Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564992",
    "label": "[Environment] - Environmental Quality Study Council Report, March 1972",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564992"
}

{
    "id": "118564992",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564992",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[Environment] - Environmental Quality Study Council Report, March 1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564992",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Reports"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-002-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-002-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-002-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564992",
    "naId": 118564992,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-002-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "5790c9d7e29146d4",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: [Environment] - Environmental Quality\nStudy Council Report, March 1972\nBox: P36\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN CALIFORNIA\nMarch 1972\nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN CALIFORNIA\nA STRATEGY FOR ACTION\nREPORT OF THE\nSTATE ENVIRONAL QUALITY STUDY COUNCIL\nMarch 1972\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY COUNCIL\nSACRAMENTO\nMarch 10, 1972\nHonorable Ronald Reagan\nGovernor of California\nHonorable Ed Reinecke\nLieutenant Governor, and\nPresident of the Senate\nHonorable James R. Mills\nPresident pro Tempore, and\nMembers of the State Senate\nHonorable Bob Moretti\nSpeaker, and Members of\nthe State Assembly\nGentlemen:\nIn compliance with Section 16055 of the Government Code,\nthe 1972 Report of the State Environmental Quality Study\nCouncil is hereby submitted. The report covers the\nactivities of the Council during 1971, and recommends\nlegislative action for the current session.\nThe Council trusts that its efforts, in proposing a long-\nterm strategy for the control and enhancement of our\nenvironment and in recommending immediate measures\nfor alleviation of our more crictical problems, will prove\nhelpful.\nSubmitted on behalf of the members of the Council.\nRespectfully\nDavid L. Baker\nChairman\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nLETTER OF TRANSMITTAL\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n1-4\nCOUNCIL MEMBERS\n5-6\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\n7\nFOREWORD\n9\nI/ INTRODUCTION\n11\nII/ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n15\nA/ GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION\n15\nB/ LAND USE, POPULATION, AND TRANSPORTATION\n15\nc/ ENERGY USE\n23\nD/ AIR QUALITY\n25\nE/ NOISE\n27\nF/ OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES\n29\nIII/ DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n31\nA/ GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION\n31\nA New Organization\n31\nResponsibilities\n31\nOrganization\n32\nOrganization of Regional Boards\n33\nLand Use -- An Essential Element of Reorganization\n34\nReview of Public Projects\n34\nEnvironmental Quality Citizens Council\n34\nOther Organizational Recommendations\n35\nWhat Would Be Different?\n35\nB/ LAND USE, POPULATION, AND TRANSPORTATION\n35\n1\nRapid Growth -- The Basic Cause\n36\nConservation and Development Plan\n37\nPopulation Growth and Distribution\n38\nBasin Carrying Capacity\n40\nImmediate Strengthening of State Role in Land Use\n41\nLoss of Prime Agricultural Land\n41\nAssessment Practices\n42\nFlood Control Policies\n43\nOpen Space Program\n43\nBond Funding Needed\n46\nOther Possible Methods of Funding Open Space\n46\nTransportation -- Providing a Balance\n47\nMore State Involvement -- Increased Funding\n48\nRural Development\n48\nCalifornia's Disappearing Coast\n51\nGeologic Hazards\n52\nThe State's Land Use Role\n54\nArea-Wide Planning\n56\nEnvironmental Impact Statements\n57\nLand Use and Population -- Unresolved Environmental Issues\n58\nc/ ENERGY USE\n58\nOverall Energy Problem\n59\nEnergy Use and the South Coast Basin\n59\nElectric Energy\n60\nFactors Contributing to Growth\n61\nElectric Energy Conservation\n62\nThe Need for Additional Electricity\n64\nNuclear Energy\n65\nNear-Zero Emission Electric Energy Alternatives\n67\nThe Alternatives in Balance\n68\nOverall Energy Use Strategy\n69\nResearch and Development\n70\nFunding of a Statewide Energy Use and\n70\nPower Plant Siting Program\n2\nA Parting Shot\n70\nD/ AIR QUALITY\n71\nCauses\n71\nLocal Districts\n72\nState Program\n73\nMulford-Carrell Act\n74\nAdditional Board Responsibilities\n74\nNew Motor Vehicles\n75\nUsed Cars\n75\nStandards, Inspections\n76\nFuel Composition\n76\nVoluntary Use of Gaseous Fuels\n76\nGasoline Marketing\n77\nLarge-Scale Conversion to Gaseous Fuels\n77\nOverriding Problem\n78\nFederal Law\n79\nState Implementation Plan\n80\nEngines Not Yet Controlled\n82\nNecessary Action\n82\nImplementation of State Control Strategy\n82\nA Long-Range Strategy\n84\nE/ NOISE\n85\nAir Transport\n85\nAirport and Aircraft Noise Regulations\n85\nThe Funding of Corrective Action\n86\nAirport Land Use Commissions\n86\nOther Airport Development Considerations\n86\nMotor Vehicles\n87\nAdditional Enforcement\n88\nFreeways and Highways\n89\nOccupational Noise\n89\nCommunity Noise\n90\nEquipment, Machinery, and Appliances\n92\n3\nEducation\n93\nF/ OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES\n94\nIV/ COUNCIL ACTIVITIES\n95\nThe Council's Third Year\n95\nCouncil Hearings\n95\nProposed Remaining Activities\n99\nThe Council's Role\n100\nv/ APPENDICES\nAPPENDIX A - - SCHEDULE OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE\nACTIVITIES, 1971\nA-1\nAPPENDIX B - - PUBLIC HEARINGS, PARTICIPANTS\nNuclear Energy\nB-1\nCoastline Management\nB-1\nProblems and Issues of North Coastal Region\nB-2\nAirport Expansion\nB-2\nSonoma-Marin Aqueduct\nB-3\nEnergy Use\nB-3\nAPPENDIX C - SPECIAL MEETINGS AND STUDY SESSIONS,\nPARTICIPANTS\nEQSC Legislative Proposals\nC-1\nEnvironmental Problems of the South Central Coastal Area\nC-1\nEnvironmental Implications of Geothermal Development\nC-2\nAir Quality, Riverside\nC-2\n4\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY COUNCIL\nMEMBERS\nDAVID L. BAKER, Chairman, Supervisor, County of Ornage\nPETER H. BEHR, State Senator\nALBERT PEARLSON, Attorney\nSAMUEL A. EGIGIAN, Southern\nat Law\nDistrict Refuse Removal Council\nARTHUR F. PILLSBURY\nARLEN GREGORIO, State Senator\nDirector, Water Resources\nA.J. HAAGEN-SMIT, Ph. D.\nCenter, UCLA\nChairman, State Air Resources\nHELEN B. REYNOLDS, President\nBoard\nCalifornia Roadside Council\nELLEN STERN HARRIS, Executive\nEDWARD M. ROSS, Attorney at Law\nSecretary, Council for\nFRANK J. TYSEN, Professor,\nPlanning and Conservation\nAir Pollution Control\nBARRY KEENE, Attorney at Law\nInstitute, School of Public\nNORMAN B. LIVERMORE, JR.,\nAdministration, USC\nState Secretary for Resources\nFRANK J. WALTON, State\nKERRY MULLIGAN, Chairman, State\nSecretary for Business\nWater Resources Control Board\nand Transportation\nEX-OFFICIO MEMBERS\nWILLIAM J. KURTZ, Acting Director,\nCity and County Members of\nDepartment of Public Health\nCouncil on Intergovernmental\nJERRY FIELDER, Director\nRelations\nDepartment of Agriculture\nWILLIAM PENN MOTT, JR., Director,\nPAUL M. ANDERSON, Supervisor\nDepartment of Parks and Recreation\nCounty of Riverside\nRAY ARNETT, Director\nJAMES V. FIZGERALD,\nDepartment of Fish and Game\nSupervisor, County of San\nJAMES G. STEARNS, Director,\nMateo\nDepartment of Conservation\nMAURICE K. HAMILTON,\nJAMES MOE, Director,\nCouncilman, City of San\nDepartment of Public Works\nBruno\nWILLIAM R. GIANELLI, Director\nWESLEY McCLURE, City Manager,\nDepartment of Water Resources\nCity of San Leandro\nDONALD F. PINKERTON, Director,\nHOWARD H. WIEFELS, Mayor,\nDepartment of Housing and\nCity of Palm Springs\nCommunity Development\nCOUNSEL:\nNICHOLAS C. YOST, Deputy Attorney General\nSTAFF:\nJOHN K. GEOGHEGAN, Executive Secretary\nELDON E. RINEHART, Special Consultant\nCHRISTOPHER A. BROWN, Executive Intern, University of\nCalifornia, Los Angeles\nROBERT C. BURNESS, Executive Intern, University of\nCalifornia, Davis\nVI RIEFSTAHL and KAREN PEARCE, Secretarial\n5\nCOMMITTEES\nAIR QUALITY COMMITTEE\nWATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE\nAlbert Pearlson, Chairman\nArthur F. Pillsbury, Chairman\nArlen Gregorio\nPeter H. Behr\nA.J. Haagen-Smit, Ph. D.\nPaul Clifton\nEllen Stern Harris\nEllen Stern Harris\nBarry Keene\nKerry Mulligan\nHelen B. Reynolds\nAlbert Pearlson\nLAND USE COMMITTEE\nWASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE\nFrank J. Tysen, Chairman\nSamuel A. Egigian,\nPeter H. Behr\nChairman\nPaul Clifton\nKerry Mulligan\nBarry Keene\nArthur F. Pillsbury\nHelen B. Reynolds\nEdward M. Ross\nWilliam S. Weber\nFrank J. Tysen\nNOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE\nEdward M. Ross, Chairman\nArlen Gregorio\nSamuel A. Egigian\nWilliam S. Weber\nSCIENTIFIC ADVISORY GROUP ON NOISE *\nDr. Robert W. Young, Chairman\nDr. Walter W. Soroka\nNaval Undersea Research and\nProfessor of Acoustical\nDevelopment Center, San Diego\nSciences, University of\nCalifornia, Berkeley\nDavid M. Green, Department\nof Psycology, University of\nDr. John D. Webster\nCalifornia, San Diego\nNaval Electronics\nLaboratory, San Diego\nJack B. C. Purcell\nPurcell-Noppe Assoicates,\nDr. George P. Wilson\nChatsworth\nWilson, Ihrig & Associates\nBerkeley\nLudwig M. Sepmeyer, Consulting\nEngineer, Los Angeles\n*\nAll are members of the Acoustical Society of America.\n6\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\nThe Council expresses sincere thanks to\nIn conveying our appreciation to those\nthose who have aided and supported\nwho have worked so tirelessly\nits activities over the past three years:\nwith us for a better environment,\nmembers of the Legislature, their\nwe would encourage their continuing\ncommittees and consultants; members of\ndedication to the enormous task\nthe Administration; the environmentally\nof assuring a decent quality of life\ninvolved entities of state government;\nfor us all.\nand the numerous conservation and\nenvironmental groups throughout the\nState. Very special thanks go to\nCalifornians for Environmental Quality,\na statewide organization created for\nthe sole purpose of advocating the\nCouncil's 1971 legislative proposals.\nThe Council is also grateful to the many\nwitnesses who gave of their time and\nexpertise at our public hearings and\nstudy sessions. We appreciate the\nhospitality extended in those cities in\nwhich we have met. Regardless of\nthe issues involved, the Council has\nbeen warmly and courteously received.\nWe wish also to express thanks to the\nmany citizens who have taken time\nto write to the Council. While we have\nnot been able to hold a special hearing\non each problem presented, these\nletters have given us a better insight\ninto the many environmental concerns\nfacing citizens of California.\nUnder current enabling legislation,\nthe Council will soon cease its function.\n7\nthe\n199\n3\nFOREWORD\nThe State Environmental Quality Study\nAB 1056 (Z'berg) of the 1971 session,\nCouncil, consisting of 17 members\nand AB 681 (Z'berg) of the current\nappointed by the Governor and the Legis-\nsession. The 1972 report contains a\nlature, was created by the California\nnumber of recommendations on a\nLegislature in 1968 to make an in depth\nvariety of environmental subjects. But\nstudy of the state's environmental\nmore important, it attempts to develop\nproblems and to recommend, after\na comprehensive strategy for dealing\nholding public hearings, such legislative\nwith basic underlying issues of\nand administrative action and state,\ngovernmental organization, land use\nregional, and local governmental\nand population growth, balanced\nmechanisms necessary for coordinated\ntransportation, and energy use.\nprotection, management, and improve-\nment of California's physical environ-\nThis report does not cover all the\nment. Since first convening in April\nstate's environmental problems in depth.\n1969, the Council has held 20 public\nSome have been studied in greater\nhearings throughout the State on\ndetail and reported on by a number of\nsuch subjects as air pollution, land use,\nlegislative committees and state\ncoastline management, preservation\ndepartments. The Council did not feel\nof open space, transportation, noise\nthe need nor have the time or resources\nabatement, and energy use. In addition,\nto duplicate these efforts. The\nthe Council has held monthly business\nAssembly Science and Technology\nmeetings, committee meetings, and\nAdvisory Council's studies on the\nnumerous study sessions at which\nquestion of population; the Assembly\nspecific problems were considered.\nCommittee on Environmental Quality's\nhearings on pesticides; the Assembly\nThe Council was charged with reporting\nCommittee on Natural Resources\nits findings and recommendations\nand Conservation's study of forest\nto the Governor and the Legislature\npractices; the reports of the Joint Com-\nannually. It first report, in February\nmittee on Open Space; the work of the\n1970, contained a number of recom-\n1970 Assembly Select Committee on\nmendations on land use, air quality,\nEnvironmental Quality in identifying\nand noise abatement. The February\nenvironmental problems and projecting\n1971 report concentrated primarily on\ncosts; the study of the 1970 Assembly\nthe question of governmental organ-\nCommittee on Revenue and Taxation on\nization and formed the basis of\nemission taxes; the reports of the\n9\nDepartment of Conservation on second\nhome subdivisions and problems of\nurban geology; the coastline studies of\nthe Department of Parks and Recrea-\ntion; the report of the Department of\nPublic Health on noise; the State\nImplementation Plan of the Air Re-\nsources Board; and the upcoming\nEnvironmental Goals and Policy Report\nof the Office of Planning and Research\nare but a few of the activities which,\ncombined with the efforts of this\nCouncil, will hopefully serve to in-\ncrease our understanding of the\ncritical environmental issues facing\nthe State and move us to take the\nnecessary corrective action.\n10\n-/ INTRODUCTION\nI INTRODUCTION\nThe Council's February 1970 report\nfashion, and much of it obliterated\nstated:\nbeyond repair. If the present\ncourse is continued, our posterity\n\"Environmental Quality:\nwill inherit a vast wasteland. \"\nA Losing Battle\nThe February 1971 report stated:\n\"The first six months of our in-\ndepth study of California's\n\"Population Distribution on\nenvironmental ills has revealed\na National Scale\nan extremely pessimistic picture.\nOur beautiful State is in severe\n\"Under the present state of tech-\ndanger of being destroyed as a\nnology and our current mode of\ndesirable place to live. Our lush\nliving, not only has an environmen-\norange and walnut groves, our\ntally sound carrying capacity of\nvineyards, our primeval sagebrush\nour metropolitan areas been chal-\ncountry, our secluded valleys,\nlenged, and even that of our great\nour meandering streams, our\nvalleys, but the carrying capacity\nmajestic mountains, and our wind-\nof the entire State as well. And,\nswept beaches are going -- and\nof course, smog is only one index.\nthey are going fast, replaced\nWith noise pollution, heavy\nlargely by depressing urban sprawl.\ntraffic congestion, and inadequate\nIt is even questionable whether\nland use policies, an ever grow-\nmajor portions of the State will be\ning array of environmental ills is\ncapable of supporting tolerable\nendangering this State at an\nhuman life within several more\naccelerating rate. Population\ndecades.\ndistribution is still urgently needed,\nbut it will no longer suffice to\n\"Having been called upon for the\ndesign such policies within the\npast 25 years to accommondate\nState. The problem is national in\none of the greatest bursts of inmi-\nscale. Urban growth and popu-\ngration and population growth\nlation influx must be encouraged\nthe world has ever known,\nin those states where the proper\nCalifornia's legendary environ-\nbalance between man and nature\nmental assets have been squan-\ncan still be accommodated. It is\ndered in a grossly negligent\nobvious that California cannot\n11\nhandle the problem of population\nof pollution control, there is little\ngrowth alone.\naction to report with regard to the under-\nlying issues of land use and population\n\"The Growth Ethic\nor to organizational changes necessary\nto deal with environmental problems\n\"Last year's progress report\nin a comprehensive way. During the\ndescribed the pollution elements\n1971 session of the Legislature the\ncontributing to the 'moribund\nCouncil's main recommendation for a\nLos Angeles region'. We find\nstrong governmental entity embodied\nthis year conditions have even\nin AB 1056 was passed by the Assembly,\nworsened, not only there but in\nbut failed in the Senate. This bill\nthe San Francisco Bay Area\nwould have created state and regional\nas well. In these critical air\nbodies with authority to deal with\nbasins we have to change our\nstatewide pollution problems of air,\ncourse drastically, and do SO now.\nwater, solid waste, land use, popula-\nWe simply have to slow down our\ntion growth, and other environmental\ngrowth and stabilize the popu-\nissues in an integrated manner.\nlation of these areas according to\nThe coastline legislation aimed at the\ntheir carrying capacities. This\npreservation and rational use of this\nmay be hard to accomplish, for\nscarce resource suffered a similar\ngrowth has served us well in this\nfate.\ncountry since its beginnings.\nBut the harsh reality is that unre-\nSome advances were made to restrain\nstrained growth and environmen-\nfurther exploitation of our scenic\ntal quality have become incompati-\nrural areas, and improvements were\nble in California's metropolitan\nachieved in air pollution control.\nregions. \"\nBut these individual measures dealing\nwith specific environmental problems,\nalthough useful elements of a broader\n1972 - Present Solutions Are Not\npollution control scheme, in them-\nEnough\nselves can only be viewed as interim\nsteps.\nThe overall situation has not improved\nsignificantly. While progress has\nbeen made in certain individual areas\n12\nA Comprehensive Long-Term Strategy\ncapable of bringing some temporary\nrelief, will not stand the test of the\nA cohesive strategy for improving and\ndecades ahead.\nmaintaining a reasonable level of\nenvironmental quality has not yet be-\nThe Council strongly urges both the\ncome a part of state policy. The\nGovernor and the Legislature to act\nState has not addressed itself to the\nthis year, and to act decisively, for\nproblems of population growth and\nonly the boldest and most imaginative\nthe impact of such growth on our\nmeasures, implemented now, can\nnatural resources or to the institutional\nprevent the ultimate deterioration of\nchanges needed to face these issues\nthe environment of this State to a\nhead-on. This report, although con-\nlevel unacceptable by any standard.\ntaining a number of recommendations\nfor complementing specific environ-\nmental efforts (air and noise),\nattempts primarily to develop a much\nneeded long-term strategy, the key\nelements of which are governmental\norganization, land use and population\n(including population growth and\ndistribution policies, basin carrying\ncapacity, and open space), balanced\ntransportation, and energy use.\nNeed for Action\nThe major categories cited above are\nthe essential elements of the com-\nprehensive environmental quality\nstrategy SO desperately needed by this\nState. Any course that does not deal\nwith each of these issues in the most\naggressive way can only be viewed as\nshort-term, and, although perhaps\n13\nI/\nSUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND\nRECOMMENDATIONS\nII SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nA/ GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION\nalternative approaches to organizing\na State Environmental Quality\nGovernmental organization at the state\nBoard, which could accomplish equal-\nand basin levels, developed in a\nly well the objectives recommended\nmanner that will properly relate prob-\nby the Council.\nlems of air, water, solid waste,\nand transportation, with the basic\nunderlying questions of land use, urban\nB/ LAND USE, POPULATION, AND\ngrowth, and population distribution,\nTRANSPORTATION\nand operating within the framework\nof a statewide conservation and\nConservation and Development Plan\ndevelopment plan, remains the most\ncritical unmet environmental quality\nThe demand placed on California's\nneed facing the State of California.\nresources by an increasing popu-\nlation has resulted in the degradation\nof its environment. The State must\nA New Organization\nplay a new and strong role in land\nuse, urban growth, and population\nThe Council recommends the\ndistribution by providing the policies\ncreation of a State Environmental\nand common framework for deter-\nQuality Board and eight corre-\nmining how its resources are to\nsponding Regional Boards, with\nbe allocated.\nwell defined powers and respon-\nsibilities over water, air, solid\nThe Council recommends that the\nwaste, nuclear radiation, noise,\nproposed Environmental Quality\npesticides, forest practices,\nBoard be required to adopt and\nand land use. The State and\npresent to the Legislature by\nRegional Boards would also be\nJanuary 1, 1976, a comprehensive,\nempowered to review and under\ncoordinated, and enforceable plan\ncertain conditions disallow\nand management program for the\nprojects of other governmental\norderly long-range conservation\nagencies having significant\nand development of California's\nimpact on the environment.\nnatural resources, known as the\nCalifornia Conservation and\nThe text of this report discusses\nDevelopment Plan. Individual plan\n15\nelements would include environ-\nof similar regulation which is not\nmental goals and policy (including\nconsistent with the adopted local\na population growth and distri-\nconservation and development\nbution policy), land use, basin\nplans.\ncarrying capacity, environmental\nquality (waste control), coastal\nUntil such time as the Legislature\nzone, transportation, parks and\nhas taken final action on the\nopen space, natural resources\nCalifornia Conservation and De-\nconservation, critical historical,\nvelopment Plan, proposed major\nscenic and wildlife habitat areas\ndevelopments involving significant\nof statewide interest, and power\nand irreversible environmental\nplant siting.\nchanges in the coastal zone and\ncertain rural areas of unique state-\nBased on the state plan, each\nwide value would, in accordance\nregional board would be required\nwith specified criteria, be subject\nto adopt by January 1, 1977,\nto an interim permit procedure\nwith approval of the state board,\nadministered by the state or re-\na regional conservation and\ngional boards.\nand development plan which would\ninclude, in addition to those\nelements cited above, certain\nPopulation Growth and Distribution\nspecified elements appropriate to\nthe region. Based on the re-\nThe development and implementation\ngional plan, cities and counties\nof state, regional, and local conser-\nwould be required to adopt by\nvation and development plans will\nJanuary 1, 1978, with approval of\nrequire the adoption of a comprehen-\ntheir regional board, a local\nsive policy to guide to what degree\nconservation and development\nand in what locations growth should\nplan.\noccur.\nLocal planning and zoning would\nThe Council recommends that\ncontinue essentially as at present.\nstate government formulate and\nHowever, no city or county\nadopt explicit population growth\nwould enforce any zoning ordin-\nand distribution policy aimed at\nance, amendment, or other form\nachieving desirable long-term\n16\nsocial, economic, and environmen-\ndistribution policy should be the natural\ntal goals for California. In the\ncarrying capacities of the state's basins.\nformulation of such policy each\nmajor unit of state government,\nThe Council recommends that\nparticularly those concerned with\nstate government undertake to de-\ntransportation, resources, housing,\ntermine the maximum carrying\nemployment, and education, would\ncapacity for each region, based on\nbe directed to determine the impact\nthe best of available information\nof present population trends on their\nrelating to air, water, land, and\nactivities and the impact of their\nother resources which are critical\nactivities on population distribtion.\nto public health and environmental\nprotection, and that the Environ-\nState actions, with respect to the\nmental Goals and Policy Report\nconstruction of public works\ndeveloped pursuant to Section 65041\nprojects, the placement of educa-\nof the Government Code include:\ntional facilities, the location of\n(1) the estimated carrying capac-\npower plants, the development of\nity, based on those factors\nresource management policies, and\nmentioned above, of the state's\nthe conduct of other activities\nmost critical basins; (2) a dis-\nshould be carried out in a way which\ncussion of where and how much\nwill influence population growth\nfuture growth should occur in the\nand distribution; and further that\nstate's different regions, with\nEnvironmental Impact Statements\nparticular emphasis on the coastal\nprepared in connection with various\nurban corridor between Santa Rosa\nprojects and activities of federal,\nand San Diego; and (3) those\nstate, and local agencies should be\nalternative patterns of regional\nexpanded to include a description\ndevelopment which should be\nas to their impact on population\nencouraged, including \"new towns\"\ngrowth and distibution.\nand the expansion of existing\nsmaller communities.\nBasin Carrying Capacity\nThe major criteria in the development\nImmediate Strengthening of State Role\nof a statewide population growth and\nin Land Use\n17\nThe important planning program\ncapacity studies; and (5) be given\ndescribed above should be started as\nthe additional funding needed to\nsoon as possible. The Council rec-\ncarry out these and other tasks.\nognizes, however, that the creation of\nthe Environmental Quality Board and\nthe new land use planning role for state\nLoss of Prime Agricultural Land\ngovernment proposed herein will take\na certain period of time to become\nThe accelerating loss of our best\nreality. On the other hand, the Office\nagricultural lands is a particular ex-\nof Planning and Research, which\nample of unwise land use, and policies\nwould later come under the administra-\nthat encourage this should be changed.\ntive jurisdiction of the proposed board,\nis presently functioning and could\nThe Council recommends:\nbegin, during the interim period, to\nassume the strong land use program\nThat it be the public policy of the\nproposed by the Council. To do this\nState of California that agricul-\nstronger financial commitment and\ntural usage, the planting and grow-\nspecific new direction will need to be\ning of crops, be recognized as\ngiven it.\nthe highest and best use of prime\nagricultural land, and that the\nThe Council recommends that the\nassessed valuation of such land\nOffice of Planning and Research:\nfor ad valorem tax purposes be\n(1) be directed to begin prepar-\nbased on the value its use gives it.