MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

KERN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOARD CHAMBERS, FIRST FLOOR 1115 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2013

9:05 A.M.

TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 CALIFORNIA REPORTING, LLC 52 LONGWOOD DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 (415) 457-4417APPEARANCES

BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Mary Nichols, Chairperson Dr. John Balmes Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Mr. Hector De La Torre Mr. Ronald Loveridge Mrs. Barbara Riordan Professor Daniel Sperling Dr. Alex Sherriffs

STAFF Mr. James Goldstene, Executive Officer Mr. Alberto Ayala, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Richard Corey, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Ajith Kaduwela, Manager, Regional Air Quality Modeling Section, Planning and Technical Support Division Ms. Lezlie Kimura, SIP and Local Government Strategies Section, Planning and Technical Support Division Ms. Sylvia Vanderspek, Manager, Air Quality Data Branch, Particulate Matter Analysis SectionAPPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT Mr. Gustavo Aguirre, CRPE Mr. Will Barrett, American Lung Association Mr. Keith Bergthold, City of Fresno Ms. Autumn Bernstein, Climate Plan Mr. Christopher Breedlove Mr. Craig K. Breon, Sierra Nevada Alliance Mr. Mana Elena Carrillo, LUCA Mr. Jose Chavez Mr. Manuel Cunha, Jr., Nisei Farmers League Mr. Marvin Dean Ms. Amanda Eaken, NRDC Ms. Caroline Farrell, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment Mr. Gustavo Fernandez, Committee for Better Shafter Ms. Eloisa Fernandez, Committee for Better Shafter Mr. Dennis Fox Ms. Maria Gonzalvez, CRPE Ms. Valerie Gorospe, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment Mr. Kevin Hamilton, Clinica Sierra Vista Mr. Curt Johansen, Council of Infill Builders Ms. Elizabeth Jonasson, Coalition for Clean AirAPPEARANCES CONTINUED

ALSO PRESENT Mr. Roy Kendall, Roy Kendall, Inc. Mr. Gary Lasky, Sierra Club Ms. Felicity Lyons, Housing California Ms. Virgnia Madueno Ms. Colby Morrow, Southern California Gas Company Mr. Brent Newell, Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment Mr. Brian Newton, TCCRG Mr. Gordon Nipp, Sierr Club Mr. Daniel O'Connell, American Farmland Trust Mr. Gemo Perez, Greenfield Walking Group Ms. Betsy Reifschneider, Arch Diocese of Stockton Mr. Rodrigo Romo, Committee for Better Shafter Mr. Seyed Sadredin Ms. Byanka Santoyo Ms. Sarah Sharpe, Fresno Metro Ministry Mr. Mario Talavera Ms. Patricia Taylor, San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Ms. Hope Valdez, LUCA Mr. Refugio Valencia, CRPE Ms. Teresa Vidales, LUCA Mr. Mike WellsINDEX PAGE

Item 13-1-3 Chairperson Nichols 8 Item 13-1-1 Chairperson Nichols 8 Executive Officer Goldstene 8 Staff Presentation 9 Mr. Barrett 36 Mr. Nipp 38 Mr. Dean 40 Ms. Morrow 42 Mr. Breedlove 45 Ms. Sharpe 46 Mr. Hamilton 49 Mr. Newell 52 Ms. Farrell 55 Mr. Lasky 57 Ms. Reifsnider 59 Ms. Jonasson 61 Ms. Gorospe 63 Ms. Valdez 67 Ms. Carrilo 68 Ms. Perez 69 Mr. Chavez 70 Ms. Gonzalvez 71 Mr. Aguirre 72 Mr. Talavera 74 Ms. Fernandez 76 Mr. Fernandez 77 Mr. Romo 77 Mr. Valencia 79 Ms. Santoyo 81 Mr. Cunha 83 Mr. Fox 85 Mr. Wells 88 Motion 119 Vote 120 Item 13-1-2 Chairperson Nichols 121 Staff Presentation 121 Ms. Reifschneider 129 Ms. Taylor 130INDEX CONTINUED PAGE

Item 13-1-2 Mr. Barrett 133 Mr. Nipp 136 Mr. Talavera 138 Ms. Jonasson 140 Ms. Sharpe 141 Mr. Lasky 143 Mr. Kendall 145 Mr. Newton 146 Ms. Lyons 147 Ms. Madueno 149 Mr. Breon 150 Mr. O'Connell 152 Ms. Bernstein 155 Mr. Johansen 158 Mr. Bergthold 160 Ms. Eaken 161 Ms. Santoyo 163 Mr. Fox 163 Mr. Wells 165

Adjournment 172 Reporter's Certificate 173PROCEEDINGS CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let's try to get started here. I'm going the call the January 24th, 2013, meeting of the Air Resources Board to order.

We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please turn this way.

(Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was Recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We'll ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Dr. Balmes? BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Here. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Ms. Berg? Ms. D'Adamo? BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Mr. De La Torre? Mayor Loveridge? BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Here. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Mrs. Riordan? BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Supervisor Roberts? Dr. Sherriffs? BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Here. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Professor Sperling?

California Reporting, LLC 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Here. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Supervisor Yeager? Chairman Nichols? CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Here. We've just been joined by Mr. De La Torre. BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Here. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Chairman Nichols, we have a quorum. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. A couple of housekeeping items before we get started.

First of all, we need to thank the Kern County Board of Supervisors for allowing us the use of their beautiful room with great high tech communications.

Board members, each of you has a microphone. There is a switch in the desktop. So when you want to speak, you can just flip it so that the green light shows. Otherwise, we won't be using their high-tech voting machines today, I don't think. That's a little bit farther than we can go. But this is really terrific.

Just a couple of quick announcements before we get started. First of all, as people probably saw when they walked into the room, interpretation services are available in Spanish for anyone who would like it. There are headsets available at the desk outside the hearing room at the sign-up table.

California Reporting, LLC 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Is the translator here to make these comments in

Spanish?EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: He's in the booth.

THE INTERPRETER: With the permission of the parties, this is the interpreter, the official interpreter that was asked to come here to provide services. We have a team of two interpreters. And with your permission I would like to speak in Spanish right now for the people that are present.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:All right. Fine. Please, go ahead.

(Whereupon the announcement was translated from English to Spanish.) CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. Anyone who wishes to testify and hasn't signed up already online should fill out a request to speak card. Those are also in the lobby outside the Board room. And you're requested to turn it in to the Clerk as soon as possible.

If you signed up online in advance to speak today, you don't need to fill out a form. But you do need to check in with the Clerk, just so she knows you're here, or else your name won't be on the speakers list.

The Board does impose a three-minute limit on speakers. We appreciate it if you state your name when

California Reporting, LLC 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25you come up to the podium and then summarize your

testimony, especially if you have written testimony, and just go to your main points. Because if you have written testimony, it will be in the record and the Board will read it.For safety reasons, I'm also supposed to notify you that there are emergency exits that are in the rear of the room, well lighted back there. In the event of an emergency, we're required to evacuate this room immediately and go outside the building until we hear an all-clear signal and then we return to the room.

I think that's it in terms of official announcements.

I did want to call on the Chairman of the Board here, who was going to give us some opening remarks. Mr. Scrivner, Supervisor Scrivner.

SUPERVISOR SCRIVNER: Good morning, Board members. My name is Zack Scrivner. And I represent Kern County's southeast region as Second District Supervisor. And I'm also a member of the Kern Council of Governments.

I'm not Board Chairman this year. I just concluded my term as Board Chairman in December. But it's an honor and a privilege to represent the Kern County Board of Supervisors before you today.

First of all, welcome to Bakersfield and Kern

California Reporting, LLC 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25County. We appreciate this opportunity to acquaint you

with our part of the state and to discuss our efforts to improve the air.

Kern County is committed to meeting the state's climate change goals, along with air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley air basin and the clean enjoyed in the Mojave desert air basin which represents most of my district.

Like other counties and cities in the Valley Kern has been working to develop travel model and data improvements, design transit and acu-transit facilities and the discuss land use growth patterns that will achieve this ambitious reduction.

This work is within the context of Kern's strengths and challenges. As you know, our county is home to two air basins, as I mentioned, and two air districts. We have diverse land features, and we also have rich natural resources.

Kern County makes up 33 percent of the land area of the eight-county San Joaquin Valley with 20 percent of that population residing in Kern County. We're also the number one county for employment growth in the entire nation. Our industries include large and small scale agriculture, manufacturing/distribution centers, chemical

California Reporting, LLC 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25plants, and oil and gas production, exploration and

refineries.

Our mountain areas are known for world-class tourism for white water rafting on the Kern River and hiking the wildlife preserves.

Our desert areas contain the largest wind energy and solar photovoltaic complex in California and is home to the Mojave air and space port with over 80 innovative companies engaged in light industrial to highly advanced aerospace design, flight test, and research.

In support of California's goals to reduce greenhouse gases, Kern County over the last four years has permitted over 7,567 megawatts of wind and solar PV with full environmental impact reports with two-thirds in operation or under construction currently. This is seven times the number permitted by the next closest county, which is Imperial County. When you plug in your Chevy Volt, think of Kern County's wind and solar energy renewable frontier. Kern County has been working with Kern COG planners and transportation specific list from all the cities property owners and other stakeholders to meet our air quality targets, while ensuring economic growth in the important sectors for California; energy, oil and gas and renewable, agriculture, agriculture support services, manufacturing and distribution,

California Reporting, LLC 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25aerospace research, and design. We look forward to continuing our partnership with the ARB staff, your Board, and with the other Valley MPOs. New thinking and solutions to our air quality problems and thoughtful land planning for the future of economic growth and jobs we need desperately here in California.

So in that vein, again, welcome to Kern County. We're glad to have you here. And we hope that you stop by more often. Thank you so much.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. Appreciate the welcome. And the opportunity to be here.

Kern County has been in the news quite a bit lately because of your growth rate and leadership on renewable energy. So it's very timely that we're able to have the meeting here today.

All right. Without further ado, then we'll jump into the agenda.

BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I thought it's a good and helpful opening statement.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Yes. Thank you.Agreed

. Okay. So our first item on the agenda is the consideration of appointment of a new member to the Research Screening Committee. This is a consent item, unless anybody wants to take it off of consent. If not,

California Reporting, LLC 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25then it will be approved. We then move to an overview of the science of PM2.5 and research on PM2.5 and to a consideration of approving the San Joaquin Valley's State Implementation Plan for fine particles. And we'll go ahead and have the staff presentation.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman Nichols.The San Joaquin Valley has some of the most challenging PM2.5 air quality issues in the country. In 2008, the Board approved the San Joaquin Valley's plan for meeting the annual standard for PM2.5.

Today, you'll hear the plan to address the daily or 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

Implementation of ARB's regulations for diesel trucks and engines is a key component of the Valley PM2.5 attainment strategy for both the annual and 24-hour standards.

In the staff presentation, you'll hear about the role these ARB regulations play and also about the additional district actions that will be taken to meet the 24-hour standard.

Ajith Kaduwela will discuss the science behind our understanding of PM2.5 in the valley, followed by Sylvia Vanderspek with an overview of the plan.

California Reporting, LLC 8

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(Thereupon an overhead presentation was presented as follows.) REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: Thank you, Mr. Goldstene.

Good morning, Chairman Nichols and members of the Board. My presentation today is the first of two-part presentation. The focus is on the science supporting the San Joaquin Valley's 24-hour PM2.5 plan and summarizes information that was presented at two science workshops conducted by ARB staff in the Valley during the plan development. --o0o--

REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: I will first present what we know about the PM2.5 problem in the Valley, then move ontohow we use photochemical models to demonstrate attainment and determine significant precursors. Significant precursors are the pollutants which are most effective in reducing PM2.5. Finally, I will finish with the description of what we are doing to continue to improve the science. --o0o-- REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: A strong scientific foundation is the key to an effective State Implementation Plan. Scientific studies

California Reporting, LLC 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25also provide the much-needed research quality data to

understand the nature of the PM2.5 problem.

The same data also helps us improve the air quality models that we use to simulate the pollutant concentrations in the Valley. These models are the most powerful tool we have to predict the future air quality responses to emission controls. --o0o-- REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: CRPAQS was a year-long air quality study conducted in 2000 in the San Joaquin Valley. It remains one of the most comprehensive scientific research studies conducted in any area of the world.

Part of CRPAQS was an intensive summer ozone study known as the Central California Ozone Study, or CCOS. These two studies continue to be the foundation of the ozone and PM State Implementation Plans prepared for the Valley since 2000. --o0o--

REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: Multiple years of measurement show that PM2.5 concentrations are higher during the winter months compared to the summer. The main reason is the stagnation of cold air masses in the Valley during the winter that are conducive to both accumulation of directly-emitted

California Reporting, LLC 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25particles and formation of particles in the atmosphere due

to chemical reactions. These stagnation events can last from days to weeks, sandwiched between weather fronts that clean out the Valley. --o0o--

REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: In addressing the PM2.5 challenge, one of the first steps is to look at the chemical makeup of PM2.5 on exceedance days. PM2.5 is made up of many constituents that can be emitted directly or formed through chemical reactions of precursor emissions, such as oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia.

Examining the chemical composition provide an understanding of contributing sources, as well as being a key input to the regulatory process.

Four sites in the Valley collect this information. Two are funded by the EPA. ARB funds two additional sites to provide better spacial coverage.

