1.

 2.

 3.

 4.

 5.

 6.

 7.

 8.

 9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Report on Emission Limits for Rule 1136 - Wood Product Coatings

         Agenda Items Nos. 3, 14, and 23 were withheld for discussion.  At the Chairman’s direction, Agenda Item No. 15 was continued to the September 5, 2003 Board meeting.  Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley and Ms. Carney indicated that they were abstaining on Item No. 1, Minutes of the July 11, 2003 Board Meeting, because they were absent from the meeting.
 

ON MOTION OF MR. CRAYCRAFT, SECONDED BY
MR. SILVA, THE BOARD:  1) APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 1, 2 (SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED RULE 1105.1 FOR OCTOBER 3, 2003), 4 THROUGH 13, 16 THROUGH 22, AND 24 THROUGH 27;  AND 2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 03-18, AUTHORIZING THE AQMD TO ACQUIRE FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCY FOR SURPLUS PROPERTY, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES:             Aguiar, Bernson, Burke, Carney (except Item #1), Craycraft, LaPisto- Kirtley (except Item #1), Loveridge, Paulitz, Silva, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.

NOES:             None.

ABSTAIN:       Carney and LaPisto-Kirtley (on Item #1 only).

ABSENT:         Antonovich.
 

28.

Items Deferred from Consent Calendar
 

3.

Approve Workplan for the Asthma and Outdoor Air Quality Consortium and Contract for Administering the Consortium
 

         Cynthia Babich, of the Del Amo Action Committee, addressed the Board and expressed support for Item No. 3.  She commented that she had appeared before the Board earlier this year and requested that the
$1.7 million fine imposed on the ExxonMobil refinery adjacent to their community be used to help the communities impacted by the site. She believes that this item is a step in the right direction and suggested that AQMD include community representatives as it looks at how to best address these issues.
 

ON MOTION OF MR. AGUIAR, SECONDED BY DR. WILSON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Antonovich), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
 

14.

Approve Contract Awards as Part of MSRC's FYs 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 AB 2766 Discretionary Fund Work Programs; Grant MSRC Authority to Adjust Project Costs Up to Five Percent; and Authorize Board Chairman to Execute Agreements

        Ron Smith, of Adrianus Resources, addressed the Board.  Referencing an article dated August 1, 2003 from The Desert Sun newspaper regarding Clean Energy Fuels, Inc.’s questionable financial ties to SunLine Transit Agency, he asked that the Governing Board withhold its approval of awarding contracts to Clean Energy to construct four CNG stations and one LNG station, as recommended by the MSRC board, and, form its own investigative team to look into this matter.  His request was based not only on the newspaper article, but for the following reasons as well.

        1) The vote at the MSRC meeting to approve and recommend to the Governing Board was obtained with one Committee member possibly having a conflict of interest.  2) One of the major objectives of the solicitation was to fill in the infrastructure gaps that exist in Southern California.  Two stations recommended for award are at two different airports where infrastructure currently exists -–Palms Springs and Ontario airports.  Two other stations are at Southern California Gas Company facilities where they will be the primary user.  One of those stations does not want to put in a public facility.  The fifth station, although it may address a gap issue for LNG stations, comes at a time when LNG users are seriously questioning the reliability of the stations and the use of LNG. 3) The favoritism being shown to one contractor, Clean Energy, should be questioned in light of the monopoly of the natural gas stations in the Palm Springs area and the high prices associated with the fuel cost.  (Copies of a reprint of the Desert Sun article were distributed to Board members.)
 

MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 14, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.  THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. CRAYCRAFT.

        Ms. Verdugo-Peralta questioned how MSRC Chair William Kleindienst, Mayor of the City of Palm Springs, could not have a conflict of interest in this matter.

        District Counsel Barbara Baird responded that pursuant to the provision in the Political Reform Act exempting members and officers of public entities from conflict of interest rules as well as the Government Code prohibition on conflicts which provides that there is no prohibited interest in a contract when a member of a public entity votes on that contract unless it is from the same department, there does not appear to her to be a conflict in this case.

        Indicating that she was not agreeable to approving contracts with Clean Energy at this time because of its association with SunLine, which was being investigated by several agencies, including CARB and,  possibly, EPA and the Attorney General,
 

MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT THE AQMD FORM ITS OWN INVESTIGATIVE TEAM AND CONDUCT AN AUDIT OF ALL PRESENT AND PREVIOUS SUNLINE, CLEAN ENERGY, ENRG, AND PICKENS FUELS CONTRACTS; AND DELAY APPROVING THE PROPOSED PROJECTS UNTIL THE RESULTS OF THE AUDIT ARE RECEIVED.  THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. AGUIAR.
 