\nation of the California Conservation\nThis is the land, in the most\nand Development Plan called for\npart, that is classed as recent\nherein, and to provide for adequate\nalluvium and as basin land. Such\npublic participation in the prep-\nrecognition, duly implemented,\naration of same; (2) be given the\nwould serve to create badly needed\nauthority to develop criteria for\n\"open space\" and would help to\ndetermining the adequacy of local\npreserve the economic viability\nand regional plans; (3) be directed\nof California.\nto begin immediately the prepar-\nation of a state population growth\nThat present federal, state, and\nand distribution policy; (4) be\nlocal policies which fund flood\ndirected to begin basin carrying\ncontrol projects at general public\n18\nexpense and therby provide a public\nuse which should be preserved,\nsubsidy for the urbanization of\nand establish priorities for open\nflood plains (which are usually prime\nspace preservation.\nagricultural lands), be revised SO\nthat the landowners benefitted incur\nThat the Office of Planning and\na more reasonable portion of the\nResearch prepare by January 1974\ncosts of such facilities.\na State Open Space Plan to become\na functional element of the\nCalifornia Conservation and\nOpen Space\nDevelopment Plan and to augment\nand give substance to the state\nA well-designed open space program\npopulation growth and distribution\ncan be a key to resolving major land\npolicy. It should classify state\nuse conflicts and is an essential element\nlands into open space categories,\nof the proposed state, regional, and\nindicate those areas which should\nlocal conservation and development\nremain as open space, designate\nplans. It can preserve lands needed to\nlands sufficiently important to the\nsupply our resource needs, prevent\nState to require direct and immedi-\nthe development of geologically hazar-\nate action to protect or preserve\ndous areas, help meet our huge\nthem, and outline a program and\nrecreational demands, halt urban\nfinancial requirements necessary\nsprawl, and provide direction for urban\nto implement the plan. The\ngrowth.\nState Open Space Plan should also\nbe designed to serve as a guide\nThe Council recommends:\nin the preparation of basin plans.\nThat an open space policy be in-\nThat a bond issue in the amount of\ncorporated into the State Environ-\n$250-million be placed on the\nmental Goals and Policy Report.\nNovember 1972 ballot to provide\nThis policy would define the desir-\nfunds for the acquisition of needed\nable objectives which should\nopen space, threatened wildlife\nguide an open space program,\nhabitats, and important scenic and\ndelineate the areas of responsibility\nhistoric areas of statewide sig-\nat different levels of government,\nnificance. This measure should\noutline the broad categories of land\nalso provide for grants to regional\n19\nand local agencies to assist in\ntion, with primary emphasis on\ncarrying out the purposes of a\nthe development of integrated mass\nstatewide open space policy.\ntransit systems for the major\nmetropolitan areas, such plan to\nbecome a part of the California\nTransportation Providing a Balance\nConservation and Development Plan.\nIn the state's most critical air basins\nThat additional funding be made\nthe use of the automobile will have\navailable to mass transit, giving\nto be substantially reduced if national\nconsideration to a variety of\nambient air quality standards are to\nfunding sources, including gasoline\nbe equalled or even closely approxi-\ntaxes, exise taxes on automobiles,\nmated. To do this, acceptable alterna-\nand taxes on the increased value\ntives must be made available. Al-\nof property resulting from\nthough legislation has been passed to\ndevelopment of mass transit\ngive further assistance to public\nfacilities.\ntransportation agencies, new aggres-\nsive efforts are needed at the state\nlevel in terms of organization, plan-\nRural Development\nning, and massive funding if a truly\nbalanced transportation system is to be\nLegislation passed during 1971 imposed\nprovided.\nnew requirements on local government\nand provided improved tools for deal-\nThe Council recommends:\ning with premature or second home\nsubdivisions in rural areas. The situ-\nThat a Department of Transporta-\nation would be further improved by\ntion be created within the Business\nbringing certain of these areas under\nand Transportation Agency, and\nthe interim permit jurisdiction of the\nthat this department, in coordina-\nState and Regional Environmental\ntion with and subject to the\nQuality Boards as proposed in previous\napproval of the proposed Environ-\nrecommendations. Short of that,\nmental Quality Board, develop\nhowever, additional measures regard-\na comprehensive state master\ning \"finding of need\" and strengthening\ntransportation plan for California,\nlocal plans and ordinances can and\nanalyzing all modes of transporta-\nshould be taken promptly.\n20\nThe Council recommends:\nordinances to apply to all develop-\nment. Since a significant number\nLegislation that would require as\nof lots are sold in rural areas\na condition for approval of a land\nwhich do not come under the Sub-\nproject as defined in Section\ndivision Map Act, cities and\n11000. 5 of the Business and Pro-\ncounties should also be required to\nfessions Code, that the local\nadopt minor subdivision ordinances\nagency make a finding, based on\nin order that all division of land,\nthe \"build-out\" rate in the vicinity,\nor \"lot splitting\" can be regulated.\nthe number of lots being offered\nfor resale, and other market indi-\nThat cities and counties be given\ncators, that there is a need for\nthe authority to review all sub-\nthe project. Certainly if only 200\ndivisions approved prior to the\nhomes had been built over a six-\nSubdivision Map Act, and, where\nyear period in a county where the\nlittle or no development has\nsubdivision of some 15, 000 lots\noccurred, revert the unused lots\nhad been approved, the need could\nto acreage, as provided for by\nbe legitimately questioned and a\nChapter 4, Part 2, Division 4, of\nfinding made to that effect.\nthe Business and Professions Code.\nThat the Office of Planning and\nResearch develop criteria for de-\nCoastline Management\ntermining the adequacy of city\nand county general plans and that\nThe Council has attempted to deal with\nappropriate procedures be de-\nthe coastal zone by recommending\nveloped (which might include the\nthat it be brought within the interim\nwithholding of certain state\npermit jurisdiction of the proposed\nsubventions to local government)\nState and Regional Environmental\nto insure that such criteria are\nQuality Boards. The Council recog-\nadhered to.\nnizes, however, that a governmental\nmechanism to protect the coastline is\nThat cities and counties be re-\nlong overdue and must stand on its\nquired to adopt adequate grading\nown in the event the creation of the\n(including maximum slopes) and\nState and Regional Environmental\nerosion and sedimentation control\nQuality Boards does not become a\n21\nreality this year. It is for this reason\nThat, in order to provide a better\nthat the Council strongly supports\nperspective for local government,\nlegislation for the creation of a separ-\nthe appropriate state departments,\nate entity to develop a coordinated\ncoordinated by the Resources\nplan for the coastal zone and to exercise\nAgency, be directed to prepare\ninterim permit authority while the plan\ncriteria for the use of local\nis under preparation.\nagencies in determining the suffi-\nciency of soil and geologic con-\nditions to accommodate develop-\nment with a minimum landslide\nGeologic Hazards\nhazard and establish procedures\nfor adherence to these criteria.\nRapid urbanization of the State has\noften ignored the obvious threats to\nThat the guidelines now being pre-\nlife and property -- flood, earthquake,\npared by the Council on Inter-\nand landslide. Legislation has been\ngovernmental Relations for the\naddressed to these problems, but fur-\nseismic safety elements (recently\nther steps need to be taken to strengthen\nrequired as part of local general\nthese provisions and to insure that they\nplans) include a definition of\nare properly implemented.\nearthquake risk, a classification\nof land into standard earthquake\nThe Council recommends:\nhazard zones, and minimum\ndesign specifications for construc-\nThat the Legislature expand the\ntion in different zones.\nprovisions of the Cobey-Alquist\nFlood Plain Management Act to re-\nThat it be a matter of state policy,\nquire that all lands which have\ncontained in the Environmental\nbeen or may be inundated by flood-\nGoals and Policy Report, that the\nwaters be subject to flood plain\ncontinued development of geologi-\nregulation, irrespective of the\ncally unstable land constitutes a\nexistence of any federal flood con-\nthreat to the cítizens of California,\ntrol project report, and that\nand hence should be prohibited.\nthose uses which are not compati-\nIn addition, guidelines and criteria\nble with flood plain lands be SO\nrelating to landslides and earth-\ndefined as part of the Act.\nquakes should also be incorporated\n22\nas part of the Environmental Goals\nstatement on the population growth\nand Policy Report.\nand distribution implications of\nthe action; and (5) require that the\ndecision of the responsible entity\nEnvironmental Impact Statements\nadhere to the findings of the EIS\nunless, consistent with the intent\nThe Environmental Quality Act of 1970\nof the Act, it makes a specific\nprovides that all state and local\nfinding that the benefits to the\nentities of government submit an\npublic outweigh the disadvantages\nEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)\nto the environment.\non any project they wish to carry out\nwhich will have a significant impact on\nthe environment. The Act has served\nc/ ENERGY USE\nas an effective tool in reducing the\nadverse effects of certain projects. It\nEnergy use has become one of the most\nshould, however, be broadened in\ncritical environmental issues facing\napplication.\nthe State. Present attitudes and public\npolicy have led to the unrestrained\nThe Council recommends that the\nuse of natural resources and excessive\nEnvironmental Quality Act of 1970\npollution. A clear cut energy use and\nbe amended to: (1) specifically\npower plant siting policy, with em-\napply to all \"actions\" of state and\nphasis on conservation of energy, the\nlocal government, including\nappropriate governmental mechanism\nspecial districts, which would have\nfor implementing such a policy, and\na significant impact on the environ-\na coordinated state and federal re-\nment; (2) specifically apply to\nsearch and development program on all\nregulatory activities as well as\naspects of the problem is required.\nthose that are being carried out by\nthe entity itself; (3) require that\nThe Council recommends:\ncities and counties prepare an EIS\non any change of zoning or con-\nThat an Energy Conservation and\ntemplated private project that will\nPower Plant Siting Commission be\nhave a significant impact on the\nestablished to develop, in cooper-\nenvironment; (4) include as one of\nation with the federal government,\nthe elements of an EIS a detailed\nthe proposed Environmental\n23\nQuality Board, and all other\nthe California Conservation and\nappropriate agencies, organiza-\nDevelopment Plan. The Com-\ntions, and individual citizens, an\nmission would test each proposal\noverall energy use and power plant\nfor power development and\nsiting policy and measures for\ntransmission line routing against\nits implementation. Such a policy\nthe approved master plan, as well\nshould involve: (1) specific\nas various demand, environmental,\nmeasures for reducing the per\nscenic, and safety standards and\ncapita use of energy and for using\ncriteria, and, after holding public\nenergy which is available in the\nhearings, have the authority to\nmost efficient manner; (2) con-\napprove or reject the proposal.\ntinuing evaluation and provision of\nlegitimate energy needs; (3)\nThe Commission might also be\ndeveloping all feasible and safe\ngiven the authority to purchase\nmeans for replacing, to the degree\nsites in advance of need and lease\npossible, the use of fossil fuels\nthem back to utility companies.\nwith near-zero emission electric\nenergy; and (4) a program for\nThat the federal government be\nmassive research and development\nurged to embark on massive\nand new technology regarding\nresearch and development pro-\nalternative sources of power, the\ngrams in connection with new\nsiting of power plants, the trans-\nsources of energy, power plant\nmission of electric power, and\nsiting, energy conservation, and\nthe handling, processing, and\nother matters related to energy\nstorage of wastes.\npolicy administration.\nThe Commission would also de-\nThat a use tax (as well as an\nvelop a statewide power plant\nincrease in the basic rates) be\nsiting plan, after appropriate pub-\napplied to the higher usage portion\nlic hearings, which would be\nof the utility rate structure to\nsubject to the approval of the State\nfinance the statewide energy con-\nLegislature and the Environmental\nservation and power plant siting\nQuality Board, and which would\nprogram. Present rate structures\nconstitute a master plan of pre-\nfor electric power begin at a few\nferred sites and become a part of\ncents per kilowatt-hour and drop\n24\nto several tenths of a cent per kwh\nquality depend on the comprehensive\nas usage increases. A tax of one\nland use, transportation, and energy\nmill per kwh in the high-use\nuse programs and policies mentioned\nbrackets could raise as much as\nin other sections of the report. The\n$50-million. High volume energy\nrecommendations cited below are\nusers such as rapid transit\nof a more immediate nature intended\nagencies and those engaged in\nto bring relief as soon as possible\nother environmentally beneficial\nto the state's more critical air basins.\nactivities should be exempt from\nsuch taxes or rate modifications.\nState Control Strategy\nThe development of nuclear fission\n(present day and fast breeder reactors)\nThe Federal Clean Air Amendments\nover the next 10 to 20 years, consid-\nof 1970 require state government to\nering other alternatives, appears to be\ndevelop a control strategy for meeting\nthe most feasible step toward meeting\nnational ambient quality standards.\nthe state's increased electrical de-\nThe measures cited in the control\nmand, which at present is almost\nstrategy will significantly improve air\ntotally dependent on the use of fossil\nquality. Some, however, cannot be\nfuels. What is of utmost concern to\nimplemented without additional legisla-\nthe Council is that adequate steps be\ntion. The Council endorses the pro-\ntaken to insure that this source of\nposed control strategy and urges that\nenergy is developed in a way that\nthe Legislature act in those areas\nminimizes the detrimental effects on\nwhich are necessary to the plan but\nthe environment, conserves our fuel\nwhich are not now within the purview\nresources, and is safe. In particular,\nof the State Air Resources Board.\ncontinued development must be con-\nditioned on finding suitable solutions to\nThe Council recommends immed-\nthe problems of radioactive waste\niate legislative action on the\nhandling, processing, and storage.\nfollowing measures which are\nessential to the state's control\nstrategy:\nD/ AIR QUALITY\nA program of mandatory periodic\nEssential long range solutions to air\nvehicle inspection, maintenance,\n25\nand repair to insure that required\nThat some form of emissions tax\nsmog devices are in proper\nas well as other incentives to\nworking order.\noperate low emission automobiles,\nuse cleaner fuels, and maintain\nA program to expedite the de-\nvehicles at a low emission level be\nvelopment of evaporative control\ninstituted. Such a tax could be\ndevices for retrofitting 1966-69\nadministered in conjunction with\nvehicles, and to require the\nthe proposed mandatory inspection\ninstallation of such devices at the\nprogram which would be necessary\nearliest date after their approval\nto determine an automobile's\nby ARB.\nlevel of emission. Proceeds from\nthe tax would go to finance rapid\nA program to phase the lead out\ntransit and clean air research and\nof gasoline to \"traces only\" by\nto assist lower income individuals\n1977 in a manner that will not raise\nto properly maintain their cars.\nother undesirable emissions.\nThat the best available means to\nused to substantially reduce\nAdditional Recommendations for\noxides of nitrogen emissions from\nImmediate Action:\nfossil-fueled power plants and\nlarge industrial furnaces using\nThe Council recommends the\nnatural gas. Devices are in use\nfollowing additional measures\nnow on a limited scale which\nwhich will strengthen the state's\nreduce these emissions by as much\ncontrol strategy and help speed\nas 50 percent.\nthe reduction in air pollution:\nThat steps be taken to control\nThat district hearing boards make\nvapors emitted in connection with\nan affirmative finding that the\nthe transferring of gasoline\napplicant is making the maximum\nfrom the tank truck to the service\neffort to comply with air pollution\nstation and from the service\nregulations before granting\nrenewals of variances.\nstation to the automobile through\nthe use of vapor recirculation\nsystems.\nThat increased supplies of gas\n26\nand low sulphur fuel for the state's\nThe Council recommends:\ncritical air basins be obtained\nand that the proper federal author-\nThe imposition of an aviation fuel\nities be made aware of the\ntax, the proceeds to be used for\nextreme and critical need for such\naircraft noise abatement and nec-\nfuel in these areas.\nessary land acquisition, preferably\nin the area where the tax is\nThat the present tax incentives\ncollected.\nnow applicable to the purchase of\ngaseous fuels and the installation\nThat regulations or legislation be\nof conversion kits for the use of\nadopted which would apply the\ngaseous fuels, which expire in\nsame permit requirements and\n1975, be extended to 1980.\nprocedures to airport expansions\nas now exist for the construction\nof new airports. Such procedures\nE/ NOISE\ninclude provisions for holding of\nhearings and require that all\nLegislation to control airport noise, to\nenvironmental considerations be\ninsure that adequate consideration is\ntaken into account.\ngiven to the environment in connection\nwith new airports and to regulate new\nThat the Department of Education\ndevelopment in the vicinity of an\nand the State College Trustees\nairport has been adopted over the last\nbe directed to investigate all pro-\nthree sessions of the Legislature.\nposed acquisition of lands for\nschool and state college use within\nLegislation was adopted during the\neight miles in each direction along\nlast session aimed at reducing noise\nthe flight corridor of an existing\nfrom motor vehicle exhaust systems,\nor proposed airport, and report\nincluding off-highway vehicles, and\ntheir findings to the Legislature on\nmotor vehicle tires.\nFebruary 1, 1973.\nMajor unresolved problems relate to\nThat alternatives for the determi-\nairport expansion, jet overflights,\nnation of allowable residence\noccupational noise, building insulation,\nproximity to freeways be estab-\nand general community noise.\nlished. These should be: (1)\n27\na 500-foot buffer zone; or (2) a\nventilating, or air conditioning\ndepressed freeway or barrier,\nequipment, or re-radiated noise\nor combination thereof, such that\nfrom fluid flowing in piping.\nthe average A-weighted (A) noise\nlevel contour does not exceed 60\nThat each city and county be re-\ndB(A) and maximum levels do not\nquired to enact an ordinance\nexceed 70 dB(A) at the boundary\nsetting fixed noise level limits,\nof any residential zoning.\nestablishing criteria for consider-\ning noise in connection with zoning\nThat legislation be introduced to\nchanges, and establishing quiet\nreduce the values in the General\nzones within certain park areas.\nIndustrial Safety Orders to a\nmaximum occupational noise level\nThat the basic provisions of SB 692\nof 85 dB(A) for an eight-hour day,\n(1971) requiring the adoption of\nby 1977, using a table of increased\nrules and regulations relating to\nnoise levels for less than eight\nnoise insulation for buildings\nhours of exposure, similar to the\nintended for human occupancy, be\npresent Federal Occupational\nreintroduced in 1972, and be\nSafety and Health Act of 1970 Noise\nchanged to identify the types of\nExposure Limit Table.\nbuildings which come under the\nbill's jurisdiction as \"single and\nThat the Health and Safety Code be\nmulti-family dwelling units,\namended to require that all code\nmotels, hotels, and other resi-\njurisdictions in California add a\ndential buildings.\"\nsection on airborne noise and\nimpact sound isolation in Group H\nThat noise standards be set for\nand I occupancies, based on a\nconstruction equipment, office\nfield performance standard which\nmachinery, and appliances, con-\nshall be no less than the Federal\nsistent with technological and\nHousing Administration's rec-\neconomic feasibility and product\nommended criteria, as well as a\nutility, and that the appropriate\nsection to the mechanical code set-\nstate agency be given the authority\nting a maximum noise level limit\nto certify, or refuse certification\nfor interior noise in any dwelling\nof, those products for sale in\nunit, arising from heating,\nthe State.\n28\nThat sufficient funds be made avail-\nable to the University and State\nColleges to establish and maintain\na curriculum in environmentally-\nrelated acoustics and noise con-\ntrol engineering; and further, that\nthe State encourage and promote\nthe upgrading of skill and knowledge\namong architects, engineers, and\nthe appropriate segments of the\nbuilding trades through increasing\nprofessional standards and by\nsupporting on-the-job programs.\nF/ OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES\nSpecific recommendations on water\nresources, solid waste, pesticides, and\nassessment practices, and other un-\nresolved environmental issues are\npending further Council hearings and\nstudy and will be the subject of in-\ndividual reports to be submitted prior\nto June 30, 1972.\nWhile the Council decided that the ques-\ntion of campaign financing is not within\nthe scope of its legislative charge,\nsome members felt that it is at the\nheart of many environmental problems\nand represents one of the most sig-\nnificant obstacles to the enactment of\neffective measures in this field.\n29\nш/ DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND\nRECOMMENDATIONS\nIII DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nA/ GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION\nA New Organization\nThe Council therefore reaffirms its\nIntroduction\nrecommendation for a strong govern-\nmental organization not only to regu-\nlate pollution but also to provide\nThe Council's February 1971 report\nthe mechanism, at the state and basin\nreflected the conviction that the major\nlevels, to preserve open space, pro-\nvoid in the battle to restore and main-\ntect critical ecological areas, and\ntain a quality environment is the\nredirect, phase, and, where neces-\nstate's lack of a governmental mecha-\nsary, limit growth to a level consis-\nnism capable of dealing with environ-\ntent with appropriate health standards\nmental problems in a comprehensive\nand an attractive environment.\nway.\nThe Council recommends the\ncreation of a State Environmental\nBased on the report and testimony re-\nQuality Board and eight corre-\nceived since, and because this ques-\nsponding Regional Boards, with\ntion was not resolved during the 1971\nwell defined powers and responsi-\nLegislative Session, the Council is\nbilities over water, air, solid\ncompelled to restate the problem in\nwaste, nuclear radiation, noise,\neven stronger terms.\npesticides, forest practices, and\nland use. The State and Regional\nGovernmental organization at the state\nBoards would also be empowered\nand basin levels, developed in a man-\nto review and under certain con-\nner that will properly relate problems\nditions disallow projects of\nof air, water, solid waste, and trans-\nother governmental agencies\nportation with the basic underlying\nhaving significant impact on the\nquestions of land use, urban growth,\nenvironment.\nand population distribution, and oper-\nating within the framework of a state-\nwide Conservation and Development\nResponsibilities\nPlan, remains the most critical unmet\nenvironmental quality need facing\nThe existing and future programs for\nthe State of California.\nthe control of air, noise, water,\n31\nsolid waste, and, at the state level,\ngovernment.\nland use, would be consolidated under\nthe state board and eight regional\nboards, and be administered directly\nOrganization\nby them. The new state and regional\nentities would assume the duties and\nThe State Environmental Quality Board\npowers of the State Office of Planning\nwould consist of seven full-time mem-\nand Research; the State Air Resources\nbers appointed by the Governor for four-\nBoard and County and Regional Air\nyear staggered terms. Each member\nPollution Control Districts; and the\nwould be qualified in the protection,\nState Water Resources Control Board\nmanagement, and improvement of the\nand the nine Regional Water Quality\nenvironment. The state board would\nControl Boards. The state board\nhave jurisdiction over Planning and\nwould have the authority to coordinate\nResearch, Land Use, Environmental\nthe activities of, and review and set\nImpact Review, Environmental Regula-\nregulations for, pesticide use, nuclear\ntion (Noise, Nuclear Radiation, and\nradiation, and forest practices; but\nPesticides), Air Quality, Water Quality,\nline administration and enforcement\nand Solid Waste Management programs.\nwould remain primarily with those\ndepartments now responsible.\nAn alternative approach to the state\nlevel organization (not regional) would\nIn the case of land use, the regional\nbe to confine the state board to rule-\nboards would be empowered to review\nmaking and adjudication, and vest with\nthose projects having regional sig-\nan administrator appointed by the\nnificance, test these projects against\nGovernor the authority to execute policy\nestablished regional environmental\nestablished by the board and to carry\npolicies and objectives, and, if appro-\nout the day-to-day regulatory responsi-\npriate, disallow them or require\nbilities. As state government is\nnecessary modification. Regional\npresently organized, such an adminis-\nboards would also have interim permit\ntrator would most likely be a depart-\nauthority over certain defined areas\nment head operating under the adminis-\nof critical basin-wide or statewide\ntrative coordination of an agency\ninterest. Generally speaking, however,\nsecretary, who in turn sits as a mem-\nday-to-day administration of land use\nber of the Governor's cabinet. It\nmatters would remain with local\nwould be possible, however, to have\n32\nthis department head report directly\ntive to environmental problems.