What Desalination Could Bring
There is growing interest among Bay Area water agencies in augmenting traditional water supplies with water from San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean. In 2002, the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) revived a 1990 proposal to use water desalination to produce up to 15 million gallons per day (mgd) to supplement water in MMWD reservoirs and imported from the Russian River. In October 2003, the first phase of a joint study was completed by a partnership including East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The joint study looked at a Bay Area Regional Desalination Project, which could consist of one or more desalination facilities, with a potential capacity of up to 120 million gallons per day.
That capacity is attractive to agencies which are concerned about adequate water supply to address emergency needs, potential droughts, and the demands of a growing population. In addition, desalination provides a reliable quantity of water, unlike rivers and reservoirs dependent on rainfall. Despite conservation, and long-range maintenance and seismic retrofit plans, water agency planners expect future water shortages somewhere in the region.
Although desalination plants have been built around the world, including a few in California, a number of factors formerly made desalination sufficiently difficult or expensive so that most water agencies put it far down on their list of water supply alternatives. The first of these is energy. In the Bay Area, desalination would probably be done using a process called reverse osmosis, which forces salt water through thin membranes that block the salt and allow fresh water to pass through. The extremely fine filtering membranes have such small openings that only clean water can get through, but it takes a great deal of energy to create enough pressure to force the water from one side of the membrane to the other. Distillation, an alternative desalination process used in many other parts of the world, also needs large amounts of energy for heat to boil the water.
Another problem is siting. New facilities of any kind are often unwelcome along a waterfront, yet the facility needs to be in a location which allows it to take in large quantities of water without excessive impacts on marine life. Turbid or contaminated water is undesirable, since this will make pretreatment more difficult. Every two gallons of marine water will yield approximately one gallon of fresh water and one gallon of concentrated brine that must be treated or diluted before disposal. Desalination plants are typically located near wastewater treatment outfalls or electric power plants where existing water discharges offer the means to dilute the brine so it can be safely discharged without affecting marine organisms or otherwise degrading water quality or the health of the environment. These factors create technological challenges and add expense to desalination projects.
These concerns all apply in the Bay Area and are being addressed in the desalination studies which are moving forward. The regional partnership looked for sites near power plants and existing dischargers to the bay to maximize the potential for power cost savings and minimize environmental impacts.
According to Hasan Abdullah, EBMUD's desalination project coordinator, "the Mirant Power Plant in Pittsburg was of great interest to the group, because it is close to EBMUD and CCWD facilities and because it would provide an onsite power source and an existing inlet for drawing in the water, as well as an outfall which could be used to dilute the brine waste." The other two sites chosen for additional exploration are a site in Oakland near the Bay Bridge, and an oceanside site in San Francisco. MMWD's preferred site would be on the San Quentin Peninsula in San Rafael, where a nearby wastewater treatment plant outfall would provide fresh water to dilute the brine to the salt levels of the Bay.
The Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which has jurisdiction over siting facilities at the edge of the Bay, is preparing a report on the potential impacts of desalination plants which is scheduled for completion in September.
The Environmental Impact Report for the Marin project will be available later this year and will probably be certified in early 2005. Bob Castle, Water Quality Manager for MMWD, says the district may also repeat pilot tests done in 1990 to evaluate improved microfilter technology. "We'd probably use these as an opportunity for the public to see the equipment and taste the result," says Castle, noting that in 1990, 95% of the people who took part in taste-tests preferred the desalinated water.
Phase 2 of the Regional Desalination Project will begin in June; it is a six-month Pre-Feasibility Study, which will analyze the three sites and further define the potential facilities. The study will consider how each participating agency might use the desalted water, solutions to geotechnical and pretreatment waste issues, conceptual engineering of the treatment facilities, and how the agencies would work together. The next step, once funding has been obtained, is a $4 million detailed feasibility and environmental study which would develop specifics about locations, technologies, what facilities would look like, potential benefits, and environmental impacts. This phase would include public outreach. The information from this phase would contribute to a final project description which would be submitted to the boards of the participating agencies for decisions on how to proceed.
