1.

 2.

 3.

 4.

 5.

 6.

 7.

 8.

 9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Summary of Changes to FY 2002-03 Approved Budget

         Agenda Items Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11 were withheld for discussion.  Chairman Burke and Mr. Antonovich indicated that they were abstaining on Item No. 6 and, there being less than a quorum to vote on that item,
 

AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 WAS CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 3, 2003 BOARD MEETING, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN (7) CONCURRING VOTES.
 

ON A MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Aguiar, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5, 9, AND 12 THROUGH 18, AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 03-21, AMENDING AQMD’S SALARY RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AN INITIAL SALARY LEVEL FOR DESIGNATED DEPUTY/SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
 

19.

Items Deferred from Consent Calendar
 

7.

Approve Issuance of Program Announcement & Application for
Lower-Emission School Bus Replacement, and School Backup Generator Retrofit; Approve Use of Unspent Funds Awarded to Schools in June 2001 and March 2002 to Upgrade Garages for their Alternative Fuel Fleet

       The following individuals addressed the Board to speak on this item.

DAVE BROWN, Menifee Union School District
MARK S. HARRIS, Chino Valley Unified School District
        Both indicated strong support for the CNG school bus program. 
Mr. Brown stated that his district received a CNG bus in May 2003, and is now looking at the possibility of adding a CNG fueling station at the transportation yard that would be open to the public.  Mr. Harris commented that his district has been successfully using CNG buses since 1997.  The biggest concern they have had is infrastructure, and he emphasized the need for funds to build CNG fueling stations.
 

GAIL RUDERMAN FEURER, Natural Resources Defense Council
       Commented that at some of the committee meetings at the AQMD, diesel industry representatives have argued that the money should go to new diesel buses.  She encouraged the Board to continue on the path it is on, which is to have this funding go to new alternative fueled buses because at this time they are the cleanest buses.  The AQMD’s regulations provide for reconsideration of Rule 1195 at such time when the new diesel buses are as clean as alternative fueled buses.

DAVID WALTHALL, Ontario-Montclair School District
        1) Expressed opposition to school districts in the South Coast basin being treated differently than those in other areas of California, where they have a choice between cleaner diesel buses and CNG buses.  Commented that the Board made a promise when it passed Rule 1195 that the school districts would not be forced to make choices between books or buses, but that is what this agenda item does by taking the choice away.  CNG is a clean fuel vehicle; however, it costs more money to operate and maintain.  2) Asked for clarification from staff on trading vehicles from one district to another.

        Fred Minassian, Manager/Science & Technology Advancement, responded that, in accordance with state guidelines, if a school district has a school bus with a model year between 1977 and 1986, and they purchase a new bus through AQMD’s school bus replacement program, they can either crush the old bus or give it to another school district which has a pre-1977 model year bus, but cannot afford to purchase a new bus.  That school district must then crush its pre-1977 bus.
 

       In response to Ms. Carney, Dr. Wallerstein clarified that the purpose of this item is to provide more flexibility and address the school districts’ needs to upgrade their garage facilities in order to safely and properly operate the CNG fleets.

       In response to Ms. Carney’s question about the amount indicated for Monrovia in Table 1, entitled “Maximum Unspent Funds Available for CNG Garage and Infrastructure Upgrades”, Mr. Minassian noted the following correction to typographical errors in the table:

LAUSD         $295,369   $315,200

Monrovia      $315,200     $26,980

        In response to Mr. Craycraft’s question regarding the timeframe that the school districts have to utilize the grant money, Mr. Minassian indicated that the program announcement would be sent out today to all the school districts, and they would have until October 22, 2003 to submit applications. Staff will bring the school bus replacement awards to the Board for approval at its December 5, 2003 meeting, and the districts will then have until September 1, 2004 to have the buses on the road.
 

ON MOTION OF MS. CARNEY, DULY SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent:  Aguiar, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
 

8.

Report on Survey of Future Diesel Engine Technologies to Meet 2007 Federal Standards, and Issue RFP for Demonstration of Advanced Diesel Emission Control Systems in Low-Sulfur Diesel Fueled Heavy-Duty Engines

        Mr. Paul Ryan addressed the Board on behalf of Inland Empire Disposal Association, Los Angeles County Waste Management Association, and Solid Waste Association of Orange County, and expressed support of the item as recommended by staff and his appreciation to staff for seeking a demonstration of advanced diesel emission control systems in low-sulfur diesel fueled heavy duty engines.  He commented that this is an important part of a series of issues that the waste hauling/recycling industry has confronting it as an industry to achieve the best levels of control technology that it can possibly achieve.
 

