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 Alarcon (arrived at 9:42 a.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (arrived at 9:44 a.m.)
County of Los Angeles
Ms. Mee H. Lee
Senate Rules Committee Appointee
Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge (arrived at 9:41 a.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
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region
Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
The meeting was called to order at 9:38 a.m. by Chairman Burke.
• Opening Comments
Chairman Burke. 1) Introduced newly-appointed Board member, Mr. Wayne H. Nastri, who was sworn in at the August 15, 1997 meeting of the Technology Committee to fill the unexpired term ending January 15, 1999 as the Governor’s Appointee to the Board. 2) As the new Chairman elected by the Board at its August 8, 1997 meeting, called upon the Board to reaffirm the following guiding principles:
• All Basin residents have the right to live and work in an environment of clean air, free of airborne health threats.
• Government is obligated to protect the public health.
• The public and private sectors have the right to be informed of scientific findings concerning hazardous and toxic emission levels, and to participate in the development and implementation of adequate environmental regulations in their communities.
• The Board will uphold the civic expectation that the public and private sectors of the Basin will engage in practices that contribute to a healthy economy and truly livable environment.
Chairman Burke announced the following environmental justice initiatives to ensure that every resident is equally protected from air pollution, and directed staff to return to the Board at its October 10, 1997 meeting with recommendations on how to implement the initiatives.
INITIATIVES
1. The AQMD will schedule and host a series of monthly town hall meetings to better enable residents to exercise their right of participation in the policy making process.
2. AQMD staff, with peer review feedback, will design and conduct a program of ambient monitoring for toxic hot spots.
3. The Acting Executive Officer will create AQMD rapid-deployment community response teams to respond to community emergencies related to airborne emissions, starting with concerns about port activities in the San Pedro area.
4. AQMD staff will reconstruct its CEQA commenting function and as a commenting Responsible Agency, will pursue a more active role in analyzing and communicating emissions impacts to lead agencies.
5. The Board will convene an Environmental Justice Task Force to determine any corrective measures necessary to address environmental justice concerns and issues; specifically, concerns expressed regarding disproportionate risk from emissions credit trading programs.
6. The Board will request the City of Los Angeles to include air quality as a topic to be discussed at its Environmental Justice Forum scheduled for October 1997.
7. The Board will pursue a set of initiatives at the local, state and federal levels to incentivize the early clean-up or removal of diesel engines in the Basin.
8. AQMD staff will formulate a plan to use modern advances in technology for enhanced field inspection purposes.
9. The Board will consider amendments to the current permitting practices for portable equipment to further ensure that the movement and subsequent operation of such equipment does not cause localized adverse air quality impacts.
10. The Board will re-open for public comment the toxics significance thresholds for cancer and non-cancer impacts contained in Rule 1402, and consideration of adding additional compounds and non-carcinogenic impact prevention into Rule 1401.
(Mr. Loveridge arrived at 9:41 a.m., Mr. Alarcon at 9:42 a.m., and Mr. Antonovich at 9:44 a.m.)
Ms. Soto. Indicated that she was offended by, and believes to be false, a recent comment by a Board member quoted in the Daily Bulletin newspaper that people in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, where most of the air pollution emanates, do not care about those "downwind" in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. She urged Board members to begin working together as an example for all people of southern California.
Mr. Alarcon. Expressed his appreciation to Chairman Burke for his directive to staff to address community concerns regarding port activities in the San Pedro area. Agreed to facilitate AQMD participation in the City of Los Angeles’ upcoming Environmental Justice Conference.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Items Nos. 2, 3, 12, 14, 17 and 21 were held for discussion.
Ms. Soto questioned staff regarding her request at the August 8, 1997 Board meeting, as noted on page 7 of the Minutes, to include an item on the agenda for the September 12 Board meeting regarding AQMD proposed amendments to the Health and Safety Code to clarify the Board’s ability to change its chair.
Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Acting Executive Officer, responded that staff has discussed this issue with the Board chair and the Legislative Committee chair, and will bring a recommendation back to the Board following review of the item by the Legislative Committee at its next meeting.
Mr. Alarcon noted that it is indicated on page 4 of the Minutes that he and Mr. Paulitz believed the Acting Executive Officer should be compensated at approximately $120,000. He requested that the Minutes be amended to reflect that he did not agree to a specific dollar amount, but suggested that it should be discussed in Committee.
