Notice having been duly given, the regular meeting of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District Board was held at District
Headquarters, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
Members present:
Supervisor Jon D. Mikels, Chairman
County of San Bernardino
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (arrived at 10:15 a.m.)
County of Los Angeles
Councilman Marvin Braude (left at 12:15 p.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region
Mayor Candace Haggard
Cities of Orange County
Hugh Hewitt
Governor's Appointee
Ms. Mee H. Lee
Senate Rules Committee Appointee
Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge
Cities of Riverside County
Supervisor James W. Silva
County of Orange
Councilwoman Nell Soto (left at 12:00 p.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region
Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
Members Absent:
Dr. William Burke, Vice Chairman
Speaker of the Assembly Appointee
Councilman Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino County
The meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.m. by Chairman Mikels.
James M. Lents, Ph.D., Executive Officer. 1) Requested
that the Board (i) continue Agenda Item No. 3 to its April 12,
1996 meeting so that staff might respond to questions raised recently
by business groups, and (ii) take Item No. 23 off the agenda because
of a vote by part of the union members to de-certify the Federation
of Public Sector Workers; and brought attention to the Errata
Sheet for Agenda Item No. 28, distributed to Board members and
copies made available to the public, which corrected errors contained
in the Rule Forecast Report. 2) Announced that there was an electric
vehicle on display at AQMD headquarters which was a replica of
a model that General Motors will be selling in the near future.
Chairman Mikels presented an award to Administrative Services
Director Lester Jason, in recognition of his 35 years of dedicated
service to Los Angeles County and to AQMD's mission of attaining
air that is healthful to breathe.
Chairman Mikels commented on the special joint breakfast meeting
the Board held with the Advisory Council prior to the Board's
regular meeting. The purpose of the special meeting was to receive
and discuss the Council's "White Paper: The AQMD Beyond the
Year 2000". There was a far-ranging discussion at the special
meeting on how AQMD will be changing in response to expected changes
in the economy and society in general.
Chairman Mikels appointed Ms. Soto and Mr. Antonovich as the Board's
delegate and alternate, respectively, to the Fuel Cell Consortium,
a non-profit corporation being formed under the auspices of the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
CONSENT CALENDAR
ON MOTION OF MS. HAGGARD, SECONDED BY DR. WILSON, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Burke and Paulitz): 1) REMOVING ITEM NO. 23 FROM THE AGENDA; 2) APPROVING AGENDA ITEM NO. 28, WITH THE CORRECTIONS SET FORTH IN THE ERRATA SHEET; AND 3) APPROVING AGENDA ITEMS 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 THROUGH 19, 22, 24 AND 26 THROUGH 29, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Agenda Items 1 through 5, 8, 11, 14, 20, 21 and 25 were held for discussion. Chairman Mikels stated that Jeb Stuart, representing the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, had submitted a request to address the Board on Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Stuart indicated that he would defer commenting on the item until it is presented at the April 12, 1996 Board meeting.
Ms. Haggard indicated that she would abstain from voting on this item because she was not present at the February 9, 1996 Board meeting.
ON MOTION OF MR. BRAUDE, SECONDED BY MR. HEWITT, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 AS RECOMMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Braude, Hewitt, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Haggard.
ABSENT: Antonovich, Burke and Paulitz.
At Ms. Haggard's request, Pat Leyden, DEO of Stationary Source Compliance, gave a brief status report on this item.
Mr. Lee Wallace of Southern California Gas Company addressed the Board to express their support for setting the public hearing for April 12; but to alert the Board that the hearing may have to be continued to the Board's May 10, 1996 meeting, because the Home Rule Working Group has not yet been able to resolve the issue of visibility protection for Class I areas with the federal agencies involved.
ON MOTION OF MS. HAGGARD, SECONDED BY MR. BRAUDE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Burke and Paulitz) SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 12, 1996 TO AMEND RULE 1303 AND
RULE 2005, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Ms. Soto commented that this was one of the items that she had asked staff to include in the Home Rule Working Group; and she wanted to inform the Board and the public of the availability of a one-page information sheet on the impact of this item to local government.
RULE 201, TO THE APRIL 12, 1996 BOARD MEETING.ON MOTION OF MR. HEWITT, SECONDED BY MS. LEE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Burke and Paulitz) CONTINUING AGENDA ITEM NO. 3, SET A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND
In response to concern expressed by Ms. Soto that socially/economically disadvantaged communities not be isolated from the RFP process because of their lack of resources, Intergovernmental Affairs Director Larry Rhinehart stated that the RFP would be distributed directly to each and every city within the boundaries of this district.