The pie charts show average composition for days that exceed the standard in both Bakersfield and Fresno. Ammonium nitrate is the largest contributor at both sites, followed by organic carbon. Together, these two constituents comprise 85 to 90 percent of the PM2.5 mass. --o0o--

California Reporting, LLC 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER

KADUWELA: Oxides of nitrogen, or NOx, emitted from combustion sources, such as automobiles and industrial sources, undergo oxidation in the atmosphere to form nitric acid. This nitric acid then reacts with ammonium nitrate.Due to its photochemical formation, ammonium nitrate concentrations are regional in nature. A number of scientific studies have confirmed that reducing NOx is the most effective way to reduce ammonium nitrate in the Valley. Since 2002, there has been a significant reduction in NOx emissions in the Valley. And as a result, wintertime ammonium nitrate concentrations have decreased by approximately 40 percent. --o0o-- REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: Organic carbon can be either directly emitted, which we call primary, or can be formed in the atmosphere due to chemical reactions, which we call secondary.

Primary organic carbon is dominant in the winter, with the highest concentrations in urban areas due to wood burning, cooking, and mobile sources.

Secondary organic carbon formation is not significant during winter months.

California Reporting, LLC 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Since 2002, winter organic carbon concentrations

have decreased by approximately 50 percent due to ongoing mobile source reductions, as well as wood burning curtailments. --o0o--

REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: To understand the complex interactions that occur in the atmosphere, we use photochemical models. California has an internationally recognized photochemical modeling program, combining the expertise of the University of California with ARB scientists and modelers.

The results we obtain by using state-of-the-science models help us identify the most effective mix of pollutants to control and to establish attainment targets. These models are used to predict the relative changes in PM2.5 concentrations. Then in combination with measure data to develop precursor-specific emission targets to achieve attainment. The air quality and weather models used during the SIP development processes are EPA approved. --o0o-- REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: The figure on the left shows several modeling regions, or domains, used by the ARB as part of the regulatory process. Their spacial coverage range from

California Reporting, LLC 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25several states down to an area focused on the San Joaquin

Valley. We used the small black domain in the middle of the figure for this plan.

The modeling domain consists of a large number of grid cells arranged both horizontally and vertically. The top of our modeling domains reach the stratosphere.

As I mentioned before, we use the state-of-the-science weather model to predict weather variables for every grid cell every few seconds for an entire year. We also predict all components of PM2.5 for every grid cell every few seconds for a year. We then conduct a model performance evaluation to answer the question: Does the model reasonably predict the observe nature of the PM2.5 problem? The results of the model performance evaluation for this SIP show that the model is meeting EPA performance criteria. --o0o-- REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: Once the model meets its performance goals, it is the best tool available to assess the effectiveness of controlling each precursor. We have conducted sensitivity simulations the assess the effectiveness of all possible PM2.5 precursors. This assessment includes not only current work, but the knowledge gained through our previous modeling studies. Thus, the emission control

California Reporting, LLC 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25approach presented in this plan is based upon a

comprehensive assessment of all the available science. --o0o-- REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: This table summarizes the results of precursors sensitivity modeling conducted as part of the 24-hour SIP development. The table liststhe precursors in the first column, the amount of PM reduced as a result of the modeled 25 percent reduction in each precursor in the second column, and the reduction in PM2.5 per ton of emission reductions in the third column.

Note in the second column that primary PM2.5 is the most effective precursor to control, then NOx, and so forth down the column.

Note in the third column that the per-ton effectiveness in reducing PM2.5 can differ by orders of magnitude for different precursors. Ammonia reductions on a per-ton basis are 40 times less effective than primary PM2.5 controls and ten times less effective than NOx controls, while SOX controls have the same effectiveness as NOx controls on a per ton basis, there's so little ammonium sulfate at the Bakersfield site that it is only a small contribution of the total PM2.5 mass. Control of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, can be slightly disbeneficial.

California Reporting, LLC 15

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--o0o-- REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: In summary, reductions indirect PM2.5 are the most beneficial. NOx controls also provide large benefits. Ammonia controls offer very small benefits, and VOC controls produce very small disbenefits. --o0o-- REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER KADUWELA: This plan is based on the best science available to us today. However, we continue to carry out new research efforts which build upon the existing knowledge base.

To improve the science, ARB funds several SIP relevant research projects each year. In addition, the agency funds three biennial international conferences at the University of California at Davis. The foci of these three conferences are: Atmospheric mechanisms, methodologies to model particulate matter, and weather modeling relevant to the complex terrain of California.

In addition, ARB participants in field studies to improve modeling databases. Listed here are the recent field studies we have participated in. The last one on the list named Discover AQ is taking place as we speak. --o0o-- REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MODELING SECTION MANAGER

California Reporting, LLC 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25KADUWELA: Discover AQ is a five-year effort funded by

NASA to improve the use of space-based atmospheric measurements to augment ground-based measurement networks. Discover AQ is being conducted in phases in different parts of the U.S. and the current deployment is in the San Joaquin Valley.

ARB and U.S. EPA, together with several universities, are major collaborators with NASA in the current campaign, which will be conducted using satellites, instrumented airplanes, and ground monitoring stations.

The finding of this study will continue to enhance and provide additional tools for understanding PM2.5 formation during the wintertime in the San Joaquin Valley. I will now turn the presentation over to Syliva Vanderspek.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Excuse me. Before you do that, because I think there is a logical break point here, if I may. And I made a mistake at the beginning. I guess I was so concerned about the fact we were starting a little bit late that I failed to introduce the member of the San Joaquin Valley Air District who sits on our Board, Dr. Sherriffs, and to ask him if he wanted to make any initial comments either about the science or about where

California Reporting, LLC 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25we are today, given the fact he's both a practicing

physician and does research in this part of the world.

So if you would care to add any additional thoughts at this point in the proceeding, this would be a good time to do it.

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Thank you. What an unexpected privilege.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Well, you can't get away with BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: First, I'd like to thank Mr. Scrivner for his presentation, because it is a very important reminder. I think we often think of Kern County and corner of Kern County as a big problem. And it's an important reminder that Kern County is -- yes, there are problems, but this is also very much part of the solution. And really appreciate your overview of what goes on here.

I think I would just preface what's been said by emphasizing the importance to health to our discussion here. Because clearly, the PM2.5 is the biggest negative health impact of what we're dealing with in terms of air quality. So this is very important work. It's very difficult work. But it's extremely important work.

And these are measured in real lives. You know, we're talking order of magnitude 600 excess deaths every year related to our current air quality, which is

California Reporting, LLC 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25considerably improved from the past. But we clearly have

a ways to go. It is millions of direct dollars in health care costs. And if we think about the indirect costs, losses to businesses in terms of lost work days and so on, losses to school districts in terms of absences of students so they're not getting funding for that, there are a number of studies looking at it from different angles that put the bill at one to two billion dollars annually. So these are big and important numbers.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks very much. I'm sorry if that put you on the spot unexpectedly, but I thought we could have backed up for just a second and done a little bit more introductory work.

So I think it's fair to say that it is exciting to be here to receive the kind of welcome and the kind of perspective that we had this morning also from the Supervisor. Because the last time that I attended an Air Resources Board meeting -- official meeting in San Bernardino was back when Jerry Brown was Governor the first time. Sorry, the last time I attended a meeting in Kern County. I don't know why I said San Bernardino. I was thinking about where I was a couple days ago.

But in Kern County, we were dealing with air impacts of steam injection in the oil fields. And it was

California Reporting, LLC 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a very contentious time. I was very happy to see Less

Clark when I walked in here this morning. Because we live in a different world now than we did back then. I think in those days there was a lot of questioning about whether there even was an air quality problem in this part of the world. That issue in and of itself was seriously under contention. So indeed, we have come a long way. Even though the challenges are big and real, there has been a huge amount of progress.

I'm sorry to interrupt the flow of your presentation, but Sylvia, I'm sure you can pick up there.

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: Thank you, Chairman Nichols.

Now that you have heard about the science of PM.5 formation in the San Joaquin Valley, I will describe the 24-hour PM2.5 SIP that you have before you today. --o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: In this portion of the presentation, I will discuss staff's recommendations for Board action and further elaborate on the nature of the Valley's PM2.5 problem.

Next, I will provide an overview of how the SIP demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour standard.

Finally, I will highlight other upcoming SIPs and ARB's coordinated planning process.

California Reporting, LLC 20

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--o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District adopted the 2012 PM2.5 SIP at their hearing last month. ARB and district staff worked for three years developing the various SIP elements which address the 35 microgram per meter cubed 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Much of the technical work as described by Dr. Kaduwela was prepared by ARB staff with input from Valley staff. ARB staff has reviewed this plan and found that it meets Federal Clean Air Act requirements. Therefore, we are recommending that the Board approve this plan as a revision to the SIP. --o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: Since the nature of episodic PM2.5 is complex, understanding what causes high PM levels is essential to evaluating the benefit of ongoing control programs, as well as formulating future attainment strategies. --o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: As you heard earlier, the air pollution problem in the San Joaquin Valley is one of the most intensively studied in the world. The mountains that surround three sides of the Valley serve to trap air pollution. Thus, in the winter, PM2.5 can build up over many days and in severe episodes

California Reporting, LLC 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25up to several weeks. During these PM2.5 episodes, the air is stagnant, the temperatures are cool, and humidity is high. PM2.5 levels can remain high until a storm disperses the pollutants. The intensity of PM2.5 episodes can vary year to year depending upon the frequency and duration of these adverse weather conditions. --o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: To illustrate the variability in episodes, the chart on this slide depicts the number of days over the 24-hour standard in each of the last twelve years at two key sites, Bakersfield and Fresno.

Understanding long-term trends in PM2.5 levels requires consideration of the interplay between emission reductions, impacts from natural events, and yearly variability in weather conditions. --o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: For example, the large wildfires that occurred in 2008 affected the number of exceedance days in that year, with 11 exceedance days due to the impacts at Fresno and ten at Bakersfield.

In addition, analysis of weather data shows that in 2000, 2002, 2007, and 2011, there were periods that

California Reporting, LLC 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25were especially conducive to PM2.5 formation over

multi-day episodes. These four years all show an increase in the number of exceedance days as compared to the prior year. To ensure that the SIP is health protective, 2007, a year with adverse weather conditions, was used in the plan. --o0o--

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: Comparing PM2.5 concentrations in years with similar weather provides greater insight into the effectiveness of the ongoing control program.

As noted in the last slide, four years, 2000, 2002, 2007, and 2011 stand out -- possibly should we go back to the last slide so they can see it. --o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: -- stand out as having weather conditions that resulted in long duration episodes.

Winter average PM2.5 concentrations for these four years are shown in the slide you would have seen for Bakersfield on the left and Fresno on the right. So at both sites under similar weather conditions, there has been a continuing decline in PM2.5 levels. This progress tracks concurrent reductions in NOx emissions from ARB's mobile source control program, as well as district control

California Reporting, LLC 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25efforts, especially the curtailment of residential

burning. --o0o--

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: The magnitude of the ongoing NOx reductions that are associated with the observed progress has been substantial, as illustrated in this chart depicting Valley NOx emission trends from 2000 to 2020.

Between 2000 and 2010, NOx emissions decreased approximately 45 percent, with a further 45 percent decline forecasted to occur by 2020.

In addition to district stationary source controls, these emissions reductions are due to actions this Board has taken related to diesel trucks, passenger cars, and off-road engines. --o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: As we have been discussing, weather can play a large role in short-term trends. The weather in 2011 was very conducive to producing high PM2.5 concentrations, especially in the month of December. This extensive episode carried through into the middle of the January of 2012.

The weather in the remaining part of 2012, however, was more moderate. Preliminary data shows that most PM2.5 design values will improve with the inclusion

California Reporting, LLC 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25of 2012 air quality data. --o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: The next portion of the presentation will discuss how the SIP demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. --o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: The 2012 PM2.5 SIP was adopted by the Valley Board on December 20, 2012. The SIP addresses the 35 micrograms per meter cubed 24-hour PM2.5 standard that EPA established in 2006.

The SIP shows that by 2017, approximately 90 percent of the Valley residents will be living in communities meeting this air quality standard. The remaining location, Bakersfield, is predicted to meet the standard by 2019. --o0o--

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: The Valley's attainment strategy is based on emission reductions that will be achieved from continuing implementation of ongoing control programs, as well as two new district measures. This strategy reflects a focus on two major components of PM2.5 during the winter, ammonium nitrate and organic carbon.

ARB's mobile source emission control program addresses NOx and diesel PM emissions, provides

California Reporting, LLC 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25significant benefits with a 50 percent reduction in NOx

emissions between 2007 and 2019. These programs, coupled with further enhancement of the district wood burning curtailment program, bring the entire Valley into attainment, with the exception of one location in Bakersfield.

Staff analysis of sources in the Bakersfield area identified certain commercial cooking operations as a significant uncontrolled source of directly emitted PM2.5. Inclusion of a district rule to further reduce emissions from commercial cooking provides the final increment of reductions to address the remaining localized area of non-attainment in Bakersfield.

Now I will briefly highlight the key elements of the strategy for attaining the standard, starting with the directly emitted PM2.5. --o0o--

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: Ammonium nitrate is the largest component of PM2.5, and ongoing NOx reductions have led to decreasing ammonium nitrate levels valley-wide. However, directly emitted organic carbon is also a significant contributor to winter PM2.5 episodes. Therefore, a key aspect of the attainment strategy addresses directly emitted PM2.5 sources. Major sources include ongoing reductions from diesel engines and

California Reporting, LLC 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25passenger vehicles and new district measures to further

reduce residential burning and commercial cooking emissions. --o0o--

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: The district's first new measure addresses direct PM2.5 from residential wood burning. Exposure to wood smoke is harmful, with studies showing that exposure increases hospitalization and emergency room visits for various respiratory illnesses and cardiovascular disease.

