Holiday Inn Golden Gateway
Redwood Room, Lower Lobby
1500 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA

April 30, 1992
10:30 a.m.



92-5-1 Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the Bay 001
Area Air Quality Management District 1991 Clean
Air Plan as Required by the California Clean Air
Act of 1988*.

92-5-2 Consideration of Research Proposals. 073

*Opportunity to testify during the evening will be
provided starting at approximately 6:30 p.m.

ITEM NO.: 92-5-1

Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's 1991 Clean Air Plan.


That the Board fully approve most of the Bay Area plan; that the
Board conditionally approve some of the transportation elements
with suggested changes and conditions proposed by staff; and that
the Board affirm staff's interpretation of the applicable
statutory requirements, where appropriate.


The California Clean Air Act requires ARB to review and approve
or disapprove each district's air quality plan. The Board's role
is to ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of the
law. In some instances, this requires an interpretation of
statutory language.

Following passage of the Act in 1988, staff developed and the
Board approved a series of guidance documents and implementing
regulations. These form the basis for most of staff's
recommendations on the Bay Area plan. Not every provision of the
Act was addressed, however, due to time and resources
constraints. Thus, the Board will be considering a few
provisions of the Act for the first time when it acts upon the
Bay Area plan. Examples of the latter conclude: the requirement
that uniform controls be employed for the same emission sources
within an air basin; and the requirement that all feasible
measures be included in the plan if a district is either 1)
unable to demonstrate attainment, or 2) unable to achieve five
percent annual emission reductions.

The Bay Area plan is the first of 23 plans the Board will
eventually consider. It was chosen to set the stage because it
is better than average, relatively uncomplicated, and satisfies
most of the Act's requirements. Consider the Bay Area plan first
allows the Board to focus on its responsibilities and to set
general precedent, before it is called upon to remedy serious
deficiencies or grapple with complex planning issues.

The Bay Area plan is not perfect. Its longer term transportation
control measures are not fully funded, have not been fully
committed to by the implementing agencies, and are not fully
authorized by existing law (e.g., proposed pricing measures to
reduce vehicle trips). As a result, the Bay Area cannot
demonstrate full compliance with the Act's transportation
performance standards (e.g., 1.5 average vehicle occupancy by
1999). This shortfall is expected in every urban area and
reflects--more than anything else--the rigorous new mandates
created by the Act. It will be some time before any metropolitan
area can fully satisfy every performance standard.

The Bay Area plan has drawn criticism from environmental groups
who believe it does not go far enough, and from business groups
who believe it does too much. The former are expected to press
their case with the Board. The latter seem to have accepted the
decisions of the District Board.

Staff believes that the Bay Area District is pursuing all
feasible measures on an expeditious schedule as required by the
Act and that minimal, if any, opportunity exists to strengthen
the plan. No significant measures are missing. In addition, the
District has carefully prioritized its order of rulemaking, so
that the most important measures will be done first.


Approval of the plan will affirm the Bay Area's selection of
control strategies, which the District is already in the process
of implementing. The combination of measures in the plan is
expected to reduce emissions between 1987 and 1994 by the
following amounts: ROG - 189 tons per day; NOx - tons per day;
and CO - 1,064 tons per day.

The Districts performed a socio-economic study on its plan and
concluded that the plan will result in some costs to individual
industries; substantial financial transfers if the pricing
mechanisms are implemented; and the creation of new jobs due
primarily to expanded transit and the professional services
needed to comply with pollution control requirements.