ON MOTION OF MS. SOTO, SECONDED BY MS. LEE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT(Absent: Antonovich, Brad, Burke, Hewitt and Paulitz) APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AS AN ELEMENT OF THE FINAL FISCAL YEAR 1995-97 AB 2766 DISCRETIONARY WORK PROGRAM, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MSRC.
In response to a question by Mr. Silva, SCAG representative Lori Hunter indicated that if the funds are depleted before Phase II is completed, SCAG would still be able to maintain the database management and operation with their existing staff.
In order to insure that SCAG does not seek additional funding from the MSRC if they expend the entire $550,000 recommended, Ms. Lee suggested the Board place a restriction on this item to limit the funding to no more than $550,000 and specify that any additional funding needed will be obtained by SCAG from sources other than the MSRC.
ON MOTION OF MR. SILVA, SECONDED BY MS. LEE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Braude, Burke and Paulitz):
1) APPROVING THE AWARD OF A SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACT TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $550,000 AS AN ELEMENT OF THE FINAL FISCAL YEAR 1995-97
AB 2766 DISCRETIONARY FUND WORK PROGRAM; AND
2) SPECIFYING THAT ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING NECESSARY FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WILL BE OBTAINED BY SCAG FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE MSRC.
8. Issue a Request for Proposals for Independent Audit Services
Ms. Soto commented that the firm that presently has this contract, a minority business enterprise, was not included on the AQMD's mailing list last year for this RFP. She asked that staff be sure that firm is placed on, and stays on, the RFP mailing list. In addition, she asked that staff, as a matter of standard procedure, include a summary of the Board's Ad Hoc Affirmative Action Committee's outreach plan for MBE/WBE/DVBE firms in all future RFP-related board items.
ON MOTION OF MS. SOTO, SECONDED BY MR. HEWITT, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Braude, Burke and Paulitz) APPROVING RELEASE OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR INDEPENDENT AUDIT SERVICES AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
11. Award Contracts for Air Quality Investment Program
Ms. Soto commented that she recently learned that the cost-effectiveness analysis used to compare the proposals is limited to one year because of an EPA requirement, which she believes unfairly impacts AQMD's process for selecting the most effective and affordable alternatives. She asked that staff explore this issue with Board members at either the next Mobile Source or Stationary Source Committee's meeting, so as to bring the AQIP more in line with AQMD's long term goals and hopefully increase the scope of viable projects.
ON MOTION OF MS. SOTO, SECONDED BY MS. HAGGARD, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Burke and Paulitz) APPROVING IN CONCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS PENDING STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL PRIOR TO MAY 18, 1996.
14. Execute a Contract to Sponsor Follow-Up Emissions Testing of High-Emitting Vehicles Recruited in Orange County Using Remote Sensing Devices and Repaired
Mr. Silva indicated that he was not opposed to the staff recommendation on this item, but hoped that in the future contracts for projects of this nature would go to California institutions and businesses.
ON MOTION OF MR. SILVA, SECONDED BY MS. SOTO, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Braude, Burke and Paulitz) AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NEVADA IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000 TO CONDUCT FOLLOW-UP EMISSIONS TESTING OF HIGH-EMITTING VEHICLES RECRUITED AND REPAIRED IN ORANGE COUNTY USING REMOTE SENSING DEVICES, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
20. Adopt Technology Advancement Plan and Include it in the Clean Fuels Program
In response to Ms. Soto's question regarding dissemination of the results of projects in AQMD's Clean Fuels Program, Planning & Rules Manager Andris Abele indicated that a book of abstracts for reports will be placed on the AQMD's Home Page on the Internet and all of the organizations performing similar research will be invited to the annual contractors review meetings held by the AQMD.
Ms. Soto expressed her belief that staff's distribution of the reports should be more extensive so that the information reaches the end users of clean fuel technology, as well as existing and potential manufacturers. She mentioned press releases and presentations at conferences as possibilities, and asked that staff follow up on expanding distribution of the reports and report back to the Board at a later date.
ON MOTION OF MS. SOTO, SECONDED BY MS. LEE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Burke and Paulitz) ADOPTING THE TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT PLAN AND INCLUDING IT IN THE CLEAN FUELS PROGRAM, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
21. Issue a Request for Quotations for Car Scrapping
As with Agenda Item No. 8, Ms. Soto asked that staff include a summary of the Board's Ad Hoc Affirmative Action Committee's outreach plan for MBE/WBE/DVBE firms in all future RFQ-related board items.
