SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
FRIDAY, December 11, 1998

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:

Dr. William Burke, Chairman
Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

Councilmember Norma J. Glover, Vice Chairman
Cities of Orange County

Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (arrived at 10:00 a.m.)
County of Los Angeles

Ms. Mee H. Lee
Senate Rules Committee Appointee

Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge
Cities of Riverside County

Supervisor Jon D. Mikels
County of San Bernardino

Paul A. Woodruff
Governor’s Appointee

Mayor Pro Tem Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino County

Supervisor James W. Silva
County of Orange

Mayor Pro Tem Bea LaPisto-Kirtley
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region

Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside

Vacant:

Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region
Chairman Burke called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m.

• Opening Comments

Chairman Burke. 1) Proposed a "Children's Air Quality Agenda", consisting of four basic tenets and ten action initiatives, to help protect children from disproportionate health effects of air pollution. Staff was directed to develop an implementation plan for the Children's Air Quality Agenda, which will complement the environmental justice initiatives proposed by Chairman Burke and adopted by the Board last year. The Board will consider adoption of the Children's Air Quality Agenda and the implementation plan at its January 8, 1999 meeting.

2) Stated that he had completed his evaluation of suggestions for an alternative to the Rule 1610 old vehicle scrapping program and found that the San Diego Air Pollution Control District has started a pilot program similar to what he had in mind. He distributed to Board members copies of information on an alternative program of voluntary repair and upgrade of older vehicles, and asked that the Technology Committee review the information and report back to the Board at a later date with its findings.

3) Presented an award to former Board member Nell Soto, who was elected to the State Assembly on November 3, 1998, in recognition of her service on the Board since September of 1994 as the representative for the Cities of the Eastern Region of Los Angeles County.

(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 10:00 a.m., during opening comments)

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Swearing In of New Board Member(s)
   
   Chairman Burke administered the oath of office to Ms. Bea LaPisto-Kirtley, Mayor Pro Tem of the city of Bradbury, who was appointed to the Board by the Cities Selection Committee to fill the unexpired term vacated by Ms. Soto which ends January 15, 2000.

2. Minutes of November 13, 1998 Board Meeting

ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, DULY SECONDED AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 AS RECOMMENDED.

Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, indicated that Agenda Item No. 4 was moved to the January 8, 1999 Board meeting agenda.

3. Set Public Hearing January 8, 1999 to Amend Rule 1401 - New Source Review
   of Toxic Air Contaminants
4. Approve Compensation Package for Designated Deputy
5. Execute Contracts with College of Engineering - Center for Environmental Research
   and Technology
6. Recognize and Appropriate Funds from EPA for PM2.5 Program
7. Execute Contract to Purchase Document Scanning Services
8. Establish 1999 Board Meeting Schedule
9. Implement Environmental Justice Initiative No. 8 - Field Inspection Technology Recommendations
10. Adopt Update of Technology Advancement Plan for Clean Fuels Program
11. Status Report on Rule 1610 Working Group
12. Hearing Board Variances and Appeals
13. Public Affairs Report
14. Lead Agency Projects and Environmental Documents Received by the AQMD
15. Rule and Control Measure Forecast
16. Status Report on Major Projects for Information Management Scheduled to Start
    During First Six Months of FY 1998-99
17. Civil Filing and Civil Penalties Report
18. Rule 2202 Emissions Equivalency Task Force Status Report

    ON MOTION OF MR. LOVERIDGE, SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER AND CARRIED 10 TO 0, WITH MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY ABSTAINING, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 3, AND 5 THROUGH 18, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

19. Items Deferred from Consent Calendar
    There were no consent calendar items held for discussion.

BOARD CALENDAR

20. Administrative Committee
21. Finance Committee
22. Investment Oversight Committee
23. Stationary Source Committee
24. Technology Committee
25. Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee
26. Air Resources Board Monthly Meeting

Dr. Wallerstein indicated that there was no report by the MSRC for this month.ON A MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 20 THROUGH 24 AND 26, AS RECOMMENDED.

