Board Delays Action on Air Quality Plan : Environment: The blueprint may be changed to address concerns of businessmen. They say the standards are an economic threat.

After business leaders complained that Ventura County’s proposed pollution controls would drive out industry and eliminate jobs, the Board of Supervisors delayed adopting the plan Tuesday.

Supervisors agreed that before the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan is adopted, it should be amended to address the concerns of the business community.

“Our economy is in deep, deep trouble,” Supervisor John K. Flynn told the other board members at the meeting. “We have to be sensitive about that.”

The plan, a blueprint for the county’s air quality regulations, is scheduled to be discussed again at the supervisors’ meeting next Tuesday.

Although it still would not bring the county into compliance with state and federal health standards, the plan imposes stringent regulations on paints, printing ink and barbecue lighter fluid.

It proposes that stationary gas or diesel engines used by industry be converted to electricity, and sets requirements for the use of clean-fuel fleets by companies.

While business leaders complained that the plan was too stringent, environmentalists have said the plan is not tough enough, because it calls for reducing pollution-causing emissions by only a third by the end of the century, far less than the 50% to 70% needed to meet federal and state standards.

But on Tuesday, only a few speakers urged the supervisors to strengthen the controls.

Most of the two dozen speakers, mainly business and industrial leaders, painted a picture of economic gloom.

“I know it’s going to be expensive,” Richard Lane, an environmental consultant for area businesses, told supervisors. “And when business can’t operate, they’re going to leave.”

Chuck Cohen, an attorney specializing in land-use issues, said: “The economy is rapidly approaching a crisis. This is a good time to pause and reflect.”

After listening to nearly three hours of testimony, Supervisor Maggie Erickson Kildee said she believed that something needed to be done to address the concerns.

“It’s irresponsible to make a decision that would not take into (account) economic and social impacts,” she said.

Supervisor Susan K. Lacey made a motion to incorporate the concerns into the plan, but the board voted to wait to take any action on the matter until next week.

One proposed regulation in the plan is Rule 59, which would require Southern California Edison to reduce its emissions by 90%.

Rule 210, an existing regulation that requires large companies to provide incentives for employees to share rides, would be expanded to include small companies in office complexes.

Declaring that the plan has “staggering inadequacies,” the Sespe Group of the Sierra Club has urged supervisors to reject the document on environmental grounds.

The group maintains that the plan fails to adhere to the California Clean Air Act because it would not force 5% annual reduction of emissions until a state health standard is met.

The plan calls for a 2.9% reduction in nitrogen oxides, one of the county’s two major pollutants, and 2.1% reduction in reactive hydrocarbons. The two combine in sunlight to produce ozone, a major component of smog.

After the meeting Tuesday, Pat Baggerly, a member of the Ventura County Environmental Coalition, expressed dismay that the environmentalists’ hopes to beef up requirements were not addressed.

“If we can’t make the 5% reductions the first year,” she asked, “when can we?”