Construction costs of a new jointly-used facility are estimated at $450-700 million, depending on the location and the capacity. Operating costs would depend on the project, and all agencies would need to invest in pipelines and other distribution facilities. For Marin, construction costs would be $100 million for a 10 mgd plant, which includes $35 million in distribution improvements.
All five agencies will need to weigh the costs, the benefits, and the environmental impacts against those incurred in obtaining additional water from other sources. Those costs, both economic and environmental, have risen for many districts. Keeping water in rivers for environmental benefits has constrained supplies, and using untapped groundwater or reservoirs can mean building expensive new facilities. Alternatively, a recent study by the Pacific Institute concludes that urban water conservation, reclamation and recycling could supply the state's needs for decades to come. However, Castle notes that MMWD, like EBMUD, has already aggressively pursued both water conservation and water recycling. At this point, expanding water recycling is almost twice as expensive for MMWD as implementing desalination. Some districts may find reclaimed and recycled water is cheaper than desalinated water, but so far these alternatives have been unacceptable to drinking water customers.
Depending on precipitation to fill reservoirs and pipelines may soon create too much uncertainty for good water planning as the population grows. Even if no Bay Area desalination facilities are approved in the next few years, they it is likely they will eventually play a role in the region's water supply.
Leslie Stewart
For more information on Bay Area projects:
Bay Area Regional Desalination Project: Hasan Abdullah, EBMUD, 510-287-0550; habdullah@ebmud.com
Marin Municipal Water District: Bob Castle, 415-945-1556; bcastle@marinwater.org
Other recommended resources:
California Dept. of Water Resources: http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/index.cfm
California Coastal Commission, http://www.coastal.ca.gov
Pacific Institute, http://www.pacinst.org/
Water Education Foundation, http://www.watereducation.org; Western Water Magazine, "Tapping the World's Largest Reservoir: Desalination", January/February 2003
New trains, new train control service, new schedules—all are part of Caltrain's Baby Bullet express train service, scheduled to begin June 7. On June 5, however, many riders will be cheering for something old, a return to regular weekend train service, which was suspended for two years for construction of new tracks and other facilities. Trains will now run hourly on Saturday and Sunday and will be free for riders the first two weekends in June.
The new schedule includes 86 weekday trains, including 10 Baby Bullets. The Baby Bullet trains will save time by running at the same speed as other Caltrain service, 79 mph, but stopping at only a few stations, cutting running time between San Francisco and San Jose from an hour and 36 minutes to just 57 minutes. The designated stations are San Francisco, Millbrae, Hillsdale, Palo Alto, Mountain View and San Jose Diridon. In addition, San Francisco's 22nd Street station will be a stop for two southbound morning trains and two northbound evening trains.
The $110 million construction project created the new signal system infrastructure, upgrades to stations in Brisbane and Sunnyvale, and passing tracks for the Baby Bullets to slip around other trains. As a result of the improvements, trains should be faster in many places and also quieter. Over a year ago, Caltrain added new locomotives and bi-level cars which are designed for faster passenger boarding. In future, if budgets allow, Caltrain plans to add more trains, including more Baby Bullets.
Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the designations it has assigned to the states, indicating the level of progress toward attaining the national 8-hour ozone standard. In California, the air basin status ranges from "attainment" through "marginal", "moderate", and "serious" to "severe". The Bay Area is designated "marginal", because of readings that exceeded the standard at the San Martin monitoring station in Santa Clara County.
The three regional air quality planning agenciesthe Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area Governmentsare currently preparing a plan to attain this national standard, as well as plans to attain the state 1-hour ozone standard and to maintain its attainment of the national 1-hour ozone standard. The planners are investigating all possible control measures to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen, the precursors of ozone, in a search for those that are feasible and enforceable.
Individual Bay Area residents can take their own steps to reduce air pollution in the region. With the approach of summer's hot, sunny weather, which promotes the formation of ground-level ozone from its precursors, the BAAQMD will soon activate its 2004 Spare the Air Program. This program has been effective in helping to keep ground-level ozone levels from exceeding air quality standards. On days when the ozone level is expected to exceed clean air standards, individuals will be alerted to curtail activities that produce air pollution. Employers who participate in the program will educate their employees about the Spare the Air Program and encourage them to observe the alerts. Examples of activities that will spare the air include carpooling, using transit, walking, or bicycling instead of driving solo, and limiting the use of equipment and consumer products that pollute.