\nto the Governor as does the Director of\nOthers criticized it because they felt\nFinance.\nit would not be responsive government.\nThe Board-Department Head approach\nOne alternative is to have directly\ncould be a workable one as has been\nelected representatives. Unless the\ndemonstrated in the State of Illinois.\ndistricts were very small, however,\nHowever, in order to accomplish the\nseeking such an office would be costly.\nobjectives sought by the Council,\nIf the districts were made smaller,\nthe act creating such an entity would\nto reduce campaign expenses, the\nnecessarily have to provide for the\nboards in an area like the South Coast\nregional agencies and other substantive\nBasin would be too large and cum-\npowers called for in this section.\nbersome to be effective.\nRegional boards made up primarily, if\nOrganization of Regional Boards\nnot entirely, of (or selected by) per-\nsons presently holding office in city or\nIn its 1971 proposal, the Council rec-\ncounty government is a second al-\nommended that the regional boards\nternative. This type of procedure is\nconsist of five full-time members\npresently provided for in the Planning\nappointed by the Governor. Later this\nDistrict Act of 1963, and would be\nwas amended, giving the Legislature\nfavored by local government.\ntwo of the five appointments. The idea\nof a small number of appointed board\nAnother alternative is some combina-\nmembers determining the land use\ntion of membership such as with the\npolicies of, for example, the South\nSan Francisco Bay Conservation\nCoast Basin, in relationship to the mul-\nand Development Commission, which\ntitude of competing economic and\nconsists of about 45 percent local\nsocial considerations, and over ten\nelected officials (or their designees),\nmillion people, does not in retrospect\n30 percent representatives of con-\nappear to be the most desirable\ncerned federal and state agencies, and\napproach. It is criticized by conser-\n25 percent public members appointed\nvationists who fear that the appointing\nby the Governor and the Legislature.\nauthority would have too much con-\ntrol and may not be sufficiently sensi-\nEach of these alternatives has\n33\nadvantages and disadvantages. Any of\nand locations of business centers. The\nthem might be made to work effec-\nproblem, however, is that there now\ntively. In the final analysis, the choice\nexists no organizational, planning, or\nwill probably have to be made on the\npolicy framework for attempting to\nbasis of which is most politically\ninfluence these interrelationships in\nacceptable.\nany kind of comprehensive manner.\nTo fill this void, the proposed Environ-\nLand Use -- An Essential Element of\nmental Quality Board would be re-\nReorganization\nquired to prepare and adopt the State\nConservation and Development Plan,\nLand use is covered in detail in the\nwhich is described in more detail in the\nLand Use and Population section of this\nfollowing section of this report.\nreport. However, it also must be\nrecognized as a critical element in re-\norganizing government to deal with\nReview of Public Projects\nenvironmental problems. Basic deci-\nsions that must be made to maintain\nAll state and local public agencies\nreasonable levels of environmental\nwould be required to submit to the\nquality (primarily land use decisions)\nboard an environmental impact report,\nare being made or influenced by\nin accordance with regulations pre-\nhundreds of governmental agencies at\nscribed by the board, on any major\nall levels. To achieve a desired\nproposed action which could have a sig-\nbalance between environmental quality\nnificant effect on the quality of the\nand social and economic objectives\nenvironment. The board would be\nit is necessary to attempt to deal with\nauthorized to modify or disapprove any\nnumbers and distribution of people\nproposed action which fails to comply\nwithin a given basin. This is dependent\nwith environmental protection re-\non land use decisions. The numbers\nquirements.\nand location of people and industries\ndetermine (or are determined by)\nthe location and size of freeways, de-\nEnvironmental Quality Citizens Council\nsign of public transportation, design\nof water and sewage systems, distribu-\nThe Council would consist of eleven\ntion systems for gas and electricity,\nmembers: seven appointed by the\n34\nGovernor; two by the Assembly\nand the laws that create it can serve as\nSpeaker; and two by the Senate Rules\nthe foundation for the constructive\nCommittee, all of whom would have\nplanning and action so desperately need-\ndemonstrated interest in and know-\ned. The new organization would be\nledge of the protection, management,\nable to plan and regulate in a compre-\nand improvement of California's\nhensive manner on the basis of what\nphysical environment. The Council\nis environmentally sound. It would\nwould report annually to the Governor\nprovide the mechanism for giving en-\nand the Legislature and to the board\nvironmental matters proper standing\non California's environmental problems\nin the decision-making process and\nand the effectiveness of governmental\na new stature and visibility for that\nagencies in solving environmental\npart of government responsible for en-\nquestions.\nvironmental quality. The govern-\nmental changes recommended are an\nessential step toward achieving a\nOther Organizational Recommendations\nlivable balance between man's demands\nand nature's limitations. It is one\nThe Council has made additional rec-\nthat should be taken immediately.\nommendations dealing with the\norganization of state government\nwhich are covered in other sections of\nB/ LAND USE, POPULATION, AND\nthe report. Specifically, these call\nTRANSPORTATION\nfor creation of a Commission on Energy\nConservation and Power Plant Siting\n(Energy Use section), and a Department\nIntroduction\nof Transportation (Land Use, Popu-\nlation, and Transportation section).\nLand is our most basic resource.\nUpon it we build our networks of human\nactivities. It provides our major\nWhat Would Be Different?\nsources of food, water, fiber, miner-\nals, and other needs to sustain and en-\nThe Council fully recognizes that or-\nhance human existence. And the richly\nganization alone will not resolve\nvariegated landscape, created by\nthe state's environmental problems.\nnatural processes over eons of time,\nHowever, the appropriate organization\nprovides us beauty and inspiration.\n35\nGiven the numbers of people who now\nthe demands of a burgeoning population,\npopulate our planet, it is self-evident\nwe have sprawled all over the country-\nthat the use we make of our land is\nside, virtually oblivious to the con-\ncritical to the well-being of society.\nstraints of the environment or the ame-\nIn simple terms, the allocation of land\nnities which make the State unique;\nresources is based on the needs and\nand, in the process, we have designed\ndemands of society to provide for sus-\nfor ourselves inefficient and some-\ntenance, shelter, circulation, and\ntimes untenable living patterns. As\nservices. These demands predicate a\npart of the charge of the Council we\ncomplex fabric of physical uses to\nwill in this section examine the land\nwhich land is put. The character of\nproblems of California and their\nthis fabric determines to a large degree\ncauses, and recommend a set of pro-\nthe quality of human environment.\ngrams and policies designed to re-\nThe density of urban metropolises, the\nsolve those problems.\nconvenience with which we move\naround in this fabric, our perception\nof its aesthetic qualities, our con-\nRapid Growth The Basic Cause\ntinued ability to productively utilize\nnatural resources, and indeed, our\nAt the root of California's environ-\noverall health and welfare are depen-\nmental problems, particularly with re-\ndent in part on our ability to effectively\nspect to land use, is the rapid rate of\nintegrate the patterns of human exis-\npopulation increase that the State\ntence with the character of the land.\nhas experienced ever since the Gold\nRush. The growth rate in California\nOver the past three years it has\nhas consistently throughout the\nbecome clearly evident to the Council,\nTwentieth Century been over twice that\nin its process of examining California's\nof the rest of the United States. In\nenvironmental problems, that the\n1940 the population was just under\nState as a whole has failed both to plan\nseven million. In 1960, following the\nadequately and to carry out plans for\ngreat boom of the 1950's, Californians\naccommodating its growth through the\nnumbered fifteen million. The state\nwise allocation of land resources.\npopulation now is in the vicinity of\nIn fact, California has squandered its\ntwenty million people, and by 1980 it\nland resources in a grossly negligent\nhas been forecast that it will rise to\nfashion. In our attempts to meet\napproximately twenty-six million.\n36\nConservation and Development Plan\ninterest; and power plant siting.\nThe demand placed on California's\nBased on the state plan, each\nresources by an increasing population\nregional board would be required\nhas resulted in the degradation of its\nto adopt by January 1, 1977,\nenvironment. The State must play\nwith approval of the state board, a\na new and strong role in land use, ur-\nregional conservation and devel-\nban growth, and population distribution\nopment plan which would include,\nby providing the policies and common\nin addition to those elements cited\nframework for determining how its\nabove, certain specified ele-\nresources are to be allocated.\nments appropriate to the region.\nBased on the regional plan,\nThe Council recommends that the\ncities and counties would be re-\nproposed Environmental Quality\nquired to adopt by January 1, 1978,\nBoard be required to adopt and\nwith approval of their regional\npresent to the Legislature by\nboard, a local conservation and\nJanuary 1, 1976, a comprehensive,\ndevelopment plan.\ncoordinated, and enforceable\nplan and management program for\nLocal planning and zoning would\nthe orderly long-range conser-\ncontinue essentially as at present.\nvation and development of\nHowever, under the Act, no city\nCalifornia's natural resources,\nor county would enforce any zoning\nknown as the California Conserva-\nordinance, amendment, or other\ntion and Development Plan. In-\nform of similar regulation which is\ndividual plan elements would\nnot consistent with the adopted\ninclude environmental goals and\nlocal conservation and development\npolicy (including a population\nplans.\ngrowth and distribution policy);\nland use; basin carrying capacity;\nUntil such time as the Legislature\nenvironmental quality (waste\nhas taken final action on the\ncontrol); coastal zone; transpor-\nCalifornia Conservation and Devel-\ntation; parks and open space;\nopment Plan, proposed major\nnatural resources conservation;\ndevelopments involving significant\ncritical historical, scenic, and\nand irreversible environmental\nwildlife habitat areas of statewide\nchanges in the coastal zone and\n37\ncertain rural areas of unique\nproblems must necessarily involve a\nstatewide value would, in accor-\ncommitment to alleviate the pressures\ndance with specified criteria, be\nof uncontrolled growth.\nsubject to an interim permit\nprocedure administered by the\nThis has been borne out by any number\nstate or regional boards.\nof responsible studies on the question,\nthe most recent of which, by the\nAssembly Science and Technology\nPopulation Growth and Distribution\nAdvisory Council, states in part:\nComplicating the problem of numbers\n\"California's growth has been\nof people is their distribution. Some\ncharacterized by an ever larger\n80 percent of all Californians live\nproportion of population living\nin the San Francisco Bay Region and\nwithin a few metropolitan areas.\nthe Los Angeles Basin. Over 90\nRecent urban expansion has taken\npercent of the people live in metropol-\nplace in sprawling, suburban\nitan areas. If present trends con-\nfringes of these areas. The urban\ntinue, most of California's future pop-\nsettlement pattern has occurred\nulation will continue to be channeled\nlargely through the interplay of\ninto our present urban areas.\neconomic forces, and not through\nconscious public policies aimed\nThe pressures generated by the phe-\nat influencing the rate and charac-\nnomenal growth rate in California\nter of new urban development.\nhave been sufficient to thwart construc-\nThe present pattern of disorga-\ntive attempts to accommodate it within\nnized urban sprawl in California:\nthe context of sound planning and\n(1) is inefficient and costly in\nenvironmental principles. Despite\nterms of public services; (2) is\nstepped-up efforts to correct the prob-\ndull, unattractive, and does not\nlems, we continue to lose ground in\npromote stable neighborhood\nthe fight to maintain the quality of our\npatterns; (3) wastes land and\nphysical environment, let alone in\nother resources; and (4) encour-\nour efforts to meet the challenge of\nages unproductive land speculation.\nimproving it. The Council is convinced\nCalifornians are becoming in-\nthat any dedicated attempt to resolve\ncreasingly dissatisfied with the\nour land use and other environmental\nquality of urban life at the same\n38\ntime that accessibility to open\ntional facilities, the location of\nspace and recreation areas for ur-\npower plants, the development of\nban residents is decreasing.\nresource management policies,\nThese conditions will not be solved\nand the conduct of other activities\nunless population growth is\nshould be carried out in a way\nreduced.\nwhich will influence population\ngrowth and distribution; and further\nThe development and implementation of\nthat Environmental Impact State-\nstate, regional, and local conserva-\nments prepared in connection with\ntion and development plans would re-\nvarious projects and activities\nquire the adoption of a comprehensive\nof federal, state, and local agen-\npolicy to guide to what degree and\ncies should be expanded to include\nin what locations growth should occur.\na description as to their impact\non population growth and\nThe Council recommends that\ndistribution.\nstate government formulate and\nadopt explicit population growth\nand distribution policy aimed at\nThe Council noted in its 1971 progress\nachieving desirable long-term\nreport that the question of population\nsocial, economic, and environmen-\ndistribution is national in scale and\ntal goals for California. In the\nthat urban growth and population influx\nformulation of such a policy each\nmust be encouraged in those states\nmajor unit of state government,\nwhere the proper balance between man\nparticularly those concerned with\nand nature can still be accommodated.\ntransportation, resources,\nDuring World War II, contracts were\nhousing, employment, and educa-\ndistributed throughout the country\ntion, should be directed to de-\nto reduce vulnerability to enemy attack.\ntermine the impact of present pop-\nNow we must employ the same tactics\nulation trends on their activities\nto protect large portions of this na-\nand the impact of their activities\ntion from a different kind of threat.\non population distribution.\nThe federal government should be urged\nto adopt policies consistent with state\nState actions, with respect to the\npopulation objectives and develop a\nconstruction of public works\nnational population growth and distribu-\nprojects, the placement of educa-\ntion policy.\n39\nBasin Carrying Capacity\nThe Council realizes that the con-\ncept of a human carrying capacity,\nThe major criteria in the development\nat least as applied to a particular\nof a statewide population growth and\nregion, does not entail the\ndistribution policy should be the natural\ndesignation of an unchanging and\ncarrying capacities of the state's\nabsolute value. As our technological\nbasins.\ncapabilities increase -- as hopefully\nwe begin to alleviate our air\nThe Council recommends that\npollution crisis, for example -- - the\nstate government undertake to de-\ncarrying capacity in a given area\ntermine the maximum carrying\nmay increase. Moreover, the\ncapacity for each region, based on\ndetermination of a carrying capacity\nthe best of available information\ndepends upon a multitude of\nrelating to air, water, land, and\nvarialbes, the interaction of many\nother resources which are critical\nof which are not completely under-\nto public health and environ-\nstood, and initial conclusions may\nmental protection, and that the\nnecessarily tend to be arbitrary.\nEnvironmental Goals and Policy\nIt does, however, seem that up to\nReport developed pursuant to\nthis point continuing concentration\nSection 65041 of the Government\nof population in our most heavily\nCode include: (1) the estimated\nurbanized regions has caused deple-\ncarrying capacity, based on those\ntion of vital resources beyond the\nfactors mentioned above, of the\ncapacity of natural processes to\nstate's most critical basins; (2)\nrestore them. In some instances the\na discussion of where and how\ntechnical methods available now or\nmuch future growth should occur\nin the foreseeable future are insuffi-\nin the state's different regions,\ncient to restore levels of quality\nwith particular emphasis on the\nwhich will assure freedom from in-\ncoastal urban corridor between\njury to health. So long as the tech-\nSanta Rosa and San Diego; and (3)\nnical methods remain unavailable,\nthose alternative patterns of\nthe natural carrying capacities\nregional development which should\nof these urbanized regions must be\nbe encouraged, including \"new\nregarded as the principal criteria\ntowns\" and the expansion of existing\nin the establishment of standards for\nsmaller communities.\nthe maintenance of public health.\n40\nImmediate Strengthening of State Role\n(2) be given the authority to de-\nin Land Use\nvelop criteria for determining the\nadequacy of local and regional\nThe preparation of a California Conser-\nplans; (3) be directed to begin\nvation and Development Plan, to-\nimmediately the preparation of a\ngether with a population growth and\nstate population growth and\ndistribution policy and basin carrying\ndistribution policy; (4) be di-\ncapacity studies, is an essential task\nrected to begin basin carrying\nwhich should be started as soon as\ncapacity studies; and (5) be given\npossible. The Council recognizes,\nthe additional funding needed to\nhowever, that the creation of the Envi-\ncarry out these and other tasks.\nronmental Quality Board and the new\nland use planning role for state govern-\nWhere appropriate, this new policy\nment proposed herein will take a\ndirection should be made a part of the\ncertain period of time to become real-\nEnvironmental Goals and Policy\nity. On the other hand, the Office of\nReport now being prepared by that\nPlanning and Research, which would\noffice.\nlater come under the administra-\ntive jurisdiction of the proposed board,\nis presently functioning and could\nLoss of Prime Agricultural Land\nbegin, during the interim period, to\nassume the strong land use program\nThe accelerating loss of our best agri-\nproposed by the Council. To do\ncultural lands to urban development\nthis stronger financial commitment\nis an outstanding example of unwise\nand specific new direction will need to\nland use in California. The State loses\nbe given it.\n375 acres of farmland a day to urban-\nization. If this rate were to remain\nThe Council recommends that the\nconstant, half of the state's productive\nOffice of Planning and Research:\nfarmland would be destroyed in thirty\n(1) be directed to begin prepa-\nyears, and if it continues to accelerate\nration of the California Conserva-\nas in past years, 80 percent would\ntion and Development Plan\nbe gone.\ncalled for herein, and to provide\nfor adequate public participation\nAlthough there is no immediate threat\nin the preparation of same;\nof food shortages in the United States,\n41\nthere is no guarantee that continued\nland, but should pay a tax in accor-\nincreases in crop productivity and\ndance with the value given by its use.\nirrigable land acreage will indefinitely\nFurther, when lands are assessed on\ncounterbalance the loss of agricul-\nthe speculation that their use will\ntural land. There is a diminishing\nchange to urban purposes, government\namount of additional land which can be\nis incurring a de facto obligation to\nconverted to agricultural use in\npermit the change. Zoning to the con-\nCalifornia, and that use is dependent\ntrary will ultimately be of no avail.\nupon massive water projects for which\nthere is growing concern as to en-\nThe basic problem is that much of the\nvironmental side effects.\nland that should be reserved for\nagriculture or that needs protection to\npreserve the aesthetic and recrea-\nAssessment Practices\ntional qualities of California is in pri-\nvate ownership. So long as these lands\nOne public policy which tends to expe-\ncontinue to be taxed on the basis of\ndite the urbanization of agricultural\n\"market value\", on the speculation\nland has to do with assessment prac-\nthat they will change to an urban use,\ntices. Although the Land Conservation\ngovernment is recognizing the right of\nAct of 1965 (the Williamson Act) was\nthe owners of that land to change its\ndesigned to offer relief in this area, it\nuse and indeed encourages them to do\nhas had little if any impact. It is\nso. No arm of government can be\nthe policy now to assess land on the\neffective in resolving problems such as\nspeculation that its use will change\nthis until the basic public policies\nfrom agricultural or other usage to\nare corrected.\nurban usage. And urban usage is mis-\ntakenly called the \"highest and best\nThe Council recommends that it be\nuse\". The basic purpose of the ad\nthe public policy of the State of\nvalorem tax on land is to provide for\nCalifornia that agricultural usage,\npeople-oriented governmental services.\nthe planting and growing of crops,\nAgriculture is a use of land that in-\nbe recognized as the highest and\nvolves very sparse populations, as do\nbest use of prime agricultural\nessentially all uses other than urban.\nland, and that the assessed valua-\nThose lands should not, then, pay the\ntion of such land for ad valorem\nsame tax as does densely populated\ntax purposes be based on the value\n42\nits use gives it. This is the land,\npresent federal, state, and local\nin the most part, that is classed as\npolicies which fund flood control\nrecent alluvium and as basin land.\nprojects at general public expense\nSuch recognition, duly implemented,\nand thereby provide a public sub-\nwould serve to create the badly\nsidy for the urbanization of flood\nneeded \"open space\" and would help\nplains (which are usually prime\nto preserve the economic viability\nagricultural lands), be revised so\nof California.\nthat the landowners benefitted\nincur a more reasonable portion\nof the costs of such facilities.\nFlood Control Policies\nFlood control policies in particular\nOpen Space Program\ngreatly encourage urban sprawl and con-\ntinued excessive population growth at\nThe concept of open space includes\nthe expense of prime agricultural land.\nthree basic components. First, there\nFlood control is treated as a nonre-\nis positive open space those lands\nimbursable cost at the federal, state,\nwith a positive value to society which\nand local levels. In other words, all\nshould be preserved for affirmative\npeople share in the cost of flood con-\nreasons dealing with th e characteris-\ntrol, whether or not they live on lands\ntics of the land itself. Examples\nwhere there is an undue flood hazard.\ninclude resource production and con-\nAnd, it so happens in California that the\nservation areas such as forest land,\nvalley and basin lands, the flood hazard\nagricultural land, watersheds, estu-\nlands, are also the prime agricultural\naries, wildlife refuges, unique\nlands. Many of today's problems of\ngeologic areas, historic and cultural\nurban sprawl would be abruptly halted\nsites. recreation land, and scenic\nby a reversal of this public policy.\nareas. On the other hand, negative\nInformation is available now for much\nopen space includes those lands such\nof the State to delineate precisely\nas earthquake zones, flood plains,\nthe lands subject to flooding: and infor-\nand landslide areas which are danger-\nmation can be obtained for those lands\nous to use for any urban purpose.\nnot yet SO surveyed.\nThirdly, open space can function as a\ngreenbelt a band of open space\nThe Council recommends that\nnormally surrounding an urban area\n43\nbut which also may divide portions of\n\"b) That discouraging premature\na greater metropolitan region. It\nand unnecessary conversion of\noffers a means of defining a community\nopen space land to urban uses is a\nand serves to direct the growth of a\nmatter of public interest and\ncity.\nwill be of benefit to urban dwellers\nbecause it will discourage non-\nThe Council is convinced that a well-\ncontiguous development patterns\ndesigned open space program can be a\nwhich unnecessarily increase the\nkey to resolving major land use con-\ncosts of community services\nflicts. If implemented with vigor, it\nto community residents. \"\ncould preserve lands needed to supply\nour resource needs, insure the main-\ntenance of public safety by prevent-\nThe State has provided the rudiments\ning the development of geologically\nof an open space preservation pro-\nhazardous areas, help meet our huge\ngram in the form of the Land Conser-\nrecreational demands, halt urban\nvation Act of 1965 (the Williamson\nsprawl, provide direction for urban\nAct), which involves a contractual\ngrowth, and serve to more easily im-\nagreement between the county and the\nplement sound planning principles.\nlandowner whereby the latter agrees\nnot to develop his property for\nThe State of California has recognized\nurban uses in return for lower taxes.\nthe importance of open space in\nIt should be emphasized, however,\nSection 65561 of the Government Code,\nthat this program is voluntary and that\nwhich states as part of the legislative\nmany property owners whose land is\nfindings:\nin the path of development have chosen\nto avoid such agreements.\n\"a) That the preservation of open\nspace land is necessary not only\nThe State has also required that local\nfor the maintenance of the economy\ngovernments include an open space\nof the State, but also for the\nelement in their general plans, that\nassurance of the continued avail-\nthis element be supported by an imple-\nability of land for the production of\nmentation program, and that all\nfood and fiber, for the enjoyment\nactions of the city or county concern-\nof scenic beauty, for recreation,\ning open space lands be consistent\nand for the use of natural resources.\nwith the plan.