HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/29/1991, 5 - CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ON THE 1991 CLEAN AIR PLAN FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ��VI��RpIIUIIIII�VI Ilulll r MEETING DATE:
1p�up V
city or San Luis OBISpo o-Za-a
1 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT "NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director^ o
PREPARED BY: J%
Terry Sanville, Principal Planner 45-
SUBJECT: City Council Comments on the 1991 Clean Air Plan for
San Luis Obispo County
CAO RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Air Pollution
Control District and the County Board of Supervisors
transmitting Council comments.(Draft letter attached for
Council consideration.)
A. DISCUSSION
Purpose
The purpose of this meeting is for the City Council to discuss the draft Clean Air Plan as
prepared by the County Air Pollution Control District and forward comments to the County.
Staff has requested that a representative from the Air Pollution Control District make a
brief presentation and be available for questions.
Background
State standards for ozone are currently exceeded in San Luis Obispo County. Ozone, the
primary constituent of smog, is formed through chemical reactions involving reactive organic
gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight.
Because the County exceeds State pollution standards for ozone, the State Air Resources
Board has designated the County as a "nonattainment area." The 1988 Clean Air Act
requires the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to develop a plan to achieve
and maintain state air quality standards by the earliest practicable date.
In June 1991, the APCD published the draft Clean Air Plan (CAP). The draft plan
presents "control measures" designed to narrow the gap between current and future
pollution levels and state air quality standards. Figure ES-2 (attached) shows that reduction
in NOx emissions county-wide would meet target levels (after control measures are
implemented) but ROG emission levels would not.
Preparing the Plan
The draft Clean Air Plan was prepared by the staff of the Air Pollution Control District.
The district established a citizens advisory committee that included major employers, citizen
activists, neighborhood group representatives and City and County planning staff. The
committee provided input into the plan's preparation and critiqued components of the plan
as they were produced.
14; � dlllp�l �y city o� san W,6 mspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The APCD also established a Trip Reduction Advisory Committee (which includes City
administrative staff) to review the proposed Trip Reduction Control Measure. (For a
description of the committee's work and recommendations, see the attached memorandum
from Deb HosslL Administrative Analyst.)
In the near future, APCD will schedule final meetings with the citizens advisory committee
before refining the draft plan and taking it to the Board of Supervisors for adoption.
Implementing The Clean Air Plan: Pollution Control Measures
Once adopted, the Clean Air Plan will direct the County to adopt formal rules to
implement the plan's numerous control measures. These measures will require action by
individuals,employers, and all jurisdictions including city, county, state and federal agencies.
A total of 34 control measures would apply to stationary sources of pollution (such as the
Morro Bay Power Plant or certain types of commercial or institutional operations), 15
measures would apply to transportation sources (automobiles and traffic). Each control
measure was evaluated by APCD for its ability to reduce pollution, its technological
feasibility, and potential for environmental impacts. At this time, APCD does not intend
to adopt formal rules to implement these strategies.
The draft Clean Air Plan also suggests a number land use and transportation planning
strategies for reducing emissions. APCD suggests that these measures be incorporated into
city and county plans and be implemented by local jurisdictions. APCD does not propose
at this time that formal rules be adopted to enforce these strategies.
I
Stationary Source Controls (Chapter 5: pages 5-1 to 5-20): Control measures that i
affect stationary sources include such things as controls on asphalt roofing kettles,
gasoline loading, petroleum storage, fiberglass fabrication, commercial painting,
automobile refinishing, and residential gas heaters. One proposed measure that has j
received significant public comment is control of residential wood burning (see MP-
1, page 5-17).
I
Transportation Source Controls (Chapter 6: pages 6.1 to 6-16): A key control
measure that would affect transportation pollution is the proposed Trip Reduction
Control Measure applicable to employers and schools (pages 6-10,6-11). The
purpose of this program is to reduce the use of single occupancy vehicles through
carpooling,public transit, compressed work weeks,bicycling and other methods. The
plan also suggests that local and regional transit service be expanded, bicycling
promoted, and traffic flow improved.
