REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
-------
REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
National Air Pollution Control Administration
November 1968
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction i
Metropolitan Los Angeles Air Quality Control Region
Data 3
Discussion ^9
Proposal 60
Appendix A 63
Appendix B 72
References 76
-------
PREFACE
The Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, is
directed by the Air Quality Act of 1967 to designate "air quality
control regions" to provide a basis for the establishment of air
quality standards and the implementation of air quality control
programs. In addition to listing the major factors to be considered
in the development of region boundaries, the Act stipulates that the
designation of a region shall be preceded by consultation with appropriate
State and local authorities.
The National Air Pollution Control Administration, DKEW, has
conducted a study of the Metropolitan Los Angeles urban area, the results
of which are presented in this report. The Region* boundaries proposed
in this report reflect consideration of all available and pertinent data;
however, the boundaries remain subject to revision suggested by consulta-
tion with State and local authorities. Formal designation will be withheld
pending the outcome of that meeting. This report is intended to serve
as the starting point for the consultation.
The Administration is appreciative of assistance received either
directly during the course of this study or indirectly during previous
studies from the official air pollution agencies of the affected counties
and the Air Resources Board and the Bureau of Air Sanitation of the State
of California. Useful data was also supplied by local and State transporta-
tion and planning agencies and Chambers of Commerce.
*For the purposes of this report, the word region, when capitalized,
will refer to the Los Angeles Basin Air Quality Control Region. When
not capitalized, unless otherwise noted, it will refer to air quality
control regions in general.
-------
INTRODUCTION
"For the purpose of establishing ambient air
quality standards pursuant to section 108, and for
administrative and other purposes, the Secretary,
after consultation with appropriate State and local
authorities shall, to the extent feasible, within
18 months after the date of enactment of the Air
Quality Act of 1967 designate air quality control
regions based on jurisdictional boundaries, urban-
industrial concentrations, and other factors including
atmospheric areas necessary to provide adequate
implementation of air quality standards. The
Secretary may from time to time thereafter, as he
determines necessary to protect the public health
and welfare and after consultation with appropriate
State and local authorities, revise the designation
of such regions and designate additional air quality
control regions. The Secretary shall immediately
notify the Governor or Governors of the affected
State or States of such designation."
Section 107 (a), Air Quality Act of 1967
Air pollution, because of its direct relationship to people and
their activities, is an urban problem. Because of the nature of urban
areas, air pollution is also a regional problem. Urban sprawls often
cover thousands of square miles; they quite often include parts of more
than one state and almost always are made up of several counties and an
even greater number of cities. Therefore, the collaboration of several
governmental jurisdictions is prerequisite to the solution of the problem
in any given area. Air quality control regions called for in the above-
quoted section of the Air Quality Act of 1967 are meant to define the
geographical extent of air pollution problems in different urban areas and
the combination of jurisdictions that must contribute to the solution in
each.
-------
The regional approach set up by the Air Quality Act is illustrated
in Figure 1. The approach involves a series of steps to be taken by
Federal, State, and local governments, beginning with the designation of
regions, the publication of air quality criteria, and the publication of
information on available control techniques by the Federal Government.
Following the completion of these three steps, the Governor(s) of the
State(s) affected by a region must file with the Secretary within 90
days a letter of intent, indicating that the State(s) will adopt within
180 days ambient air quality standards for the pollutants covered by the
published criteria and control technology documents and adopt within an
additional 180 days plans for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of those standards in the designated air quality control
regions.
The new Federal legislation provides for a regional attack on air
pollution and, at the same time, allows latitude in the form which
regional efforts may take. While the Secretary reserves approval
authority, the State(s) involved in a designated region assumes the
responsibility for developing standards and an implementation plan which
includes administrative procedures for abatement and control.
The basic objective in the designation of an air quality control
region is that it be self-contained, i.e. that the transfer of air pollution
out of or into a region is minimized. This objective recognizes the fact
that an air quality control region cannot be delineated in a way to make
it completely independent with respect to the air pollution problem.
Because air pollutants can be carried long distances, the air over a
region can be subjected occasionally or even frequently to trace amounts
-------
HEW designates
air quality
control regions.
HEW develops and
publishes ak
quality criteria
based on scientific
evidence of air
pollution effects.
HEW prepares
and publishes
information on
available control
techniques.
States hold
hearings and
set air quality
standards in the
air quality
"'j control regions.
i
HEW
reviews
State
standards.
States establish plans for implementation;
considering factors such as:
Existing pollutant levels in the region
Number, location, and types of sources
Meteorology
Control technology
Air pollution growth trends
Implementation plans would set forth
abatement procedures, outlining factors
such as:
Emission standards for the categories of
sources in the region.
How enforcement will be employed to
insure uniform and coordinated controi
action involving State, local; and regional
authorities.
Abatement schedules for the sources r<~
insure that air quality standards will o?.
achieved within a reasonable time.
HEW reviews
State implementation pians
I
States act to control air
pollution in accordance with
air quality standards and plans
for implementation.
Figure 1. Rriw diagram for State action to control air pollution on a regional basis.
-------
of pollution from other cities and individual sources located outside
its boundaries. Under specific and episodal conditions such contributions
can even reach significant quantities. The problem of boundary designation
is further compounded in that urban areas generally do not end abruptly
but are surrounded by activities that can contribute to the pollution
of the urban area as well as be the recipients of its generated pollution.
Consideration of all these possibilities would result in regions
substantially larger than is practical or even necessary to get to the
brunt of the problem. The primary question, therefore, becomes one of
relative magnitude and frequency.
The boundaries of regions should encompass, however, areas that
contain sources that add significantly to the pollution load of the air as
well as the areas that are significantly and continuously affected by it.
For this purpose, the delineation of regional boundaries is based on
evaluation of annual and seasonal air pollutant emissions and resultant
ambient concentrations rather than those based on short-term and specific
conditions.
The selection of regional boundaries should not be based solely on
today's conditions and needs but, perhaps more importantly, should give
consideration to future development and growth of the area. For this
purpose, extensive consideration should be given to prescribed metropolitan
plans as well as the forecasted growth. Such considerations should result
in the designation of regions that will contain the sources and receptors
of regional air pollution for a number of years to come. This is not to
say that the regional boundaries should remain stationary and unchanged.
Periodic review of boundaries is desirable, and changes in the boundary
should be considered if conditions warrant.
-------
The delineation of region boundaries solely on the basis of source
locations and distributional patterns oi: ambient air pollution would most
likely result in regions that do not follow any existing governmental
boundaries, are difficult to define, and, more importantly, extremely
difficult if not impossible to administrate. It is for this purpose that
existing jurisdictional entities are reviewed and wherein practical the
boundary lines of a region should include that combination of whole
jurisdictions that encompasses the problem area. There can be exceptions
to this philosophy, however. The presence of overly large jurisdictions,
marked topographical features (mountains), or notable differences in
development within a given jurisdiction may make it desirable to include
only portions of some jurisdictions.
A region, then, will represent a balance between the various
objectives discussed so far to the. extent that any two of them lead to
different conclusions. The strength of some factors over others may lead
to region boundaries which exclude some sources of pollution that might
affect the air quality of part °r all of the nearby region under certain
conditions. Even though the impact of such sources would probably be
minimal, the implementation plan required under the Air Quality Act for
the region should provide a mechanism for the control of point sources
that are located just beyond the region boundary. Such a provision would
be consistent with the basic objective of providing desirable air quality
within an area being designated as an air quality control region.
The designation of each air quality control region involves three
major steps: 1) a report which documents the evaluation of the area and
proposes the boundaries of the region; 2) a consultation with appropriate
-------
State and local authorities; and 3) final designation by the Secretary,
HEW. The report documenting all of the factors considered is prepared
to serve as the basis of the consultation, and the region proposed
therein is subject to change following the consultation and prior to
final designation by the Secretary, HEW.
Reserving for the moment the question of existing jurisdictional
patterns, the distribution of average air quality levels gives the
clearest indication of the geographical extent of the problem and, thus,
the necessary size of the region. In most instances, however, inadequate
air quality data make it necessary to analyze additional factors that
serve as indicators of the problem area. Foremost among these additional
factors is topography. Where mountains or substantial hills exist, they
tend to delineate the outer limit of an urban air pollution problem.
First, the mere existence of the mountainous terrain influences heavily
the pattern and extent of urban development and thus the location of
pollution sources. Secondly, mountains tend to channel the air flow,
with the result that net pollutant transport tends to parallel the
mountains. Thirdly, even when the air flows from the source area toward
and over the mountains, the resultant ground-level concentration of the
pollutant beyond the mountains will, be much less than if the mountains
were not there.
A second important factor is the meteorology of the area. Without
discounting the impact of topographical features, the frequency of wind
speed and direction, together with vertical temperature profiles, play
a major role in the transport of pollution from sources to ground-level
receptors. A third major factor is the location of the sources themselves
-------
and the kinds and quantities of pollutants released from them. As
modified by the surrounding topography and the meteorological conditions,
the quantity and location of pollutant emissions will determine the
resultant quality of the surrounding air mass.
Information on current industrial, commercial, and residential land
use, transportation systems, and population density is of direct value
in that it illustrates generally the location of industry and people
in an urban area. Furthermore, it is through an evaluation of estimated
patterns of future land use and population density that the air quality
control region can be designed to provide for future growth and
expansion of the urban area.
-------
THE METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
DATA
The many years of concern over air pollution in the Los Angeles
area made this evaluation somewhat unique compared to those of other air
quality control regions to date. Numerous studies have been made of
the problem and its various aspects. The meteorology of the Los Angeles
Basin is as well documented as that of any urban area in the country.
State and local air monitoring activities are extensive. Current summaries
of pollutant emissions are available for most of the counties involved.
Active county and regional planning groups have documented various
demographic factors such as population density, land use, and transportation
networks, and they have projected each of these factors to future years.
Almost every analysis of air pollution in the Los Angeles area begins
by pointing out the importance of the topographical setting. The ring
of mountains presents a natural barrier to the transport of pollutants
and offers itself as a boundary of the Metropolitan Los Angeles air
pollution problem.
There are, of course, two other possibilities: 1) conditions might
be such at some points that air quality beyond the mountain perimeter
is affected to the extent that the Region should reach beyond the mountains;
or 2) at other points within the encircling mountains, the air pollution
problem may not be significant enough or, even if significant, not
enough related to the problem centered in the Los Angeles area to justify
its inclusion in the Metropolitan Los Angeles Region. The following
data are presented in order that these various possibilities can be
evaluated and the most reasonable boundary location thus determined.
-------
Figure 2 illustrates the topography of the south-coastal California
area. Beginning in the Point Arguello - Point Conception area in Santa
Barbara County, there is a succession of mountain ranges that reach all
the way to the California - Mexico Border. The ridge of the Santa Ynez
Mountains runs parallel to the south coast of Santa Barbara County at
elevations of 1500 to 2500 feet or more. These mountains rise abruptly
from the coast, leaving only a narrow (less than ten miles) coastal plain.
The Santa Ynez Mountains blend into the Sierra Madre Mountains in
the vicinity of the Santa Barbara - Ventura County line. Rising up from
the Santa Clara Valley in Ventura County, the Sierra Madres reach elevations
in excess of 7500 feet at the northern Ventura County line. Thus the
entire northern half of Ventura County is mountainous. The extension of
the Sierra Madres reaches from the northwest corner of Los Angeles County
and connects with the San Gabriel Mountains in the central part of the
County. The San Gabriels reach elevations in excess of 7500 feet as
they extend eastward into San Bernardino County.
The San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are separated only
by Cajon Pass (elevation, 4200 feet). The San Bernardino Mountains (over
7500 feet) bend southward some 40 miles from the Los Angeles County line
and extend into Riverside County. The San Jacinto Mountains run north-
west-southeast through Riverside County, parallel, to and about 60 miles
from the coast. The San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains connect in the
vicinity of the Riverside - San Diego County line. The Vallecito Mountains
begin at the southern end of the Santa Rosas in central San Diego County
and reach down into Mexico.
The smoothed 2500 foot contour on the basin side of this series of
-------
-------
11
Table 1 . Land Area by County
County
Santa Barbara
Ventura
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Rixerside
Orange
San Diego
Area,
Total3
?,738
1,853
A, 069
20,118
7,176
782
4,262
sq. miles
Basin
400
1,000
1,900
450
1,650
782
1,700
California Population - 1967. Department of Finance,
State of California. October 1967. Page 23.
b
Estimates include the land between the coast and the
2500 foot contour line (see figure 3. ).
-------
32
mountains is shown in Figure 3. It is a continuous line from the
California - Mexico border across San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino,
Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. The contour becomes discontinuous
in Santa Barbara County. Those areas where the mountains reach 5000
feet or more are also shown. Also shown on this Figure are two minor
mountain ranges that lie within the basin area, the Santa Susana Mountains
on the Ventura - Los Angeles County line, and the Santa Ana Mountains
separating Orange and Riverside Counties. Table 1 lists the seven
counties mentioned and shows the total area of each and the approximate
area of each between the coast and the 2500 foot contour line.
Now, with respect to the boundary questions posed earlier, if the
mountains preclude transport of pollutants and the entire basin is involved
in the same air pollution problem, the Region should include the basin
portion of each county. This would mean that all of Orange, and about
40% of San Diego, 25% of Riverside, 2% of San Bernardino, 50% of Ventura
and Los Angeles, and 15% of Santa Barbara would be in the Region. On
the other hand, data presented below may suggest that the Region should
reach beyond the encircling mountains in some places and that it need
not even reach the mountains in other places. The remainder of this
discussion is addressed to these possibilities.
Figures 4 and 5 show the pattern of urban development in the basin
area. Figure 4 is based on 1960 land use in the Los Angeles Regional
Transportation Study areal and Figure 5 on work conducted by the San
Diego County Regional Planning Commission^. The impact of the' mountains
in Los Angeles County is obvious; even in 1960 the entire basin portion
of Los Angeles County was well developed right up into the mountain
-------
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ELEVATION
Figure 3.
2500 feet or more
5000 feet or more
Smoothed topographical features of
the Southern California coastal area
-------
1
P& commercial, industrial
^- residential
<:&.;:
miles
/f
Figure 4. 1960 Land use pattern in the area covered by the
Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study
-------
J ff'f ..-. .> ."".
SjJT Commercial, Industrial;!':.^ £f ..jf . i~ .
W'^-^v.^^ "
!.-: '-i^jr1??;'. x.1'' "iv-
...$$ Residential ( __V.^Jfey^igfr»yr^-.V--
Figure 5. San Diego
County Land use,
1960.
-------
foothils, including the San Fernando Valley.
The development in the Antelope Valley in the northeast corner of
Los Angeles County is completely separated from that of the basin. On
the other hand, the basin portions of Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside,
and Orange Counties were not completely developed in 1960. Settlement
in Ventura County was primarily in the Ventura (city) and Oxnard area,
somewhat separated from Los Angeles County. Most of the development
in Orange County in 1960 was in the northwestern part adjacent to Los
Angeles County. Residential development extended along the coast.
The major industrial, commercial, and residential development in
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties in 1960 was centered around the
two cities, San Bernardino and Riverside. More recent data (1965) show
relatively little development of the basin portion of San Diego County
beyond the city of San Diego itself and its immediate suburbs. Develop-
ment northward along the coast from San Diego is primarily residential
and even that is separated from the Los Angeles - Orange County area
by Camp Pendelton which occupies some 250 square miles of area in
northernmost San Diego County. Development along the south coast of
Santa Barbara was in 1960 and still is today somewhat intermittent and
almost totally residential in character.
Figure 6 shows the 1960 population density of the LARTS area-'-. As
expected it parallels the land use pattern, with the heaviest densities
occuring in the City of Los Angeles. Only with a few exceptions did
population density outside of Los Angeles County exceed eight persons
per gross acre in 1960. More current data from individual planning
agencies-'"" show that Orange County is the fastest growing of those
-------
persons per
';:: 1-8
miles
p 5 to 15
Figure 6. 1960 population density.
-------
18
in question. In 1967, Orange County was second only to Los Angeles
County in population density. Current population figures for all
seven counties are shown in Table 2.
The pattern of residential, commercial and industrial land use is
indicative of the location of pollutant sources of various categories.
For instance, peoples' desires for places to live and places to work
determine in part the transportation system necessary to transport people
and goods. Figure 7 shows the freeway and expressway system for the
LARTS area1 for 1960, and that proposed for 1980. The location and density
of major arterials is an important consideration since it illustrates the
relative vehicle mileage and thus the relative density of pollutant
emission from mobile sources.
Figure 8 through 12 show the location of power generating facilities
and major (100 or more employees) selected industrial plants in each
of several industrial categories of concern because of their potential
for polluting the atmosphere. The best way to illustrate the geographical
spread of sources and emissions of air pollution in an area is through
the use of emission density maps which present emissions in terms of
tons of pollutant per unit area. These maps would be of particular value
in illustrating the continuity of geographic distribution of emissions
which may suggest areas for inclusion or exclusion from the region.
The absence of data in enough detail to construct such density maps
makes it necessary to use alternate means to depict the location and
number of pollutant sources.
Table 3 shows approximate number of establishments by selected
industrial categories in each of the counties. These data, which were
extracted from appropriate Directories of Manufacturers, 11-16, are
-------
19
Table 2. Existing and Projected Population
by County
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
County
Santa Barbara
Ventura
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Riverside
Orange
San Diego
Total
1967 a
249
330
7,032
667
444
1,268
1,283
11,276
,800
,800
,400
,700
,000
,900
,200
,800
365
1,077
9,000
1,106
895
2,280
1,900
16,624
1980
b
,000
c
,000
d
,000
,000 e
f
,000
,000 8
h
,000
,000
Percent
+ 46.
+ 226
+ 27.
+ 65.
+ 102
+ 80
+ 48
+ 47.4
Change
5
9
6
Sources
a. California Population- 1967. Department of Finance.
Sacremento, Cal. October, 1967. p. 17.
b. Population Estimates for Santa Barbar County,
Santa Barbara Co. Planning Dept., 10/1/68 Rev.
c. Revised Population Forecast. Ventura County Planning Department.
December, 1967.
d. Population of Los Angeles County, 1965 - 1985 (Revised, Aug 66).
Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission. Feb. '67. p. 3.
e. San Bernardino County Population Trends & Projections.
San Bernardino County Planning Dept. May, 1967.
f. Population Study, Riverside County. Department of Development,
Riverside County. March, 1961.
g. Population by Statistical Area (Revised, April, "68) Orange County
Planning Dept.
h. San Diego County Population Projections, 1990. Regional Plan Bulletin,
San Diego County Planning Department. January, 1967.
-------
ro
o
Ventura
>
rx.
A./
,--/'
v *-
(^ *"
^
#
/
T~" A \
V \
^ \
\^ \
\ ]
i r1^--
«» .
Los
f
*^r
r
*!
I
\
\
"~ ' CH
X
Angeles
/ "
/
*
^
-,--
!/
X '/
N y
*''^^y
\ \
^
x_
^W-
Existing, 1960
Proposed, 1980
miles
0 5 10 15 20 25
* \ ' \
TV-VlJf-7-
^
San Bernardino NN
N>
^#
r^»'*"» .jT '' ^x
i-^ ^
Figure 1. 1960 and proposed 1980 freeway system
^ San Diego
\\
-------
Monterey
Son Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Tula re
O
Kern
Ventura
Los Angeles
Q °
Jnyo
San Bernardino
o
Riverside
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Net generation of electricity
O less than 1 billion kwh/yr
Q greater than 1 billion kwh/yr
(^ shading indicates percent of BTUs
supplied by fuel oil
'Orange
San Diego
Imperial
O
Figure 8. Distribution of power plants in
Southern California
-------
to
to
Monterey
San.Luis Obispo
Inyo
Tula re
Kern
Santa Barbara
Ventura
San Bernardino
Los Angeles
II
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
-
;. */..
Riverside
grange
t *
t Foundaries
A Steel- mills
Imperial
San Diego
Figure 9. Distribution of Selected Metals
Industries (Primary and Secondary)
with 100 Employees or more.
-------
Monterey
Kings
Tula re
Inyo
i Son Luis Obispo
San/a Barbara
Ventura
\»*
SCAif IN HUES
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Kern
Los Angeles
»«V« )
-v » /
\«y^
^'MJ
j
^/
San Bernardino
Figure 10. Distribution of Selected Chemical and
Allied Industries with 100 Employees or moreV
Riverside
San Diego
Imperial
-------
Monterey
Kinc
> San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
II
SCMC IN MILCS
Tula re
Kern
Ventura
Inyo
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Los Angeles
tifange
San Bernardino
Riverside
Imperial
San Diego
Figure 11. Distribution of Selected Stone, Clay, and
Glass Industries wi.th 100 Employees or
more.
-------
N
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
9 Petroleum Products
Refineries
Figure 12. Distribution of Selected Petroleum
Industries with 100 Employees or more.
-------
Table 3. Number of Industrial Establishments
by S I C Category
County
Los Angeles
Orange
Riverside
*au Bernardino
San Diego
Ventura
Chemicals & Allied
Products
#28
-,'r
<100 >100
21 24
17 9
9 1
25 3
19 2
8 2
Petroleum
#29
<100 XLOO
8 22
0 1
1 0
7 1
2 0
10 3
Stone, Clay
and
Gl ass
#32
<100 XLOO
14 11
12 2
14 6
45 8
32 4
17 1
Primary
Me t a 1 s
#33
<100 >100
21 21
8 4
7 3
11 2
8 0
2 1
Total
<100 ><100
64 78
37 16
31 10
89 16
61 6
37 7
Total
99
41
28
27
134
32
57
31
319
133
-------
27
approximate rather than complete, in that only those sub-categories
of interest in air pollution are included in the totals. This
table shows that Los Angeles County has the largest share of establish-
ments employing over 100 people, whereas the establishments employing
less that 100 are more evenly distributed among the counties. Figures
8 through 12 show the locations of plants with 100 or more employees
for each of the categories considered. These figures portray possible
pollution sources as adjudged by the SIC number assigned to the establish-
ment and the products listed for each. For example, Figure 9 shows
the establishments that produce metals and related alloys but does not
include the establishments that utilize the resulting metal in the
manufacture of a desired product.
Emission inventory data by county is summarized in Table 4 and
further subdivided by source category in Table 5. The information
presiented in these tables were extracted and compiled from references
17 through 21 which were performed by the respective air pollution
control districts. Although these inventories are not tabulated for
a common base year, the information presented herein should be adequate
for the analyses made in this report.
As shown in Table 4, more than 20,000 tons of pollutants are emitted
daily to the atmosphere of the six-county area (does not include Santa
Barbara County). The emissions from Los Angeles County, which comprises
only about 10 percent of the land area of these counties account for
over 60 percent of the total emissions. The remaining 30 to 40 percent
is about evenly divided among the other five counties with approximate
percentages ranging from 10 percent for San Bernardino County to about
four percent for Ventura County. Emissions in Santa Barbara Count}
-------
N5
OO
Table 4. Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions
in Southern California Counties
Emissions (tons/day)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
County
Los Angeles
Orange
Riverside
San Bernardino
San Diego
Ventura
Total
Partic-
ulates
120
NA
36
54
48
32
290
Oxides of
Sulfur
308
NA
5
117
28
4
462
Carbon
Monoxide
10,045
NA
640
1,060
1,470
510
13,725
Oxides of
Nitrogen
935
NA
34
140
131
51
1,291
Hydro-
Carbons
2,590
NA
168
224
393
126
3,501
Total
13,998
NA
883
1,595
2,070
723
19,269
NA
Not available
-------
Table 5. Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions
in Southern California Counties by Source
Category
29
Source Category
County
TRANSPORTATION
1. Los Angeles Co.
2. Orange Co.
3. Riverside Co.
4. San Bernardino Co.
5. San Diego Co.
6. Ventura Co.
FUEL COMBUSTION-
STATIONARY SOURCES
1. Los Angeles
2 . Orange
3. Riverside
4. San Bernardino
5 . San Diego
6. Ventura
REFUSE DISPOSAL
1. Los Angeles
2 . Orange
3. Riverside
4. San Bernardino
5. San Diego
6. Ventura
PROCESS EMISSIONS
1. Los Angeles
2 . Orange
3. Riverside
4. San Bernardino
5 . San Diego
6. Ventura
AGRICULTURAL
1. Los Angeles
2 . Orange
3. Riverside
4. San Bernardino
5. San Diego
6. Ventura
E
Particulates
95
65
NA
6
12
9
3
32
20
NA
1
4
6
1
45
1
NA
6
10
11
17
109
34
NA
23
28
20
4
11
-
NA
1
NA
2
8
MIS
Oxides of
Sulfur
51
35
NA
2
6
6
2
242
165
NA
2
52
22
1
_
-
NA
-
-
-
-
168
108
NA
-
59
-
1
NA
-
NA
-
NA
-
-
S I 0 N
Carbon
Monoxide
13,462
9965
NA
545
1052
1442
458
2
1
NA
-
-
1
-
147
1
NA
80
7
20
39
78
78
NA
-
-
-
-
34
-
NA
15
NA
6
13
S (tons/day)
Oxides
Nitrogen
787
605
NA
30
57
70
25
442
280
NA
5
83
60
14
2
1
NA
-
-
1
-
60
49
NA
-
-
-
11
NA
-
NA
-
NA
-
NA
Hydro
Carbons
2,512
1830
NA
115
205
268
94
22
9
NA
-
10
3
-
87
1
NA
33
-
51
2
853
750
NA
14
8
56
25
27
-
NA
6
NA
15
6
-------
30
are low compared to those covered in Table 4.
Although there are about 38,000 square miles of area in the six
counties, over 80 percent, or about 30,000 square miles, are located
on the eastern side of the mountains and are relatively barren with
respect to population as well as sources of pollution, For example,
Riverside County has estimated that only about 20 percent of their total
emissions of 900 tons per day occur on the eastern side which constitutes
almost 80 percent of land area of the county. Although similar breakdowns
for San Bernardino and San Diego Counties were not available, the same
type of geographical distribution can be expected within these counties,
i.e. that most of the sources and emissions are located on the coastal
side.
To provide an inidcation of the relative distributions of air
pollutant emissions within the area, Table 6 presents average emissions
densities of pollution. For purposes of this comparison only the land
area west of the mountains was used and it was assumed that the relative
breakdown of emissions between the eastern and western portions of San
Bernardino and San Diego County is the same as that shown for Riverside
County. The densities so calculated, which should be viewed in terms
of these assumptions, show that emissions of the five pollutants range
from a high of 7.4 tons per square mile per year in Los Angeles County
to less than 1 ton per square mile per year in Riverside and Ventura
Counties.
In previous analysis of earlier air quality control regions, the
affect of meteorology on air quality was accounted for in part through
the use of mathematical diffusion modeling'". The use of this model,
however, is restricted to areas where topography is relatively flat
-------
31
Table 6 . Estimated Emission Densities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
County
Los Angeles
Orange
Riverside
San Bernardino
San Diego
Ventura
Total
Area
Included
(sq. mi.)
19003
782
1650a
450a
1700a
1000a
7480
Total
Emissions
(tons/day)
14000
N.A.C
683
1275
2070
723
18750
Density
(tons/sq. mi. /day)
7.4
N.A.
0.4
2.8
1.2
0.7
2.5
Estimates include the land between the coast and the 2500-foot contour line
(see Figure 3.).
° Includes emissions of carbon monoxide, particulates, oxides of sulfur,
oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons from all sources emitted in the
valley portion.
c N.A. - not available.
-------
32
and where patterns of wind direction and speed are relatively uniform
throughout the area. Neither of these requirements are satisfied in
the Los Angeles area, thus ruling out diffusion modeling. As a
substitute, a research of the pertinent literature has been conducted
to evaluate air flow patterns, mixing depths, and resultant dilution
potential (qualitative only). .
Stream-flow or streamline charts and trajectory analyses are
frequently used to demonstrate how air moves from one area to another.
Numerous reports on air flow patterns have been prepared for areas in
southern California (references 23-35). All of these reports tend to
support one another in depicting the representative flows for various
meteorological conditions. Data from the most recent of the reports
(De Marrais, 1965) are used in this evaluation because they gave coverage
to the whole area of interest and'showed the most detail. Although
there are seasonal differences in the flow patterns, the most pronounced
differences occur on a diurnal basis. Figures A-l through A-4 (Appendix)
show the day and night flows for July and January.
The July daytime wind data (see Figure A-l) are representative of
summer days and show a very marked landward flow of air. The maritime
winds reaching the coast vary from south to west northwest. The marked
unidirectional movement which is depicted persists during the daylight
hours and a substantial part of the night so the net transport of air
during the 24-hour period is large. The ready exchange of air between
counties is seen as air flows from: 1) Los Angeles to San Bernardino,
2) San Bernardino (and indirectly, Los Angeles) to Riverside, 3) Los
Angeles to Orange, 4) Orange to Los Angeles, 5) Orange to Riverside,
-------
34
air can move cross-country from 1) Santa Barbara to Ventura and Los
Angeles, 2) Ventura to Los Angeles, and 3) Los Angeles to Orange and
in some cases to San Diego. There is, however, little data on the
frequency of such exchange or the relative impact that it has on air
quality in the "receiving" jurisdictions.
The daytime flow in January (see Figure A-3) is very similar to
that in the daytime in July. The cross-country and channeled flows
are practically identical to the midseason months of summer and winter.
The main changes from July to January are: 1) the decrease in frequency
of the unidirectional flow (from a range of 70 to 99% of the time down
to 35 to 75% at the individual stations) and 2) the decrease in time
during which unidirectional flow prevails (in January the flow starts
later in the day and seldom prevails into the night).
There is a fairly well marked difference in the nocturnal flows
of July and .January. In the mid-season-winter month (see Figure A-4)
the flow down the mountain1slopes is the same as in summer but the land
to sea flow is much more marked. Everywhere along the coast, with the
exception of San Diego County, the flow from over the land readily carries
out over the ocean. Air with trajectories over the ocean can readily
be carried along the coast from one county to another. Examination
of the charts showing the daytime and nocturnal flows for October and
April leads one to conclude that the changes in flows from July to-
January and January to July are gradual^.
Mixing depth, or the calculated vertical distance through which
convective mixing of the air readily occurs, is a measure of air
pollution potential of an area. Table 7 shows values considered
-------
33
6) Ventura to Los Angeles, 7) Santa Barbara (most marine air) to
Ventura, and to a much lesser extent 8) Orange to San Diego, and
9) San Diego to Riverside. The mountains act as barriers to the flow
with most of the air being forced up on the windward side staying aloft
on the leeward side (and having little or no effect at or near the
surface) . In the channeled flows in the passes the air moves as if in
a pipe and does not diffuse as rapidly as it does over open terrain.
Channeled flows occur 1) to the east northeast of the Oxnard Plan in
Ventura County, 2) through Cajon Pass, 3) through San Gorgonio Pass,
and 4) around the sides of the Santa Ana Mountains. Flows through these
passes bring air from the windward sides of the mountains to sections
on the desert side in the Antelope Valley, Mojave Desert, Coachella
Valley and the valley east of the Santa Ana Mountains.
The nighttime flow in July (see Figure A-2) is typical of the
summer and is in many places opposite to that which it is in the daytime.
The flow for the most part is downslope off the mountains (on both sides)
and from land to sea. The major exception is in the Los Angeles area
where the general flow at midnight, as shown by the insert in the upper
right of Figure A-2, is still from sea to land. The flow from the
land to sea gradually overcomes the opposing flow during the night and
by 0500 PST, as shown in the main part of Figure A-2, extends out over
the water. Similar analyses of exchange from one county to another
can be made here as in Figure A-l. Not as obvious becuase most of the
air exchange takes place out over the ocean is air moving from Orange
to San Diego County and vice versa. Interpolating between the night
and daytime flows it appears that, through over-the-water trajectories,
-------
35
representative of the Los Angeles Basin-^ in meters (1 meter=3.28 feet)
These values, particularly those of the afternoon are markedly lower
than the national average. -" > 38 j^is means, all other factors being
equal, that an air quality problem could develop more readily over Los
Angeles than in most places in the United States.
Table 7. Mixing Depths (meters), Los Angeles, Calif ornia^" >*'
Morning
Afternoon
Average*
Summer
520
950
735
Winter
360
875
618
Annual**
482
931
706
*of morning and afternoon
**of all 4 seasons
To demonstrate the representativeness of the Los Angeles mixing
depth data for other locations, inversion data for radiosonde stations
at San Diego, Santa Maria, and Santa Monica (Los Angeles) are shown in
Tables A-l through A-3.^5 The conclusion drawn is that the mixing depth
data for Los Angeles is representative of coastal southern California
(all of these radiosonde stations are at coastal sites).
Radiosonde data for Edwards Air Force Base" in the Majave Desert
indicate that the desert side of the mountains has smaller mixing depths
in the morning hours because radiational, surface-based inversions
develop during most of the nights (see Table A-4). Unfortunately, there
are not sufficient daytime data for Edwards to evaluate the daytime
mixing but data from China Lake-^', just north of Edwards, indicate that
mixing in the daytime takes place through several thousand meters.
-------
36
There are no radiosonde data for the area surrounded by the San
Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Ana Mountains. Based
on the large diurnal temperature variation and low wind speeds in the
area^S, it is concluded that the nocturnal radiation inversions occur
about as frequently as they do over the Majave Desert (see Table 11).
Morning mixing depths are therefore lower over this area than over the
Los Angeles coastal area. Data from a glider pilot-meteorologist^»^1
and fire weather observers^ indicate that vertical mixing in the
afternoon over this area is several thousand feet greater than it is
over the coastal sites.
The State of California and the several county air pollution
control districts have been conducting air monitoring activities for
several years. Discussion here is limited to oxidant concentrations,
primarily because of the greater number of sampling sites for this
pollutant as compared to others. Tables 8 and 9 show the monthly
averages of daily one-hour maximum concentrations of oxidants for 34
locations in the Los Angeles Basin area. The data cover a 12-month
period from December 1966 through November 1967, (except stations in
Ventura County, where data are for the period May 1965 through April
1966) . The numbers in parentheses following the name of each sampling
location are used for identification and are used in Figure 13 to show
the approximate location of each sampling station.
The twelve monthly values were used to calculate an annual average
of daily one-hour maximum oxidant concentrations. The results are
shown in Figure 14 in the form of isolines of equal values of annual
average daily one-hour maximum concentrations. Strictly speaking, these
numbers are not true averages of the 365 one-hour maximums, since they
-------
Table 8- Monthly and Annual Averages of Daily One-Hour Maximum
Oxidant Concentrations for Southern California
December 1966 through November 1967
Monthly Average
Station (Number)
Downtown (1)
Los Angeles
Azusa (3)
Pasadena (4)
Burbank (5)
USC Medical (6)
School
West
Los Angeles (7)
Long Beach (8)
Hollywood (9)
Freeway
Reseda (10)
Pomona (11)
Lennox (12)
Anaheim (13)
La Habra (14)
Riverside (15)
Beaumont (16)
Corona (17)
Dec
'66
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Jan
'67
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.06
Feb
'67
0.09
0.11
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.11
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.07
Mar
'67
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.03
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.08
of Daily One-Hour Maximum Concentration, ppm
Apr
'67
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.05
0.07
May
'67
0.11
0.17
0.14
0.15
0.10
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.14
0.13
0.08
0.10
0.09
0.17
0.13
June
'67
0.10
0.19
0.15
0.16
0.10
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.16
0.17
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.15
0.21
July
'67
0.15
0.27
0.24
0.24
0.17
0.12
0.05
0.23
0.26
0.06
0.12
0.03
0.26
C.24
Aug.
'67
0.16
0.33
0.25
0.24
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.20
0.27
0.06
0.14
0.03
0.29
0.23
Sept
'67
0.11
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.11
0.06
0.19
0.19
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.21
0.11
0.19
Oct
'67
0.18
0.25
0.23
0.24
0.20
0.17
0.09
0.18
0.21
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.08
0.21
Nov
'67
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.04
0.12
0.13
0.05
0.10
0.13
0.07
0.15
Average
Dec '66-
Nov '67
0.10
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.13
0.14
0.06
0.10
0.07
0.14
0.06
0.14
u>
-------
OJ
00
Table 8 - Continued
Monthly Average
Station (Number)
San
Bernardino
Upland APCD
Upland UCR #1
Cucamonga
UCR #2
Chino Airport
San Diego
Carlsbad
Chollas
Heights
El Cajon
Nestor
Mission Valley
Santa Ana
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
Dec
'66
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.12
0.09
0.04
0.08
0.05
Jan
'67
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.04
Feb
'67
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.16
0.14
0.10
0.12
0.04
Mar
'67
0.09
0.05
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.04
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.04
of Daily One-Hour Maximum Concentration, ppm
Apr
'67
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.05
0.08
0.04
May
'67
0.12
0.05
0.14
0.16
0.06
0.13
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.08
June
'67
0.15
0.13
0.17
0.18
0.14
0.04
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.06
July
'67
0.22
0.17
0.26
0.14
0.05
0.08
0.11
0.07
0.08
0.07
Aug
'67
0.20
0.19
0.26
0.13
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.09
Sept
'67
0.13
0.17
0.20
0.23
.13
0.04
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.08
Oct
'67
0.12
0.10
0.24
0.33
0.13
0.07
0.14
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.13
Nov
'67
0.07
0.04
0.16
0.19
0.11
0.04
0.11
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.10
Average
Dec '66-
Nov '67
0.14
0.09
0.13
0.16
0.12
0.05
0.11
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.09
-- not available
Note: Numbers in parenthesis after name of each sampling station site is
for identification (see Figure 13).
-------
Table 9. Monthly and Annual Averages of Daily
One-Hour Maximum Oxidant Concentrations
for Ventura County, May, 1965 - April, 1966.
39
Station (Number)
Month
May 1965
June 1965
July 1965
Aug. 1965
Sept. 1965
Oct. 1965
Nov. 1965
Dec. 1965
Jan. 1966
Feb. 1966
Mar. 1966
April 1966
Average,
May 1965 -
April 1966
Ojai (30)
0.12
0.09
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.10
0.09
Oxnard (31)
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.07
0.14
0.10
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.09
Thousand
Santa Paula (32) Oaks (33) Ventura (34)
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.12
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.15
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.15 0.12
0.12 0.08
0.14 0.11
0.07 0.07
0.06 0.05
0.06 0.07
0.09 0.07
0.10 0.08
0.12 0.10
0.10 0.08
-------
-p-
o
Monterey
> San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Tula re
Inyo
Kern
Ventura
.30
33
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Los Angeles
\/o / .4 .3
7.
^ .8,
-2'
.'8
"0II9-ZO
'zfj
115
Orange
San Bernardino
Riverside
Figure 13. Sampling site locations.
Note: sec Tables 8 and 9 for names
of sampling station locations
San Diego
26 ife
Imperial
-------
V
Monterey
Kings
i San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Tula re
Kern
Ventura
Los Angeles
sour w MIES
.05
San Bernardino
^
Riverside
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
'^Orange
San Diego
Imperial
Figure 14. Averages of monthly averages
of one-hour maximum oxidant
concentrations.
-------
42
are based upon an average of 12 monthly values (each of which is
itself an average of 30 values). The statistical difference in the
two procedures can be overlooked here, since it is the relative pattern
of concentrations that is of importance rather than the finite values.
Daily oxidant results are analyzed by the Bureau of Air Sanitation,
/ 1
State Department of Health , to determine the number of days each
month that the State oxidant standard (0.15 ppm for one hour or more)
is equalled or exceeded. The results of that analysis are tabulated
in Table 10 for the same sampling stations and the same time period as
the oxidant data. In Figure 15, the total number of days on which
the standard was equalled or exceeded was plotted for each station,
and contour lines produced by interpolation between the various sampling
stations.
According to these data, the highest concentrations occur with the
greatest frequency in a band of area that reaches across Los Angeles
County in the vicinity of Burbank, Glendale, Arcadia, and Azusa, and
then drops off flightly in the vicinity north of Pomona at the Los
Angeles - San Bernardino County line before building back up again in
the vicinity of the cities of San Bernardino and Riverside. From these
peak areas, the frequency of high oxidant levels drops off rapidly in
the direction of the nearby mountains (to the north and east) and less
rapidly in other directions. The shift of the maximum concentrations
north and east of the area of maximum emissions is noticeable.
Also noticeable are secondary peaks in average maximum one-hour
concentrations in the vicinity of Anaheim-Santa Ana, Carslbad (in
northern San Diego County), and the City of San Diego. The State
-------
Table 10 . Number of Days Oxidant Concentration Equalled or Exceeded
State Ambient Air Quality Standards
December 1966 through November 1967
Station (Numberb)
Downtown
Los Angeles
Azusa
Pasadena
Burbank
USC Medical
School
West
Los Angeles
Long Beach
Hollywood
Freeway
Reseda
Pomona
Lennox
Anahe im
La Habra
Riverside
Beaumont
Corona
(1)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
Dec Jan
'66 '67
2
4
3
1
2
3
1
1 2
1
3
1
1
Feb
'67
3
5
5
2
2
4
1
5
1
6
3
1
1
Mar
'67
4
10
6
8
3
7
7
7
4
3
4
3
Apr May
'67 '67
1 7
1 16
1 10
14
5
6
3
4
3 10
1 11
3
1 5
1 9
4 18
--
1 13
June
'67
7
20
16
17
6
5
3
18
18
1
4
1
20
--
12
July
'67
15
30
28
28
22
9
--
28
27
2
10
24
--
23
Aug
'67
17
31
29
29
17
6
1
--
24
30
1
12
28
--
24
Sept
'67
5
22
21
21
17
7
1
22
24
12
6
4
23
16
Oct
'67
20
27
24
25
22
16
4
21
24
13
10
17
21
Nov
'67
9
12
13
13
6
2
1
12
15
10
--
14
14
Total
Dec '66-
Nov '67
90
178
156
158
102
65
11
8
153
159
20
74
32
153
1
128 t
-------
Table 10 - Continued
Station (Numberb) Dec Jan Feb
'66 '67 '67
San
Bernardino
Upland APCD
Upland UCR#1
Cucamonga
UCR#2
Chino Airport
San Diego
Carlsbad
Chollas
Heights
El Cajon
Nestor
(18)
(19)
(20) 4
(21) 1 2
(22) -- -- 9
(23) 1
(24) 8 7 13
(25) 369
(26) 1 3
(27) 146
Mar
'67
6
2
9
7
3
1
3
3
1
2
Mission Valley(28)
Santa Ana
(29)
--
Apr May
'67 '67
1 10
2 11
2 15
1 11
4 2*
1
7
1 2
1
1
1
June July
'67 '67
16 28
11 14
11* 28
19 31
15 15
2 2
2
3 3
2
2 2
1
Aug Sept Oct Nov
'67 '67 '67 '67
23 11 11 1
22 12
29 13 24 17
30 21 27 17
8994
211
10 5
3* 1
1
3143
3 4
3 1 11 3
Total
Dec '66-
Nov '67
107
74
152
167
78
7
57
30
12
27
12
20
a State standard for oxidant is 0.15 ppm average concentration for one hour
° Number in parenthesis arbitrarily assigned for purpose of identification, (see Figure 13)
Note: A blank in a column means zero days on which State standard was exceeded; a dash means that no data was
available; an * means that less than a full month's data was available.
Source: The Clean Air Quarterly. Vol. 11, Nos. 2,3,4; Vol. 12, No. 1. Bureau of Air Sanitation, California
State Department of Public Health.
-------
Monterey
Kins
Tula re
Inyo
Son Luis Obispo
Kern
Santa Barbara
San Bernardino
Ventura
Los Angeles
II
SCM.C IH MK.CS
9 ? f tf *i P
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Riverside
Figure 15. Number of days between
December 1966 and
November 1967 that state
oxidant standard exceeded.
ISO
Imperial
San Diego
-------
46
oxidant standard was exceeded on 50 or more separate days in the
Anaheim-Santa Ana and Carslbad areas, but on 30 or less days in the
San Deigo area (the Chollas Heights sampling station).
Most of the data presented so far has dealt with the present-day
(or recent-past) characteristics of the south coastal urban area and
with its air pollution problem. The following projections of various
measures of urbanization are included so that expected growth can be
considered in the designation of the Region. Table 2 (page 19) shows
projected population by county for the year 1980. Figure 7 (page 20 )
shows the projected 1980 freeway system as well as the system in
existence in 1960. Figures 16 and 17 show the land use pattern and
population density expected by the year 1980.
-------
Fig
-------
San Bernardino
persons per gross acre
{'/;/-:; 1-8
26 & over
miles
Figure 17. 1980 population density
5a/7 Diego
-------
49
METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
DISCUSSION AND PROPOSAL
The Introduction section of this report discussed in general terms
the procedure and the factors leading to the designation of air quality
control regions. That discussion can be summarized in the form of
two primary requirements: 1) to be successful, a region must include
all those areas routinely involved either as sources or as receptors
in the air pollution problem, with some consideration of the likely
growth of the area in the near future, and 2) beyond the necessity of
including all of the problem area, it is necessary to choose the
boundaries in a way which is compatible with and even fosters unified
and cooperative governmental administration of the air resource through-
out the region.
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
The following discussion analyzes on a county-by-county basis the
data presented in the previous section in order to determine the geograph-
ical extent of the problem, thereby fulfilling the first requisite for
an effective air quality control region.
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County, or more specifically, the coastal portion of
Los Angeles County, is by every indication the hub of the problem area.
Even though its usable land was well developed in 1960, population is
expected to increase by almost two million between 1967 and 1980, the
highest of any county in the area. While its percentage of the total
-------
50
is decreasing, the coastal portion of Los Angeles County will still
contain over half of the total population of the seven-county area and
will continue to experience the highest population density of any
jurisdiction considered. Approximately half of the freeway system
and half of the total surface transportation facilities of the LARTS
area (see Figure 7) will be located in Los Angeles County. About
half of the 236 million average weekday vehicle miles expected in 1980^
will be traveled on freeways, and well over half of the freeway travel
will occur in Los Angeles County. These factors suggest that well over
half of the total pollutant emissions from mobile sources occur in
the basin portion of Los Angeles County (see Table 5). This will con-
tinue to be the case for some time into the future, although the
balance between central Los Angeles County and the surrounding juris-
dictions would undoubtedly be changed by completion of the planned
rapid transit system.
The coastal portion of Los Angeles County is now and will continue
for some time in the future to be the most heavily industrialized part
of the urban area. The most recent estimates of pollutant emissions
show Los Angeles County to be a major contributor of all the pollutants
considered, this in spite of the fact that industry in Los Angeles
County is probably the most rigorously controlled in the country.
Oxidant concentrations, probably indicative of the overall air
pollution problem in the south coastal area, certainly reflect the
highly developed nature of coastal Los Angeles County. The State
standard for total oxidants was exceeded on 178 days between December
-------
51
1966 and November 1967 at the County's Azusa station; the standard was
exceeded on every day except one during the July-August time period.
The diurnal pattern of windflow and the net transport inland are
responsible for the fact that the highest concentrations of oxidants
occur to the north and east of the area of highest emissions.
The foregoing discussion has been presented, not to justify the
obvious need to include the coastal portion of Los Angeles County in
the Region, but so that, by comparison the need to include the north-
eastern corner of the County can be evaluated.
The weight of evidence suggests that the technical requirements
of the Region can be satisfied without including the Antelope Valley
portion of Los Angeles County. It is completely spearated from the
balance of the County by the intervening mountains. Its climate and
topography are that of the Majave Desert rather th a the coastal area.
A 1960 study of the area^ concluded that the air pollution potential
of Lancaster is only half that of Los Angeles and in Palmdale, only
one fourth. The same study concluded that the potential for air pollution
buildup in the Antelope Valley is greatest in the winter - just the
opposite of the coastal part of Los Angeles County (highest potential
during July and August).
The inclusion of the Antelope Valley in the Region might be
justified in spite of the above factors if the transport of pollutants
over the mountains in either direction was significant. Transport of
significant quantities of pollutants from the Antelope Valley into the
coastal basin can be discounted almost out-of-hand becuase of the low
emission levels there and the infrequency of the requisite meteorological
-------
52
conditions (see Figures A-l through A-4). There is a greater likelihood
of transport eastward from the Oxnard Plain up the Santa Clara River
Valley into the upper San Fernando Valley and then over the mountains
toward the Antelope Valley. This flow pattern undoubtedly leads to
the transport of some pollutants from the Los Angeles Basin over into
the Antelope Valley. Still remaining, however, is the frequency with
which such transport occurs, and, when it occurs, to what extent it
affects Antelope Valley air quality. There is very little data available
that bear on these questions. Analysis of the overall air flow pattern
in Figure A-l suggests that most of the air involved in the flow toward
the Antelope Valley originates from along the Santa Barbara - Ventura
County coastline and as a result is probably not as heavily laden with
pollutants as the air further south. This, combined with the turbulent
mixing caused by the movement up and over the irregular mountain terrain
and the greatly increased mixing depth beyond the mountains, make
significant impact on Antelope Valley air quality unlikely.
Ventura County
Next to Santa Barbarb County, Ventura County was the least populated
in 1967 of those studied with a population of 330,000. By 1980, however,
Ventura County will have over one million residents. Again aside from
Santa Barbara, Ventura is the least industrialized of the seven counties
now, but its industrial base is expected to increase considerably by
1980.
The coastal portion of Ventura County is related meteorologically
to Los Angeles County by the channeled diurnal flow of air up and down
the Santa Clara and San Fernando Vallies and by flow back and forth
between the two counties along the immediate coast. The free exchange
-------
53
of air back and forth between the two counties is impeded but not
precluded by the Santa Susana Mountains.
The pattern of oxidant concentrations in southern Ventura County
is difficult to establish because of the low number of sampling stations,
but their results fit well with the pattern in western Los Angeles
County. There is, therefore, little doubt that the air quality of
that part of Ventura County south of (and including) the Santa Clara
Valley is intimately related to the air pollution problem of the Los
Angeles area.
There is no technical reason to include the northern half of
Ventura County in the Region. It is mountainous and relatively
undeveloped. Furthermore, the prevailing air flow pattern does not
lead to the transport of Region-generated pollution into the northern
part of the county.
San Bernardino County
San Bernardino County, with over 20,000 square miles of area, is
the largest county jurisdiction in the county; it exceeds the combined
area of the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and
New Jersey. Its topography divides it into two distinct areas;
approximately 450 square miles of the county are located in the south-
west corner, separated from the over 19,000 square miles of desert in
the rest of the county by the San Bernardino Mountains. The county
had an estimated 1967 population of 668,000 people, of whom, 540,000
lived in the 450 square mile southwest corner, where they have much
closer ties to the rest of the Los Angeles Basin than to the rest of
San Bernardino County.
The basin portion of the county has experienced a high growth rate
-------
54
since 1940, and population is expected to almost double between 1967
and 1980. The 540,000 people currently located in the southwest corner
of the county make up about six to seven percent of the total population
of the south coastal basin area^ and, according to Table 4, are
responsible for approximately eight percent of the total pollutant
emissions of the area. The air quality data, and particularly Figure 14,
suggest that this portion of San Bernardino is subjected to a dispro-
portionately large share of the oxidant pollution of the Basin. The
difference can only be accounted for by transport of the pollutant
from other parts of the Basin. It has already been noted that the
location of highest concentrations in Los Angeles County is northeast
of the area of highest emission, and that the shift can be related to
the daytime air flow pattern in the area. The same reasoning accounts
for the relatively high oxidant concentrations in San Bernardino County.
There is a strong wind vector from west to east during most of the
daytime hours that would carry pollution generated in Los Angeles and
northern Orange Counties through the passage between the San Gabriel
and Santa Ana Mountains to the San Bernardino - Riverside area. Just
as there is a daytime transport of pollution from west to east, the
reversed, land-to-sea wind pattern at night causes an east-to-west
transport of pollutants. Taken together, these two facts make it
obvious that the southwest corner of San Bernardino County should be
included in the Region.
The same reasoning that was applied to the Angelope Valley can
be used to rule out the inclusion in the Region of the desert portion
of San Bernardion County on technical grounds. While there is undoubtedly
-------
55
a net transport of pollutants from southwest to northeast across the
mountains, the much greater dilution potential over the desert probably
makes the impact of such transport on desert air quality insignificant
on all but the most infrequent occasions.
Riverside County
Geographically, Riverside County has much in common with San
Bernardino County. The San Jacinto Mountains divide the county into
distinct western and eastern parts; the western fourth of the county
has the majority of the county's 400,000 residents and is related
geographically and meteorologically to the south-coastal Basin. The
northwestern corner of the county is more developed than the southwest
corner and has higher oxidant pollution levels. Several factors,
however, suggest that the entire western portion of the county should
be included in the Region: 1) no noteable topographical or meteorological
difference between the northwest and southwest sectors; 2) expected
growth in the southwest sector of Riverside and in southern Orange
County; and 3) the strong west-east wind vector around the southern
end of the Santa Ana Mountains.
Inclusion of the eastern, desert portion of Riverside County in
the Region on a technical basis, is ruled out by the same factors that
lead to the exclusion of most of San Bernardino County.
Orange County
The need to include Orange County in the Region is as obvious
as was the need to include Los Angeles. The urban and industrial
development of northern Orange County is a continuous extension of the
urban development of Los Angeles County. Orange County was the fastest
-------
growing of any in California between 1950 and 1960; it was the second
most populous county in the area (excluding San Diego); and it will
experience an actual increase in population between 1967 and 1980 second
only to Los Angeles County. These factors, plus the relative freedom
of the air mass to move back and forth between Los Angeles and Orange
Counties make Orange County a logical part of the Region.
San Diego County
Consideration need be given here only to the coastal portion of
San Diego County, since the part east of the mountains is eliminated
on the same basis as eastern Riverside County. There are two factors
favoring the inclusion of western San Diego County in the Region:
1) it is, like all or parts of the other counties discussed, part of
the coastal plain of Southern California, with attendant topographical
similarities; and 2) the diurnal air flow pattern is such that there
is probably a net southern movement of air, and, as a result, a possibility
that pollutants released in the Los Angeles - Orange - San Bernardino -
Riverside area could eventually affect air quality along the coast of
San Diego County. Other factors, however, suggest that San Diego
County's air pollution problem is much more its own than it is a part
of the Los Angeles area problem. On balance its inclusion on technical
grounds does not seem necessary.
The City of San Diego is the center of the county's urban development
and is some 120 miles from the center of the Los Angeles area. Aside
from residential development along the coast, there is a noticeable
discontinuity in urban development in the northern San Diego - southern
Orange County area. Because of the land-sea breeze air flow pattern,
-------
57
there is little opportunity for direct transport of pollutants between
the two urban areas. The density of urban development and activities
in the City of San Diego area is sufficient in proportion to that of
the Los Angeles area to account for the oxidant levels that occur
there, thus discounting any major impact of Los Angeles area pollution
on San Diego through the over-the-water transport mechanism.
Pollutant levels are generally much lower in San Diego than they
are in most of the Los Angeles area, and there are almost an order of
magnitude (10 times) fewer days on which various State air quality
standards are exceeded in San Diego compared to Los Angeles.
Santa Barbara County
Topography is such that only the narrow southern coast of this
county needs to be considered. Approximately half of the county's
250,000 residents live along the south coast - most of them in the
City of Santa Barbara. It is by far the least populated and least
industrialized of any county considered. There is very little likeli-
hood that Santa Barbara emissions affect in any measureable way the
air quality of any part of the Region, with the possible exception of
westernmost Ventura County. The only remaining technical reason for
including any part of Santa Barbara - transport of Los Angeles air
pollution into Santa Barbara = is questionable. The net southern
movement of the off-shore air mass would seem to preclude all but
occasional transport over the water from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara.
Thus, topographical continuity is the only physical or technical reason
to include coastal Santa Barbara County in the Region, and it is
outweighed by those factors just discussed.
-------
58
In summary, the requirement to include in the Region those areas
routinely involved in the problem either as the site of sources or
of receptors, make it necessary to include all of Orange County, and
those portions of Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside
located in the coastal plain between the ocean and the various mountain
ranges. There is not sufficient technical justification to include
any part of Santa Barbara or San Diego Counties, or the desert portions
of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.
JURISDICTIONAL FACTORS
The legislative mandate that jurisdictional boundaries be considered
in the process of designating air quality control regions is reflected
in the second major requirement discussed at the beginning of this
section, namely that the final location of the boundary should be chosen
in a way which is compatible with or even fosters regional coordination
of air resource management efforts in the area. In all but one of the
air quality control regions proposed prior to this one, this requirement
has been satisfied by including a whole county in the region if the
technical or engineering analysis indicated that substantial portions
of the county were involved in the regional problem, either as the site
of sources or of receptors. The consideration of whole counties has
two major advantages. First, it tends to provide a perimeter of less-
developed land that serves as a buffer zone for future growth. Second,
it provides the greatest latitude in the development of jurisdictional
responsibility for the administration and enforcement of control efforts
in the region.
-------
59
The one exception to date is the proposed air quality control
region for the Denver area. The proposed Region there includes only
portions of some counties and, as such, coincides with State-established
Denver Air Basin. The desire to encourage the State's regional efforts
was not, however, the only or perhaps even the prime factor, though
it obviously had bearing on the proposal. The size of the counties
was a major factor; those split in the Denver proposal were so large
that a decision to include them in their entirety would have extended
the region so far beyond the necessary size of the region that the
administration of control efforts would have been unnecessarily compli-
cated .
Some of the same factors are pertinent to the Metropolitan Los
Angeles Region. There is technical justification for the inclusion
of all of Orange County and only parts of Ventura, Los Angeles, San
Bernardion, and Riverside Counties. The uninvolved portions of these
counties are almost five times the size of the area involved in the
problem. Such geographical disparity could be justified only if it
appeared necessary to encourage effective administration of control
efforts, and this does not appear to be the case.
The State of California is in the final stages of its deliberations
on the establishment of "air basins" under the recently-passed Mulford
Carroll Act^->. in its evaluation of the regional patterns of air
pollution in California, the State has recognized topography as a
primary factor and is, as a result, planning to establish some air
basin boundaries that follow topographical features rather than county
boundaries. This is true of the South Coast (Los Angeles) Air Basin;
-------
60
at the time of the preparation of this report, the State's proposed
Air Basin would include all of Ventura and Orange and parts of Santa
Barbara, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.
As summarized on page 58 , the technical requirements of an air
quality control region would be satisfied by including the same area
as that proposed by the State of California for its Air Basin, with
two exceptions. There is no technical justification for the inclusion
of the northern half of Ventura County or the coastal strip of Santa
Barbara County.
The difference in Ventura County is easily resolved. Northern
Ventura County will probably never be intimately involved in the
Region's air pollution problem, but it is even less likely to be
involved in the air pollution problem of any adjoining area. This,
combined with the desire to include whole counties wherever possible,
make the inclusion of the whole county the most logical solution.
The question of Santa Barbara is not so easily solved. It is
recognized that the topography, together with considerable industrial
and residential growth might necessitate further inclusion, but, for
the present and foreseeable future, the need to include it in the Region
is not sufficient to justify the splitting of the county.
THE PROPOSED REGION
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Secretary, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, proposes to designate the Metropolitan Los
Angeles Air Quality Control Region, consisting of the following
jurisdictions or parts thereof:
-------
61
1. All of Ventura County
2. All of Orange County
3. That part of Los Angeles County between the coastline
and the major ridge line of the Sierra Madre and San
Gabriel Mountain
4. That part of San Bernardino County bounded by Los
Angeles and Riverside Counties and the major ridge
line of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains
5. That part of Riverside County bounded by San
Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego Counties and
the San Jacinto Mountains to the east.
As generally defined above, the proposed Metropolitan Los Angeles
Air Quality Control Region is identical to the proposed South Coast
Air Basin, minus the southern portion of Santa Barbara County. The
proposed Region is illustrated in Figure 18 and its official boundary
location is described in Appendix B.
The purpose of the scheduled consultation with appropriate State
and local officials is to receive comments and suggestions regarding
this proposal. Comments of the appropriate State and local officials
will be pertinent to the final disposition of the proposal.
-------
N5
Monterey S Kings
Son Luis Obispo
Tula re
Inyo
Kern
Santa Barbara
Ventura
Los Anmeles
San Bernardino
II
HM.C IN Mt.es
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Orange
Riverside
Figure 18. Boundary location for proposed
Metropolitan Los Angeles Air
Quality Control Region.
Imperial
San Diego
-------
63
APPENDIX A
Meteorological Data
-------
64
TABLE A-l SEASONAL INVERSION FREQUENCY DATA
Montgomery Field, San Diego
June 1957 - March 1962
Frequency
Inversion base
height (ft.
m.s. 1.)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
1501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
408 to 500
Surface (407)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
1501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
408 to 500
Surface (407)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
1501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
408 to 500
Surface (407)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
1501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
408 to 500
Surface (407)
Percent
6
10
13
25
17
12
0
16
11
3
5
8
7
5
0
54
3
1
1
1
2
2
0
77
18
6
4
6
8
2
0
42
0400
Number
29
44
60
115
79
55
0
75
49
14
21
34
33
24
0
241
15
3
4
6
10
8
0
345
72
22
14
22
33
7
0
168
Percent
SUMMER
2
4
10
38
31
14
0
0
FALL
10
4
7
14
22
20
0
1
WINTER
8
3
4
4
11
22
0
3
SPRING
16
7
11
14
16
10
0
*
1600
Number
8
17
47
175
142
63
0
0
45
17
31
64
98
90
0
6
35
15
17
19
48
98
0
13
64
28
42
54
64
40
0
1
Less than 0.5 percent,
-------
TABLE A-2 SEASONAL INVERSION FREQUENCY DATA
Santa Maria
June 1957 - June 1959
65
Frequency
Inversion base
height (ft.
m.s. 1.)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
1501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
239 to 500
Surface (238)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
1501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
239 to 500
Surface (238)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
1501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
239 to 500
Surface (238)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
1501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
239 to 500
Surface (238)
Percent
3
2
8
18
19
18
0
32
5
1
2
7
9
10
0
61
3
1
2
3
1
2
0
76
4
6
5
6
8
3
0
57
0400
Number
6
5
18
38
40
38
0
68
9
2
4
12
15
16
0
100
5
2
4
5
1
3
0
136
7
11
10
11
15
6
0
104
Percent
SUMMER
4
5
8
18
28
35
0
*
FALL
5
3
5
10
14
39
2
0
WINTER
14
2
5
3
4
21
2
3
SPRING
8
1
7
18
20
20
0
1
1600
Number
9
10
17
38
59
75
0
1
9
5
8
17
24
65
3
0
25
4
9
5
8
38
3
6
15
2
12
24
37
37
0
1
* Less than 0.5 percent
-------
66
TABLE A-3 SEASONAL INVERSION FREQUENCY DATA
Santa Monica
June 1957 o June 1962
Frequency
Inversion base
height (ft.
m.s. 1. )
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
1501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
126 to 500
Surface (125)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
1501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
126 to 500
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
1501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
126 to 500
Surface (125)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2001 to 2500
501 to 2000
1001 to 1500
501 to 1000
126 to 500
Surface (125)
Percent
5
7
7
21
22
16
4
16
8
3
6
6
9
7
48
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
70
12
5
6
8
5
5
2
38
0400
Number
24
31
34
95
100
73
17
73
36
12
29
29
39
34
218
13
7
7
8
11
12
8
314
49
18
22
32
20
21
7
150
Percent
SUMMER
3
2
3
9
37
36
9
*
FALL
6
3
3
6
16
31
3
WINTER
8
1
1
3
7
22
12
5
SPRING
8
2
3
8
14
23
13
1
1600
Number
12
7
14
43
169
165
41
2
27
12
12
27
72
143
12
37
6
5
15
30
98
54
21
33
7
13
33
55
91
50
3
Less than 0.5 percent
-------
67
TABLE A-4 INVERSION FREQUENCY DATA (mid-season months)
0100-0600 PST, Edwards Air Force Base, 1957-1959
Inversion Base
height (Ft. m.s.l.)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2317 to 2500
Surface (2316)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2317 to 2500
Surface (2316)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2317 to 2500
Surface (2316)
3001 to 5000
2501 to 3000
2317 to 2500
Surface (2316)
Frequency
Percent
JULY
0
0
0
96
OCTOBER
2
2
0
91
JANUARY
2
2
0
95
APRIL
4
0
0
96
Number
0
0
0
63
1
1
0
60
1
1
0
53
2
0
C
52
-------
Figure B-l. Airflow pattern
JULY 1200-1800 P!
FKT AftOVt MEAN KA LEVEL
«** it.ii. soo ^
-------
Figure B-2. Airflow pattern
JULY 0000-0500 PST
FEET ABOVE WAN 9EA
-------
x
-------
Figure B-4. Airflow pattern
JANUARY 0000-0700 PST
MOVE HUM SEA LEVEL
-------
72
APPENDIX B
Official Description of Proposed
Air Quality Control Region
-------
73
Appendix B. Official Description of the Proposed Metropolitan
Los Angeles Air Quality Control Region
The proposed Region includes:
1. All of Ventura County.
2. All of Orange County.
3. That portion of Riverside County which lies west of a line
described as follows: beginning at the Riverside-San Diego
County boundary and running north along the range line common
to R.4E and R.3E; then east along the township line common to
T.8S and T.7S; then north along the range line common to R.5E
and R.4E; then west along the township line common to T.6S and
T.7S to the southwest corner of Section 34, T.6S, R.4E; then
north along the west boundaries of Sections 34, 27, 22, 15, 10,
3, T.6S, R.4E; then west along the township line common to T.5S
and T.6S; then north along the range line common to R.4E and
R.3E; then west along the south boundaries of Sections 13, 14,
15, 16, 17 and 18, T.5S, R.3E; then north along the range line
common to R.2E and R.3E; then west along the township line common
to T.4S and T.3S to the intersection with the southwest boundary
of partial Section 31, T.3S, R.lW; then northwest along that line
to the intersection with the range line common to R.2W and R.lW;
then north to the Riverside-San Bernardino County line.
-------
74
4. That portion of San Bernardino County west and south of a line
described as follows: beginning at the San Bernardino-Riverside
County boundary and running north along the range line common to
R.3E and R.2E; then west along the township line common to T.3N
and T.2N to the San Bernardino-Los Angeles County boundary.
5. That portion of Los Angeles County which lies south and west of
a line described as follows: beginning at the Los Angeles-
San Bernardino County boundary and running west along the township
line common to T.3N and T.2N; then north along the range line
common to R.8W and R.9W; then west along the township line common
to T.4N and T.3N; then north along the range line common to R.12W
and R.13W to the southeast corner of Section 12, T.5N, R.13W;
then west along the south boundaries of Sections 12, 11, 10, 9,
8, 7, T.5N, R.13 W to the boundary of the Angeles National Forest
which is collinear with the range line common to R.13W and R.14W;
then north and west along the Angeles National Forest boundary to
the point of intersection with the township line common to T.7N and
T.6N (point is at the northwest corner of Section 4 in T.6N, R.14W);
then west along the township line common to T.7N and T.6N; then
north along the range line common to R.15W and R.16W to the south-
east corner of Section 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, T.7N, R.16W; then
north along the range line common to R.16W and 17W to the north
boundary of the Angeles National Forest (collinear with township
line common to T.8N and T.7N); then west and north along the
-------
75
Angeles National Forest boundary to the point of intersection
with the south boundary of the Rancho La Liebre Land Grant; then
west and north along this land grant boundary to the Los Angeles-
Kern County boundary.
-------
76
References
1. 1980 Progress Report - Los Angeles Regional Transportation
Study. Transportation Association of Southern California;
Los Angeles, California. 46 pp.
2. A Preliminary Regional General Plan - San Diego County -
1990. San Diego County Planning Department. San Diego,
California. Page 35.
3. Population Estimates for Santa Barbara County. Santa Barbara
County Planning Department. Revised 10/1/68.
4. Revised Population Forecast. Ventura County Planning Department,
December, '67.
5. Population of Los Angeles County, 1965-1985 (Revised, Aug. '66).
Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission. Feb. '67. p. 3.
6. San Bernardino County Population Trends & Projections.
San Bernardino County Planning Department. May, 1967.
7. Population Study, Riverside County. Department of Development,
Riverside County. March, 1961.
8. Population by Statistical Area (Revised, April, 1968) Orange
County Planning Department.
9. San Diego County Population Projections, 1990. Regional Plan
Bulletin, San Diego County Planning Department. January, 1967.
10. California Population - 1967. Department of Finance.
Sacramento, California. October, 1967. p. 17.
11. San Bernardino County Industrial Directory. San Bernardino
County Economic Development Commission. September, 1965,
1967 Addendum.
12. Business Directory of San Diego County. San Diego Chamber of
Commerce. 1967.
13. Directory of Manufacturers, County of Riverside. Department
of Development. 1968.
14. Directory of Industries and Industrial Properties. Ventura
County. Ventura County Economic Development Association.
15. Industrial Directory of Orange County. Orange County Chamber
of Commerce. Annual Report.
-------
77
16. Business Directory and Buyers Guide. Los Angeles Chamber of
Commerce. 1966.
17. Air Pollution Data for Los Angeles County. Los Angeles Air
Pollution Control District. January, 1968.
18. Emissions of Air Pollutants in Riverside County. Riverside
County Air Pollution Control District. 1964.
19. 1967 Annual Report - San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control
District. 172 West Third St., San Bernardino, California. 1968.
20. Emissions of Air Pollutants in San Diego County - 1965. County
of San Diego Department of Public Health.
21. Air Pollution in Ventura County, County of Ventura Health
Department and State Department of Public Health. June, 1966.
22. Martin, D.O. and J.A. Tikvart, "A General Atmospheric Diffusion
Model for Estimating the Effects of One or More Sources on Air
Quality". Paper (no. 68-148) presented at Annual Meeting, Air
Pollution Control Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1968. 46 pp.
23. Bell, G.B., A Study of Pollutant Transport Due to Surface Winds
in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties,
Bureau of Air Sanitation, State of California, Berkeley,
California 1959, 63 pp.
24. Bell, G.B., Meteorological Conditions During Oxidant Episodes
in Coastal San Diego County in October and November, 1959,
Bureau of Air Sanitation, State of California, Berkeley,
California, 1969, 19pp.
25. De Marrais, G.A., G.C. Holzworth, and C.R. Hosier, Meteoro-
logical Summaries Pertinent to Atmospheric Transport and Dis-
persion Over Southern California. Weather Bureau Technical
Paper No. 54, Washington, D.C., 1965, 86 pp.
26. Edinger, J.G., The Meteorology of Los Angeles Polluted Layer
(Report for Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District) .
Department of Meteorology, University of California at
Los Angeles, 1958, 22 pp. plus 119 figures.
27. Edinger, J.G., "The Influence of Terrain and Thermal Strati-
fication on Flow Across the California Coastline", Final Report
under contract AF 19(604)-5212, Department of Meteorology,
University of California at Los Angeles, 1960, 62 pp.
28. Edinger, J.G. and R.A. Helvey, "The San Fernando Convergence Zone",
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 42(9),
September, 1961, pp. 626-635.
-------
78
29. Kerr, R.E., Jr. and M.J. Radulovich, Report on the Pollution
Potential of Ventura County, North American Weather Con-
sultants, Santa Barbara Airport, Goleta, California, 1956, 44 pp.
30. Neiburger, M. and J.G. Edinger, "Summary Report on Meteorology of
the Los Angeles Basin with Particular Respect to the 'Smog'
Problem," Report, 1(1), Air Pollution Foundation, Los Angeles,
California, 1954, 54 pp.
31. Neiburger, M., G.P. Beer, and L.B. Leopold, The California
Status Investigation of 1944, U.S. Weather Bureau, Washington,
D.C., 1945, 84 pp.
32. Neiburger, M,, N.A. Renzetti, and R. Gice, "Wind Trajectory
Studies of the Movement of Polluted Air in the Los Angeles
Basin", Report No. 13 (vol. 2, no. 1), Air Pollution Founda-
tion, Los Angeles, California, 1956, 76 pp.
33. Poppendiek, H.F., J.G. Edinger, M.L. Greenfield, W.J. Hamming,
and L.H. McEwen, Report on an Atmospheric Pollution Investi-
gation in the Los Angeles Basin, Department of Engineering,
University of California at Los Angeles, 1948, 100 pp.
34. Stanford Research Institute, The Use of Meteorological Data in
Large Scale Air Pollution Surveys, Bureau of Air Sanitation,
State of California, Berkeley, 1958, 110. pp.
35. Taylor, J.R., "Normalized Air Trajectories and Associated
Pollution Levels in the Los Angeles Basin" Air Quality Report
No. 45, Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles, 1962,
49 pp., appendices.
36. Holzworth, G.C. (personal communication) Letter on computed
mixing depths over Los Angeles and San Francisco, September 9,
1968.
37. Holzworth, G.C., "Mixing Depths, Wind Speeds, and Air Pollution
Potential for Selected Locations in the United States",
Journal of Applied Meteorology, 6(6), December, 1967, pp.
1039-1044.
38. Hosier, C.R., "Climatological Estimates of Diffusion Conditions
in the United States", Nuclear Safety, 5 (2), Winter 1963-
1964, pp. 184-192.
39. Miller, P.H., A Study of the Upper Air Temperatures at the Naval
Ordinance Test Stations (China Lake). Atmospheric Studies
Branch, Instrument Operations Division. NOTS NAVORD Report No.
5256, June 15, 1956.
40. Lambie, J., "Some Observations on the Elsinore Shear Lines",
Soaring, May-June, 1956, pp. 4-5.
-------
79
41. Lambie, J., "Southern California Shearlines" Aero-revue,
2, 1963, pp. 91-94.
42. Observers at Fire Weather Stations in Mountains of
southern California. Reports on the tops of layers of
polluted air over southern California (2 weeks in fall of
1962; 6 weeks in summer of 1963).
43. Clean Air Quarterly. Bureau of Air Sanitation. State
Department of Health, Vol. 11, Nos. 2, 3, 4; Vol. 12, No. 1
Berkeley, California.
44. Kauper, E.K. and J.R. Taylor, "The Air Pollution Climatology
of the Antelope Valley," Analysis Paper No. 29, Air Pollution
Control District, Los Angeles, 1960, 12 pp.
45. Mulford - Carrell Air Resources Act, California State Legisla-
ture, 1967. (State Health and Safety Code, Section 39051).
------- |