(Chairman Burke left at 10:10 a.m.)

27. Permit Streamlining Task Force Status Report
    Mohsen Nazemi, Permit Streamlining Ombudsman, gave a brief report on the status of issues discussed by the Task Force.
    
    Mr. Ron Wilkniss, Western States Petroleum Association, addressed the Board to comment on the need for accurate and timely processing of permit applications and, also, problems concerning the format of Title V permits. 1) Suggested conversion of the existing database into one which is purely a repository of information, because it seems to be too unwieldy to use this database as the mechanism for processing permits. 2) Requested that the refinery RECLAIM and soon-to-be Title V permits be transformed as soon as is feasible into a simpler, more user-friendly format.
    
    Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff would be meeting with Mr. Wilkniss to address his concerns.

ON MOTION OF MR. PAULITZ, SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Burke, Lee and Loveridge), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEM NO. 27 AS RECOMMENDED.

28. Best Available Control Technology Guidelines
    
    Dr. Anupom Ganguli reported on the reformatted BACT Guidelines proposed by staff. The following individuals address the Board to comment on this item:
    
    LEE WALLACE, Sempra Energy and Southern California Gas Company
    
    Expressing support for the staff recommendation on this item, commented that there has been progress made in meetings since this item was before the Board at its October 1998 meeting, and he believes there is now agreement as to how to proceed on this issue.
    
    BOB OLSON, Finishing Equipment
    JANE NOWOTNY, Attorney on behalf of Finishing Equipment and Great Lakes Chemical
    Corporation
    
    Expressed opposition to the proposed new guidelines because cost was never addressed with respect to the guidelines for degreasers, and asked that District staff follow the provisions of SB 456, which includes consideration of costs.
    
    Peter Greenwald, General Counsel, responded that the District's BACT determinations must meet the requirements of federal law, otherwise permits that the agency issues are subject to enforcement by either the federal government or by citizens. It is for this reason, as well as the language of SB 456, that CARB and the District have interpreted those provisions of state law as applying only when the District establishes BACT which is more stringent than federal LAER requirements. The procedure in SB 456 that Ms. Nowotny and her clients would have the Board apply requires cost considerations which are not found in federal law; and if the District were to follow those procedures, there is a substantial risk that the permits that the District would issue would not be in compliance with federal law. The permittees would then be at risk of having their permits invalidated through enforcement actions.

With clarification on the following three points, expressed support for the staff recommendation:

1. The proposal will not repeal any BACT/LAER determinations, and will retain the public process and technical basis for making future BACT/LAER determinations.
2. The proposal is prospective, not retrospective. The reconstituted Scientific Review Committee (SRC) will not revisit BACT/LAER determinations made in recent guideline processes; it will look at technological changes and how they may or may not work in specific applications.
3. While this proposal will present information about BACT/LAER technologies in the new format, it will maintain the same source categories defined in the
   U.S. EPA LAER clearinghouse or CAPCOA's clearinghouse. Further, it will identify application of those technologies in the District as well as other places where BACT/LAER technologies are being applied.
   
   Dr. Wallerstein responded that the action before the Board is not intended to repeal or rescind previous decisions by the staff or the Board. However, if new data were to come forward due to real life experiences at facilities, staff would take that into consideration in any future decisions. In general, it is staff's intent to use the source categories that EPA and the ARB used.

Commented that in October he disagreed with the District's proposal to revise the BACT guidance documents because he felt that simply providing the regulated community with clearinghouse type data similar to EPA's would not provide information that they need to make wise decisions. What District staff is proposing at this time, however, is significantly different and much more valuable to the regulated community and he supported its approval by the Board.

Expressed support for the staff recommendation, and encouraged District staff to provide information in the permit advisories not only on technology that achieves LAER, but also technology that fails to achieve LAER.