23. Approve Memorandum of Understanding with the Federation of Public Sector Workers Regarding the Technical and Enforcement Unit
ON MOTION OF MS. SOTO, DULY SECONDED, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
(Absent: Antonovich, Burke and Paulitz) APPROVING AGENDA ITEM NO. 21, AND TAKING ITEM NO. 23 OFF THE AGENDA, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
25. AQMD Advisor , March 1996
Ms. Soto noted that there were two accomplishments not mentioned in the 1995 annual report included in the March issue of AQMD Advisor which she believes should have been: (i) the summit meeting held in March 1995; and (ii) the Home Rule Working Group that resulted from that meeting. She asked that those two items be included in the next issue of AQMD Advisor.
ON MOTION OF MS. SOTO, SECONDED BY MS. LEE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
(Absent: Antonovich, Burke and Paulitz) TO RECEIVE AND FILE AGENDA ITEM NO. 25.
BOARD CALENDAR
Agenda Items 32 and 32(A) were moved to follow Item No. 37.
31. Administrative Committee Report
33. Mobile Source Committee
34. Stationary Source Committee
35. Technology Committee
36. Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee
37. Air Resources Board Monthly Meeting
ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MS. LEE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Burke and Paulitz) APPROVING AGENDA ITEMS 31 and 33 THROUGH 37 AS RECOMMENDED.
32. Legislative Committee
32 (A) Consider February 16, 1996 Legislative Committee Agenda Including Recommended Positions, Receive Additional Legislative Information, and Consider Recommendations on AQMD-Related Bills
Mr. Hewitt commented that the urgency matters were dealt with at a special meeting held by the Board on February 23, 1996, and the Board adopted legislative positions at that time. The reason this item was originally placed on the agenda was because there were only two members of the Legislative Committee present at its last meeting, and they did not want to take a position that did not reflect the consensus of the full Committee. He suggested that those matters which are not urgent--requiring Board action at this time--be referred to the next meeting of the Legislative Committee.
Legislative Director Catherine Witherspoon agreed with Mr. Hewitt's assessment that the bills are not urgent, but noted for the Board's information that AB 924 (Rainey)--Air Quality: Standards, will be heard in the Senate Local Government Committee on March 20, 1996, prior to the Legislative Committee's next meeting on March 22, 1996. Staff recommended the Board adopt an "oppose" position on AB 924, but noted that it is a relatively low-priority bill for the AQMD.
ON MOTION OF MR. HEWITT, SECONDED BY MS. HAGGARD, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Burke and Paulitz) REFERRING AB 1240, AB 1983, AB 1996, SB 2070 AND SB 2130 BACK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE.
Ms. Witherspoon reported briefly on AB 924, a bill sponsored by Western States Petroleum Association and primarily aimed at the Bay Area AQMD, which has attained the federal ozone standard and is on the verge of attaining the state standard. The reason why it is significant for AQMD is because of the policy question it raises as to whether each jurisdiction should be deciding what the attainment goal is, and because it introduces cost/benefit analyses precisely at the point in time when it is most difficult to ascertain. This bill, for the first time, would say that districts are obliged to quantify the benefit of being in attainment; where presently the law simply presumes that it is a worthwhile end. Therefore staff recommended an "oppose" position consistent with past practice that these are goals set by the state and should be uniform in application.
(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 10:15 a.m.)
Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Silva expressed their belief that it would be premature for the Board to take a position at this time, and suggested the Board take a "no position" position until more insight can be gained as to how the bill may be amended.
Chairman Mikels suggested an "oppose unless amended" position because of the significant issues involved in the bill.
ON MOTION OF MR. BRAUDE, SECONDED BY MR. LOVERIDGE, THE BOARD ADOPTED AN "OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED" POSITION ON AB 924 (Rainey), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:37 (A) Adoption of Committee Procedures
AYES: Braude, Haggard, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Hewitt and Silva.
ABSTAIN: Antonovich.
ABSENT: Burke and Paulitz.
Procedural requirements for standing Board committees were proposed by Chairman Mikels for adoption by the Board. Modifications to those proposed procedures were proposed by Mr. Braude, and copies distributed to Board members.
Chairman Mikels called for a motion to approve the proposed Procedures for Standing Committees of the Governing Board. Once that motion was on the floor, the Board could then consider motions to amend the main motion to make modifications to the procedures.
DR. WILSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE PROCEDURES FOR STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE GOVERNING BOARD. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. HAGGARD.
(a) Establishment of Committees.
There were no modifications to the proposed procedure.
(b) Committee Membership.
Mr. Braude suggested changing the maximum committee membership from six to five because he believed the more members there are on a committee, the less power and significance each member has; and the less incentive there is for any individual member to attend the committee meetings.
Dr. Wilson commented that restructuring the membership of all the committees was going beyond the intent of this item, which is to set up procedures and guidelines.
