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:
Councilmember Norma J. Glover, Vice Chairman
Cities of Orange County
Councilmember Richard Alarcón (left at 1:40 p.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (left during afternoon recess)
County of Los Angeles
Ms. Mee H. Lee
Senate Rules Committee Appointee
Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge (left at 1:40 p.m.)
Cities of Riverside County
Supervisor Jon D. Mikels
County of San Bernardino
Wayne H. Nastri
Governor's Appointee
Councilmember Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino County
Supervisor James W. Silva
County of Orange
Councilmember Nell Soto (left at 1:40 p.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region
Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
The meeting was called to order at 9:47 a.m. by Chairman Burke.
• Opening Comments
Chairman Burke. Asked for a moment of silence in honor of the recent passing of former state Assemblyman Phil Soto, husband of Board member Nell Soto. Ms. Soto expressed her and her family’s appreciation to everyone who offered their support and to all those who attended services for her husband.
• Election of Board Chair and Vice Chair for Two-Year Terms of Office Commencing Second Friday in January 1998 and Ending Second Friday in January 2000
The floor was opened for nominations for Chair.
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels.
ABSENT: None.
Chairman Burke asked Dr. Wilson to chair an ad hoc committee that would bring suggestions to the appropriate committees regarding ways of improving the situation in the Inland Empire. He also asked that Mr. Loveridge and Mr. Mikels serve on the committee.
The floor was opened for nominations for Vice Chair.
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels.
ABSENT: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Items 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17 and 20 were held for discussion.
Ms. Soto indicated that she would be voting against the staff recommendation on this item because she was not supportive of contracting with the Goldstein, Kennedy & Petito firm to continue handling those matters already in progress. After having contracted with this particular firm on a sole-source basis for many years, the AQMD issued an RFP for employee relations litigation and/or negotiation services. The evaluation of the proposals submitted indicate that Goldstein, Kennedy & Petito is the least qualified and most expensive of all the proposers. She asked that the Board consider transferring responsibility for in-progress matters to a more qualified and affordable firm.
AYES: Alarcón, Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva and Wilson.
NOES: Burke and Soto.
ABSTAIN: Antonovich.
ABSENT: None.
Ms. Soto asked if the vendor recommended by staff is a union shop, and whether or not they are paying the prevailing wage to their employees. Staff did not have the information at hand, but agreed to bring the information back to Ms. Soto at a later date.
Commenting that she believed this item should be continued for a month so that staff can bring back the information requested by Ms. Soto,
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva, and Soto.
NO: Mikels and Wilson.
ABSENT: None.
In response to Mr. Mikels' request for clarification on this item, staff explained that the escrow fell through with the first potential buyer of the El Monte facility, and the additional $30,000 proposed is for drafting a sales agreement and the ensuing negotiations with another buyer. It may not be necessary to use the entire $30,000 for these services. Pointing out that the funds would be used as an escrow account,
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels.
ABSENT: Soto.
Mr. Mikels commented that the Board took previous action to allocate up to $100,000 or an amount equal to ARB's contribution for this campaign, which was initially expected to be approximately $80,000. The ARB--who sought the AQMD out as a partner in this campaign--has reduced its funding commitment to $25,000, and he expressed his opposition to the staff's recommendation that the AQMD spend $100,000 on what he believes amounts to an ARB promotional campaign.
In response to Ms. Lee, Tom Eichhorn, Director of Public Affairs, indicated that ARB has not stated specifically their reason for reducing their funding amount, but they are apparently experiencing internal difficulties.
The majority of the Board members commented in support of a clean air progress campaign, but were not supportive of continuing a partnership with ARB in light of their reneging on their original commitment and without a specific explanation. They felt it important to get the message out to the public with respect to the accomplishments made in air quality, as well as encouraging continued efforts to progress further towards clean air. Chairman Burke expressed his belief that it is important also to get the message out to Southern California that AQMD employees are doing a good job; and Ms. Lee suggested that perhaps AQMD should have its own, separate campaign specific to Southern California.
AYES: Alarcón, Burke, Glover, Lee, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Antonovich and Loveridge.
ABSENT: None.
There was extensive Board discussion regarding the AQMD’s legislative program and what type of representation the AQMD should have in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.
Mr. Antonovich suggested, since the Legislative Director and Legislative Analyst in the AQMD’s Sacramento office have both left AQMD employment, it might be appropriate to close that office until the Board has made a decision on the legislative program. Ms. Glover concurred, adding that the money used for the office space could be better spent on legislative consultant services.
Mr. Alarcón commented that, as chair of the Legislative Committee, he has been examining the AQMD’s legislative program since joining the Board. There has been concern raised that one person trying to lobby 120 legislators and the governor’s office is an impossible task, given the diversity of interests represented in Sacramento. He, therefore, recommended creating an outside advocacy program, with a team of advocates that could address all of the diverse claims of representation the AQMD needs to have in Sacramento.
Mr. Silva expressed his belief that AQMD’s legislative advocacy should be handled in-house, rather than spending $250,000 for legislative consultants. He was supportive of a team approach, but suggested the AQMD could have a staff person, with two or three assistants, that would work with the legislators in Sacramento. In addition, those Board members that are elected officials with their own constituencies could represent the AQMD in Sacramento on various items, as needed.
Mr. Mikels expressed his belief that the AQMD does not need a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. because Congress does not make appropriations to the AQMD; it makes appropriations to EPA, and AQMD lobbies EPA. With respect to lobbying EPA, he believes AQMD staff is more knowledgeable in terms of the impacts of interpretations or regulations promulgated pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. In regard to Sacramento, he expressed his preference for having a dedicated AQMD employee who does not have other clients with diverse and often conflicting goals and interests in the legislative arena compared with AQMD. He was not supportive of a team of professional lobbyists.
Mr. Alarcón commented that while his impression is that a team approach would be best, he will review all of the proposals with staff with an open mind and if there is a proposal submitted by an individual who meets the criteria and appears to be a greater benefit than the team approach, he will consider that proposal with positivity as well.
Ms. Lee suggested that the RFPs need to be clear as to whether the strategy will be advocacy or information. If the strategy is giving information and conveying information back, she believes that purpose can be served well by a staff person. If what is being sought is an advocate for the AQMD, she believes that role would be better served by a consultant. Mr. Nastri added that it should also be made clear in the RFP, particularly in regard to Washington, D.C., that one of the key issues is appropriations ability.
Mr. Alarcón pointed out that at the time the RFPs were prepared, the second staff person (Legislative Analyst) had not left. Therefore, the Board has the option of either filling that vacancy, at an annual salary of $65,000, or broadening the contractual services in the RFP.
Dr. Wallerstein recommended that the Board direct staff to advertise the vacant position so that staff can present to the Board a pool of candidates for the Board to consider when it is considering the responses to the RFPs.
Ms. Glover commented that as chair of the Finance Committee, she wanted to make sure the Board members understand that what the Board is considering will result in a definite increase above what has been budgeted for the legislative program. The amount for the two RFPs is $235,000, but the bottom line amount, which includes keeping the office in Sacramento open and staffed to a certain degree, is approximately $413,000.
AYES: Alarcón, Burke, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Antonovich, Glover and Silva.
ABSENT: None.
MR. ALARCÓN MOVED TO APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF AN RFP FOR LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. SOTO, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Silva.
ABSENT: None.
Ms. Lee commented on the amount of funding specified in the RFPs--$110,000 for Washington, D.C. and $125,000 for Sacramento. Since a significant amount of AQMD’s funding and many of the issues that the AQMD seem to have on a consistent basis are with the EPA and with Washington, D.C., she does not agree with spending more money on a consultant in Sacramento. With AQMD having an office and staff in Sacramento, a Board member who represents the AQMD on CARB, three Board members who are appointed directly by legislators and the governor, and with Sacramento being more accessible to Board members, she suggested that perhaps the weight of the funding should go the other way, towards Washington, D.C.
Mr. Alarcón suggested issuing the two RFPs with a combined total of $235,000. Staff can bring a recommendation back to the Board at a later date as to how the funds should be divided, based on the proposals submitted in response to the RFPs. Mr. Loveridge indicated that he disagreed with the division of funding suggested by Ms. Lee, but would defer to the Legislative Committee on that issue.
Dr. Wallerstein indicated that staff will modify the RFPs to incorporate all of the Board's comments on the content of the RFPs, and he will review the modifications with the Board Chair and Vice Chair and the Chair and Vice Chair of the Legislative Committee to be sure the wording comports to what was expressed by Board members.
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Nastri, Paulitz, and Soto.
NOES: Mikels, Silva and Wilson.
ABSENT: None.
Mr. Mikels indicated that he would be voting against this item because it includes projects that will not result in mobile source emissions reductions, and he is opposed to using the AB 2766 funds for any other reason.
AYES: Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Nastri, Paulitz, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels and Silva.
ABSENT: Alarcón.
Expressing his opposition to the $1 surcharge on vehicle registration fees to provide funding for the clean fuels program, Mr. Silva indicated that he was not supportive of obtaining any additional funding because he believes the program needs to be examined to determine whether or not funds already received are being spent in a cost-effective manner.
AYES: Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz, and Wilson.
NOES: Silva and Soto.
ABSENT: Alarcón.
Mr. Paulitz questioned why the rule forecast report has Rules 1401 and 1402 slated for public hearing in late-1998/early-1999, when his understanding from the Board’s discussion at its October 10, 1997 meeting was that the Board would consider amendments to Rules 1401 and 1402 in February 1998. He expressed his concern that staff has had the data available since April 1994 when the Board adopted Rule 1402 and continued, and subsequently rejected, proposed amendments to Rule 1401. If what staff presented in 1994 was good scientific data and all that needs to be done is additional monitoring, he believes the rules should be brought back before the Board much sooner than what was stated in the rule forecast.
Dr. Wallerstein responded that as part of the Board’s action on the workplan for implementation of the Chairman’s environmental justice initiatives at its October 10, 1997 meeting, staff was directed to dovetail the timetables for Initiative No. 2, toxic hot spots monitoring, and Initiative No. 10, proposed amendments to Rules 1401 and 1402--specifically the significance thresholds. The Board was not specific as to how that dovetailing would occur; therefore, staff’s intent was to discuss with the Board the actual date for scheduling the hearing when staff brings the workplan for the monitoring to the Board at its December 12, 1997 meeting.
Mr. Nastri, chair of the Technology Committee, clarified that at the October 10 meeting, Chairman Burke assigned many of the issues, particularly in regard to 1401 and 1402, to the Technology Committee to establish the schedule and move the project forward in a manner that it thought appropriate and brought to the attention of the Board. Chairman Burke concurred, and suggested that after receiving input from staff in December, the Technology Committee devise a schedule for Rules 1401 and 1402 at its January meeting, and keep the Board informed.
In response to Ms. Soto, Dr. Wallerstein outlined the public outreach that is done to insure public participation in the rulemaking process. Ms. Soto suggested that staff look at ways to improve public outreach, because she does not think enough people are being involved in the process before the rules are brought before the Board for public hearings.
