State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Summary of Board Meeting
May 22, 1998
Air Resources Board
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Hons.||John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman
Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E.
Lynne T. Edgerton, Esq.
William F. Friedman, M.D.
Jack C. Parnell
AGENDA ITEM #
|98-6-1||Public Hearing to Consider the Appeals of the City of Los Angeles
from Order Nos. 041697-05 and 070297-04 of the Great Basin Unified Air
Pollution Control District
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
Health and Safety Code (H&SC) section 42316(a) provides that the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) may require the City of Los Angeles (City) to undertake reasonable measures, including studies, to mitigate the air quality impacts of its activities in the production, diversion, storage and conveyance of water in the Owens Valley area. H&SC section 42316(a) also provides that the District may require the City to pay, on an annual basis, reasonable fees, based on an estimate of the actual costs to the District of its activities associated with the development of the mitigation measures and related air quality analysis with respect to those activities of the City. In addition, section 42316(b) allows the City to appeal any measures or fees imposed by the District to the Air Resources Board (ARB) within 30 days of the adoption of the measures or fees. ARB is then required, on at least 30 days notice, to conduct an independent hearing on the validity of the measures or reasonableness of the fees which are the subject of the appeal.
On April 16, 1997, the District Governing Board adopted Orders Nos. 041697-04 and 041697-05, which assessed fees for the 1997-1998 fiscal year. Order No. 041697-04 assessed fees of $1,765,268 to fund the Districts administrative operations budget, and Order No. 041697-05 assessed fees of $1,482,485 to fund special projects associated with Owens Lake program activities. On May 15, 1997, the City filed two Notices of Appeal regarding these orders. The appeal of Order No. 041697-04 was settled by the parties before ARBs May 22, 1998 hearing. However, the City's appeal of Order No. 041697-05, still at issue, was one of the issues before ARB at this hearing.
In addition to the two fee orders described above, on July 2, 1997, the District adopted a PM-10 Demonstration of Attainment SIP (PM-10 Attainment Plan). Included in the PM-10 Attainment Plan is Order No. 070297-04, which requires the City to implement PM-10 control measures on Owens Lake. The control measures consist of a combination of shallow flooding, managed vegetation, and gravel covering. On December 29, 1997, the City filed a Notice of Appeal regarding Order No. 070297-04.
The Notices of Appeal requested ARB to conduct an independent hearing on the fee assessments and control measures imposed by the District's orders. As specified in H&SC section 42316(b), ARB held an independent hearing on this matter. At the hearing, ARB staff made an oral presentation summarizing its analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. The City and the District then presented their arguments regarding the appeals. Thereafter, interested members of the public addressed the Board.
The hearing addressed only the appeals of Order Nos. 041697-05 and 070297-04 under H&SC section 42316. ARB did not consider whether the Districts July 1997 PM-10 Attainment Plan should be approved and submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). ARB action to consider this matter will occur at a subsequent public hearing, which will be held pursuant to H&SC section 41650.
With regard to the District's project fee order, staff recommended that the Board reject the City's appeal and approve the special project fees required by the District. The Board voted on this staff recommendation, and it passed by a vote of 8-1.
With regard to the District's control measure order, staff presented
a technical analysis of the emissions inventory and modeling used as the
scientific basis for establishing the scope of implementation of control
measures. Because the District's methodology did not reflect the actual
nature of dust storms that cause federal PM10 violations, staff did not
recommend that the Board find the SIP measures to be reasonable pursuant
to HSC section 42316. After hearing staff's presentation, arguments by
both parties, and public testimony, the Chairman presented a motion to
deny the City's appeal of the District's control order. The motion was
voted on by the Board, and the motion failed to pass by a 5-4 vote. The
hearing was then continued to the June 25, 1998 Board meeting. The Board
also directed the Executive Officer to urge a meeting with both parties
to encourage a resolution of the conflict before the June Board meeting.
Passed by a vote of 8-1.