Expressed support for the staff recommendation, and commented that the whole idea of SB 456 was to bring BACT/LAER determinations into public view, which the staff proposal does. With respect to not being able under the federal process to take into account the economic impacts/cost effectiveness, expressed belief that over the next few years, industry--and hopefully regulatory agencies--will approach the EPA and the Congress for possible changes in the federal law.

Expressed support for the staff proposal, and encouraged District staff and members of the Home Rule Advisory Group in particular to continue to work with EPA and others to resolve BACT and LAER issues, particularly the issues associated with cost and cost effectiveness.

Expressed support for the proposed guidelines, which he believes are as good as we can get at this point, given the issues that still have to be resolved with EPA in terms of case-by-case analysis, definition of source category and what other parameters can be considered in determining what LAER is for a particular source.

Expressed support for the staff proposal, and asked for the Board's support in working with EPA on outstanding issues.

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MR. MIKELS, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Burke), THE BOARD TOOK THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF:

1. APPROVED THE FORMAT, PROCESS, AND PROCEDURE FOR UPDATING THE AQMD BACT GUIDELINES AS PROPOSED;

2. DIRECTED STAFF TO DEVELOP BACT GUIDELINES PART B UPDATES FOR DEGREASERS, SPRAY BOOTHS, BOILERS AND OTHER PRIORITY ITEMS, AND PROVIDE A STATUS REPORT TO THE BOARD WITHIN 90 DAYS;

3. DIRECTED STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH U.S. EPA ON NEW SOURCE REVIEW ISSUES AND PROVIDE PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS TO THE HOME RULE ADVISORY GROUP AND STATIONARY SOURCE COMMITTEE; AND

4. RECEIVED AND FILED THE STAFF REPORT.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

29. Amend Rule 1151 - Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations
    
    Jack Broadbent, Assistant DEO/Stationary Source Compliance, gave the staff report, and noted that an errata sheet for this item had been prepared by staff and copies distributed to Board members and made available to the public. The errata sheet presented an alternative proposal to what was proposed by staff in the "set hearing" package, in deference to concerns expressed by industry. The alternative proposal contained additional language for the adopting Resolution for PAR 1151 and revised language for Subparagraphs (e) and (i) and Table 2 of the proposed amended rule.
    
    The alternative proposal would require that the manufacturers, as of February 1, 1999, offer for sale a clearcoat system with a VOC content of 2.1 lbs/gallon or less. With respect to the compliance dates for the shops themselves, staff is proposing a phased in approach, where by July 1, 1999 if a facility utilizes greater than 2 gallons per day of the basecoat/clearcoat combination for multistage topcoat systems, it must come into compliance by July 1, 1999, rather than the April 1, 1999 date that was contained in the "set hearing" package. That will require approximately 1,600 shops to come into compliance with the rule, with the remaining approximately 2,400 shops required to achieve compliance by October 1, 1999. This insures that the bulk of the reductions associated with Rule 1151 occur prior to the peak ozone season, with approximately 40 percent of the shops--representing approximately 70 percent of the emissions covered by this amendment--having to come into compliance.
    
    The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
    
    JIM SELL, National Paint & Coatings Association's Automotive Refinish Coalition
    
    Expressed support for PAR 1151 as proposed by staff, and expressed the Coalition's belief that the phased-in schedule is sufficient to insure that the endusers will have sufficient time to become familiar with the clear coats by the compliance dates. Expressed concern, however, with the requirement that manufacturers have clearcoats with 2.1 lbs/gallon or less VOC content on the market and available in all locations by February 1, 1999. The concern is that there are coatings manufacturers that make solvent borne systems that can have higher-VOC clearcoats that, when combined with lower-VOC basecoats would still meet the 3.5 lbs/gallon VOC limit for multistage topcoat systems.
    
    Mr. Broadbent responded that staff believes the concern expressed by Mr. Sell can be mitigated considerably by providing guidance to the industry that enforcement on the provision will be geared toward allowing for manufacturers to provide compliant systems in the field.
    