MR. BRAUDE MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MODIFY PARAGRAPH (b)(3) OF THE PROCEDURES AS FOLLOWS:
"(3) Number of Members. No Committee shall have more than
sevenfive members, including the Board Chair. Present committee members shall continue serving. This provision shall become effective upon appointment of new committees."
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. HEWITT, AND FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:38. Further Discussion on Proposed Regulatory Reform InitiativesAYES: Antonovich, Braude, Hewitt and Silva.
NOES: Haggard, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Soto and Wilson.
ABSENT: Burke and Paulitz.
MR. LOVERIDGE MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MODIFY PARAGRAPH (b)(1) OF THE PROCEDURES, AS FOLLOWS:
"(1) Appointment. The Board Chair shall appoint the members and the chair and vice chair of each Committee."
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. SOTO, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Braude, Haggard, Hewitt, Loveridge, Mikels, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Lee.
ABSENT: Burke and Paulitz.
MR. BRAUDE MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MODIFY PARAGRAPHS (b)(1) AND (b)(2) AND DELETE PARAGRAPH (d)(4) OF THE REVISED PROCEDURES AS FOLLOWS:
"(b)(1) Appointment and Removal. The Board Chair shall appoint and may remove the members and the chair and vice chair of each Committee.
(b)(2)
Board Chair. The Board Chair shall be an ex officio voting member of each Committee, subject to the limitations specified in paragraph (d)(4).Substitute Appointments. The Board Chair may appoint a Board Member, including the Board Chair himself/herself, to temporarily serve on a Committee in the absence of a regular member of a Committee.
(d)(4) Voting by Board Chair. The Board Chair shall not vote on an item before a Committee if six other regular Committee members are present and vote on the item."
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. HEWITT, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Braude, Haggard, Hewitt, Lee, Loveridge, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels.
ABSENT: Burke and Paulitz.
Note: Chairman Mikels clarified that the preceding vote, by implication, modified Paragraph (b)(3), Number of Members, as follows: "No Committee shall have more than
sevensix members, including the Board Chair."
(c) Authority of Committees.
Mr. Braude commented that the Board should acknowledge the distinction between a communication from one or two Board members and a recommendation of a committee. Requiring a majority of the committee members to make a recommendation would provide such a distinction. If there is not a majority of the members of a committee present at a committee meeting to make a recommendation, then the position of those committee members present should be in the form of a communication to the Board.
MR. HEWITT MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MODIFY SECTION (c) OF THE PROCEDURES TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE AS SET FORTH IN MR. BRAUDE'S PROPOSAL:
"(4) Committee Recommendations. Except as provided for in Paragraph (c)(3), a majority vote of the Committee is required to adopt a Committee recommendation to be forwarded to the Governing Board.
(5) Committee Communications. Except as provided for in Paragraph (c)(3), in the event of a lack of a Committee majority, any Committee members present can forward a communication to the Governing Board.
(6) Minority Report. Any Committee member can request that a minority report be drafted to accompany the Committee recommendation submitted to the Board."
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. BRAUDE.
Ms. Lee expressed opposition to the proposed modification to require a majority of committee members in order to make a recommendation to the Board. She pointed out that some members attend committee meetings regularly; and others, because of their schedule, prior commitments, and various reasons, do not. If the Board adopted the proposed modification, typical attendance for some committees, such as the Stationary Source Committee, would result in the committee never making a recommendation to the Board. This would lengthen Board meetings because all of the items considered by the committees would have to be brought before the full Board, if there was less than a majority of committee members present at the committee meetings.
Ms. Haggard commented that she did not want to see the Board set artificial barriers that would discourage committee members from attending committee meetings; but believed instead that Board members should voluntarily remove themselves from the committee if they cannot attend the committee meetings.
With respect to proposed Paragraph (c)(6), Mr. Loveridge expressed concern with committee members using staff to draft minority reports, and suggested that the committee members prepare such reports. The maker and second of the motion accepted Mr. Loveridge's suggestion as an amendment to the motion.
THE MOTION BY MR. HEWITT, SECONDED BY MR. BRAUDE, TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MODIFY SECTION (c) OF THE PROCEDURES TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE AS SET FORTH IN MR. BRAUDE'S PROPOSAL:
"(4) Committee Recommendations. Except as provided for in Paragraph (c)(3), a majority vote of the Committee is required to adopt a Committee recommendation to be forwarded to the Governing Board.
(5) Committee Communications. Except as provided for in Paragraph (c)(3), in the event of a lack of a Committee majority, any Committee members present can forward a communication to the Governing Board.