During the 2003 smog season, the BAAQMD issued a press release about the importance of curtailing the use of air polluting household products. On an average day, consumer products such as deodorants, hairspray, pesticides, paints, and household cleaners emit more than 52 tons of VOCs, or 10 percent of the summertime air pollution. By contrast, local power plants generate 1 percent of the Bay Area's air pollution. Summertime emissions from household consumer products are equal to 1.6 million cars driving 30 miles each.
Besides avoiding the use of these products on Spare the Air days, consumers are asked to choose less polluting forms of the products they purchase. Examples are selecting non-aerosol forms of products, using a water-based rather than a solvent-based form of such products as paints, and using natural, non-chemical cleaning materials rather than chemical products.
The state Air Resources Board (ARB) has the authority to regulate emissions from consumer products. As a key element of the 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP) required by the federal Clean Air Act, the ARB included regulations to reduce the VOC emissions from consumer products and aerosol coatings to the maximum extent feasible.
The 2003 update of the 1994 SIP adds regulations to further reduce emissions from these products and to establish emissions limits for new categories of products. The more stringent VOC limits for existing products, which will become effective by 2006, are expected to reduce emissions by 5.3 tons per day (tpd) by 2010. The emissions limits for new consumer product categories, which will become effective in 2008 and 2010, will reduce emissions by 20 to 35 tpd by 2010.
To implement this portion of the 2003 SIP, the ARB will hold a public hearing on June 24 to consider amendments to the Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulation, the Consumer Product Regulation, and the Aerosol Coatings Regulation that will add or modify product categories, establish new or modified VOC emissions limits, and remove exemptions from certain products.
For example, in 1990 the ARB amended the Consumer Products Regulation to exempt solid air fresheners, including toilet blocks, composed of para-dichlorobenzene, a toxic air contaminant. At the time, there were no alternative solid toilet block materials available, and the law enabling the regulation of consumer products specifies that no regulation can be adopted that requires the elimination of any product form. Since substitute materials are now available and being used, the ARB is proposing to prohibit the use of para-dichlorobenzene, and to remove the exemption from regulation of solid air fresheners.
While VOCs from some consumer products affect ozone levels, consumer decisions can also make a difference in reducing levels of wood smoke, the principal source of fine particulate matter. Carbon monoxide and several toxic air contaminants are also emitted in wood burning. Through a program sponsored by the BAAQMD, residents of Santa Clara County can save up to $500 on upgrades of their existing wood burning appliances, thereby improving indoor and outdoor air quality.
The Santa Clara County Woodburning Appliance Upgrade Rebate Program offers a $300 rebate for installing a gas line to an existing fireplace and adding either a gas log set or a gas insert. Replacing an existing woodstove or fireplace insert that is pre-1990 with a gas line and a gas hearth appliance will bring a $500 rebate. The program does not apply if a gas line is already in place. The program has funding for up to 1,700 rebates, more than half of which are still available.
The appliance must be purchased from a retailer who is participating in the rebate program. A list is available on the district's Spare the Air website (see below). At the time of purchase, the retailer issues a voucher for the rebate. After installation, the voucher and copies of purchase and installation invoices and proof of payment are sent in for the rebate. To qualify, old woodstoves must be disabled in some way so that they can't be used or re-sold, and then scrapped at Pick Your Part in Milpitas, which keeps a list of people who scrap stoves. Some retailers will pick up old woodstoves from customers and deliver them to the scrapyard.
The rebate program was funded by Calpine Corporation and Silicon Valley Power as a condition of their permit application to build power plants in Santa Clara County. The reduction in emissions of fine particulate matter from wood smoke will offset some of the air pollution from the new power plants.
Wood smoke is responsible for about 40 percent of fine particulate matter, the target air pollutant of the BAAQMD's wintertime Spare the Air Tonight program.