\n44\nAlthough these laws are steps in the\na functional element of the\nright direction, they cannot be regarded\nCalifornia Conservation and\nas sufficient to provide for our open\nDevelopment Plan and to augment\nspace needs. We cannot expect most\nand give substance to the state\nlandowners at the rural-urban fringe to\npopulation growth and distribution\nvoluntarily forego the potential eco-\npolicy. It should classify state\nnomic gain of urbanization in favor of\nlands into open space categories,\nthe Williamson Act, nor can we\nindicate those areas which should\nexpect local governments to develop\nremain as open space, designate\nsuitable open space programs on their\nlands sufficiently important to\nown. The Council believes that a\nthe State to require direct and\nmuch greater level of involvement by\nimmediate action to protect or pre-\nthe State is necessary.\nserve them, and outline a pro-\ngram and financial requirements\nnecessary to implement the plan.\nThe State Open Space Plan should\nThe Council recommends:\nalso be designed to serve as a\nguide in the preparation of basin\nThat an open space policy be in-\nplans.\ncorporated into the State En-\nvironmental Goals and Policy\nReport. This policy would define\nThe Council is aware that open space\nthe desirable objectives which\npreservation does not necessarily\nshould guide an open space pro-\nequate with land acquisition. While it\ngram, delineate the areas of\nis highly desirable to expand efforts\nresponsibility at different levels\nto purchase land which has great value\nof government, outline the broad\nas open space, the use of the police\ncategories of land use which\npower, principally zoning powers, will\nshould be preserved, and estab-\nundoubtedly form the bulwark of open\nlish priorities for open space\nspace regulation. Unfortunately, zoning\npreservation.\nhas a rather poor record as a method\nof land use control. It is the feeling of\nThat the Office of Planning and\nthe Council, however, that the strong\nResearch prepare by January 1974\nwording of the legislation requiring\na State Open Space Plan to become\nopen space elements, to wit:\n45\nAny action by a county or city\nspace, threatened wildlife habitats,\nmust be consistent with\nand important scenic and his-\nthe local open space plan\ntoric areas of statewide signifi-\nNo building permit may be\ncance. This measure should also\nissued, no subdivision map\nprovide for grants to regional\napproved, and no open space zon-\nand local agencies to assist in\ning ordinance adopted unless\ncarrying out the purposes of a\nthe proposed construction, sub-\nstatewide open space policy.\ndivision, or ordinance is con-\nsistent with local open space plan\nOther Possible Methods of Funding\n\" Every city or county, by\nOpen Space\nJanuary 1, 1973, shall adopt an\nopen space zoning ordinance. \"\nThere is a practical limit to the\ngeneral obligation bond approach to\nprovides sufficient restraints on local\nfinancing open space acquisition. Other\nagencies that zoning can be used as\nmethods need to be explored to supple-\nan efficient tool for implementing open\nment this basic source. Such alterna-\nspace plans, particularly if assess-\ntives as the unearned increment tax,\nment practices are also changed.\na one-time change-in-use tax, and a\nregional or statewide property transfer\ntax are some that have been pro-\nBond Funding Needed\nposed. The question of open space\nrequirements, and methods for financ-\nHowever, if a statewide open space\ning acquisition of same, have been\nprogram is to be properly implemented,\nthe subject of studies by both the\nmassive acquisition of private lands\nLegislature and the Administration.\nat the expense of the general taxpayer\nThe 1970 report of the Joint Commit-\nwill be necessary.\ntee on Open Space is perhaps the\nmost pertinent. This same committee\nThe Council recommends that a\nwill report again to the Legislature\nbond issue in the amount of $250-\nduring the current session and antici-\nmillion be placed on the November\npates covering in more detail the\n1972 ballot to provide funds for\ncritical question of open space funding.\nthe acquisition of needed open\n46\nTransportation -- Providing a Balance\nhas had a single-purpose assignment\nin highway construction. In the\nIt is well known that the automobile is\nSan Francisco Bay Area, there are at\nthe major source of air pollution in\nleast 15 overlapping agencies in\nthe State. Although steps are currently\naddition to individual city and county\nbeing taken to minimize this condition,\ngovernments, all with some responsi-\nit is projected that in the state's most\nbility for transportation. The exis-\ncritical air basins motor vehicle\ntence of many single-mode agencies\nusage will have to be substantially re-\nhampers the effective integration of\nduced if national ambient air quality\ntransportation planning with other\nstandards are to be equalled or even\ncommunity planning and hinders coor-\nclosely approximated.\ndination between the various modes.\nRegional planning agencies which in\nAnd there are still further problems\ntheory are responsible for developing\ncaused by reliance on the automobile.\narea-wide transportation plans as\nTravel demands in some of the\npart of their comprehensive planning\nmajor corridors may soon exceed the\nprocess have been largely ineffective\npractical capabilities of the present\ndue to a lack of funds to perform\nhighway program. Traffic projections\ntransportation planning and a lack of\nin ten of the state's urban corridors,\nauthority to implement plans they\nfour in San Francisco and six in\nmight develop.\nLos Angeles, indicate that as many as\n14 to 22 freeway lanes may eventually\nThe Council recommends that a\nbe needed. Present plans call for\nDepartment of Transportation\nno more than 12. If even portions of\nbe created within the Business and\nthe projected future demand are to\nTransportation Agency, and that\nbe met, alternative means of moving\nthis department, in coordination\npeople must be developed or we face\nwith and subject to the approval of\na choking off of our cities.\nthe proposed Environmental Quality\nBoard, develop a comprehensive\nCurrently transportation investment\nstate master transportation\ndecisions are made by independent\nplan for California, analyzing all\nsingle-mode agencies or special dis-\nmodes of transportation, with\ntricts at the state, regional, and local\nprimary emphasis on the develop-\nlevels. The Division of Highways\nment of integrated mass transit\n47\nsystems for the major metropol-\ncomprehensive transportation planning\nitan areas, such plan to become a\nat the state and local levels and calls\npart of the California Conservation\nfor the Secretary for Business and\nand Development Plan.\nTransportation to take a more active\nrole in public transportation through\nTimely action is clearly required if\nthe promulgation of rules and guide-\nCalifornia is to meet successfully\nlines for the use of local transportation\nthese transportation challenges and\nfunds provided by the bill. As a re-\nremain a leader among the states in\nsult, SB 325 provides both a require-\ndeveloping an efficient transportation\nment and to some extent the means\nsystem. Several other states,\nfor the State to become more actively\nNew York, New Jersey, Maryland, and\ninvolved in multi-modal transportation\nMassachusetts, for example, which\nplanning, transportation research\nare facing similar problems have al-\nand development programs, and secur-\nready reorganized their transportation\ning federal funds for needed trans-\nagencies and have assigned to them\nportation facilities. However, far\nvarying degrees of responsibility for\nmore funding is required.\nconducting statewide transportation\nplanning for all modes. Failure to do\nThe Council recommends that\nso in California will almost certainly\nadditional funding be made avail-\nresult in further deterioration of the\nable to mass transit, giving\nenvironment as well as in the quality of\nconsideration to a variety of fund-\ntransportation services in the State,\ning sources, including gasoline\nparticularly in the urban areas.\ntaxes, excise taxes on automobiles,\nand taxes on the increased value\nof property resulting from develop-\nMore State Involvement - Increased\nment of mass transit facilities.\nFunding\nThe recent passage of SB 325 (Chapter\nRural Development\n1400, Statutes of 1971) makes the\nconsideration of an integrated trans-\nCalifornia's land use problems unfor-\nporation organization especially timely.\ntunately are not restricted to urban\nThis legislation provides approximately\ngrowth corridors. During the past\n$150-million in new funds to support\ndecade a great land boom has originated\n48\nin the more remote rural areas of the\naccelerated erosion and sedimentation,\nState as the vacation home industry\nloss of vegetative cover, polluted\nhas gained momentum. With added\nwater, loss of fish and wildlife, over-\nleisure time, rising incomes and living\nuse and loss of recreational areas,\nstandards, more adults over age 60,\ndiminished surface water, reduced\nmore and better roads giving access to\ngroundwater recharge, reduced stor-\nrecreational areas, and more dis-\nage capacities in reservoirs, in-\nsatisfaction with the frustrations of\ncreased flood hazard, diminished\nurban living, there has been an inevit-\ngrazing and timber lands, scarred\nable gravitation to vacation homes.\nlandscape, greater fire hazard, sev-\nIn 1971, one out of every ten new hous-\nered access to public lands, streams\ning starts in the United States was for\nand lakes, and intensified air pollu-\na vacation home. Since 1957, land\ntion as being some of the more signifi-\nprojects in California have been\ncant detrimental impacts.\napproved totalling 172, 497 lots on\n341, 373 acres! It has been estimated\nLast year the Legislature passed three\nthat in several northern California\nmeasures which it is hoped will insure\ncounties existing lots could accommo-\nmore adequate consideration of the\ndate the established growth rate in\nenvironment by local government and\nthose counties for the next one hundred\nprovide better information on the\nto three hundred years. However,\nfinancial pitfalls of the premature sub-\nbecause the build-out rate (number of\ndivisions to the prospective buyer.\nhouses built in proportion to lots sold)\nis very low between one and three\nAB 1300 (Chapter 1399) extends to\npercent large tracts of land\nfourteen days the time period within\nthroughout the State are virtual ghost\nwhich a buyer can rescind on an\ncities, with networks of streets and\nexecuted contract for purchase of a\nblocks of cleared and houseless lots\nlot within a land project.\nsitting in the middle of nowhere.\nIn the past little attention has been\ngiven to the potential harmful environ-\n1*\n\"Environmental Impact of\nmental effects of the premature sub-\nUrbanization on the Foothill and\ndivision. A recent report of the\nMountainous Lands of California,\"\nDepartment of Conservation 1* cited\nNovember 1971.\n49\nAB 1301 (Chapter 1446) provides that\nShort of that, however, additional\nno city or county shall approve a\nmeasures regarding \"finding of need\"\nsubdivision map unless it is consistent\nand strengthening local plans and\nwith the general or specific plans of\nordinances can and should be taken\nthe city or county, and that no city or\npromptly.\ncounty shall approve a land project\nunless a specific plan has been adopted\nThe Council recommends:\nfor the area to be covered by such\nproject and unless such project is con-\nLegislation that would require as\nsistent with the adopted specific plan.\na condition for approval of a\nAB 1301 also expands the grounds on\nland project as defined in Section\nwhich land projects and subdivisions\n11000. 5 of the Business and\nshall be denied to include \"substantial\nProfessions Code, that the local\nenvironmental damage\". It further\nagency make a finding based on\nprovides that all city and county ordi-\nthe \"build-out\" rate in the vicinity,\nnances shall be consistent with an\nthe number of lots being offered\nadopted general plan by January 1, 1973.\nfor resale, and other market\nindicators, that there is a need\nAB 1302 (Chapter 1327) provides that\nfor the project. Certainly if only\nthe Office of Intergovernmental Manage-\n200 homes had been built over a\nment shall serve as a clearinghouse\nsix-year period in a county where\nfor providing state expertise to cities\nthe subdivision of some 15, 000\nand counties requesting such service\nlots had been approved, the need\nin connection with a subdivision or land\ncould be legitimately questioned\nproject.\nand a finding made to that effect.\nThe above legislation imposed new\nThat the Office of Planning and\nrequirements on local government and\nResearch develop criteria for de-\nprovided improved tools for dealing\ntermining the adequacy of city\nwith premature or second home sub-\nand county general plans and that\ndivisions in rural areas. The situation\nappropriate procedures be devel-\nwould be further improved by bring-\noped (which might include the with-\ning certain of these areas under the\nholding of certain state subventions\ninterim permit control as proposed in\nto local government) to insure\nthe Council's first recommendation:\nsuch criteria are adhered to.\n50\nThat cities and counties be re-\nthe open space and other amenities\nquired to adopt adequate grading\nthat must be replaced.\n(including maximum slopes) and\nerosion and sedimentation control\nordinances to apply to all develop-\nCalifornia's Disappearing Coast\nment. Since a significant number\nof lots are sold in rural areas\nFor the state's fourteen million resi-\nwhich do not come under the Sub-\ndents living within one hour of the\ndivision Map Act, cities and\ncoast, it has unparalleled recreational\ncounties should also be required\nsignificance. But of the 1, 272 miles\nto adopt minor subdivision ordi-\nof shoreline, a little over 400 miles\nnances in order that all division of\nis in public ownership, of which\nland, or \"lot splitting\" can be\nonly about 300 miles are available for\nregulated.\nactual public recreational use.\nThat cities and counties be given\nThe same features which contribute to\nthe authority to review all sub-\nthe uniqueness of our coast also make\ndivisions approved prior to the\nit very desirable for development,\nSubdivision Map Act, and, where\nand particularly in the South Coast,\nlittle or no development has\nwhere the pressure to \"build, build,\noccurred, revert the unused lots\nbuild\" has been tremendous. Nor is\nto acreage, as provided for by\nthe threat restricted to Southern\nChapter 4, Part 2, Division 4, of\nCalifornia. In the north, second home\nthe Business and Professions Code.\nrecreational subdivisions are prolif-\nerating along the accessible parts of\nAB 1304, which did not pass the 1971\nthe coast. In one 50-mile stretch\nLegislature, would have authorized\nbetween Dillon Beach in Marin County\ncounties to impose a tax on the privi-\nand Del Mar Point in Sonoma County,\nlege to subdivide land at the rate of\n33 miles are occupied by subdivisions\n5 percent of full market value of prop-\nwithout even minimum public access\nerty within a land project sold to\nbeyond mean high tide. In the Half\nanother person. This concept should\nMoon Bay area of San Mateo County,\nbe pursued not only because of the\ndevelopers are poised to suburbanize\ncost that must be incurred to service\nmost of the coast awaiting only\nthese developments but because of\nthe provision of domestic water.\n51\nSkirmishes and outright battles between\nthe environmental integrity of the\nenvironmentalists and developers and\ncoast.\nother powerful private interests,\npublic utilities, single-purpose govern-\nThe Council has attempted to deal with\nmental agencies, and, ironically, en-\nthe coastal zone by bringing it within\nvironmental regulatory agencies,\nthe interim permit jurisdiction of the\nhave become commonplace in commu-\nproposed State and Regional Environ-\nnities along the entire coast. A\nmental Quality Boards. The Council\nrandom listing includes a proposal to\nrecognizes, however, that a govern-\ndredge gravel from the mouth of the\nmental mechanism to protect the coast-\nRussion River at Jenner, proposed\nline is long overdue and must stand\nhigh density development on prime\non its own in the event the creation of\nagricultural flood plains at the mouth\nthe State and Regional Environmental\nof the Carmel River, large growth-\nQuality Boards does not become a\npromoting sewage treatment plants at\nreality this year. It is for this reason\nBodega and Malibu, coastal freeways\nthat the Council will strongly support\nnear Eureka, Malibu, Santa Cruz,\nlegislation for the creation of a separ-\nand Santa Barbara, and proposed nu-\nate entity to develop a coordinated plan\nclear power plants at Bodega Head,\nfor the coastal zone and to exercise\nPoint Arena, and Davenport. Suffice\ninterim permit authority while the plan\nit to say that with ever increasing\nis under preparation.\nmomentum a battle is being waged on\nmany individual fronts to protect the\nIt should be understood, however, that\nenvironmental qualitites of the coast\nsuch an approach is temporary,\nfrom the onslaught of progress.\nnecessitated only by the immediate\nthreat of great irreversible damage to\nGiven the relentless pressure of devel-\na unique and limited resource, and\nopment focused on the limited land area\nthat at the appropriate time it would be\nin the coastal zone, no immediate\nintegrated into a broader framework\nmeasure of success can be expected\nfor dealing with land use control.\nwithin the currently existing system of\nfragmented and undirected authority.\nIt is clear that immediate and positive\nGeologic Hazards\naction is necessary to forestall\nfurther despoliation and preserve\nRapid urbanization of the State\n52\nhas often ignored the obvious threats to\nCode, which specifies that no govern-\nlife and property -- flood, earthquake,\ning body of a city or county shall\nand landslide. Legislation has been\napprove a tentative or final subdivision\naddressed to these problems, but fur-\nmap if it is found that the site is not\nther steps need to be taken to strengthen\nphysically suitable for the proposed\nthe applicable provisions and to insure\ntype of development. It is the hope of\nthat they are properly implemented.\nthe Council that this provision will\nenforce adequate consideration of geo-\nThe Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain Manage-\nlogic and soil characteristics with\nment Act of 1965 presently requires\nrespect to landslides prior to the de-\nthat flood plain regulations be adopted\nvelopment of questionable areas.\nby local agencies only when a federal\nThere is, however, a need to provide\nflood control project report has been\nlocal government with assistance in\ncompleted, and that such regulation\nevaluating such matters.\nneed pertain only to the design floodway\nthat portion of the flood plain which\nThe Council recommends that, in\nis needed to provide for the construction\norder to provide a better per-\nof a flood control project. This Act\nspective for local government, the\nneeds to be strengthened considerably.\nappropriate state departments,\ncoordinated by the Resources\nThe Council recommends that the\nAgency, be directed to prepare\nLegislature expand the provisions\ncriteria for the use of local agen-\nof the Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain\ncies in determining the sufficiency\nManagement Act to require that all\nof soil and geologic conditions to\nlands which have been or may be\naccommodate development with\ninundated by floodwaters be subject\na minimum landslide hazard and\nto flood plain regulation, irre-\nestablish procedures for adherence\nspective of the existence of any\nto these criteria.\nfederal flood control project report,\nand that those uses which are not\nWith the passage of SB 351 (Chapter 150,\ncompatible with flood plain lands be\nStatutes of 1971), local jurisdictions\nSO defined as part of the Act.\nare required to include a seismic ele-\nment in their general plans. However,\nThe Legislature last year added Section\nthere is very little agreement as to\n11549. 5 to the Business and Professions\nwhat constitutes an acceptable\n53\nearthquake risk, and thus a widely\ncontained in the Environmental\ndivergent range of approaches to seis-\nGoals and Policy Report, that the\nmic safety regulations. The Council\ncontinued development of geolog-\non Intergovernmental Relations is\nically unstable land constitutes\npresently developing two demonstration\na threat to the citizens of Calif-\nprojects designed to formulate guide-\nornia, and hence should be pro-\nlines for the preparation of the seismic\nhibited. In addition, guidelines\nsafety element. The Division of Mines\nand earthquakes should also be in-\nand Geology, State Department of\ncorporated as part of the Environ-\nConservation, which has already done\nmental Goals and Policy Report.\nconsiderable work in this area, in-\ncluding a recently completed Master\nPlan for Urban Geology, will provide\nThe State's Land Use Role\nassistance. These efforts, strength-\nened by the recently created Governor's\nIn 1959 the Legislature created the\nEarthquake Council, give the State an\nState Planning Office, which was\nexcellent opportunity to give strong\ncharge with the responsibility to \"pre-\ndirection to local government in this\npare, maintain, and regularly review\nimportant area.\nand revise a comprehensive long\nrange general plan for the physical\nThe Council recommends:\ngrowth and development of the State\".\nTen years and four million dollars\nThat the guidelines now being pre-\nlater, the office produced the Calif-\npared by the Council on Inter-\nornia State Development Plan Program,\ngovernmental Relations for the\nwhich presented a wide range of\nseismic safety elements (recently\nsocial, economic, environmental, and\nrequired as part of local general\npolitical issues facing California,\nplans) include a definition of\nwith recommendations for improving\nearthquake risk, a classification\nthe ability of government to resolve\nof land into standard earthquake\nthem. Although the Development Plan\nhazard zones, and minimum\nProgram was valuable in establishing\ndesign specifications for construc-\na perspective of California's problems,\ntion in different zones.\nit was not a comprehensive plan and\ndid not provide a basis for guiding\nThat it be a matter of state policy,\ngrowth in the State.\n54\nOffice of Planning and Research - In\nForest and agricultural lands which\n1970, the Legislature replaced the\nare judged to be of major impor-\nState Office of Planning with the Office\ntance in meeting future needs for\nof Planning and Research (OPR).\nfood and timber.\nThis new planning entity, operating\n------------------------- Areas which provide green space\nwithin the Governor's office, was given\nand open areas in and around high\nthe primary responsibility to assist\ndensity metropolitan development.\nin the formulation, evaluation, and up-\nAreas which are required to provide\ndating of the long-range goals and\nneeded access to coastal beaches,\npolicies for land use, population growth\nlakeshores, and riverbanks.\nand distribution, urban expansion,\n- Areas which require special develop-\nopen space, resources preservation\nment regulation because of hazardous\nand utilization, and other factors which\nor special conditions, such as earth-\nshape statewide development patterns\nquake fault zones, unstable slide\nand significantly influence the quality\nareas, flood plains, and watersheds.\nof the state's environment, These en-\nvironmental objectives are to be trans-\nIn addition to the primary responsibility\nlated into a State Environmental Goals\nof policy formation, OPR is given the\nand Policy Report. Prior to approval\nplanning responsiblities to: (1) assist\nby the Governor, the report is to be\nin the preparation of short-range\nsubmitted to the Legislature for review\nfunctional plans by line agencies to\nand comment.\nguide programs such as water develop-\nment, transportation, and open space\nIn the preparation of the report, OPR\nwhich relate to the protection of the\nwas instructed by enabling legisla-\nenvironment; (2) evaluate departmental\ntion to give \"immediate and high\nprograms and identify conflicts and\npriority\" to the development of a land\nrecommend measures to resolve con-\nuse policy which was to consider\nflicts; (3) assist the Department of\namong other things:\nFinance in program budgeting to insure\nan integrated program of priority\nAreas of outstanding scientific,\nactions to implement functional plans\nrecreation, and scenic value.\nand achieve statewide environmental\nAreas which are required as habi-\ngoals; (4) coordinate the development\ntat for significant fish and\nof policies and criteria to ensure\nwildlife resources.\nthat federal grants-in-aid advance\n55\nstatewide environmental goals; (5) co-\nArea-Wide Planning\nordinate research activities of state\ngovernment pertaining to growth and\nThe evolution of area-wide planning\ndevelopment of the State and preserva-\nunfortunately is a very slow process.\ntion of the environment; and (6) advise\nDuring the 1960's significant gains\nthe Governor and his cabinet.\nwere made with the formation of coun-\ncils of government, voluntary associa-\nIt is evident from these provisions that\ntions of cities and counties, which\nthe Legislature intended that OPR\nstrove, through coordination of metro-\nassume a central planning role in state\npolitan governments, to resolve re-\ngovernment. But however sufficient the\ngional problems. There currently\nprovision of statutory authority may\nexist in California four multi-county\nbe, it is no quarantee that the delegated\nand ten single-county councils of\nresponsibilities will be adequately\ngovernments of which the Association\ncarried out. OPR has currently a staff\nof Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and\nof seven professional and three clerical\nthe Southern California Association\npersonnel, and a budget of approximate-\nof Governments (SCAG) are the most\nly $180, 000, about 50 percent of which\nnotable examples. Not all of them,\nis provided by the federal government.\nhowever, have the broad regional per-\nMost of OPR's efforts have been\nspective of ABAG and SCAG. Neither\ndirected toward the preparation of Envi-\ndo all the regions in the State have a\nronmental Impact Statement guidelines,\nregional planning program. Most\nPhase I of the Land Use Policy, and\nimportant, they all lack any authority\nthe Goals and Policy Report due the\nto implement an ongoing regional\nLegislature on March 1, 1972.\nplanning effort other than by gentle per-\nsuasion of local government. Should\nIt is proposed by the Council that OPR\na county or city hold fast to a develop-\nbecome a part of the previously recom-\nment policy which conflicts with region-\nmended comprehensive statewide\nal policies and plans, the particular\nenvironmental entity. With additional\ncouncil of government is powerless, and\nfunding and specific new direction the\nthe implementation of regional ob-\noffice can, however, play a strong\njectives thwarted.\ninterim role and begin immediately on\nthe important land use program recom-\nIt is for this reason that the Council\nmended by the Council.