         Dr. Wilson commented that while he did not legally have any conflict of interest in this matter, he does sit on the SunLine governing board.  Since it was apparent that SunLine has a public/private partnership arrangement with Clean Energy for natural gas fueling stations, he indicated that he would abstain from voting on this particular item.  Noting that Mr. Smith was correct in that there was already a CNG fueling station at the Palm Springs airport, he explained that the airport is going through a major renovation because of security concerns following the 9/11 attacks and they need to relocate and upgrade the CNG station, which is one of the highest used stations in the Coachella Valley.  He agreed with District Counsel that Mayor Kleindienst, who also sits on the SunLine board, has no financial conflict of interest on this issue.  The proposed project is to upgrade a fueling station for the Coachella Valley and the airport, not to benefit the City of Palm Springs or one user.

       Expressing his belief that launching a separate investigation with all of the investigations in progress would be redundant,
 

MR. BERNSON MOVED TO AMEND THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO STATE THAT THE BOARD NOT LAUNCH A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION, BUT AWAIT THE OUTCOME OF THE CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS; AND THAT THE BOARD DELAY APPROVING THE CONTRACTS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE MATTER IS CLEARED.  THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
 

        In response to Ms. Carney, Dr. Wallerstein stated that staff was not aware of any investigation of Clean Energy, only newspaper accounts that SunLine had within its overall organizational umbrella used funding from one area potentially to help secure loans in another area.
 

         Mr. Paulitz and Chairman Burke both indicated that they failed to see why SunLine’s being under investigation should have any bearing on the Board’s decision on awarding contracts to Clean Energy for the proposed CNG/LNG fueling stations.

        Ms. Verdugo-Peralta noted that newspaper accounts also indicated  that there were members of the SunLine board who were also on the Clean Energy board. More importantly to her, however, was that there were five separate contracts being awarded to one contractor, and she found it difficult to believe that there were no other contractors qualified to do at least a portion of the projects.  If these five contracts were all going to be sole-sourced, then she believed it would be prudent to await the outcome of the investigations before awarding the contracts.
 

MS. CARNEY MOVED TO AMEND THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND REFER AGENDA ITEM NO. 14 BACK TO THE MSRC FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND A SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.
 

         In response to questions by Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley and Mr. Loveridge,
Mr. Gorski stated that these five projects all went through the same extensive public outreach process that the AQMD utilizes, including public notices in the newspapers, outreach to all the entities which have historically been in the business of providing alternative fuel services, and bidders conferences.  Clean Energy submitted proposals for all five projects; one other company submitted proposals for two of the projects.  The proposals by Clean Energy were determined to meet all of the requirements of the RFP; the other company’s proposals did not.  Clean Energy was the only contractor to submit a proposal for the CNG station at the Palm Springs Airport, which must be relocated and operating by November 1, 2003.  If the Board were to delay this item, it could jeopardize meeting the November 1 deadline, already considered to be an ambitious schedule as is.
 

         With the November 1 deadline in mind and after listening to the discussion, Mr. Bernson suggested that the Board approve the item.  If there are people that have been involved in inappropriate activity, then an agency that does investigative work will bring that to light.  He suggested also that the Board request that the MSRC develop a process or initiate a plan for encouraging participation of more people, even if it means cosponsoring or co-funding in some cases.

        With respect to the previous statement that members of the SunLine board allegedly sit on the Clean Energy board, Dr. Wilson clarified that the press had reported that the Executive Director of SunLine, who was presently on paid administrative leave while an investigation is underway, was on an advisory board for Clean Energy.
 

        Mr. James O’Neill, of Clean Energy, addressed the Board and emphasized that Clean Energy was not under investigation.  They are proud partners with SunLine, which was under investigation for activities that had nothing to do with their partnership as far as infrastructure in the Coachella Valley.  He pointed out that they have been audited by the MSRC within the past year, and it has shown that all of their accounting practices were proper.

        In response to Mr. Aguiar, Mr. O’Neill stated that to his knowledge SunLine’s Executive Director served on the Clean Energy advisory board from the middle of 2002 until January of 2003, and was no longer on that advisory board.

        In response to Ms. Carney, Mr. Gorski indicated that every two years the MSRC conducts an audit of projects funded in the prior year.  The audit agency’s findings were brought forth to the Committee approximately one month ago, and there were no findings relative to the work performed by Clean Energy in prior contracts, nor were there findings on any of the projects that the MSRC had funded in the prior year.
 

MS. CARNEY WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
 

        Referring to a quote from Jerry Martin of CARB in The Desert Sun regarding CARB’s concerns about the connection between Clean Energy and SunLine, Ms. Verdugo-Peralta expressed her belief that it would be prudent for the Board to delay action on this item until any inquiries/investigations are completed, as had been requested by CARB.
 

MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA AMENDED HER SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO STATE THAT THE AQMD CONDUCT AN AUDIT OF ALL PRESENT AND PREVIOUS SUNLINE, CLEAN ENERGY, ENRG, OR PICKENS FUELS CONTRACTS; BUT DELAY APPROVING ANY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS UNTIL THE BOARD RECEIVES THE RESULTS OF ANY INVESTIGATIONS OR ANY AUDITS IN REGARDS TO SUNLINE, CLEAN ENERGY, ENRG, OR PICKENS FUELS.  THE AMENDED MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. AGUIAR, AND FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES:        Aguiar and Verdugo-Peralta.

NOES:        Bernson, Burke, Carney, Craycraft, LaPisto-Kirtley,
                   Loveridge, Paulitz, and Silva.

ABSTAIN:  Antonovich and Wilson.
 

THE MOTION BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, SECONDED BY MR. CRAYCRAFT, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 14 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES:          Bernson, Burke, Carney, Craycraft, LaPisto-Kirtley,
                     Loveridge, Paulitz, and Silva.

NOES:         Aguiar and Verdugo-Peralta.

ABSTAIN:   Antonovich and Wilson.
 

23.

Recommendation Regarding Comments to U.S. EPA on Proposed Rule to Implement Eight-Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

         Catherine Witherspoon, of California Air Resources Board, informed the Board that CARB had recently submitted comments to the U.S. EPA regarding the one-hour to eight-hour ozone standard transition, urging them not to revoke the one-hour standard in 2005, but instead to wait until such time as eight-hour plans are in place and approved.  She indicated that CARB believed AQMD staff’s recommendation that the standard not be revoked until it is achieved has equal merit, and would like to work with
 

AQMD on influencing U.S. EPA’s final decision.  She emphasized that what mattered the most was that the one-hour standard not be revoked in 2005.  (Submitted Written Comments.)

         In response to Mr. Paulitz’s question regarding the relationship of these standards to AQMD’s currently debated AQMP, Dr. Wallerstein stated that staff’s recommendation was that the Board should take the position that, at this point in time, the one-hour standard should remain in place.  The plan presently before the Board on the one-hour standard will place this region on the same path needed to get to the eight-hour standard.  Staff’s concern was that revoking the one-hour standard would relieve pressure on agencies at the state and federal level to pursue controls because the
eight-hour standard attainment date is 2021.
 

ON MOTION OF MR. LOVERIDGE, SECONDED BY
MR. CRAYCRAFT, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 23 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

29.

Administrative Committee
 

30.

Legislative Committee
 

31.

Mobile Source Committee
 

32.

Stationary Source Committee
 

33.

Technology Committee
 

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, DULY SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 29 THROUGH 33 AND ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING POSITION ON LEGISLATION, AS RECOMMENDED:

SB 107 (Bowen) – Ultra-Clean, Low-Emission Distributed                               Generation Resources        SUPPORT;
                                                                 work with author
 

34.

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

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, DULY SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 34 AS RECOMMENDED.

35.

Adopt 2003 Revision to Air Quality Management Plan and Certify Final Environmental Impact Report
 

       Dr. Elaine Chang, DEO of Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources, gave the staff report.  Staff recommended that the Board certify the final program EIR and adopt the 2003 revision to the AQMP, specifically Option 1 with federal reductions, with potential substitution of Option 2 without the federal assignment.  Staff also distributed to Board members, with copies made available to the public, a set of addenda based on comments recently received by staff, as follows:

       First, adding to Attachment 2B of the adopting resolution a recommendation for CARB to make up the delayed reductions based on their low sulfur diesel regulations for 6 tons of PM in this region; secondly, adding language to the adopting resolution establishing an Ad Hoc Committee of the Board to review and consider SCAG’s proposed 2004 RTP; third, revising the provision in the adopting resolution for an annual progress report to the Board on the District’s SIP commitments in the 2003 AQMP to include implementation of AQMD’s Action Plan to Expedite Implementation of Long-Term Measures provided in Attachment 2C; and fourth, removing the language to explore potential trading mechanisms for PM10 transportation budgets.  This approach was requested by CARB staff based on the comments received that there was concern regarding potential EJ issues.  Since the Plan does not rely on the trading mechanism, staff recommended removing the language, and believes the issue can probably best be addressed by CARB staff at their public hearing.
 