    California Autobody Association (CAA):
    
    *DANIEL MORAN
    BILL CONWAY
    GENE LOPEZ
    JIM COMPTON, D'Angelo's Automotive Coatings
    KEVIN CALDWELL, Auto Body by Caldwell
    *JOHN BILLHEIMER
    BILL MC CONACHIE
    GREG GUNTER, Greg's Auto Body
    MARC FRANCO, Walnut Valley Collision Center
    MARK FERRARI, Ferrari Bros. Body Shop
    STEVE SEIDNER, Seidner's Collision Center
    HOWARD ERIKSON, The Paint Source, Inc.
    HERMAN LOAIZA, JR., Hilt Auto Body, Inc.
    KELLY ROE,
    *Submitted Written Comments
    
    1) Recommended the Board adopt the following counter proposal:
    For facilities that use 3.5 or more gallons/day of base coat/clear coat, the effective date of the 3.5 limit would be July 1, 1999. The number of shops affected would be approximately 424.
    
    For facilities that use 2 or more gallons/day of base coat/clear coat, the effective date would be October 1, 1999. The number of shops affected would be approximately 2,100.
    The 3.5 limit would become effective for all the facilities on December 31, 1999.
    
    2) Expressed the following concerns/comments:

• Agree that a phased implementation schedule is appropriate; believe CAA's counter proposal will provide the necessary time for smaller facilities to have the on-site training that is imperative.

• Although the PCBTF compound that is being used to replace their current solvents has been termed a drop in solvent, it is nonetheless a relatively new chemical to their industry. There really is no such thing as dropping in an entirely new clearcoat system in a collision repair facility's production environment.

• The survey of 23 shops conducted by staff is flawed; it cannot be inferred that a reduction to practice has been achieved based on 20 shops out of 4,000, using only one product out of seven.

• CAA members employ 10,000 painters within the basin, many of them with limited English skills. Believe it is not possible to train those 10,000 painters within six months, or 7,000 of them within three months, with only approximately 200 trainers in the industry.

• Two shops (Auto Body by Caldwell and Greg's Auto Body) have used a 2.1 lbs/gallon VOC product for approximately six months and have had to use retarders to make the product work correctly, which greatly affects the VOC content and takes away from the appearance and texture of the coating. One shop (Hilt Auto Body, Inc.) has used the Valspar 2.1 clearcoat for approximately six months and has had good results.

• The OEHHA has stated that it does not know of any adverse properties of the PCBTF and that it is no worse than what is currently being used. That is not sufficient to make people comfortable to work all day in a room full of the material or to wear a mask all day, which, in the summer painters cannot and do not use.

• There is an increased cost to the shop for the lower VOC products. The insurance companies are not paying the higher cost; therefore, the auto body shops are not collecting the extra revenue and are losing on their bottom line on paint materials.

MICHAEL BATES, M.B. Technical Services

Representing a prototype vehicle manufacturer located in the basin, expressed support for the exemption provided in Subparagraph (i)(6) of PAR 1151 for prototype motor vehicle manufacturing facilities.

Expressed support for PAR 1151 as proposed by staff, and commented that Occidental has manufactured its PCBTF product for over 40 years and has done extensive toxicity testing on the compound, the results of which it has freely shared. It has shown PCBTF to be safe to be used by workers and will not harm the surrounding citizens. Pledged to continue to work with OEHHA, AQMD staff, the auto refinish industry, and any other interested parties to address any concerns over the use of their product.

There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.

Written Comments Submitted by:
William P. Conway, California Autobody Association
Jerry Epstein & Scott La Berge, Paramount Collision Specialists
Steve Sturken, Sturken Auto Body, Inc.

In response to questions by Mr. Woodruff, Mr. Broadbent explained that based on staff's review of the compliant materials that are formulated with PCBTF and their discussions with the manufacturers, as well as the endusers, staff feels very strongly that the July 1 date is reasonable. The manufacturers have indicated that April 1, 1999 is sufficient time for product availability and training to occur, however, staff is proposing an additional three months.