\nadvocates the creation of Regional\n56\nEnvironmental Quality Boards in each\nLocal agencies are required to prepare\ngeographic region of the State as a\nan EIS in connection with locally\nlong range goal toward the establish-\nfunded projects, but are only required\nment of a strong land use planning\nto make a finding that the project is\nand regulatory program which balances\nconsistent with the conservation\nlocal needs with overall state goals\nelement of the city or county general\nand policies.\nplan, or, in the absence of such an\nelement, submit the report to the local\nThis proposal does not have to be\nplanning agency. In such cases, how-\nviewed as a drastic change for the role\never, no agency is obligated to rule\nof local government. It simply rec-\non the adequacy of the reports or\nognizes the need for state and region-\nconsider their findings.\nal leadership and the fact that present\napproaches are inadequate. This\nThe Act is one of the most significant\nrecommendation lays out a new part-\nenvironmental measures yet passed\nnership with local government in\nby the Legislature and has been an ef-\nthe area of land use planning and built-\nfective tool in protecting the envi-\nin methods to insure that local and\nronment. There are ways, however,\nregional entities perform in a manner\nby which the process could be\nconsistent with statewide criteria\nstrengthened. The Legislature de-\nand development goals.\nclared in the Act that:\nEnvironmental Impact Statements\n\"It is the intent of the Legisla-\nture that all agencies of the state\nThe Environmental Quality Act of 1970\ngovernment which regulate\nprovides that all state agencies,\nactivities of private individuals,\nboards, and commissions submit an\ncorporations, and public agencies\nEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)\nwhich are found to affect the\non any project they propose to carry\nquality of the environment, shall\nout which could have a significant\nregulate such activities so that\nimpact on the environment, and, if\nmajor consideration is given\nresponsible for allocating state or fed-\nto preventing environmental\neral funds to local projects, they are\ndamage.\"\nobligated to require that the responsi-\nble local agency submit an EIS as well.\nUnfortunately, the mandatory aspects\n57\nof the law limit the EIS requirement to\ndecision of the responsible entity\n\"projects\", and local agencies have\nadhere to the findings of the EIS\nnot been inclined to interpret it in any\nunless, consistent with the intent\nway that would go beyond this point.\nof the Act, it makes a specific\nThe Environmental Quality Act of 1970\nfinding that the benefits to the\n(Section 21000 to 21151, Public Re-\npublic outweigh the disadvantages\nsources Code) should be specifically\nto the environment.\nbroadened in its application to cover\npublic and private \"actions\" as well as\nLand Use and Population - Unresolved\n\"projects\", to require discussion of\nEnvironmental Issues\nthe population growth implications of\nsuch actions and projects, and to\nAlthough the State has dealt effectively\nrequire the responsible public entity to\nin individual areas of environmental\nmake appropriate findings.\nquality, the basic underlying questions\nof land use and population remain sub-\nThe Council recommends that the\nstantially unaddressed. Hopefully the\nEnvironmental Quality Act of 1970\npreceding discussion and recommend-\nbe amended to: (1) specifically\nations will pave the way toward a mean-\napply to all \"actions\" of state and\ningful process for dealing with these\nlocal government, including\ncritical environmental issues.\nspecial districts, which would have\na significant impact on the environ-\nC/ ENERGY USE\nment; (2) specifically apply to\nregulatory activities as well as\nthose that are being carried out by\nIntroduction\nthe entity itself; (3) require that\ncities and counties prepare an EIS\nIn an attempt to better understand the\non any change of zoning or con-\nconflict between environmental quality\ntemplated private project that will\nand a highly industrialized, fast growing\nhave a significant impact on the\nsociety's ever increasing demand for\nenvironment; (4) include as one of\nenergy and the fuels that produce that\nthe elements of an EIS a detailed\nenergy, the Council held four hearings\nstatement on the population growth\ndevoted to some aspect of this problem.\nand distribution implications of\nthe action; and (5) require that the\nThe first, on nuclear energy, was held\n58\nin Sacramento in January 1971. The\nperiod of time, particularly in areas\nsecond, on power plant siting, was\nlike the South Coast Basin where their\nheld in Santa Cruz in February 1971.\nuse is concentrated.\nThe third was on geothermal energy, in\nLakeport, in August 1971; and the final\nViewed on an international level, it\nhearing, on the overall question of\nappears that reserves of natural gas\nenergy use, was held in Los Angeles\nare sufficiently limited that priorities\nin December of 1971.\nin utilization will have to be imposed\nin the near future. It further appears\nThe following discussion is based on\nthat oil and gas may be available in\ntestimony from these hearings as\nquantities needed for heavy utilization\nwell as other reports and information\nfor another century. Coal appears\nsupplied by those who were asked to\nto be sufficiently plentiful for several\nparticipate. It is an attempt to put into\ncenturies of heavy utilization. It is\nperspective the whole question of\nironic that the most plentiful of these\nenergy use and to chart a course for\nfuels, coal, is the greatest atmos-\nneeded change.\npheric pollutant, whereas the least\nplentiful, natural gas, is the least\npolluting.\nOverall Energy Problem\nFor purposes of this report, energy\nEnergy Use and the South Coast Basin\nmeans all the primary sources for pro-\nducing heat and motive power. Most\nThe total annual energy release within\nof man's energy needs, including elec-\nthe South Coast Basin translated to a\ntrical energy, are dependent on fossil\ncommon frame of reference is 557\nfuels, namely: gas, oil, coal, and\nbillion kilowatt hours (kwh). The com-\nnatural gas. Fossil fuels as a primary\nbustion of fossil fuels accounts for\nsource of energy create two major\n96 percent of this amount. The remain-\nproblems: they are non-renewable re-\ning 4 percent is electric power im-\nsources; and the combustion of these\nported from outside the basin, and\nfuels causes, among other things, air\nhuman metabolism at the rate of 3200\npollution. Also, continued increase\ncalories/day/person. 2*\nin the use of fossil fuels could further\nadversely affect climate over a\n59\nOf the fossil fuel consumed in the basin,\nGiven the enormous amount of fossil\n24 percent goes to operate electric\nfuels being consumed in the South Coast\ngenerating facilities, although electri-\nBasin, it is the conclusion of the En-\ncal energy itself accounts for only\nvironmental Quality Laboratory at the\n8.5 percent of all energy produced.\nCalifornia Institute of Technology\nThis means that of about 135 billion\nthat, with the best possible application\nkwh of fuel burned to produce elec-\nof technology and assuming that all\ntricity, only 47. 8 billion kwh actually\nautomobile emissions standards for\nbecomes electricity, the remainder\n1976 are met in 1975, ambient air\nbeing lost primarily from inefficient\nquality can only be improved temporar-\nconversion at the plant and in trans-\nily and, unless new energy demand is\nmission. Of the remaining fossil fuels,\nabsorbed by a non-polluting energy\n30 percent is used for all forms of\nsource, will again proceed to\ntransportation, and 45 percent for\ndeteriorate. 3*\nvarious industrial activities. In terms\nof air quality, the 30 percent devoted\nIt is clear to the Council, based on\nto transportation constitutes about 80\ntestimony received, that consumption\npercent of the total tons per day of\nof fossil fuels has now become so\nemissions into the atmosphere.\ngreat that our ability to reduce emis-\nsion factors is being surpassed, and\nthat steps must be taken to substan-\ntially reduce the use of fossil fuels as\nan energy source in the state's most\ncritical air basins. The primary op-\ntion to the use of fossil fuels is\nelectric energy supplied through the\nuse of alternate sources. Unfortunate-\nly, our present technology does not\n2* \"Energy and the Environment in\npermit us to do this without confronting\nSouthern California, E. J. List,\nother environmental problems.\nEnvironmental Quality Laboratory,\nCalifornia Institute of Technology,\nElectric Energy\nin Council's Energy Use hearing,\nDecember 17, 1971.\nElectric generating capability in Calif-\n3* Ibid.\nornia has doubled each ten years for\n60\nthe last thirty years and, as presently\nOne power plant now operating in\nprojected, could grow at this rate\n\"Four Corners\" consumes 7 million\nin the decades to come. This is an\ntons per year of coal, 20 million\naverage of nearly 8 percent per\ngallons per day of water, and produces\nyear, only one third of which can be\n1-1/2 million tons per year of solid\nattributed to population growth.\nwastes, and at one time produced\nThe other two thirds is caused by\nenough oxides of nitrogen to equal as\nincrease in per capita demand.\nmuch as one-third of that produced\nAlthough other forms of energy use\nin Los Angeles. The consequences of\nhave expanded at a nearly comparable\nmeeting power needs in this manner\nrate, electric energy consumption\nare obvious.\nand its impact on the environment\nhave been of increasing concern. And\nthis concern and impact is more far\nFactors Contributing to Growth\nreaching than many had expected.\nA classic example of the relationship\nElectricity consumption is generally\nof electric energy demands, envi-\nanalyzed according to commercial,\nronmental degradation, and resources\nindustrial, residential, governmental,\ndepletion is the power complex\nand other.\nbeing developed in the \"Four Corners\"\narea of the Southwestern United\nCommercial uses accounted for about\nStates. Because energy production\n30 percent of the total electric con-\nin such places as the South Coast\nsumption in 1970, statewide, but run\nBasin is causing more pollution than\nas high as 40 percent, for example,\nthe atmosphere can healthfully\nin the area serviced by Pacific Gas and\nhandle, it has become necessary to\nElectric Company. The growth in this\nlook outside the basin for supplies\ncategory is due to an increase in com-\nelectricity. The fact that this\nmercial floor space of about 6 percent\nthreatens to create an environmental\nper year and an increase in demand\nexport-import problem of considerable\nper square foot of 4 percent per year,\ndimension was borne out in the\nbrought about by more lighting,\nCouncil's December 1971 hearing by\nenvironmental conditioning, and the\nrepresentatives of the State of New\nfact that a substantial amount (40 per-\nMexico, the Black Mesa Fund, and\ncent in the South Coast Basin in 1970)\nthe Navajo Indian Tribe.\nof new floor space is all electric. 4*\n61\nIndustrial uses account for about 30\nThe basis of an overall energy use\npercent of total sales. Although in-\npolicy for the future must be conserva-\ndustrial activity has been dropping off\ntion. Unfortunately, electric energy\nsomewhat, overall growth amounts\npolicy to date has totally disregarded\nto 7 percent annually. Part of the\nthis element. The national policy\ngrowth in industrial consumption is\nfor many years has been to provide\ncaused by the same factors that affect\nabundant low cost energy. We are fast\ncommercial use, while some is\nbeginning to realize that this goal\nbrought about by more intense manu-\nmust be reevaluated. Electricity can\nfacturing processes. 5*\nno longer be treated as an unlimited\ncommodity, and, as with any other\nResidential use has gone from 17 per-\nvaluable resource, its waste cannot be\ncent of total sales in 1950 to 27 percent\ntolerated. If we are to devote greater\nin 1970. This growth is due primarily\namounts of future capacity to the\nto an increase in the number of single\nreplacement of fossil fuels (including\nindividual households (this trend, how-\na portion of the 24 percent now being\never, is levelling off) and demand in\nused for electric power production\nhome appliances and environmental\nin the South Coast Basin) and other en-\nconditioning, such as central heating\nvironmental efforts, we must develop\nand air conditioning. Between 1961\nand 1969 average sales per customer\nhave increased 6 percent per year --\nfrom 3290 kwh to 5244 kwh. Since\nthere is clearly room for growth in the\n4* \"California's Projected Electrical\nresidential sector, it does not appear\nEnergy Demand and Supply,\" Report\nlikely that the 6 percent annual growth\nto the Assembly General Research\nrate will be significantly reduced. 6*\nCommittee, California Legislature;\nDr. Lester Lees, Environmental\nGovernment (buildings, street lighting,\nQuality Laboratory, California Insti-\netc.) and other uses (farming, mining,\ntute of Technology, in Council's Energy\netc.) have been growing at about 8\nUse hearing, December 17, 1971.\npercent per year. 7*\n5* Ibid.\n6* Ibid.\nElectric Energy Conservation\n7* Ibid.\n62\nmeasures to reduce consumption for\nBuilding Construction and Design -- -\nnonessential uses and use what is avail-\nThere is a great deal that can be done\nable in the most efficient, nonpolluting\nin the area of building construction\nmanner. Some measures for accom-\nand insulation. Recently the President\nplishing this are:\ndirected the Department of Housing\nand Urban Development to develop stan-\nPricing -- At present the per unit cost\ndards with this objective in mind, to\nof electricity goes down as the amount\nbe applied to all federally assisted\nconsumed goes up. The result is\nhousing. This effort should be expand-\nthat many large commercial and indus-\ned into the area of building design\ntrial developments treat electricity\nwhich, as was demonstrated at the\nas nearly a no-cost item. Rates should\nCouncil's hearing on Energy Use, offers\ninclude the environmental costs of\ntremendous potential. By taking ad-\nproducing electricity and should be de-\nvantage of sunlight, shade, and prevail-\nsigned to discourage waste. Certainly\ning wind, much can be accomplished.\na rate structure that facilitates the\nall-night lighting of large office build-\nGreater Efficiency - Every effort must\nings has to be questioned. On the\nbe made to get more efficiency from\nother hand, any rate modifications\nthe energy that is expended. The ques-\nshould not work hardships on lower\ntion of space heating has already been\nincome groups or counteract efforts to\nmentioned as has the fact that of the\nreplace the use of fossil fuels.\n135 billion kwh of fuel burned in the\nSouth Coast Basin, only one third of\nAdvertising -- Advertising, particular-\nthis came \"on line\" in the form of elec-\nly of the \"all-electric\" variety, has\ntricity. A simple incandescent bulb\ncontributed significantly to increased\nthat converts 90 percent of its energy\nconsumption. It has also led to the\nto heat and only 10 percent to light\ninefficient use of electricity, particu-\nis another example of the problem.\nlarly with regard to space heating.\nEfforts to get more efficiency from the\nSome utilities have recognized the\nproduction of energy, through trans-\nproblem and have turned away from\nmission and to the point where it is\npromotional advertising. This trend\nconverted to heat or motive power,\nshould be expanded, and the future\nshould be vastly expanded. Such efforts\nthrust of utility advertising should be\nshould not be limited to electric energy.\ntoward ways to conserve energy.\nThere are many other processes, the\n63\nautomobile, for example, where fossil\nincluding imports. If this is projected\nfuels are used in a very inefficient\nat a 7 percent annual growth rate,\nmanner.\ntaking into account a 20 percent margin\n(required for peak loading, shutdown\nBalancing Supply and Demand --\nfor maintenance, etc.), the State will\nApproximately one third of the state's\nneed about 55, 000 MW(e) by 1980.\nelectric energy-producing capability\nThis means about 3, 500 MW(e) in new\ngoes unused 95 percent of the time,\nelectrical generating capacity each\nstanding by to cover periods of peak\nyear by 1975, and 5, 000 MW(e) of new\ndemand. To the degree that this prob-\ncapacity by 1980. 8* Using a 5 per-\nlem could be alleviated, a more\ncent growth rate figure plus 20 percent,\nproper balance between electric energy\nthe requirement will be approximately\nsupply and demand could be attained.\n45, 000 MW(e) by 1980.\nDr. Lester Lees has suggested that\nHopefully new efforts and attitudes\npeak demand periods could be \"shaved\"\nregarding conservation of energy will\nby such measures as \"rolling blackouts\"\nprevent the 7 percent per year \"self-\n(reducing power in certain areas for\nfulfilling prophecy\" from materializing.\none hour, and then moving to another\nHowever, it is not likely that we will\narea), heat storage, charging different\nreach the point in the foreseeable\nrates during peak demand periods,\nfuture where there is no longer the\nand putting nonessential appliances on\nneed for new electric generating facil-\nseparate circuits.\nities, particularly if, as part of an\noverall energy policy, we intend to re-\nduce the use of fossil fuels. Even if\nThe Need for Additional Electricity\nthe growth rate were cut to 3.5 percent\nAlthough the State must move aggres-\nsively in the field of conservation,\nit must also be prepared to handle the\nexpected need for future power plant\nfacilities in an orderly manner.\n8* \"California's Projected Electrical\nEnergy Demand and Supply, Report\nIn 1970 California had an electric power\nto the Assembly General Research\ncapacity of 32, 000 megawatts (MW(e)),\nCommittee, California Legislature.\n64\nbetween 1970 and 1980 and to 2 percent\nfuel capable of meeting future demand\nbetween 1980 and 1990, 70, 000 MW(e)\nin the time required is nuclear energy.\nwill be needed by the end of that\nThere are, however, certain environ-\nperiod. Assuming that by 1980 the\nmental issues that have been raised\nvery low growth figure of 2 to 3.5 per-\nin connection with full-scale develop-\ncent per year could be achieved,\nment of nuclear power plants which\nsome 2, 000 to 3, 500 MW(e) of new\nhave not been resolved.\nelectrical generating capability will\nbe required each year beyond that\nLow-Dose Radiation -- This involves\ntime. 9*\nthe radiation that is emitted from\nnormal operation. Dr. Arthur Tamplin,\nWhat is required is a strong program\nLawrence Radiation Laboratory,\nof conservation combined with a\nLivermore, gave testimony on this\nstrategy for developing all feasible,\npoint at the Council's January 1971\nsafe, and environmentally sound\nhearing, asserting that a danger exists\nmeans for replacing, to the degree\nin this area and that the Atomic Energy\npossible, energy produced by fossil\nCommission should set more strin-\nfuels, as well as new technology and\ngent standards. The AEC is now in\ninstitutional mechanisms for carry-\nthe process of adopting standards\ning out these objectives.\nequivalent to those recommended by\nDr. Tamplin. As a result, the ques-\ntion of low-dose radiation in connection\nNuclear Energy\nwith normal plant operation will be\nreduced in significance.\nThe only planned alternative to fossil\nReacter Safety -- Although great pre-\ncautions are taken in the construction\nand operation of nuclear reactors,\nthere is no guarantee that an accident\nwill not or cannot occur; and this\n9* Dr. Lester Lees, Environmental\nfact continues to be a major concern\nQuality Laboratory, California Insti-\nin the minds of many who point to the\ntute of Technology, in testimony at\npossibility of an earthquake or an\nhearing on Energy Use, December 17,\noperating malfunction as a potential\n1971.\nthreat to the surrounding area.\n65\nHopefully this problem can be lessened\nThermal Effects -- Marine biologists\nby improved technology, better quality\nhave raised serious objections with\ncontrol during construction, new\nregard to the effects of warm water\nAEC seismic standards, and location\ndischarges. Future plants will have to\nof plants underground or in remote\nbe sited, designed, and operated in\nareas.\na manner that will minimize these\nadverse effects and, where possible,\nLand Use and Plant Siting -- Because\nderive some recreational, municipal,\nof the tremendous water demands,\nand industrial benefits from warm\nthe coastline is usually thought to be\nwater discharges.\nthe most economical and suitable\nlocation for nuclear power plants.\nTransportation -- Spent fuel or high-\nThere is concern that, if most of our\nlevel wastes from nuclear reactors\nfuture power needs are to be met by\nmust be transported to reprocessing\nnuclear energy, major portions of the\nplants where fuels are processed\ncoast will be devoted to this purpose.\nfor reuse and where wastes are stored.\nOther issues related to land use\nThe high-level (highly radioactive)\nand siting are the need for transmis-\nwastes travel by truck or train in con-\nsion lines and the amount of related\ntainers that are expected to meet\nindustrial and commercial development\nrigid testing procedures, under the\nthat the location of power plants\nsupervision of the AEC. Although\nmight prompt. Perhaps this particu-\ntransportation is tightly controlled by\nlar situation can be improved by\nregulation, increased activity brought\nconsolidating facilities and thereby\nabout by a growing number of nuclear\nreducing the number of sites, or per-\npower facilities will increase the\nhaps locating the plants underground\npossibility of accidents.\nor in more remote, somewhat in-\nland sites, out of public view but near\nFuel Reprocessing -- Reprocessing\nenough to the ocean to utilize this\ncurrently takes place at three locations\nsource of water. Some non-ocean\nthroughout the country. Although\noriented sites can be justified\nregulated by the AEC, these plants will\n(such as Rancho Seco, 25 miles south-\nnot be required to meet the new guide-\nwest of Sacramento), but, because\nlines for low-dose radiation being pro-\nof water supply, they might be\nposed for power generating facilities.\nlimited.\nSome concern has been expressed that\n66\nradiation standards and operating pro-\nGeothermal -- There are presently\ncedures should be more stringent,\noperational geothermal systems which\nparticularly since increased construc-\nproduce electric power by steam\ntion of nuclear reactors will undoubt-\nfrom underground heat sources. The\nedly require more fuel reprocessing\nonly such system presently producing\nfacilities.\nelectricity in California is at The\nGeysers in Sonoma County, which is\nWaste Storage - - Nuclear energy advo-\nbeing counted on to supply 106 MW(e)\ncates and opponents alike recognize\nper year through 1979. There are\nwaste storage as a problem that has\nother potential sites, the most signif-\nnot been completely resolved. Because\nicant of which lies in the Imperial\nof the tremendous life span of some\nValley. However, some complex tech-\nof the highly radioactive wastes, per-\nnical problems are as yet not re-\nmanent storage and long-term steward-\nsolved, and it may take up to ten years\nship becomes critical. Presently all\nto produce just a few thousand MW(e).\nsuch wastes are being stored at the\nCertainly geothermal resources need\nthree reprocessing plants, and no\nmuch more attention, but they can\npermanent type storage has been\nonly be viewed as part of a total\ndeveloped. This problem must be re-\napproach to meeting future demand\nsolved if present day and fast breeder\nand not, as some have suggested, a\nreactors are to be developed to the\nway to \"buy time\" for ten or twenty\ndegree contemplated.\nyears.\nIt is difficult to make a general state-\nNear-Zero Emission Electric Energy\nment about the environmental impact of\nAlternatives\ngeothermal development, because it\nvaries by location. Some areas, like\nThere are a number of other alterna-\nThe Geysers, are readily developable,\ntive sources of clean electric energy\nwhile the Imperial Valley has many\nwhich can in varying degrees, and\nproblems yet to be resolved. Other\nin some cases subject to a great deal\npotential sites are in areas of great\nmore research and development,\nscenic beauty and should not be used\nplay an important part in meeting\nfor this purpose.\nfuture demands and in reducing the\nuse of fossil fuels.\nThe Use of Wastes -- Combustion of\n67\nliquid and solid waste material in\nThe Alternatives in Balance\nconnection with electric generating\nfacilities (although not \"near-zero\nThe above alternatives, unfortunately,\nemission\") is one approach to\nhave to be considered limited as\nwhich more attention should be given.\nmajor sources of power at least during\nHowever, this type of integrated\nthe 70's and 80's. However, in the\nsystem will probably have more\ncases of solar and geothermal energy,\nvalue for its waste disposal capabil-\nconcentrated effort should be made to\nities than as a future power source.\nmaximize their potential in the short-\nest possible time.\nSolar Energy -- The energy continu-\nously radiated by the sun is\nThe development of nuclear fission\npotentially capable of supplying all\n(present day and fast breeder re-\nof man's energy needs. Unfortunately,\nactors) over the next 10 to 20 years,\ntechnology is many years away from\nconsidering other alternatives, ap-\ncollecting and distributing this\npears to be the most feasible step\nsource in any significant amount.\ntoward meeting the state's increased\nIt has been demonstrated, however,\nelectrical demand, which at present\nthat it does offer more immediate\nis almost totally dependent on the\npotential for new residential construc-\nuse of fossil fuels. What is of utmost\ntion for such things as space heating,\nconcern to the Council is that ade-\nwhich demand a significant amount\nquate steps be taken to insure that\nof energy.\nthis source of energy is developed in\na way that minimizes the detrimen-\nHydro Power -- The storage and use\ntal effects on the environment, con-\nof water for the production of elec-\nserves our fuel resources, and is\ntricity has played an important\nsafe. In particular, continued devel-\nrole in meeting demands in the past.\nopment must be conditioned on find-\nHowever, it does not emerge as a\ning suitable solutions to the problems\nsignificant factor in terms of future\nof radioactive waste handling, pro-\ngrowth. Hydro power possibilities\ncessing, and storage.\nhave largely been exhausted, and\nfurther developments would alter the\nCoupled with this, the Council urges\nfree flowing character of the remaining\na concerted national effort to develop\nrivers and streams.\nnuclear fusion (a reaction which\n68\ninvolves very little waste and is ex-\nimplementation. Such a policy\npected to produce electricity more\nshould involve: (1) specific\nefficiently) as the country's major\nmeasures for reducing the per\nsource of power in the long-term\ncapita use of energy and for using\nfuture.