       Mr. Bernson commented that some Board members may have received information from the City of Los Angeles stating it supported the AQMP, but was opposed to Measures FSS-05 and FSS-07 which would impose fees on the region’s port and airport operations, creating a competitive disadvantage for the facilities.  He wanted to go on record as opposing the City’s position on this, and expressed his full support of those measures.  He indicated that he initiated it at SCAG and believes it is supported by the MTA and other organizations in the area that recognize the necessity of dealing with these difficult questions.

       The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals.

JACK BROADBENT, U.S. EPA, Region IX
        Commented that EPA had participated in the development of the 2003 AQMP, and was still in the process of reviewing the Plan before the Board.  EPA’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act is to take action on the AQMP through a formal process that includes publication of a proposed action in the federal register, solicitation of public comment, and response to those comments before it takes a public action.

        Expressed EPA’s agreement with AQMD staff that what is needed is a collaborative effort among local, state, and federal agencies and the general public to identify potential sources of new emissions reductions, and to then make the hard decisions.  The EPA fully understands that the federal government can do more to help reduce pollution levels from sources that are legally or practically beyond the reach of state and local regulators.  While they have already issued regulations for essentially every mobile source category, they now need to review and evaluate ways in which they can seek additional reductions from existing fleets.  However, EPA continues to believe that state and local agencies do not have the authority to assign emission reduction responsibility to the federal government.  Therefore, they could not approve an AQMP option that relies on projected new federal reductions.  At the same time, EPA continues to support efforts to explore and develop regulations based on new feasible control technologies and believes that AQMD and state commitments to technology assessment projects are vitally important in this regard, as are the federal government’s research and development efforts on clean fuels and technologies.

        Assured the Board that EPA will work with AQMD in partnership to help achieve clean air as expeditiously as possible as called for under the proposed Plan.  (Submitted Written Comments.)

        In response to Ms. Carney’s question as to whether EPA was working on retrofit rules, incentive programs, and similar measures, Mr. Broadbent stated that EPA would rather provide the funds for those types of programs instead of rulemaking.  He noted that there are a host of different efforts that EPA has underway on a federal level in terms of retrofit type of activities.  They are, however, spread amongst the entire country and they are along the lines of voluntary agreements and/or funding to locals and states to make those types of programs happen.
 

        Ms. Carney commented that while she is pleased with the incentive programs the AQMD has, they do not contribute enough in the retrofit area and in addressing the existing fleets.  She, therefore, hoped that EPA would work with AQMD to try to develop programs that will actually solve the problem.  She pointed out that this region was literally drowning in ozone and that EPA and CARB needed to do more.

        The consensus of the Board was that in order for the South Coast region to reach attainment within the required timeframe, the AQMD must have EPA and CARB’s assistance in getting the emission reductions necessary from the sources under their purview.

        Several Board members inquired as to the possibility for more stringent EPA regulations for the South Coast region or for EPA to accept assignment of certain reductions because of the severity of the air pollution in this district.

        Mr. Broadbent responded that EPA’s regulations typically address those sources that travel across the country, such as interstate trucking, marine vessels, and aircraft, so they generally try to adopt measures on a national basis.  He assured the Board that Region IX advocates very strongly in EPA for what is needed in the South Coast district and will continue to push hard to try to obtain the type of funding, flexibility, and the kind of authority that the Board was requesting.

        Referring to an amendment organized by California Legislators when the Clean Air Act took form in the early ‘70s allowing California to set tougher rules for the auto industry than those in the national standards, Mr. Loveridge mentioned the possibility of a congressional rulemaking which would create different rules for a particular type of air basin.

        Commenting that he understood that EPA has the ability to conduct demonstration projects, Chairman Burke requested that Mr. Broadbent discuss with EPA Region IX Administrator Wayne Nastri the possibility of bringing a meaningful project to the South Coast region.
 

        Indicated that CARB is responsible for the majority of emission sources in the South Coast basin and is legally responsible to achieve the maximum feasible reductions from the sources under its jurisdiction; and that is precisely what it intends to do.  Commented that the single largest gain in emission control over the last 20 years was with the advent of reformulated gasoline and the full panoply of low-emitting vehicle technologies, which are presently being phased in.  CARB is on the cusp of a similar revolutionary breakthrough in diesel engine control and expects to achieve the same dramatic reductions in the diesel sector, though it does take time.  It will also take a lot of money; and as they look at financing, it is clear that CARB and the AQMD will need to go before the State Legislature and Congress together.  That is why they propose leaving undecided for the moment exactly what the split in responsibilities will ultimately be and who will carry out the actual implementation of the financial programs.

        With regard to CARB’s reluctance to delineate more of the measures in the black box, indicated that they have learned it is counterproductive to adopt
half-baked measures into the SIP and lose their flexibility to move quickly to the measures that will work when they find that the soufflé has fallen.  CARB is not dismissing any of the recommendations that have been made to them, but is analyzing all of those measures and more; and it is CARB’s intent to bring them to full development in time for a 2006-07 amendment to this Plan.  (Submitted Written Comments.)
 

        Ms. Carney expressed her appreciation for Ms. Witherspoon’s comments about working together and stated that the challenge to CARB in the Plan was intended to be an encouragement for the two agencies to work together on addressing mobile source emissions in California.

        Mr. Loveridge inquired as to Ms. Witherspoon’s thoughts on sharing responsibility, where under certain conditions the local districts would have a role in setting mobile regulations.  Ms. Witherspoon responded that CARB had watched AQMD’s legislative agenda with great interest this year to see what the reactions would be, and they had conversations with interest groups urging CARB to say that only the state should regulate those sources.  The retrofit issue is very complicated; and it is not just the state/local dimension, but there is the state/national dimension as well.  She expressed her belief that CARB must get squared away on California’s ability to do retrofits at all and adopt the slate of rules that she alluded to earlier -- about a quarter of which involve retrofit of diesel engines -- and then see how CARB and AQMD might partner together and share the load.
 

MARK PISANO, Southern California Association of Governments
        Indicated that SCAG provided the demographics, transportation, and certain other portions of the AQMP.  Urged the Board to adopt the Plan, which enables the region to achieve conformity and address the remaining policy issues identified by AQMD staff in the policy discussions at the state and federal level.  Noted that the AQMP was based upon SCAG’s 2001 RTP, and there are several activities that will be increasing in the revisions to the RTP in 2004.  Pointed out that Mr. Bernson, during this tenure as SCAG president, dealt directly with the issue of having a legally defensible attainment plan to make sure that conformity was met, because this region cannot afford not to have an attainment plan that is legally defensible and thereby lose transportation funding.

•      54956.9(a), to confer with its counsel regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the District is a party. The actions are: California Paint Alliance, et al. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., United States District Court Case No. CV-03-1656HLH (JWJx); National Paint & Coatings Association, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, United States District Court Case No. CV-03-1578HLH (JWJx); Engine Manufacturers Association, et al. v. SCAQMD, et al., United States Supreme Court Case No. 02-1343; Viaz, et al. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. LC062706; and People of the State of California ex rel South Coast Air Quality Management District v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC291876.;

•      54956.9(c), to confer with its counsel regarding determining whether to initiate litigation (two cases).

       The Board resumed with public testimony on Agenda Item No. 35.

LEE WALLACE, Sempra Energy Utilities
        Expressed support for adoption of the 2003 AQMP revision with Option 1 as recommended by staff.  Expressed appreciation to AQMD staff for working with them to improve a control measure addressing gas quality issues, and indicated that they are committed to working with staff to gather and develop the necessary scientific information to understand the potential of the proposal.  Commented that they shared the Board’s frustration that the AQMP had to be so vague in its specifics, but understood that it was because of the fact that 80 percent of the ozone precursor emissions come from sources under the jurisdiction of the state and federal governments.  Noted that even if all of the sources under the jurisdiction of the AQMD were shut down completely, the South Coast region would still not be able to reach attainment.

        Pointed out that the AQMD could be faced with a remaining shortfall by the end of the decade because CARB and EPA measures fall short of their intended goals.  If the AQMD then turns to the stationary sources, the price of implementing quick and dramatic reductions would be very high.  Therefore, urged the Board to commit to working on a parallel track with stakeholders on innovative ideas beyond regulatory measures that could be pursued to ensure that any shortfalls at the end of the decade could be addressed with more rational measures and also to contribute to filling the black box.

CAROL BANNER, Realtors Committee on Air Quality
        With respect to the proposed controls on wood-burning fireplaces and stoves, commented that the preliminary emissions inventory must be revised to reflect the actual number distribution and usage of fireplaces and stoves in basin prior to any rulemaking; and recommended, if the refined emissions inventory warrants further controls, that the Board consider cost-effective control technology, incentive and voluntary programs to reduce emissions.

       Regarding proposed further emission reductions from construction equipment, urged the Board to ensure that any additional construction equipment rules are cost-effective and do not interfere with the availability of construction equipment needed to maintain housing production.

       Requested that the socioeconomic report address the cumulative impact of the AQMP on the availability and affordability of housing, and that the Board direct that this topic be clearly discussed in all subsequent socioeconomic reports.

BILL QUINN, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
       Commented that with the attainment deadline a mere seven years away, it is time to get enforceable commitments from CARB and EPA on the emission sources under their control; and CCEEB is committed to work with all stakeholders to find ways to achieve this task.  While they recognized the 2003 AQMP’s imperfections, particularly with the size of the black box, CCEEB recommended moving forward with the Plan.

JONATHAN PARFREY, Physicians for Social Responsibility in Southern California
DR. JOSEPH LYOU, California Environmental Rights Alliance
GAIL RUDERMAN-FEUER, Natural Resources Defense Council
TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean Air
BAHRAM FAZELI and SILAS SHAWVER, Communities for a Better Environment
       Urged the Board to reject the 2003 AQMP proposed by staff, delay adoption of the Plan for 30 days, and direct staff to come back to the Board in 30 days with clear commitments from CARB and EPA regarding the list of measures developed by AQMD staff that they believe are feasible for the state and federal government to adopt.  In addition, expressed opposition to the trading provisions for refineries included in the proposed Plan, which would subject communities located near refineries to even further harm. (Submitted letter to the Board dated 7/29/03 from NRDC, Coalition for Clean Air, CBE, PSR, and CERA.)

        Dr. Lyou read into the record a letter from Assemblymember Judy Chu, requesting that the Board not adopt the proposed Plan, but instead work with U.S. EPA and CARB to develop stronger air pollution reduction measures.

        Vice Chairman Wilson asked that Dr. Lyou take the message back to Assemblymember Chu to give AQMD the legislative tools and it will finish the job.

       With regard to the request to delay this item for 30 days, Dr. Wallerstein noted that CARB requested Board approval of the Plan at this time for several reasons.  1) CARB had scheduled their September 2003 hearing to be held in Los Angeles.  He believed, if the Board does not approve the Plan at this meeting, CARB may not hold its meeting in Los Angeles.  2) As mentioned by Ms. Witherspoon, she believes the stark reality of the proposed Plan will facilitate the adoption of the set of clean air measures that her board will be considering.  3) If CARB’s board disagrees with the Plan that is sent to them, there is a process that is followed to try to resolve that before they can move forward with a different Plan.  He expressed his concern that if the AQMD does not submit the Plan to CARB now, and if there is a conflict and it has to go through the legislative process, at some point it will press on SCAG’s need to have the document to be able to develop the RTP in time to make conformity decisions in this air basin.

JANE WILLIAMS, California Communities Against Toxics
       Urged the Board to delay action for 30 days because AQMD can do more with current technology to control sources and can also do more working cooperatively with CARB and EPA on new technology application.

CYNTHIA BABICH, Del Amo Action Committee
       Expressed opposition to the proposed Plan, and commented that everyone needs to do more, including the impacted communities, to protect their interests and seek environmental justice in their communities.

CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney on behalf of California Manufacturers and Technology Association, Southern California Air Quality Alliance
       Urged the Board to adopt the Plan, and to use the proposal for ongoing work to be continued to reduce the number of tons in the black box as a basis for working with EPA and CARB to overcome the objections that the environmental groups have to the Plan.  Expressed  (i) support for the staff proposal to allocate responsibility for future emission reductions among the agencies;  (ii) support for the proposal to identify feasible and reasonable control measures that can and should be implemented by U.S. EPA, and working on the cooperative effort that Mr. Broadbent mentioned to get EPA to implement those measures; and (iii) opposition to the proposal to shave an additional 3 tons per day out of the RECLAIM universe.  Suggested, if the Board believes it necessary to get those additional 3 tons, that staff be directed to work to ameliorate the impacts on structural buyers and to work on development of credit generation rules that can provide credits for the structural buyers.

CAL HODGE, 2^nd Opinion Incorporated, Houston, TX
       Commented that in 2002 he performed an analysis which indicated that California’s air quality was going to get worse as it switched from MTBE to ethanol; and the year-to-date data shows that his analysis was correct.  Recommended that the ethanol experiment be stopped and the ban on MTBE rescinded.  (Submitted Written Comments.)

ZACHARY WALTON, Western Propane Gas Association
       Expressed support for adoption of the proposed Plan, and requested a clarification with respect to the forklift control measures, specifically, LSI-03 which would have required the electrification of forklifts.  After a number of productive meetings, LSI-03 was withdrawn and replaced with a modified LSI-02, which has retrofits and a multifaceted approach to further emission reductions.  Requested that the record be corrected to delete LSI-03 from the Plan and include modified LSI-02 instead.

ROBERT WYMAN, Attorney on behalf of Regulatory Flexibility Group and Western States Petroleum Association
       Recommended that the Board adopt the proposed Plan.  Indicated that while RFG and WSPA have concerns about certain individual measures in the Plan, they believe those can be addressed during the rulemaking process.  The remaining challenges are not ones that can be fixed in 30 days.  They require a significant amount of brainstorming by all of the stakeholders to determine how to get the older engines off the road and how to address ports and other untapped opportunities.  Expressed strong support for the flexibility proposal by staff.

JOHN BILLHEIMER, Enviro Reality
        Commented that one advantage with permitted sources is that they can be given a time period by which they must comply or be shut down.  Since that cannot be done at the CARB and EPA level, he suggested that perhaps they should delegate to the AQMD because of the particular air quality situation in the South Coast region.

JOAN HEREDIA, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
       Requested that staff review and incorporate into the proposed 2003 AQMP revision the comments regarding the emission quantification methodology and lack of consideration of voluntary emission reductions currently being implemented by the ports and the shippers, which PMSA submitted to staff beginning in March 2003.  Requested also that PMSA be included in the discussions on potential policy and fees that would impact marine vessels, and that consideration be given to the voluntary efforts that have sincerely been implemented by the ports.

HARVEY EDER, Public Solar Power Coalition
       Commenting that there is technology available using solar, wind, hydrogen and other renewables to convert our energy base and meet the goals that are in the black box now, recommended that AQMD, local, state, and possibly federal government work together toward a goal of total solar conversion by 2020.  (Submitted Written Comments.)

ESTHER BUSH, Coalition for Community Health
       Urged the Board not to adopt the proposed Plan because it will not help to achieve the air quality goals that we are striving for in this region.

DUNCAN McKEE, on behalf of residents of Avocado Heights, Bassett, North Whittier, and La Puente
       Commented on how emissions from the Quemetco facility were adversely impacting the surrounding neighborhoods.

       Dr. Wallerstein responded that the facility in question is a battery recycling plant and there are lead emissions coming from the plant, as well as other toxics from the casings around the batteries.  He indicated that he had attended a town hall meeting in the community and had also met with several community representatives on this issue, and staff is working cooperatively with the community to address this situation.  He indicated that staff would provide a presentation at the next Stationary Source Committee meeting, which would then be reflected in the Minutes of the meeting to the full Board.

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

      Written Comments Submitted by:
      Carl Olson, The Motorist’s Best Friend
      Michael J. Rush, Association of American Railroads
      Catherine C. Beckley, The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association
      D. Douglas Fratz and Joseph Yost, Consumer Specialty Products Association
      Western States Petroleum Association

        Ms. Verdugo-Peralta commented that she was surprised by the testimony from the environmental groups, which are usually urging the Board to take immediate action.  She indicated that she does recognize the fact that the box is huge, and she believed everyone agrees that pressure needs to be placed on CARB and EPA.  However, she did not believe there would be any benefit to delaying adoption of the Plan for 30 days.  She suggested that perhaps staff could come back to the Board every quarter to review more projects in an effort to reduce the black box.

       At Mr. Loveridge’s request, Dr. Wallerstein reiterated the staff’s recommendations as follows.

1)   adopt the 2003 AQMP and certify the final EIR, with the modifications set forth in the Addendum to Agenda Item 35 distributed to Board members and made available to the public;

2)   divide up the black box so that each agency knows what its responsibilities are, including an assignment to EPA, but have a provision that says once EPA formally rejects it, that the carrying capacity goes to the higher level so that the Plan does not come back to AQMD for this debate again, since EPA has indicated that it will not accept the federal assignment;

3)   attached to the adopting resolution is a list of measures and concepts that CARB is being requested to consider, and staff will work with CARB on those items;

4)   under the Board’s direction, a group of Board members and staff members will visit with some of CARB’s board members;

5)   have several Board members attend the CARB hearing that will be held in AQMD’s auditorium and express their personal and professional views about the need to partner together and move forward; not at the pace we have been moving, but at a faster pace; and

6)   the Executive Officer will work with the Board’s Mobile Source and Stationary Source Committees to set up a parallel process to the Plan to convene a forum with stakeholders and discuss some of the broader, more difficult items to look at how business might be conducted in Southern California in a more environmentally benign respect relative to air pollution.
 

        Expressing his support for bringing all parties to the table for discussion,
Mr. Loveridge commented that AQMD has been very effective at what he would call internal strategies.  He expressed his belief that the AQMD needs to think more carefully about external strategies; that is, to figure out who its allies are and what kind of game plan it is and how to talk to members of the CARB board.
 

MR. LOVERIDGE MOVED APPROVAL OF THE STAFF PROPOSAL, WITH THE MODIFICATION TO THE ADDENDUM TO AGENDA ITEM 35 TO CHANGE THE PROVISION FOR PROGRESS REPORTS ON THE DISTRICT’S SIP COMMITMENTS IN THE 2003 AQMP FROM ANNUALLY TO THREE TIMES A YEAR, AS FOLLOWS:
 

1)   AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO MAKE APPROPRIATE CHANGES TO THE 2003 AQMD AND ITS APPENDICES (IF NECESSARY) TO REFLECT POLICIES ADOPTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING;

2)   ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 03-19, ADOPTING THE 2003 AQMP, WITH THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN THE ADDENDUM TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 35, AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR; AND

3)   DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO FORWARD THE ADOPTED 2003 AQMP TO CARB FOR ITS APPROVAL AND SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL TO THE U.S. EPA, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent:  Aguiar, Bernson, and Burke).
 