(6) Minority Report. Any Committee member can
request thatsubmit a minority report to accompany the Committee recommendation submitted to the Board. The Committee member may not use AQMD staff to prepare a Minority Report."
PASSED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Braude, Hewitt, Loveridge, Mikels, Silva and Wilson.
NOES: Haggard, Lee and Soto.
ABSENT: Burke and Paulitz.
(d) Meeting Procedure.
DR. WILSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MODIFY PARAGRAPH (d)(1) OF THE REVISED PROCEDURES AS FOLLOWS:
"(1) Quorum. There is no quorum requirement for Committee meetings, except that, for the purpose of making a recommendation to the Board, there is established a quorum of three Committee members."
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. BRAUDE.
Ms. Lee questioned how the motion would affect committees with only three or four members. Also, the motion seemed redundant to her since the Board had already acted to adopt the procedures [(c)(4) & (c)(5)] requiring a majority of the committee present, and approval of the majority of that committee to submit a committee recommendation to the Board.
Mr. Hewitt expressed his belief that at least two members of the committee, in addition to the Board Chair, should be present to conduct public business. If committee members are not willing to attend the committee meetings, then the committee should not meet.
Explaining that the intent of his motion was to allow a committee meeting to be held with less than three committee members present, but to require a vote by three committee members in order to submit a committee recommendation to the full Board,
THE MOTION BY DR. WILSON TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MODIFY PARAGRAPH (d)(1) OF THE REVISED PROCEDURES WAS AMENDED BY DR. WILSON, WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND, TO INCLUDE MODIFICATIONS TO PARAGRAPHS (c)(4) AND (c)(5) AS FOLLOWS:
(c)(5) Committee Communications. In the event of a lack of a Committee
majorityquorum, any Committee members present can forward a communication to the Governing Board.
(d)(1) Quorum. There is no quorum requirement for Committee meetings, except that, for the purpose of making a recommendation to the Board, there is established a quorum of three Committee members."
THE MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Braude, Haggard, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Silva and Wilson.
NOES: Hewitt and Soto.
ABSENT: Burke and Paulitz.
Chairman Mikels pointed out that it was necessary to delete the language in Paragraph (d)(2) that the Board Chair will preside at Committee meetings when the Committee Chair is absent; and include language regarding the Vice Chair, which was established by the previous motion modifying Paragraph (b)(1).
MS. LEE MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MODIFY PARAGRAPH (d) OF THE REVISED PROCEDURES, AS FOLLOWS:
"(2) Committee Chair. The Committee Chair, and in his or her absence, the Committee Vice-chair, shall preside at Committee meetings and shall confer with District staff regarding placement of items on the Committee agenda.
The Board Chair shall preside at Committee meetings when the Committee Chair is absent. In the absence of the Committee Chair and theBoardCommittee Vice Chair, the Committee member with the longest tenure on the Governing Board shall preside at the Committee meeting. The Board Chair shall be chair of the Administrative Committee."
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. HAGGARD, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Braude, Haggard, Hewitt, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Burke and Paulitz.
ON MOTION OF MR. LOVERIDGE, SECONDED BY MS. HAGGARD, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Burke and Paulitz) AMENDING THE MAIN MOTION TO MODIFY SECTION (c) OF THE REVISED PROCEDURES, TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE AS SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSAL BY MR. BRAUDE:
"(7) Absence of Procedures. In the absence of Committee procedures, or an ambiguity in the established procedures arises, the Board Chair shall determine the appropriate procedure until otherwise directed by the Governing Board."
39. Regulatory Reform Initiative - "Green Carpet" Priority Permitting Service
Dr. Lents indicated that, in the interest of time, staff would defer Agenda Items 38 and 39 to the April 12, 1996 Board meeting.
Chairman Mikels stated that Bill Quinn (California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance) had submitted a request to address the Board regarding Agenda Item No. 39, and informed Mr. Quinn that he would have the opportunity to address the Board on this item at the April 12, 1996 meeting.
UPON UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Burke and Paulitz), AGENDA ITEMS 38 AND 39 WERE CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 12, 1996 BOARD MEETING.
40. Analysis of AQMD Treasury Management Options
Chairman Mikels indicated that because Ms. Soto and Mr. Braude would both be leaving the Board meeting at 12:00 p.m., Agenda Item No. 40 would be moved to the end of the agenda and Agenda Item No. 44 would be taken out of order to ensure action by the Board on the item.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
44. Consider Regulatory Relief Options and an Amendment to Subdivision (l) of Rule 2202 -
On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options, Pertaining to Possible Establishment of an Exemption for Primary and Secondary School Districts
Catherine Wasikowski, Transportation Programs Director, gave the staff report; and noted additional amendments proposed by staff to include an exemption for primary and secondary school districts experiencing financial hardship, and to add "County Office of Education" to the definition of school district. Copies of the additional amendments were distributed to Board members and made available to the public.