John Billheimer addressed the Board, on behalf of the Small Business Coalition, indicating that the present turnaround time for permit processing is from 100 to 243 days and that a delay of 3 to 9 months on a permit decision can destroy a small business. He suggested that the Board consider a moratorium on all rules that would increase the permit load or the compliance load until the permit backlog can be brought back to a reasonable response time for small businesses.
Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff has discussed the permit backlog with the Stationary Source Committee, as well as an outside Budget Advisory Committee, and intends to address this issue with the Board as part of the budget process. Staff believes there are a number of actions that can be undertaken, with the Board’s approval, that will improve the situation significantly; and staff would oppose a moratorium on rule development, which would place the AQMD in direct violation of federal and state law.
Ms. Soto expressed appreciation to staff for including in the report for this item the table regarding local government matching fund applications, which she requested at the August 8, 1997 Board meeting.
Mr. Mikels requested that staff add a column to the table, showing the emission reductions associated with each of the programs funded under AB 2766. Noting that it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide a calculation of the emission reductions expected at the time the proposal is submitted, staff agreed to add the requested information, to the extent that the information is available.
In response to a question by Mr. Paulitz concerning the status of Rules 1401 and 1402, Dr. Wallerstein stated that given the Chairman’s earlier comments regarding reexamining AQMD toxics rules, staff will report back to the Board at its October 10, 1997 meeting with regard to an initial work plan and the resources that would be required to implement the Chairman’s initiatives.
At Ms. Soto’s request, Dr. Wallerstein agreed to have staff notify the Ethnic Community Advisory Group when rules are being developed and discussed so that they are given the opportunity to be involved in the rulemaking process.
In response to Mr. Silva, Lupe Valdez, DEO/Public Affairs & Local Government Assistance, stated that staff initially recommended extending the contract term through January 21, 1998 and increasing the contract amount by $25,000, for a total not to exceed $73,270 to the Administrative Committee. However, based on activities occurring subsequent to the Administrative Committee meeting; staff now recommends extending the contract term through June 30, 1998 and increasing the contract amount by $50,000, for a total not to exceed $98,270.
Dr. Wallerstein added that there is $50,000 remaining in the budget for this item, should there be a need in the future for a further extension of the contract.
1) AGENDA ITEM NO. 14, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 97069 WITH THE SOLIS GROUP TO MODIFY THE STATEMENT OF WORK, EXTEND THE TERM TO JUNE 30, 1998, AND INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $50,000 FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $98,270, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF; AND
2) AGENDA ITEM NO. 21, TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE RULE FORECAST REPORT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER AND PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.
MS. GLOVER MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 2, MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 8, 1997 BOARD MEETING, WITH THE AMENDMENT TO PAGE 7 OF THE MINUTES TO REFLECT THAT MR. ALARCON DID NOT SUPPORT A SPECIFIC SALARY FOR THE ACTING EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BUT BELIEVED THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN COMMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. SOTO, AND PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT.
BOARD CALENDAR
Mr. Paulitz indicated that his trip to Germany to attend a conference on fuel cell vehicles, noted in the Committee report, had been canceled.
SB 451 (Watson) - Land Use: Environmental Equity SUPPORT IN CONCEPT
SB 230 (Alpert) - Disinfectants: Emission Controls NEUTRAL
AB 466 (Campbell) - HOT Lanes: Pilot Program SUPPORT
AB 1492 (Baugh) - Smog Check: Program Reforms NEUTRAL
AB 57 (Escutia) - Smog Check: Repair Subsidies SUPPORT IN CONCEPT
AB 208 (Migden) - Smog Check: Repair Funding SUPPORT IN CONCEPT
Dr. Wallerstein noted that subsequent to preparation of the agenda, staff received a request from Realtors Committee on Air Quality (RCAQ) to participate on the AQMP Advisory Group, represented by either Cindy Baker or Carla Walecka. Staff recommended the addition of one of these two individuals to the AQMP Advisory Group.