\nenergy which is available in the\nmost efficient manner; (2) con-\ntinuing evaluation and provision of\nOverall Energy Use Strategy\nlegitimate energy needs; (3) de-\nveloping all feasible and safe\nEnergy use has become one of the\nmeans for replacing, to the degree\nmost critical environmental issues\npossible, the use of fossil fuels\nfacing the State. Present attitudes and\nwith near-zero emission electric\npublic policy have led to the unre-\nenergy; and (4) a program for\nstrained use of natural resources and\nmassive research and development\nexcessive pollution. A clear cut\nand new technology regarding\nenergy use and power plant siting\nalternative sources of power, the\npolicy, with emphasis on conservation\nsiting of power plants, the trans-\nof energy, the appropriate govern-\nmission of electric power, and\nmental mechanism for implementing\nthe handling, processing, and\nsuch a policy, and a coordinated\nstorage of wastes.\nstate and federal research and develop-\nment program on all aspects of the\nThe Commission would also de-\nproblem is required.\nvelop a statewide power plant\nsiting plan, after appropriate pub-\nThe Council recommends that an\nlic hearings, which would be\nEnergy Conservation and Power\nsubject to the approval of the State\nPlant Siting Commission be\nLegislature and the Environmental\nestablished to develop, in cooper-\nQuality Board, and which would\nation with the federal government,\nconstitute a master plan of pre-\nthe proposed Environmental\nferred sites and become a part of\nQuality Board, and all other ap-\nthe California Conservation and\npropriate agencies, organizations,\nDevelopment Plan. The Commis-\nand individual citizens, an over-\nsion would test each proposal for\nall energy use and power plant\npower plant development and\nsiting policy and measures for its\ntransmission line routing against\n69\nthe approved master plan, as well\nExclusive of what the federal govern-\nas various demand, environ-\nment must do in the way of research\nmental, scenic, and safety stan-\nand development, the state's re-\ndards and criteria, and, after\nsponsibilities for planning, develop-\nholding public hearings, have the\nment, conservation, and research will\nauthority to approve or reject\nrequire a substantial amount of\nthe proposal.\nfunding.\nThe Commission might also be\nThe Council recommends that a\ngiven the authority to purchase\nuse tax (as well as an increase in\nsites in advance of need and lease\nthe basic rates) be applied to\nthem back to utility companies.\nthe higher usage portion of the\nutility rate structure to finance\nthe statewide energy conservation\nResearch and Development\nand power plant siting program.\nPresent rate structures for\nMassive new efforts in research and\nelectric power begin at a few\ndevelopment will be required if we\ncents per kilowatt-hour (kwh) and\nare to meet future energy needs in an\ndrop to several tenths of a cent\nenvironmentally responsible way.\nper kwh as usage increases. A\ntax of one mill per kwh in the\nThe Council recommends that the\nhigh-use brackets could raise as\nfederal government be urged\nmuch as $50-million. High\nto embark on massive research\nvolume energy users such as\nand development programs in\nrapid transit agencies and those\nconnection with new sources of\nengaged in other environmentally\nenergy, power plant siting, energy\nbeneficial activities should be\nconservation, and other matters\nexempt from such taxes or rate\nrelated to energy policy\nmodifications.\nadministration.\nA Parting Shot\nFunding of a Statewide Energy Use and\nThe president of the board of directors\nPower Plant Siting Program\nof a large utility district recently\n70\ncommented in response to a suggestion\nthat air pollution is a serious menace\nfrom a fellow board member that the\nto the health of man and constitutes\ndistrict should encourage ways to con-\na state of chronic and increasing emer-\nserve energy through home insula-\ngency. Little more need be said by\ntion, \"Our job is to sell electricity.\nthis Council to justify the necessity\nThat's what makes the cash register\nfor strong and imaginative measures\nring.\"\nto control air pollution than the fact\nthat oxidant levels, in our more con-\nHopefully we have moved beyond this\ngested areas, exceed by as much as\npoint and a sound statewide program\nsix times the air quality standards\nof energy use will be forthcoming.\nbased on preservation of health set by\nthe State Air Resources Board.\nD/ AIR QUALITY\nCauses\nIntroduction\nThe air pollution problem in California\nvaries widely in terms of both char-\nThe condition of the air we breathe\nacter and extent. In the South Coast\ncontinues to be the number one pollu-\nBasin and the San Francisco Bay Area,\ntion problem in the State. It is\nthe major problem is photochemical\ncertainly the most obvious index of\nair pollution, or smog, measured in\nenvironmental degradation and the\nterms of ambient oxidant concentrations.\nmost difficult and complex to deal with.\nThe primary ingredients of photo-\nIt inflicts widespread and costly\nchemical air pollution (or photochem-\ndamage on plant life and buildings and\nical oxidants) are oxides of nitrogen\nmaterials. It dims visibility and\nand hydrocarbons, both of which are\nobscures city skylines and scenic\nprincipally of vehicular origin. The\nbeauty. It produces undesirable odors,\nproblem in these areas is compounded\nalters climate, and may even pro-\nby high atmospheric levels of carbon\nduce global changes in temperature.\nmonoxide and particulate matter.\nHowever, most important is its\nthreat to human health. Medical tes-\nIn many of the state's more rural areas\ntimony presented to the Council as\nair pollution is largely the result of\nwell as to other public bodies indicates\nparticulate matter emitted directly\n71\nfrom such sources as agricultural\nfor coordinating and overseeing local\noperations, lumber production, min-\ncontrol efforts. Local air pollution\neral processing, and, to a lesser\ncontrol districts have primary control\ndegree, from motor vehicles.\nof emissions from nonvehicular\nsources.\nThe problem of sulphur dioxide and\nsoot that is typically associated with\ncoal burning economies is generally\nLocal Districts\nnot present in California.\nIn 1947 legislation was enacted en-\nThe motor vehicle constitutes the\nabling each county to form an air\nmajor source of hydrocarbons (HC),\npollution control district (APCD) as\ncarbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of\nwell as permitting the districts in\nnitrogen (NOX) emissions in\ntwo or more adjacent counties to\nCalifornia. In 1970 there were nearly\nunify.\n13 million gasoline powered vehicles\nin the State using nearly 9 billion\nIn 1955, the State Legislature adopted\ngallons of fuel annually. It is pro-\nlegislation creating the Bay Area\njected that there will be 14 million\nAir Pollution Control District, for\nsuch vehicles in 1975 and more than\nthe purpose of controlling air pollution\n16 million in 1980. Approximately\non a regional basis. Six counties\none half of the total vehicle population\nbordering the Bay (San Francisco,\nis located in the South Coast Basin,\nSan Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda,\nwhere it is said to be the source of\nMarin, and Contra Costa) became\nmore than 70 percent of the photo-\nmandatory members. The counties\nchemical \"smog\", and contributes as\nof Napa, Sonoma, and Solano could\nmuch as 88 percent of the total tons\njoin at their own option by the affirma-\nof emissions per day.\ntive vote of their respective boards\nof supervisors. They never chose to\nThe responsibility for air pollution\nexercise this option; so, the law was\ncontrol in California is currently\namended in 1970, making it mandatory\nshared by the state and local agencies.\nthat Napa County and portions of\nThe State Air Resources Board (ARB)\nSonoma and Solano Counties become\nis responsible for control of the\nactive parts of the District. By 1969,\nemissions from motor vehicles and\ntwenty-six of the state's fifty-eight\n72\ncounties were in districts, covering\nenforcement have varied widely from\nabout 50 percent of the state's land\none district to the next. However,\narea and 90 percent of its population.\nthe state implementation plan required\nby the Federal Clean Air Amendments\nLegislation in 1970 made it mandatory\nof 1970 mandates uniform programs\nthat all counties be within an Air\nfor each basin.\nPollution Control District. This same\nlegislation required the creation of\nBasin Coordinating Councils where\nState Program\ntwo or more APCD's exist within the\nsame basin. These councils are re-\nIn 1955, a state air pollution program\nquired to coordinate the activities\nwas established within the Department\nof the local districts and to develop\nof Public Health (DPH). It included\nplans for meeting state air quality\ntechnical assistance to local agencies,\nstandards.\nair quality monitoring in various\nareas of the State, establishment of\nLocal districts must enforce certain\nmotor vehicle emission standards, and\nminimum emission standards estab-\npromulgation of ambient air quality\nlished by state law. These include:\nstandards.\n(1) a smoke limitation of Ringelmann\nNo. 2, or 40 percent opacity; (2)\nIn 1960, the Motor Vehicle Pollution\ncertain public nuisances; (3) in county\nControl Act created the Motor Vehicle\ndistricts, all provisions of the State\nPollution Control Board (MVPCB)\nVehicle Code dealing with the emission\nand directed the board to implement\nof air contaminants; and (4)\nmotor vehicle emission standards.\nagricultural burning regulations.\nThis included the certification and\ntesting of vehicle emission control\nThe local districts may also adopt\nsystems.\nrules and regulations to require the\ninstallation of smog control devices on\n1955-65 model cars provided the\nMulford-Carrell Act\nneed to do SO is justified and the ARB\nhas certified such a device.\nIn 1967 the Mulford-Carrell Air\nResources Act created a 14-member\nUntil now, standards and levels of\nAir Resources Board (ARB) which\n73\nreplaced the MVPCB and assumed\nLegislation enacted in 1970 strength-\nmost of the air pollution related func-\nened the ARB's authority to implement\ntions previously assigned to the DPH.\nstatewide air quality programs and\nAmong other things, this Act directed\nto insure that adequate emission stan-\nthe ARB to divide the State into\ndards were being set and enforcement\nbasins, adopt and implement air qual-\npractices adhered to at the local\nity standards for each basin, adopt\nlevel. Legislation in 1970 also directed\nmotor vehicle emission inventory\nthe ARB to administer a $9. 25-million,\nsources and kinds of pollutants in each\nthree-year, air pollution research\nbasin, and monitor for air pollutants.\nprogram; adopt test procedures appli-\nThe ARB was required to determine\ncable to new motor vehicles manu-\nthe factors responsible for air pollution,\nfactured for sale in California (this has\nto determine the effects of air pollu-\nsince led to the establishment of a\ntion on vegetation and human and animal\n100-percent assembly line testing pro-\nlife, and to coordinate the efforts in\ngram by 1973); accredit used motor\nthe State, including assistance to local\nvehicle pollution control devices for\nagencies.\nmandatory installation; establish agri-\ncultural burning guidelines and review\nOne of the provisions empowered the\nand revise local district implemen-\nARB to regulate emissions from motor\ntation plans developed in accordance\nvehicles statewide. This power was\nwith these guidelines; study a state\nfurther delineated in the Pure Air Act\nperiodic inspection program for all\nof 1968, which set minimum standards\nmotor vehicles (this has been completed\nfor emissions from motor vehicles\nand referred by the Legislature to\nbeginning with 1970 models. Standards\ninterim study); and set emission stan-\nhave since been set by the Board\ndards for vehicles not previously\nwhich through 1974 are more stringent\ncovered.\nthan federal standards. Federal stan-\ndards, however, are more stringent\nLegislation enacted in 1971 expanded\nthan those of the State for 1975-76\nthe ARB's authority to approve and re-\nmodels.\nquire devices for used cars and to\ndeal more effectively with this major\nuncontrolled source. Legislation was\nalso enacted reducing the ARB's\nAdditional Board Responsibilities\nmembership from 14 to 5 and providing\n74\nfor more specific expertise among its\nin the South Coast Basin by 140 tons,\nmembers. 1971 legislation also\nor approximately what is being produced\nauthorized the ARB to revoke variances\nby fossil-fueled power plants in\nissued by local districts.\nLos Angeles County.\nNew Motor Vehicles\nUsed Cars\nThe most significant activities of the\nThe last major unregulated source of\nBoard have been with respect to the\nvehicle air pollution is the 1955-65\ncontrol of motor vehicles. The first\nused car. Emissions from these vehi-\ncontrols were for hydrocarbons (HC)\ncles are virtually uncontrolled except\nfrom the crankcase. In 1963 approved\nfor crankcase devices which were\ncrankcase emissions control devices\nrequired beginning in 1964 on 1955-62\nwere required on new automobiles reg-\nmodel cars in fourteen counties,\nistered in California. Control of HC\nupon transfer of ownership.\nand carbon monoxide (CO) from the\nexhaust started with 1966 models. In\nPrior to this time, the ARB was not\n1970 the control of HC from fuel\nempowered to certify a control device\nsystems began. The control of oxides\nfor 1955-65 automobiles that would\nof nitrogen (NOX) from exhausts\nreduce only one of the three (CO, HC,\nappeared on the 1971 models.\nand NOX) pollutants. To be approved,\na device had to reduce two of the\nHowever, as HC was being controlled\nthree. This has inhibited development\nbetween 1966 and 1970, NOX (major\nof controls that could significantly\nprecursor of photochemical oxidant)\nreduce the smog problem, particularly\nwas rising substantially. Therefore\nthe visible irritants produced by NOX\nlegislation was adopted during the 1971\nemissions. Therefore, legislation was\nsession to require every 1966 through\nenacted during the 1971 session to\n1970 model vehicle to be equipped\ngive the ARB more freedom to decide\nby 1973 with an accredited exhaust\nif the benefits to be gained by one-\nemission control device to reduce NOX\npollutant control devices is sufficient\nto approximately pre-1966 levels.\nto require installation on 1955-65\nIt is estimated that this will reduce\nmodels. Pursuant to this new authority,\ntotal daily emissions from all sources\nthe ARB in December of 1971 certified\n75\nan NOX device for 1955-65 model cars\ngasoline sold in the South Coast Basin,\nto be installed upon transfer of owner-\nduring certain time periods, and the\nship, pending approval by the ARB\nvolatility of gasoline sold throughout\nof distribution and marketing plans of\nthe State. During the periods that vapor\nthe applicant. If the experience is\npressure is limited in the South Coast\ngood, all such cars will be required to\nAir Basin, evaporative gasoline losses\nhave the device by 1975.\nassociated with gasoline marketing\nwill be reduced by more than 50 tons\nper day, and losses from vehicles not\nStandards, Inspections\nequipped with evaporative emission\ncontrol systems are expected to be re-\nWith proper enforcement and testing\nduced by another 50 tons per day.\nprovisions and with increasingly\nstringent standards, an overall reduc-\ntion in hydrocarbon fumes - - from\nVoluntary Use of Gaseous Fuels\nall cars, new and old -- of 80 percent\nby the end of this decade can be\nTo provide an incentive for the use of\nachieved. However, there remains a\nlow emission fuels, California has\nmajor unresolved problem. The 100-\nremoved the 7-cent-per-equivalent-\npercent assembly line testing of new\ngallon state fuel tax on liquid petroleum\ncars by 1973 will be instituted. But\nand natural gas when such fuels are\nnot yet approved is a mandatory pro-\nburned in vehicles equipped with conver-\ngram for periodic inspection of\nsion systems certified by the ARB.\nvehicles to insure that the cars and\nAlso, the cost of installing an approved\ndevices are working properly from an\nconversion system is excluded from\nair quality standpoint.\nthe market value of the vehicle for pur-\nposes of determining the vehicle's\nlicense fee. These tax exemption pro-\nFuel Composition\nvisions will remain in force through\n1975.\nRelated to the problem of automobile\npollution is fuel composition and\nPrograms which are not moving as well\nhandling. The ARB has adopted regu-\nare attempts to \"get the lead out\" of\nlations to reduce evaporation by\ngasoline. Not only will such a move\nlimiting the degree of unsaturation of\neliminate undesirable contaminants\n76\nfrom the air but it will facilitate the\nimprovement can be realized by direc-\nefficient operation of the more advanced\nting the vapor-laden air displaced as\nsmog control devices needed to meet\neach tank is filled into the tank which\nfuture standards. Although the Legis-\nis filling, through the use of some\nlature has been unable during the\ntype of vaporized gas recirculation\nlast two sessions to enact legislation\nsystem. The vapors would be trans-\nto curtail the use of lead, such a move\nported sequentially from the vehicle\nhas been taken by individual counties\ntank, to the service station storage\nand should continue to be pursued. The\ntank, to the tank truck, and then to the\nFederal Environmental Protection\nbulk plant. The vapor received at\nAgency is also expected to take action\nthe bulk plant would then be reconsti-\nto limit quantities of lead in gasoline\ntuted back to gasoline for subsequent\nnationally. However, it must be\nremarketing.\nhandled in such a manner as to obviate\nundesirable side effects.\nThe foregoing scheme is presently\nrequired by local districts in the South\nCoast Air Basin for the filling of tank\nGasoline Marketing\ntrucks. These rules and regulations\ncould be extended to the service station\nThe emissions of HC which result\nstorage tanks and to the vehicle tanks.\nfrom gasoline tank filling losses (tank\nSuch requirements are estimated to\ntrucks, service station storage tanks,\nbe capable of reducing emission of re-\nand vehicle tanks) have been reduced\nactive hydrocarbons in the South\nsomewhat during the critical smog\nCoast Air Basin by over 50 tons per\nperiods by the state's regulation of gas-\nday.\noline volatility. Even further reduc-\ntions will be realized as a result of\nrecent state legislation requiring the\nLarge-Scale Conversion to Gaseous\nuse of submerged filler pipes or other\nFuels\napproved means for the control of\nfilling losses for gasoline storage tanks\nThe tax incentives currently available\ninstalled subsequent to December 31,\nto encourage the conversion of motor\n1970, although this requirement has\nvehicles to low emission gaseous\nbeen in effect in Los Angeles County\nfuels has already been mentioned.\nfor some time. However, further\nHowever, it will have to be greatly\n77\naccelerated if the full potential of this\nimprovement in air quality is not\noption is to be realized. Although\ngenerally apparent except where year-\ncertain drawbacks to the use of such\nto-year weather changes have a bearing.\nfuels (having to do with costs, scarcity\nWhile readings for certain elements\nof supply, limited range of gaseous\nin one location have gone down, concen-\nfueled vehicles, the large space re-\ntration of those same and other ele-\nquirements of fuel tanks, and the\nments might be showing an increase in\ndrastic changes required for marketing\nother areas. Even assuming that air\nfacilities) have been argued, they are\npollution may be on the decrease over-\nnot insurmountable. This is particu-\nall, measures contemplated to bring\nlarly true in the case of fleet vehicles,\nabout this decrease between now and\nwhich consume 30 percent of the\nthe mid-1980's will soon give way\ngasoline in the South Coast Basin.\nto growth, and overall emissions will\nThe mandating of the conversion of\nbegin to rise.\nfleet vehicles over a certain time\nperiod could have a significant impact,\nWhat has been of even more sobering\nand should be pursued. It is in fact\nconcern is the relationship between\nbeing advocated in the State Implemen-\nemissions and the basin ambient air\ntation Plan. The state plan also\nquality standards adopted by the Air\nrecommends conversion of 1970-73\nResources Board, based on health\nvehicles upon transfer of ownership\npreservation. The Board's Technical\nand provides car owners a choice of\nAdvisory Committee reported in\nconversion or installation of retrofit\nNovember of 1970 that in some in-\ndevices for pre-1966 vehicles.\nstances the standards designed to as-\nsure freedom from injury to health\ncannot be attained by the application of\nOverriding Problem\ntechnical methods available now or in\nthe foreseeable future. Yet our control\nThe discussion of control efforts to\neffort has been devoted almost entirely\nthis point has centered on measures\nto technical methods, even though\nthat have been taken with respect\nambient air standards based on health\nto emissions, fuels composition, and\ncan, according to the same report,\ntesting for compliance. The over-\n\"be resolved only by drastic changes\nriding problem is that with measures\nin life patterns in the most heavily\nthat have been instituted to date,\npopulated areas.'\n78\nOn the theory that each air basin has\nFederal Law\na limited amount of air in which to\ndilute its pollutant emissions, when\nPrior to 1970, federal air quality stan-\nthis limit is reached, the Committee\ndards were not a significant factor in\nreported, \"further production of pol-\nCalifornia's battle to clean its air,\nlutants must be stopped by whatever\nexcept where waivers had to be obtained\nmeans are available not excluding\nby the State in order to move ahead\nlimitations of population and economic\nwith its own more stringent program.\ngrowth within the State. It was for\nAll this changed with the enactment of\nthis reason that the Council's 1971 re-\nthe Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended.\nport contained recommendations for\nThis Act, referred to also as the\nthe adoption of two concurrent resolu-\n1970 Clean Air Amendments, is an\ntions which the Council classified as\nexacting federal statute which required\n\"necessary immediate action\". One\nevery state to develop an adequate\n(SCR 78, introduced by Senator\nair pollution abatement plan by January\nPeter Behr) would have directed the\n30, 1972. The plan must provide for\nDepartment of Public Health to conduct\nthe implementation, enforcement, and\na study to determine, from a health\nmaintenance of national ambient air\nstandpoint, the natural carrying capac-\nquality standards as promulgated by\nity of the South Coast Basin and the\nthe Administrator of the Environmental\nSan Francisco Bay Area. The other\nProtection Agency (EPA). These air\n(SCR 86, introduced by Senator\nquality standards must be attained\nArlen Gregorio) would have directed\nwithin three years of the date of approv-\nthe Air Resources Board to conduct\nal of such a plan, although the\nintensive studies to determine means\nAdministrator of EPA may, in his\nof bringing the earliest possible re-\ndiscretion, grant an extension of up to\nlief to the most critical air basins and\ntwo years in the time allowed for\nto determine what long-range con-\nattainment.\ntinuing measures are necessary to cope\nwith existing and future air pollution\nUnder final EPA requirements for\nlevels imperiling health. Neither of\npreparation, adoption, and submittal\nthese resolutions was adopted by the\nof implementation plans, states must\nLegislature because of concerns\ndevelop a far-reaching control strate-\nraised by those entities responsible\ngy for attaining the national primary\nfor carrying out the assignments.\nair quality standards. \"Control\n79\nstrategy\" means a combination of\nendangerment to health.\nmeasures designated to achieve the\naggregate reduction of emissions\nThe Act provides also that any person\nnecessary for attainment and mainte-\nmay bring a civil action against any\nnance of a national standard, including,\nperson alleged to be in violation of an\nbut not limited to, land use and trans-\nemission standard or limitation under\nportation control measures deemed\nthe Act, or an order of the Adminis-\nnecessary.\ntrator or a state with respect to such a\nstandard or limitation. A person may\nRegions such as the South Coast Basin\nalso bring suit against the Administra-\nwhere existing ambient levels of\ntor for failure to perform an act which\npollutants exceed the levels specified\nis not discretionary, or to intervene\nby applicable national standards, must\nas a matter of right in an action brought\ndevelop a plan that will bring about a\nby the Administrator or a state.\nreal improvement in air quality. Such\na plan \"\nshall set forth a control\nThus the Clean Air Act of 1970 (as\nstrategy which shall provide for the\namended) requires prompt and effective\ndegree of emission reduction necessary\naction to develop a viable air pollution\nfor attainment and maintenance of\nabatement plan for the various basins\nsuch national standard, including the\nwithin the State. If the state and local\ndegree of emission reduction necessary\ndistricts do not develop comprehensive\nto offset emission increases that can\nplans, the federal government is\nreasonably be expected to result from\nempowered to develop such plans. If\nprojected growth of population, in-\nthe Administrator does not act, pri-\ndustrial activity, motor vehicle traffic,\nvate citizens and groups can sue to\nor other factors that may cause or\nforce compliance.\ncontribute to increased emissions. \"\nThe Administrator, EPA, may order\nState Implementation Plan\nany state to enforce the plan if he finds\nthat the state has failed to act, and\nPursuant to the new federal Act, the\nthe Administrator has been given emer-\nState prepared a proposed Implementa-\ngency powers to restrain immediately\ntion Plan for Achieving and Maintaining\nany person causing or contributing to\nthe National Ambient Air Quality\npollution which constitutes a substantial\nStandards in the State of California --\n80\nNovember 7, 1971. Included with this\n-- Basin-wide implementation of the\npackage were implementation plans\nmost stringent standards for station-\nfor each of the state's eleven basins,\nary sources now in effect in any\non which hearings were held throughout\ndistrict in the State or proposed in\nthe State. Based on these hearings,\nany given county as part of the basin\nthe ARB issued a State Implementation\nimplementation plans. (In effect,\nPlan, Revised Control Strategy -\nthis means that, with only two or\nJanuary 10, 1972. This plan was sub-\nthree exceptions, standards now on\nmitted to the EPA February 21, 1972.