In response to a question by Ms. Soto, Ms. Wasikowski noted that the issue of including private schools was brought up to the Mobile Source Committee members, but there was no decision made by the Committee for staff to perform further analysis. Therefore, staff continued with analyzing primary and secondary public school sites. Mr. Antonovich indicated that he would like the Board to consider including parochial and private schools, and would make a motion to make that amendment when appropriate.
Mr. Silva asked whether schools with busing transportation for their students would be in a better position to get credits than those where most children either walk or ride their bicycles to school.
Ms. Wasikowski responded that in surveying the school districts, staff found that approximately 98 percent of them would receive the credits for busing recommended by staff. The other 2 percent would have the option, under Subparagraph (f)(8) of the rule to propose other means of achieving the trip reductions, such as students walking or riding bicycles to school.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
MIKE SPENCE, West Covina Unified School District
Expressed support for the 2 students-to-1 employee busing ratio proposed by staff, but preferred a blanket exemption for schools because it would allow them to devote their staff time and resources to educating children.
ALAN TRUDELL, Garden Grove School District
ALAN TOMIYAMA, Los Angeles Unified School District
Expressed support for the staff recommendation.
In response to Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Tomiyama estimated that over the last five years,
Rule 2202/Regulation XV has cost them over $2.5 million, not including indirect costs. If the staff recommendation is adopted, those costs would be significantly reduced.
JUDITH CIANCIMINO, Westchester neighborhood school
Suggested that the Board add carpools/vanpools if the Board includes parochial and private schools, because the majority of children in most private schools are already in a vanpool or carpool.
(Ms. Soto left at 12:00 p.m., and Mr. Braude left at 12:15 p.m.)
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Commenting that he stated his reasons for supporting an outright exemption for primary and secondary schools at the February 9, 1996 Board meeting,
MR. SILVA MOVED TO EXEMPT PUBLIC, PAROCHIAL AND PRIVATE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 2202. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. HEWITT.
Dr. Wilson expressed his opposition to the motion because he felt it would set a precedent. Next would be counties, then cities, and then every public entity.
Chairman Mikels commented that, while he was supportive of the intent of the motion, he opposed the impact of the motion. By including public schools in the rule, the emission reductions from their school busing programs (approximately 1 ton per day) can be claimed in the AQMP. That amount of emission reductions could be even greater if demonstrated by further analysis of students walking, bicycling and carpooling. With an outright exemption of schools, credit for those emission reductions would not be counted and could not be claimed in the AQMP. Therefore, he could not support the motion.
Speaking in support of the motion, Mr. Hewitt commented that schools face a constant battle to raise funds to add improvements into the schools, and he was therefore supportive of reducing their compliance costs as much as possible.
THE MOTION BY MR. SILVA, SECONDED BY MR. HEWITT, TO EXEMPT PUBLIC, PAROCHIAL AND PRIVATE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 2202 FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:Ms. Haggard and Mr. Loveridge commented in support of the language in the Resolution regarding introduction of air quality components in school curriculum, and urged staff to continue working diligently on the issue.
AYES: Antonovich, Hewitt and Silva.
NOES: Haggard, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels and Wilson.
ABSENT: Braude, Burke, Paulitz and Soto.
DR. WILSON MOVED TO: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-3, AMENDING SUBDIVISION (l) OF RULE 2202 PERTAINING TO EXEMPTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF; AND 2) DIRECT STAFF TO FURTHER EVALUATE GIVING CREDIT TO SCHOOLS FOR WALKING, BICYCLING, AND CARPOOLING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. LOVERIDGE.
MS. HAGGARD MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE IN SUBDIVISION (l) OF RULE 2202:
"(6) Primary and Secondary School District Financial Hardship
Due to their financial hardship, notwithstanding the criteria of paragraph (l)(5), school districts that have received a Negative or Qualified Certification status from their County Board of Education pursuant to Chapter 6, Part 24 of Division 3 of the Education Code, deeming that based upon current projections the school district or county office of education will not or may not meet its financial obligations, may request the Executive Officer to grant a temporary exemption from the requirements of the rule. The Executive Officer shall grant a temporary exemption for the period during which the Negative or Qualified Certification status applies."
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. LOVERIDGE, AND PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Braude, Burke, Paulitz and Soto).MR. HEWITT MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MODIFY PARAGRAPH (l)(5) OF RULE 2202 AS FOLLOWS:
"(5) Primary and Secondary School Districts
Any public, private or parochial non-profit primary or secondary school district or school that buses two (2) students for every one (1) peak window employee..."
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. ANTONOVICH, AND PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Braude, Burke, Paulitz and Soto).
THE MAIN MOTION BY DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY
MR. LOVERIDGE, AMENDED AS STATED ABOVE, PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
(Absent: Braude, Burke, Paulitz and Soto).
CLOSED SESSION
46. Closed Session to Consider Pending or Potential Litigation and Personnel Matters
There were no closed session items for consideration by the Board.
RECESS
The Board recessed at 12:30 p.m. and reconvened at 1:10 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
41. Rescind Rule 1129 - Aerosol Coatings and
Amend Rules
1106.1 - Pleasure Craft Coating Operations;
1107 - Coating of Metal Parts and Products;
1113 - Architectural Coatings;
1128 - Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating Operations;
1130 - Graphic Arts;
1145 - Plastic, Rubber, and Glass Coatings; and
1151 - Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations
Jack Broadbent, Assistant DEO/Stationary Source Compliance, gave the staff report. Industry representatives had requested of staff, and would request the Board, to reinstate a small container (one quart or less) exemption in Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings. If reinstated, this exemption would potentially have air quality impacts. Presently, coating manufacturers are operating under product variances, and staff believes that reinstating the exemption would potentially result in continuing the air quality impact that currently exists as a result of those variances. Nevertheless, staff believes such an exemption should be placed in the rule; and therefore, it should go through the rulemaking process and be subject to an environmental assessment pursuant to CEQA requirements. Staff is committed to bringing a proposed rule amendment to reinstate the small container exemption back to the Board, under an expedited rule development schedule, at the August 9, 1996 Board meeting. The Resolution for this item was revised by staff to include that commitment, copies of which were distributed to the Board and make available to the public.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individual:
ROBERT WENDOLL, EL RAP
Commented that while EL RAP would have preferred immediate reinstatement of the exemption, they believe the provisions of the Resolution represent a reasonable compromise to address their concerns while allowing staff time to evaluate the environmental significance of the exemption. (Submitted Written Comments)
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Masterchem Industries, Inc.
Southern California Decorating Products Association
The Valspar Corporation
DR. WILSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-4, RESCINDING RULE 1129, AMENDING RULES 1106.1, 1107, 1113, 1128, 1130, 1145 AND 1151, AND APPROVING THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. HAGGARD, AND PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Braude, Burke, Paulitz and Soto).
43. Staff Recommendation and Rulemaking Action Plan on Intercredit Trading--Increasing Flexibility for AQMD's Mobile and Stationary Source Emissions Credit Programs
Barry Wallerstein, DEO of Planning and Information Management, gave the staff report. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
LEE WALLACE, Southern California Gas Company
Urged the Board to adopt the staff report, with the additional design principles contained in written comments submitted by CCEEB; and expressed opposition to the addition of an emission factor offset discount, which staff proposes to evaluate as part of the 1997 AQMP and apply in the future, because it would further complicate an already difficult problem of establishing a universal trading credit and a common trading market and almost any way that could be devised to extract additional emission reductions from trading activities would be unfair.
BILL QUINN, CCEEB
Recommended that the Board approve the staff report and incorporate into the report six additional design principles which were agreed to, and developed with input, by AQMD staff. (Submitted Written Comments)
RON WILKNISS, WSPA
GREG ADAMS, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
FRANK DRYDEN, Southern California Alliance of POTWs
DEBORAH KURILCHYK, Southern California Edison (SCE) (Submitted Written Comments)
Expressed support for the concept of an intercredit trading program, and urged the Board not to foreclose on options--such as use of credits generated by shutdowns and use of credits to comply with existing rule requirements--at this stage; but rather to ask staff to develop rules and design the program for maximum flexibility. Ms. Kurilchyk added SCE's support of the free exchange of all credits, provided the Board put in place a corrective mechanism that can be used if problems occur with air quality attainment, the price of credits, or credit supply and demand.