1) ESTABLISHING MEMBERSHIP OF THE AQMP ADVISORY GROUP AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE ADDITION OF A REPRESENTATIVE (EITHER CINDY BAKER OR CARLA WALECKA) OF THE REALTORS COMMITTEE ON AIR QUALITY; AND
2) DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD CHAIR OR, IN THE CHAIR’S ABSENCE, THE VICE CHAIR TO MAKE ADDITIONAL APPOINTMENTS FROM TIME TO TIME AND REPORT THOSE APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING FOLLOWING THE APPOINTMENT.
Ms. Soto commented that she believes the Acting Executive Officer, who is performing two functions, deserves to be paid the same amount ($143,380) as the former Executive Officer, who was only performing one function. Indicating his concurrence,
Ms. Glover commented that while she is supportive of Dr. Wallerstein, she could not support the salary put forth in the motion because she believes Dr. Wallerstein should have someone within his staff to take over additional responsibilities while he is Acting Executive Officer.
Mr. Loveridge indicated that he would be supportive of the motion made by Mr. Alarcon at the August 22, 1997 Administrative Committee meeting--a 15% increase over the salary of the highest paid employee to be supervised--if that was a motion before the Board.
AYES: Antonovich, Burke, Silva and Soto.
NOES: Alarcon, Glover, Lee, Loveridge and Nastri.
ABSTAIN: Mikels, Paulitz and Wilson.
ABSENT: None.
Commenting that he believes Dr. Wallerstein is doing a good job as Acting Executive Officer, and that setting the salary at 15% above the highest paid employee--which would result in an increase of about $28,000 to Dr. Wallerstein--is sufficient,
AYES: Alarcon, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva and Soto.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Mikels and Wilson.
38. Amend Procedures for Standing Committees of the Governing Board
1) PERMIT THE BOARD CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, OR COMMITTEE CHAIR TO APPOINT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GIVEN MEETING IN THE ABSENCE OF A REGULAR MEMBER;
2) PROVIDE THAT NO MORE THAN SIX COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAY ATTEND ANY ONE MEETING UNLESS IT IS PUBLICLY NOTICED AS A SPECIAL BOARD MEETING; AND
3) PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR SHALL BE THE CHAIR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, AS RECOMMENDED.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. SOTO.
Mr. Mikels asked for clarification on counsel’s recommendation that no more than six Board members attend a committee meeting, even if they do not participate in that meeting, unless that meeting has been publicly noticed as a special Board meeting.
Peter Greenwald, General Counsel, responded that the language in the opinion issued by the California Attorney General’s office with regard to this issue states that a quorum of a full Board may not attend, even as a member of the public, a committee meeting, when the committee is established to be less than a quorum of the full Board. The attorney general opinion does not make any distinction between whether or not the member who is attending as a member of the public participates or does not participate in the meeting.
Commenting that an opinion has no status--statutory or otherwise, Mr. Mikels expressed his belief that the rights of a citizen to attend and be informed about public meetings is a paramount function of democracy; and he will not be excluded from observing a public committee meeting if he is not participating in the meeting.
At Mr. Paulitz’ suggestion,
Mr. Mikels questioned whether the attorney general opinion is applicable to the Administrative Committee, which has seven members; and Chairman Burke asked whether or not the Committee’s size should be reduced.
Mr. Greenwald advised that as long as the board meeting procedures contain the proviso that no more than six committee members may attend any one meeting unless it is publicly noticed as a special Board meeting, the size of the Administrative Committee does not have to be reduced.
Mr. Paulitz commented that he has arrived for one committee meeting and found that the previous committee meeting is still in progress. He believes that members who arrive early should have a right to sit in the room and observe the meeting like anyone else.
1) AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE GOVERNING BOARD TO PERMIT THE BOARD CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, OR COMMITTEE CHAIR TO APPOINT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GIVEN MEETING IN THE ABSENCE OF A REGULAR MEMBERS;
2) PROVIDE THAT NO MORE THAN SIX COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAY ATTEND ANY ONE MEETING UNLESS IT IS PUBLICLY NOTICED AS A SPECIAL BOARD MEETING;
3) PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR SHALL BE THE CHAIR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; AND
4) PROVIDE THAT IN THE EVENT MORE THAN SIX MEMBERS OF A COMMITTEE ARE IN ATTENDANCE AT ONE TIME, THE COMMITTEE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR SHALL DESIGNATE WHICH SIX MEMBERS SHALL PARTICIPATE,
PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.
