,• i'i. k�'`- • Y.r �F_.` !�. 'fir •f'',,.'+'r.' y+%t :a�.'Y•r;i`n^ •:•_ ,ltn. _""y .4'-•r .l':. .r't4 ,�w�':tn'_ �!]�^'�J.x}'M1 r I C-"n, ..}• �`'C �; � �:` �-Jr ,!Y-.•'�r ,+ ,�} �Y''. � "'��"i>�I;S r'}.s ����'� ,{:•�,10;�' �°�;ai ��f��". i�; �' �„'. •- +'•.+-�•v� r ;:y :. r. IY�'•w �: l ems' f''L\�1,�,`•+%%fpvlw':.�S.i=f'^.if.� .0 i� x.•t�;}_ +�';•- - w1 i l.- �p ' - J ,v.«•F _A_-J- . r". ':� .r.Y%i rn .. +r:% " _ay ' g� nie tto ac}iieve ancI ma�ntai r nth' .stafE= :;1`r 29`amliient axcaquaitj��'�standatlsk.FTpQn ssiich ;asfiixdulg; -: :'30:State AfrResousces Boa`s£iall revise tlisubmittecl plan -- r3)a�cor..dii� 1"�andapprbvestt�ie�. +�•�•- r '3�'L97'8., �Y] � ry np�. �'r,���rt�..it'e 1Y'+-�a'a T{', '¢d y'u�:U ^'e i:.Nk"u•'�•^tiyv+. '.:.� •��?�'ww'fA'" '7'- ':F't'!`V�'�t'.T:rr• W'.("i 1k'w"t. �r�e�....^'✓a.y�"µ:`s'u"' .b.�,f�« „<..., .: F'��. .ra5.)M tr -_,c{( }., . {tnmg_�L979� `'the;` �e f� atures Shall'•S•; '. , ' ,•<'; '. Cpl„Cr'� _ eri' tei3eAwthe" " ,'•:rr3�: ade$ c}%: o the air?:aquaIih" minagement< pl`arining_ :3fi': p=ocesStarid theopeiatCons;of.tliedistrict:witli zegaid to;:':` HIV the iraplementati ->-,, .,.:;y..::,., c• .;:' , _ Y ombf :•";'F ';38 ''.39586.6::£"Uponc adoption oi`: the.;plarr by":the ,district •: 39 board' approval by theState Ai%Resources Board; the. 40'-'regional.;transportation;plarisand:that-.portion=of the . .re '.' `_ _.^'::br, i' :.:;•.. �'� ' _.2 250 I1S 69, r ' -_ {` �_t•l• .c •ti •y ".fi rmay .. - . � •'.. - - ". .:•s✓'z. - ... ..r"'r'i'v'Y'.eeK`ic'-'^.."�` ih;,y'ttn_:-sl_iJ'r ^: R[t._ .V'.^..>' ..'G.':1.7 - .. i-•l'':.'Calfiirii;a 'I'ra u ,r34` 'r�'36 "distzict,� th'e'"disfrict�'boar 37 - standards therefor 'than t �38 Resources"Board pursue 39 program designed and-aJ '49: ''Consl;ffi : `A,f airs °pil : 0 the 30, and and the Ithe State 1978, e Air I and, state , the plan ril 1; the ning .-d to >trict 1, the .the 115 69 ;b)Y' •r �^ir[ •6YF ' r .r 1. e:.L<Si`�tl-�' �•�rP. .' 250. a licable'_to- the: azea' ; .'- 1; ,California .. rarispoitation =Plan •, PP •2 included' Withih-,the-:atrict"shall''beerided .to -'be ; 3 -consistent with,& districtair quality. management .4_. 39586.8"-=After,adoption;of-tliep. - tlierdistrict,sliall'- 5' 'have the'- — — i s 6ility forsecuiing-.the -cooperation "of : ' >' 6 'other public' en'titieHn ,the implementation of the plan, 7 including:'all`programs�; plansx:and projects'relating to or,. 9.affecting•'air-qua1ity'wit1in-.t1ie. district`;'~ :'The= district's board.# rniay adopt:._suclil: rul -land •':'";'' 1Q • '6gulations.as'd'oiiot:eorifli twith:federaf aiidstate laws ;:. 11 for the coordination ,"6F16ca1, state;. and federal programs _ - • . ; • - .. yr •t"• :. tiJ..lr r, eft .12 affecting. air -quality :;:-' ,;: :- ;;•,. :,. 13- ,''39587. ,�`Vtlie.district. air quality-�anageimentplan is';:.. {: 14 not adopted"ar` approved ;in: compliance::'vith''the'i.;';; k 15 schedule`seG forth in Section: 39586,.4�!the; c wens.and:: 16 duties of Uie.' district.+ board'd?' FBsPect to air 17 _control'shaffiriot be.dimiiirshed;o otherwise;,affected by,: • 18• such,fadirre; to'`adoptroz�'approve-the management'plan:::: 19 ' `39587.2;F Rey s;ol�s o£tlie plan'shaRbe;considered.and;5 "and formaLreview:of the'plan ..; '20;:,inves,gated;as.needed;, y�., ..- i ,; :,+r: _ :•.. 21' years: :sliall-occur evtwo Vie^ State 22 ' = 3968=8; 395874: If»-iequesEed by. - 23" ; tesources "Board; thes.distric - board may: assist%iri: 24"administration`and enfocemenh-oft`anystate:-statute:f 25'.'establishiiig an inspection•'progra'W: or`motorivehicles • 26 with respect.to their air pollution, ermssions arid. -their- air A'' ? 27 pollution•+control devices or'systems:,:;;-' ' :'_`' •'`' 28 3988 F=�r :' "' ' �:39118 of #}3is eecle; Vehicle Gede;'Vke— 30 . &Striet btied: fF s l`?eEeZ. ei listierr . 31 ' beset_ eFtltb6e •seeherza : tt-oh q �' `? 32 SEftEe �ir'�%esetrreet $esrcl;:a reel? gtffi ardsthe •i ' 33' ee£eree� iEkirx-ate. distrieE'bi` 34 "with the-er ieetne of these seetier?s ` ::, ,' 35 . 3958T.6.- ` ,For, motor' 'vehicles registered `within the : - s; 36 'district, the district. board `inay adopt stricter, emission - 37 standards therefor than those adopted by the''State Air 38 Resources Board pursuant to Section-'39118 for the 39 program designed and, adopted by the_Department of- 40 Consumer Affairs• ,pursuant to '' Chapter 20.4 2 250 130. 72 ' ' 174 ice^ •1._ tcommeni "12'i;Busmess, a 3' enforced 4' with'the a 5 :.,.on <, • M1 �111.6," auth��tx s ;, i} 'coe. `� ritiad ���`M1l �, s V tYt�.•�Ll�if . l -registeied- 4 .= ITh TQ�acc�edifeS �12'''�Res6uices "r . s"i 13 * apibilitiec ;:WI(q,sect on1ggN..•0$'bfDivisibnJof-the 1 �;' _ ,,;s., ; y•= : _, ° ProfessionsCode ` uch''staridarclr.sbal!'be"' ,;sei-forth~i"Seetions rvr' Elie fricC, by those 'agencies charged. .'boardshall'=establisTr'_ 'granting: inistiatrbri:oftlie program.?x;,;, `; 3 . of; variarices`b T x(a},Ttie districtboaid.shallhave the '. _ A, such standards'fo tle requireo£s iristallahijn" an}i air :pollutiol 5' ,the district may adopt L. .,,.- _' ,..'accredite appia Ied„.or ` %�' include a schedule 6 .fee cerlli"ied.by,the `, «:. . ... , . sources .$oa;d;:;oil�_'any�mgtoil -,.vehicle, T : variances: ,All' applicati ' - liui'. a istzick. o=xwluch'tlie'd&v'lce�was :. g�-suclrriile§'gild regdlatio . _ - ,.M1, _ ;tea.;>1�.;�;.,• ...: li oved -or:cent fie;y, .,:re: }z 9^:`the6ounty' az .-1 . .1lg•bo x. 1t ,.F<, �ing;'•witti appr`opriate.. s_trict&boaid Linay� Tegµest tli�;Stat Ais,.-' : 11" .the:.county hearing;'bgai ird 4tor�investigate the:• eiiussion:;rediictioii-' ;'' .' r, `The .. ! •:§ .- 1,{• y :.• �r�aiiy..inotor vehicle:; pollptioii 4'_ 12_•°":c39589:2.: ;'(a) lioa 4" 1: 1 ,;control;;= a �.;., � : Rw.-bavenot6een;pievidusl}fi'testei£byt)' :,;a •I$ included' in' wli - - old=;'o`r.> �•- sst`.• `µx T4;apl�oirit.'a: lie oai acing b \° m trx, Vai.;' ' districC~ boar ".s Ther�ta Ball the 15w.24225r and. 2422¢.:•The. m.. elriploy� ... ._ -. a4,.,.:: >-• _t±.., _ ..,,..�..: '- :,,.,. .-'r•16,.nilwP.rd`anii. t '.18 , b The gr'' .( )';� � atitiilgofv ' :1'S'. heariri oard; g• b `of; the co a a itiinisterilig:, th e of•, ;variances est auuuAus[ran.D,e'•COStS=Ot- inctions,=33`b dedu ,r:�;,x. een. cted;r'sTia71'• li' �,,,• - --_- ,-----,.-- ----, .-�„, - �-- ----� , :..; •, t3••. 35'- -; , 39588.4':'``.Upon.ii&isfer�to the distncf,;&iigloyees shall` - 34 . hearing:board'to"the'dis ' ti:.. .. 35--di'strict•boardailalrpre'scri retainr`a1L: thei> .'accuiilulated:='sicl',Teave,;.vacation_•,:; ; d 37-'- etirement'benefits anii thei.benefltsaccrued:byreasoir'•_-• s `.36 ` ,` , OAnyaggriewed'pers 3$ of th eii' employment by` the,county, district. and the 37; the •Bearing' board'to the. :. 39'.r •,: '. a ; :; -"'„ .- .;._, . ; ..:.... 38 (e) The district Board.. q'• . ,r 'i~:r x . •-'. 4U' .' 39589. ; "In�accoidance with'thepurposgsof this article' 39 .granted ' variances • ' to � 3• 40 contammants'frorii their' • ~ , • ., �5S Uc�Y, y : _r. 2 25D 145 75' s. -'•, d 't .Yt- ai• . G.:' - M.,i 4VS+Y•"•: •Y•.•?f. .� .�.. ........ :3• ' _ ' .. .. u4: � AB 250 t: . `1-- ".,set forth 'iir,Sections"39580:and"39580.5; the district 2 ' board 'shall establish':'rules .and 'regulations ',for'' the':. " 3 granting of variances by, a county hearing board from " 4, such standards'foi- the discharge of air, contaminants, as _ 5 the district may adopt ,The` ru s and regulations -shall '6 ' include a schedule of fees for the.filing of applications for' . 7` ,variances. All'applicints shall" pay*the fees required by "8:-suchrules.andregulationst:A variance may.begrantedby' 9 thecounty hearingboar'd after a public hearing and upon. . '10 filing; with appioprfi to "fees, of,a'variance petition with"-, 11' the county hearing''board,.":.!`_ , ;: :•" ;:..' ;, • ;':'„ ' ' ; 12 39589.2. • '(a) -The b" ' d'of`supervisors of each county•' -13 included, in whole or:1n part, -within the" district shall:.. . 14 appoint . a Bearing board in accordanta with Sections' 15, 24225 -.and 24226;.,.The,- hearing: board_ shall,; have= such,:: Ji 16 ' powers and duties vested in"'the hearing.board' of acourity , '•'.; : '? ; -17 18' district.",,*'• -. :•:., i=- ;i-'`` ''_ . ,t'`'y,; ,:.'` ; •- (b) 1'he grantingof,variances•shall"bepiocessedby the. ," 19 hearing board -'of the' countyin. which: the variance .is.=• ;t '" `w' rriiand 21 rulesc ands regulati ns- of the "district with the "_ = 22 provisions of Article 2. (commencingcwith Section 24198): 23. of Division 20; with resp6deto the:'grakting' of variances:; `. +! s 24 '_' jb' ' I hereve 6' from the'schedule offees,ad'optedby;"' 25 the district board ,for:• the', filing :of applications _for' 26 'variances shall be collected by each county hearing board, ; 27 at the time.,that'the. application.'is. filed. -Each' 'county. . • 28 'hearing board shall lie reirinbursed'froin these'fees•for its. 29 cost in •admiriisteri: 'he'rules and regulations for the. 30 issuance of variances; established by' the district, board. 31' 32 • The ' '`net . ;revenues '�. from ";.;:,these •,: ;fees;. ":'after.', the ,' :administrative costs=of'tlie county hearing board have :.: >= •, 33 : been " deducted, - "shall % -be ?transmitted-, by' the :county •- 34 hearing board to'the districtboard at'such time, as, the', 35- district board may prescribe: 36 ..'(d) Any aggrieved person:may'appeal'the'decision of 37• the hearing board• to the district board. 38 ' (e) The district board shall work with those persons 39 granted, variances - to I reduce emissions .' of air 40 contaminants from their -operation. 2 250 155 77 f- 139589:4. 'x2 5a articlev as; -<�' �`''4�issuaucezb 50constiiict ="bther�cgnt N .7-.the.distrie �`_ MsClleCl111e 11 . ; • .•. rVrw-• .� Vl 4 V' VYJ• '38'federal` ;deceninal?cen '""39 `' " SEC IQ, N6� appri :40' •':'any obligatioiicreatec r •i•�.V .. lli. trposes:of<tliis.:; •'1 ., L` '39580.5;d the:',.,'.w .Reveillie� and.Tazation (ati'onsfor.the-:, '; 2 <'any.local agency'for �` ,;::; 3 in-any�pro r;suthor'.1. 4' regiiired:to.be•ca riedbi •, .�gpipment''or 1• r �...�� . •y ,` .,`rv� e'requir,'ed byF_- nL" �.r -� >4�;�;3;":' `.:>? �.�hall:inalid� . � . `�.Y; ...,.•' V':�x ? _ .� �_ +> ���5•Yi . ps.fo/;� emitsF•;: y1TY p �� ,n, Y� �`rd}i� •'-1-nz,;;,;.`�'�"'�Yr•��. lOn rjJ�. ual ♦ 'JAY •'�, •r-:��.� t• .'••�,.`..• y ! _ ar `- pap : theee f, ;: >3_ t.; _� x `•. p;:,,. f�,k • S� [ M'Mah' k - "t t 1;Wl; i.„.•;•nFi \r.,lti� [qws •�ta .,l,: .• .. ;:,"�i�;,•^Y�, S• _, [4n'a, ri�-,,. rJ �a ..,'� �,�%i';tr,c'. ri•Y,}{e 't�'',,,,',r�r'���•`• F.��Gsa'Y`. i!":'. i•'r ennom :,QLStI;ICCDOara,ta,-P r r + < 7 '„"'"C _ ::=� _-;.-"•6�•"=''t''�`>_, •w , .i5, u: w 1�,.:', ;- i tw• t. _'-,• ; . M' gr@ i91 t ermit a licatiori• :., si y.F'r:= at'.y t. • . :...,•�'�'. A1:; r'1 Sii. �•r•:1 i.•'k�rJn..f V'.',. n TTj'_` VY.<"1GF-.M•'A•r _ d% �ss''�•,�_-a.-.G a• «cr.'' } tFf.p•`Jt .'✓r.,j":C P.;-,r+;`r2• A•1`7,: 'G`:.r._^_.3, 1�' �+•.i^v.: :�`:. t`:':''-� N.y4ti....^ i. ,��Yi. NJ•,i K_ivrw cif.,_.. t•4. ».''�wn{qq�f.,��rl: ft Vie. \>i•„ y'ds"'f�_.: r_r'•3 r, t�t�,. IY 'R •at:`,r rc.::S; `. { dmaadoptaescliedul s' S!?,•?" •:�•r'•C*�'•�'dx5• e'r•;:_. %S�i�Z„k".^.ti���-4'r n�s.,t1.: �,,�F?: w: i•r ar 4. ', fY` 1ir.. r�<: YJ n�.y�' aril:pernuts r;,:«:w ��., � �, . : � -• , x `covers. v, ,r ;•� 3.:�.;.� ksc \,.:. „-}c ,=•:'' 0ri„and inonitonri rm-L�ro2 •: is �d Y-• N: �,ie rx :t� 'l., -- "7I,4'f+'^i..: i}. -':t: ,;'it.�« ..yi;''i''_'••r� [_ `; r.:r :Ps`F:. yr,-7n �.•r•7. r.�,^. - ,q�_..'y'�xY�'�irli:.y`� f1 ;i. ';'�r t':.,:r., •�.. ':..r'P�.`:,�S.h't=1, y.ry z��".'•` �. -., •" ` cording.totHequantlty .i• :.�;, r ...;;:,�t,irr. . :•' Aj !ss .c. �•,wtater J-+ HemissSOnsOn-the'amblent:=' ." >,;. •. „ye•p;• r. �::' "�Y; ,„Y v_:'.;•. - .`�4M, }i' v j14'} Y3 tt5 •� . �•e, ��.y]r•i' i' �'� / i TwM.:M1H ...�..'e'-Y�_«n_•` • .i :`W : %:' ;2i.� 1 `=' :•.�.' L�\�' � _�w��:r•t�t �, t� v��' MF f„` 4t '...� .:�5 !.J Y,'•�xa"y S.} i�.YG';;.^��kw uh:. ' S :_ - .,.`.\i J•C `5��.:t • x. -- its'blidgeffor::•kli�nextfi°scal:r"%� -� rt.,:� :. _'-��?` �* :n;'�'=�,:;' fir > \ iirtli.. •.•, n_Y.:a..i ... t}it: appoftioe :� '`'~ri::•. :. S•. �.�� .i�r'w'}", �"�:ki7i�'.••'),nl Y�L, .`......... .*,,y.. ;._ -" tfi� mount`ttia ; xdisticti`shalL�'pay,'•aa"� :. __\;• • y "t •r.^..;, • - _. ��::� r_ :':,. ,rgtinJ- 'fIt ;•r.'`v:,r,: .x distri,atfl`scal� eas ."ei_; :�-'^! a' _� :'�',;„}>x�-.i L'.'; f•. {.f`. �•.j ,� ti-t •. ,• �•tr �r,-.C�'•� �;;, ` • `' ", ...,.; . ny aj:P ,��,:;: r•+•d''; t'.:;-i:-il'%rr%}, �'vY"'. t',;+c si i s'liall'iie-tfiat Io orhori.. � p. p `si's.•-,,-.i'. -,�•' _�`�'. r" .: r atibn.`of`the portioriof`the _ ` ; :: ! -,; - distnictbearSK'to `th'e .,. • ietermined.from..the:latest x :;sJ.„: r .Y.t-: s;i:%m'>;+;, ^ �Fx �az':i':a5• .- +] wCr^ .l. �J•, cnti ' l''ti �.i i '1-'' -. _. rZ?w,.,« � .•I�• �^\.l w. �t 4 i ��43f<ij Iis maddby;tlus act, nor,i's c;= . ylin"clerx:Section2231;of'the;' _ •.t, _ 1.0 'J80..-, • :•�(_ Ali-�'2256,170 ^ „f- 1• _ - •,' .y'.'Fpn ,.r 11 �`',l _ p-' _ - •,'1 lily ._�,J_�5.•�_ •, J•hl.�yl`:y: �.�r.: .- n1.1 .`ir' t ran r -. r,.,i•�fYr : •r Yr 13 's he he to ,or tiros, Y • rder .' the ' ard: the the ed. d to edvle cover elated tity of bient , tfiscal nt that- , pay to years, portion-'; + of the e total; . e latest t, nor is i of the 250 170 80 ' • 1 250 i.. -• .. Say - Revenue•and.Tauatlon'Code,'for.the reti uurs6 ent 0t: 1 that may, local agency_foi:�riy;costs service' 2 any any . - - ro am or performing any':p gr_ 3 in carrying, on by, it by th>s acts -of to be earned: on' performed 4 required 44 -:;u .r,• .. :per f. �Y i'-5•• ',� 1d �. � j ' •u• 3 �3(, • "�"a - Mi ��i' _ i..,�C.� '.!w �,'>i •^..y', "A.V�'M•S�p�.+:4.., .<t"'..i'J'�' itm�.:� ..�,.=%+•':SP.?' rJ•"1_ jam`; ij .:vµ••4F .-��i .. ..-j,<ra ,'.. ., .- -' =1� _ �.• •� L' :C•.'a CI_ •�.l•.�Sl'�' •�:'.l',ai•'1 �� � a •.-+�S•",•'`,'y C , 2.250 170 80 • x