36.

Adopt 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan

         In the interest of time, staff waived an oral report on this item.  The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individual.

KENNETH RUGGLES, Sun City Palm Desert Community Association
       Commented that:  1) The plan ignores the sizable and growing population of Coachella Valley located north of Interstate 10 and the substantial concerns of those citizens about the unbearable dust and PM10 exposure to which they are subjected.  2) The PM10 monitoring plan that is set forth in this plan focuses almost entirely on the most densely populated areas south of Interstate 10.  3) The outreach efforts discussed in this plan, while commendable, are notable in that they fail to include any representatives or input from the community associations or incorporated communities north of Interstate 10.

       Notably absent from the plan is the issue of the Coachella Valley preserve.  This federally- and state-managed artificial preserve routinely participates in fill, grading, and stockpiling operations to replenish sand on the preserve to support an artificial nature environment.  This activity is done to the detriment of all who live to the leeward of the preserve.

       Vice Chairman Wilson indicated that a task force was formed in the Coachella Valley, and that representatives from Sun City were present at the task force meetings.  In addition, the AQMD has a town hall meeting scheduled in that area in September, at which time AQMD will address the various issues raised by Mr. Ruggles in his comments, as well as strategic planning that has been going on for quite sometime in addressing those issues.
 

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, SECONDED BY
MR. SILVA, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent:  Aguiar, Bernson, and Burke), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 03-20, ADOPTING THE 2003 COACHELLA VALLEY PM10 SIP AND CERTIFYING THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

         William Fitzgerald, of Anaheim H.O.M.E. (Home Owners Maintaining their Environment), addressed the Board and expressed concern regarding the large cloud of sulfur-smelling smoke settles over their homes every summer night approximately five minutes after the fireworks display at the Disneyland theme park in their community.  He indicated that their group was informed by the Anaheim Fire Department that AQMD was in the process of conducting a scientific study regarding possible air pollution resulting from the Disneyland fireworks.  However, when Anaheim H.O.M.E. contacted AQMD staff regarding the study, they were told that the results were still undergoing executive review and were not yet available to the public.  He requested, on behalf of Anaheim H.O.M.E. that the Board prohibit the estimated 2,000 pounds of fireworks from being burned over their homes on days of high smog levels.  If the Board is unable to do so, then they would request that the results of the scientific study performed by AQMD in 2002 on the Disneyland fireworks, which they believe may finally indicate a connection between burning fireworks and air pollution, be immediately released to the public.

         Carol Coy, DEO of Engineering & Compliance, responded that, in response to public inquiry and inspector observations, both deposition plates and low volume sampling was conducted in the summer of 2002 during fireworks displays; and the sample results are available to the public.  She explained that fireworks and pyrotechnic equipment are exempt specifically under Rule 219 and also from the open burning regulation, Rule 444.  However, staff has in the past covered Disneyland under AB 2588.  Health risk assessments conducted at Disneyland in 1998 and in 2000, when the facility expanded its fireworks display, indicated that the carcinogenic risk from the facility was well under the threshold levels for public notification and for additional risk reduction.

        Ms. Coy noted that staff is now doing something that this agency and other air pollution control agencies have not done nationwide, and that is considering AQMD’s visible emissions and public nuisance regulations in regard to the fireworks displays.  Staff is currently evaluating technical studies that have been conducted on firework emissions, and have forwarded results of the study to health effects experts for evaluation.  Staff intends to release to the public this summer some information about what the study actually found.  Disneyland, after discussions with AQMD staff, has been experimenting with trying to reduce the ground level smoke from the fireworks.  The results of those efforts witnessed by staff over the last several weeks have been disappointing, and staff is, therefore, continuing its discussions with Disneyland to see what else they can do to modify their aerial display.

         Ms. Verdugo-Peralta commented that she lives approximately 10 miles from Disneyland, and when she hears the fireworks at night, approximately 30 minutes later she will smell a burning, sulfur type of odor.  She asked that staff consider the odor aspect of the fireworks as well.

         In response, Dr. Wallerstein noted that staff would be bringing an item to the Board at its September 5, 2003 meeting that would have staff move forward on an odor abatement program for nuisance reduction purposes.  He commented that the Disneyland fireworks issue might fit well into that program.