        In response to Ms. Carney, Chung Liu, DEO/Science & Technology Advancement, explained that indications from a recent survey of the six major OEMs for diesel engines are that the OEMs will by 2007 have heavy-duty engines with a NOx emissions level of 1.2 grams brake horsepower per hour.  However, staff would like to have heavy-duty engines of the type used for refuse hauling vehicles by 2007 that are capable of achieving the federal standard of 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx.  The proposed RFP will ensure the availability of such engines on the market by 2007 by requiring demonstration of prototypes by 2005.
 

ON MOTION OF MR. PAULITZ, SECONDED BY MR. CRAYCRAFT, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent:  Aguiar, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 8, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
 

10.

Establish Rule 1173 Mitigation Fund

         Ms. Verdugo-Peralta questioned staff with regard to the monitoring of pressure relief device (PRD) releases by the facilities and notification to the surrounding neighborhoods.

          Dr. Wallerstein responded that, since the Board’s amendment of Rule 1173 in December 2002 requiring facilities that have several releases from a PRD or a very large release to either construct equipment that would in the future capture that release or pay a mitigation fee, there have been several instances of releases and the facilities choose to pay mitigation fees.  The action before the Board at this time is to establish the account only.  When staff comes back to the Board with a proposal for spending these monies, in light of the Board’s commitment to use these type of fees to help the community, staff will be looking at items such as additional monitoring at the facility or in the neighborhood as potential mitigation projects that will be funded through these fees.
 

ON MOTION OF MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA, SECONDED BY MR. CRAYCRAFT, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent:  Aguiar, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 10, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
 

11.

Amend Governing Board Meeting Procedures Regarding Receipt of Public Testimony

        Dr. Wallerstein commented that this item had been placed on the agenda at Chairman Burke’s request, and because the Chairman was not expected to be present at this meeting, staff did not distribute the proposed language for the change in policy.  He, therefore, recommended continuing the item to the October 3, 2003 Board meeting.

         Mr. John Billheimer addressed the Board and expressed concern as to whether the intention of the proposed change in procedure is to require submittal of speaker cards before commencement of the particular item or the entire meeting.  He commented that there are those, mainly small business people, who make a decision on whether they will speak based upon staff’s presentation to the Board.

         Chairman Burke responded that his intent was to provide not only to the audience who attend the meetings, but to the Board as well, a more efficient way of operating the meeting, because he has noticed that individuals will in the last seconds want to repeat comments that have already been made by previous speakers just for emphasis.

       With respect to Item No. 12 (Public Affairs Report), Mr. Antonovich commended staff and expressed his appreciation for the town hall meeting conducted by AQMD in the City of Santa Clarita.  It was a very productive meeting, and he was also pleased to have representatives from CARB at the meeting.

20.

Administrative Committee
 

21.

Finance Committee
 

22.

Legislative Committee
 

23.

Mobile Source Committee
 

24.

Stationary Source Committee
 

25.

Technology Committee
 

26.

Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee
 

ON MOTION OF MR. CRAYCRAFT, SECONDED BY DR. WILSON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent:  Aguiar, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 20 THROUGH 26, AS RECOMMENDED.
 

27.

California Air Resources Board Monthly Report (No Written Material - Transcripts of the meetings are available at CARB's web site, www.arb.ca.gov.)
 

28.

California Fuel Cell Partnership Steering Team Meeting
 

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MR. ANTONOVICH, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent:  Aguiar, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 27 AND 28, AS RECOMMENDED.
 

29.

White Paper on Regulatory Options for Addressing Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution Emissions

         Elaine Chang, DEO of Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, gave the staff report; and noted that an Addendum for Agenda Item No. 29 had been distributed to Board members and copies made available to the public, containing the following revisions to the White Paper.

• Insert the following (underlined) text into the first paragraph explaining the mechanism for Control Strategy No. 2 on page 27:

“The amendment to Rule 1401 associated with this strategy would be for existing schools or sensitive receptors only and would proceed through a two-step hearing process to first identify key policy issues and seek Governing Board direction prior to the rule adoption hearing."

• Insert the following (underlined) text into the first paragraph explaining the mechanism for Control Strategy No. 14 on page 24:

“The amendment to Rule 1402 associated with this strategy would address schools or sensitive receptors only and would proceed through a two-step hearing process to first identify key policy issues and seek Governing Board direction prior to the rule adoption hearing."
 

        Indicating that approximately 25 requests to speak on this item were submitted by individuals in support of the staff recommendation and 2 requests from those in opposition, Chairman Burke asked that the two individuals expressing opposition address the Board first; then those who wanted to speak in support of the item could present their comments.  He asked that they try to avoid being repetitious of comments made by those preceding them.