\nthe books or being proposed in Los\nAngeles County will be the basin-wide\nIn the January 10 revised plan, the ARB\nstandard by a certain prescribed\nindicates that the national ambient air\ndate. In one case a new standard\nquality standards for oxidants, 08\nwas imposed which is not yet appli-\nparts per million (ppm), can be met in\ncable anywhere in the State. In an-\nall of the state's air basin except the\nother case, a standard now in effect\nSouth Coast Basin by 1977. In the\nin San Diego County will be imposed\nSouth Coast Basin, a 18 ppm reading\nthroughout the South Coast Basin.)\ncan, according to the plan, be\n-- The continued implementation and\nachieved by 1975, a. 15 ppm reading\nenforcement of all new motor vehicle\nby 1977, and a 13 ppm reading by\ncontrol measures previously men-\n1980. However, reaching these levels\ntioned, including the meeting of the\nin the South Coast Basin, as well as\nstringent federal standards for 1975-\nthe national standards in the Bay Area\n76 models and 100-percent assembly\nand San Diego Basins, is based on the\nline testing.\nfollowing rather ambitious control\nThe control of used cars in the\nstrategy, for which the ARB must be\nmanner described previously, in-\ncommended:\ncluding retrofitting all 1955-62 cars\nwith crankcase devices, 1955-65\nBasin-wide enforcement of all state-\ncars with exhaust devices, 1966-70\nwide regulations concerning station-\ncars with exhaust devices for NOX,\nary sources. (These include smoke\nand pre-1970 cars with evaporation\nregulations, abatement of contin-\ndevices.\nued nuisance, and regulation of or-\nThe control of fuel composition as\nchard heaters, open waste disposal\npreviously discussed, including\nfires, and agricultural burning.)\nthe use of low lead fuel.\n81\n-- The control of aircraft recently pre-\nNecessary Action\nempted by the federal government.\n- Mandatory periodic vehicle inspec-\nEssential long range solutions to air\ntion and maintenance.\nquality depend on the comprehensive\n-- Conversion to gaseous fuels in the\nland use, transportation, and energy\nmanner previously described,\nuse programs and policies mentioned\ndesigned to replace one-third of the\nin other sections of the report. The\ngasoline now used in the South\nrecommendations cited below are\nCoast Basin.\nnecessary in order to bring relief as\n- Reduction of traffic by 20 percent\nsoon as possible to the state's more\nthrough increased use of public\ncritical air basins.\ntransit, car pooling, staggered\nworking hours, reduced work week,\nand parking limitations in certain\nImplementation of State Control\nareas.\nStrategy\nPursuant to the Federal Clean Air\nAmendments of 1970, the ARB has de-\nEngines Not Yet Controlled\nveloped a control strategy aimed at\nmeeting national ambient air quality\nAn additional program still under\nstandards. The measures cited in the\ndevelopment and not yet included as\ncontrol strategy are ambitious and,\npart of the state's control strategy\nif accomplished, will significantly im-\nis the control of emissions from\nprove air quality. Some, however,\nengines of less than 50 cubic inch\ncannot be implemented without addi-\ndisplacement, motorcycles, power\ntional legislation. The Council\nand construction equipment,\nendorses the proposed control strategy\nrecreation vehicles, and stationary\nand urges the Legislature to act in\nengines, which together are estimated\nthose areas which are necessary to\nto use 10 percent of the gasoline\nthe plan but which are not now within\nconsumed statewide. The ARB is\nthe purview of the ARB.\npresently funding a study to determine\nthe amount of pollution emitted\nThe Council recommends immedi-\nby these sources and the feasibility\nate legislative action on the\nof controlling them.\nfollowing measures which are\n82\nessential to the state's control\nthe use of vapor recirculation\nstrategy:\nsystems.\nA program of mandatory periodic\nThat some form of emissions tax\nvehicle inspection, maintenance,\nas well as other incentives to\nand repair to insure that required\noperate low emission automobiles,\nsmog devices are in proper\nuse cleaner fuels, and maintain\nworking order.\nvehicles at a low emission level be\ninstituted. Such a tax could be\nA program to expedite the de-\nadministered in conjunction with\nvelopment of evaporative control\nthe proposed mandatory inspection\ndevices for retrofitting 1966-69\nprogram which would be necessary\nvehicles, and to require the instal-\nto determine an automobile's\nlation of such devices at the ear-\nlevel of emission. Proceeds from\nliest date after their approval by\nthe tax would go to finance rapid\nthe ARB.\ntransit and clean air research and\nto assist lower income individuals\nA program to phase the lead out of\nto properly maintain their cars.\ngasoline to \"traces only\" by 1977\nin a manner that will not raise\nThat the best available means\nother undesirable emissions.\nbe used to substantially reduce\noxides of nitrogen emissions\nfrom fossil-fueled power\nThe Council recommends the\nplants and large industrial\nfollowing additional measures\nfurnaces using natural gas. De-\nwhich will strengthen the state's\nvices are in use now which\ncontrol strategy and help speed\nreduce these emissions by as\nthe reduction in air pollution:\nmuch as 50 percent.\nThat steps be taken to control\nThat district hearing boards make\nvapors emitted in connection with\nan affirmative finding that the\nthe transferring of gasoline from\napplicant is making the maximum\nthe tank truck to the service\neffort to comply with air pollu-\nstation and from the service sta-\ntion regulations before granting\ntion to the automobile through\nrenewals of variances.\n83\nThat increased supplies of gas and\nE/ NOISE\nlow sulphur fuel for the state's\ncritical air basins be obtained and\nthat the proper federal authorities\nIntroduction\nbe made aware of the extreme\nand critical need for such fuel in\nThe State Department of Public Health,\nthese areas.\nin \"A Report to the 1971 Legislature\non the Subject of Noise, Pursuant to\nThat the present tax incentives now\nAssembly Concurrent Resolution 195,\napplicable to the purchase of gas-\n1970, \" indicates that noise can cause\neous fuels and the installation of\nhearing loss, induce physiological\nconversion kits for the use of gas-\nstress, interrupt sleep, interfere with\neous fuels, which expire in 1975,\nspeech, and generally degrade the\nbe extended to 1980.\nquality of life. Yet, Dr. Alvin F.\nMeyer, Jr., Director of the Office of\nNoise Abatement and Control, Federal\nEnvironmental Protection Agency,\nA Long-Range Strategy\nstates:\nThe above measures, unfortunately,\n\"Noise differs from most other en-\ncan only be viewed as temporary\nvironmental pollutants in one very\nsolutions in combatting air pollution.\nimportant aspect - - the knowl-\nNo combination of remedies will be\nedge and technology exists now to\nsuccessful that does not include a\ncontrol almost every indoor or\nstrong land use program for properly\noutdoor noise problem. As a\nguiding, and where necessary,\nmatter of fact, this is one instance\nlimiting growth; a comprehensive\nwhere the knowledge of control\npolicy of energy use and conservation\ntechniques exceeds the knowledge\naimed at reducing our rate of fuel\nabout effects on human life as\nand energy consumption; and a\nwell as the environment. \"\nprogram of balanced transportation\naimed at reducing our reliance on\nFollowing is a discussion of past and\nthe automobile. It is to this\nproposed necessary future legislation\nlong-range strategy that a total com-\nrelating to four particular types of\nmitment must be made.\nnoise problems: air transport (at\n84\nairports and overflights); motor vehi-\nprogram was delayed until December\ncles; occupational noise; and com-\n1, 1972.\nmunity noise.\nThe objective of the statute is to reduce\nnoise exposure at airports and make\nAir Transport\nsurrounding development compatible\nwith the noise levels specified. This\nWith the advent of the jet age, air\nstatute requires airport operators,\ntransport noise has been added to the\nunder the supervision of the particular\nlong list of environmental woes.\ncounty, to define, by actual monitor-\nAs jets have become larger and faster,\ning, noise impact boundaries which\naircraft noise has become a major\ndelineate the point at which the actual\nnuisance and a hazard to health. The\nnoise level is equal to the noise level\nproblem is most acute and perhaps\nallowed for that particular type of\nparamount in those communities bor-\naircraft, for residential areas. The\ndering major urban airports and\ncommunity equivalent 10* (integrated)\nlocated under flight corridors.\nnoise levels are: 65 decibels (dB),\nA-weighted (A) for new airports and\nvacated military airports being con-\nAirport and Aircraft Noise Regulations\nverted to civilian use; 70 dB(A) for\nexisting civilian airports until\nIn 1969, AB 645 (Public Utilities Code,\nDecember 31, 1985, after which it\nArticle 3, Chapter 4, Part 1, Divi-\nsion 9) became law and directed the\nState Department of Aeronautics to\nadopt noise standards by which the\noperation of aircraft and aircraft en-\ngines at California airports could be\nregulated. These regulations were\ndrawn up and adopted by the Department\nin final form on November 28, 1970,\n10* Community Noise Equivalent\nand were to go into effect December 1,\nLevel (CNEL) -- Composite scale de-\n1971; however, as provided by AB 1608\nsigned to account for the noise of in-\n(Chapter 1734, Statutes of 1971) the\ndividual flights as well as the number\neffective date of portions of the\nand percentage that occur at night.\n85\nwould drop to 65 dB(A); 80 dB(A) for\nthe proceeds to be used for air-\ncommercial airports with at least\ncraft noise abatement and neces-\n25, 000 annual air carrier operations,\nsary land acquisition, preferably\ndropping to 75 dB(A) on January 1,\nin the area where the tax is\n1976, 70 dB(A) on January 1, 1981,\ncollected.\nand 65 dB(A) on January 1, 1986.\nAirport Land Use Commissions\nThe Funding of Corrective Action\nLand use planning, perhaps the most\nIt will be the responsibility of the\neffective tool for controlling the impact\noperators of the airport to take what-\nof aircraft noise, was further enunci-\never corrective action is necessary\nated in AB 2357 (Chapter 1085, Statutes\nto diminish the noise impact on people\nof 1971). This legislation provides\nresiding within the noise impact\nthat all land in the vicinity of new air-\nboundary, or remove from within the\nports, and existing airports where\nboundary any existing residential\nincompatible uses have not already\nuses, including single-family and\nbeen established, be zoned for compat-\nmulti-family dwellings, trailer parks,\nible uses, based on the above men-\nand schools of standard construction.\ntioned noise regulations. Such action\nThose uses that may be permitted\nhas been made the function of county-\nwithin the noise impact boundary have\nwide airport land use commissions.\nbeen determined to be agricultural,\nThese commissions, consisting of\nopen space, industrial, commercial,\nelected city and county officials, air-\nand high-rise apartments meeting\nport managers, and representatives of\ncertain standards for exterior noise.\nthe public at large, in effect have\nTaking the necessary corrective\nbeen given the responsibility for con-\naction, particularly in the area of land\ntrolling land use on vacant land in the\nacquisition, in some cases will be a\nvicinity of airports, superseding the\nvery costly venture and one that should\nauthority of other local governmental\nbe borne primarily by the \"skyway\"\nentities.\nuser.\nThe Council recommends the im-\nOther Airport Development\nposition of an aviation fuel tax,\nConsiderations\n86\nAnother significant step in the control\n1971) prohibits landing and take-off\nof airport development was SB 1108\nwithin the State (except in emergency\n(Chapter 1293, Statutes of 1970 --\nsituations) of any new private or\nPublic Utilities Code, Sections 21664-\ncommercial aircraft which produces\n21666), sponsored by the Council.\nnoise in excess of designated federal\nThis legislation requires the Depart-\ncertification limits for subsonic jet\nment of Aeronautics to take into\ntransport aircraft.\naccount such environmental factors as\nnoise, air pollution, and the traffic\nThe State Department of Education and\nburden on the surrounding area, in\nthe State College Trustees were di-\nevaluating applications for permits for\nrected by 1961 legislation (Education\nnew airports or vacated military\nCode, Sections 15005-15005. 6) to\nairports being converted to civilian\ninvestigate all proposed acquisition of\nuse. Before approving such permits,\nlands for school and state college use\nthe Department must find that the\nwithin two miles of an airport. It\nadvantages to the public outweigh the\nis the opinion of the Council's scien-\ndisadvantages to the environment.\ntific Advisory Group on Noise that this\nStill needing further attention, however,\ndistance should be increased to eight\nis the question of airport expansions.\nmiles.\nThe Council recommends that\nThe Council recommends that the\nregulations or legislation be adopt-\nDepartment of Education and the\ned which would apply the same\nState College Trustees be directed\npermit requirements and proce-\nto investigate all proposed ac-\ndures to airport expansions as\nquisition of lands for school and\nnow exist for the construction of\nstate college use within eight\nnew airports. Such procedures\nmiles in each direction along the\ninclude provisions for holding\nflight corridor of an existing or\nof hearings and require that all\nproposed airport, and report their\nenvironmental considerations be\nfindings to the Legislature on\ntaken into account.\nFebruary 1, 1973.\nFurther steps were taken by the 1971\nLegislature to curb aircraft noise.\nAB 1054 (Chapter 1770, Statutes of\nMotor Vehicles\n87\nTwo major revisions of the California\n-- AB 2342, Chapter 1816, requires\nVehicle Code, adopted in 1970, pro-\nidentification plate to be issued by\nvide for the lowering of vehicle noise\nDepartment of Motor Vehicles\nlevel limits. The first specified noise\nfor all off-highway vehicles not sub-\nlevel limits for motor vehicles under\nject to registration, with fees de-\nany condition of grade, load, acceler-\nrived therefrom to be divided\nation, and deceleration (Section 23130).\nbetween the State Department of\nThe second made it unlawful to offer\nParks and Recreation and local\nfor sale a motor vehicle which pro-\ngovernments for funding of recre-\nduces noice exceeding the specified\national areas for use of such vehi-\nmaximum level limits (Section 27160).\ncles, and prohibits such vehicles\nIn 1971 the following additional mea-\nfrom highways.\nsures were enacted, designed to\n- - AB 1043, Chapter 1197, requires\nreduce noise emissions from this\nDepartment of California Highway\nsource:\nPatrol to adopt regulations setting\nnoise standards for pneumatic\n-- AB 1044, Chapter 1444, lowers\ntires.\nvehicle noise limits (new vehicles)\n-- AB 1003, Chapter 503, makes it\nto maximum of 70 dB(A) after 1987.\nillegal to operate a vehicle with ex-\n-- AB 1045, Chapter 1256, and AB\nhaust system modified to amplify\n1865, Chapter 1261, revise limits\nnoise.\nfor on-the-road vehicles; extend\ntest procedures to residential areas\nEven with the progressive legislation\nof urban cities.\ncited above, there are still and will\n-- AB 1046, Chapter 1769, requires\ncontinue to be many unusually noisy\nstudy by the Department of Califor-\nvehicles on California's highways,\nnia Highway Patrol and adoption\nparticularly heavy duty diesel trucks,\nof regulations setting standards for\nwhich could be significantly quieted\ncertification of vehicular exhaust\nsimply by installing better mufflers.\nsystems.\nAdditional effort is needed in this area\n-- AB 519, Chapter 714; AB 2365,\nto bring some of these noisier vehi-\nChapter 735; and SB 1012, Chapter\ncles down to acceptable noise levels.\n952, extend control of vehicular\nexhaust systems to off-highway\nvehicles.\nAdditional Enforcement\n88\nThere is a great deal of noise created\nthereof, such that the average A-\nby passenger cars and motocycles\nweighted noise level contour does\nwith obviously modified or defective\nnot exceed 60 dB(A) and maximum\nexhaust systems which are in violation\nlevels do not exceed 70 db(A) at\nof existing laws. As a general rule,\nthe boundary of any residential\nthese vehicles are easily identified\nzoning.\nwithout expensive noise measurement\ndevices, and increased enforcement\nagainst such violators by local author-\nOccupational Noise\nities could not help but improve the\nsituation.\nIn 1964 the U. S. Department of Labor\nheld public hearings on the proposed\nrevision of the Walsh-Healey Public\nFreeways and Highways\nContracts Act. At that time an overall\nlimit of noise level of 85 dB(A) was\nEvery effort must be made to reduce\nrecommended. Since persons most\nnoise levels at the source. However,\nlikely to suffer hearing loss are those\nthe aggregate of noise produced by\nsubjected to extreme noise intensities\nmany individual sources creates a\nover prolonged periods, the revised\nmajor noise problem on our heavily\nnoise level limits adopted in 1970\ntravelled roadways. Whenever possi-\nwere graded in accordance with the\nble, freeways and highways should\nduration of exposure to noise from 90\nbe isolated from residences and\ndB(A) for eight hours to 115 dB(A)\nschools by noise attenuation barriers,\nfor one-fourth hour. California has\nright-of-way design, or by a distance\nadopted the same limits, which are\nsufficient for the lowering of the\nwritten into the General Industrial\nnoise level to acceptable limits.\nSafety Orders (Article 55), with a pro-\nvision requiring that personal pro-\nThe Council recommends that\ntection equipment be worn when levels\nalternatives for the determination\nexceed those stipulated.\nof allowable residence proximity\nto freeways be established. These\nIn reviewing these regulations, con-\nshould be: (1) a 500-foot buffer\nsideration must be given to a number\nzone; or (2) a depressed freeway\nof important factors to obtain a better\nor barrier, or combination\nunderstanding of the actual\n89\nphysiological response to noise. One\nit is felt that this level is a necessary\nmajor fact was expressed in the 1970\ncompromise and will have a much\nreport of the State Department of\nbetter chance of passage in the 1972\nPublic Health to the Legislature, which\nLegislative Session. It should be noted\nstated that\nthe standards pro-\nthat this level (85 dB(A) for an eight-\nvide only incidental and limited protec-\nhour day) was originally recommended\ntion for hearing frequencies above\nin 1957 by the Subcommittee on Noise\n2, 000 cycles per second, which is\nof the Committee on Hearing, American\nessential to some attributes of life\nAcademy of Ophthalmology and Otolar-\nother than understanding speech. 11 The\nyngology, in reference to the national\nDepartment therefore recommended\noccupational noise standards.\nthat the Legislature \"set the basic cri-\nterion for occupational noise exposure\nat 75 dB(A), and make this level\nCommunity Noise\nmandatory for all industry by January\n1, 1980. \" AB 2356, to implement\nIn its first progress report (1970) the\nthis recommendation, failed passage\nCouncil noted the problem of \"com-\nin the 1971 session.\nmunity noise\" and the need for a state-\nwide building code that would insure\nThe Council recommends that\na measure of privacy and quiet in multi-\nlegislation be introduced to reduce\nfamily dwellings. Steps that have been\nthe values in the General Industrial\ntaken since have unfortunately not\nSafety Orders to a maximum\nobviated the need for further action at\noccupational noise level of 85\nthe state level.\ndB(A) for an eight-hour day, by\n1977, using a table of increased\nAB 2300 (Chapter 1436, Statutes of\nnoise levels for less than eight\n1970) requires that all building code\nhours of exposure, similar to the\nchanges made by California code\npresent Federal Occupational\nauthorities conform to the Uniform\nSafety and Health Act of 1970 Noise\nBuilding Code (UBC). Regrettably, the\nExposure Limit Table.\nUBC is mute not only on standards\nfor sound and impact noise transmis-\nAlthough the recommendation of the\nsion between dwelling units in Group H\nState Department of Public Health's\nand I occupancies, 11* but also on\nAdvisory Committee on Noise is sound,\nstandards for interior noise levels\n90\narising principally from heating, ven-\nhas published a Model Noise Ordi-\ntilating, and air conditioning equipment.\nnance for dealing with community noise.\nAlthough the International Conference\nHowever, judging by the number of\nof Building Officials (ICBO) recently\ncities that have moved in this direction,\ndeveloped such regulations, since they\nit may be some time before very many\nwill be in the appendix and not the\npeople will be living in communitites\nbody of the UBC, their application is\ncovered by this type of legislation.\nnot mandatory. In addition, the pro-\nThere is also some concern that the\nposed sound control regulations are\nLeague Model, in its present form,\ninadequate in that the degree of sound\nwill more nearly have the effect of in-\nisolation is too low, and the reference\ncreasing rather than reducing com-\nstandard is based on laboratory test\nmunity noise. Since the Legislature has\nresults rather than on actual field\nnow scheduled the decrease of motor\nperformance.\nvehicle noise, presently in most places\nthe pervading source of community\nThe Council recommends that the\nnoise, it is necessary that local juris-\nHealth and Safety Code be amended\ndictions be required to institute meaning-\nto require that all code jurisdic-\nful noise control legislation as well.\ntions in California add a section on\nairborne noise and impact sound\nisolation in Group H and I occupan-\n11* Group H - Hotels, apartments,\ncies, based on a field performance\nconvents, and monasteries; Group I -\nstandard which shall be no less\nDwelling and lodging houses.\nthan the Federal Housing Adminis-\ntration's recommended criteria,\n12* Grade III in Tables 10-2 and 10-3\n12* as well as a section to the\nof the HUD publication, \"Guide to\nmechanical code setting a maximum\nAirborne, Impact, and Structure Borne\nnoise level limit for interior noise\nNoise Control in Multi-Family Dwell-\nin any dwelling unit, arising from\nings\", FT/TS-24, January 1968.\nheating, ventilating, or air con-\n13* Not to be greater than that corre-\nditioning equipment, or re-radiated\nsponding to the octave band levels of\nnoise from fluid flowing in piping.\na preferred noise criterion curve of 31,\n13*\nor, for enforcement purposes, its\nequivalent A-weighted sound level of\nThe League of California Cities\n40 dB(A).\n91\nThe Council recommends that each\nto identify the types of buildings\ncity and county be required to\nwhich come under the bill's juris-\nenact an ordinance setting fixed\ndiction as \"single and multi-\nnoise level limits, 14* establish-\nfamily dwelling units, motels,\ning criteria for considering noise\nhotels, and other residential build-\nin connection with zoning changes,\nings.\n\"\nand establishing quiet zones\nwithin certain park areas.\nEquipment, Machinery, and Appliances\nTwo bills were introduced during 1971\nwhich dealt with community noise.\nLegislation (SB 689) was passed during\nSB 691 (Chapter 775, Statutes of 1971)\nthe last session, aimed at controlling\nrequires city and county general plans\nnoise from various types of equipment,\nto contain noise elements associated\nmachinery, and appliances. Since\nwith transportation elements. This Act\nthis measure was vetoed, it remains a\nwill allow for better understanding\nsignificant category of yet uncontrolled\nof community noise problems at a state\nnoise sources.\nlevel and could lead to improved plan-\nning of air and motor vehicle transpor-\ntation systems. The second bill,\nSB 692, which would have required the\nadoption of rules and regulations re-\nlating to minimum standards of noise\ninsulation of new buildings designed\nor intended for human habitation, was\nvetoed by the Governor on December\n1, 1971.\n14* Based on a community noise\nThe Council recommends that the\nsurvey conducted in accordance with\nbasic provisions of SB 692, re-\nthe standards established by the\nquiring the adoption of rules and\nAmerican National Standards Institute\nregulations relating to noise\n(ANSI). Such limits shall not exceed\ninsulation for buildings intended\nthe 50th percentile A-weighted sound\nfor human occupancy, be reintro-\nlevel for each time of day in each\nduced in 1972, and be changed\nappropriate zone or area.\n92\nThe Council recommends that\nresults are critically dependent on\nnoise standards be set for con-\nmany small details of construction.\nstruction equipment, office ma-\nThis makes the building mechanic the\nchinery, and appliances con-\nkey man in building processes, along\nsistent with technological and\nwith the foreman, inspector, and\neconomic feasibility and product\nplan checker. The latter must be able\nutility, and that the appropriate\nto recognize adequate, or inadequate,\nstate agency be given the authority\ndesign, and the others must be able to\nto certify, or refuse certification\nexecute adequate design properly.\nof, those products for sale in\nthe State.\nThe Council recommends that\nsufficient funds be made available\nto the University and State Colleges\nEducation\nto establish and maintain a curric-\nulum in environmentally-related\nTo a large degree our environment is\nacoustics and noise control engi-\nshaped by architects and planners -\nneering; and further, that the State\nSO much so that we have established\nencourage and promote the up-\n\"Schools of Environmental Design\".\ngrading of skill and knowledge\nYet it is a regrettable fact that gradu-\namong architects, engineers, and\nates of curricula can and do complete\nthe appropriate segments of the\ntheir studies without the slightest\nbuilding trades through increasing\nexposure to one course in acoustics --\nprofessional standards and by\neven at the several campuses of the\nsupporting on-the-job programs.\nUniversity of California.\nIn the quest for quiet and privacy in\nOne immediate step in this direction\nmulti-family dwellings, there is a\ncould be to complete the acoustical\ngreat need to train working level\nlaboratory at the University of Califor-\npeople in the building industry in the\nnia at Los Angeles and make it a\nfundamentals of building noise control.\njoint facility between the Department\nWhile building code requirements are\nor Physics and the School of Engineer-\nnecessary to establish minimum\ning and Applied Science, with the pro-\nperformance standards, it is unfortu-\nvision for sufficient funds to properly\nnate that in noise control, the\nequip the laboratory.\n93\nThe cost of noise abatement is nominal\nState to bear on the problem in the\nwhen compared to the effects noise\nmagnitude and to the degree that it\nhas on human life. Noise may adverse-\ndeserves.\nly affect or interfere with the normal\nspeech range, the physiology of hearing,\nthe ability to sleep comfortably, and\nF/ OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES\nthe psychological stability of a person\nsubjected to intense noise. Further-\nSpecific recommendations on water\nmore, disease other than loss of hear-\nresources, solid waste, pesticides, and\ning may be linked to noise, including\nassessment practices, and other un-\nheart attack and duodenal ulcers.\nresolved environmental issues are\npending further Council hearings and\nNoise is as deadly and pervading a\nstudy and will be the subject of in-\nthreat to the health of the citizens of\ndividual reports to be submitted prior\nthis State as sulphur in the air or\nto June 30, 1972.\nuntreated sewage in our waters. Be-\ncause it is invisible, of relatively\nWhile the Council decided that the\nshort, albeit continuous duration, and\nquestion of campaign financing is not\nmoves swiftly across governmental\nwithin the scope of its legislative\nboundaries (indeed, with the speed of\ncharge, some members felt that it is\nsound), noise has not received the\nat the heart of many environmental\nattention given other more apparent\nproblems and represents one of the\nforms of pollution. It may, however,\nmost significant obstacles to the enact-\nprove to be a bigger menace to the\nment of effective measures in this\nenvironmental well-being of our citizens\nfield.\nthan any of these other forms.\nWe must look forward not only in the\npreventive areas as set forth in this\nreport, but also in the area of further\nresearch to more clearly ascertain\nthe effects of noise. Only when its full\nimpact as a health deterrent is known\nwill it be possible to bring the full\npolitical and financial support of this\n94\nOSÒA\nIV/ COUNCIL ACTIVITIES\nIV COUNCIL ACTIVITIES\nIn its attempt to respond to the charge\nhearings, numerous committee meet-\ngiven it by the 1968 Legislature, the\nings and work and study sessions.\nState Environmental Quality Study\nWhenever and wherever the need was\nCouncil has conducted a rather ambi-\ndemonstrated, the Council has held\ntious program of meetings, public\non-site hearings on specific problems\nhearings, study sessions, and com-\nwith statewide implications.\nmittee meetings throughout the State.\nBecause of the limited time and staff\nOne of the most important efforts dur-\navailable, the Council has attempted to\ning the year was the active support\nutilize the expertise SO generously\nof legislation introduced to implement\nprovided by governmental agencies,\nthe Council's February 1971 recom-\nthe private sector, and citizens\nmendation to create a State Environ-\norganizations. All of these sources\nmental Quality Board. Much time and\naided immeasurably in the Council's\nenergy on the part of both the Council\nefforts to develop a comprehensive\nmembers and the staff was expended in\nplan to deal with the state's environ-\nworking with legislators and others\nmental problems.\nin attempting to bring about passage of\nthis important legislation.\nThe Council's 1970 and 1971 progress\nreports describe in detail the activities\nand actions which took place during\nCouncil Hearings\nits first two years of operation. This\nsection relates those activities which\nNuclear Energy The Council's first\noccurred during the past year and\n1971 public hearing was held in\nhow they have contributed to the find-\nSacramento on January 21, on nuclear\nings and recommendations of this\nenergy. At this hearing testimony\nreport.\ndealt with such matters as: the federal\nrole in nuclear energy; California's\npower requirements; alternative power\nThe Council's Third Year\nsources; plant siting; radiation;\nthermal effects; and the state's regula-\nDuring 1971 the Council continued its\ntory role. From this testimony it\nstudies of California's environmental\nwas apparent that the basic power prob-\nproblems, holding six regular public\nlem facing California is one of supplying\nhearings, two combination meetings and\nthe ever-increasing power demand in\n95\na manner compatible with the preserva-\non April 16. Testimony was heard on\ntion of the state's environment.\nthe impact of transportation facilities,\nwater conservation and development,\nCoastline Management -- On February\nforest management, recreational\n18 the Council held a hearing at\nsubdivisions, and economic develop-\nSanta Cruz, on coastline management\nment in this part of the State. The\nand power plant siting. The purpose\nCouncil felt that if some of the basic\nof this hearing was to explore current\ndevelopment problems could be re-\npolicies, standards, and criteria\nsolved now, while the area is compara-\nand those that should be instituted to\ntively undeveloped and sparsely popu-\nguide both public and private actions\nlated, perhaps many of the environ-\nin these areas of regional and state-\nmental consequences which have re-\nwide interest.\nsulted from poorly planned development\nelsewhere could be avoided.\nIn addition to exploring the general\nproblems related to the California\nAirport Expansion - - On April 29, the\ncoastline, the Council considered cri-\nCouncil held a hearing in San Jose\nteria utilized in determining the lo-\nto consider the impact of the proposed\ncations of such specialized facilities\nexpansion of the San Jose airport on\nas nuclear power plants. The Council\nadjacent areas. Testimony was heard\nheard testimony from experts in the\nfrom expert witnesses on land use,\nfields of land use, power development,\nnoise abatement, and air quality; and\ncoastline management, geology, and\nrecommendations received on legisla-\nseismic safety. This hearing brought\ntive and administrative actions neces-\ninto clear focus the present problems\nsary to protect, manage, and improve\nassociated with coastline protection\nenvironmental quality in such a\nand development and the need for a\nsituation.\nbetter coastline management system\nat the state and regional levels.\nFollowing the hearing the Council\nadopted Resolution 71-1, urging the\nEnvironmental and Economic Problems\nCity of San Jose to curtail all planning,\nof the North Coast -- Because of the\nacquisition, or construction activi-\nunique nature and the special problems\nties connected with the proposed ex-\nof California's north coastal region,\npansion until such time as an adequate\nthe Council held a hearing in Eureka\nenvironmental impact statement is\n96\nsubmitted and studies presently being\nthe top. It was feared that the pro-\nconducted by the Association of Bay\nposed routing would obliterate a road\nArea Governments relative to air\nof scenic value, threaten a grove of\ntransportation needs for the entire\nunique Bishop Pine, and have other un-\nSan Francisco Bay Area are completed.\ndesirable environmental effects.\nEnvironmental Problems of the South\nAnother problem brought before the\nCentral Coastal Area - - The Council\nCouncil in this meeting concerned a\nheld its monthly meeting in Santa\nproposal to mine rock phosphate in the\nBarbara on July 22, devoting the\nLos Padres National Forest. Oppo-\nmorning session to regular agenda\nnents of the proposal contended that the\nitems, and the afternoon to discussion\nmassive earth-moving effort, which\nwith interested citizens and public\nwould require the mine and plant to\nofficials of several environmental\noperate 24 hours per day, 7 days a\nissues of the South Central Coastal\nweek, would increase runoff, result in\nArea. The first was a proposed urban\nerosion and silting, destroy plant\ndevelopment in the Las Posas Valley,\nlife, and create excessive noise. They\nin Ventura County, which is the\nwere further concerned the California\nsecond largest producer of leaf veg-\nCondor flyway would be adversely\netable specialty crops in Southern\naffected; and that three existing camp-\nCalifornia. Witnesses indicated that\nsites, a trail, the springs, and the\nthe proposed development will not only\nwater supply would be destroyed.\ntake much prime agricultural land\nout of production, but also the in-\nFollowing the Santa Barbara session,\ncreased vehicular traffic with its re-\nthe Council adopted three resolutions.\nsultant air pollution will seriously\nResolution 71-2 dealt with the pro-\nthreaten the remaining leaf vegetable\nposed mining operation within the Los\ncrops and citrus groves in the valley.\nPadres National Forest. Because\nof the possible adverse environmental\nThe second problem concerned the en-\nimpact, the Council urged the De-\nvironmental impact of a proposed\npartment of Interior to postpone issu-\nfreeway near the City of Lompoc,\nance of a lease until such time as\nwhich would require a cut at the sum-\nthe applicant could demonstrate a need\nmit, 187 feet deep, 134 feet wide at\nfor production of phosphate and until\nroad level, and 600 to 700 feet wide at\nthe Department could determine the\n97\nmagnitude of environmental costs\nreports, could make a specific finding\nassociated with the proposed mining\nthat the benefit to the general public\nactivity.\nwould outweigh the apparent environ-\nmental and aesthetic disadvantages.\nResolution 71-3 requested the County\nof Ventura to delay the development\nof prime agricultural lands in the\nGeothermal Development -- On August\nLas Posas Valley until: (1) all other\n19, in conjunction with its regular\nappropriate areas have been urbanized;\nmonthly meeting, the Council held a\nand (2) the Ventura County Air Pollu-\nhearing in Lakeport, on the environ-\ntion Control District plan for achiev-\nmental implications of geothermal\ning air quality has been approved. The\ndevelopment proposed for Lake County.\nCouncil also urged the State College\nTestimony was heard on the types of\nBoard of Trustees to abandon plans\ngeothermal reservoirs, the geothermal\nfor a state college on prime agricul-\nenergy potential, associated environ-\ntural lands in western Las Posas\nmental problems, types of pollutants,\nValley.\nand means of control. While geother-\nmal energy is considered to be rela-\nResolution 71-4 requested the Board\ntively clean, without proper controls\nof Supervisors of Santa Barbara County\nthere can be problems of air, water,\nand the State Highway Commission\nand noise pollution, as well as un-\nto delay any final decision on approval\npleasant odors and unsightly scars on\nof the proposed Harris Grade Freeway\nthe landscape. Although the geother-\nuntil: (1) the Division of High ways\nmal resource is being developed by\ncould present an environmental impact\nthe private sector, the State does have\nreport that included quantitative data\nan interest and has regulatory powers\nregarding the environmental effect on\nthrough the Division of Oil and Gas,\nthe Lompoc area; (2) a report on the\nDepartment of Conservation.\neffect of the freeway on the environ-\nmental element of the Lompoc area by\nThis and other hearings have demon-\nHancock Junior College was com-\nstrated the need to expand the defini-\npleted and reviewed; and (3) the Board\ntion of the term \"project\" for purposes\nof Supervisors and the Highway\nof environmental impact statements\nCommission had carefully evaluated\nunder Section 21000 of the Public\nthe above reports and, based on said\nResources Code.\n98\nSonoma-Marin Aqueduct - On October\nof the state's Implementation Plan\n27, the Council held a hearing in San\nrecently submitted to the Federal En-\nRafael on the proposed Sonoma-Marin\nvironmental Protection Agency.\nAqueduct. Citizens in the area,\nparticularly in Marin County, had been\nEnergy Use -- The Council's last hear-\nquestioning many environmental as-\ning in 1971 was held in Los Angeles\npects of the project. Foremost seemed\non December 17, and dealt with the\nto be whether the project was based\nvital matter of energy use. This hear-\non a comprehensive land use plan or\ning was broadly based to cover the\nrather would it predetermine thekind\nsubjects of electric power consumption,\nof development that would occur and\nwhat factors contribute to the present\nthereby influence the final plan.\neight percent annual increase in energy\nSince then, voters in Marin County\nuse, and what measures, such as\nhave voted decisively against the ex-\nbuilding design, life style, rate struc-\ntension of the aqueduct into that\nture, etc., might reduce energy\nCounty.\ndemand. Witnesses included experts\nfrom the academic field, conservation\nAir Quality in Riverside - The\ngroups, the power industry, and\nCouncil's Air Quality Committee held\nothers concerned with the total energy\na study session in Riverside on Novem-\nsituation.\nber 9, to again consider the serious\nair pollution problems in that area.\nFollowing this hearing the Council\nTestimony presented by many in atten-\nadopted Resolution 71-5, requesting\ndance suggested that the situation has\npublic officials in the South Coastal\ngrown worse since the committee's\nBasin to adopt policies that will curtail\nmeeting of the year before. Following\nimporting power if it is to mean ex-\nthis session, the Air Quality Committee\nporting pollution to other areas.\nrecommended to the Governor and to\neach Mayor, City Council, and County\nBoard of Supervisors in the South\nProposed Remaining Activities\nCoastal Basin that all motor vehicles\nin the basin be converted, over the\nDuring 1972, the Council will continue\nnext five years, to run on either natu-\nto explore environmental issues\nral gas or propane. Such an approach\nthroughout the State and to search for\nhas since been incorporated as part\nsolutions. Another concerted effort\n99\nwill be made to develop legislation to\nmeans for generating information.\ncreate a State Environmental Quality\nBoth theory and study of a 'study'\nBoard. The Council recognizes that\ncouncil suggest that ombudsman\ngovernmental organization alone is not\nand advocate could serve as\na panacea for all our environmental\nvaluable environmental watchdogs.\nills, but believes that the proper kind\nMore important, these institu-\nof organization is essential to the\ntions could help make citizens the\nmore comprehensive approach so badly\nmost effective watchdogs of all. \"\nneeded.\n15*\nThe Council plans hearings in 1972 on:\nThe Council is not funded beyond the\nassessment and other tax policies\ncurrent fiscal year. It is our earnest\nand practices affecting land use; water\nhope that the concept of citizen par-\nresources: and solid waste manage-\nticipation in the effort to better our\nment. Supplementary reports of find-\nenvironment will not be abandoned, but\nings and recommendations will be\nperpetuated in the Environmental\nsubmitted to the Governor and the\nQuality Citizens Council proposed\nLegislature on these subjects.\nherein.\nThe Council's Role\nIn the course of its activities, the\nCouncil has served as both an environ-\nmental ombudsman and an environ-\nmental advocate. Eschewing self-\nevaluation, the Council quotes James\nE. Krier, Professor of Law,\nUniversity of California at Los Angeles.\n\"EQSC served as a catalyst, an\nagent that helped interests to\n15* \"Environmental Watchdogs: Some\ncoalesce. It was a focal point, a\nLessons from a 'Study' Council,\nlever, a source of advice, en-\nStanford Law Review, Volume 23,\ncouragement, and support, and a\nNo. 4, April 1971, pg 675.\n100\nV/ APPENDICES\n****\ni\nAPPENDIX A / SCHEDULE OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES, 1971\nDate\nActivity\nLocation\nJanuary 7\nTwentieth Regular EQSC Meeting\nSacramento\nJanuary 21\nPublic Hearing -- Nuclear Energy\nSacramento\nFebruary 18\nPublic Hearing -- Coastline Manage-\nment; Power Plant Siting Problems\nSanta Cruz\nFebruary 25\nTwenty-first Regular EQSC Meeting;\nSan Francisco\nSession with Community and\nConservation Leaders re EQSC\nLegislative Proposals\nMarch 18\nTwenty-second Regular EQSC Meeting\nSacramento\nApril 16\nPublic Hearing -- Problems and\nEureka\nIssues of North Coastal Region\nApril 29\nPublic Hearing -- Airport Expansion\nSan Jose\nMay 27\nTwenty-third Regular EQSC Meeting\nSacramento\nJune 24\nTwenty-fourth Regular EQSC Meeting\nSacramento\nJuly 22\nTwenty-fifth Regular EQSC Meeting;\nSanta Barbara\nSession re Environmental Problems\nof the South Coastal Area\nAugust 18\nTour of the Geysers, Sonoma County\nLakeport and\nAugust 19\nTwenty-sixth Regular EQSC Meeting;\nvicinity\nSession re Geothermal Development\nSeptember 8\nMeeting, Scientific Advisory Group\nLos Angeles\non Noise\nSeptember 22\nMeeting, Scientific Advisory Group\nBerkeley\non Noise\nOctober 7\nTwenty-seventh Regular EQSC Meeting\nSacramento\nOctober 27\nPublic Hearing -- Sonoma - Marin\nSan Rafael\nAqueduct\nNovember 9\nMeeting, Air Quality Committee\nRiverside\nNovember 10\nMeeting, Scientific Advisory Group\nLos Angeles\non Noise\nDecember 9\nTwenty-eighth Regular EQSC Meeting\nSacramento\nDecember 17\nPublic Hearing -- Energy Use\nLos Angeles\nDecember 28\nMeeting, Water Resources Committee\nSacramento\nA-1\nAPPENDIX B / PUBLIC HEARINGS\nNUCLEAR ENERGY\nDate: January 21, 1971\nPlace: Sacramento\nParticipants\nHonorable James T. Ramey, Commissioner, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission\nDr. Robert Rex, Director of Geothermal Resources Project,\nUniversity of California, Riverside\nMr. David E. Pesonen, Executive Secretary, Northern California\nAssociation to Preserve Bodega Head and Harbor\nMr. Walter L. Cavagnaro, Chief Electrical Engineer, Utilities Division,\nState Public Utilities Commission\nMr. W.B. Murray, Vice President, Business Development, Atomics\nInternational Division of North American Rockwell\nMr. B.W. Shackelford, Chief Civil Engineer, Pacific Gas and Electric Company\nDr. Charles A. Washburn, Professor of Mechanical Engineering,\nSacramento State College\nDr. Arthur F. Tamplin, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore\nDr. Harvey Amster, Nuclear Engineering Department, University\nof California, Berkeley\nMr. Alexander Grendon, Biophysicist; Consultant\nDr. Don Erman, Professor of Wildlife Fisheries, University of California,\nBerkeley\nDr. Wheeler North, Marine Biologist, California Institute of Technology\nDr. Everett D. Howe, Professor Emeritus\nDr. Simon Kinsman, Chief, Bureau of Radiological Health,\nState Department of Public Health\nDonald E. Watson, M.D., Chairman, Clean Air Coordinating Committee\nCOASTLINE MANAGEMENT\nDate: February 18, 1971\nPlace: Santa Cruz\nParticipants\nMr. Harold D. Bissell, Program Manager, Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan,\nState Department of Navigation and Ocean Development\nDr. Charles Washburn, Professor of Mechanical Engineering,\nSacramento State College\nMrs. Celia Von der Muhll, California Coastal Alliance\nMr. Louis B. Muhly, Planning Consultant, University of California, Santa Cruz\nMr. B.W. Shackelford, Chief Civil Engineer, Pacific Gas and Electric Company\nMr. Ryland E. Kelly, President, Hare, Brewer and Kelly, Inc.\nMr. Sidney Liebes, Professor of Physics, Stanford University\nMr. Carl M. Wentworth, Jr., Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey\nMr. Gary Griggs, Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences, University\nof California, Santa Cruz\nB-1\nPROBLEMS AND ISSUES OF\nDate: April 16, 1971\nNORTH COASTAL REGION\nPlace: Eureka\nParticipants\nHonorable Gilbert S. Trood, Mayor of Eureka\nMr. Jack Civil, Director of Planning, City of Eureka\nHonorable Raymond Peart, Supervisor, County of Humboldt\nMr. H.G. Larsen, District Engineer, District 1, State Division of Highways\nMr. C. Raymond Hudson, Environmental Quality Coalition, Redwood Valley\nMr. David Van de Mark, Consultant to Sierra Club, Trinidad\nMrs. Virginia Hechtman, California Coastal Alliance\nMr. Dwight O'Dell, Executive Board, Humboldt County; Eel River Water Council\nMr. John H. Grobey, Department of Economics, Humboldt State College\nMr. Michael W. Johnston, Publisher, Eureka-Times Standard\nDr. W.F. Murison, Dean of Public Services, Humboldt State College\nMr. John Yarnell, Humboldt Bay Ecological Society\nMrs. Nancy Hilfiker, President, League of Women Voters, Eureka\nMr. Glenn E. Delisle, State Department of Fish and Game\nMr. William Van Fleet, Architect, Eureka\nMr. Albert Rasmussen, Humboldt Bay Ecological Society\nMrs. Jacqueline Casson, Economist, Humboldt State College\nMr. Gary Smith, Humboldt State College\nAIRPORT EXPANSION\nDate: April 29, 1971\nPlace: San Jose\nParticipants\nHonorable Norman Y. Mineta, Mayor-elect, City of San Jose\nMr. James Nissen, Manager, San Jose Municipal Airport\nMr. Walter Gifillan, Study Director, Bay Area Study of Aviation Requirements\nMr. Don Woodside, Manager for Economic Development, Association\nof Metropolitan San Jose\nDr. Kenneth Hayes, Save Our Valley Action Committee\nMr. Carl Hand, Federal Aviation Administration\nMr. Eberhard Thiele, San Jose State College; Executive Director,\nUnited New Conservationists\nMr. Jerome Smith, Vice Chairman, Planning Policy Committee of\nSanta Clara County\nMr. Daniel Kane, Attorney at Law, San Francisco\nMr. C.E. Schmale, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, San Jose\nUnified School District\nMr. Victor Calvo, Chairman, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District\nMr. Richard Dyer, State Department of Aeronautics\nCaptain Herbert Sherman, Airline Pilots Association\nMrs. Janet Grey Hayes, Councilman-elect, City of San Jose\nMrs. Edith Braley, League of Women Voters\nMr. Godfrey Baumgartner, United Taxpayers\nMr. Robert L. Gray\nB-2\nSONOMA-MARIN AQUEDUCT\nDate: October 27, 1971\nPlace: San Rafael\nParticipants\nMr. Gordon Miller, Chief Engineer, Sonoma County Flood Control\nand Water Conservation District\nMr. William R. Seeger, General Manager and Chief Engineer,\nMarin Municipal Water District\nMr. Robert Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director, Sonoma County\nMr. Sol Silver, Acting Chief, Advance Planning, Marin County\nMr. Tom Thorner, Marin Alternative\nMr. Rex Silvernail, Chairman, Citizens Committee for Measure \"B\"\nMr. Harold Gregg, President, Marin Conservation League\nMr. Eugene Huggins, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District\nMr. Patrick Hefferman, Marin Alternative\nHonorable Skip Stewart, Coucilman, City of San Anselmo\nDr. John Lee, Marin County (Environmental Health Committee of\nCounty Medical Society)\nMesdames Iva Warner, Helen Libeu, and Virginia Hechtman, and\nDr. Brad Lundborg, Sonoma County Coalition\nMessrs. Fred Smith, William Kortum, Richard Lee, and Trent,\nunscheduled participants from the audience\nENERGY USE\nDate: December 17, 1971\nPlace: Los Angeles\nParticipants\nDrs. Lester Lees, E.J. List, and Jerome Weingart, Environmental Quality\nLaboratory, California Institute of Technology\nMr. David J. Fogarty, Vice President in Charge of Electric Systems and\nEnvironmental Planning, Southern California Edison Company\nMr. James Hopper, Black Mesa Fund, Santa Fe, New Mexico\nMrs. Miriam Crawford, Navajo Tribe, \"Four Corners\" Area\nDr. Michael Williams, New Mexico State Environmental Council\nMr. Larry Moss, Southern California Representative, Sierra Club\nHonorable Thomas Bradley, Councilman, City of Los Angeles\nDr. James N. Pitts, Jr., Statewide Air Research Center, University\nof California, Riverside\nMr. Ralph Knowles, School of Architecture, University of Southern California\nDr. Ronald Doctor and Mr. Deane N. Morris, The Rand Corporation\nMr. William Cole, Vice President, Gas Supply Department, Pacific Lighting\nService Company\nMr. William Sells, Assistant Chief, Electrical Engineering,\nLos Angeles Department of Water and Power\nB-3\nAPPENDIX C / SPECIAL MEETINGS AND STUDY SESSIONS\nEQSC LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL\nDate:\nFebruary 25, 1971\nPlace: San Francisco\nParticipants\nMr. Larry Bryan\nMrs. Ruth Church Gupta\nZero Population Growth\nCalifornia Federation of\nMr. James D. Somers\nBusiness and Professional\nStamp Out Smog, Orange County\nWomen's Club\nDr. Donald E. Watson, and\nMr. William Roberts\nMr. C. William Moore\nTuberculosis and Respiratory\nClean Air Coordinating\nDiseases Association\nCommittee, Livermore\nDr. Robert Girard\nMr. Daniel Jones\nSanta Clara County Committee on\nClean Air Now, Riverside\nOpen Space and the Environment\nMr. Wayne M. Swan\nMrs. Janet K. Adams, and\nAmerican Institute of Planners\nMr. William W. Schultz\nMrs. Grant B. Mursch\nCalifornia Coastal Alliance\nLeague of Women Voters,\nMrs. Leona Egeland\nBay Area\nEnvironmental Task Force\nMrs. Ann Cotman\nMrs. Suzanne Kuehl\nFriends of Newport Bay\nAmerican Association of\nMrs. Claire Dedrick\nUniversity Women\nPeninsula Conservation Center\nMr. Roger Sperling\nMrs. Dorothy W. Erskine\nUniversity of California, Berkeley\nOpen Space Action\nMr. Jon Livingston\nMr. Gerald W. Gleason\nMr. Dan Rosenberg,\nPlanning and Conservation\nMr. Lowell Smith, and\nLeague\nMr. John H. Zierold\nMr. Anthony Anderson\nSierra Club\nGroup Against Smog Pollution\nMr. Ralph McGill\n(GASP)\nCalifornia Refuse Removal Council\nENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OF THE\nDate: July 22, 1971\nSOUTH CENTRAL COASTAL AREA\nPlace: Santa Barbara\nParticipants\nMr. Richard Bozung (re Las\nMrs. Patricia D. Weinberger,\nPosas Valley Development)\nEnvironmental Coalition\nMrs. Arnetta Crossman, PLUS\nMrs. Ann Van Tyne,\n(re Harris Grade Freeway)\nMr. Fred Eissler, Sierra Club; and\nMiss Eileen Kadesh, Ecology\nMr. Robert Easton, Santa Barbara\nAction, UC, Santa Barbara\nTrails Advisory Committee\n(re recycling of solid waste)\n(re phosphate mining in\nMr. E.D. Marshall (re proposal\nLos Padres National Forest)\nto build oil tanker unloading\nMr. Thomas R. Mitchell (re environ-\nfacility off Ormand Beach)\nmental problems, Goleta airport)\nC-1\nENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF\nDate: August 19, 1971\nGEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT\nPlace: Lakeport\nParticipants\nHonorable Junior C. Wilds\nMrs. Carol White\nChairman, Lake County Board\nChairman,\nof Supervisors\nLakeport County Geothermal\nMr. David N. Anderson,\nControl Council\nSupervisor of Geothermal\nDr. John A. Brookes, Biology\nOperations, Division of Oil\nDepartment, San Diego State\nand Gas, State Department\nCollege\nof Conservation\nDr. Carel Otte\nDr. Robert W. Rex, Director,\nManager,\nGeothermal Resources Project\nGeothermal Division\nUniversity of California,\nUnion Oil Company\nRiverside\nMr. Harry W. Falk, Jr.,\nDr. John T. O'Rourke,\nVice President\nEngineering Geologist\nMagma Power Company\nAIR QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING\nDate: November 9, 1971\nPlace: Riverside\nParticipants\nMr. Donald Bauer, Clean Air\nDr. Ward Elliott, Coalition for\nNow (CAN)\nClean Air\nColonel Art Krause, Assistant\nGerschen L. Schaefer, M.D.\nto the Mayor, Riverside\nRiverside County Medical\nMr. Arthur L. Littleworth,\nAssociation\nPresident, Riverside Unified\nDr. W.A. Schuck, Assistant\nSchool District\nDirector, Air Pollution\nMr. James F. McCarty, Project\nResearch Center, University\nEngineer, TRW Systems\nof California, Riverside\nMr. Donald F. Zimmer, Ad Hoc\nMr. Terry Winckler,\nEnvironmental Protection\nTuberculosis and Respiratory\nCommittee\nDiseases Association\nMrs. Marian Carpelan, Citizens\nMr. William Spindler,\nCommittee on Freeways and\nComprehensive Health Planning\nTransportation\nAssociation\nMr. James Somers, Stamp Out\nMr. Lyle Gaston, San Gorgonio\nSmog, Orange County\nChapter, Sierra Club\nC-2\nReport Design Consultant: George Louie, Designer\n1 &"
}