BOARD CALENDAR
23. Administrative Committee
24. Legislative Committee
25. Mobile Source Committee
26. Stationary Source Committee
27. Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee
28. Air Resources Board Monthly Meeting
29. Governing Board Study Session on Clean Fuels Program Reauthorization
Dr. Wallerstein gave a brief report on the item, and Chairman Burke indicated that both Ms. Soto and Ms. Lee have agreed to serve on the Environmental Justice Task Force.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Pat Leyden, DEO of Stationary Source Compliance, gave the staff report and noted:
(ii) revisions by staff to subdivision (h) of PAR 3004, to allow staff to work with industry,
U.S. EPA, and other parties to resolve issues regarding portable equipment; and (ii) minor revisions to the Board resolution to clarify the authorities for adopting the rule amendments and the reason no socioeconomic impact report is required. Staff will return to the Board at its December 12, 1997 meeting with amendments to Rule 3004. Copies of the revisions were distributed to Board members and made available to the public.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney, on behalf of CMA Southern California Air Quality Alliance
and California Aerospace Environmental Association
BOB NICKSIN, Southern California Gas Company
LISA CARLSON, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
GREG ADAMS, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
*FRANK DRYDEN, Southern California Alliance of POTWs (SCAP)
MICHAEL CARROLL, Attorney, on behalf of Regulatory Flexibility Group
*Submitted Written Comments
Industry representatives commented on the issues regarding portable engines and contractor certification. Staff supports industry’s proposed changes to Subparagraph (h) of Rule 3004 to provide that portable equipment owned and operated by independent contractors do not have to be included on a Title V permit. The U.S. EPA, however, has rejected all of industry’s proposals to date; yet has failed to engage in any constructive dialogue to try to reach a solution to the problem. Industry is hopeful that staff will be able during the next 30 days to obtain EPA’s agreement to industry’s latest proposal.
JOHN BILLHEIMER, Small Business Coalition
Commenting that the effects the proposed changes to Rule 212 will have on small businesses have not been taken into consideration, asked that the Board limit the modifications to Rule 212 to major sources related to Title V and Title III until the Rule 1401 issue can be brought before the Board and resolved. (Submitted Written Comments)
TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air and Natural Resources Defense Council
1) Expressed concern that although staff has extended the public review period from 10 days to 15 days, the public will not have adequate time to review the permits. 2) Expressed opposition to staff’s proposal to delete the requirement in Rule 212 that a business that is increasing its emissions send a notice to residents that live within 1/4 mile of the facility.
In response to Mr. Nastri, Dr. Wallerstein explained that staff is proposing that the Board carry over to its December 12, 1997 meeting the provision related to portable engines only. However, staff intends to ask the Board, under Agenda Item No. 34, to request a meeting with EPA’s regional administrator on this issue, as well as approval of the 1997 AQMP, the SIP gap issue, and the difficulties that staff is encountering in Title III and in approval of AQMD’s credit rules. Staff also intends to recommend that the Board direct staff to bring back to the Board at its December 12 meeting a resolution outlining all of these problems, so that there is a succinct policy statement by the Board.
In response to Mr. Nastri, staff clarified that the recommendation was made to eliminate the 1/4-mile notification requirement in Rule 212 because it is duplicative of the newspaper notice required by Title V. Ms. Lee added that one of the points discussed in the Stationary Source Committee meeting was that if there are opportunities in the amendment process for these rules, duplication of noticing should be eliminated.
Mr. Paulitz indicated that he would offer an amendment, once the main motion is made, to put the 1/4-mile notification requirement back in Rule 212. While newspaper notification is fine to fulfill legal requirements, he believes mailing notices to residents does a better job of notifying people about an emissions increase at a local source.
ON MOTION OF MR. PAULITZ, SECONDED BY DR. BURKE, THE MAIN MOTION WAS AMENDED TO REINSTATE SUBPARAGRAPH (c)(2) OF RULE 212, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Loveridge, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Glover and Lee.
ABSENT: None.
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED BY THE BOARD, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
(The Board recessed for lunch at 12:25 p.m., and reconvened at 1:05 p.m., with Mr. Antonovich being absent.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Jack Broadbent, Assistant DEO/Stationary Source Compliance, gave the staff report, and noted revisions by staff to Subparagraph (d)(3) of PR 1138 and the Board resolution. Copies of the revisions were distributed to Board members and made available to the public.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
*MICHAEL KISSEL, CKE Restaurants, dba Carl's Jr. Restaurants
GERALD BREITBART, California Restaurant Association
PETER OKUROWSKI, California Environmental Associates, Burger King Corporation
*JOHN BILLHEIMER, Small Business Coalition
TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air/Natural Resources Defense Council
DEBORAH KURILCHYK, Southern California Edison
AL BOUNEY, Engelhard Corporation
*Submitted Written Comments
There was no opposition to the proposed rule expressed. Mr. Breitbart requested that if the cost of the catalyst escalates beyond what it presently costs, that this rule be brought back before the Board for review; and if a determination is made at that time that the rule is no longer cost effective, that the Board then either suspend the rule or find a way to deal with the catalyst manufacturers. Mr. Carmichael expressed concern that Rule 1138 will only control approximately 800 restaurants out of more than 30,000 restaurants in the basin, and he encouraged the Board to ask staff to include in the staff proposal a date certain in the future by which staff will return with a proposal to achieve the remaining emissions reductions set out in the 1997 AQMP.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Michael P. Kenny, Cal/EPA
Andrew Steckel, U.S. EPA
Dale L. McKinnon, Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association
Larry Bowen, Senior Manager/Stationary Source Compliance, gave the staff report and noted revisions by staff to the resolution for PAR 1110.2, copies of which were distributed to Board members and made available to the public.
(Mr. Alarcón, Mr. Loveridge and Ms. Soto left at 1:40 p.m.)
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
• Speaking in support of PAR 1110.2:
*JOHN BILLHEIMER, Small Business Coalition
LEE WALLACE, Pacific Enterprises/Southern California Gas Company
DEE ALLEN, City of Los Angeles
TOM DODSON, Ski Resorts
MICHAEL McGRIFFIN, United States Navy
*Submitted Written Comments
• Speaking in opposition to PAR 1110.2:
RAIMUND MUELLER, Siemens Power Corporation
Asked the Board to consider the technologies that are available to date in its rulemaking, and in setting emission limits and compliance time frames.
TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air and Natural Resources Defense Council
Commented that the AQMD is giving up 7 tons of emission reductions with PAR 1110.2, and it is not clear how those reductions will be achieved in the future.
VLAD KOGAN, Orange County Sanitation Districts
Expressed opposition to the provision which would require operators of large engines to install CEMS, and the proposed deletion of the emergency provision.
• Neutral/no position expressed:
JEB STUART, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition
Commented that practically all the portable engines used in construction will be registering in the state program so that they can also be used outside of the District.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Neal Truong, McDonnell Douglas
Ezra McFarlin
Staff recommended that the Board continue this item to the December 12, 1997 Board meeting. There was one request to address the Board on this issue, submitted by Mr. Michael Carroll. Mr. Carroll agreed to defer his comments until the December meeting.
Written Comments Submitted by:
David Howekamp, U.S. EPA
In the interest of time, staff waived an oral presentation on this item. There was one request to address the Board submitted by Ms. Deborah Kurilchyk, who expressed her support and withdrew her request to speak. The public hearing was opened. There being no requests to address the Board on this item, the public hearing was closed.
In the interest of time, staff waived an oral presentation on this item. The public hearing was opened. There being no requests from the public to speak on this item, the hearing was closed.
Dr. Wallerstein made two recommendations related to the items continued by the Board to its December 12, 1997 meeting (Item No. 31 - Rule 3004 only and Item No. 34 - PR 2503). First, that the Board meet with Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, and request such a meeting within the next 30 days; and secondly, that staff return with a resolution at the December Board meeting outlining the ongoing problems with EPA for Board consideration.
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.
OPEN SESSION
CLOSED SESSION/ADJOURNMENT
The Board recessed to closed session at 1:55 p.m., pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to confer with counsel to discuss existing litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the District is a party. The title of the litigation is: Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. SCAQMD, et al., USDC No. 97-6916 JSL (SHx).
There being no action to report as a result of closed session, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman Burke.
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on November 14, 1997.
Respectfully Submitted,
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________
____________________________________________
Dr. William Burke, Chairman
ACRONYMS
AB = Assembly Bill
AQMD = (South Coast) Air Quality Management District
AQMP = Air Quality Management Plan
ARB/CARB = (California) Air Resources Board
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
FY = Fiscal Year
MSRC = Mobile Source (Air Pollution Reduction) Review Committee
RFP/RFQ = Request for Proposals/Quotations