With respect to the PCBTF product, staff has been in contact with OEHHA staff, as well as the manufacturers of this particular solvent, and information provided by them has led staff to believe that the product can be used safely and that there are no additional toxicity concerns associated with the product. Nevertheless, staff felt compelled because of the auto body shops' concern to ask OEHHA to conduct additional monitoring and provide the District any new health effects information, and that is included in the alternative proposal by staff.

Pointing out that if the Board does not take any action at this time, then the lower VOC requirements would become effective for the auto body shops on December 18, 1998, Ms. Lee expressed her support for the alternative proposal brought forward by staff, which is a compromise from what was initially proposed by staff in October 1998. She commented that she was not supportive of pushing the effective date to December 31, 1999 as requested by the CAA, because of the possibility of placing the District in the position of having to recirculate the CEQA documents.

MS. LEE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 98-36, AMENDING RULE 1151 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE MODIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN THE ERRATA SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 29. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. MIKELS.

MR. ANTONOVICH MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 98-36, AMENDING RULE 1151 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE MODIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN THE COUNTER PROPOSAL BY THE CALIFORNIA AUTOBODY ASSOCIATION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER, AND FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES:	Antonovich and Glover.
NOES:	Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, Wilson, and Woodruff.
ABSTAIN:	LaPisto-Kirtley
ABSENT:	Burke and Silva.

A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 98-36, AMENDING RULE 1151 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE MODIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN THE ERRATA SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 29. THE MOTION FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:

AYES:	Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, Wilson, and Woodruff.
NOES:	Antonovich and Glover.
ABSTAIN:	LaPisto-Kirtley.
ABSENT: .	Burke and Silva

Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley stated for the record that she was advised by legal counsel that she needed to abstain on amending rules since this is her first Board meeting and she had not had the opportunity to review all of the information.

MS. GLOVER MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE MAIN MOTION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 98-36, AMENDING RULE 1151 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE MODIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN THE ERRATA SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 29. THE MOTION WAS DULY SECONDED AND PASSED 8 TO 0 (Absent: Burke and Silva), WITH MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY ABSTAINING.

30. Amend Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust and Rule 1186 - PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations
    
    Staff waived an oral report on this item. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
    
    SHIPRA BANSAL, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
    
    Commended the Board for instituting the Environmental Justice Initiatives in 1997 which have helped raise awareness and consciousness and helped implement policy that will protect people from localized impacts, as well as the ambient overall air quality level. With respect to Rule 403, however, expressed CBE's belief that localized impacts can be taken into account more strongly and protect communities surrounding facilities more directly. Their specific concerns are: (i) the 50-micrograms-per-cubic-meter upwind/downwind differential in Subparagraph (d)(4) of PAR 403 should be changed to be consistent with the 2.5 microgram level contained in Rule 1303 and the draft AQMD CEQA handbook; and (ii) the Best Available Control Measure (BACM) provisions in PAR 403 are, they believe, inadequate and inconsistent with U.S. EPA guidelines. Requested that the Board approve PAR 403 at this time, but direct staff to report back to the Board in six months with respect to minimizing the inconsistencies concerning the upwind/downwind differential level and the BACMs.
    
    BOB PERKINS, Riverside County Farm Bureau
    
    Expressed the agricultural community's support for the proposed amendments, and urged the Board's approval of the staff recommendation.
    
    DEAN HICKMAN and LINDA MARQUEZ, La Causa
    
    Brought to the Board's attention a dust problem which their community has been experiencing since 1994 resulting from a massive pile of rubble, known as "La Monta�a," operated by Aggregate Recycling System pursuant to a conditional use permit issued by the City of Huntington Park. Urged the Board to make a new category for Rule 403 that applies to urban areas for the protection of the people's health.
    
    Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley commented that Huntington Park is one of the cities that she represents, and that she is aware of the problem with La Monta�a. There is a significant amount of dust from the pile and it affects the residents greatly. She asked that staff be directed to report back to the Board on possible future amendments to Rule 403 to address protection to urban communities.
    
    Dr. Wallerstein responded that because of the Board's concern about urban particulate levels, staff will be bringing to the Board in February 1999 an amendment to Rule 1158, which will require enclosures for outdoor storage piles as specified in that rule. Although District Rule 403 is the most stringent anywhere in the country, staff does believe the District needs to look further, and that the best context to do that is within the context of the Year 2000 AQMP.
    
    With respect to significantly lowering the 50 microgram limit as suggested by CBE, staff believes it would be infeasible for most construction to occur within the basin if the limit was lowered in the manner requested. Staff does intend, however, to examine other ways of improving the rule.
    
    In response to a question by Ms. Lee regarding complaints by residents concerning La Monta�a and the District's jurisdiction in terms of enforcement action, Dr. Wallerstein stated that this is one of the principal case studies here in Southern California of an environmental justice impact. Since this matter is under litigation, however, he believed it would be best for staff to send a memo to the Board summarizing the current status.
    
    Mr. Loveridge commented that he finds the La Monta�a situation unacceptable, and he requested that staff report back at the January 8, 1999 Board meeting with explicit details on what the circumstances are and what the District can do to help resolve the problem.
    
    Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley agreed, adding that anything the District can do to be proactive in getting rid of La Monta�a as soon as possible is long overdue.

    MR. MIKELS MOVED TO: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 98-37, AMENDING RULES 403 AND 1186 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF; AND 2) DIRECT STAFF TO REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD AT THE JANUARY 8, 1999 BOARD MEETING ON POSSIBLE FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO RULE 403 TO ADDRESS PROTECTION TO URBAN COMMUNITIES, AND ALSO HOW THE AQMD CAN TAKE A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEMS IN HUNTINGTON PARK RESULTING FROM "LA MONTA�A. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DR. WILSON AND CARRIED 7 to 0 (Absent: Antonovich, Burke and Silva), WITH MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY ABSTAINING.

31. Adopt Revisions to SCAQMD CEQA Implementation Guidelines
    
    Dr. Wallerstein briefly summarized the item. There were no requests from the public to speak on this item.

    ON MOTION OF MS. LEE, SECONDED BY MR. MIKELS AND CARRIED 8 to 0 (Absent: Burke and Silva), WITH MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY ABSTAINING, THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-38, RESCINDING THE 1988 SCAQMD CEQA IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE STATE CEQA IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

OTHER BUSINESS

32. Petition for Regulation XII Hearing on Catalina Furniture Company's Applications for Permits for Eleven Spray Booths and Three Dip Tanks
    
    (Item was withdrawn at the request of the petitioner.)

33. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
    
    This item was continued, by operation of Board procedures, to the January 8, 1999 Board meeting.

There was no public comment on non-agenda items.

CLOSED SESSION

The Board recessed to closed session at 12:35 p.m. to confer with its counsel, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a ), regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the District is a party. The actions are Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. SCAQMD, et al., United States District Court Case No. 97-6916 HLH (SHx); and Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance v. SCAQMD, L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS 051074.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no action to report as a result of closed session, the meeting was adjourned by Vice Chairman Glover.

The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on December 11, 1998.

Date Minutes Approved: ________________________

____________________________________________
Dr. William Burke, Chairman

ACRONYMS

ARB/CARB = (California) Air Resources Board
BACT = Best Available Control Technology
CMA = California Manufacturers' Association
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
FY = Fiscal Year
LAER = Lowest Achievable Emission Reduction
MSRC = Mobile Source (Air Pollution Reduction) Review Committee
OEHHA = Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
PAR = Proposed Amended Rule
PCBTF = Parachlorobenzotrifluoride
PM₁₀ = Particulate Matter < 10 microns
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound