County OKs Scaled-Down Anti-Smog Plan

A cautious, scaled-down plan to fight smog in San Diego County, largely by requiring worker and student ride-sharing and solar heating in new construction, was approved Tuesday by the County Board of Supervisors.

The clean-air strategy, which will cost $133 million to $338 million annually, has been blistered as weak by environmentalists and public health groups and has won lukewarm acceptance at best from business and industry.

Still, the plan’s approval was heralded by some as a bold stroke.

“This is the best proposal we could develop, one of the best in the state,” Supervisor Brian Bilbray said, but he hastened to add, “Frankly, we need to improve upon it.”

The lone dissenter in the 4-1 vote, Supervisor John MacDonald, said the measure probably won’t deliver significantly better air quality, and that pressure to create ride-sharing programs for workers will scare off employers.

“I still have a great deal of concern that all these regulations we’re proposing . . . are not going to produce results in terms of reducing pollution that we expect,” MacDonald said. “We’re imposing regulations on business and industry that will cause us to have negative impacts on the economy.”

But supervisors generally regard the plan, which is required by the state, as a broad blueprint to improve air quality. They took a decidedly conservative approach, pointing out that specific regulations must still be written to implement the anti-smog plan and that the effort will be fine-tuned over the years.

The plan is expected to reduce reactive organic gases by 52 tons a day, oxides and nitrogen by 40 tons a day and carbon monoxide by 57 tons a day.

The key provisions of the plan, which must go before the state Air Resources Board for final approval, are:

* Businesses with more than 100 employees will have two years to adopt voluntary ride-share programs and incentives for workers, or they can accept pre-approved government ride-share schemes. Refusing to comply could bring fines.

* In similar fashion, community colleges, other colleges and universities must seek ways to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips by encouraging ride-sharing.

* Tougher controls on industrial and home pollution--so-called “stationary sources” of emissions--will be sought. Among other things, the strategy seeks new technology for power plants, less-polluting paints and stricter controls over gasoline storage tanks, dry cleaners, bakeries and fiberglass and plastics manufacturers.

* Regulations for including solar heating in new construction will be drafted in 1995. (Supervisors also agreed to seek state legislation allowing a tax credit for installing solar heating. But they gingerly left to future discussions the sensitive subject of requiring solar heating to be placed in existing homes.)

San Diego County is considered to have a severe smog problem, although last year, thanks partly to favorable weather conditions, smog exceeded state standards on 106 days, an improvement over the 139 days of violation the preceding year.

However, county officials are alarmed by the increasing number of cars and the ever-higher inclination of commuters to drive alone to their jobs. Solo vehicle trips are a major culprit in poor air quality. In 1990, according to the latest U.S. Census, 71% of commuters drove alone to work, up from 64% in 1980.

More than a year ago, the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District undertook an ambitious anti-smog strategy, but encountered galvanized opposition from business and industry, which disliked being pressured to craft ride-sharing programs for employees and offer economic incentives.

A compromise was reached with the private sector, but when the plan went before supervisors (acting as the APCD’s board) on June 11, Air Pollution Control Officer Richard Sommerville recommended further concessions.

He said the plan needed to be “toned down” to make it more consistent with plans from other regions that are being approved by the state Air Resources Board.

What supervisors eventually adopted Tuesday is somewhat stronger than Sommerville’s recommendation but still weaker than the original plan, both before and after the compromise with business and industry.

For example, the APCD’s staff had proposed that businesses with more than 10 employees meet ride-sharing requirements. Sommerville, taking his cue from the state board, urged that only companies with 100 or more workers be regulated.

Supervisors voted to keep the plan at 100 or more full-time equivalent workers the first year, but later apply ride-share provisions to firms with 60 or more employees.

“I think 100 is a manageable number to get started on,” Supervisor George Bailey said. “If it doesn’t work out, we can tighten it up.”

In another compromise, the APCD staff at first sought around-the-clock ride-sharing for companies with staggered work shifts. The plan passed by supervisors applies the ride-sharing to the peak morning commute of 6 to 10 a.m.

However, supervisors held the line in another area, refusing Sommerville’s recommendation to impose ride-sharing regulations on colleges and universities only as a contingency measure should air quality not improve enough.

Supervisors also blasted the state for placing regulations on business and industry while failing to control smog-belching cars from Mexico that commute through San Diego County.

“Why penalize our businesses when we’re not requiring these people to be pollution-controlled?” Supervisor Susan Golding asked.

Supervisors unanimously passed a separate motion seeking to make Mexican vehicles comply with California emission standards.

In previous public testimony before supervisors, environmental groups and public health organizations complained that the anti-smog plan won’t go far enough to improve air quality and give relief to people with respiratory ailments.

Meanwhile, business and industry was generally more satisfied with the plan, but complained about its practical and financial effects on the private sector. At one point, business representatives assailed a provision that could have made companies make non-ride-sharing workers pay for parking.

Tuesday, supervisors eased off that idea, instead approving wording that stresses giving an “economic differential” to reward employees who ride-share.