Land Use Strategies (Chapter 6: 6-16 to 6-19): The draft Clean Air Plan suggests
strategies for planning urban growth that can reduce air quality impacts. These
strategies include planning compact communities,providing for mixed land uses, and
balancing jobs and housing. (The attached discussion prepared by Glen Matteson,
Associate Planner, describes how these strategies compare with and are supported
by the Planning Commission's draft Land Use Element.)
City Of San LUIS OBISPO
NIFeW COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
B. EVALUATION
1. Achieving Target Air Quality Levels
The draft Clean Air Plan represents an initial effort by APCD to achieve compliance with
state air quality standards. It is anticipated to result in NOx reduction to meet state
standards, but would not achieve the desired reductions of ROG. However, it should be
noted that the 1991 Clean Air Plan will require significant efforts on the part of individuals
and agencies. It will require the public's cooperation to successfully implement the Clean
Air Plan. It appears that APCD's intent is to try to achieve this cooperation while
acknowledging that the plan may fall short of achieving all pollution reduction targets.
Continued research and future updates of the Clean Air Plan may lead to additional
measures being considered.
APCD staff is considering additional control measures that may help reduce the gap
between target emission levels and projected levels. If it is the City's desire that target
reduction levels for ROG be achieved as part of this initial planning effort, then the City
could suggest that additional and more aggressive remedial measures be included in the
1991 Clean Air Plan.
The City can suggest that the initial plan include additional measures that would achieve
greater pollution reduction benefits. The plan describes measures proposed for "future"
study that could be considered as part of the initial plan. These measures include:
Stationary Source Control Transportation & Land Use Management
Agriculture Burning Parking Management & Pricing
Agricultural Pesticide Use Telecommuting and Compressed Work Week
Marine Vessel Coatings Truck Restrictions
Crew and Supply Boats Peak Hour Delivery Restrictions
Energy Conservation Smog Tax/User Fees
Offshore Platforms Alternative Fuels
Construction Equipment Indirect Source Review (mitigation required of
new development)
2. Relationship to the City's General Plan Update
The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to maintain air quality. Air quality is a concern
shared by City residents (reference the 1988 Community Planning Survey results) and the
City Council. It is also a concern reflected in the draft Land Use and Circulation Elements
now under City Council consideration. The attached discussion paper from Glen Matteson
identifies measures within the draft LUE that support the Clean Air Plan.
The draft Circulation Element also includes policies and programs that support and are
consistent with the goals of the Clean Air Plan. In general, all Circulation Element
programs that promote alternative forms of transportation (transit, bicycles, walking) and
reduce automobile dependency are supportive of the Clean Air Plan and vice-versa. Also,
�,�H�►�iII�IIIIIII�P° ��I�N city of San 1w OBISpo
Gia; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
actions that improve traffic flow (synchronizing traffic signals, intersection channelizing,
passing lanes, elimination of curb parking and provision of bike lanes, and street widening
needed to relieve congestion) are also consistent with the Clean Air Plan's strategy to
undertake traffic flow improvements (page 6.16). The draft Circulation Element suggests
that:
The City should support county-wide and local programs that reduce the number of
vehicle trips associated with employment and school attendance.
The City recommends that the county-wide trip reduction program include an
Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) standard of 1.60 or larger.
These two policies are consistent with the Clean Air Plan's proposal to establish a Trip
Reduction Control Measure. However, as described in the attached memorandum from
Deb Hossli, the TRCM committee is recommending that the AVR for the county be set
at 150. The committee feels that this standards is more achievable and realistic for San
Luis Obispo County.
The higher the AVR the fewer vehicle trips and less pollution. However, the higher the
AVR, the more difficult it will be for employers and employees to meet the standards.
APCD's Trip Reduction Program would establish a uniform standard throughout the
County. It may be more difficult for employers/employees in small communities and
outlying areas to achieve high AVR standards because options for alternative transportation
are more limited.
The Council should review the attached memorandum from Ms. Hossli and provide
additional direction as appropriate.
C. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The draft 1991 Clean Air Plan supports policies contained within the adopted and proposed
Land Use and Circulation Elements. No proposed control measure appears to conflict
with City planning policies, existing or proposed.
As the county grows, it will become more difficult to achieve the pollution reductions
needed to meet State standards. Future updates of the Clean Air Plan will inevitably
require more aggressive actions. Staff recommends that the City Council forward a letter
to the Air Pollution Control District and the Board of Supervisors stating that:
1. The City strongly supports the objectives of the draft 1991 Clean Air Plan.
2. The City will cooperate with implementation of the plan and compliance with
established control measures.
3. The City supports the TRCM committee's recommendations concerning
establishment of the Vehicle Trip Reduction Program.
►�w�►b►►iiulllllllllll° IIUIII city of San IDIS OBISpo
mamma
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
4. The City supports an on-going effort to monitor the effects of implementing the
control measures and will support additional cost-effective measures needed to
achieve pollution reduction targets.
Attachments
Draft letter to the County Board of Supervisors and Air Pollution Control District
Figure ES-2 (Source: draft 1991 Clean Air Plan)
Memorandum from Deb Hossli, Administrative Assistant concerning recommended
trip reduction program
Excerpt from Previous LUE Agenda Item prepared by Glen Matteson, Associate
Planner
NOTE:
COPIES OF THE PLAN HAVE BEEN. PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO COUNCILMEMBERS. ONE IS
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL READING FILE.
I
���►►��������n�����iii►����Il�llllln�►►���� IIIiI cityo san hues oaspo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
October 29, 1991
County Board of Supervisors
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Dear Board Members:
The City Council of San Luis Obispo has reviewed the draft Clean Air Plan published by
the County Air Pollution Control District in June, 1991. The Council feels that clean air
is an important natural resource that contributes to the quality of life for city and county
residents alike and that this resource must be preserved. Therefore, the City strongly
supports the objectives of the draft Clean Air Plan and will cooperate with its
implementation.
The City has participated in the citizens committee review of the proposed Trip Reduction
Control Measure (Measures T-1A on page 6-10). We support the committee's
recommendations concerning this particular measure (including an AVR standard of 1S0)
as a reasonable approach for reducing pollution caused by vehicle traffic.
In closing, the Council notes that the proposed plan does not include measures that will
enable the County to achieve targeted pollution reductions for reactive organic gases
(ROG). We support the County's ongoing efforts to monitor implementation of the Clean
Air Plan, conduct additional research, and consider additional cost-effective control
measures needed to achieve all pollution reduction targets.
The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Clean Air Plan and
participate in its preparation.
Sincerely,
Ron Dunin, Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
TS:ts
cc Robert Carr, County Air Pollution Control District
S—�
Figure ES-2
FORECAST FUTURE ROG AND NO EXT SIOHS
'IH SAH LUIS OBISPO COMITY
FORECAST ROG EMISSIONS COUNTYWIDE
36
w
T a
0
n
2 20
e
r
r is
D
a to
7
s
o
19e7 1994 lour 2000 2010
Year
TMOUT C�AP�� +t wm CAP -+'�-mu=HY CCM
New TAW 9-5�• °��tba a°midos�radve0don�fo�rtlW.
FORECAST NOx EMISSIONS COUNTYWIDE
w
s0 '
T
0 40
n
s
D so -----
e
r
D20 - ------- — .... - -- --..
a
9
!0 --.-----_---._- ...__....._..—_.._.._._..__....._-'—.. ...._...._....--'-.____.-...............__..........
_--
0
1987 19% 1987 2000 2010
Year
wmouT CAP +vrm CAP 'REQUMM BY CCM
I
SOURCE: draft Clean Air Plan (San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District 1
June, 1991)
city of sAn
luis-oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
October 9, 1991
Memorandum OCT 1 egg;
,•San Luis Co .
TO: CITY COUNCIL
VIA: JOHN DUNN, CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
FROM: KEN HAMPIAN, ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DEB HOSSLI, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE TRIP REDUCTION CONTROL MEASURE
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Council with a status report on one
component of the draft Clean Air Plan, the Trip Reduction Control Measure (TRCM).The
Community Development Department will be preparing an overview of the remainder of
the Plan for the Council in the near future. This memorandum will also be attached to the
Community Development Department's overview so that the Council can consider staffs
comments on the Clean Air Plan in total.
Background
In order to understand the TRCM, it is important to first provide some background on
the Clean Air Act. The California Clean Air Act was signed into law in 1988. The Act
requires all air pollution control districts in the state to achieve and maintain California
ambient air quality standards. Those districts that do not meet state emission standards
have been required to prepare Clean Air Plans. These plans.must demonstrate how
districts will reduce emissions and achieve compliance with state standards by the earliest
practicable date.
Since 1987, the County of San Luis Obispo has exceeded state standards for ozone
emissions. As a result, the County is being required by the State Air Resources Board
to prepare a Clean Air Plan. Our Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has been
designated as the responsible agency for preparing and implementing the Plan. The
County of San Luis Obispo has been placed into the "serious° category-which means
our Plan will attempt to achieve compliance with State emission standards by 1997. This
placement is somewhat misleading in that the categories denote the amount of time it will
take gain compliance with State standards as opposed to measures of air quality.
.r8
Page Two
Status Report
APCD released a draft of the County's Clean Air Plan in June of this year. The Plan sets
out the control measures APCD has developed to reduce countywide emission levels.
The trip reduction component represents one of the most important control measures
proposed in the Plan because it focuses on reducing automobile emissions - the single
largest contributor to the county's air pollution.
The purpose of the TRCM is to reduce automobile emissions and congestion by reducing
daily commuter traffic created by single occupant vehicles. Currently, during commute
hours, approximately 90% of all vehicles on the road carry only one person. This
translates into a average vehicle ridership (AVR) of 1.1 for this county (AVR refers to the
average number of individuals riding in one passenger vehicle).
The APCD has selected an employer based TRCM because daily commute trips to and
from the worksite represent the largest percentage of total vehicles trips each day. As
such, the TRCM requires employers to prepare Trip Reduction Plans that show how they
will reduce daily employee commute trips and attain the average vehicle ridership (AVR)
standards proposed in the TRCM. Employers traditionally achieve the reductions in
commute trips by implementing a combination of programs that encourage the use of
alternative transportation (e.g., walking, biking, transit, carpooling etc) as well as
alternative work schedules (e.g., compressed work weeks, telecommuting, etc.).
Trip Reduction Advisory Committee
Because the TRCM will effect most employers in this county, the Air Pollution Control
District has convened a Trip Reduction Advisory Committee (TRAC). The purpose of
the TRAC is to provide APCD staff with recommendations on how to design a TRCM that
can be successfully implemented by employers in our County. The TRAC is composed
of representatives from all major employment sectors in the county, including city and
county government, school districts, small, medium, and large businesses, the Chamber
of Commerce, etc. (City of San Luis Obispo staff is a member of the Committee).
The Committee has been meeting regularly since June of this year. Its efforts have
focused on providing APCD with recommendations on the major issues surrounding the
TRCM, the most important issue being 'What is an achievable AVRT. In making its
recommendations, the TRAC has attempted to balance APCD's emission reduction
requirements against what can realistically be achieved by the employers of this county.
It has been their goal to develop a control measure that will reasonably satisfy both the
state and employers in the county. In addition, it is important to note the recommended
standards contained in the TRCM are minimum standards. Employers will be free to
implement stronger standards if they so desire.