WILLIAM CARNEY, San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
       Stated that he was not opposed to the item, but asked that the Board delay adoption of any rules until Southern California business groups have an opportunity to thoroughly review those rules.  Also, noted that there are other business groups in Southern California that are completely unaware of the White Paper, and suggested that the AQMD engage them before moving forward with adopting any of the rules.

        Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff had conducted a reasonable amount of outreach regarding this item.  More importantly, however, this is just to get the Board’s approval to move forward to develop formal policies and rules, which would be brought back to the Board after having undergone a full public airing.  Each of the items proposed will come back to the Board over the next three- or four-year period after further evaluation and study, and staff will keep the Board’s committees updated on the progress of each of these items.
 

BILL LaMARR, California Small Business Alliance

        Expressed the following concerns:  1) Mobile sources are under the jurisdiction of agencies other than the AQMD.  Without any assurance that mobile sources will participate proportionately to stationary sources in this program, businesses, particularly small, minority-owned businesses, will bear the brunt of these control strategies.  2) Agree with the changes in the addendum sheet regarding Rules 1401 and 1402.  Given the fact that the disproportionately high air toxic risk levels found in most areas of concern are primarily the result of emissions from mobile sources, there is no logical basis for imposing tighter regulations on businesses without conclusive evidence to the contrary.  3) Regarding odor complaints attributable to auto body shops, a handful of businesses account for less than one-half of one percent of the odor complaints that are mentioned in the White Paper.  The document suggests that the rule which regulates the entire auto body industry might be amended under the early action control measures.  Thousands of small business owners who have never received a complaint could be forced to purchase costly control equipment.

         With respect to the auto body shops, Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff wants to compare those limited number of shops that have had significant odor complaints to similar shops that have not had problems with odor complaints in order to see if there are cost-effective measures that can be applied.  He stated that staff is committed to work with small business as it works on the various issues and bring them back for the Board’s consideration.

       In the interest of time, Chairman Burke suggested a reduction in the three-minute time period allowed for individual comment for those who were speaking in support of this item.
 

MR. CRAYCRAFT MOVED TO ALLOW EACH OF THE REMAINING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON AGENDA ITEM NO. 29 ONE (1) MINUTE TO COMMENT.  THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ AND CARRIED UNANAIMOUSLY (Absent: Aguiar, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge).
 

         The following individuals addressed the Board:

FRANK CAPONI, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
CURTIS COLEMAN, CMTA Southern California Air Quality Alliance
GAIL RUDERMAN FEURER, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
JOSEPH LYOU, California Environmental Rights Alliance
JANE WILLIAMS, California Communities Against Toxics
CYNTHIA BABICH, Del Amo Action Committee
*TODD CAMPBELL, Councilmember, City of Burbank
ROBERT CABRALES, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
GILBERT and JANIE AGUIRRE, Communities for a Better Environment
CLAYTON MILLER, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition
TOM PLENYS, Coalition for Clean Air
JOSE MARTINEZ, concerned citizen
JORGE VILLANUEVA, Communities for a Better Environment
JORGE DUENAS, Youth for Environmental Justice
AUGUSTIN EICHWALD, Communities for a Better Environment
ANGELO LOGAN, East Yard Community Environmental Justice
LEE WALLACE, Sempra Energy Utilities
MARTHA DINA ARGUELLO, Physicians for Social Responsibility
ROBINA SUWOL, California Safe Schools
BILL QUINN, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
*Submitted written comments from Coalition for Clean Air, CBE, NRDC, California Environmental Rights Alliance & California Communities Against Toxics

          The consensus was that the cumulative impact problem does exist and needs to be addressed.  A number of speakers described the cumulative impact from different sources in their communities.  In addition, the following suggestions were made and concerns expressed.

• More outreach is needed beyond the existing working group structure.  The leadership of the local governments have had little knowledge of the white paper recommendations, and a working session was suggested, with AQMD staff and local government staff, so explain in a simple manner the ramifications of this very complex program.
   
• Mobile sources need to be addressed; however, the Board has limits to its authority, and it should use its authority to the fullest to address the problems with stationary sources and the limited authority the Board has under mobile sources.
   
• The white paper is a good first step, but the AQMD needs to do more, especially with regard to the effects of air toxics on children and other sensitive receptors, as well as how emissions are impacting the health of children and the elderly.
   