OTHER BUSINESS
Introductory remarks were given by Chairman Burke, and Mr. Greenwald explained the procedures set forth in Regulation XII regarding the Board’s discretion to hold a hearing on a permit application. Carol Coy, Assistant DEO/Stationary Source Compliance, gave a brief presentation on the substance of the request to schedule a Regulation XII hearing on the Executive Officer’s extension of permits to construct (P/Cs) issued to the Los Angeles Export Terminal (LAXT) for construction of its coal and petroleum coke receiving, storage and shipping operation.
Ms. Soto expressed support for holding a hearing as requested, in light of the Chairman’s earlier comments regarding environmental justice. Also, it appeared to her that there was not as much consideration given in this matter to the homeowners, the workers, and other involved parties as there should have been.
Mr. Alarcon commented that if an executive decision has been made by staff and that decision is questioned by the public, then he believes the Board has an interest and a responsibility to allow the public to review it further. In this case, numerous people are raising the question about whether the Executive Officer had the right to extend the permits to construct; and unless there is a significant damaging effect in terms of delaying the project, he believes the public should be given the opportunity to be heard by the Board.
In response to a question by Mr. Nastri, Mr. Greenwald explained that the request for extension of the P/Cs was submitted to the AQMD well before July 21, 997, when the permits were due to expire. The decision to extend the permits was also made before the expiration date. However, written notification of that extension was not provided until July 24, 1997.
Dr. Wallerstein suggested that the Board could hold an informational hearing, if it did not want to hold a Regulation XII hearing at this time; and then based on the input at the informational hearing, the Board could, if it desired, conduct a hearing on issuance of the P/Os.
The Board heard statements from the petitioner and the applicant as follows:
THEODORE GRISWOLD, Attorney, Procorpio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, Counsel for International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) -- Petitioner
Commented that ILWU representatives who visited the LAXT site in June 1997 found that there was a substantially different facility being built than what they had been lead to believe in previous public hearings and in descriptions provided in 1994. Upon further investigation, they found that BACT (enclosed storage) would not be used for petroleum coke storage at the facility. On July 28, 1997, petitioner received documents from AQMD in response to its public records request, and could not find any indication in the documents that the LAXT permits had been extended. Since there had been many complaints regarding health concerns for workers and nearby residents resulting from unenclosed coal/petroleum coke storage at another facility within the Port of Los Angeles, the request was made on July 29, 1997 for a Regulation XII hearing in this matter. The petitioner was unaware at that time that the P/Cs issued to LAXT had, in fact, been extended by AQMD. The petitioner believes it is important for the Board to hear the public testimony and testimony of staff and the applicant to determine if BACT is being complied with at this facility, and whether temporary P/Os should be issued for coal storage or petroleum coke storage, or both.
ERICH LUSCHEI, Attorney, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, representing LAXT --Applicant
Commenting that the letter requesting a public hearing on extension of the LAXT P/Cs lacked sufficient information to enable anyone to determine what issues the Board would address, urged the Board not to hold a Regulation XII hearing on this matter in October 1997; but to schedule an informational hearing instead to determine whether or not the Board should proceed any further in this matter.
In addition, the following individuals addressed the Board:
TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air (also representing Natural Resources Defense Council)
Highlighted the following points: 1) Uncovered petroleum coke piles are significant sources of particulate emissions and, therefore, hazardous to public health. 2) Hearings have already been held in the port area and hundreds of people have attended, expressing their concerns; both residents in the surrounding neighborhoods and people that work at the Port of Los Angeles. It is appropriate that the Board hear those concerns. 3) P/Cs have been issued, and after LAXT gets a few years into the project there will be an evaluation, pursuant to Rule 1158, to determine whether or not the facility should be issued P/Os. The Board needs to examine this system, which would allow a facility to go through years of construction and spend tens of millions of dollars, and then realize that the project should not have been allowed to begin in the first place.
Commenting that AQMD staff will need time to evaluate the emissions coming from the proposed facility, urged the Board to consult with staff and schedule a hearing on the P/Os some time in the near future.
CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney at Law
1) Recommended that the Board not hold a Regulation XII hearing based on the petitioner’s letter, which is inadequate under the rules adopted by the Board for Regulation XII petitions, does not specify the issues, and is not timely. 2) Agreed with Mr. Carmichael that it would be appropriate to set a hearing in the future to consider whether P/Os should be granted, after staff has gathered information regarding emissions from the facility and its compliance with AQMD rules. 3) Urged the Board, if it desires, to hold an informational hearing prior to the hearing on issuance of P/Os to identify the issues and determine what the concerns are of the citizens and of the petitioner.
WINSTON TYLER, Attorney, City of Los Angeles, Harbor Department
Expressed belief that a Regulation XII hearing would be inappropriate in this matter; but supported holding an informational hearing so that the Board is fully informed of the public’s concerns.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Patrick Donion, San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, Inc.
R.E. Holdaway, Kaiser International Corporation
Laurie A.R. Pazzo, National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 103
Gertrude Schwab, Wilmington North Neighborhood Association
Ms. Lee expressed her belief that it would be inappropriate to hold a Regulation XII hearing at this point. She suggested that the Board hold an informational hearing in October or November 1997. There are a number of new members on the Board, and she believes the Board should be fully apprised of the history of the LAXT project and what is planned for the facility. She further recommended that, in this particular situation, a number of public hearings should be held prior to issuance of the P/Os.
1) NOT HOLD THE REGULATION XII HEARING THAT WAS REQUESTED;
2) HOLD AN INFORMATIONAL HEARING IN OCTOBER 1997, IF POSSIBLE, BUT NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 1997; AND
3) HOLD A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF PUBLIC HEARINGS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF EITHER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT PERMITS TO OPERATE.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. NASTRI.
Staff clarified that when a company is issued a P/C, it has the right to proceed to operate before receiving a final P/O. Once construction is complete, the P/C serves as a temporary P/O until such time as the AQMD either grants or denies the permanent P/O. The P/Cs issued to LAXT would allow the facility, in three weeks when Phase 1A construction is expected to be complete, to begin operating. The P/O is typically issued after a facility has been in operation for a period of time and staff has tested the equipment, monitored the facility and determined it is operating in compliance with AQMD rules.
In response to a question by Ms. Lee as to what mechanism the Board could use to require that public hearings be held prior to allowing the LAXT project to operate, Ms. Leyden suggested that the Board could hold a public hearing, pursuant to Rule 1158, shortly after operations commence to see what monitoring of emissions during the early stages of operations show in terms of actual local conditions. If the Board determined, based on perimeter air monitoring data, that the petroleum coke pile violates any District rule, the Board could then require that pile or any other pile to be covered
Commenting that the Board would be in a better position after the informational hearing to assess the situation and determine the best way to proceed in this matter, Dr. Wilson suggested that Ms. Lee simplify her substitute motion to schedule the informational hearing only.
Speaking in opposition to the substitute motion, Ms. Soto expressed her belief that the Board should hold a Regulation XII hearing in this matter, rather than wait until there is a potential for litigation.
Dr. Wallerstein recommended that the Board proceed with an informational hearing, and assured the Board that staff will monitor the situation and bring this matter back before the Board to hold any necessary public hearings prior to the issuance of permits to operate.
Chairman Burke commented that he frequently takes helicopter flights over the Port of Los Angeles, and has noticed on days that the Santa Ana winds are blowing that dust in the area forms a layer of scum on the ocean as far out as three or four miles; so he can only imagine what it does to houses and cars in the area when the dust is blowing with prevailing winds. He is interested in determining what can be done to mitigate this obvious problem, and in keeping with the philosophy of his earlier comments, supported the main motion to hold a Regulation XII hearing.
AYES: Antonovich, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz and Wilson.
NOES: Alarcon, Burke, Glover, Silva and Soto.
ABSENT: None.
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.
CLOSED SESSION/ADJOURNMENT
The Board recessed to closed session at 12:12 p.m. as follows:
• Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c), to confer with counsel to decide, based on existing facts and circumstances, whether to initiate litigation--one case.
• Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to confer with counsel regarding existing litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the District is a party. The title of the litigation is: Communities for a Better Environment, et al. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., before the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
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 September 12, 1997.
Respectfully Submitted,
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________
____________________________________________
Dr. William Burke, Chair
ACRONYMS
AB = Assembly Bill
AQMD = (South Coast) Air Quality Management District
AQMP = Air Quality Management Plan
BACT = Best Available Control Technology
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
FY = Fiscal Year
RFP/RFQ = Request for Proposals/Quotations