Adelia Sabiston
For more information:
http:/www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/50things.htm
Like a river which seeps into gravel and disappears, then reappears several miles away, the region's blueprint for smarter regional growth has been progressing so quietly that it has been hard to monitor. Approximately a year ago, the Bay Area's Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint was formally approved by the five regional agencies which had sponsored its development—the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. As each agency has taken responsibility for integrating the policies into its own actions, there have been few opportunities to evaluate how the overall vision for a "network of neighborhoods" is being implemented.
Progress reports to the participating agencies show that the river is still flowing. Individually and together, the regional agencies report they are continuing to make progress. One goal of the Smart Growth Strategy process was to create policies which would be incorporated into the region's planning for housing, transportation and air quality. The Smart Growth Vision will become part of MTC's new Regional Transportation Plan, Transportation 2030, in several ways. In addition to the new Transportation and Land Use policy (see article in this issue), the plan will contain an expanded Transportation for Livable Communities/Housing Incentives Program and funding for a new program, T-PLUS, to help congestion management agencies integrate transportation and land use planning (see October/November 2003 issue). MTC is also starting a study of Bay Area transit-oriented development opportunities.
At the BAAQMD, Transportation Control Measures included in the next Ozone Attainment Strategy must be consistent with the Smart Growth policies. Smart Growth has been added as a new component of the Transportation for Clean Air grant program. Air district staff participate in the panel which selects new projects for MTC's Transportation for Livable Communities grants, as well as in other committees which coordinate work on the Smart Growth policies.
ABAG used the preferred alternative produced by the Smart Growth public participation process as a basis for the 2003 housing projections (P2003) for the region; these figures are now being used in housing plans for cities and counties. ABAG recently completed a survey of local jurisdictions to determine how the region is progressing toward the Smart Growth targets for housing and jobs, as the first step in developing the next set of projections, P2005.
Sherman Lewis, a member of the environmental caucus of the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities (BAASC), which cosponsored the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint project, is critical of the P2003 figures, saying, "High housing targets biased the process against sustainability." He is also concerned that compared with the Strategy, P2003 assumes much more greenbelt development and makes the jobs/housing balance significantly worse. The P2003 numbers will be the basis for the next round of regional transportation and air quality plans. Although he praises ABAG staff and workshop participants for their strong desire to create more housing in the region, Lewis believes that "the quantitative projections do not implement the qualitative vision of the Smart Growth Strategy".
In addition to developing housing figures used in regional planning, ABAG has designed a Smart Growth implementation plan with three elements: providing technical assistance workshops, working with MTC and Caltrans on plans for major transportation corridors with potential for land use/transportation coordination (see article in this issue), and working for legislative changes needed to allow further progress in the region.
In Fall 2003, ABAG sponsored two forums for planning staff and the public on the economic and infrastructure impacts of planning for smart growth. These informational sessions were intended to help local officials overcome common stumbling blocks which may prevent them from moving toward smart growth in their communities. The forums were followed by three technical assistance workshops with detailed discussion of issues such as parking and traffic flow requirements which are often concerns with infill development. A set of reports summarizing the workshops and listing suggestions for change will be available soon. As a followup, ABAG plans to use a Caltrans grant to develop California-specific level-of-service classifications for measuring traffic congestion.
Work on the legislative component has been put on the back burner, because the state lacks money to provide the incentives which were included in most of the proposed changes. Instead, ABAG and the other agencies are coordinating with each other and additional partners to make better use of money already being spent, and looking for grants to supplement funding already in place.
Coordination is needed for the whole Smart Growth Strategy, because many of the responsibilities for implementing the Smart Growth policies overlap. Staff members from the participating agencies meet regularly as the Smart Growth Working Group. The Regional Agency Coordinating Committee (RACC), a three-agency body that was formed to coordinate preparation of the region's new Ozone Attainment Strategy, has added reviewing the Smart Growth Strategy to its responsibilities, and representatives of all the participating agencies as well as the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities are seated as RACC members for those discussions. ABAG's Regional Planning Committee also receives regular Smart Growth implementation reports.
In addition to following the reports to the various agency committees, it will be important to carefully evaluate the assumptions being used for ABAG's next set of housing projections to see whether the 2003 policy-based projection was realistic, and where policies may need better implementation to enable P2005 to come closer to the desired direction. So far, most agencies have simply added smart growth elements to their usual workplans. However, while MTC is required to do a regional transportation plan and BAAQMD is required to update the Ozone Attainment Strategy, no single regional agency is required to protect open space or ensure social equity in regional development. Additional funding and staff would be needed to work on these and similar issues, and as a result, they are lagging the other smart growth policies. For example, MTC's Transportation and Land Use Platform no longer includes a regional open space plan, initially described as a joint effort with ABAG, and the future for such a plan is unclear.
Alex Amoroso, ABAG Principal Planner, describes the current smart growth activities as the "nuts and bolts" of regional smart growth, putting the tools in place for further progress. However, with some policies still waiting for the tools to be designed, there are still ample opportunities for agencies, nonprofit groups such as BAASC, and individuals to take a leadership role in making the region more livable in the future.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
MTC: James Corless, 510-464-7700; jcorless@mtc.ca.gov
ABAG: Alex Amoroso, 510-464-7900; alexa@abag.ca.gov; http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/
BAAQMD: Suzanne Bourguignon, 415-749-5073; SBourguignon@baaqmd.gov
Bay Area Alliance: Sherman Lewis, BAASC Environmental Caucus, slewis@csuhayward.edu; http://www.bayareaalliance.org/
In December 2003 the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted a five-point Transportation and Land Use Platform which will be integrated into the Transportation 2030 Plan. It is part of the implementation of the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint and the "Network of Neighborhoods" scenario which emerged from the public workshops for that project.
The five points are:
1. Develop a transportation/land use policy statement for Transportation 2030. A draft of this statement will be presented to MTC commissioners in June, with a final version scheduled for September.
2. Determine an appropriate percentage of Transportation for Livable Communities/Housing Incentive Program (TLC/HIP) programs that should fund specific plan development around existing or near-term future rail stations and/or corridors. This may involve a new planning grant program for specific plans for areas near transit stations and corridors.
3. Encourage changes to local general plans that support Transit Oriented Development (TOD) for Resolution 3434 investments (MTC's new transit investments program). A key component of this policy is MTC's commitment that regional discretionary funds will be granted to new transit extensions after determining that there are local government plans to add housing, jobs, or density near the transit stations or hubs.
4. Support transportation/land use coordination beyond transit corridors. This includes joint planning with ABAG to improve the jobs/housing balance.
5. Coordinate transportation/land use issues with regional neighbors. Areas around the Bay Area contribute to transportation congestion and other impacts, and solutions need to be found in a cooperative way.
James Corless, MTC's Senior Planner working on smart growth planning, says, "MTC will be using the platform, TLC/HIP and the T-PLUS program with the CMAs [congestion management agencies] to fulfill our commitment to the Smart Growth Vision. We will be working with other agencies, particularly ABAG, to make this happen."
Although the platform will be coordinated with preparation of the Transportation 2030 Plan and will be reflected in the plan, several of the policies may develop into stand-alone programs or documents. For example, to support TOD in areas near new transit projects, MTC will use a Caltrans grant for a TOD study with the goal of creating thresholds, standards and policies which can be used to make transit cost effective while reflecting the needs of individual communities.
MTC has formed a Task Force which draws from agencies, local governments, private developers and members of the public to advise on the TOD policies as well as other aspects of the platform. Corless also plans to take the platform to regional agency committees, advisory groups, focus groups and public sessions to gather input He hopes to do joint workshops with ABAG, as well, before presenting the Transportation 2030 element to MTC in September.
Leslie Stewart
One challenge for planners implementing the regional Smart Growth Vision is that there are few opportunities to start from scratch. Instead, they must find ways to help "morph" the region from what is to what should be. Also, if projects are to make a real difference, they must be on a scale that is bigger than any one agency. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has chosen to tackle these challenges by working to re-make two East Bay transportation corridors—East 14th/International Boulevard and San Pablo Avenue.
As ABAG's Alex Amoroso puts it, the mission is to "take a corridor and make it Smart Growth". There is some precedent for planning along transportation corridors, but the focus has usually been on traffic, and perhaps transit. Changing land uses, creating incentives to use alternatives like walking, and creating a sense of place are planning techniques which are more often focused on a single neighborhood or business district.
In the Bay Area, one corridor which has already experienced coordinated planning by local jurisdictions is El Camino Real in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Although communities along El Camino Real have very different demographics from those along the two East Bay corridors, the El Camino participants are providing ideas and suggestions for how to develop in different patterns along a corridor.
East 14th/International Boulevard planning involves the cities of San Leandro and Oakland and Alameda County, in addition to ABAG, BART and AC Transit. The Fruitvale BART station, with its showplace transit village reaching completion, is a key component. In San Leandro, the city has completed a Specific Plan for the corridor. Alameda County has been making streetscape improvements.
ABAG staff are putting together Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps to show the various investments and plans affecting the corridor, including those funded by regional and state dollars. They are looking for commonalities and opportunities to coordinate projects to make better use of scarce funds and staff expertise, as well as neighborhood input.
Assemblymember Loni Hancock (Berkeley) has drawn ABAG into the planning for San Pablo Avenue, which builds on her earlier work on safety in the same corridor. Hancock sees San Pablo Avenue, which extends from downtown Oakland to the Carquinez Bridge, as a "world class boulevard"—but it is up to everyone involved to define what that will look like. With nine cities, two counties, two congestion management agencies, and regional and transit districts as well, the San Pablo corridor planning already involves 50-60 people. Subcommittees are working on collecting data to map parcel use, zoning and General Plan policies, obtaining funding, and regional and subregional involvement. There are plans for public workshops to involve the neighborhoods along the corridor.
Amoroso sees ABAG's role as bringing "the regional vision from the regional leadership", and also as providing technical assistance. While Caltrans has been working on detailed technical maps of each major transportation corridor in the Bay Area, Amoroso feels that ABAG's maps can present the information in a format which is more accessible for the public. "Engineers think differently from planners," he observes.
ABAG's Smart Growth Corridor program is guided by goals and objectives based on the Smart Growth Vision, particularly the Network of Neighborhoods concept. These include improving jobs/housing balance, meeting the needs of existing businesses and residents in the corridor, improving environmental health, contributing to the financial stability of local jurisdictions, and increasing livability, mobility and support for transit.
Leslie Stewart
Transportation sales tax measures around the region are moving forward on schedule to reach the November ballot (see October/November 2003 and February/March 2004 issues). The counties where such measures could be put before voters include San Mateo, Contra Costa, Marin and Napa, as well as a two-county measure by the Sonoma-Marin Area Rapid Transit (SMART) which would need to be voted on in both of the participating counties.
Progress toward the ballot is not always smooth. In Contra Costa, revision of the associated Growth Management Plan, an innovative element of the existing tax measure, is proving controversial for some cities. In San Mateo, opposition has arisen from groups that dislike funding BART and ferries, and increased taxes. Napa County may place two alternatives on the ballot; one version would fund widening Jamieson Canyon Road, the other would not. Marin cities are struggling with the debate over whether a tax for SMART's commuter rail, which has a high level of support in polls, would help or hurt Marin's tax to fund other transportation modes if the two go on the same ballot.
Santa Cruz County is also debating details of a transportation sales tax measure, reflecting the transportation financing difficulties which will probably place tax measures before many voters in the state in the next few election cycles.
For more information:
Contra Costa: http://www.ccta.net; 925-407-0121
Marin: http://www.marintraffic.org; 415-499-6570
Napa: http://www.nctpa.net; 707-259-8631
San Mateo: http://www.smcta.com; 650-508-6200
SMART: http://www.sonomamarintrain.org; 707-583-2323 or 415-419-3510
The Joint Policy Committee which was established as a result of the ABAG/MTC Task Force (see February/March 2004 issue) would acquire legal status if SB 849 (Torlakson) is passed. The bill includes the structure and purpose of the Joint Policy Committee, adds the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to the membership, and requires both the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments to provide reports to the committee by January 1, 2006 on functional integration of the two agencies. The committee would then report to the Legislature.