• The white paper seeks to assure that future growth does not compound already existing air pollution problems, and anything that can help the local government prepare and plan better land use management in our cities is tremendously appreciated.
• There is concern that the cumulative impact program has the potential to create areas that would be “red lined”.  The AQMD needs to make sure that the program does not result in small businesses having to leave the communities.  The assurances by staff about a two-step process is encouraging.
• Suggested that the AQMD set goals for reducing cancer and respiratory risk; develop measures for including emissions that are reproductive, developmental toxins, and endocrine-disrupting or mimicking chemicals.
   

DR. WILSON MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 29 AS RECOMMENDED, DIRECTING STAFF TO:

• PROCEED WITH THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS REDUCTION STRATEGY (CIRS) OUTLINED IN THE WHITE PAPER;

• REPORT TO THE STATIONARY SOURCE AND MOBILE SOURCE COMMITTEES EVERY SIX (6) MONTHS ON THE CIRS PROGRESS; AND

• REPORT TO THE BOARD ONCE PER YEAR AS PART OF THE REPORT ON EJ ENHANCEMENTS.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. CARNEY.

         Ms. Verdugo-Peralta commented that she made the original motion last year to conduct a cumulative impacts study, and she still believes it is important to identify the sources and the resulting health effects to the residents in the basin.  She has three asthmatics at home, and it is a daily challenge for them.  Her intent was not for this issue to become divisive, nor to negatively impact the business community, especially small businesses, which have the least amount of resources available to them.  The business community and local governments are very concerned regarding the possibility of redlining and the definition of sensitive receptors, and how that can prevent growth as well as increase the cost to conduct business; and so is she.  However, it is the Board’s and this agency’s responsibility to address the pollution problem of all four counties that are facing these health effects, especially in light of the recent unwillingness of the EPA to do so, and, actually, backslide on the Clean Air Act.  Therefore,
 

MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA MOVED THAT THE BOARD DIRECT STAFF TO:

• WORK MORE CLOSELY WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND LISTEN TO THEM SO THAT THE AQMD CAN ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AS IT MOVES FORWARD ON THIS PROPOSAL;

• CREATE A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP WITH THE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT ARE PRIMARILY INVOLVED WITH BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND BUSINESS RETENTION SO THAT WE CAN LEVERAGE OUR RESOURCES AND CREATE A SYNERGY TO ENSURE THAT WE MINIMIZE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESSES; AND

• HOLD ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS WITH THESE AGENCIES TO DISCUSS MUTUAL PROGRAMS WHICH INCLUDE COLLECTIVELY ASSISTING SMALL BUSINESSES WITH THE FINANCIAL MEANS TO PURCHASE CLEANER, LOWER-EMITTING EQUIPMENT AND/OR CONTROLS, AS WELL AS WORK TOGETHER TO ASSIST THE SMALL BUSINESS COMMUNITY SO THAT WE CAN HELP THEM HELP US REDUCE EMISSIONS IN THIS BASIN.

DR. WILSON ACCEPTED THE MOTION BY
MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA AS AN AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION, WITH THE AGREEMENT OF MS. CARNEY, WHO SECONDED THE MAIN MOTION; AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent:  Aguiar, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge).
 

30.

Approve Proposed 2003-04 Environmental Justice Workplan

        In the interest of time, staff waived an oral report on Item No. 30.  The following individuals addressed the Board to comment in support of the proposed 2003-04 EJ Workplan.

JOSEPH LYOU, California Environmental Rights Alliance
        Recommended word changes to the workplan to clarify that the intent is to reduce air pollution as well as health risk.  (Submitted Written Comments)

CYNTHIA BABICH, Del Amo Action Committee
       Highlighted the need to continue the neighborhood EJ Councils and also the need for them to have access to public records.

JANE WILLIAMS, California Communities Against Toxics
        Expressed her belief that the proposed workplan is another good step to deal with some of the management problems in the air toxics program, including the lack of an updated emissions inventory.  Expressed belief also that there are a number of measures that could be taken that would not have significant impact on the economy that would reduce exposure to emissions and risks considerably.

         Ms. Verdugo-Peralta encouraged staff very strongly to work with the schools, work with the community groups, and to also work also with the hospitals, which have significant asthma programs and respiratory ailment programs that she believes the AQMD could dovetail on and utilize for more thorough outreach.
 

MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 30 AS RECOMMENDED, DIRECTING STAFF TO:

1)          PROCEED WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EJ WORKPLAN FOR FY 2003-04 AS PROPOSED, FOR COMPLETION NO LATER THAN JUNE 2004; AND

2)          MAKE PERIODIC STATUS REPORTS TO THE APPROPRIATE ADVISORY GROUPS AND BOARD COMMITTEES.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN BURKE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent:  Aguiar, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, and Paulitz).

         The Board did not recess to closed session.