HomeMy WebLinkAbout0349.091'c,.,',",
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
-
•
17
July 3. 1991
HO~RABLE CITV COUNCil
Pa10 A1tc, talifornia
tit" ResDonse to Bay Area Draft '91 C1ean Air Pi4n
Memb~r$ of the Counci1:
REPORT IN BRIEf
The topic of this report is t~. draft '9\ Clean ~ir Plan (CAP) and a recentlJ
issued Plan Addendum prepared by the Say Area Air O'Ja1ity Management District
(BAAQMO). Th. draft P1an was transmitted to the C.uncil and the Planr-iog
Commission on May 23, 1991 {(MR:2S8:9J), and the attached informatIonal staff
report was in the Counci1 packet for the June 3 study session on regional
transportation, air Quality, and congestion management issues (CMR:301:9J}~
The Plan Addendum dated June 18. 1991 is attac',ed to this report. and staff
recommendations for comments and policy actions are included. ]n addition to
technicl1 issues, staff raises concerns regarding the inahility of the Bay
Area to meet state ozon~ standards while achieving federal ozone standards.
Staff recommendations in<1ude having the Cit1 support modific~t'ons of the
C.liforni, Clean Air Act (CCAA) th.t would re.ult in e •• ier achievement of
slale Olone standards.
BACKGROUND
As discussed in CMR:301:91, the '91 CAP was prep.r.d by the BAAQMD to comply
with the provisions of AS 2S95 (Sherl, known as the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA). passed in 1911S. The draft Environmental Impact Report (ElR) for the
Plan will not be available until the BAAQMD's JulJ 3 heari09. too la\e for
staff review to be included with thjs report. Council review of the draft ErR
will also be precluded, since it cou1d net be agendized before the Council
goes on vacation. Comments on the draft CAP will be accepted by the District
until their July 24 hearing. rf necessary. there wi]l be an opportunity for
Council to review both the (ina1 FIR and final CAP before tne District's
September 18 hearing to adopt the CAP. Staff will bring this item back to the
Council in late August or earlJ S'ptember if the draft EIR and final '91 CAP
include data or other 1nfo~ation that substantially affects the technical and
policy a.na1ysis and' conclusions in this report.
'91 CAP REQUIREM£NTS
Tne BAAQMD '91 CAP incorporat~s all the stationary source and transportation
control measures required for a ·severe-nonattainment area, because the Bay
Are. will not ~et the state Olone standard of 0.09 parts pcr mil110n (ppm) by
1991. This places t~e Bay Area in the same c1assificatfon as the Los Angeles
area, in spite of the fact that there ~ere 14S days each year when federal
t iSIi c. < OJ,! / " -,..-.
\
'\." .• \,~
~\
.-t:"'~.,.
'c
.
-i
,
-
•
... """~,,,::i4. ¥!!\,lIiat ;,
Dzone standards were exceeded in t:le los Ange1es arH from 1985-88 compared' to
an average of only 3.4 violatfons/year during t~e same time period in the Bay
Area (Tibl. I on page 6 of t~e '91 CAP).
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FEO(RAl ~O STATE ~BIENT ~IR QUAllTI ST~~DAROS ~D
CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES
In its Implement,tion Strltegy for the elfin Air Act of 1990, the Federal
En.ironmental Protection Agency lists the ciasslfication of areas by the
curr!nt levtl of pollutants. Under the federal claSSification scheme, the
current cax;mu~ Bay Area ozone 1e~el of 0.15 ppm would be considered
·moderite~ (the second-best classification); and the basin would be required
to meet federal oZone standards of 0.12 ppm within 5i, years. BAAQHD
estimates t~it even jf further contr~l$ ar! not implemented, ozone le~els in
the Say Area would be 0.13-0.14 ppm in 1997. Air distri<t staff belie,e that
the federal ozone standard and bot~ the state and federal carbon monoxide
st.ndards will be met in the Bay Are. in the mid·90's by the Plan's
implementatfo"~ In contrast, t~e los Ang€les area is (onsidered as ·extreme·
{the sixth and worst classification} with regard to the federal alone
standard, and is net expected to ~eet t~e federal standard for 20 years.
Ho~evert under the State classification scheme, both areas are cC~5idered
·se' .. ere· and have the same planning requirements.
'91 CAP ADDENDUM
PegrfDt ;on
District staff prepared an Addendum to the '91 CAP in response to comments
received d~ring eight public information me!tings during April and May and
additional staff analysis. The Addendum in<ludes some <hanges in the draft
Fla~, provides some additional information, and summarizes the futUre schedule
for Plan adoption. The following is i brief d€scriptfen of the Addendum.
Page numbers refer to the draft '91 CAP.
I) Clla.ges
Cnanges were made in Tahle 2 (page 16) which adjusted the emissi~n
inventorJ figures for carbon monoxide {CO) and r~active ~ydr~(arbons
{RHC). These changes resulted from a new analysis based an better data
for wfnter ~nths and t~e inclusion of predicted effects of consumer
sQTvents regulations enacted by the Air Resources Board after the
release of the '91 CAP for publi< r.vie~. Table 4 (page 24) was .lso
corrected for an addition error. The Tab'e 2 changes affected the
baseline numbers fvr 1987, which in turn affected Table 6 {page 31) and
Table 10 (page 61). The Addendum did not in<lude a replacement page for
Table 4.
Changes were made in Table B (pages 52-54) invol~ing control measures
for combustton sources {DI-D4 and D7" ether ind~strial/commer'ial
processes and stationary sources, intermittent transportation centrol
measures. and motor vehicles. Furtner controls for residential furnaces
CMR:349:91
p:\c~r\91<apc.,r
-,-"
7/3/9l
Page 2
\
':
\ ....... .
-
"
(OS) and emissions from ~sphalt concrete plants {E2). and inCiner.tor
efficiency requirements 'f4) were de1~ted from Table 8 in the Addendum.
The stat~s for measures F2, G4, H2. and H4 ~as changed to contingency
status, and the description for HJ was modifi~d.
C'an;., in Table 8 .lso .ff,cted Tibl •• 9 and 10, bot tne Addendum did
not fnclurle corrections to Table 9 (pa9E 55). Other minor cnanges in
language on pages 58 and 53 are described in the Addendum's cover memo.
The impacts of the thange5 in Tables 2, 6. 8, and ]0 are reviewed in the
following ~01scus$ion of Addendum· section of this staff report.
2) Additional information
The Addend~m also includes:
(I) Attachment 2a: A description of the process and criteria for
propo'als found in Table 8 and fj9ure II (page 60);
(2) Attacnment 2b: A description of the 22 Transportation Control
Mea,ures (Tt~s) listed in the following fi9ure II from the '91
CAP;. and
(3) Attachment 2c: A table of Emission Reduction and Cost
Effectiveness Estimates for TCMs.
3) future schedule
The schedule in tne-A.ddend'urn 11sts publie hearings on tne draft CAP and
draft ErR on July 3 and 24, preparation of t'e final EIR and CAP during
Au~ustt and a public hearing on the final documents on September 18.
Discussjon of Addendum
The clianges fn Table 2 resulted in slightly lower baseTir,e inventory values
faf' CO and lower RHC and CO inventory projections for 1994, 1997. and 2000
listed ~n Table 6. These changes caused a reduction in CO target inventories
and increased ~aximum reductions possible in RHC and nitrogen oxides (NOx)
for all target dates except 1994 RHC reductions. The lable 2 chan~es also
resulted ~n lower calculated emission reduction figures under the heading
·Additional Reductions to get 5 percent/Year, Tons/Day~ in Table 6.
Changes in Table S also affected Table ~. but District staff failed to include
those changes in tnt Addendum.
The Addendum changes translate into Jess potential impact on City operations
than was predicted in C~R:301:91. The deletion of incinerator efflciency
requirements '(4) may allow the replacement schedule for the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant sludge incinerator to be unaffected by the '9] CAP. The
change to contingency status for control measures affecting mandatory -no
drive-days (S4) and replacement of older vehicles (H2) may also delay
CMR:349:9)
p: \ CI1 r\91 capeor
7/3/91
Page 3
·~"
•
... .'.-~ .
. . "'
-
-r··· . . ..
potential costs for City operations. Contingency measures ire to be
1mplemented ;f the ,".1r Resources Soard detf:!r.nines t/),a,t air Quality improvement
fs not proceeding at I satisfactory rate.
ATTAIHME~T OF STATE STANDARDS
Under state law, any day t~e ozone standard is violated at any of the thirty
MOnitoring stations tr. the Bay Area, the e~ttre basin is ~onsidered to be in
vio1Jtfon. Tn! definition of atta1nment requires that an air basin have no
more than a total ~f three violations in the preceding three years for iny
regulated pollutant. Honitcr~ng is continuous at a11 the stations, $0 there
are 32,850 opportunities (30 stations times the number of days in tnree years)
for a violation in the bastn during a three year period for a given pollutant.
Thre~ vio1ations out of 32,850 measurements allows on1y a 0.009 percent
violation rate bef~re an area is conSidered to ~e in nonattainment for the
pollutant being ~easured.
Tne CCAA required that the (lea~ Air Plan for each nonatta;nment district be
designed to achieve a 5 percent annual reductlon in districtwide emissions of
ead! nonattlinment pollutant from )987 hvels. averaged every cOMe-cutive
three year period. The plan must also take into account the effect of
pollutants transported from the Bay Area on other basins. Pollutants from tne
Bay Area are transported soutn and east by prevailing winds.
The CCAA requIres the BAAQMD to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to
achieve and lIaintain the state and federal ambient air qual ity standards,
regardless of the cost. However, the Air Resources Board ~ay authorize ~
district to use an .lternative emissions reduction strategy that achieves less
than the TtQuired reductions. if the inc1us1on of -e~ery feasible-meisure is
Included on an expeditious adoption schedule.
Implementation of the 191 CAP will achieve only 30 percent r~ductions in
emiSSions of RHC, NOx. and CO. That is substantially insuffici!nt to meet
state ozone standards. Jan Bush~ the BAAQMO representative who spoke at the
June]; study session, indicated tflat it .... ould take a 75 percent reduct ion in
emissions of r:zone precursors to meet tt1e state's Olone standard. Table 6
tabulates the ad'dit10nal reductions needed to meet the 5 percent/year
emisslons reductions mandated by the CCAA. Table 5 a1so shows that meeting
the target inventories in tn~ Bay Area requires over two times the estimated
~aximu~ reduction5 possible in the year 2000 with full implementatfon of the
'91 CAP, including the implement~tion by the late )990s of Market-Based
Measures identified in rCM 22. Since t~e 191 CAP cannot achieve the required
S percent/year reductions. ARB's acceptance of the 'SI CAP will hinge on
whether the-proposed measures include all -feasible-measures on an
expeditious schedule.
The Air Resources Board has very little flexibility i~ determining the
attainment category for an air basin. State law clear1y and unambiguously
defines the .!r quality standards and criteria for determining attainment
(Articles 2 and 3, Title 17, Californi' Code of Regulations). It would take
significant danges in state law to change the standal"ds or the definHion of
C~R:349: 91
p: \cmr\91 capcrnr 7/3/91
Page 4
'--':. --
J ..... {~~;;
... --
-
---,.
____ 4""'.'1# ......... ' _","" ,,...~. ~
ittl;n~nt. Thus, un1ess there is l€gislati~e action arn£nding the California
Clean Air Act Dr ~easures are implemented t~at go far beyond those proposed in
th~ '91 CAP, t~e BIY Area is 90in9 to be in nonattafnment ~f state ozone
standards probably indefinitely. However, is noted before, District staff
belfeve that • ... If carried out as presented, it should meet the CO standards
(and the federal ozone standard) sometime during the mid-90's· ,'91 CAP.
page 46).
fEASIBILITY ANALVSIS
Techn~l~g~cal feasibility, public acceptance, and enforceabilfty were
evaluated for each stationary source control measure (see Table 8).
Technological feasibility ~as rated low for 12 control measures and
enforceabll it,)' was rated low for 7 stati onary source control s. ~o eQui \lal ent
fea5tb;1;ty evaluation was given for Transportation Control Measures (TCMs).
legislative action will be needed to implement Phase II and flI TCMs.
Figure 11 fro~ the 'gl C~~ indicates hDw the 22 TCMs identified and evaluated
in the last ten pages of the Addendum are allocated to Phases f, II, and lfl.
The '91 CAP did not include control of woodburning as a feasib1e cQntrol
measure, even thoug~ (ombvstion sources (mostly woodburning) were rated as the
second hfghest category of CO emissions at 358 tons/year. However, in
response to the buildup of carbon monoxide on s~me days during the 1990-91
winter's drought conditi~ns, the BAAQMD institut€d a voluntary program asking
citlzens to restrict wcodburning whenever the Pollution Standards Index (PSI)
reaches BO. About one day in four is expected to be above eo PSI during t~e
winter mont~s. Altnough not part of the '91 CAP, further contr01s on
woodburning may also be required when attainment analysis of particulate
matter is conducted under the Federal Clean Air Act. It seems reasonable to
include such controls now as a feasible measure.
COSTS OF ATT~I~ENT
Staff attempted to evaluate tn. total costs of implementation of the '91 CAP,
b~t was unable to reich any definitive conc1usions Since many of the costs for
implementing contr01 measures are not yet known. The '91 CAP identified costs
of as ~uch is S42,OOO/ton Qf reduced emissions (86, control of ~missiQns from
clea~up of organic liquids) for stationary sources, and as muc~ as
S860,000/ton of reduced RHCs (TeM 7. improve ferry service) from mobile
s~urces. Howe~er, Table 9 in the '91 CAP identified savings for eight
stationary source control measures. The Addendum showed savings for TCMs I,
II, 12, and 16,
TeM 21. w'nic~ is nece~sary for implementation of the Phase II TCMS, consists
of revenue measures to generate-5500-600 mill ion/year for improved
transportation options. Potential revenue measures include 52 bridge tolls,
an additional vehicle registration fee of $4 a year, and a r~gianal gas tax
increase. TeM 21 could cost every Bay Area resident about SlOG/year. or more
t~an II/day for a family of four.
CMR:349:91
p:\cmr\9Icapcmr
7/3/91
Page 5
--'\!C{~~":' .... y
•
.-.
-
reM 22 1~cludes market-~2sed measures whick co~'d include ·smog fees· based or.
I 'Vehicle's !'mfssfcns-, giS tax increases as high is S2/gallon over a ten year
period, congestion ,pricing r~r major rcadlria-ys, and work. and non-work-rehted
parking charges. A commuter travelling 25 miTes each day on i round trip,
(t.e.t c~nsurn1n9 one gallon cf gas on which he would pay an additicnal S2 in
taxes) including I bridge crossing {and paying an increase in to11s of Sl/day)
and paying parking charges .t worK (S3/d,y), would p,y at l.ast $1,410/y.ar
more to drive his car to work than he now p~ys. This economic burden may be
uj;realfstfc for some segmF.!nts of Ul-e working population and young families
that relGCated to outly1ng areas to find affordable housi~g, and alternative
transportation ~d~s will not be availabie in the near term.
CONCLUSIONS
I. fu11 compliance with tne stite's ambient air Quality ,ozone) standards
and the Californi. Clea. Alr Act does not appear to be technologically
or economically feastble in the rorese~able future. Beyond that~ the
likelihood of the State Legislature approving fees and (~arges on t~e
order of those identlfie~ in TeM 22, and perhaps in TeM 21, make
compliante appear politically infeasible. The BAAQMD ac~nowledged in
the '91 CAP that ·~ .. As of March 1991 and after ccnsi~erable air Quality
model ing, n~ practical strategy for meet ing tne State Olone standard was
identified.·
2~ The legal, economic, and political consequences of continued
nonattainment status are negativ.e~ Here is sreat potential for
litigation Ind contreversy as attainment wilh state standards is not
achieved. Uncertainty about the status of continued or expanded
operations in t~e Bay Area during the course of praionged co~rt actions
could severely impact th~ ab~lity of the Bay Area economy to respond to
a changing market~ Vast amounts of money. time and effort could be
spent in both the public and private sectors er. litigation reiated to
the C.1iforni. C1e.n Air Act.
3. Implement.tion cf Ph.se II and Ph.s. III lCMs depend on legislative
action to authorize revenue programs neede~ for implementation. The
LegislatUrE will be forced to balance and eva1uatE: He palitle-al and
economic consequences of the r~Quirement for compliance ~ith state air
quality standards.
4. Assessment and modification of state law and attainment criteria are
needed to define compliance in a different Wit. A number of
possibil ities exi st to modify exi sting standard's and attainment criterla
to ~ake compliance with state standards feasib'e, wnile still
maintaining serious efforts toward meeting the ~ideiy accepted goal of
improving California's air Quality. Obvious poss;biliti~s include
having state standards that are the same as federa1 standards or
defining attainment as meeting state standards a high percentage (e.g.,
98 or 99 percent] of the days in a year. AlsQ, tne risk assessment
process used to define the state standar~s should be evaluated to
determine whether the criteria lJsed by the Department of Health Senices
CMR:349:91
p:\cmr\9Icapcmr
L
7/3/91
Page 6
•
\
: 1 ,
1
I
•
".---~~
staff was consistent with procedures reco~n1zed by tne federal
fnvironmental Protection Agenc~ or the National ~ealth Ser~ice for
setting Feder.l CharI .A.ir Act tli!alth-based standards. Tt1e best tim'i! to
address modificition of the Ca11(orr.ia Clpir. Air Act is in the near
future, not later after lawsuits and contro~ersy divert resources and
creates I sense of cris~s.
RECOHIIEHDA TlONS
Staff recommends tnat City Counc11 adapt a motion authorizing the Mayor to
send a letter to the BAAQMD,
1. Requesting that (a) modified Tables 4 and 9 be inc1uded in the Addendum
document, and ,b) ~oodburning restrlctions be included as a mandatory
control measure during aays w~en the Pollution Standard rndex reaches or
exceeds 80;
2. Commending the BAAQMD staff for their thorough ana1ysis of the control
measures and issues in tne r91 CAP; and
3. Urging the Air Di;trict to adept a policy of ~orking with legislators
and Air Resources Boa:-d staff to promptiy consider amendments to the
state's attainment criteria standards and the California Clean Air Act.
Respectfully submitted,
~};&?Jk
DORIS MAEZ U
Environmental Protection
Coordina.tor ~H~~
City Man.ger
~t,d~--!d~
KENNETH i. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
CQmmunity Environment
Attachments: Addendum to Draft Bav ~,re3 '91 Clean Ai r £lJ. __ ~.
June 3, 1991
CMR:30L 91, May 30, 199), Draft Bay Pn. '91 ck.lLAi!:
Plan ('91 CApl
Draft Bay Area '91 Clean Air Pla~'91 CAP) (Council
Members on1y)
Related (HRs: CMR:1BB:9I, CMR:301:9J
cc: Planning Commission
Palo Alto Cnamber of Commerce
Palo Alto league of Women Voters
Peninsula Conser~atiun Center
Santa Clara County Manufacturers Group
Greenbelt Alliance
CMR:349:91
p:\c~r\9Icapc.r
\1 ::.--"~·!.i"'~"o..-
, ' ',,'
7/3/91
Page 7
i .~
B3J Are. Council
Byron Sher
C~.ll:349:91
p:\""r\9Icapcmr
L;
:~
."
7/3/91
Page 8
".
" -
i·· . ...,
" ,
ADDENDUM TO
DRAFT BAY AREA
'91 CLEAN AIR PLAN (CAP)
June 18, 1991
-
•
. .:,:~~~ ~ a~ I ".'~,,'
,
f
~ :~"':<!'~"
~"--.. ,-. -;.-c ',':,"M.,
-.,-"': .. ~-'1
'3-c ~ ,'j' 'p
'5,;l', .=-=~ .. : ~-C:.:: C:::."'~~
"' .. -, ~ S· r
_ -;J,o-,J@=
'0. ..... \'-1 -:':;. :-:'.'''-'' :-! . ",~:, ::::-. "
':',"""1 =:,.-~c
s..:-!~ol"f
s ... ·.-.. :~"<l .. ::::v.,-..
\Ia"". : "_0/'";.'
=-,;;.: -: c,;r
:;",:",",:1 -.... .;-...
;:~sar~~ ... ,3"-
,;,.:o~A~C -=:'J .... -' ..
~'=a,s
C".a'c::"' .... .-c~
3-: .. c ... -I .~-: .",-,
"'r--.a~'S","
-"'1'-'c .. "', ;;".~
-
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
TO:
fRO!'>!:
June 18. 1991
I.\TERESTED PERSO'iS
MILTON FELOSTEI:". AIR POLLlTIO'i CO'iTROL OFFICER
SUBJECT: CHANGES ,,"NO .. WDITIONAL l.'IfOR!'>UTIO:" FOR THE
DRAFT BAY " .... REA '91 CLEAN AIR PL .... ' (C.t,.p)
Tn Apn1,. 3. draft '91 Clean ,-\.if P1Q.n was releas,ed for public re .... iew ::IrK]'
com!'Dent The Plan was prep.nred by three region.;)l agencies:
Bay Area ;-\ir Quality ManJ~ernent District lBAA"Q~'ID',
Association of Bay AreJ Gonrnments (ABAG}, and
Metropolitan Transponation Commission l~:ITC).
Eight public in[ormau0n meetings were held to pubilcizc the Plan and 1m'iLe
commentS. [n response to comments received and additionaJ staff analysis. I.i-.!
have ..
1) made wme changes in the DrOlft Plan.
2) prO\ided additior.al information on some plan eIemeats ana Oil the
process. used LO de\'eIop the proposals. and
3) summarized the ~'l_!ture ~hedule.
1) enanges
a. Replace page 16. Table 2 -Bay Are;] Emission In\'emory Trends.
b. Page :!..t, Table"; -Projected CO In .... entory: Santa Oara County.
Total-Mobiie Sources for 2010 should be 511 (not 421).
c. Replace page 31. Tabie 6 -CCA..-'\ Ra:e of Emission Reductions.
d. RepJQ.ce paee 52. 53. and 5':: TClble S -1991 Clean A.ir Pl::an Pro~ed
Stationary Source Contro!,'-.-fea.:.ures.
Changes in the proposed. level of control and/or implementation
s.chedule have been made tor ~Ox: CO;:UIOJ measur:s D1. D2. DJ, 04
and D7. The fo!lawing measu.res originally propo&ed have been
deleted: 08. "Funher Emis)ion Reductions from Residential
Fu.maces~. £2. ~Control of Emissions from . .<\sphalt Concrele Plams~.
ilnd E4. "'Incinero.lOr Efficiency Requirements." Measures Fl. G4, H2
939 ELLIS STREET • SA:\ fRA"TlSCO. C. ... lIFOR~lA 94109 • (415) 77j-6000 .. FAX (415) ~2S.a500
O~-
·1·
and H4 have been chongcd to contineenc), ~ta:us. The title -lnd
dev.:r;ption of H] ~ave been mu.dined. Afs,o note that wme o~ tr,;,;
measures on pJse .'4 are not st3tton.ar-.... ' SOL:rce conuols, bLi( are 11~ .. ed
in Table S bec.lU~ they came from J BAAQMD ...... ork.s.hop prxe:i.s.
e. Page 58, S(:cond column, ninth line ~houid read: "Bec<l'Js.e (he BJ~
Area [s a sc\ere area, any State mobile source meaSure being ca·ried
out in SouIhern Califorr:ia should aho be impJemenH:d in the B<l)
Area on the same schedu.le."
C. Page 59, first column,. fifth line, delete~ "This last set of propos.~ls i::.
not part of the '91 CAP."
g, Replace page 61. Table 10 -Summory of TCM Plan Emi;sion Reduc
tions.
2) Additional Information (auached)
3. Description of process and criteria for Plan Proposals, Lhat is. no",", lA-e
got to the Bay Area Propo~al in Table 8 and Figu.re 11.
b. Description of T::1osportation Conuol Mea~ures (TCMs) fi~ted in
Figure 11 on page 60.
c. Emission Reduction and Cost Effecti .. 'eness Es.timates for TC~'Is.
3} Future Schedule
... Distribute Draft EIR on '91 CAP -late June
• BAA..QMD Board of Dire(tcrs. open Public Hearing
aD Draft CAP and Draft ErR July 3
BAAQMD Board continue Public Hearing July 24
• Prepare final Plan and Flnal ErR August
• BAAl.QMD Board Public Hearing on
Final ErR and Fina; CAP Seplember IS
Thank you for your continuing interest in air quality. I hope that you \a. ill
support our efforts to de\. clop effecth'e programs.!O achj~\'e healthfuf air in the
Bay Area,
t..1F·,TEP'.e:o
Ana.:;hmer1.!5.
•
•
:c::~";; :«~
\ 1;;::--,-
, -', .
-----------------------------
Table 2 Bay Area Emission Inventory Trends: 1987-2000 jREVlSEO 6/18/91j
Planning Inventory> (Tons/Day'
1987 1994 1997 2000
Base Year 1987 RHC NOx CO RHC f'/Ox CO RHC NO. CO RHC NO. CO
lndu.trilll/Commerie8II ~ece,"
Petrolewll Rl!~ FaoIi~ ,., " , 30 " , " " , J2 " •
ChemO~aI Marlllfac1uring Facdllle::S 5 , '" , , " , " • , 3<
0Iher IncllJStr~ Commerciel,f'rocr...s~rFilCilrtiQS " " " '.
Petfdeum PJNur:t:ISoI~ E"'apot'aotiool
Fuel .. P.eIiner')' EwporaOOn '0 , •
Fuels OI$trlbul1Ol'1 ,. ,. Z5 25
0IhM Organic CGn~s ElI3pOrahOn ,,, ,x OJ. .«
~ -SQl!IonItry SWrce-t
FiSs t;omb-....s1J\)o • 157 ,,. • '"" ,.. • '" .," • , .. ...
8o..JmU-og aI W.u.\oo Material , , , • •
~-MoI)IIe~
OtI'.HJg~way MobtIQ ~ ., " 2S9 .,. '" '" '" ". 32S 53 ,,. 3<'
..... oaft " " '" .. " '" " .. " " " " On Read i'oIoIcr VeNdes '" lEO JO" '66 '" 2249 '3: '" "" '" >02 , ... .,,-"",",Sou_ >5 .. " "
Graod TD"" .., 6« l7JJ ... '" 30 .. "" ". "" .., '" 25.'
16 Bay Area '91 Clean ,11.11 Pian leAP) lmplernenlmg AH "feasible-Con!rol.;
,~==~---:c:~----,-----------------------
.----
-,
--
~', .
, .
, ,
~-'-----------"--' ---'-' -----------:..--,~..;......:....-'-~==
-----------
Table 6 CCAA Rate of Emrssron Reductrons (REVISED Gi18/91l
aaMl'lne Inventory ",Years T8f9OI5% Add",,,,,., Reduc!1onl! Maximum ReducIIoos
Protections a from Annual Target r" .... ntory 105181 5%/Yesr PostlbJe wl'1h '91 CAP
TonslOay B ... ,.... RedueUon Tona"'" TonslD.-y Ton.!OII~
RHC NO. CO RHC NOx CO'" RHC NO. CO RHC NO. CO
1987 687 64. 3733 0 0 687 644 3133
Baeyear
1
'81 CAP
~
1994 519 543 3050 7 35 4<7 419 2426 72 124 .. 39 25 ..
1897 501 53S 2783 10 50 34. 322 1867 157 ,,6 54 108 ••
2000 483 532 2562 13 05 240 225 1307 "3 307 8B 13fi ..
• From Table 2 .
•• AeglOnal CO inventory targets for 5% per year reduct'io'1 are shown, but acluallargels and rates depend on nonanalnrnent
sub-area analyses fa( San FrarlCisco, San Jose, and Vanejo See Table 11 for addrtlonal details
----------------------
Bay Area '91 Clean A~r Plan (CAP)' Implemenllng All "Feasible· Controls 31
•
•
» f si
ITablea. 1991 Clean Air Plan Proposed Stationary Source Conlrol Measures (REVISED 6118!9t)
E .. WOo
CD" Red\.M;\1on Rate ail '''''-''''''Ie .-~ flfecli~ .. POll:eni!~ R,ducUon Fu.,q,f]1ty ~ance ..... -tJ_ ,..Ie. 0( Conttot Ueu.ur-e 'i"·on.Ped'~ , """"" ..... -J.1'r"O AthruO A ttv:u 0 "'-
C. COMBUSTION OF P,Jt:LS (N(b SOUACESJ
0' CONTAOl Of flUl~ro,.,S F~M NON-UTILITY AECIPROC .... TlNC; E.NGINES \NO~J
(6).f.dopl "'Ox COI'1h'OIs S«'YI_1c e~ S'.;A.OMD ~ 11102 .-697. e8J" 'I'" A A 8 .' ..
0' CONTROl OF EMISS~NS FWIIoI 5TAnoNAA'1' GAS ru.9B1NES ~O .. ) ..
ia,l Ad<'<pl No. conI.QI.I; sa-nliar 10 emlng SCAOOl:' I\.JIa 1134 "",000 6rJ·712 'I" A 8 8 91·904
00 CONTAO( Of fl,jjS SIONS FFKJM EJ.fGTAtC POWER GENERATING &OIL£RS ",0.,
tal AOopl NOx QOnb'(;ts basad (WI eod Q(I 'U6 gas c:on«w 114,OCItI 'J.t . 1:5.' 1,r'!t7 8 8 , 91 -94
'" coml'\Ol Of-011$ FRO"" &oIlEflS S1UJJ Gf'NEIV.-;-ORS noD ~.::n .. "5 \-\EAl£~
(8) A.dcJpl NO. c:::on«JoLs SW1uIar 1Q ~Iwlg SC,I,Q:.4D ~ , 1 ~ (NOIC) ..
(') l. .. ~ Unm; {too MM.BTlJIk 01 ~ 1'0,000 31.1-;1.3." \.,.. , • • 91.· '" ~ SmSIer Unt!s ~ han 100 MtoIBTUttv) \197 A • • 9' -!J.4
OS CONTROl OF ElUlSSfQNS FRQIIj CE""E~ PlANT KtL.-.S (NO .. )
(8) "'Gop! No. CO"1rro/$ ~ 'cl Etu5lP;p sc ... a~o RUE 11'2 'HXlO J 1"'-3 n· "., A • • 91· S4
(tI) Adopt NOx c:orv0/5 requn"1g ~ b'ealmOnl 12000 2000. 0 • 8 2000+
08 CONTPOL OF fMlSS. FRQt,t GLASS ".ANt;fACI1.JAJNG PLANT MELTING FUP.NACES (N0~j
(.8) ~ NOlc control&. smilar-10 O*5tng $CAOf,jD F\u:e , 11 7 $<000 279 ],,,. ''''' • • • 91 -904
07 CQNlHOC Of OjlSS~NS FFKlIW Fk;:;;IOENTIAL WATER KEATiNG "'O~ "~1 tal SeI »OJ< .. lar'odMds b ~ ,~.oont.aI and COI'T1fllt""'1:iar wa!EII ~iB's. .'''''' JJ-«9 1i9!io • C C
DO IlE\.fl<I>
S2 Bay Alea -91 Clean Air P1an (CAP) Implementing AI' "Fe.aslble" Control:;
-'.,-
.. :'
TableS. 1991 Clean Air Plan Proposed Stationary Source Control Measures (REVISED 6/18191) .-c_ ....... "'" RlIleO/Jif Teet .. , I'vI>iI< .-'" E~I'¥Meu. Pot!"O'U .. .... "" ... -_ ..... ....., "'-"
10., Tille 01 CcmI.d fIIII~e Sf,'" Oft-Aedueed '-.... -'''''''0
__ 0
..... 0 -E. OlmA \"OL~a.ucC*ME"C\M. PROCESSf.S
., CaNT ~ Of c~\SSIUN5 fAOAl RUB8€R PAOOUCTS ~ANtJfACTURING
tal Require ~1e'OQnI 01 FlOG ~$Ql$ "01'1"0 ~ ptodlod ...-.arllJtilCb'oog, Qper1lhcwU --''''' • • "·2000
» D£L£m)
u CQNTAOl Of El.USSK)NS f A(J1t,I C.)l,IMERCI.I.l.-CHARBFi04UNGi
~a} Sd~crn,s:S1Qn ~S 'or CO!T' ...... ,c .. ~~ 02";.000 "" """. • • • """. .. OE<.£TEO
F. OTHER $T"TIO'C'AR't SOURC£ CQffnlOl ittEJ.SURfS
" IMPROVED NEW SOORCf ~ FiUt.E
(al.tdol¢!IJ\ NSR. AuIoe Ihat~ ~ lor .. ~{,~ $lJUl'ce$ --1 ,. (ROO} ,,., • • • 9' -94
53 ""'"
F2 (MISS#QN MIHIMI2ATKJN "".uu.GE'MErorT P'..,AN
(01) 1\tcri;ef.tJas.ed reQOmg no inc:rea!.4II irl8fI'Iis;SionS"'om map flIcMe5 """""" ~-"'. , • • C......".,."
F, PROMOTION Of E"'~RGY £FFICIENC~
(a, Eslatlich a QOBt r:J j-r.re;ro:s..-og ~ affcoerc~ --".2 • • " 91 -g.c
co tNH"m;fD ENFOACEME""T Of EXlSTI...a D1ST~I(;T A(GUl.ATJ()~$
(:1;l Mopl. program to rcreaslt~ oooif1 OC\P'ic! f~ """"-' """"-,., • • C 91 -9'*
-------------
Bay Area '91 Clear'l Ai, P1,m rCAP): Irnplemenfing' All "f"easibl~~ Conlrols 53
•
--.-------------------._-----------------_.----------------------------------.------------
Table 6. 1991 Clean Air Plan Proposed Stationary Source Control Measures (REVISED S/iElIS1)
E .. WOn
c.,., -"""'" "III. of TocIlli IQII':· ...---E1k'divenr" P04ent:1aI R"'~ F~ ,l.QcepC~ -. P<_
10. TtIW of Conbol IIn_ .. lIT on -RPduced TOfl',~ ..... -.... 0 ._0 ...... ..........
a. MTfRMrfTENT CONfROL II'fASIJAES
61 CITIZEN POS fP'ON£tlENT (Y DPSOIHIONAAV ACTMTI[S
(a) EO(.QUf;tge poslpo"!ement r:J '-er18I'1 ~ <1unr'Ig /ore(;.a:l;l ozr:'lll e..-c:e&.5 da-,5 .,""'" 7J 14 S rAI 7,., • e 0 91. !H
'" 10 (HI
G2 ~STRLAlI'OSTPONE"I.IENT or ACTMTIfS DURING FQAEC)osr
020"£ UCEiiS O"VS
{a) Req~fI PO$iporltli ioenl 01 (;~ ~.iaI at:1! .... ~ w~ 1()P'ecas1 OZO"OEll!!.O:CeSS r:Jay5 ~ " .421Ri "'" • • A 91 -9-4
" 12,1'1)
GO OlONE OCESS '...0 ORI\I£ [;,I,\fS.' (IIOI..UI'IT AAY)
lOll Adoplill ptOQI;:wfl 10 QI5(;Curag6 auIo t15e Cl\.lfWlQ lor8e&l Ol'Onill e,q;:ess (I.a~. UflkrooOWl .. " J ~R) '.W e e 0 or .. .. 91 (Nj
G< OZONE E)l:CESS"NO OAIVE DAYS' (N.oI.NOA10RYl
(a) Rt1qo.we ~·b3SCd YMT re(IrIx);Qr1'!i tM';ng Iotecast c..r<:ne e.IICiIS.S ~s. ~-11 ·14 2(1ll '" e 0 c C:onI~ .,. '6C{til
H. YOTOR Yf)UCt.ES ....
"' 'SiI401"'JNG VEl-ilCl.E PROGRMt
(8)~'a~1OO~prt;Jg1'!I(I'lb'~~ ........,.., 07 jROGt ,,.. • • 0 .. or ,. (NO»
H2 HIGI1 POt.H.JTI'~G V'EHK:Lf RFIIAE"ENT PROCiA.AAI
(3l ~\ a ~09ram v"'" ~ arcS 0es\0IC\ICtI <:II oid ~ """-23 ,HOG) .:. • • 0 C~
tEo ~NOI9
"' REQUIRt:ME"Hf FOR CLEAIf VEHICLES'" FUns
(II) Reo,uKe ~ 1reI. to II.Iie ~ ftNdel """""0"" ";'(ROGI 7,~ • • e 9S .'9r
13 (NOli)
H. \,lAsm SUS S"I'STEIoI El-ECTA1Fl(...t-TION
(a) AeQ-u'-6 oIDCl>',ItCalo'1 rJ ho;t1-~ I.Jf't)ar. bus (~ ,,,,,",,"" JO IROG) .. i_
t S2 (NCJ-.l
A A • e_ •
.-
... . .
. -~
. 'ji>'
.1]'
", .. ' -.
... ~f{?:
·:~::~i:>~. ::: ~:
//. i, .
l"i.!y of V.lrlt:~I. SI;I!",I io..:~l .,"'11y~ or thc~ "reel" for 11'0(: l!m:..: y,_" .• n. ll'<a111 .. :n
"oc .. ign \',llm:"· or m-l\imum c;I(pe .. 1cd .air qu;tlit), "-··.r.;I ...... " "hO\/o.'11
San Fr .. ux.:;"';n
S.I[I 11l':;c
V<llkjo
co fx:sig"' Value Irpmj
10
12
115
f-:mi ...... It!t1 R('<Jm':IMmo;.
101 Ml"CI Si.;nJMd
•
T <iI-it; 11 prl'''CIll''' [!It: OJ rale ot 1:mi"'"ion l'(:dl.ICli(lra~ ror L~
Illrce oirt'a' III ,It'd. f"kpt."ndin@ flrI tll(...tr 'iII'catlk:r O)rtdiL;'HK
.1fId Ihl' "w.;dll~ for implt:mcI11irlg .. n:gM>n<11 01.V!,!(IIi1ICd
fll<.'l ... pHI~r"m, iiln .Iln,;c OOtlllllAinmo:nl c;uh· .·.rc"'~ All:
pmjl'l.;!cd In ml"CI the ~1 ... le CO SliHId.ud wilhin 1m.· rtoeJll k,.'
yCM'i.. S, .~I FrarlC~ i!:. tbe dcKol~ 1.:l.Irrcntf). Var:reJu and
S.tn JU"l: <In: pro,f<:L1t:u 10 mccllhc: ('O,,[Olndard ~ the mid~
I.Hk
Table 10. Summary of TCM Plan E7Ilsslon Reductions (REVISED 6/18/91)
Emis.1on Reduc!1ons
Percenl Change rn Tons/Olty
Rt<C NO. CO RHC NO. CO
Phat;e l: Aea50nabl:tl Ava~1abie Msasures and Federal TCMs. b)o'l99-4 -6.' -6.' -6.9 11 16 ISS
Phase n: MobJlity Improvements and Federal TCM5 by 1997 ·5·9 -5.6 -5.2 a 12 120
PhaH W:Man.:eI-Based Meas(Jfes (lmplemenla!lon Date Calculated 10 200Ct) 20.6 -15.5 ·22.5 23 31 380
Her Results iA,<>sumes Phase I, U, III by 2000~ 30.1 -25.5 -32.3 33 52 5-45
(Nel Resurts le~ lhan sum due 10 intelacflons among measures j
.. -~~~p;\-,
··~~~.~a~(;
• ,,<,'
~i_\ :;'·~"·"'-CS""'''''''''3.ilt'''''dE'''''''",.'''-
1
'"'.' -..
Attachment
I
i
1
1
2.a. DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS AND CRITERIA FOR PLAN PROPOSALS
Air Cluality planners and engineers are lnvC"l\led in a continuing eHort to IderHity'
and control' air ~hJtant emissioos. These efforts were focused and Jormafiled ir. 1989
as part 01 the '91 CAP developmer,: process.
Comprehensive fists of possible control measures were compiled Jor both
statkY1ary and transportation-retated air poHution SOurces
TransPOrtation Centro{ Msas'YTes
The Metropofitan Transportation Commisslon organized a task fOfce to consider
transportation control measures ITCMs) ThE grO<Jp met monthly during 1989 and
1990. An early p,oduct of the groop eRon was a comprehensive list 01 possible
transpOrtation contra: measures. The measures were analyzed and screened wi;:h
respect to their potential effectiveness, costs, funding, responsibility. authority, equity
and possible implementation schedule.
The final resu~ 01 that process WlS the TCM Plan submitted to the BAAQMD in
November 1990. That Plan, with sr.ght moo.ficatlons, was incorporated into the '91
CAP as summarized in Figure 11 on page 60 oj \t1e "'pr~ 1991 o,ah.
The transportation-related requirements of the Calilornia Clean "'ir "'ct ot 1988
specify some of the Plan elements, including jndirect source controJs and "reasonably
available' transpo<1ation control measures
The CaJ~ornia Air Resources Soard (ARB) has provided guidance and regula
~ons based on their interpretation of the California Clean Air Act The ARB will review
the Bay Area '91 CAP for compliance. ARB Transportation Requirements Guidance
(Feb '901 nsts the fonowing measures as reaso'lably available
1. Employer-based trip reduction n;\es,
2, Trip reduction rules tor other $our.:es that attract vehicle trips
3. Management of parking supply and pricing.
4. Regional Mig" occupancy vehicle system plans and implementatiOf\ pfOgrams
(ca~ and bus lanes).
s. ComprehensNe transit improvements program for bus and rail.
6 Land development poricies that support reductions in 'ilehicle trips
The '91 CAP includes .,direc! sOurce controls and all of the above 'reaSonably
availabfe.' TeMs, plus ottier 1easible transportatiOn measures from the TeM task force
process, as necessary to achieve tl1e , 5 ave!'"age vehicfe ridership targel in the
Cali1cTnia Clean Air ACt.
'L
-
ATTAOIMENT
2b. DESCRIPTION OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES
TeM "1 -EXP"-NO EMPLOYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
• ExpaM public sectO!' support lor employer·based trip reduct.!on programs
• RmES, Commuter NetwO(k and ott,er ride-sharln9 asslstancs organizations will
provide training kH' Employer Transportation Coordinators.
RIDES win provide an expanded training and educatioo program through
wO<'<shops!or employer program managers and city and county TSM n,anagers
• RIDES will assist tIip reduction efforts at maiO<' employers oy providing oo-site
COI'lsuttations and iI1lo:-matiooal mailings. supporting company vanpool programs.
and promoting sales altransit tickets (see TeM 13j .
.. Monitor emploYEe commute patterns via SUNeys to anatyze the effecti'!eness of
employer programs aM identify successlUl approaches
Assist W1 establishing Transportation ManagerT,en, Associations
TCM #2 -ADOPT EMPLOYER-BASED TRIP REDUCTION RULE
MTC has developed a 'mooer trip reduction ordinance to provide guidance for
cities and counties that are developing trip reduction programs in respoose to
CongestiOf'l Management Plan requirements.
• Air District wm adopt rulp. to require major employers 10 impleme(1t trip reduction
programs. Specific provisiQ(ls of the nule will be determined during Air DIstrict's
rule-making process.
• Air District will delegate implementation 01 the regiOl1al trip reduction ruie 10 Cities
and counties which meet the Air District's objectives:, but Air District will implem':N
d local jurisdictions do nol
TCM #3 -IMPROVe AREAWIDE TRANSIT SERVICE
MTC win work wtth regional transit ope;a!ors to increase bus and train serv~ce
(BAAT and Caltrain).
Extension of Cattra1n seMes to Gilroy: increase in Caltrair, serviCE flom 54 to 66
trains per day.
RaiT service ex.pansion will be based on service lrprovements contamed in rail
operata<'s Short Range Transit Plans.
Goal fof bus service is a 33% increase in service
,';".
.' .
• f
I
. .
\ .
\-
-
June 19, 1991
StatiOf'ary Sou r@ Controls
A comp(enensive list of potential stat~ooary source comro:s (Table 7 in the Draft
'91 CAP) was compiled from suggestions by BAAOMO employees and outsiders. the
literatu-:-e, and propooars from other jurisdictKJns. A commit1ee 0' seniOf BAAQMD
employees led by the Oeputl Air Poilutioo C()(1l!o/ Ofiicer, Operations cocrdinated
screening and analysis of the options. Those measures with ·Ir:significant emissions
reductions, 0( wit" extreme costs, tecMl"'1icai difficutties, or enforcement problems were
not carried forward to the Oralt '91 CAP proposals.
Ma:'!y d the measureS in Table 7 were carried I.t1rough to l.t1e Table 8 proposal
stage. Some were coosolkfated wit.h others, some were adopted before the Draft ·SI
CAP was released, some measures fell under ARB jurisdiction, some were moved 10
contingency status, and some were eriminated as impfactical.
Table 7 options consofidafed into o~"er Plan proposals include
Improved automobile refinishing rule
Umita!ion on the operatror1 of sources of standby power.
Indirect source review public transpor1ation offsets
Measures already adopted inckJde
Further control of emissions from polyester resin use
Requirement fOf PN vaJves at gasoiine dispensing faclli1ies.
ReQuirement for vapor recovery at aviation refuelir.g facilities
~mproved natural gas and crude 011 production fadlities rule.
Control of emissions from consumer prOducts (aeroso( paints)
Control of em i ssions from utifity equipm ent.
Measufes under ARB jurisdiction include:
Cleaner reformulated gasofines.
Control of emiSSions from switching locomotives
Control' of emissions from gasOOne fa:-m tractors
Control of emissioos from diesei coostructioo equipment.
Cootro/ or emissions from on-road motorcycles.
Control of emissions from consumer produ-cts (other than aerosol paints)
The remaining Table 7 options not carded through to Tabfe 8 were efiminated
because of the absence 0( sources, k)w emission reduction potentiaf, coverage by
other rules, technical impediments, extreme costs, or problems With en'orceability
Existi!'lg regulat~s, plus (he new stationary source proposals carried through
to the prDposaf stage, COlJl3r all the applicable measures on ARB's "Ust of Feasfble
Measures for Stationary Sources" (MarCh 199i). A few meast;res on the ARB list are
not considered because of l.t1er€ are MO sourCes (SUCh as kelp-processing) in the Bay
Area
,
•
.\ .
\
~.-~.,c-r: .. ,
-" .
I c
f
:"",>1",<;:;'
:~0~r··
!
2lJ. OetCription Of reM's . J. June 1!. 1991'
--=p=----
• New service from the Berkeley and Richmond a.reas to San Francisco
New service by private operat0l'5 from Port Sonoma and Harb':Jf Bay Isle
(Alameda) to San FranciSCO.
Full implementa1ion witi require State legislatioo to provide additional revenueS
TCM #8· CONSTRUCT CARPOOL I EXPRESS BUSLANES ON FREEWAYS
MTC and Canrans roave developed ''Year 2005 HOV Lane Master Plan' which will
expand the existing SO lane-miles to 460 tane-miles upon completion
Approximately 2M lane-mnes are fully funded in current Transportauon
Improvement Program (TIP).
• MTC wiP fonow up with studieSiltmding to implement facilities that support HOV
lane usage, Lr"lcJuding Park & Ride kits, preferential parking policies, express bus
service, special HOV ramps.
TCM #9 -IMPROVE BICYCLE ACCESS AND FACILITIES
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds of $3 million per year are
allanable to expand regional system of bike lanes and bike routes
MIC will require local agencies to develop bicycle plans as a condition lex
receMng TO'" fundS.
• M'TC will encourage !Tarsi! operators to increase bicycie carrying capab1fity and wili
encourage Caitrans to provde means lor bicycles to cross all Say bridges.
Air District wHi encoufage/requtre flew developments to provide bicycle facilities Ilia
indirect SOUrce control (TCM 16).
Fun tmplementatiofl of this measure requires State legjslatioo to provide addltior.3r
revenues.
TCM # 10· YOUTH TRANSPORTATION
\'..ITC wHl anocate funds to transit operators for provision of youth discouri! tickets.
MTC wil! anocate funds to schoof districts for provision of bus service and fO!'
purenase of clean fuel buses where emissions reduction benefits are high.
RIDES .ndicr local agencies will encourage carpoolir,g for high school students
with carS
Implernentation of this TCM requires State legislation to provide new junding
•
,.
~ .•... " ..
':~~;, :~
-
2b. Oucrlption of reM! ·2· June TIl, 1991
Tral"isit operators will be encol.!raged 1Q under1ake comprehensive analys.es of
;narkets. routes and schedules
Fun implementation of thiS measure will require legisration to prO'Jide additiol"lal
Slate and Federal funding
TCM "4· EXPEDITE AND EXPAND REGIONAL RAIL AGREEMENT
Based upon MTC's New Pail Starls Program iResolution 1876) which contains a
$3.5 billion financial pi"".
Construction oIBAAT extension from Daly City to Colma
• ~ additional 1tmding becomes avanable, accelerate coostrucUon of BART
extensions to West Pittsburg. Warm Springs in Fremont. and San Francisco
~tematk>nal Airport extension of Cart Jain to downtown San FranCisco: and the
Tasman light Rail extension if1 Santa Clara County
TeM #5· IMPROVE ACCESS TO RAil AND FERRIES
• Improve access to BART, Cartrain and ferries via feeder bus senrices. private
shuttles from transit stations to employment centers, improved bicycle paths and
bicycle facilities. and iraeased parking.
• MTC win review comptehensrve raj! access. plans prepared by transit operators to
determine the most cos!~effective access improvements.
• Fun implementation of this measure requires legislation to provide additionar
revenue.
TCM "6· IMPROVE INTERCITY RAil SERVICE
• Imprement new tntercity rail seNice ir. the Sacramento-Oa!o'Jand~San Jose corridor.
Capnal fuMing for this project is available through Proposi!i()r's 108 and 1, 6:
operating funds mus! be secu red.
Initial service with three roundtrips per day may begin as early as autumn 1991. If
Can-rans, Southern Pacific and Amtrak can complete operating agreement wrth
increased service in subsequent years
TCM #7 -IMPROVE FERRY SERVICE
Retain post-earthquake ferry service from OaklandiArameda 10 San Francjsco
~ncrease service on the existing Vallejo to San Franc~sco run (funded by
Proposition 116).
• N&N service from U1e Berkeley and RicJlmond areas to Sal"i FranCisco
'L
-
2b, ~~cript;o" 0' reMs ... J:,me T8, 199'
TCM #11 • INSTALL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SYSTEM
• Caltra!15 is develop:ng a Traffic Ope.rations System. II".OS' that includes tr3ff~c
5urveiJla,nce. ramp metering, traff,c :30VISOfI Signs and Incident managerrent.
• Segment 1 of tI1e TOS. on routes that lead to tI1e Bay Bridge. should be completed
by autumn 1991. Fun implementatiol1 of thIS TOS will cover 215 mires of regionai
freeway.
• MTC will seel( funding fOf electrOrlic toll callectioo equipment 0f1 the Bay Bridge
TCM #12 • IMPROVE ARTERIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Caitrans wiU suppon existing s.gnal timing programs funded via FETSIM iFuel
Efficient Traffic Signal Management Program).
MTC ~" seek funds to expand signal timing progfam so that a:1 eogibfe ~ystems
are updated.
local jurisdictions will study signal preemption for buses on arterials with hig'"
volume 01 bus traffic.
• MTC will encourage local agencies to irlco<porate arterial traffic management
strategies into the travel demand element or Congestion Management Plans.
• With the exception or existieg signal timing programs. lull implementation depends
on new funding.
TCM #13· REtXlCE TRANSIT FARES
• MTC will use existing statuatOf)' auti10rlty to improve coordination of service
between transit operators.
RIDES wiI1 pubOcize and promote eml=loyer d'rstributioo and subsidization of transit
passss via lne Regional Tracsit Connection (ATC) and "CoMmuter CMeck"
programs.
• "Iunding is avanable (see rCM 21). MTC will provide revenue to subsidize feeder
buses to BART, Cait:ain and ferries: offer reduced fares for uSer that are especiaJly
sensitive to fare levels (eg. oil-peak discounts. fam.!)' discounts. tourist passes):
and underwrite additional retail outlets for transit passes and ridesharing
information based on the "Berkeley TRIP·' model .
. ,
-
, .
2b. Oncripfion 01 TeMs June 111, 1991
rCM #14 -VANPOOL LIABILITY INSURANCE
RIDES WiU conduct a stwdy 01 van pooling in Ff ; 991 ·92 The stody will assess the
vanpO()l! market an~ consider the need fOf establrs~~ing a pubficly fund.ed. ~(
subsidized van pool msurance program to oNset me fllgh cost of vanpool Ilablfl:Y
ir"lsuranC€
rmplementabon or a publicly funded van pool insurance program would reqlare
add·,tionai funding.
TCM #15 -PROVIDE CARPOOL INCENTIVES
• Employers wit! be encouraged to satisfy their respoosibilitles under the employer·
based trip reductioo rule (rCM 2) by implementing riaesharing subsidies.
MTC and the Air Distrk:t will support Federal iegislation to improve tax incentives
IOf ridesharing and tran sn.
• Air District will advocate tree torls at alf times 10( "igl1 occupancy vehH.;Jes 00
regional toll bridges.
MTC and RIDES will seek ways to offer incentives to carpools with three Of more
people
Fu" implementation will depend on new funding.
rCM #16 -INDIRECT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAM
Air District will develop rules to reduce vehicle trips to major
developments, snapping centers, arenas, airports, unlversities, etc.
requirements wifl apply to new and existtf"9 developments
residential
Separate
Specific meaSures may include review or sHe design to promOI€ transit access and
reduce need for motor ver,jci€s~ parking management; t:ip reduction programs:
a nd ~m iss ion offsets
New highways and road kmprOliements which nave the potent~ai to generate
additional traffiC may also be dassified as indirect sourCes
• Ajr District will delegate implementation of indirect SOUrce controi to cities and
counties which meet Air District objectives. but Air Districi will imp'ement if locaf
jurisdiction s do not.
-
~11. ae,CripfK1:1 of reM.t ·6· June 18, 1991
TCM #17· CONDUCT PUBLIC EDUCATION
II' MTC and Air District conducted a publiC opinion surve)' regardif"lg air Quality issues
int990
• Air District is currently developing a pubnc ootreach campaign with a gran! from
EPA and 'M"II seek furies to COt'ltinue the program on a long~t8rm basis.
TCM # 18· ZONING FOR HIGH DENSITIES NEAR TRANSIT STATIONS
Via TCMs 16 and 19, Air District will encourage cities and counties to plan to< high
density, duster development with mixed uses in vicinity of mass tra-nSf! stations
Funds wm be SOOJght to enable local governments t~ prepare specific area pla~s
for mass trans~ s1atiooS.
This TeM win complement TCM 4. which outlines planned extensions fo' BART.
Caltrain a~d Tasman fight rail.
TCM #19· AIR OtJALITY ELEMENTS FOR GENERAL PLANS
• Air District 'WiJl encourage cfties and counties to include air qusnty eiements in their
General PIMS. This will be a cooClition for delegation of TeM t 6.
o Goa} is to ensure consjstency between air Quality, land LIse, transportattOf1.
housing ane' refatad etements j,n each local pfan, and to promOte a balance
between jobs and housing at the local level.
TeM #20 -CO~DUCT DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Air District and MTe will promote demonstration projects tor new strategies to
reduce mot~ \l'eti~cJe emissions,
• !ATC will submit a grant proposa: to FHWA to establish a \~Iecommuting prototype
project it1 tI1e Say Area. If the propesal is approved in fun, MTC will spooser
establishment of up to three telecommuting centers
.. Air District wiR seek. private sponsors ~Of telecomrnuting centers.
< Additional praiects will be developed to assess use of electronic systems 10< \011
collection and for congestion pficing of roadways, and to promote use of alternate
fuel vehicles
•
i
I
-
2b. Otscrlp(..ron 0' reM, June 1!. 1991
reM #21 • IMPLEMENT REVENUE MEASUIlES
Many of the rrleas-ures in TCMs 1 through 20 require new funding to ensure full
implementation. MTC and Air District win seek State legislation ~o raise additlo(\al
re .... enue 01 about $500 miilion per year.
Potential sources of new revenue include an increase in bridge tolls 10 $2, a $4 per
year increase in motOf vehicle regjstration fees, and a regional gas tax increase
reM #22 -IMPLEMENT MARKET-BASED MEASURES
"MaTket-based" measures have the potential to significantly reduce motor vehicle
travel and congestion througM pricing W1cen ti ..... sS and disincen tives
• Measures under considerat;on indude a ·smog fee· tied to emissions per vehicle. a
significant regional gas tax increase, coogestion prlcing of majOf roadways, and
parking charges for both work and noo·work si1es For purposes Of analysis.
parking charges are set at 60 cents per hour up to :-3 per day. Gas taxes would
inCrease 10 $2 per gol1oo over a ten year period .
• All these measures, with the e)(cepticn 0' parking fees, require authorizing
legiSlation. Discussion and education are needed to build political and public
support for these meaSures.
Equity issues must be addressed so that market-based measures do no! place an
unfair burden on iow income groups
./~ .
, '~:;';",}/';,
.'c',
ji;' ".--'"
-~------
__ . ____ ~'~m. __ .. = __ """ _____ _
,.
114.:. HIJ.~MON ItUlIllfiIlN.\ CO~T-FHHn\I·.Nf~~S .~~fI~f,\n:s FOR n'M, I b/IK/91 J
('m,l· l~fhxl i",cl1c~\O
Emis . ..,iull RcctUl'!;UI'J PCI Ton 01 l{lle TCM# fJcrccnI Rcducliuf= (T u nslll, y) Rec1uced (in WOOl ---------_-R!JC _NQ.!. CO ._..!'oIIC NO, QJ Gr~s Net
TCM 1 -r,-,,~an<kd Empluyer
0.24 ( 122)·
A"'>.SistOlflC'C rugrams 0.18 0.1~ 0.1 ) O.4U DO 21
TCM 2 -Employer-Based
3.57 367 3.76 4.89 8.15 72.90 163
Trip Reduction
45
TCM 3 -Improve Transi!
2.00 3.02 Service 1.46 1.36 1.34 25.98 600 435
TCM 4 . F-"paml Regional
R::JiIS~tcm 0.86 0.76 0.~6 1.18 I.M 16.08 492 338
TCM S -Improve Access
to Kail 0.32 0.32 {I.28 0,44 0.71 5.43 470 310
TCM 6 -Improve Intercily
Rall O.()<) O.()<) 0.07 0.12 0.20 1.36 72.4 543
TCM 7 -Improve ferry
Scrvk:e 0.05 0.04 om 0.07 om 0.58 %5 860
TeM 8 -Construct HOV Lanes 0.64 0.58 0.62 0.88 1.29 ll.O2 458 263
TCM 9 -Improve Bicycle
0.03 Access/Facrlities om 0.U4 0.04 0.07 U.77 759 546
TCM 10 -YouLhlStudent
Tf3nSpOflill~Oll 0.14 0.14 0.16 O.I~ 0.31 3.1U 2.>7 143
TCM I J • I n",1l Trame
Operation SyS:lcm 1.81 1.45 2.45 25U 3.22 47.50 ~I (~9)
-, ) I:.! ,,,I ~,d'~"IIIIII\I"',II[' ;iel 0",1' ill~'"
'-
'. i
~~ 0" 2J<:. EMISSION IlEllliCnON _'It lO,q·I,;r'U'Tnn,NESS ESTIMATES nil{ TC~j, ((./IK/9[J r(:unlilll'l-dl ~~
('0,,(-1:1 /'crll\'cIlCSS .
Emissillil i<clltl('liull per -r on 01 Rife TeM 1/ J'crc.::nt Reduction (TonsiDa)') Reduced (in $OOO~ -------------------Rile ~(h CD RIlC N(}, co . __ . Gr~s Net
TeM 12· Improve Arterial
34 (88)'
Trame Fk>w 0.43 0.52 0.63 0.59 1.15 12.22
TCM f3 -Reduce Trar:sil Fares 0.32 0.32 031 0.44 0,]1 6.01 243 84
TeM 14 -Vanpool JJabilily
Insurance om 0.02 0,01 0.03 o,o~ 0,19 396 217
TCM 15 . Provide Oupool
rnccnlives 0.20 D.JO 0.20 0.27 0.67 3.88 376 113
TCM 16· rndirect Sour<:c
Contrul PrognJm 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.96 1..\5 13.57 42 ( 132)
TCM 17 -Conduci Pull I ic
Edocalion 0 0 0 0 () 0 N!A N/A
TeM 18· Iligh l>cnsi'y Ncar
Transit 0,05 0.05 0.05 om 0, II 0,97 30 ( 182)
TCM 19 -Air QlIaltty EJcmenlS
for Gcncrall'lans 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A
TCM 20 -Conduci l..)cmllI1stralion
I'roj<'..crs 0 0 ° U 0 0 NiA NiA
TeM 21 -Implement RC\lcnuc
Measurcs I.SO I.~ 1.77 2.47 4.22 34.32 h
TCM 22· Markcl·ha>ed
MC:'I~trrc~ 2l1.~2 155J 22.54 22.70 31..10 JSII.O() e
• ( ) 1111.;'.1 ""lIlllllllld",lIl' m'l '"j' IOf). .....
I ,;
-
_0W'.l>~.'" .," .. "I!i~A",'._, __ ,_~
AssumpUons 'or TCM Cost·Effecti'~n-"ss ESlimates
An costs are e"p res sed in 1 991 dolla rs
Emission reductions are based On on-road mOtor vehicle emissions inventory
for 1997, except for market-bas~d measures in TeM 22, which are based 0('1.
Year 2000 inventory.
CosVtOt1 (gross and net) attdbute an costs to RHC; costs are not distributed
among all poll utants.
Net cost/ton is calculateo by subtracting travel time savings froi"n implementa·
tion costs. Travel time benefit is valued at $5 per houl'. No $ value is attached
to additional benefits, such as reduced fuel consumption, vehicle depreciation,
etc.
Certain TCMs (expansion of transit, HOV lanes, traffic
con!ain el~ments that are already partiany Of wholly L
existing, committed funding sources afe not incluGt::_
calClllations.
operations system)
-'I(penditures from
_ost·effecti ven ess
a. Net cost.effectiveness values in parentheses ir1dicate that travel time cene·
fr .. outweigh the program cests.
b. TCM 21 consjsts of revenue measures to fund improved transportation
options. The revenue measures. which require new legislation, would
generate $.500-$600 mitlion per year via increased bridge tons. vehicle
registration fees and gas taxes.\, These revenue'S ar -tared into the cost-
effectiveness calculatioos f()( TCNIS which improve regional transpor.a:-
!ion system. TM emission reductions attributed directiy to reM 21 refiect
the anticipated reduction in motcx vehicle travel due to higher costs 01 travel.
c. TCM 22 consists 01 market-based measures to be implemented in Phase 3.
They include significant increases in regional gas taxes; parking fees; 'smog
fees" based on emisSions per vehicre; and ·congestion pricing" of roadways.
Revenues generated by reM 22 might be used to fund improved trans
portation alternatives. However, the emission reductions estimates fof TCM
22 GIe based solety on the disincentive of higher driving costs; they do not
reiled aCSditional emission reductions that would be ach!eved by using
reve~l.les genera~ed lO fund impro .... ed transportation alternatives.
i r'
I.. .
!
r
i
r
r
•
'I
-
" ,-..
:"7>--;' ~-. :i'<'~·P/r . -.. ---~--~
({D: .. -
.~ . .
May 30, 1991
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, California
Drift Bay Area '21 ClgaD Air P1an r/gl CAP)
Members of the C~uncil and C~mm;ssjon:
REPORT IN BRIEF
This is an fnf~naation,l report and requires no Council lctfon. Tne report
.umoarlzes the recent history of air quality in the 8ay Area, the draft '91
Cl.an ~lr Pl ... (CAP) prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management Oistrict
(BAAQHO) i. compliance with the California Clean A;r A:t (CCAA). discus.es in
general te~ the Flin's potential impacts for tne City, and highlights issues
rii.ed by the Plan.
The '91 CAP was transmitted to the City (ounei1 and Plann1ng Commission on May
23.1991 (CMl!:288:91). The '91 CAl' will b. scheduled for Council reyi.~ .r,d
cooaent when the draft environmental impact report Is .vai1ab1e. The '91 CAP
and the broader issues of air quality requirements and regional transportation
planning ire a part of the June 3. 1991 joint Planning Commission and City
Council study session.
BACKGROUND
In 1985, .ast urban areas in California had not attained either federal
ambient Ifr quality standards {AAQSJ or t~e more stringent state standards.
Also, Congress was stalled on its efforts to reauthorize the federal Clean Air
Act. TherEf~re, the California le9islat~re passed the California Clean Air
Act (CCAA) (Sher, AB 2595), which required a number of actlons designed to
improve ifr quality in t~e state and to assure progress towards attainment of
st.te liT q •• lily standards. Among other things. the bill required the St.te
A!r Res.ure.s Board to:
1. Evaluate the state's air basins for attainment or nonattainment
~ith st.te ambient a;r quality standards (AAQS);
Z. Adopt regu1.tions by January I, 1992 to achieve the maximum
tec~~o'ogital1y )nd commerc,a11y feasible reduction in reactive
...... nte ,,",,pounds [ROC);
3. Adopt and implement motor venicle in-use performanc! sta~dlrds and
8Otor vehicle fue' specifications; and
C14R:301:91
•
,
_7
;¥~~,'
,
r· p.-----... --~------>: ... ~-,-----. ',\ -
4. 8y JAnuary 1, 1992, takE ~hltever lcticns necessary to achie~e I
55 p~rcer.t reduction in emissions ~f organic gases, IS percent
reduction in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), and the maximum
ftiSib1e reductions in paftlc~lites, carbon ~onoxtde, and toxic
a~r contaminants.
The bill 1150 required .air dtstri,ts designated as nonattainmetlt areas for
Olone, carbon IIOnaxide J sl.Ilfur dio)(ide tS02), and/or NOli to prepare a p1an for
attaining and ~alntalnlng state AAQS for the .onattainment pollutants and to
review every liT discharge permit for compliance with existing distrfct rules
and regulations before rene •• l.
In 1988. the le9islature al.o po.sed AB 3971 (Corte.e). which required the Bay
Are. Air Quality Management Di.trict (BAAQMDj to worK cooperatively with the
Metfopo1itAn Transportation Co ... isslon (MIC) and the ~ssocl.tfon of Say Are.
Governments (ABAG) to prepart. adopt, 1mplement, and enforce trar.sp~rtit~on
control .... ur •• (TCM) for the attainment of .ir quality staodards. The bill
also requlred a1r districts to !stimate, by June 30, 1989, tht quantity of
emission red~ct1on~ (rom transportation sources necessary to attain and
maiotai. state and federal AAQS.
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY
gay Area air Quality is generally good. has dramatitally improved over the
Pist 20 years, ind will continue to fmprove ever the period covered by the '91
CAP, ever. if no additional control programs are adopted~ San Francisco is the
fourth largest Metropolitan area in the ~n'ted States. and yet had fewer
.'01.tlons/y •• r/El11loo population (O.S7) of the one hour feder.1 ozone
standard than any Df the other fourteen largest metropolitan areas fn the
United State. and tMe third lowest total number of viol.tions. Among
California. Pl"ban neas, only the San Diego a~'ea has fewe'T violation~ than the
Bay Are. of the ~arbo" ~noxide sta"dard.
Motor vehlcl. emissions ha.e steadily decreased over the past fifteen ye.rs,
despite unprecedented growth in auto ownership and use. figure, la. 10 and 1c
show the decll •• in the number of days that the .tat. and federal o<one limits
were exceeded in the 8ay Area, MOUntain View and Redwood Cjty~
Except 1n San Jose a~d Va11!jo, state carbon monoxide standards .ill be ~t by
199~, pr1marily due to stricter vehicle inspection and maintenance prog~arns
and the continUing introduction of cleaner cars into t~e Bay Area's motor
vehicle population. Howe~er, it will take up to 75 pertent reductions of
bydrDca~bons and HOx emissions to me~t state ozone stanrla~ds.
Ozon! levels above the standards are of c~ncern because of ozone's adverse
healtn effects on sensitive populations such as children. the elderly, Dr
individuals wit~ respiratory conrlitions. In ~outnern Ca1ifornil, resei~che~s
hawe found irreversible lung damage in young people from exposure to levels Qf
ozone above the fed.ra1 .tandard. Carbon monoxide Is • well·known poison that
combines with the hemoglobin in red blood cells. crippling the blood's ability
to carry oxygen to the body's cells.
~R:30):g)
p:\CMR\Cle.n.ir.cmr
L
S/30/g)
Page 2
\
\
,
•
I '
DAYS ABOVE mJE HOUR OZONE LI',~ITS
------,
figure la
o SiATE
Flgure lb
Page 3
~:: <--, .'r..
I
_ ,._ .... .0
D"'.YS ABovE ONE HOUR OZONE U",·'iTS
!:;:~G"'I:"O~ e,it (190i,;5-13e .. )
l
Ftgure 1(;
Data used in preparing these figures ;s attached to this staff report
as 18ay Area OZone Trends.-
CMR:301:91
p:/CKR/Cleanair.cmr 5130/91
Page 4
I
•
7.uiTlRl?a +--.
. ;
-
'. ,;, r ·-----.
In spite .f the continued Improvements In air quality, health-based ambient
.'r Quality standards aTe ~iolated at times in some parts Df the Bay Area.
In the Bay Are., the stat. alone shnd.rd Is vlol.ted fro,~ 10·20 t lmes/ye.r,
usually Dn hot 5~r days; and the state carbon ~onoxide stan~ard Is exceeded
from 5-10 th,es/year on cold winter nights tn San Jose, San franclsco, and/or
Vallejo. N~ urbtnized area in California meets the state ozon~ standard of
0.9 Ppc!.
SOURCES OF ~IR POLLUTANTS
Ozone is generally fo~ed from precursors known as reactive hy~rocarbon5
(RHt) ood NO., while carbon ~ono.ide is produced by Incomplete combustion.
Motor ~ehfcles are the sing1e largest s~urce for all these pollutant5; the
se,ond largest cstEgory of RHC emfssicn sources is natural SQurces such as
vegetation , while combustion sources other than motor vehicles (f.e.,
prlmaril, wood burn1ng $to~es) ire the second highest Source category of HOx
and carbon MOnoxide.
AIR QUALITY ST6.NDARDS
The .tot. ,o,AQS for OlOn. Is .09 part, per million (ppm); the feder.l AAQS is
~12 ppm based on , ~ne hour average. Tne state carbon monoxfde AAQS is 9 ppm
averaged OYer 8 h~urs and 20 ppm averaged over 1 hour. while the federal
shndards are 9 a~,d 35 ppm respectively. To be in compl iance with tne
standards, In area n!eds to never violate the estab'\shed 1tvels. As
identified in Figures la. lb and lei t~e number of days when violations occur
~a. decreased from the 1960, and 1970,.
THf SAN fRANCISCO BAY AREA '91 CL£AN AIR PLAN
Because the 8ay ~e. will not meet .tate AAQS for czone by 1997 .nd does not
eur~entl1 Deet the carbon monoxide stind~rd, the State Air Resources SOir~ has
designated the Bay Area &s a -severe-nonattainment ar~a. The CCAA requires
the BAAQMD to prepare .nd adopt. pl.n by June lO, 1991 (.ctual plan adoption
Is likely to occur in July or August after review of the Draft fIR on the '91
Cle.n Air Plan) designed to reduce these pollutants 5 percent each YE.r by
implementing III f&asible emission reduction ~easures. ReqUirements for the
Bay Ar~a include:
Reasonably ava11ablr controls on al' sourceSi
No net increase permit syst~m for n~w st~tioniry sources;
Retrofit controls on !xistfng stationary sources;
TrJffic control measures to ~ch!e~e 1.S average vehicle occupancy
during commute hours by 1999;
ND net increase in vehicle emiSsions after 1997;
Indirect source and area source control programs;
Public education program;
low emissicn motor vehicles for fleets; and
Reduction In population exposure to ozone.
CIIR:301:91
p:\CMR\Cl.analr.cmr
5/30/91
Page 5
< t . ::::>
i
l
f
I r
f
I
I
!
c~,
~;:.
.~ .. : ... . . .. J
L
In April. the District released a droft plan. called the '91 Cl.an Air Plan
('g! tAr). fer public comment. Th. Dlstri:t held se •• ra1 lnfenoatlo".l
workshops In l.t. AprI1/.ar1y Kay on the CAP, will r.1 •• s •• draft
EnvlroNDent.l Impact Report (EiR) for public review ,ometlme In June, and will
hold. publIc he.rlng on both the draft CAP and draft EIR In July.
Highlights of the '91 C1.an Afr P1,n
The draft PI.n Includes 51 additional controls on st.tlon.ry and mobil.
sources and Includes Traffic Control Measures to be Implemented in three
phas!s. These measures were thG~en after evaluit,ng their effectiY~r.es$,
technical feasibility,"cost, cost-effeetivenCIs, feasib1e implementatfon
schedu1es, legal and ~~st'tut1onll issues, f1nln,111 CDnstra~nts,
enforceability, public .cceptance, and other positive and negative impacts.
Stationary Souroe Controls
The propos.d measures, listed on Table B, page, 41·54 of the Plan, will
control emissions fro~ tne following stationary sources:
Surf.c. (oatlng and solvent use (AI·AI9);
fuels/organiC liquids stor.ge and distribution (81·7);
Refinery and chemic.1 plant processes (CI·(1);
fuel combustion (NOx sources) (Ol-OS);
Other industrial/commercial processes ([1-E4); and
Other stationary sources (Fl·F4).
Also Included In the Stationary Source Control ~easur.s (Table e of thE Pl.n)
are t~e following measures whfch also rel.te to ~obtle sources:
Intermittent tra.r,sparta.t1on con.trol mea.'sures (G1-G4) i a.t1d
Motor vehicles (HI·H.).
""bile SaYre. Controls
The '91 CAP Includes motne source controh Ilre.dy adopted by the California
Air Resources Board lCAR.) since 1981 such IS Improvements to smog check
programs, requirements for Dn-boa~d dii9~ostic systems, certificatfon
procedures for aftermarket catalytic converter, a revised light-duty
.fteMaarket parts programs, amended emission control system warranty
requirements. I s~oke enforcement program (or hea~y duty diesel vehicles,
vehi~l! recall reg~lat'onsJ and r~9ulltiens for lew-emission veh1clt and
engfne. The '91 CAP is also fmplementing certifications ~f new and ~sed
I~DTted .e~lcl&s, revising emission stand.rds for light-duty vehicles ond a.s
and diesel-powered he.vy·duty engine and prescribing ne. diesel fuel quality
standards and rev'sed test proced~res. CARB is a1so developing more stringent
standards for new and used vehicles and engines. enforcement ~easures of
emission standards for alternative fuel retr~ftt systems, and new gasoline
speclflcltlons. Other regulations being studied by CARB to be proposed after
1992, but not included in the '91 CAP, are for further ImproveMents to the
~ check programs, Inspections for 1ight·duty diesel vehicles and fleet
CMR:30! :91
p:\CMR\C1e.nalr.cmr
S/lO/91
Page 6 .
. ..J .;~~
~t,
. -
-
~eay)~dutl trucks, retrof1ts for bU5!S and trains, Tow emission standards for
b~lvy-d~ty eog1nes, contrul ~f cff-cytle emissions, and f1~et lverage
st&ndard. for low emissior. .ohiel.s sold in Californl •• ftor 2003. Mobil •
•• urce control •• lso ore included In • lrdfic tontrol Me»ures (1eM) Plan
impleoented in t~ree phases as listed below:
Phase I: -R!asonably Available TCMs· based on existfng authority and
funding (1991· 1994)
Pha.e [I: 'Addition.l Hobility Traffic Operations .nd Incentives Package'
requires new legisl.tive authority/funding (1994·1997)
Phase 111: -Market Based TCMs.· requires authorizing legislation, except
parking management (1997 or later··specific implementation dates
are uncertain)
Phases 2 and 3 need the .ost effort to carry out. Phase 3, espeCially, is
\lnc.erta11\. <Sue to thE'. need to educi.t~ the pubHc and. de'fe1op 'Consensus on the
pricing I.sues, and to Institute the required legi,l.tive changes. H7C has
led the regional effort to develop the TCM component of the '91 tAP. The TCM
component has been refined over the course of the past year. with input from a
broad cross sectf~n of SlY Area bUSiness, en~iro~mentl't governmental and
public interest g~oups. The following Figure II frem page 60 of the '91 CAP
list. the TOMs included in e.ch phase. The following paragraphs provide.
brief descriptton of the TCMs.
Phase 1 TCMs
Eaployer·8asod Trip Reduction (Tells 1 .nd 2): The purpose of tileso measure.
is to rtqufre employers to institute strategies ~ich reduce em~Toyee commute
yehlcl. trip.. H7C will develop a model trip reduction ordinaoce for this
purpose. Palo Alto and other Golden Trlangl, cities h.ve already adopted.
trip reduction ordinance, which wjll probably meet many of the requirement. of
the.e TOMs. Ihe Santo Clara County Congest ton Management Program, and these
of other counties, wil' also require the de~elop~nt of trip reduction
ordtnances for all citi!s. ~c will ensure that ,1' these various
reQufr~nts are c~ordinated.
Indirect Sourc, Reviw (TeM l~i: Indirect sources are hrge attractors of
vehicle trfps, such as large nsidenth.1 de ... e1opments~ companies. retail
bUSinesses, and sports fac,lities, both @xisting and new. Under this TCM,
indirect sources wo~ld be subject to review of site planning elements such as
maxi~m parking limits, des'gn of bik~ routes and parking, and prOVision of
sideWilks and tranSit stops, p~ssibll resulting in changes to the site plans
of deyelopments, and added costs.
/lobility Iaprovellfent (Tells 4. 1, 8. 9, 11): These ","sures relate to the
provision of increased transportat{on facilities~ especiAlly for ~odes other
tnan single-occupant driving. They include expedited new rail extensions;
expansion of ferry 5er~ice to San Francisco; expansion of the High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lane system on freeways; increased mileage ~f bicycle lanes.
CMR:301:91
p:\CMR\C!eonair.oor
L
5/30/91
Page 7
...,'" ....... "'w .. ~
""" ~
Figure 11 ·reM Plan: January 1991
Pbast 1 -1INscn6IIfy AVIRabJe TeM! a,,,,,,,,,,,-,,..-!1)' IfltII'IIndInD
~_Trtp_an
(la./s 1,2) ·E ....... __ _
• T~ f'IIb:&In MI
Ildirttl SoIRo _
(!aII6J
·Hoo~
.~ ....... ,
~{pdotr~
(TOIls (1, U H) · RoiI_
'hny-· ..,.-
• Bqdo .....
• ftwnyTOS
........ ""'''-t
• ....... _,.,(TCN'1)
• DMIoo ....... po:bp b".. 2_
...... (!aI21)
• _",,". AO..., _ (!aI 19)
· '¥I-'-·---fT""''I .~
Phlse 2 -Addltlornll Mobil ~y, Traffic Oper,tlons and
Incenllves Package
aRIqIIm .... flgISl'O .. ~HInIIl:
_1J~emenlS
(7CIo& .1-."
.. ~"ansI w.b~.
• Expand"" rail SiW · .................. -
• ""'"'" Iony-• "'-diy ••
.HOV~_
• Bf:Jdt ~l'ItI~S .--TIII1Ic OponfIan IIanIgemor.I
{TCMJ II, ,z,
• Fre.;nyincidwt .•• , ....
· ""....,.dIc_
u ... _ ..
{la./s .~ 1<, ''1
.. T ran" .... fICIudion
• V..,aoI iZliir-
• c.pad 'Ill ., \ ... lIi ..
............ ""'S4q>orI
.. ~1IpIRfpU:6: ... k:t\ (TCN 'Ji
· ,.".... ..... "" [Tcu2'j~",,"_"".,..""p;p.~roII • c.. ___ fTcu~
PIIasa3 -irlarbl Based rCM,
a~ MItIIfdrrg ~.1ttIpI
'-"1nIrIIQfI!III1I
I'!tCtIG Slratoglot
• Smog-
• Gas"'""",
• ~P'i<iI1
• ToI_
o p ........ , •
--P"Ii"I dIqoo --~~
-
.... -..
piths, and routes; txpande~ capabflity to tax! b'cycles on transit vehicles;
provision for bicycles to cress ,11 Bay bridges; and Inst,llltlGn of Caltrans'
Traffic Operltfons System on fre~ways, Which seeks to reduce traffic
congestion by ramp metering. tTifffc surveillanc!, and incident management.
I~7.ment.t;.n Support (TeNs II. 18. 19. 21): Thes ... asures relate to the
implE!mer.tltion of supporting acthltfes such is educational progralM wh1c".
promote a1ternatf~e transportati~~ ~odes; prc~iding ne~ revenue $ourC!$ for
th~ DGbility-related TeNs t such as increased bridge tolls, car registration
fees, and gas taxi re~ujrement for an iir qua1ity element in all general
plans; and enco~ragement of ~~gher-density loning near transit stations.
Phase 2 TCI!.
~cbll;t, I~rove .. nt. (TCHs 3-10): These r.present a more .mbitlous .nd
costly .t.ge of the mobility improvements described under Phase I. Included
here are increased areawide bus service; continued e~pansion of rail service,
ferry service. HO~ 'a~es. and bicycle access; improved access to fail
stations, such as Blore parking, bus service, bicycle ilccess. and print!
shuttles; new rail service in the Auburn-Sacramento-San Jose Corridor; and
as~istance In school trlnsportation for grades K-12.
T,,(fie Ope .. !;on lI,n.g.IHnt (Tells 11. 19): These measures call for continued
.xpansion of the TraffiC Operations System for freeway, and implementation of
traffic l'Ianugeme-nt s.tnte-9~t-s fc-r art~ria.l streets, sucn lS. s'9na1 timir,.g
programs, transit bus signal pre!mption. and assignment of ·freeway reliever
status~
User Incentives (TeNs 13, 14, 15): These include reduced transit fares,
prevision of vanpoDl liability insurance; and pro~ision of financial
incentives for 3+ person carpeols, such as gasoline vouchers Dr direct
payme~ts to c~rpoolers.
Iaplesenta!ion Support (TC~s 1" 20. 21): These include the education and
revenue programs of Phase 1, p1us t~e underta~ing ~f various 1emonstrltiQn
project, to further develop ,trat'9ies that .ill ultimately be required to
ichie~e the clean iir standards, sue'" as projects in telecommutipg, congestion
pric)ng t and electric and a1ternative fuel vehic1ts.
PIl.se 3 Tells
These TeKs consist of ?ricin~ strategies that ~Quld r~duce vekicle trips and
redistrib~te them to less congested time periods of the da)·. These inclvde:
Smog fe.s, which directly relate to the amount of pollution produoed by
individual drivers;
Gas tax increases as a surrogate for emissions prodUCed;
Toll roads and congestion pricing of roadways and bridges (varying by
time of day) to reflect the fact that existing fee. do not co"r the
C~R;301;91
p:\CHR\CI •• nair.cmr
5/30/91
Page 9
.• _,..c"
•
•
..J ..
't.;." __ '
c :~
~: -. '--, .
total ,osts to build and ~aintain roads or the costs of he~1th impacts
1~Qsed on society; and
Fro'f1s1on of U\onth.ly employte tri .... el allowances {to b.e used by employees.
IS they wish for a~y purpose, w~ether relitEd t~ transportation Dr not},
coupled ~Ith employee p.rling f •• " .s • ~ay of correcting' subsidy to
the lutcmobll e.
T~e fees collected by t~ese programs (except the parking fees) would be "sed
to .ake transportation fmprovements in tne region, iuch as impro~ed transit
ser~1ce, subsidies to low income househol~s. retiring of older Yehleles. and
othar progra.ms.
(xpected Leytls Df [missions Reductjcn if '91 Clean Air plan 15 Adopted
Projett1ons of future conditions incorporate ABAG's regional growth
projections and MTC's trinsportation data. If tne controls in the Plan are
adopted and 1~lemented, they are ~xpected, by tne year 2000, to reduce Say
Area RJiC em;,,;on. by 90 tons/day OJ percent) fro~ the 1987 bosel ine, and NOx
by 115 t.ons/day (22 porcent), (Table 6, ~age 31). r.,ulting in an impro, • ..,nt
of ozone air Quality of less than 10 percent to between 0.13 and 0.14 ppm.
Trafftc control measures account for about 4Q percent of the expected
emi,slons reouctlons. Tabl. I shows the relatl.e contribution of reM
imp'~ntit1on for the tntal preditted Olone precursor emissicns reductlcns.
TABLE I
COMPARISON OF fSTI~TED OZONE PRECURSOR
EMISSIONS REOUCTIONS FROM TCMs AND '91 CAP
TONS/DAY REDUCED ~
Phase I (By 1994) 8
Phase II (By 1997) ZZ
Pha,. III (By 2000) 35
~
9
29
45
ICM TOTAL '91 CAP TOTAL ~ DUE TO reMs
17 57 29.8~
51 IB 42.861;
80 205 39.02'
By ]994, carbon ~or.oxide standards in almost all Bay Area communities will be
~et, with ~aximum values expected to be about 10 ppm (yersus the !tate
.tand.rd of 9 ppp and the fed.ral standard of 12 ppm) for a rew d.ys •• ch year
in San Jose and Vallejo.
Benefits and Costs of Implementation Df tha '91 CAP
T~. direct benefit' listed by the .uthors of the Plan ~ill be clean.r air,
reduced T~spiTitory relat.d il1nesses, improved ~orK~r productfvity and lower
medical costs. Other benefits listed inc1ude enhanced visibility, reduced
,gr~,ult~~al and materials damage, lower energy consumption, and improved
traffic conditions.
Direct and indirect costs are substantial. Say Area direct costs for
complianc. ~ith the two pre.lous federal plans enacted in 1970 ,nd 1977 ha""
~ost approximate1y $1 billion since 1979. Cost estimates for meeting the
CKl\:lOl:91
p:\CMR\Cl.an.ir.cmr
5/30/91
Page JO
I
'i"'~ •. '-"";';:'''-. -,
-.. --'
~ ~-::\ .... -
-
L
feder" oz~ne standlrd were at SlOa mill'on annual1y~ TodiY~S co~ts for
lopleeontin9 the proposed ne. controls In the '91 CAP Ire likely to be much
higher due to lnfl.tlon, the effect of diminishing returns IS .ach incremental
decrease t~ ozone requires much higher decreases i~ precursor em1s~fons. and
the increased emphasis on transportation re1ated measures ~ich will increase
cost. significantly.
etlltiqn§b1p pf '11 CAP to federal Clean Air Act
Host Calffornia ClEan Air Act requirements are more stringent than the
provision. of the feder.l Clean Air Act, and the '91 CAP should satisfy
federal requirement$~ In three areas, tne federal leg1s1atl0n ;s more
stringent:
Requ1rtments far introduction and use of ·clean fuels· (e.g.,
compressed ~atural gas, methanol, and ethanol) in motor vehicles
and especillly reQutr!ments for op~ritors of flEets;
tn~anced vehicle inspection and maintenance equal in effectiveness
to an annual ve~fcle inspection program; and
Controls on a variety of volatile toxic substances.
The state ~ll update t~ejr implementation pTa~ to incorporate compTiance with
the new federal legislatlon. The update, due in 1992·93, is e.pected to
extens'vely use the proposals contained in the '91 (~C~
Potenti,l Effects on C1ty Ficilities and Operations
Many of the prDposed control measures could affect City o~eratjons and
facillti.s. eecause the specific regulations ha.e not yet ~e.n formulated and
tnere has been fnsuffictent time for staff to evaluate potent1al 'mpacts , a
complete analysls of the Plan's effect on City operations and facilities Is
not feasible at this time. However. staff has identified some of the measures
that will potentl.lly .ffect City oper.tion.. Thes. are listed by
OepartmentjDlvlslon or Activity in attached Table [I. ~ajor potent hI impacts
on the Clty .ppear to include:
Accelerated repl.cement of the Regional Water Quality Control
P1ant's (RWQCPJ ;ncfnerat~r fro~ the c~rrent estimate of
replacement no earlier tha. 2000;
Retrofit or replacement of reCiprocating engine eQUipment such as
lawn lI1owe-rs;
Conwersion or replacement of vehicles in the City's fleet in order
to De!t clean fuel standards; and
Disruption of serV1ces and facility operations because of
voluntary or mandatory ·n~ drive-days.
CMR:301 :91
p:\CMR\Cl.analr.cmr
5/30/91
Page 11
l ;
t
I ! -I;
. -
.-'
i
I
I
'1 In Id<!1tlon, the potenthl exists fer the City to have conflicting and
potenthlly dlfff.u1t to resolve regulltory requirements frem reglon.l
agencl •• for oper,tlan of the landfIll and the RWQCP.
ISSUES
In reviewing t~e '91 CAP, i numb2T of key issues e~erged.
I. There is , .,lld public pel Icy issue regarding whether some of the
costs (flnanchl, procodu .. l ar,d political) ."achted with the
'91 CAP Ire wDrth the lir quality improvements to be gairled.
As noted In the Plan and discussed in this report, the eay Area
~as rel$~nably good air quality; will meet state and federal
carbon monoxide standards with a continuaticn of current effortsj
will meet feder'l oz.ne standards with addit!onal efforts but will
not meet stite stindards; f~ture violations of state ind
especially federal standaros are likely to not occur .ery often
and gentr.lly occur in scattered locationSi and the cost of
Implementing the '91 CAP ~ill be substantial. Essenti.lly, ne.r1y
.11 of the Identlflabl •• nd reason.bly feasible source control
improvements have been or are being made. A strong effort to ~eet
stlte ozone standards will involve aggressive efforts to have
people driVE their automobiles T!ss for both commute and
noncomoute trips. T. be effectiv., City staff believes t~at the, •
• fforts will have to be disruptive and mandatory (e.g., higher g.s
tax, parking fees, no dr;~e daysJ rather than yol~ntary. Given
how close t~e Sal Area is to meeting feceral and state standards
and the CQst involved in meeting the more restrictive state ozone
stand~~JsJ perhaps consideration shou1d be given to havi~g state
standards be consistent with the federal Clean Air Act.
l. City staff has serious res.r"tions about the quality of the data
and related 'ir quality modeling efforts of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management Cistrict.
St.ff was Intrigued by the '91 'AP's l'ck of pre-lgB7 data other
tnan the annual days of ozone and carbon mono~ide violations on
p.ge 10 and II of the Pl.n. A request to t~e Say Arca Air Quality
Management Cistrlct (BAAQMD) for pre-19B? daily emissIon
statistics, to ~ompare wit~ the 1nf~rmation on page 16, 23, 24 and
25, resulted in .xpl ar,ations that all of the data Is bas.d on
worst Clse modeling and no comparable pre-1987 data ;s available.
In 19B5, the City undertook an ext.nslve c.rbon monoxide
~onitDring program ;s part of the preparatory work for the
Citywide land Us. and Transportation Study (see attac~ed pag.s
from CMR:241:6). T~e City', monitoring wa' done in c10,_
cooperation with BAAQKD staff, and the data was co11ect_d during
one of the worst (if not the worst) cold afr inversion period of
the 1980s~ Interestingly. the data collected shc~ed far lower
CMR:301 :91
p:\CMR\Clean.ir.c.r
5/30/91
P.g. Il
,
,
•
I
...\.~ ,
\
.--... \ ..
1
-
3.
leye's of carbon monoxide than th~ BAAQMO's air quality mod!ls
Indle.ted should be present.
finally, numerous con~ersatfDns oyer t~e past decade with plannfng
staff of other SlY Area jurisdictions and environmental planning
consultants have yielded the general co"c1u,lon that the
District's ~odels 1n their focus on worst cas! calculations
a,erst.t. the severity of ilr qu,llty conditions.
The 191 t~ shou'd &ddre$s re~trfct1ons ~n tne use of ~ood burning
stoYes.
The Plan notes, in figures 4 and 5 on pages 12 end 13, that
Combustion Sources {I.!., -mostly wood-burning·} is the second
highest source of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, The Plan's
Source Contro' Measures, other than possibly the reference to
r!ducing the emissions from residential furnaces lttem OS, p~ge
52), do not address regulating wood bur~ing stoves. Confronted
_ith measures sucn as p~tential park'ng fees, no drive days and
higher gasoline taxes, tne control of wood burning stoves appears
to ~ a 10gicl) area for regional regul.tion.
4. The '91 CAP and Draft Regi,n,l Transportation Plan illustrate the
need for I more fntegr~ted regional land use/transportatlon/afr
qua1!ty planning proces,.
SUltlARY
TIl;. report has discussed the '91 Clean Air Plan recently i.sued by the 8AA~.~D
for public comment. Imp1ementation of the '91 t~ wi11 s'gnifleant1y affect
public policy decjs~ons over the next few years. The proposed meas~res in the
Plln have potential impacts on other re9ional programs, on operations and
facilities already under other regulatory program' and on land use planning.
There will also be significant economic impacts. In addition, BAAQHO clearly
stated tfiat -no practical strategy for m'1eetfng the state ozor,! standard ~as
identified,-Nevertheless, the Plan's authors believe th~t the feder~l ozone
standard and t~,e state carbon mOflcxide standards will be met by implementation
of the Plan.
This report has been prepared to facilitate Council discussion of the subject,
and no Council acti~n is rtQuest~d at th1s time. S~aff ~i'l continue to
monitor d.ve10pments and will .gendl:. the subject ,fter the Draft EIR h"
been released for public revie~ an~ comment.
Respectfully subm!tted,
~M ~ OOlUS HAEZ v
E~vjran .. nt.1 Prot.ct!on
Coordinator
CMR:301 :91
p:\CMR\C1e.nalr.cmr
~?Wd ;f ~U"tuk'f:p
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
5/30/91
Page 13
f
I
I
!
I
t
\.
··V>·
..
, i
I • I
I
j
I
I
I
~~~
AssIstant CIty Manager
Attachments : I) Fages 1. 2. and 3 of CMR:Z41:6
2) Bay Area Ozone Trends
3) Tabl. II. Potentl.l Effects of '91 Clean
Control ~asures on City Operit1ons
4) Glossary
cc: Chris 8rittle. MTC
Tom Perard;, 8MQHD
Mlch •• l £v.n~oe. CMA
00:301:91
p:\oo\Cl.an.'r.cmr
"~: , ,
-
A; r Plan
5/30/91
Page 14
•
!I
!
i·
,-;;,.
-'4"";'::·'~:._ -,.:>;,:,-;,::~: r __ ''' __ ._''_'''.:1_~, >
'O~ . " " . . .
I'"
--~
EACERPT: Pages 1. 2 and
3 only.
April 10. 1986
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ,,1. Alto, Cillfornia
CITYWIDE STUDY
1986=87
CltYl'lde llnod Use and Transportation Study;
Statu" of AS,. QL!cllity and Transportation iIIor-1e
I I l'IeiDbers of the Counoj 1: , '
! -
Thfs staff report provides a sUIllNry of Gurrent information em air Quality and
tr.nsportatfon related work "tivitles whfcn are part of the Citywide land Use
and Trans,pCH'"'tatfon Stud.,)'. Th1.s is an fnforNtiOf} report" i'rrtended to
supp1ement CMR:231:6. Mo Council action is rSQuired or recommended.
SacksrOl.!nd
As part of the Citywide land Use and Transportat1on Study. Cou:ncil approved a
contract for consultant servi,es to sLlppletDent C1t1 staff resources fn the
tecJmical i:TeiS of air q4.lality and transportation 'nalyse$~ me consultant
work began fn earl1' October 1965 and~ to elate. the cons4Iltants have comp1eted'
auch of the data collection In{j are I10W r."to the analysh phase. The following
twD sections summarize the air qu.ality and transportation re1ated work
activities:. A final section concerning traff5.c mitfgation measures represents
I rel~ ted process that will SDon be inftfa.ted.
AIR QUALITY
The 8ay Area Afr Qualitl ~al'1age~nt Distr1ct {BAAQMD) cpe:",ates a network. of air
QJ~lity monitoring sites thro~9hout the Bay Area 5ufffcfer.t to c~aracterize for
Pilo "'lto regional pollutants :sad as ozone. r'litrogen dioxide particulates and:
sulfur diox1de. Tbis permanent network. however. 15 not $4.lff1(;;ent to
characterize local poll~tants such as car~(ln mono.-:ide whf,h are nore directly
related to local traffic vol4.lmes and conditions. Therefore" as part of the
contracted: consultant se-rv1ctS (Dr the-C;t".vwide study. Donald 8dl1ant1.
Certiffed Cgnsultfng Meteorologist, 15 providing a1r quality related analysis
and eva1uation.. Mr. Billanti 1n turn ~ired En,"'-ronmental .Measurements, Inc.
([MI) to conduct i spechl IDOn1torftlg program for carbon monoxide thro\.lghout
tile City.
A carbon IIOnoxide lDO~itorjl'\g program was planned and implemented d~r1n9 the
perfod (rOil Novellber 15. 1985. to february 15 .. 1986. as a coopera the effort
0""n9 the CHy of Polo Al to. the Bay Area Air Quality Hanag ..... t Dhtrict and
the Cfty's con5~Ttant.s. Weather c;ondftfons -.rhfch are known to result in high
00:241:6
~.". ':~'
'-<'r,":.,
:,,~
L
conceflVi.tfans of carbon lIonoxide typfcally occ.ur during the .... inter months.
The DOni toring progt"1I1D was designed to identify iIInd record: dol ta during
-episodes-of stagnant weather cO"lclftions at whIch tf~ ,arbon IPOnoll'de
concentnt1ons are typIcally It thefl" hfghest levels. The~e conditions occur
on11 a few times eacJt year. rnerefore .. d.a.ta .. as not colltecttd at all 1oc.at1tH''1s
every day.
The-Cd.!'"bon JDOnox1de lDonftor-ing program fnc1JJded three types of eQidpment .... d
data ccllectiQn:
U T~e primary reference analyzer for carbon mono;dde f.s t"e
hlondispersive Infrared OWIR) lion f tor-. Three h'DIR I'IOnitors .. located
It the Sen for Center (450 BrYlnt Stre.t), St. Har •• [pl.copol Cnurcn
Uoo Colorado A\"enue). and the linus Pa~Tfng Institute ,Orego:1-hge
111111 Expressway "lear E1 Camino R.eal), were fn operation contfnuously
dL.lr-ing the DOnitor1n,g ,pr-09ram~
2) Tht! .second type of sampling eQuipment was 16 lamp post samplers
located throughout Palo Alto and t~e Stanford Unfversfty u""us.
nu~se salf91er-s conta.ined battery op~rated. pumps th4t turned on I.t I.
preset tfme end sa:l!Jlled continuously for An B-~ou" per-iad. The lanJp
post salllPlers were not i'rt use during per10ds of flfn (lr 1nclement
'Weathe,. when: ,arbon mono"ide le~e1s are typfcally low.
3) In addition to the stationary c&rbvn IWno)l:ide samplers OIOIR and 1arrp
post) the 8AAil!'ID staff conducted I10blle •• ",Hng frOOl an outomobl I. on
se';'eral cccasfons during ·epho~e· tond.jUans.
Dry weatliCr combined with low-velocity ..,1,.,(15 cruUG. stagnant conditions o'\ler
lIost of the region d~rfng the period froID December 16 to December 20~ The
carbon mof':~~;de episode that oC~\,j,"red d'uri'ng this perio.d was ont of th-e. i1'.ost
severe in recent history .. with the B-hour standard ,9 ppm) ex.ceeded in San Jose
on six. d.ays and the state l-l:1.our stand.a.rd' (20 ppm) reached on 3 days. A sec.Orld
period of air stagnation O'Cl.lrred from January 6 to 10.
Analysis and eval~atfon of the carl;lc-n lI1ono)(ide data 1.$ cOrJtinuin.9 as part of
the Citywide study and .. when c.oqlleted' .. will nrYe as a basis for predicting
future levels of urbon flonoxide 1rt ev«luating development alternatfves and
.itigation meas~res. from the information presently available some preli~inary
observations can be made:
1l The period of measurement int.'uded what appears to bt a \"ef"y se¥ere
I!'Pfsode for earbol1 monoxfde. Data from the San Jose monitoring site
indicate that condftions during the pe~~od from December 16 to 20 were
the worst reciir'ded in approJl:1mately fhe years. The d:!U gathered for'
Palo Alt.<l should therefore repnsent the nighest concentrations that
."~ht b.e expected t.o occur~
2) carron I'IOnox1de problems in Palo 41 to 0'0 not appear to be as severe as
elsewhere 1~ tne Santa ChI". Vaney. V1ohtions of the state and
feelera' standards appear to be marginal and. local in l'Iature. The
relat;,;,ely dense network of H samplers recorded only 3 violattons of
the-B-l'\our stand.ard duri'ng the 3-month stud),.
CMR:~4!:6 4/!0(86
2
~.'.:'." . •
-
r-. • _~·~_JA_'"'."'<""."J· ..... J!t~~-..._
3) Data from tile NOIRs locatd .1. St. ",.rks ond tile l1nus Pauling
1I1st1 wte show that. urbon monoxide levels ruth two peak.s I day near
8:00 I .•• and 6:00 p •••• correspondfng to peak traffic concUtfon5.
The e yen 1 rlg peat 1.s c:on$fs ten-tly h f sher because a 't-"Osphetf c cand; tf 0"5
Ire IIOrl!' conduche to buildup of pol1utanu in the evel'dng tha~ in the
IIOrnh~i .. and traffic fntenslt1' 1.5 geMral1y IIOre se\'ere.
4} No e~teec16nt.e$ of the state I-hour l-.bient air quality standarG of 20
ppa wer-e reccraed It the three continuous NDIR site" The 8-hour'
."eraged concentration reached the ~LO ppm .standard on ollly ene day
(Januor1 9) uid at 0"11 one locat10n (St. Mark',) ..
5) Data from the 16 larqp post sall:J'llers 1nd:1cate that concentratfcns above
the state and federal standard of 9.0 ppm were recorded at only twe
locations {Oregon It ~~bsteT and Embarcadero at (1 Cl&ino) on only one
d01 at each .Ite.
It appears that carbon rnonox.1de concentration in Palo Alto. while I contin4,lfng
source of conceril, lay not presently be IS severe IS prufQus informatfon and
co .... ntar1 ho> lndlcated. for e .. ""l., a 19~O .t"~y to IdentIfy potential
carbQlI monOllfde -bot spots-in t ... .e Bay Area .. incffc!!Ited txceeclances durfng the
.. 1nter of IS8o-81 of the 8-hour >tate .nd federa' standard neor the 11 call1no
Real/Page Mi11-oregon Expresswa.v 1ntersect1on. This fnferillation has eften been
referenced ana used in spfte Df QlJestfons regarc%fng tM Quality of the data due
to problelZLS 'Wi th siting the fnstrument.ltfon... inad.equate control of the
fllstrl»lent environment .. and the short perf ad of recorded. data.
(HOTE: All of tne Info'DIOtloo ,nc1uded In the aIr Qu.lfty portion
of tr.1s Uaff report h taken in part or in toUl from a draft report
prepared for the Clty?f Palo Alto by Donald Ball.ntt.)
SPORTATlON
Tne tran rtatfon consulting firll of fehr & Peers Associates is pro .... idin.g the
transportatl -related: analysis and eyaluation for tfle Cit.v'W1de study. To
date~ their ef s hav~ fOCused upon data collection and e:nalysh of elllsting
conditions. Subs ent efforts 'Will be directed toward evaluation of
development alterna.tive ne!: trlfHc r.itfgation llelsures.
The primary data
fo11OOl,ng:
part of tile Citywide study includes tne
1) Peak perfoa turnfng I)(Ivement
during the PM put period and
perIod.
were taken It 16 intersectfons
nter~ectfons during the AM peak
2J Bicycle-volume counts fIIere taken at 43 of t e same intersections ..
plus 6 at e~clusf .... e bite path locatfons.
3)
CIIR :241: ~
Detailed: f1eld observations of NIo. and
cr,.f,rlcterfstfc5 were IUde It a subset of
Cletaf1ed intersection data included
progresi1on. Ind saturation flo~ rates.
PM peak pen
15 selected fnte
stopped delay.
4/10/86
3
•
• c,·',.' . "-'
. "-.
:
,
" <, -~-~ -
-
TAJILE D
P01EN'IIAt. UFEcrS OF '11 CL£AN AIIII'l.AN CONntOL
MEASVltES ON CITY OPERAnoNS
AFJIEClliD IUi1T1DfV oa A.C'T1Vm "'''''''''''' ..... \IR£S ~ D.oACT:! ON C7TY
ADOPi1<JN "'" OPEllATlOHS
J'Dj()!) ADOrnoN
~Worb: 199L-l~ Al,.) o.q,.. 1111 quaIilJ, priu, rvail&bi:ly IJt
~V· , ..... : A4(aj """"'" A4(bl
~ CoWIe w.sam.. v. AIO(&)
AII{.)
1995-1997 A10) Wod;JI~"'~'
"-Nic WIXb: 1991-1'»C AIO(1:) ~ia IIIIeIbo6e. ~ ~
~'" I AI 1 (b) OIjuipmc .. mroftt
A!:{~)
~ eo.u.,"'.5al\;eG1 u.
1995-1997 Al'(a.) s.a.: .. &ik:n<e, ~ la --na.1.t ....,
Ai! (b) AlI_
t~l-l~ All (I) s.1DI= .... ~. --Ajl {b)
All (~)
$pill o:a...p =lVOC ~ 1991-ZCXXl B6 II) s.mcu~.
..... W .... 1991-1994 '" ., ~ c:UaJ.cc "'I"~;e-otl_ bowu
~\4e I
JWI.~Sa<=a
1'\IlI6:w.b~ 1~1-!994 1'1 (I) M~~~~011. __ ""
~M;; F3 (oj modi6ed ~ ,.....,.., corrtJ .ViGfI
mol o.hr;...., ia_
Now _1AOCIi6ed ~
..... W,... 1991-197<11 D1 fl.) Cha.oJre ill ~ b' ~uip~ wav
Eq~" hcililia Mamt .. a-
N_ CIt J;IOdiW ~ 2000+ F2 (.II!
--
N&;Worb, 199H'XUI 01 (a.) hLtOIiJ b NOs. cCQrol: ~ , ... _V
J-"
19')1--2000 Dt :h)
FIooIfII~~
PIIbic Wari::I: 1995--1'Xl1 iU,_ "-'bk ~ fw *>mIi.o af <>Wet vduc: ....
~),(,,1';1 ..
~ n;.'L.cC#lUll fur deazl fi.oel a-(Piloc
V~ik~NF~ H3 Ca.) p~&bu4~~I)".CIly)
PI4&. Wcrlr. 1995-1997 B1 (e) LIIl&ll vyor rDi:0'0'", r;III w:.b if DCl --.Nta4) .... ulppW: ~~c....c
~ ........ -... lllOO+ 17 (IJ ~inp~b.o.ncroJIcifiD_; .......... cquip_ modif'"IC.Lioa~ IUIknoW1I eoc
-
TABLE n
POn:>mAL DnCTS OF .,1 C1EAN AlII PLAN C01<I1l0L
MEASURES ON CI'IY Ol'ERAnoNS
iI.J'FBCTm. OIII"T/t)[\{ 0-. Acnvrrt Pl.Oi'OSED ....... 1i1lES PO't'DITlAL IMPACt'S ON crrv
AOOPTION fOI. OI'DATlOXS
>mJOO ADOrno.
~W~: 19ft.-2CO!J Al1 {.) ~J' ill , ..... , 00 addod .&d -~~--~
"'*'ie Warb; 200()' 1'2(1.) ~~~eo« --........ -. UodOII_
~WIIM~C~ P\a-. , .... ""'" Eo4 (Il tlp(fdc i=iaelWlC' ~alreaoty ,1uacrC b:: ----..----~~ .." ........ ,
c-.i9 s.n:.-t99~~l99>4 VI ") Lut>&CII'~,~~~
o,.Speo.,~"" Pub~ II!. kP 1150,000; 20'1 ~ ill
~""~IJf ___ 11191-2000 Dl {b) RpJ.ac:ezno:at ~ 0VCl" ~ prica
..,.~..-. ('Ju
...--.:I ..... -.~ -c.-..ity~ 1991+!994 '" Vo/wUry ~ <Jf~
cwrc-, ~ Opca Sp.ce. ~~(-.di .. -"'f&h'.
~P\Ito&:~ p!lu.q ... ~ aad "i:WpIDCd ~ "'"",.. .... ....... -. _ ........ -
AlI~ ......... wwidl 1\1191-199-4 OJ ~, V~ ~eo 11riw' 4&1'"; COlI: ~
~..tzn;.d ~ud-w:...
..... b:J .. ,......: f'I'Ibk
S-~: , .... :000 '" ., ~ "a;) driYc~ My.; ...... ...,.. ~
C-~ 1h~g,f~~II)"t..:iT'Jtiu;Jo. -of --..c Ibr Ool! CoInv 1S,OClOI'41y
T .............. -""" A.l ,.} ~ ill tI'lIIl«iW lpeCi~ b ....... -A1 ., p=r.il' A ialpectioa .q.prvvw ..............
C 4cu~ 199H~ :to7 «II) .....,.-08 if.)
~~~CIIl -.,...&it-=,.
'--1"1.1~ 41J (,I) o..nr<' ill ict.I, ~-'t'lD&aIlIIOf!Lr..:~
~~ AO (bl )IOUObic ~ 1tfr.,;1II
AU (~)
AtJ (.!)
•
•
·:i~~.
, .
.--'
,
~ ,
t-• ~ ; • r:-;
" ,
:-1
I : I AAQS ;
I MAG
BAAQIID
CARB
CAP
CCM
Ea
HOV
NTC
IKlx
ppm
RHC
ROC
ROG
RIIQCP
S02
rCM
GlOSSARl
Ambient .Ir Quality st.ndards
Associltfon of Bay Area Governments
eay Are. Air Quality Managme"t Oi.trlct
C,llfornl, Air Resourc •• Board
Clean AIr Phn
Callfornl. Clean Air Act
Envlron .. nt.l Impact Report
High Occupancy Vehlcl.
~etropolitan TransportatIon Commissi~n
Nitrogen oxide.
Parts per million
Reactive ~ydrocarbcns
I\eacti'n Organic. Compounds.
Reactive Drga~ic gases
Regional Wter Quality Control Plant
Sulfur Dioxide
Transportation Cor.trol ~asures
. : . -
~""".
· .
A
-
Apr1l 10, 198'
HO~QRABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, C,l1fornfa
LXCERPI: Pages 1, 2 a~J
3 only"
CITYWIDE STUDY
1986~87
C1 tft!1de lan<d. Use and TranSDorta t10n Stud),:
Status of Air Quality and Tr41lSoor-tat1on Work
Memberl of the Council:
Thfs staff report provfdes a 5!Jmmary of current 1nforma.tion on lir qual1ty and
transpor-tatfon related work. lcth'ities wtdch are part of the tHy_fde la:Jd Use
and Transportat1on Study. This Is an 1nf",r-matfon report. intended to
supplement CMR:231:6. No CounCil ac:tforl 15 reQl.dred or recormendec1.
Background
As part of the Citywide land Use and Transportation Study, Counc'il approved a
contrfjct for cOllsultarlt services to supplement CHy staff reSOi"irces in the
technfcal Ireas of air qual1ty and transportation inalyse$~ The consultant
work began in early October HaS and. to date , the consultants have c.ompleted
Rluch of the data collect1on and are now fnto the a"alysis piuse. The fol1owfng
two sections sll1'llmarize the air Q~alf ty and transportation relaUd !!Iork
acthities. A final section concernfng traffi.c mitfgation meaSl.lres represents
I rel«ted process that will soon be fnft1f1Ud.
AIR QUALITY
The Say Area Afr QualitJ Manage~nt District tSAAQMD} oper.tes a networ~ of llr
quality monitoring sites tMroughout the Bay Area swffic1ent to characterize for
Pilo Alto regional ?Onutants suc.h as. ozone. nitrogen dioxide particulates and
sulfur dioxfde. This permanent ~twork. h~ever. fs oot sufficie~t to
chara.cterhe local p.ollutants such as carbon !l'.ol"oOxide 'Which ue more ctirectly
related to local traff~' volulilfs and conditfoP'ls. merefore. 4S part of the
contracted conslJltant ser..,ices for th.e CitYlliide study, Donald. B.a.llantf,
Certiffe~ CilfisulUng Meteorologfst .. is prcriding air quality related analysis
and eva'luation... l1r~ 8alla.nti in turn h1rec1 En.yironme~tal MeasurelDents, Inc ..
'EMI J to cond:u:ct a spec.ial IOOnitorfng program for carbon monoxide thro~9~ollt
the City.
A carbon IJIOnoxfde RIOni torjng program was planned and 1mp1emented clurfng the
perfod from November IS. HIS5 .. to february 15 .. 1986 .. as a cooperative effort
among the CHy of Pa,lo Alto, the Bay Area A1r Qualfty ,"!anagement Dfstrfc:t and
the Cit.Y"S consultants. Weati1er conditions w~1ch are known to result in Iligh
CMJ!:241:6
L
-,.
~~
:~.
-
concentratfons of cartlcn r:onox;de typ~cal1y occur durin'S tt;e wiilter IOOnths.
The monitoring program was ~esi9ned to identffy and recor~ data during
-episodes-of stagni!lnt .. eather cOllc1'ftfons at w~1ch t:me carbon II'lOnodde
concentratfof'ls .ere typically at their highest 1e",els. This-e c<:inditions occur
only! few times e4c~ year. Therefore. dau was not collected. at all locatIons
every ddY.
The carbon. manoxid.e monftc:.rflig program included tnrif! types of eqllipme'lt and
data collection:
1) The pf"i-mary referer:ce ana1yzer foOr CaTt>o~ rona;c,1de is: the
NonMspersive rnfrared (NDlR} lI'Ionitor. Three tcDIR roonftors. located
at tne Senior Center (450 Bryant Street). St. Marks Episcopal Church
(6.00 Colondo Avenue). and the lfnus ?auHr,g Institute (Oregon-Page
Min Expressway near E1 Camino Real). were in operation continuously
during the monitoring program.
2} T~e second type of sampling i!qIJipment was 16 lamp post samp1ers
located tnrcughout Palo Alto aMd the Stanford Unhersfty ca""us.
Hlese s41TJilers contained battery operated pumps that turned <In at Ii
preset time Ind sa!tJlled ccntinuousl.)' for an a-haul'" peri()cL The Tamp
post salfijllers were not in use djjrfng periods of rain or inclement
weat~ler when carbon monoxide le",eh are typically low ..
3) In addition to tne statfonary carbon lIO .... oxlde sqmplers (NDIR and 1amp
post) thi! BAA~l) staff conducted rnotli le sal!)lling from an automohih on
se"¥eral occasions during -episoc1c!" conditfons.
Dry weather combined with low-veToc:Hy wfnd.s created stilSl"lant conditlOris oiler
moH of the region during the period from December 16 to December 20. The
carbon oono)(fde episode that occurred during tnis perl ad was one of the most
severe fn recent bistory, wit~ the a-hour standard '9 ppm) excee~ed in San Jose
on sh days and. tne state I-hour standard (20 'ppm) reached on 3 days. A. sec.ond
p~riod of air stagnation occurred from January 6 to 10.
Analysis and enl:.iat1on of the tartlon monoxide data is cOMtinuing as part of
the City .. i'd'e study and. when co~leted. · .. 111 sene as a basis for predlcting
futLlre ieveTs cf car~H~n monoxide in ~vall.!a ting develJpment al ternath'es and
mftigation measures. From the information present1y cl.'¥ai1ab~e some ,p!""elimfnary
obs-erva tfons can be made:
1J The period of measurement fncluded "'nat appears to be a very se'olere
episode for carbon mO!1oxide. Data from the San Jose monitoring site
indicate that conditions during the period fram December 15 to 20 ~ere
the worst recorded in appro.x;mately fi ... e years. The data gathered for
Palo ~lto shou1d therefore represent the higtlest cnncentratfons tMat
m151r,t be e;c,pected to occur.
2) carbon monoxide problems in Pa10 ~lto do not appear to be as se",ere as
elsewhere in the Santa Clara Valley. ~iolatiQrls of the state and.
federal standards appear to be ~.argina.l and" 10ca1 in nature. The
relatively dense network. -of 19 samplers recorded on1y 3 vlolations of
the 8-tlouf'" standard during the 3-month study.
OO:~41:. 4/10/86
2
L
•
l
I
I , ,
j
I ,
I ~-~
, ~ ., ~
! -c ,-<~
.
3-) Data frclD tne NDIRs located at St. fI1arh and the tfnus Paulfng:
Inst1tute show that carbon monoxfde le¥els reach two pe~ks I. day near
8:00 I~ •• and 6;00 p •••• COf'rupondfng to puk tra.ffic conditions.
The evening peak fs c~n$i$tently ~i9her because atmospher1c condftions
art IDOre conducive t~ bufldup of pollutants 11"1 tne e ... enfng thillr\ in the
Alorn'ing. and trafft( f.n~ns1ty 15 generally tIlOre severe.
4) No u:GeedlnGeS of tJ1e .state l-hou:r ambient air QuaHty standard: of .20
ppm were recordeJj at the tnre~ contfrlUDus NDIR .sftes. Ttle: a-hour
i vera.ged concentra. ti on rea chE'd the 9.0 ppm S ta.ndard on en 1y one day
'January 9) and at only one location (St. Mark's)~,
5) Diita from the 15 li~ post sa~'ers 1ndicate that concentrations above
the state and federa1 stantRrd of 9.0 Ppiil were recorded at only two
locations {Oregon at Webster and E.mbarcadero at E1 !:amfne-) on only one
day at each sfte.
It appears that carbon monoxide concentratfon in Palo J.lto. while a (ont1nuing
sour(:e of concern .. Ny not presently be as severe as ,previous information and
cOlllDentar,)' bas indicated. For e.Q~h, a 1980 study to 1di!ntify pountf.al
carbon InOnodd-e -hot spots-fn thE: BI,)' Area. fnd1tated eXCH'dances during the
winter of 1980-81 of the 8-hour 5t!te and federal standard near the EI t.amirlo
Real/Page H~11-ore90n Expressway ~~tersectfon. This infornatfon ~as often been
referenced ana used in spite of QYestfons regardfng the Quality of the data due
to ,pr.oblems with siting the fnstrumentation.. inadeqUate control of the
fn.strilllent environment .. and the short ,perfod of recorded data.
(NOTE: All of the fnforlMtion inc:1!,lded ,"" the ifr qualft,)' portion
of thts staff report 1.5 taken in part or in total from a drift report
prepared for t~. City of Palo Alto by Donald Balliot;.)
SPORTATION
The tra~ rt4tfon consulting firm of Fehr & Peers A.ssocfates is ,pro¥1ding the
transportat -related analysis and naluat10n for tt;!;: Citywfde study. To
date .. ttlei"r eff s haye focused upon data collectf"n and analysts of eJ;isting
conditions. Subs ent efforts will be directed: toward evaluation of
a:evelopment alternathe nd trafffc Jlltfgaticn measures.
The primry data collected
following:
part (If the C ity.rwi de study includes the
1) Peak ,per-1oQ tlJrnfng DlO¥ement
during the PM peak ,period and
period.
.. ere tdken It 76 fntersectlons
nterseetions during the AM peak
21 BicycTe volume counts were taken at 43 of t e same intersections ..
plu.s 6 I. t e.x.cl us1ve b1l::t path locations.
3)
CMR;Z41;.
Detailed field obserrations of AM ind
ch4raeterfstic$ were #lade at a subset of
Detalled: 1ntersecU"n data fncluded
progressfon. and saturatforl floIII' rates~
PM pea~ per
15 ,elected Inte
stopped delay ..
operatin,g
~~~~~. l.I~C
4/10/8.
3
•
..
•
BAY AREA OZOIlE TRENDS
DAYS OVER MAXIMUM ONE HOUR FEDERAL AND srATE OZONE STANDARDS
Federal = 0.12 pp~ state = 0.09 ppm
YEAR REDWCOD CITY MOUNTAIN VIEW DISTRICT
STATE FEDERAL STATE FEPER.II;L STATE FEDERAL
65 34 22 6. (6
66 19 9 4S H
67 n 11 17 46
68 15 9 SS 55
69 16 5 58 65
70 6 5 64 35
71 7 4 37 27
72 8 3 5 3 29 11
73 5 2 4 3 43 24
H 5 2 3 a 62 29
75 7 1 13 4 45 23 ,. 9 2 5 1 47 22
77 3 1 6 1 28 1
78 4 0 4 1 77 34
79 3 1 9 1 60 15
80 4 2 4 0 47 18
81 2 1 8 2 50 8
8" 1 a • () 35 5
83 8 2 16 5 53 II
8' 9 a 9 0 55 22
85 5 1 2 0 45 8
86 1 0 1 1 39 5
87 2 0 16 4 45 14
8S 2 0 13 0 H 5
89 1 0 6 0 22 4
90 0 1 14 1
·.: ... ~L-.-.···-··
--'-'
-
• .::.' r~
•
-
............
rABLE U
POTENnAL E>nCTS O' '91 CLEAN .UR Pl.AN CONIllOL
MEASlJ1IES ON CITY OPERA noNS
A.FF&CI1iD DEPTJNoI OR.ACTIVnY ""'!'COED ........ lIltE.S POTE1'I"T1A1. IMPACTIi ON CITY
AIXlI'OOI< f<lIt OPDtAT'JOf'oIS
muoo ADOrno"
M&:Worb: l~I~!994i .AJ(a) ~ iII~. pric4:. n-&iW>iliIJ or
~lobDlr_l"~ A4(I.) --."") Surf.ce.~ &1!101 ~ U~ A.lr:x.I.~
"-I i{a)
1995-1991 AI (b) Wori: ~roo;edure l1It:>di~
~li'otb: l)J1ill-~ AlO@j ~ ill ar.otlboda, ...,;-r\nr .... ~
IWiIitM ." e WOlat : A11{b) I/'llIIipID/:.Ul: rotr<.lGl
..... lli .. }
~eo.u,_~V~
1995-1m ... U (a) s.m.. U IJx:r.tl. ~ m _na.b ow;d
Al' (bJ
... -'"1-1994 A.i I (I.) s._u~~ . .......... -All (b)
All (e)
Spill ~ ~VOC a.I&tUIa "'0-2QOO 86 (.I) .... u .....
~worb.: 1991-199-4 D4{a\ ~flI'~"","V-Ill;"""'IICIl~'"
h:.iD&in u ..... •.
,.,....~S<x=.II
J\IbiiI; --w..u, 1991-l99-4 FL (al )fOR ~ ___ ~QG~or
~We , aaat " (oj ..,cJi6iNI ~,.,..wll: 0l..,'V A>Iiq1
Qii r::hufc ill c ..
Nft« 1DOtIl6eof ~IDIIII
""'" "'-l!i191·1~ 07 (al CIa,... ill c'* far et"ip=cPI.; III¥tJ1
~"FlICiIiiia~at .-
ttn· III" modlfio,rJ .IQIo.'rCCI: 2000+ F2 (a}
,...tK: W<Xb: l"'H~ Dt (al J.rlro5l fOOl'}olO1;.~:~"U tall --, .... -Ot",)
fwt.~~
P\lblil: WIXb: 1~5-1~7 Hl (a) i'l::.-ib1e ~ fOr ~ w~ ..dUel",
~H.z: •
Flea JeP!.I;-a for clca:J ~ uae (JIilOII
V~r:d)Ik~"",~ "Kl {.j proJnm a1ft.oo4y wwiel"'Olay ~ City)
~Worb: 1SJ9S..1m 8l(c-) IM.a.C It'oIf'lI' ~ QC taIlb if" IIOl
~u..';mIat alrraciy tqIIq,p.d: ~ ~
~~ Sl«qeUIII 2000+ 17 Ca) CbwPp<.a"rop.!ollI:~"'illUIC.; --o:quipllZlIII modifi~ ~1I ""lOll:
L
,
I ---
;1
, I
J
j
i
-
TABLE n
POTENIlAL EFFECI'S OF '91 C1..EA.N AIR PL~ CQN'IltOL
MEASURf'$ ON on OPERAnoNS
AFFSC'TED [!E.P'I!OfV II ACT'NrrY noPOSEO '!EASlIIlE$ l'OTEImAL lMJ"Aocrs ON CrIY
.u>OmON roo. O.I'DU.TtONS
PWOO <OOI'T1ON
hbW: WIJltb: 1'W&.lOOO AJ1 (a) AI=o.l) ia ;t..:e; IIG ~ ,"",
~
~~"""prortUI
PIIb& Won:.: ::,.,,. F2 (a) EmiIDoa _.nneatp~ WIll ...... .,...... """'u ...............
~ W*:z ~ ~PI&aI t99&-lOOO E4 (a) Vp~ iztoc:~ (a!raodJ p~ b
lIriIIenIar aaI...miOCII groc:lt.-<>pc:ruWsi rtp*c~)
c-air)"~\:11 199I-l~ [II CtJ J.c\roCd. ar rcpla<:" ui .... oq--'if-III.; COlI
Op-.",".~1LIlI4 hib ~ _Ina $150,000; 2'J' iIK:_ ill
~-r~ofl'u&" jl;Wjl1-2ClOO DJ (tI) RpLa.:"aa::rI CDIiItII g.,er pnl.a ptio:a
~ no:ifroc:.ainr ~ (fu
~ IIIVo1 ~ Iandlc.pc ..........,
~Scrvka 199I-1m Gl Vol!.lII.Iry ~El.ined Df ctivilica
GoU C-,~. Op<:11 S~~, ~"''''lina ~ (IUd! u ~~,
~ N.r.c P"",iLtin p~, "cbic;k ~ .,qu;P1baII ~ ..... ,....,
"'"'"'" ,.,... --,,"--
JtJI ~""'vcIUc"'aD4~ 199H994 GJ (.) V~,·:II<' 01 ..... ,,· dIIy.; eo. ~
~ 'II'Ot\.:n; an ~WDe.: &at! .~
.-I ilJ'" J'IIIIQI .... 1i.::
Bamaa~' l\)9$-.ooo G<I' flo) Man4.i.tory "DO ~I-" 4.J)'-; OOIC II.IIbIowu;
""'-'" """""-1III111t~"1I ol~ C"~ r., ... .tiea; bioi -, jI(..,~ (Of" GoU' Coo.I:M 15 ,()IXN'~1 T_ -' '000 AI ,.) ~ .. ~ m.llLi:r\alI; IP"Il"ocaLieal fur ....... -A:l ,., penrufl; .. Uupe.::Uocr:-wro"'1k ....... -~~ !.~H~ 0'1' 'I) .....,-DB ~.)
~~~..-.a
~&15eincy
Y-..; 1991-199-1 All C.) Clu"",. ia a., equipmmt -.di(oc. ....... ;
~~ A.IJr,,) pouihk ~ cITe<:"
AD r~)
All Cd)
"
MQS
ABAG
BAAilMO
tARB
CAP
ct ......
ErR
HOY
MTC
NOx
ppm
RHC
ROC
ROG
R1IQCP
SOZ
TCII
Aabl.nt 01T Quality standards
Assoc~at1on of Bay Area Gowernments
Bay Ar •• Air Quality Managment District
Californ11 Air Resources Board
Cl.an Alr Plan
t.liforni. Clean Air Act
Environmental Impact Report
High Occupancy Vehicle
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Nitrogen oxides
Parts per million
Reactive hydrocarbons
Reactive Organic Compounds
Reactive organic gases
Reg;onal Wter Quallty tontrol Plant
Sulfur Dioxide
Transportation Control Measures
•
-"-'