The TRAC has reached consensus on most of the major policy issues associated with
the TRCM and intends to conclude its review on this level by early November. Their
recommendations will be incorporated into the Clean Air Plan that is ultimately
Page Three r
Status Report
presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval (tentatively scheduled for late
November). The TRAC will continue to meet after the Clean Air Plan]s approved to assist
APCD staff in the trip reduction rule making process. The purpose of the rule making
process is to convert the TRCM, which serves as a framework for the Trip Reduction
Program, into an enforceable regulation. During this process, the TRAC will make
decisions on the day to day implementation issues associated with the TRCM.
Trip Reduction Control Measure Overview
Below is an overview of the basic elements the TRCM will contain as proposed by the
TRAC to date:
* AVR Targets
The TRCM will phase in AVR targets for employers over a three year period
beginning with a 1.35 in 1994 for employers of greater than 100 employees, 1.35
in 1995 for employers of 50 to 1.00 employees, and 1.35 in 1996 for employers of
10 to 49 employees. The AVR target will increase to 1.5 beginning in 1997 for
employers of greater than 100 employees, 1.5 in 1998 for employers of 50 to 100
employees, and 1.5 in 1999 for employers of 10 to 49 employees.
Reaching consensus on AVR targets has taken the greatest amount of the TRAC's
time. Initially, APCD staff had recommended a 1.7 AVR that would be phased in
over several years. In discussions with other cities and counties, however, the
TRAC found that the 1.7 standard was too aggressive for a county such as ours.
As an example, only heavily populated metropolitan areas such as the downtown
Los Angeles business district have attempted to achieve AVR targets of 1.7. The
TRAC feels that while the ultimate AVR target of 1.5 will be a challenge for
employers to meet, it represents a reasonable and achievable compromise, given
the mandates of the Clean Air Plan. The TRAC felt strongly that anything higher
would be too costly and difficult to implement.
* Minimum Employer Size Subject to TRCM
The TRAC is still discussing the minimum employer size that will be subject to the
TRCM. They are currently evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of setting
the minimum employer size at 10 employees versus 20 employees. If the minimum
employer size is set at 20 employees, approximately 62% of the workforce, or 750
employers, will be subject to the TRCM. If the minimum employer size is lowered
to 10 employees, the total workforce subject to the TRCM increases by 12% to
74%, but the number of employers doubles to approximately 1,500.
Page Four
Status Report
From an administrative standpoint, setting the minimum employer size at 20
reaches a majority of the workforce and represents a manageable employer
workload for APCD. However, if the goal of the TRCM is to change the
community's transportation habits, an argument can be made that the TRCM
should effect as many employers as feasible (which supports a minimum employer
size of 10). The TRAC and APCD staff are currently evaluating potential
compromises on this issue.
* Employer Responsibilities
Employers will be required to designate a Trip Reduction Coordinator at their
worksite that will be responsible for implementing the program and reporting
progress for each worksite. As currently proposed, employers will be responsible
for surveying their employees annually to determine their AVR. If the AVR is below
the target set in the TRCM, the employer will have to prepare and submit a Trip
Reduction Plan to APCD describing the actions they will take to achieve AVR
standards.
In order to achieve the AVR standards, employers will be able to pick from a list
of incentives and disincentives. As mentioned earlier most employers achieve the
AVR standards by implementing a combination of programs that encourage the use
of alternative transportation and alternative work schedules. Attachment 1 provides
a listing a potential programs an employer could implement.
* Reoortina and Monitoring Requirements
Once the initial Trip Reduction Plan is submitted and approved, employers will be
required to submit annual pian updates to APCD. These reports will include an
update on the AVR achieved over the past year, a determination of whether the
AVR met the Plan's targets, and an update of the Plan for the coming year.
Employers not meeting AVR targets will be required to adopt additional incentives
and/or disincentives sufficient to achieve the AVR in the coming year. Those
employers meeting AVR targets will not be required to make changes to their
Plans.
* Employer Implementation Costs
Because each Trip Reduction Plan will be different depending on worksite
circumstances, it is not possible to provide precise costs on implementation. The
costs will depend on variables such as company size, AVR target, available transit,
employment density, etc. Based on experience in other areas, however, APCD
estimates that implementation costs could run between $5.50 to $12.00 per
employee, per month. Therefore cost for an employer of 100 could range from
$6,000 to $14,440 annually.
S-�f
Page Five
Status Report
* Plan Fling Fees
It is APCD's intention to make the Trip Reduction Program financially self
supporting. Therefore, Plan filing fees will be used to fund the Program in its
entirety. Because a decision has not been made on minimum employer size,
APCD has not been able to calculate staffing needs and total Program costs. The
TRAC will take this issue up once the minimum employer size issue is resolved.
* Penalties
Penalties will not be assessed for those employers that demonstrate a good faith
effort to achieve their AVR target, but fall short. Rather, in such cases, APCD will
work with the employer to improve their Trip Reduction Plans.
* APCD Responsibilities
APCD will be responsible for assisting employers with developing and implementing
their Trip Reduction Plans. Assistance will include such activities as providing Trip
Reduction Coordinator training, developing guidelines to help employers identify
what trip reduction strategies can work best for their worksite, creating simple
procedures for calculating AVR standards, etc.
* Timeframe for Implementation
APCD tentatively expects to present the Clean Air Plan to the Board of Supervisors
in late November of this year. Assuming the Board of Supervisors adopts the Plan,
APCD estimates that the rule making process will take up to another six months
(concluding in late May 1992). Trip Reduction Plan submittals would then be
phased in over a period of time (still to be discussed as part of the rule making
process), beginning with the largest employers in the County. Therefore, it is likely
that the first Trip Reduction Plans will be submitted to APCD in late 1992.
City staff has regularly attended and participated in the meetings of the TRAC. To date,
staff concurs with the recommendations of the TRAC. We feel that while requirements
of the TRCM will be a challenge for most employers, they are reasonable and achievable,
given the mandates of the Clean Air Plan.
With respect to assessing the impact the TRCM will have on the City itself, it is still too
early for staff to provide any precise information. Given the mandates of the Clean Air
Act, however, staff is moving forward under the assumption that the City will be subject
to some form of an TRCM in the near future. Therefore, as a first step in preparing for
the TRCM, staff is conducting a survey of our employees to determine the City's AVR.
Results are expected to be available by mid-November. Once this calculation is
Page Six
Status Report
available, staff will have a better idea of the extent of programs the City will have to
implement to achieve the AVR's established in the proposed TRCM. It is important to
note that the City is conducting their AVR survey in conjunction with the BIA. The BIA
contracted with a local consulting firm to conduct a feasibility analysis for forming a
Transportation Management Association in the downtown. Because the City could
potentially be a member of this Association, we opted to use the survey created by the
BIA to insure standardized AVR results.
Staff will continue to advise the Council on the progress of the TRCM. It is expected that
the next update will be ready for Council by mid-November. At that point in time, staff will
be able to,provide an update on the TRAC's final recommendations and preliminary
information on the City's AVR calculation.
Attachment - Listing of Potential Trip Reduction Strategies
cc Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
B:TRO
��3
LUE UPDATE ISSUE PAPER
Prepared for October 21, 19919 City Council work session
by Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
Air quality & Clean Air Plan
Descriptibn
San Luis Obispo's relatively clean air, highly valued by residents and visitors, is threatened
by increasing population and activities which generate air pollution. The key question
which the city faces in this: will our air be adequately protected by proposed measures
which control pollution from each source, or should we limit the growth of sources below
what has been projected for our area? Also, how much should we count on potential but
unproven pollution control measures? There is a dilemma if other communities in the air
basin accommodate growth that otherwise would have occurred in San Luis Obispo,
especially housing for those who work in the City, air pollution will not be minimised, and
may be made worse.
As required by State law, the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has prepared a Clean
Air Plan ("CAP" --June 1991 draft) for the County. The Clean Air Plan aims to reduce
emissions of reactive organic gasses and oxides of nitrogen so that ozone, a primary
component of smog, can be brought within limits to protect health and welfare, which are
now exceeded. The plan tries to achieve the necessary reductions while the county as a
whole grows as projected by the State. As shown in Figure 1, the measures contained in
the draft plan are not expected to achieve the required reductions for reactive organic
gasses, which would exceed the state's mandated levels by about 25 percent in the year
2010. The reductions for oxides of nitrogen would fall within the limits. According to
Figure 1, assuming that the recommended control measures and vehicle emission standards
set by the state will be effective, future emissions for both pollutant categories will be lower
in the future, even with projected growth. However, countywide data from 1982 through
1989 show upward trends in air pollution which will be hard to reverse (Figure 2, attached).
The Clean Air Plan includes recommendations for land use and circulation (Appendix E).
Several features of the city's draft update anticipated and reinforce the recommended
measures:
Maintaining a compact community inside the.urban reserve line, with open space
around it;
Allowing residential and commercial development that are relatively dense and close
to each other, compared to other communities in the County;
Encouraging an intensely developed, mixed-use core area which is served by local
and regional transit;
- Trying to improve the job/housing balance.
1 3-i�
Planning Commission recommendation
In addition to the broad land-use strategies noted above, the Commission's recommended
draft includes a section (policy 1.15) on air quality calling for the following.
- Consultation with the APCD on all significant development;
- Adoption of an updated, countywide air quality plan;
- Use of a model to evaluate air quality impacts of adopted plans and proposed
amendments;
- Reduction of general-plan development capacities throughout the County if measures
to control air pollution at each source prove to be inadequate to offset growth;
- Various transportation measures;
- A mitigation fee for new development.
Alternatives to Commission recommendation
It is difficult to identify distinct alternatives to the Commission's overall recommendation
since any approach will involve whatever Clean Air Plan is adopted by the County, which
in turn will call for action by the City. The basic choice, which the City cannot make by
itself,is how heavily we should rely on each of the two components to protecting air quality:
(a) controlling overall growth of pollution sources and (b) controlling the production of
pollution from each,source through such means as location, transportation modes, and
alternative fuels, materials, and emission-control hardware.
For any given controls at the source, more people and economic activity will result in more
air pollution. On the other hand, proposed source controls may allow the area to
accommodate projected growth without significant harm to air quality.
Environmental and economic questions
Staff believes the basic questions have been answered by the draft Clean Air Plan or will
be answered in the general plan update EIR (scope reviewed by Council August 20).
Council should identify any additional specific information needed to give direction on the
Land Use Element update.
gaD AIRQ-CGWP
2 3-IC
FIGURE Z FORECAST EMISSIONS COUNTYWIDE
REACTIVE ORGANIC GASSES (ROG)
sa
30
T to
0
n
s 20 -
P
e
r to
D —..—
a 10
Y
0 1994 1997 2000 2010
1987
Year
TMO�•T CAP --i- TM CAP � EtEgflIRED BY CCAA
OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NOX)
80
60
T
0 40
n
s
P S0 -
' e
r
D20 -- -.- - - - - — • _. ._. .._. _ .
a
Y.
10
0 1994 1097 2000 2010
1907
Year
4rrH0UT CAP -4- irM CAP -K- RMtRED BY CCAA
FIGURE 2 INDI FORS OF AIR QUALITY: 332 - 1989
COUNTYWIDE
DAYS EXCEEDING THE STATE OZONE STANDARD
10
I�
8i
6
4Will I�
o
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1986 1989
OZOtiZ (ppe)
Y-AXIMUM HOURLY
OZONE CONCENTRATIONS
NUMBER OF HOURS .** 0 . 07 PPM OZONE
�a xOURS
19" 1963 1061 toes 1966 1967 1906 1969
700
500 -
500 "
1
400 -
300 -
200 -
too
00300200100
0
1942 1963 1984 1005 1980 1987 19aa 199889
J l I