GAIL RUDERMAN-FEUER, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air
Supported the concept of a market trading program and urged the Board to direct staff to follow through with development of the program; but expressed concerns regarding: (i) the offset requirement, because in their view, this program will only work and should only be pursued and then adopted if there is an environmental benefit; (ii) banking, which they are generally concerned and opposed to, and believe AQMD needs to make sure that these credits are not being saved up and then in the Year 2010 have a spike of credits coming into the market; (iii) the potential impacts that interseasonal trading could have on toxic emissions; and (iv) the trust fund idea, which they suggest the Board have staff study at this time, and not start right away with rulemaking on that issue. (Written Comments Submitted Jointly by NRDC, Coalition for Clean Air and American Lung Association)
BOB WYMAN, RFG and COALESCE
Encouraged the Board to include the full range of options; not only in the intercredit trading program that AQMD staff is proposing, but also a clean air trust fund, which would be an expansion of the AQIP. (Submitted Written Comments)
JOHN BILLHEIMER, Consultant
Expressed support of an intercredit trading program, and suggested bringing the emissions inventory into the discussion early on in development of the program. (Submitted Written Comments)
SHIPRA BANSAL, Communities for a Better Environment
Expressed opposition to intercredit trading, specifically the banking, which would allow credits to have an indefinite life; the various forms of creating ERCs, which they believe will create more pollution than already exists; and the interpollutant trading, which they believe has many problems and is not a viable concept at all.
DEE ALLEN, City of Los Angeles
Supported, in concept, the market trading program and encouraged the Board to direct staff to consider four specific items throughout the next phases of the program: One, to identify and mitigate any localized air pollution impacts from a trading program; Second, keep all options open so that if in the middle of the process staff feels it does not work, staff will have the flexibility to consider other options; Third, establish a monitoring element as a component of the trading program to ensure that the cost of compliance and emission reduction is not shifted from one source to the other and that the cost of the credits do not significantly restrict economic growth activity; and Lastly, to work with the affected parties to resolve issues concerning the trading of ERCs and post-1998 RTCs.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
MR. HEWITT MOVED TO APPROVE THE INTERCREDIT TRADING STUDY, AS MODIFIED BY THE AGREEMENT REACHED BETWEEN AQMD STAFF AND CCEEB ON SIX ADDITIONAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES; AND DIRECT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION PLAN AND TO INITIATE RULE DEVELOPMENT FOR AN INTERCREDIT TRADING PROGRAM. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. HAGGARD, AND PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
(Absent: Braude, Burke, Lee, Paulitz and Soto).
42. Amend Rule 1610 - Old Vehicle Scrapping
In the interest of time, staff waived an oral report on this item. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
RAY BEGGS, Association of California Car Clubs
Supported the proposed amendments, and an additional amendment to extend the time period that engine blocks will be available to hobbyists.
FRANK BOHANAN, Specialty Equipment Market Association
Expressed support for the proposed amendment to Rule 1610 to include a Code of Conduct, which will protect the interests of automotive hobbyists without compromising air quality or imposing additional burden on the dismantlers.
JON OWYANG, Old Vehicle Clearinghouse
Supported, in concept, the proposed amendments; and asked that the five-day period for destruction of the engine block be changed to ten days because of time needed for DMV clearance on the vehicles.
Henry Hogo, Planning & Rules Manager, indicated that staff was agreeable to changing the five-day period to ten days, as requested.
ON MOTION OF MR. ANTONOVICH, SECONDED BY MS. HAGGARD, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Braude, Burke, Lee, Paulitz and Soto) ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 96-5, AMENDING RULE 1610 AND CERTIFYING THE EXEMPTION FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION:
"(e)(2) The SCAQMD licensed scrapper or DMV licensed auto dismantler shall render the engine inoperable within
fiveten days subsequent to possession of the old vehicle ...."
40. Analysis of AQMD Treasury Management Options
45. Amend the Control Measure Adoption Schedule for the 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal
AGENDA ITEMS 40 AND 45 WERE CONTINUED BY
CHAIRMAN MIKELS TO THE APRIL 12, 1996 BOARD MEETING.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Public Comment on Non-Agenda
Items, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3)
There was no public comment on non-agenda items.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Mikels at 2:00 p.m.
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on March 8,
1996.
Respectfully Submitted,
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: _______________________
___________________________________________
Jon D. Mikels, Chairman
AB = Assembly Bill
AQIP = Air Quality Investment Program
AQMD = (South Coast) Air Quality Management District
AQMP = Air Quality Management Plan
CCEEB = California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
COALESCE = Coalition for Local Environmental Solutions and a Competitive Economy
DMV = Department of Motor Vehicles
EL RAP = Environmental Legislative & Regulatory Advocacy Program
of the
Southern California Paint & Coatings Association
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
ERC = Emission Reduction Credit
MBE/WBE/DVBE = Minory-, Woman-, Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise
MSRC = Mobile Source (Air Pollution Reduction) Review Committee
RECLAIM = REgional CLean Air Incentives Market
RFG = Regulatory Flexibility Group
RFP = Request for Proposals
RFQ = Request for Quotations
RTC = RECLAIM Trading Credit