Progressive amendments strengthening the district's wood burning rule have provided significant community health benefits.

The Valley is, therefore, proposing to amend their current rule to further limit wood burning to prevent the buildup of PM2.5 that could lead to levels above the standard.

Strengthening this rule will also provide further protection for children, asthmatics, and other sensitive populations. In response to stakeholder concerns, the district has moved adoption of this measure forward to 2014. --o0o--

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: The final measure that brings the entire Valley into

California Reporting, LLC 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25attainment is reducing emissions from commercial cooking

operations. The district currently has a rule for commercial cooking operations that addresses chain driven commercial cooking devices. The district plans to amend the rule to also address under-fired grill type devices. The district has been partnering with the South Coast to advance technologies for this type of device. Given this need for additional technology development, rule adoption is planned for 2016. --o0o--

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: While many different precursors contribute to PM2.5 formation, EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule enables states to focus on the most effective control strategies by distinguishing among PM2.5 precursors on the basis of significant contribution to attainment.

The rule also establishes a presumption that PM2.5 NOx and SOX are significant precursors, while VOCs and ammonia are not. As Dr. Kaduwela described earlier, the latest science demonstrates that PM2.5 NOx and SOX are the appropriate significant precursors for this SIP. The annual PM2.5 SIP that EPA approved in 2011 also identified these as the only significant precursors. While ammonia has not been shown to be a significant precursor, the district has included an ammonia feasibility study and has

California Reporting, LLC 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25committed to pursue any feasible and cost effective

measure identified through this process. --o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: In addition to the attainment demonstration, the Clean Air Act also requires the SIP elements shown in this slide. This includes an accurate accounting of emissions in the 2007 base year, as well as forecasted emissions for future years. The SIP must also provide for steady progress in reducing emissions during the years leading to attainment.

Reasonably available control measures must also be adopted. EPA has interpreted this as measures that are technologically and economically feasible and, when considered in aggregate, would advance attainment by at least one year. While the district plan identified several rules that could be improved, including those for wood burning and cooking, no additional measures were identified that could advance attainment by a year or

more. Finally, contingency measures provide additional emission reductions in the event an area fails to achieve interim emission targets or attain the PM2.5 standard by its attainment date.

Staff has reviewed the SIP and finds that it meets these requirements.

California Reporting, LLC 29

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--o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: While you are considering the 24-hour PM2.5 SIP for the 2006 standard today, there are many other SIP efforts ongoing in the Valley. --o0o--

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: As this time line shows, California has adopted a number of SIPs for the San Joaquin Valley, with more to come as federal standards continue to be strengthened.

In 2011, EPA approved both the annual PM2.5 plan and the 8-hour ozone plan. On the horizon will be new SIPs related to the revised 8-hour ozone standard and the PM2.5 annual standard that EPA strengthened last month.

In addition, a new one-hour ozone SIP is required. Although the one-hour ozone standard has been revoked, EPA recently established a requirement that the San Joaquin Valley submit a new one-hour ozone attainment demonstration. This is intended to avoid backsliding on previous SIP obligations. --o0o--

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: To address these ongoing SIP needs, multi-pollutant planning will be important as we move forward. While there are multiple SIPs for ozone and PM2.5 with differing

California Reporting, LLC 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25attainment deadlines, common strategies are the core of

both attainment needs, with an ongoing focus on NOx reductions for both pollutants. We will also need to integrate our SIP planning efforts with the work being done for AB 32 and the freight planning efforts.

Finally, EPA is required under the Clean Air Act to conduct a periodic review of standards which typically result in new standards as the health science progresses. While this can be challenging from a planning perspective, California has the opportunity to be strategic in our efforts. ARB staff has committed to working with the San Joaquin Valley District to streamline the process where we can, while making the best use of the latest science. --o0o-- AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: In closing, ARB staff recommends that the Board approve the San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM2.5 plan as a revision to the California SIP and direct the Executive Officer to submit this plan to EPA.

This concludes the presentation. And we would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. We have a list of 13 witnesses who have signed up to speak on this item. Before we go to the witnesses, do any Board members have any questions?

California Reporting, LLC 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Yes, Dr. Balmes. BOARD MEMBER BALMES: So Ms. Vanderspek, if I go to slide 21, which is the year to year variability in PM2.5, in terms of number of days of exceedances, across the years --

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: Yes BOARD MEMBER BALMES: -- from 1999 to 2011, as a scientist, I have to look at data displays all the time. And if I tried to publish a graph like this to say there was a big effect across this time period, it would look like the effect was in the early part of the 2000 decade, because basically there hasn't been much change since 2003 on average in terms of number of exceedances.

I realize there is weather variability and forest fire, wild land fire responsible for 2008, for example. I don't know if that was the case for 2007 as well. But just like your comment to me, there doesn't look like there's been a lot of progress in terms of exceedances, days of exceedance since 2003.

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH MANAGER VANDERSPEK: Well, there has been a lot of progress in the early part. The more recent progress, if you look at it, there are many metrics to look at PM2.5. If you look at another metric such as how high the values get, what we have seen is a shift from higher values into lower values. And

California Reporting, LLC 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25still we do have a long ways -- we still have a long ways

to go. But we have seen progress in that aspect.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Do you have a slide or can you give us a number in terms of the peak values? Because I -- DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Actually, that was the slide that didn't show up, the key slide.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Oh, I see. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: So the point was while there is this variability shown on exceedance days, staff did a weather analysis and shows progress counting for weather in terms of concentrations.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Of course, that's average. We have the slide 22 that didn't display. So that's the average PM2.5. And I'm fully aware that's gone down. And I don't want to take away from the progress that's been made in that San Joaquin Valley.

But days of exceedances are perhaps particularly important in terms of health effects in terms of asthmatic kids and adults, for that matter. So that's -- we actually don't have a slide in thepacketin terms of how high the exceedance is.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Well, that is a good point. And another thing that is missing again, not to critique the presentation -- but I guess that's what I'm

California Reporting, LLC 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25going to do -- is it doesn't really map the progress

against measures that have actually been in place over this period of time or that are coming into effect.

So to the extent that mobile source controls are the most important aspect of this, which I believe they are, you know, where are we in terms of achieving the benefits of those measures that we've been adopting over the years, some of which we had to delay because of economic and other considerations that are only now coming into effect that would give us more of a sense of security that progress that we saw is going to pick up again. It would be very helpful I guess if we had a little bit more of that to look at as well.

AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH CHIEF MAGLIANO: This is Karen Magliano. I'm Chief of the Air Quality Data Branch.

One of the things we did look at was can we track trends in those speciation elements of PM2.5 as compared to declines in emissions. As you saw in the pie charts, ammonium nitrate is one of the biggest pieces of PM2.5.

And so we have looked at trends over time in the ammonium nitrate concentrations and how does that compare to both ambient NOx concentrations as well as the NOx emission inventory. And while we apologize we did not have that in the presentation, we did put together what is known as a weight of evidence document which looks at the

California Reporting, LLC 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25entirety of the air quality data. And as part of that, we

do see that there is a very strong correlation between ammonium nitrate concentrations coming down, ambient NOx, and NOx emissions as well.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Believe it or not, I read that document. I think it does overall show the tremendous progress that has been made with regard to reducing precursors for PM2.5 in the Valley over this period of time.

I was struck by slide 21 in terms of exceedances, which I realize are in part due to forces we can't control. But it's again --

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: People have to breathe on those days, too.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Exactly. AIR QUALITY DATA BRANCH CHIEF MAGLIANO: It certainly highlights the challenge the Valley faces.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: On that point, Dr. Balmes, really the point of that slide was to say that one of the decisions made in the planning process is to pick the base year for the analysis. So we purposefully selected 2007, which as you can see, is a year with a lot of exceedances to address that very issue that we are not assuming good weather in an attainment year. We are assuming bad weather in the attainment year.

California Reporting, LLC 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Well, with that,

unless there are other questions, we'll proceed to our list of witnesses. And I'll read a few names in advance just so people can be ready. Where do the speakers actually come? Oh, right here.

Okay. Beginning with Emily Schrepf and then Will Barrett and Gordon Nipp.

Is Emily Schrepf here? If not, then we'll go to Will Barrett. Good morning.

MR. BARRETT: Good morning, Chairman Nichols and members of the Board, staff.

I'm Will Barrett on behalf of the American Lung Association of California.

The Lung Association views this plan as an important opportunity to continue to address the difficult air quality challenges in the Valley that are among the most difficult in the nation. As we report each year in our state of the air report, this is a top priority and one that needs to be addressed quickly and efficiently.

We strongly supported the recent U.S. EPA efforts to strengthen the annual PM standard. We do know that work is being done and progress is being made, but there is much more work to be done.

And also along with my colleague at the Fresno Madera Medical Society, who is ill and not able to be here

California Reporting, LLC 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25today, we would like to say we encourage you to look for

any ways that could increase the near-term benefits of the plan by, for example, we appreciate the more stringent wood burning provision was moved up to earlier years to provide more near-term health benefits. We believe all of the measures should be evaluated for earlier implementation to further strengthen the plan.

For example, the commercial charbroiling rule could be developed earlier than proposed at this point to just begin to accrue more near-term health benefits.

One key element of the plan I wanted to highlight was the analysis of the health benefits that was included in the appendices. And that illustrates for the public the benefits in real terms of the plan and why we're striving so hard to clean up the air.

Some of the highlights of that assessment were avoiding the negative respiratory health impacts that included 600 premature deaths, 700 pediatric asthma emergency room visits, 115,000 asthma attacks, 125,000 lost work days that could be avoided if under attainment. And I think that any efforts that could be made to move forward quickly can really bring those tobearsooner.

So we do urge the Board to continue to evaluate all the health benefits of the air quality standards and new programs that are put in place to illustrate to the

California Reporting, LLC 37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25public the importance of what we're doing to support

cleaner air in California, and especially here in the Valley that provides more tangible benefits. It's an important aspect of building community support. And we want to see that continue.

We also do encourage the Board to continue to work with the Valley Air District and communities on, as noted in the presentation, multi-pollutant planning and investment that's laid out in the air district's vision document. That will ensure that ongoing attention as PM plans and ozone plans and climate plans are going forward that we can make sure we're hitting all our bases and improving air quality for everybody as efficiently as possible.

We do could support moving forward and we look forward to continued progress to enact the strongest near-term health benefits and emission reduction strategies possible to advance California's clean air leadership.

So with that, I thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. Mr. Nipp from the Sierra Club. MR. NIPP: Good morning. My name is Gordon Nipp. I'm the Vice Chair of the local Sierra Club Chapter. The Kern-Kaweah Chapter, with about 1400 members in mostly the

California Reporting, LLC 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25southern San Joaquin Valley. We've long been involved in air quality issues, particularly important for us since we have no choice but to breathe the polluted air. I think that the PM2.5 attainment plan goes neither far enough, nor fast enough towards cleaning our air. The plan could and should be strengthened.

For example, the indirect source rule only addresses about half of the air pollution associated with large new development and for that matter doesn't address greenhouse gas emissions at all. A number of developers have signed agreements with the air district to offset all of the air pollution associated with their project, all of the criteria pollutants associated with their project. And for that matter, some projects have signed private agreements to offset some of the greenhouse gases associated with their projects.

So it's feasible to strengthen ISR. And that's one of a number of steps that could and should be taken to speed up PM2.5 attainment.

The southern San Joaquin Valley fights it out annually with Los Angeles for the dirtiest air in the country. And for our health and our children's health, we who live here would much prefer to lose that distinction. I urge you to reject this plan in favor of swifter

California Reporting, LLC 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25compliance and stronger rules. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. We are going to be using the timer. We sort of forgot for the first couple of witnesses. But fortunately, you all were very succinct so I don't think it's a problem.

We're going to next hear from Marvin Dean and then Colby Morrow and Christopher Breedlove.

MR. DEAN: Okay. Thank you. My name is Marvin Dean. I'm here representing two organizations, the Kern Minority Contractor's Association, which is a small minority construction trade association. And the other is A. Philip Randolph, which is an environmental justice community-based non-profit organization that deal with clean air and healthy living issues.

Before I get into my remarks, I just want to give a little background. When the air district was first formed, as you know back in the Willie Brown days, that was very contentious whether or not you should have a nine-county Valley district, because every county wanted to have its own air district. The creation of that required a Hearing Board to be created in order to hear these violations of pollutant laws. I was appointed to serve on the first Hearing Board, and I served ten years.

California Reporting, LLC 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25I'm very familiar with this issue. And I'm currently serving on the Environmental Justice Task Force that the air district has created to deal with environmental justice communities.

I want to start by saying I'm very thankful for you guys to be here. That should be underscored. A lot of people may or may not know that Kern County and the air district is penalized by 29 million a year by the EPA because of the air quality issues in the Valley. And this 2.5 plan, a lot of people are concerned about the costs to implement and also what it's going to do for these environmental justice community to have to come into compliance. But we need to address the air issues. And we all have to breathe this stuff.

But I'd just like to say a couple things. I'm neutral on this plan. I think it's a good start. And I think by having this conversation, we can build on it.

And then I would just suggest that because one of the biggest problem is the diesel engines that pass through here, trucks that don't stop up and down this Valley. Some people laugh when I say this, but I'm one that think if we could put a toll road on 99 -- when I go in the Bay Area and these other cities, there's toll roads we have to pay. But we get a lot of people making impacts to the pollutants here not paying for the cost this Valley

California Reporting, LLC 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25has to pay for. And the other thing I would say is high speed rail. I just got back from Sacramento for the High Speed Rail meeting. That's why we need it, to get the cars off the road coming through the Valley.

The last thing I would say in closing is that whatever we do here, there oughtto be grant money and incentives to help these environmental justice communities and small businesses and residents going to have to come in with the impact of cost that everybody is going to have to share. That's what I want to close with.

And again, I want to thank you all for coming. And I'll do what I can. I have to leave. I have to be in L.A. and back for an environmental justice meeting at 5:00. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I hope you're driving a clean vehicle. Thanks, Mr. Dean. Colby Morrow.

MS. MORROW: Good morning, Chair Nichols, Board members.My name is Colby Morrow. I'm with Southern California Gas Company. Southern California Gas Company is one of the four investor-owned public utilities. And we provide natural gas service in portions of Kings -- Kern, Kings, Tulare, and Fresno County.

Attainment of air quality standards is very

California Reporting, LLC 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25important to So. Cal Gas for all of the communities in

which we provide service. We appreciate both the APCD staff and your staff for the incredible impressive effort that the plan is over 1100 pages. And I bet Dr. Balmes read them all.

Regardless, So. Cal Gas does support the control strategies in the plan.

While we're happy to see acknowledgement of emission reductions from energy efficiency measures, we note that natural gas is not acknowledged as a fuel option for the mobile sector. So. Cal Gas believes that natural gas is well positioned to be a major part of most paths for near zero and zero emission transportation options.

We also agree with the statements regarding goods movement made by San Joaquin Valley APCO Air Pollution Control Officer to his Board during their plan adoption hearing in December. These are: The San Joaquin Valley has unique issues addressing goods movement considering the long distances that goods need to be transported. Zero emission technology and/or electrification cannot meet all of the Valley's goods movement needs. And compressed natural gas and liquid natural gas, CNG/LNG have to be a bigger part of the solution in the Valley. We agree wholeheartedly with all those statements.

So. Cal Gas is discussing advanced natural gas

California Reporting, LLC 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25technologies with the Air Pollution Control District, with

South Coast Air Quality Management District, and with your staff. Recent mobile source analysis, like the vision for clean air, does not currently include available fuels such as natural gas that we believe is part of the clean energy solution.

So. Cal Gas is also studying how natural gas technology with make greater contributions to reducing both criteria and greenhouse gas emissions. As we move toward the future, So. Cal Gas would like to see adoption of regulations that do not mandate or prohibit energy uses, but instead establish performance or emissions standards that foster competition and fuel the investment and innovations that result in newer and cleaner energy technologies. Natural gas is a clean, abundant, low cost form of energy in use and available today. And So. Cal Gas wants to positively contribute to the solutions for improved air quality in our state. And I thank you very much for the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. And you just made your time limit.

Christopher Breedlove and then Sarah Sharpe and Kevin Hamilton.

MR. BREEDLOVE: Hello. Thank you for your

California Reporting, LLC 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25attention on this important measure today. My name is

Christopher Breedlove. I'm a pastor in Fresno. I reside in Fresno and represent a lot of families in my congregation and association of congregations that I associate with.

There is a concern with the measure here today that it needs to be stronger and needs to happen on a quicker timetable.

For example, it could be stronger in the sense that the implementation of no burn days for agriculture could occur on the same days as urban fireplaces. If I could use an analogy, if we were a patient, if we were in an emergency room and even though we've had improvements over the years somewhat measured, we would still be in critical care. The doctor would not release us from critical care. The impact of pollution in our air, the poor ambient air quality, adversely impacts the health of family members, for example, my family -- the majority of my family suffers from asthma. There is a financial impact on that.

While I feel like I have good insurance and I'm able to cover the medical treatment of my children, it's still costly. Even more families, more and more families do not have adequate health coverage and are adversely financially impacted by the results of poor air quality

California Reporting, LLC 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25that that places on the human body. So this measure needs to be strengthened. The mitigation doesn't go far enough. It needs to be on a quicker timetable. If we're in critical care, urgent measures need to occur quicker and faster.

Sometimes there's adverse reaction towards regulation. Sometimes there are reactions towards regulations being over-reaching and concerns about jobs and economy and finances.

What I think the concerted side of this argument fails to recognize is that good sensible regulation, strong regulation can actually spur innovation. And improving the quality of our air could help families that suffer financially because they're struggling to take care and to save their lives from the adverse impacts of negative air, poor ambient air quality.

Thank you for your time. And thank you for your consideration.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Sarah Sharpe, the Fresno Metro Ministry. MS. SHARPE: Good morning, Chair Nichols and Board members. It's nice to see you in our area.

I'm Sarah Sharpe, the Environmental Health Director for Fresno Metro Ministry. We are proud founding members of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition. I've

California Reporting, LLC 46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25been a Steering Committee Chair of this coalition for the

past few years. It was founded in 2003. Our coalition is a partnership -- we often call it CVAQC, just in case you might hear it called that.

Our partnership was founded in 2003, and we are a partnership of over 70 community, medical, public health, environmental, and environmental justice organizations that represent thousands of residents in the San Joaquin Valley.We are unified in our vision for a healthy, safe, and economically prosperous San Joaquin Valley where a chronic air pollution and epidemic sickness due to poor air quality is eliminated.

We're committed to improving the health of Californias by seeking full and vigorous enforcement of the Federal Clean Air Act, strengthening state law and district regulations relating to air quality and educating the public about the serious health impacts of our air pollution. And that is our mission statement. I just wanted to make sure you're familiar with us.

There will be eight others speaking after me that are part of this coalition. And actually, some of the speakers previous were also members.

So the plan before you today will determine health outcomes for more than six out of every ten Valley

California Reporting, LLC 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25residents. I just want to remind you that all of us

obviously, but especially the sensitive groups, we believe that between 60 and 72 percent of our Valley residents fit into the sensitive group from our understanding of the definition for air pollution. Meaning, they are at risk of harm every day that the air quality index is at the orange level or higher.

And as you know, fine particulates, or PM2.5, hang in our moist Valley air during the fall and winter. This week is especially -- it smells like dairies in Fresno -- in the city of Fresno, and everybody has been asking me why. I tried to explain to them the moisture in the air carries it.

These months are known by the Valley doctors as the heart attack season, which is one of the many severe outcomes caused by particulate pollution. But there are many other acute impacts, including strokes and asthma attacks. And we are now finding out from research that there are long-term damage, including genetic mutations to our DMA. I won't go into that too far.

As a coalition, we are primarily concerned with public health outcomes in our valley. We've been involved in rule making and plan development over the years, including the 2007 ozone SIP and the 2008 PM2.5 plan.

So today, my comments will be very general and

California Reporting, LLC 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25the following people will speak more to the specifics.

But we are very pleased to have been working and involved in the plan from the very beginning. We had facilitated meetings with U.S. EPA, your staff, and the Valley Air District staff. We were a little bit unhappy with some of the process because the deadlines kept getting pushed back and pushed back. It was hard to make comments in a timely manner and have time to prepare, understand what was happening. But in the long run -- and then there was also some proposed community forums that were supposed to happen by the Valley Air District that did not happen.

But aside from that, we thank you for coming here to visit us in our most polluted region. We will be asking you to reject the plan today and the people after me will explain why. We believe it could be stronger and a lot of the measures could be done sooner than they are proposed in the plan. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks for the overview. Next hear from Kevin Hamilton and then Brent Newell.MR. HAMILTON: I'm lucky I get the technical piece today. I've never read testimony before so excuse

me. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board. I'm Kevin Hamilton with Clinica Sierra Vista and Advocates

California Reporting, LLC 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25for Healthy Air. We are members of CVAQC. My reason for testifying today is to ask the Board to reject the plan the district has presented for approval this day and return it for them to modification. This is based on a recent DC circuit decision to reject EPA's interpretation of the regulation holding PM2.5 plans to the pre-1990 flexible state planning requirement known as Subpart 1 and order compliance with the more strict Subpart 4 standard. This makes the proposed plan incomplete and noncompliant.

The essential differences are Subpart 1 did not provide for different non-attainment classifications or tiers of control, while Subpart 4 creates two classifications, moderate or serious, and defined control tiers. Also, Subpart 1 allowed five years to meet the standard with up to a ten-year extension available for those who failed. Subpart 4 removes that extension and creates a six-year limit with an automaticbunk to serious non-attainment along with a much stricter compliance requirement for proposed controls. BACM instead of RACM, for instance, and serious non-attainment plans must include all precursors to PM2.5, NOx, SOx, ammonia, VOCs, unless EPA determines that sources of this particular precursor do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels

California Reporting, LLC 50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25that exceed the standard. Under the old subpart, districts could assume ammonia and VOC were not pollutants that need to be included.

The argument seems to be there is nothing more that can be done. So there's no need to consider earlier attainment. All stones have been overturned. We've heard this claim for many years. And yet, as Fresno County's environmental rep to the Community Advisory Committee of the Board, I can truthfully report that many meeting agendas in the last year were filled with rules that EPA had returned to the district for strengthening. In all cases, the district was able to accomplish the task.

Staff made this claim in both the last ozone and PM2.5 plans, and yet we are here with more rules built into the strategy. Commentors have provided a list of new stones, and our friends and our partners, to lift open burning, flares, ag, IC controls, ammonium, solid fuel burning, dah, dah, dah, charboiler controls, even though we believe that is unfair to shift the burden to the public to do the district's job in creating the new ideas.

Enough with the specious claims, "We have done all that is possible." EPA tightened the annual particle standard earlier this month and is certain to adopt significant new protections for ozone in the next year or

California Reporting, LLC 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25so. It's time to move away from planning that starts from

the assumption that nothing more can be done.

In closing, I would like to remark it's been my experience that strong successful organizations are led by those whose initial positions on projects required by statutes are that they can and will succeed. They do not present -- 30 seconds -- ten seconds -- fantastical scenarios asserting disastrous outcomes. Good planning requires starting with the complete picture of what is needed, a systematic review of strategies that might be possible, and the realistic impact through the lens of public health, and finally, a cohesive plan for implementation that produces success as a result.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Did you submit written testimony? Did you submit it in writing?

MR. HAMILTON: I didn't submit this in writing but I'm happy to?

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Good. I want to make sure our staff have looked at the legal arguments there. Brent Newell and then Caroline Farrell.

MR. NEWELL: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board.

My name is Brent Newell. I'm the Legal Director

California Reporting, LLC 52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25on the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment. The Center is also a founding member of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition. And I join my colleagues and ask that you do your duty to make this plan a lot better.

This plan is like a house that's built on a foundation of sand. It's crumbling. And I say that based on what Mr. Hamilton just said, that this plan was designed to comply with Subpart 1 of Part D, Title 1 of the Clean Air Act, when it should comply with Subpart 4, which has much more stringent provisions.

Under California law, California Health and Safety Code Section 41650, you have an obligation to adopt this plan if you make a finding it complies with the Clean Air Act. You also have authority the Legislature gave you that if the plan does not comply with the Clean Air Act, then you may directly make revisions to that plan.

Now, Mr. Hamilton said that, you know, directed you to the recent decision from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in Natural Resources Defense Council versus EPA number 08-1250 where the court unequivocally held that EPA's implementation of rule on which this plan is based was illegal.

EPA should have told jurisdictions like you to adopt plans that meet Subpart 4 instead of Subpart 1. The

California Reporting, LLC 53

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25differences are the stringency of the rules, under Subpart

4, the rules are supposed to make BACM, best available control measures. This plan meets RACM, reasonably available control measures -- or I should say purports to meet RACM.

There's different deadlines to attain. Under Subpart 4, this plan should meet the PM2.5 standards in five years. And you must make a demonstration that -- and meet certain requirements to get an extension. That hasn't been done.

The presumption on ammonium flips. Ammonia is required to be addressed -- required -- unless a demonstration is made that it does not contribute to PM2.5 levels. So what I'm saying to you is based on this decision from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, you cannot make the finding that you're required to make under Section 41652. What I'm respectfully asking you to do is instead exercise your authority to make revisions to the plan directly or send it back to the Air District to get it done right.

May I have a few moments to conclude? CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Yeah. MR. NEWELL: Thank you. It's long past time that the Board take air

California Reporting, LLC 54

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25quality planning very seriously. One of the staff members

referenced the one-hour plans that needed to be done and said EPA said you had to do them. The only reason EPA said you had to do them is because we sued them in court and made them tell you to redo the one-hour plans.

Given the health effects of PM 2.5, don't you think that you should do it once and do it right? Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

Caroline Farrell and then Gary Lasky and Betsy Reifsnider.

MS. FARRELL: Good morning, members of the Board. My name is Caroline Farrell. I'm the Executive Director of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment. I'm also a member of CVAQC.

I'm going to talk specifically about the flare rule 4311 indicating how it can be strengthened and should be strengthened. The rule is largely a reporting rule and reports have been submitted as of June 2012. It should be reviewed and an inventory should be updated given the number of fracking projects in the southern Valley that have emerged over the last few years. It's especially important because the rule is based on the assumption that flares are normally used to dispose of low volume continuous emissions, but are also designed to handle sort

California Reporting, LLC 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25of a large quantities of waste associated with emergencies

that might occur.

Flare gas volumes can vary from a few cubic meters per hour during regular operations up to several thousand cubic meters per hour during major events. This is from the Air District's Appendix D on the plan.

Current -- current permitting of some of the fracking projects, particularly in north Shafter, indicate some of these assumptions may not be actually playing out. North Shafter oil field use a flare permit to burn up to three million cubic feet of gas daily in July, August, September, and October when a buyer stopped purchasing the gas. Neighboring residence complained of roaring flares over 20 feet high. That led to local air district complaints and the eventual move and creation of a partial barrier so you would obstructthe sound and view from the residents.

In addition, the flare rule that the district has adopted is not as stringent as other districts. In Santa Barbara, Rule 359 has a substantive component. So there is a target in the air district rule to minimize a flare minimization. But there is no target. It's a feasibility standard. So mitigate as feasible. In assignment a Barbara, they have an actual target volume should not exceed five percent of averaged monthly gas handled,

California Reporting, LLC 56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25produced, treated at source. So it seems like the rule could be strengthened to add a substantive reduction target. And that could accelerate attainment. That's particularly important in the South Valley where fracking is increasing as well as where we're going to come into attainment last in 2019. So I would indicate that that be an area of inquiry and strength limiting. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Gary Lasky. MR. LASKY: Good morning, members of the Board. My name is Gary Lasky. I'm live in Fresno. I'm the Vice Chair of the Sierra Club Tehipite Chapter. You've heard today from the Kern-Kiweah chapter, our cousins to the south. We're a four-county region from Fresno to Merced with 1900 members. And statewide, the Sierra Club has over a quarter million members.

We're here today -- I'm here today as a member of CVAQC as well to talk about the open burning Rule 4103, also known as agricultural burning. When I moved to this valley four years ago, I learned about the agricultural burning. Vineyards, for instance, grape vines which causes enormous hardship for people with asthma during the winter months. As the burning takes place early in the morning, the haze is low to the ground. And people with

California Reporting, LLC 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25asthma, like my partner, have a tremendous problem with

that. I was really delighted to hear about legislation that would end this practice. Only, there are many exemptions still being given. And my testimony today is to identify where this could be tightened up, the rule could be reviewed and tightened.

The exemptions and continued postponements of the open burning prohibitions are for citrus orchard removal, grape vineyard removal and operations of less than 20 acres. And these exemptions should be removed. For citrus orchard removal, there is no longer the excuse that biomass plants will turn away this material because biomass plants will accept it. And hundreds of trucks each day deliver biomass fuel to the valley from 150 miles

or more.Second, vineyard material currently is -- we're told that it's not economically feasible to send it to the biomass plants. But what they do is remove all stakes and wires before burning because it's profitable to recycle these stakes and wires. And clean grapevines are being burned today because the air district continues to justify this practice based on false economic assumptions.

Open burnings of pruning from almond from fields of 20 acres or less continues under the provably false

California Reporting, LLC 58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25justification that the set-up charge by custom shredding

operators is prohibited for small acreage. This is no longer true. Shredding businesses have proliferated and there is little difference in the cost per acre, whether they do five acres or 1,000 acres when they shred.

It's time to revisit this rule and enforce 100 percent of the prohibitions demanded by the California Health and Safety Code.

Finally, the smoke management system used to justify open burning needs to be better defined. There should be a strengthening of open burning rules along with any fireplace rule changes. This would be especially important for those seasons when open agriculture burning takes place and the fireplace rule is not applicable.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Ms. Reifsnider. And then Elizabeth Johasson and Valerie Gorospe.

MS. REIFSNIDER: Good morning. My name is Betsy Reifsnider. I'm the Environment Justice Director for Catholic Charities and the Stockton Deices. And we include the counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Toulumne, Calavaras, Alpine, and Mono. We also are a CVAQC member.

And I would just like to add to the comments that Mr. Nipp made earlier on the need to strengthen the

California Reporting, LLC 59

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25indirect source rule as part of the PM2.5 plan. The district is rightfully proud in this ground-breaking and one-of-a-kind regulation. The ISR is good, but it needs to be stronger.

As far back as December 2005 at a hearing of the San Joaquin Air District Governing Board, Parish leaders from the Stockton Deices spoke in favor of adopting the ISR. And in our written testimony, Catholic Charities said, "Although the proposed indirect source rule will only reduce NOx emissions by 20 percent, the draft establishes a valuable framework that could be enhanced over time." So even eight years ago, we felt that the ISR needed strengthening. And that time has come.

The San Joaquin Air District should strengthen the ISR to improve the connection between ISR fees that the district collects and the actual emission reductions achieved by a developer. At present, the fee structure does not offset emissions on a one-to-one basis and we think they should.

The district could make sure that mitigation measures actually take place. Development agreements, CEQA documentation, and other agreements should be in place before the air district actually approves the ISR with a developer for a proposed project. And the district could provide advanced consider options for projects that

California Reporting, LLC 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25go beyond minimum requirements. And I'd just like to end by saying that one of our parishes, St. Joachim in Lockford was subject to the ISR when it built a new parish hall. And despite fears of the pastor, it worked very well. And I commend the San Joaquin district staff for helping the parishioners through this process.

I believe it strengthened the ISR, can be an effective tool in reducing PM2 pollution again if it's strengthened. I thank you all.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Elizabeth Jonasson. MS. JONASSON: Good morning. My name is Elizabeth Jonasson. I'm the Valley representative for Coalition for Clean Air. We're a statewide nonprofit advocacy organization.

I share a lot of the concerns mentioned previously. I'd like to focus my comments on anther area of opportunity that is being missed. I have brought this up in forums and workshops and would really like to stress the need for fleet rules. We have often heard that pollution from mobile sources represents a big challenge for the Valley to expeditiously meet attainment. It is with much surprise there has been no effort to exercise the authority the district has over these source.

California Reporting, LLC 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Assuming a five-year extension to meeting the

standard is completely unwarranted, as there are multiple reductions that have been left off the table, including a suite of fleet rules.

So what do I mean by this? The Air District has the authority under the California Health and Safety Code Section 40919(a)(4) each district with serious air pollution shall include the following measures in its attainment plan: Measures to achieve the use of significant number of low emission motor vehicles by operators and motor vehicle fleets. I'm sure you're aware. South Coast has successfully defended this authority in court and is a perfectly viable legally defensible way of achieving mobile source emission reductions.

This authority applies to government owned, licensed, or subcontracted vehicles. It is not exclusive to refuse garbage trucks as has been mentioned before. South Coast has approved rules for street sweepers light, medium, and heavy-duty public vehicles, transit buses, airport ground access vehicles, and school buses, as well as refuse trucks. There are some examples, but others can be explored as well.

Another related area of missed opportunity in this plan is around alternative fueling infrastructure.

California Reporting, LLC 62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Both the vision for clean air and the South Coast SIP have

changed to include natural gas and renewable natural gas as a fuel that will be part of the future. So the San Joaquin Valley plan should do the same.

For various reasons, including the rising cost of other fuel compared to alternative sources, businesses and agencies are turning over their fleets. Not having the alternative fueling infrastructure in the Valley hinders the ability of these fleets to turn over to technology that are much cleaner.

I know this is of concern to members of the California Trucking Association, amongst others.

In sum, I respectfully ask this Board to send the plan back or change it so it does not assume a five-year deadline extension and can include some of the proposed changes now including the addition of fleet rules and add alternative infrastructure language in the plan. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks.

Valerie Gorospe and Seyed Sadredin and Hope Valdez.MS. GOROSPE: Good morning. My name is Valerie Gorospe. I work for the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment.

CRPE is a member of the Central Valley Air

California Reporting, LLC 63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Quality Coalition. We represent many people and families

here in the San Joaquin Valley.

First and foremost, other than my advocacy for environmental justice communities, I advocate for my daughter who was diagnosed with valley fever a year and a half ago and has had to take her medication daily for over a year.My daughter is now in the category of sensitive group. Her valley fever specialist told us we needed to pay attention and watch the particulate matter pollution, especially while under her treatment.

I've subscribed to the air district's RAN system, the notification system, and I have also got the air quality ap on my phone. The notifications that I receive via e-mail when I check this ap give me information from the local air monitors, which by the way, at 10:30 I got a notification if you're in a sensitive group, it's at a level three now for Bakersfield.

So I must ask is our air district's air pollution monitoring system really an effective warning system? The monitors in the San Joaquin Valley are placed at fixed sites. Pollution drifts with the air currents and concentrates change depending on sources that day and how far the monitor is from them. Not all monitors measure everything. Less than half the monitoring system measures

California Reporting, LLC 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25PM2.5, which we know is the most deadly form of pollution.

The one-hour family checks for every morning before my daughter goes to school, the type of pollution we plan for or plan our activities around.

This early warning system is basing its information on a spot that is ten, sometimes hundreds of miles away. For example, we live in Delano. Should I be looking at Bakersfield, Shafter or Visalia's air monitor? Many monitors in the network are based on old technology that require high maintenance. And I have seen that often it's been broken or off line.

We are staking our lives -- I would also like to address my work that I've done with the Bucket Brigade with Global Community Monitoring in Arvin with air sampling. And my thing is going off, but I have just have two small paragraphs, if I can do that.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. MR. GOROSPE: I've been a part of the air sampling for the Arvin Bucket Brigade. We collected samples, while inhaling odors of rot eggs, sewage, ammonia, rotting fruits, rotting trash, and rotting fish. These are odors during the sampling.

There were 15 VOC and sulfur air quality samples. The air samples detected up to six different chemicals, including hydrogen sulfide.

California Reporting, LLC 65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Three more sentences. Four of these were above at least one health-based standard. So we're staking our lives and health -- my daughter's health, my daughter's lungs, the lives and the health of our children on this information. The plan before you today is not an effective plan to clean our air. I'm opposed to the plan before you, and I'm asking for you to reject it. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks. BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Madam Chair, I'm right here. DeeDee.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Sorry. BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just have a suggestion to make. I think many of us are jotting down some of the concerns that have been raised. And I'm thinking maybe if the Air District could be speak at the end and be given a fair amount of time to kind of go through one by one, because I see there are quite a few others that are opposed to the plan.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Would that work for you? MR. SADREDIN: Would I get more than three minutes?CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Yeah. We're going to give you more than three minutes. You're not a public witness.

California Reporting, LLC 66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25You're a co-regulator, as they say. That's great. Let's hear from Hope Valdez and then Teresa Vidales and Mana Carrillo.

MS. VALDEZ: Good morning, Chairmember and other members.My English is not so good, so I apologize. So I will speak to you in Spanglish.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:You may speak to us in Spanish. I don't see where the translator is, though.

Would you mind? Do you mind if our Board member who speaks Spanish, Mr. De La Torre, translates for you? All right. That's acceptable.

MS. VALDEZ: Good morning. My name is Hope Valdez. I represent LUCA, CVAQC, La Firm. I'm here today because I'm against how the plan is being carried out.

First of all, I have to thank you for allowing me to be here today and allowing me to support my people.

I'm currently working with Summer Night Lights for a Better Health. We have assumed a group of 150 people and we're exercising outdoors. And many of them are complaining that they are not able to breathe properly. I'm also representing LUCA, United Latin Americans against Pollution. I would like you to please and in favor of all the Latin Americans I'm representing here today that you do a better job and make a bigger

California Reporting, LLC 67

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25effort for the health -- in favor of the health of those

who I represent.

The pain I feel is when I go out to offer my time to kids and I see that they are not able to breathe, that is not fair. It's not fair that some people are not doing their part as they should. Thank you very much. Have a great day.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. Do you want to stay down here just in case? We have a number of people coming up who may wish translation services. Okay.

Next would be Teresa Vidales. Or there she is. Great. MS. CARRILLO: Hello. Good day. Good day to everyone. My name is Mana Elena Carrillo. I represent a group, LUCAS. I've come from Fresno, California. The purpose I'm here today is I have a son. He has asthma, and to ask you to please do something to clean up the air as soon as possible so that my son can go out to play. And for my health also, due to the situation I am now, I would like to ask you to try to better the air and the environment for our own health.

That's all. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. The next would be I believe it's Gemo Perez.

California Reporting, LLC 68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25MS. PEREZ: Good morning, everyone. My name is

Gemo Perez. I represent Greenfield Walking Group. We're also members of CVAQC in Greenfield, Bakersfield.

I have a daughter that now is 19-year-old. When she was two months old, she was diagnosed with asthma in Riverside County, where we used to reside before.

The pediatrician gave her treatment. And after my daughter turned five years of age, she never had a problem again with her lungs. And we even thought she was completely healed up.

Ten years ago, we decided to move to Bakersfield, and that was when her asthma returned more aggressively. Since my daughter has had to be taken to the emergency room at the hospital, now besides the asthma, I also fear since my daughter's insurance has ended a year ago, last time we took her to the hospital to the emergency room, the cost for the services provided was around $1700. That's why every time my daughter has an asthma attack, I'm very frightened seeing her so sick. And just the fact thinking at the same time that having to call the ambulance, the cost of the hospital, and not being able to pay those bills, that is why I believe that this district plan is not enough to clean our air, nor enough to do it fast. Thank you very much.

California Reporting, LLC 69

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. And thank you to our translator. You're doing a terrific job. Really appreciate it.

Jose Chavez. MR. CHAVEZ: Good morning. My name is Jose Chavez. I live in Arvin City. I'm a member of the Committee for a Better Arvin and one of the groups that is part of CVAQC.

I would like to speak about three different topics. The plan is not enough to clean our air, nor enough to do it fast.

Number two, I'm concerned about the pollution, the air pollution, because my family and relatives, the consequences of this could be harsh. The illnesses that I'm currently suffering in my lungs specifically, my throat, I'm always sick. My cousin, a ten-year-old boy -- my nephew suffers from asthma. Therefore, he must always be taking medication.

I and my family used to live in Los Angeles. And it's a big difference in regards to pollution in Arvin, being a smaller city compared to Los Angeles. We've been gathering Bucket Brigade air samples in the community. And we've collected 13 samples already, from which five of those -- five of those samples contained risk of illness of the cardiovascular type and the respiratory system. In

California Reporting, LLC 70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25those five days, people are exposed to ending up at the

hospital for an indefinite time.

To conclude, I would respectfully request since we are the ones living in the community, we suffer and we suffer also the consequences. And we also need that you try to improve and have cleaner air. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chavez.Maria Gonzalvez. If you want to come down ahead of time, that would be head.

Next in line is Gustavo Aguirre and Mario Talavera.

MS. GONZALVEZ: Good morning. My name is Mario Talavera. I live in Arvin City.

Four years ago, I got the valley fever. And since then, I've been taking medication to the point that it has effected my liver.

Three doctors gave me the same opinion, which was each illness was due to the medication. Besides that, I got diabetes. So every day I go out for a walk and I walk about quarter of a mile, and then I have to stop. The thing is that the air to me feels very heavy. Therefore, I have to turn back home due to the fact I'm not able to breathe anymore.

So I respectfully request that when a decision is

California Reporting, LLC 71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25done or is made on regards to the quality of the air, that

you also keep in mind all of us who suffer from this illness. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Mr. Aguirre. MR. AGUIRRE: Good morning. My first comment would be -- and I appreciate your efforts of helping us, the Spanish-speaking language. But for us, the residents, our opportunity when you come here to our valley and our community is to share with you what we are -- what are the realities in our life. And I see that -- I don't think the translator -- but for us, I think it's very important to hear directly from people giving their testimony. That's not happen today. This is only the translator basically. I don't know if you are listening to the witness. Maybe next time just having an extra mike so we can deliver what we want to share with you.

In terms of what you are considering today, I only saw -- and I'm not an expert on these areas, but I tried to speak as a resident mainly. I don't see a lot of options consider in the plan. How about the industry? I don't think we have -- like everything consider. Like, we have a community recycling center, and the Board of Supervisors made a decision to close down that operation because it was regulation and many rules. And that is

California Reporting, LLC 72

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25still in operation. So you need to do something else with

industry.

It's good, the burning -- the wood burning and all of that. But how the industry? We get polluters. My nine-year-old daughter, she have asthma. And one time I was driving and she started having an asthma attack and she said, "Dad, I cannot breathe." What do I do? Do I get a speed ticket to get to the medicine or the hospital? Or what do you do?

And I was community organizer. I was visiting a family. And I saw three pieces of asthma medicine each one with a medicine, Deanna, Juan, Amberta. I asked the family, "How many kids do you have?" They said three.

I don't know if you came yesterday by plane, but if you came, I think you had opportunity to see how bad the air we have here in our valley. And I think it was mentioned already that we, the residence of the valley, are pay for not complying with some of the plans.

So I suggest that -- I cannot trust what is being done valley-wide to improve air, because we are paying for it. And I want -- expect -- my concern is, yes, we are going to have big growth here in the valley, but how can we assure that this Valley is a healthy valley, which for the people that are living here we will be able to

California Reporting, LLC 73

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25have a healthy quality of life, as well as those coming to

our area.

So I think you need to consider all the cumulative impact, not only one. What are the other contaminants that we are facing here? So I ask you to reject the proposed plan and consider it. And I know I'm not an expert, but I know there are opportunities to reduce the pollution because we are here and we see the polluters. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. Mr. Talavera. MR. TALAVERA: Good morning, Board of Directors. My name is Mario Talavera. I'm the President of LUCA. I live in the Fresno area.

I opposed to this plan of attainment, and this Board should vote to reject it. The plan is going at a pace as the one of a turtle. It does not go as far in regards to cleanness of our air. It is also not going as fast in regards to the demographic growth to the sources of pollution that are stationary and the mobile ones.

Once again, the people that live in the San Joaquin Valley are not being attended. The plan does not have protection, support. It does not leave a margin for error. The modeling of the air quality used in this plan does not offer any alternatives or means to obtain a

California Reporting, LLC 74

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25cleaner air faster. We, therefore, need actions with immediate results for the short term support and/or accommodations of other members of this coalition of air quality in the Central Valley.

I have four children. All of them have asthma, including myself. My home seems like a pharmacy from all the fact we have so much medicine. And it seems like a hospital, too. When it's not one who gets the asthma attack, it's a different one. So we have to give them a treatment. My 21-year-old son, when he was two years old, had a stroke. He's nine years old. He's been in that state for nine years. Who's not to say that because of this PM2.5 that comes in through the veins, the ones that are involved in such a thing know about it. Maybe that could be the cause.

My children tell me that at school they can't participate in recreational activities or in physical education class due to their asthma. They get agitated. And I'm saddened by it because I like sports a lot and I would like them to participate in sports. But the asthma prohibits them from doing so.

For this reason -- and not only for my family but all the residents in this valley, I ask you that you take action immediately because our San Joaquin Valley is

California Reporting, LLC 75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25growing old, is getting sick. And if we do not do

something about it, it's going to die. Not the valley, but did residents.

Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Next we have Eloisa Fernandez.

MS. FERNANDEZ: Good morning to everyone in the EPA. My name is Eloisa Fernandez. I live in Shafter, community of Shafter. I would like to request respectfully that you please make a good decision for the air that is very polluted.

I have grandchildren who are sick with asthma. My health is also not that well. I also suffer from asthma. The doctor tells us that it's because of the pollution in the air. I would like to ask you, you that have the power and have a voice, to make the proper decisions to see if the quality of the air can change. I expect from you to take a good decision.

I used to live in San Jose, California. I've moved down here due to the fact of the accessibility of the house -- of the homes. They are cheaper here. But the health of my family and I has gotten worse due to the pollution in the air. The areas here are not that well. They're really bad.

Thank you very much and I wish you all a great

California Reporting, LLC 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25day. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Mr. Fernandez.

Gustavo Fernandez.

MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, all, members of the Committee.

Just a simple request. I've come from the Shafter community. I see that everyone, the public and I, are focused on the same thing, which is cleaning up the pollution in the air.

I know that cleaning this is not -- cannot do this from one day to another. With all the members from the Board here, from the cabinet from Governor Brown and request to them that each of them do their job due to the needs of the entire Kern County. In order that in the future we have a cleaner air for all our grandchildren, the next generation, and for everyone. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for coming. Rodrigo Romo.

MR. ROMO: Good morning. I speak English, but I'd rather do it in Spanish. My name is Rodrigo Romo, member of the Community for a Better Shafter.

The reason why I'm here is very clear. Just like all the people here gathered today, I believe that we share the same purposes, the improvement of our environment, and I address you that have the authority and

California Reporting, LLC 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25the power in hand. I would like to ask you, how many of you have a loved one or a child with asthma? Personally, I have two who suffer from asthma. And I'm surprised to know that each day the pollution increases in this valley. I believe that everyone who has gathered here today is fighting for the same cause, but we cannot do it alone. We need your support and your help. We would like our children to grow healthy and to not depend from an apparatus to be able to breathe when they exercise or practice a sport.

On my behalf, I still cannot thank you because I do not know if you take into consideration what I say. Because there is a difference between listening and paying attention to the problem. Maybe a few days go by and you forget. But I would like that when it comes time to make a decision, you think back of -- you think in all the communities that are gathered here today asking for your help to save our valley.

Thank you for listening to me. Enjoy your stay in the city. And before you go back to your homes that you take a deep breath, take a deep breath of this polluted air, and that you take with yourselves a little bit of what our children breathe every day.

Thank you very much.

California Reporting, LLC 78

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Mr. Valencia. MR. VALENCIA: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come here today and share how we feel and to share our feeling that is caused by this polluted air that we have here in this Valley.

My name is Refugio Valencia. I've lived in Bakersfield for the last four years. I work for the organization Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment. I work as a community organizer. And I represent the Tulare community, Wasco, Shafter, Arvin, and Greenfield here in Kern. What I've heard from all of them are comments regarding asthma, the allergies that are caused from the bad air.

And myself, just like them, after living in this valley for two years, I have serious allergy problems. And what aggravates my condition further is that my doctor is not going to cure me. The only thing he does is to suggest medication to minimize my illness.

Besides that, my wife also suffers from severe allergy problems. One of my sister also suffers from asthma. And I feel desperate when I see them having their attacks, especially because she's my youngest sister.

But coming back to the PM2.5 topic, it's very sad that each time that we have the opportunity to come and we listen to thousands of people with the same testimonies

California Reporting, LLC 79

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25and as other partners of mine came to speak, I'm also

going to ask you if besides that plan that you may adopt to improve the air quality that you also improve the many other types of pollutants that exist in the air and that they might be minimized. Because it's not just about the residues from diesel and other particles that dairies are producing and the wood burning, because we've known that there's a law which prohibits wood burning.

And more of -- even there are more than three of us who are here, we've seen, have right next to the 99 freeway. A lot of almond have been taken down and have been burned. All around the city you notice when the chimneys are on. And do we know why these people are doing this? Or is it that they do not know that this law exists? So these little things that and some of the report that we have, that's how we know that this plan will not reduce the pollution. Therefore, I request that you reject this plan and you revise and you check who drafted this plan so that you can present to them a plan that does guarantee that the air quality will improve, despite that the ones that we are already ill from the quality of the air will not get our health back.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.

California Reporting, LLC 80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Byanka Santoyo. MS. SANTOYO: Good morning, members of the Board. I'm here to get all your full attention.

My name is Byanka Santoyo. I'm a resident from Arvin. I'm also a member of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition. I'm here to oppose this plan and the Board should vote to reject it.

Residents of the San Joaquin Valley air are being neglected of clean air. The Kern County and the Arvin residents are being bombarded by chemical exposure on a daily basis. Many of the violations of organic compounds, diesel, ozone, and particulate matter is creating our unhealthy air pollution for our vulnerable population like children, pregnant women, seniors, and those with already compromised immune systems.

I've been active with the Kern County and the Arvin Bucket Brigade collecting air samples in our community. The average levels of our sample particulate matter have exceeded the World Health Organization standards. Two of these samples have exceeded the EPA and the world health organization in the 24-hour standard period.Monitoring the ozone during the summer, I discover many days the Arvin monitor was shut down on those days that would have red high levels. As you

California Reporting, LLC 81

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25recently heard, our Arvin monitor was relocated to the

Sunset school, and it's about a mile away from Arvin. But we still are having the un-red monitor days.

Coordinating with the community global monitoring and the CRPE and the CBA, we have an ozone monitor installed within the city limits to compare the ozone readings from the San Joaquin Valley air, and we're seeing a great difference between both of them. Their readings are way off. And we do have record of those.

Many years in Arvin have been ranked by the American Lung Association as a top city of the nation with highest concentration of a short-term fine particulate matter pollution. Living in a high contaminated city has affected my family and their health. My brother suffers from chronic allergies and asthma and has days where he cannot go outside and play his sports.

Being a resident, I ask of you to reject this plan. Vote no. Direct your staff to come back with the stronger rules and shorter timetables for putting these rules in action.

And I also have a letter of one of the members that couldn't make it, but he is all for it. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Please give it to the clerk. Thank you. The lady over here.

Okay. Manual Cunha from the Nisei Farmers League

California Reporting, LLC 82

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25and then Dennis Fox and Mike Wells. MR. CUNHA: Good morning, Chairman Mary Nichols. Again, I want to thank the Board, Chairman Nichols, and Board members, staff, San Joaquin Valley staff, and the research staff of ARB. You've done a great job in working with the Policy Committee and others on doing the right research. So we thank you for that and all the hard work.

I'm a little bit disappointed in that agriculture was brought up several about with agricultural burning. And the information that was given by the individual was not correct in the amount of exemptions, et cetera, et cetera. In the San Joaquin Valley has the only burn rule of the state that was done by Mr. Dean Florez. And we are less than nine percent. The greatest amount of emissions from smoke is from prescribed burns and forest fires. Okay. And fires that occur at night from buildings, et cetera, et cetera, and structures. Just like last night we had a massive fire in Fresno on a wood structure.

I'm a little bit disappointed that agriculture seems to be the one to go out, and especially when people stay our facts were false when the economic study was done, it was done with USDA, CDFA, your staff, the San Joaquin Valley staff and even tied with U.C. Davis on the

California Reporting, LLC 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25impact of cost of dealing with grape stakes, or grape

vines. Excuse me. And removal of the steal, et cetera. So I am a little disappointed that people don't have their facts together. And the agriculture industry has been a part of technology to deal with what we call a burn box. That was future technology of dealing with small amounts of agricultural burn in a self-burning situation, and that technology is going forward.

But to say that a thousand acre grower is the same as a five acre grower with a chipper, absolutely false. Absolutely a lie. And I'm not going to go any further in that.

But I'm irritated because we've done a lot in agriculture. I replaced over 4,000 diesel pumps with electrification through a program called Ag Ice, a tremendous program. The agriculture industry right now has replaced 2,000 tractors way ahead of a tractor rule, reduced ten tons of NOx ahead of your SIP requirement that was submitted in '07 for an '08 that was to be ten tons done by 2017.

As of December 12th of 2012, we've reduced ten tons. Way in advance. Agriculture is out there doing its part to clean up the air. But also provide an economic means to have food grown in this valley and in this state.

If people don't want that, that's fine. We can

California Reporting, LLC 84

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25certainly move our agriculture to China and other

counties, and you can get that food here. No problem.

But the ag industry has tried very, very hard from the dairy side, the tree production side to work with your staff, with EPA to do the most modern technology available.

The last thing I will say, we will be working with James Goldstene, Eric White on your truck rule. Because I think when we sit down and sit with your staff on the truck rule, you're going to find that your truck rule had several problems with the manufacturers of filters. And we will be working with your staff to make sure that that issue is resolved and your staff has made a commitment to work with us. But I think we've found out that technology that people rushed on trucks was a failure.But Madam Chair, we support this very much from the ag side. And we are continually working to clean up the air as agriculture. We all believe it's important. And your staff have been great to work with us and so have you. And thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for being here and for your work over a very long time on these issues.

Okay. Dennis Fox and then Mike Wells, and that is the end of my list.

California Reporting, LLC 85

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25MR. FOX: Hi. You might remember me from CALFED.

I'm Dennis Fox, Chairman members. And I'd like to bring up three vectors that have not been mentioned.

First one is rail. Our COG has noticed it's very, very short-sighted to be scrapping the rail. And it's more efficient, more cost effective, and we can move our commodities to foreign countries and help our balance of payments with rail than we would with trucks. And it also would be most beneficial to our air.

Second one, smoke. And I bring this up to you is because I'm with the -- before I get into -- I'm with the Asthma Coalition -- I do qualify -- of Kern County. The smoke is from the National Park. Mr. Sadredin says they are the biggest violator of air quality in our area. This year, you notice they did Lassen with smoke. They started off with Yellowstone, smoked up five states, and suppression was taken from them and given to the Forest Service to put the thing out. They did, like, to burn up national lands. The NPS, National Park Service, does vistas, not cause/effect relationships. Oh, fire natural, the more the fire, the more the natural. That does not work in the summer. Fires are not natural in the summer when they are having their burns. They do not.

It's a two-for. One, the taxpayers are paying their fines. Second, is we get that twelve dollars

California Reporting, LLC 86

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25assessment on our vehicle registration. So what we need

is an injunction by you on the federal government. Not easy. But it would put the responsibility back to the managers. Perhaps when they break the injunction and get confined for a couple weeks with Bubba, very lonely Bubba, maybe they will get the message.

The third, the BLM. They're getting to be a park. They lost a motorcycle park up by Coalinga. They're driving through asbestos, not too healthy. So they're going to move it down to Taft where they mine kitty litter. No more asbestos. Now you get cellucosis (phonetic) But that area is also ripe with 2.5 fungus Valley Fever. So people will come down and get Valley Fever here, go back to elsewhere in California where it's not, and the doctors are going to have fun trying to figure out what it is.

Thank you. BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Madam Chair, we've had a number of comments about asthma. I was wondering if Dennis Fox is speaking officially for the Kern Asthma Coalition. Is this an official --

MR. FOX: It's about as official as you get. We've taken it up. Some of them are irate and some of the people are prohibited from their work from speaking to you.

California Reporting, LLC 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: So there is no official

position of the Asthma Coalition?

MR. FOX: Yeah. It's more or less official. We're going up to RAMP with our comments and then let the RAMP, which is the regional will carry on with you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. MR. FOX: Does that answer it? CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Yes. MR. FOX: Any other questions? CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:No. Thank you. MR. FOX: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Mr. Wells. MR. WELLS: Good morning. My name is Mike Wells. I work at Fresno Metro Ministry, which is a multi-faith community benefit organization in Fresno, California. On behalf of the diverse and robust faith community in Fresno, we advocate alongside and on behalf of the vulnerable population, which is -- depending on how you measure that, it could be more than half even of the population in Fresno and a lot of the valley. And we're also a member of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition. And we are here to encourage you to adopt a PM2.5 SIP that is even stronger than the one that's been put forward today. And I want to speak briefly specifically about the char-broil rule, which is part of this SIP.

California Reporting, LLC 88

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25The draft plan currently recommends amending Rule

4692 to include controls on the under fire char-broilers in the year 2016 and implement a new rule in 2017. And we would encourage you to adopt a rule and a plan that doesn't wait that long. In the Bay Area Air District, they already have a rule that is already in place using cost-effective technology that helps to control the emissions from the char-broilers.

I remember a couple years ago Dr. Foreman who sits with Dr. Sheriff on our Local Air Board mentioned that of all the different kinds of PM2.5, the ones that come out of these char-broilers are particularly harmful for our health. And so it's one that we would just urge you to adopt a rule that would require us to act more quickly and not wait four years, but to implement the same kind of rule that the Bay Area has immediately. And then if four or five years from now there's something even better, to go ahead and implement that, too.

And we're very well aware that doing this might increase the price that we paid for our delicious char-broiled food, but that's something that we're willing to accept, especially because of the cost savings in health care, both out of our personal pockets and the public costs that are incurred because of, as Dr. Foreman mentioned, the particularly harmful emissions from the

California Reporting, LLC 89

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25char-broilers. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you for coming and spending the time with us. Obviously, this is an issue of great importance. And we appreciate the time and effort that so many people have made to come and share your thoughts with us.

That concludes the public witnesses, but we wanted to hear now from the Air District whose plan it is that we're actually considering here today.

So Seyed, you've heard a lot of different concerns. We may raise some if you forget to answer any of them. But please, go ahead and share your views.

MR. SADREDIN: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Board. I'd like to join everyone here and welcome you to the Valley. It's an honor and pleasure to have you here. First of all, I want to thank your staff for really working with the district, both in their work as a partner in putting this plan together to the extent the mobile source emission make up the bulk of the emissions, and we have to rely on many of the strong control measures that your Board has adopted.

And also I think I want to thank them for being a strong in their role as oversight. I say I think I want to thank them because they were tough on us. They held

California Reporting, LLC 90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25our feet to the fire to make sure this plan that is before

you is the strongest plan possible and will ensure attaining the standard as expeditiously as possible. They did that in a polite fashion, although they broke our arms here and there a couple times. Thank you very much for your work.

You do have world class staff when it comes to modeling. There is no other agency, no other staffing complement in the nation that has greater expertise when it comes to the scientific research and the modeling expertise that are involved and put in a plan like this together in an area that has a lot of difficult challenges.

I wanted to briefly mention what our Board did with respect to the fireplace rule. Your staff did mention that the Board did decide to have that rule go into effect three years sooner than what this plan calls for. And that was done under a local initiative that we have started in San Joaquin Valley which relies on a risk-based or health-based approach to dealing with air quality.The plan that is before you essentially relies on a mass-based strategy where you reduce emissions to reduce the standard at the end of the day.

With the fireplace rule, there is no way the

California Reporting, LLC 91

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25valley can come into attainment without the fireplace

rule. But adopting the fireplace rule early will not expedite attainment because before it really has any impact on the attainment, we need all the major NOx reductions from your rules on mobile sources as well as the stationary sources to bring us to a point where the last mile essentially will be delivered by the fireplace rule. But our Board consistent, with our risk-based strategy, decided to do that sooner because purely from a health perspective for prioritizing health benefits, the Board realizes the significant health impact that comes from wood smoke, the carbon emissions, the toxic emissions right in your neighborhood at the worst time of the year. So although they will not expedite attainment any time sooner, the Board decided to do that rule three years earlier than what is called for in the plan.

And finally, I wanted to share with you some frustration that was expressed by our Board when they adopted this plan with regard to the Clean Air Act. We fully support the Clean Air Act, and we think it has led to significant improvement nationwide and in San Joaquin Valley in terms of air quality and quality of life for Valley residents.

But for those of us like South Coast and San

California Reporting, LLC 92

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Joaquin that have mature programs, we believe some of the

well-intentioned provisions in the ag, which in some cases were put in place in vacuum without having the real experiences of it, are leading to some unintended consequences that lead to some confusion by the businesses. A lot of redundancy. And we have the legislative work ahead of us to see what we can do to do some fine-tuning here and there.

But given the current disfunction in Washington, that is going to be a long-term effort. We're hoping to work with your staff. I've been talking to Lynn Terry and others on your staff to see what we can do to harmonize some of the multiple standards. We're going to have eight SIPs shortly with different time lines, although for different pollutants, both for PM and ozone and different averaging times. They really go after the same sources, same pollutants. And we need to find a way to harmonize the process. And your staff has indicated they would be willing to work with us in that regard.

Let me go to some of the issues that have been raised here. And I'd like to start with the excellent question that Dr. Balmes asked at the outset and give you some additional thoughts on that particular issue.

Now when the slide that you saw and when we talk in our plan about exceedance days, if you really don't pay

California Reporting, LLC 93

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25attention to what really exceedance means, people may feel

that the entire San Joaquin Valley has done many exceedance days. I'm sure you know, but for the benefit of the audience, when we talk about the number of exceedance days, we're talking about the worst location at the worst time of the year.

As you know, San Joaquin Valley is the largest air basin in the district, in the state; 25,000 square miles, eight counties. If you look county by county, there are many valley residents -- about 50 percent of the valley's population that has gone from having dozens of exceedances to zero today. They are already in compliance with the 30 microgram standard.

So I think a better reflection of what the improvement has been and that's something that we talked with your staff and are hoping to be able to present to you is if you could put together an exposure-based number of exceedances. If you look at how many members of the San Joaquin Valley, how many residents were exposed to the exceedances, you can see there is a huge decline in the number of population based. There are less people that are exposed to the population and the peaks are lower.

Just to answer your basic question though, there are a couple of things I want to point you to. First in the plan itself, Appendix A, page 38, if you look at the

California Reporting, LLC 94

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25chart that is there, it shows that we have gone

essentially from peak violation happened ten percent of the time to less than one percent of the time that we're exposed to the peaks.

In terms of the design value, which is really the peaks as defined by the Federal Clean Air Act, in Kern County, the design value has been reduced by 35 percent. And unfortunately, given our topography, geography, we need another 50 percent reduction, and are headed -- given the transport of air pollution externally and internally to the Valley, you know, the peaks are shown high resistance now to making improvements.

So 35 percent in Kern County and 55 percent in Tulare County in terms of the reductions and the number and the design value.

And just finally on that point, in terms of looking at just unhealthy and good days, in 2002, ten years ago, in the entire eight counties, if you added the number of unhealthy days, we had 156 days of unhealthy air quality. Last year, we only had 20. Total eight counties if you added the number of unhealthy days in every county, we've gone to 20.

So air quality today, if you look at -- take a comprehensive look at it, it's the best it's ever been in San Joaquin Valley thanks to your good work and your Board

California Reporting, LLC 95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25with the mobile source emissions and the business and the

investments that businesses have made in San Joaquin County have made to reduce air pollution. We still have a long ways to go. There is no mission accomplished flag here, and we have more to do with your help.

Just some of the comments or specific suggestions that were made. I took notes on some of them. If I missed any of them, please feel free to let me know and I'll try to answer.

First with respect to the ag burn rule, I thought we had corrected that misconception at our December hearing. What you heard was why don't you ban ag burning on the same days when you are banning fireplace. That is already the law. So adopting this plan will actually add further restrictions to open burning, agriculture burning as we increase the number of no-burn days for fireplaces, residential burn days, on those days, no farmer can burn.

It's also important to know that to the extent we have some minimal exceptions remaining in the rule right now -- which by the way even those things that are exempted cannot be burned on the no-burn fireplace rule. Burning is only allowed on days when meteorology indicates it will have no impact on air quality in terms of attainment or exceedances.

So we really need to understand that fully. Ag

California Reporting, LLC 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25burning right now has no impact on our attainment status

because it's pretty much near-zero burning that we allow. And then when we allow it, it's only on days when our basin can tolerate those emissions.

You heard some comments about indirect source review. I agree with my friend Betsy with Catholic Charities, we take pride in San Joaquin Valley for having the really only ISOR rule in the state.

I think part of the misunderstanding there when you hear that our IRS only deals with 50 percent of the emissions is really what we had to do to comply with the state law in that you cannot double count emissions. And the rule applies to both residential and commercial.

So if we told both of those sectors to reduce your emissions by 100 percent every trip, we would be double counting. So what we said is for the residents, you only pay for one trip, from where you go from the residents to the commercial. And then for the commercial, we say you pay for the return trip. At the end of the day, ISR rule actually covers 100 percent of the emissions that are tied to those activities. And then we do, as Gordon Nipp mentioned, we work with developers to go beyond what is permissible under the law through voluntary mitigation agreements that had been very successful.

Also under Prop 26 if you recall from a couple

California Reporting, LLC 97

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25years ago, at this point, although I don't want to concede

that entirely legally, it's very difficult to add ISR fees without a two-thirds vote of the public. Although we think there might be some door open for some of our friends in other air districts that might want to do ISR that you can make a case for mitigation fees. It's not entirely clear at this point that you can just add to the ISR fees. But it's been a very successful program and hopefully when the economy picks up and more construction, we will see more benefits from that.

Another specific comment was the flare rule, when they said we should look at the Santa Barbara flare rule, which is exactly what we did. Our district looked at every single rule. And the lady that made that comment and said that Santa Barbara have a specific exemption or a specific limit that you have to meet, whereas in San Joaquin it says do everything that's feasible, if you read the Santa Barbara rule more carefully, there is a provision that says, if the source can make a case they did not meet that standard, then they have a way out to meet that standard. So we looked at every single rule in the state. Our rule is as strong or stronger than any rule when it comes to flaring in the state.

And fleet rules were mentioned. As you may recall, South Coast a number of years ago adopted a fleet

California Reporting, LLC 98

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25rule. The court said you can only have it apply to public

sector. At the time, it did have some benefits. But thanks to your good work at the State Air Resources Board, today all those fleet rules are subject to your regulations. We get all those reductions. Also with the advancement of diesel technology today, that the latest tier diesel engines, their emissions, their NOx emissions are equal to natural gas. In some cases, even better. So there is really no benefit from a local rule that's simply would be overlapping your rule and also with the technology that exists.

Char-broiler rule was mentioned why don't we do it sooner. It was mentioned that Bay Area already has a rule. Bay Area already has a rule, but there's no one that is complying with it right now. It is a rule that only applies to new facilities. It does not apply to existing facilities. And no new facility has been built that actually has the technology.

The rule that we have we're hoping to adopt is actually technology forcing. Both South Coast and our district understand the technology for charbroiling does not exist right now. So we're hoping that by 2016, it will be available. Even though it is still questionable, we did put it in our plan. And hopefully I don't have to come back in 2016 and say the technology did not come

California Reporting, LLC 99

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25about. So the rule that you have before you in this plan

is actually technology forcing and pushing for something that does not exist right now.

And also, char-broiler rule right now will not expedite attainment. As I told you similar to fireplace rule, before the reductions that come from those rules that are critical to block us the last mile, attainment is not possible before all the NOx measures, the mobile source rules, the truck rule, off-road rule and everything is fully or to a great extent applied. And we can see those reductions that will bring us into attainment.

There was some comments about Subpart 1, the court ruling recently. Of course, EPA is still trying to figure out what the legal implications of that are. But in terms of the substance of what was in this rule, every rule that we have already in this package meets BACM requirement. EPA has already approved many of these rules, even in their older version before they were strengthened as BACM.

And we went well beyond what was required in Subpart 1 for looking at precursors. First of all, we have not let ammonia alone. The district already has a rule that reduced ammonia emissions by 100 tons per day. We have -- as you know under our ozone plan, we have a whole host of measures to reduce VOCs, even though for PM

California Reporting, LLC 100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25we're saying sometimes that's not very helpful. So we've

gone well beyond it. And we think we meet the Subpart 1 requirements anyway. But ultimately, we're going to have to see what the EPA rules are. And if they have to change their implementation rule, would they make any allowance for plans that have been adopted? Or would there be some sort of a provision to re-exam them to see if they meet all those requirements.

But ultimately, before they approve our plan, they have to make sure it meets the Subpart 1 requirement, and we believe it does.

And one philosophical comment that was made that every time we bring a plan to you we say we've left no stone unturned. How is it that we can come every few years and say -- I think that's what they should be expecting that we do and you do. Every time we bring a plan to you, we have left no stone unturned. As you can see in this plan as your Board has indicated always is our job is not done. We're going to continue digging more. We're spending million of dollars on technology advancement. Look at the vision document. If our work was done, there wouldn't be a need for a vision document. We say we've left no stone unturned, because that's true. But you also have to realize our job is never done, and we continue to work on it. And hopefully we can bring you

California Reporting, LLC 101

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25more measures as time goes on. Those are some of the comments that I had jotted down. If there are any that I missed, I would be happy to -- CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think there might be some questions from the Board. And maybe you can just stay with us as we have some further discussion.

Did anyone want to raise any questions right this minute? Yes, DeeDee.

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I had a question. Seyed, thanks for going through that list. You pretty much answered the questions that I had, except one. And that was a concern raised by Sarah Sharpe regarding the lack of workshops. So just wondering how many workshops you had. Did you make a commitment to do more and for whatever reason were not able to do. I'll wait for your comment and then maybe have a question.

MR. SADREDIN: I'm not sure what Sarah is talking about not meeting our commitment. I know there was some Expectations that maybe we'll do town hall meetings similar to what we did when you and Supervisor Case when we were doing the extreme, I think there was some expectation that we'll go up and down the valley and hold town hall meetings about this.

We didn't do that, but that was in the time line

California Reporting, LLC 102

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25we were talking about, it was not possible. We did dozens

of meetings, both public workshop meetings as well as individual meetings. We had like three meetings just with CVAQC members alone where we took their comments. I think it was a very extensive public process that both our agency as well as ARB did. And you can ask your staff about the workshop they did about the modeling concept or the modeling process.

So I think we left no stone unturned in terms of doing as many workshops as we could do. Just doing the town hall meetings was not possible.

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I would just make a comment on that. I think first of all, I have seen tremendous progress. As a resident living here in the valley and then also just working on this, you know, from the policy perspective, huge progress. And I think everyone deserves to be complimented, including those that are opposed to this plan because they're asking for more. They're not saying that the individual provisions aren't good at all. They're just asking for more.

And what I'm noticing here though is that, kind of comparing it to the ozone plan that we adopted a few years back where we had a lot of concerns from residents, the concerns seem to be more focused on the southern part of the Valley. And for good reason, because I can

California Reporting, LLC 103

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25understand how people must feel. As a parent, I was

really struck by one of the comments by one of the witnesses that whenever their children have an asthma attack and she has to think about an ambulance, she just gets worried about the cost. Parents shouldn't be worried about the cost. They should just be focused on their children.

But there is a cost, as Dr. Sheriffs said, in economic terms. So I'm just wondering maybe if more could be done. Assuming that even if we adopt this plan, if more could be done on outreach, getting out into the communities. Obviously, working with some of the associations that are represented here today, but then even going beyond out in the communities, in particular, in the southern part of the district. Because I do think that there has been a big change.

I know Manuel talked about all that's been done with the ag burning rule. But there seems to be a disconnect. Folks still think ag burning is allowed. And even though it is in certain circumstances, it is far limited from what it was years ago.

And then also the information that I think the air district can help to get out about all that you're doing in addition to the plan, like you were talking about the fireplace rule three years earlier. And then, of

California Reporting, LLC 104

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25course, all the incentive dollars, turning over the

equipment getting there before the regulatory deadlines. And I just think that that would be helpful. And I would be happy to help in any way I can as well. I'm sure staff would be willing to help out as well. Anything that we can do to help get the word out. So thank you.

MR. SADREDIN: Certainly. Definitely we'll do what we can. That's a difficult area to communicate in San Joaquin community. We have three media markets. It's a huge challenge, but a never-ending process that we can always improve upon.

BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Right. And the only other question I had, and not for Seyed, for Ellen about the Clean Air Act issue.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Why don't you ask that now and then other Board members may have additional points. CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: There was a question Mr. Newell brought up about the decision in the District of Columbia Court of Appeal. There was a decision. It was released on January 4th of this year. It was from a three-judge panel of the court. And it found that the more stringent sub-part of four regulations are required. So it rejected EPA's arguments in favor of the current status. And did say that the Subpart 4 did go into

California Reporting, LLC 105

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25effect.The relief that the court ordered was for EPA to

go back and re-promulgate new rules consistent with its decision. So in terms of how this effects us here today, one observation is the decision -- the court decision is not final. And I'm not privy to what EPA is going to do. But they have certain steps they can ask for reconsideration or petition to the Supreme Court. So it's not a final decision yet.

And second, the court directed EPA to go back and do these new rules. So there is none of those rules obviously apply to San Joaquin as we're sitting here today. So in terms of any legal barriers for you to act today, I don't see that there is any.

And also from the legal point of view, you can flip it around, and there is nothing also that precludes you from later going back. So a vote today doesn't lock you in forever. I'm sure you know that from previous situations the SIP revisions are very fluid.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Excuse me. Ellen, could you just clarify for a minute what the more stringent Subpart 4 versus the existing one would actually do that would be different? I mean, assuming that it were in effect today, what would we do that's different from --

California Reporting, LLC 106

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: Brent Newell outlined a

couple of pieces in terms of what the stringency is here. And perhaps you folks can jump in on this.

One thing I would like to say, Seyed said they are meeting Subpart 1. We cannot evaluate that right now. I can't address that situation. But --

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I understand. I wasn't asking for you --

CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: In terms of the difference between Part 4 and Part 1, there are some different things, if you give me a minute I can do it.

Or Lynn, do you know off the top of your head? DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I'll start and Karen can jump in.

I think the primary one that was discussed was there was a classification scheme moderate and then serious. And then there's reasonably available controls if you're moderate and best available. So this would bring into play best available. So we would have to jointly go back and consider whether if the Board were to adopt this plan, consider whether or not the rules that are part of it meet the BACM test.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And what Seyed said was that their rules had already been declared to have met, not just RACM, but BACM. If we can use these horrible

California Reporting, LLC 107

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25acronyms. MR. SADREDIN: The last slide that your staff had talked about all these various plans that have been together, which this plan essentially takes a lot of measures in those old plans, one of them PM10. PM10 was already subject to BACM. And even our previous versions of the rules have been strengthened in this plan, they have ruled those meet the BACM requirements.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I probably should not have even suggested that we get into further legal arguments here. I'm just trying to understand the point is that I think that our counsel is making that assuming this decision is valid and assuming it is upheld and goes into effect and so forth, the question is really what would we do differently today. And it sounds like the answer would be that once EPA goes through its rulemaking and all that, we might have to come back and do more.

I mean, that's conceivable that they would -- that we would be having additional holes that we had to fill. But that, to me, is exactly what happens continually with the Clean Air Act, just as you were saying, that it's an incremental process. Standards get tighter. Rules get tighter. But you keep on making progress ultimately towards the goal.

California Reporting, LLC 108

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Yes, Mayor. BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Mary, it would be helpful to me -- how soon will this come back again? It's not one time looking at the plan and it goes away forever. When does this --

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: This particular PM2.5 plan, once we approve it, gets sent onto EPA and then EPA holds ontoit for a while and --

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: They're acting much more expeditiously. We're encouraged.

BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: It's not the approval of it. The question is --

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:When would we see it again. BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: The idea you're continually working on it, when will it appear again?

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Good question. And if you -- that time line that we had in the staff presentation is an illustration of how that process works. So what happens is each individual SIP for a particular pollutant and a particular standard has to be submitted by a certain deadline. And that deadline was December 14th of 2012. So we feel we have a continuing obligation to get that to EPA based on the current implementation rule. And if the Board approves it, it would go forward. This particular SIP would be done.

California Reporting, LLC 109

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Now, we would immediately begin working on the

next SIP like we always do. And we could start working on an evaluation of whether the BACM requirement is already met or whether there is a technology advancement that might change the standard for BACM, but we would start that immediately. EPA would go back and do their implementation rule. They set the deadlines for submittal of the next SIP through a SIP call. And they haven't given us any indication of how much time we would have to do that. But certainly they give us at least a year. They did that with the one-hour ozone SIP call.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: The point being that the alternative, just hypothetically, of not approving a plan leaves them with no approved plan, which then means they can't be sued to make them implement the regulations that are in the approved plan or in any other way forced to do it, not that they would necessarily not. But it's kind of you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, right?

MR. NEWELL: I have a point of order. We could put up a footnote from the opinion that will explain what the differences are.

CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: There are two footnotes, and they're about this long and very legal of the court. But basically, it hits some of the points that both Brent brought up earlier and that Lynn was addressing, the

California Reporting, LLC 110

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25difference between BACM, RACM, the presumption for ammonia

and so forth. We can do that. I'm not sure it's going to be helpful.

I think your point is there is nothing that keeps the Board here from acting on this plan and also re-visiting it.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Well, I would be very interested in seeing the footnote. I don't want to see it put up on a slide. I'd like to actually read it on a piece of paper. I'd like to read the opinion, if that's possible. And maybe we may want to take a little bit of time to do that. But let's -- thank you. Appreciate that. We can do that.

MR. SADREDIN: Madam Chair, if I could just in response to Mayor Loveridge just add a couple other thoughts in addition to what your staff has already said.

First of all, EPA, nor the court, after this ruling came back and said, all right. Wait a minute. You don't have to submit your plan now the deadline in effect. We are essentially in the sanction phase as soon as EPA says no plan has been submitted. Both South Coast and San Joaquin would be -- under the current state of the law, failure to act would not meet the Clean Air Act.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That was my next question. You have a deadline to submit something.

California Reporting, LLC 111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25MR. SADREDIN: But in terms of what the Mayor

Loveridge asked how soon would this come to you. Aside from six months from now and the context of the one-hour ozone plan and all the other plans, but just this particular plan, I think the likely scenario is that if EPA does not appeal, they will do a rule that at the minimum will require us at some point to at least make a demonstration that we meet these requirements. And that could be a few months from now or more than a year, depending on how soon EPA acts.

I'm confident that we can meet all those requirements, although we're not asking your Board to make a finding upon that. Your staff cannot make a finding upon that.

I'm thinking, at minimum, a demonstration will be required. And if the demonstration has some gaps, that more needs to be done, then a plan has to be submitted back to you or EPA will reject it, send it back, and we have to come back with another plan for you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Well, okay. Thanks. I think I'm going to close this part of this discussion down. It's making it more confusing.

Yes, you had a different point, though. Completely different question. Yes, of course.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: They're more comments than

California Reporting, LLC 112

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25questions. First off, I mentioned before that I like data. And I actually collect data on health among residents of the San Joaquin Valley, particularly with regard to Fresno. But our group at U.C. Berkeley, collaborating with Stanford, is also starting to do work in the valley at large. Actually, the four most populous counties in the Valley, including Kern.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Is this a commercial? BOARD MEMBER BALMES: No, it's not. Madam Chair, actually, thanks for the joke, but I'm really being quite serious here. Because I want to validate the community members' concerns about air pollution exposures in the San Joaquin Valley.

First of all, I want to thank all the community members that came and spoke and took the time. I know it's easier for those of us in suits that have to be here as opposed to people who don't have suits who have a hard time missing work or missing their families to be here.

And the point I was starting to make about our research is I agree with the presentations because I know the data that air quality is better in the San Joaquin Valley than it used to be with regard to the criteria air pollutants. And that's what the Clean Air Act is all about.

California Reporting, LLC 113

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25But our recent findings, some of which aren't yet

published, but have been presented recently in Sacramento at the Cal/EPA building, suggest that a problem that we don't have a handle on yet is near-roadway traffic exposures, which isn't really regulated. We're doing a good job of trying to improve emissions -- try to reduce emissions from vehicles. But I just want to underscore how important that is, because even if we get regional PM2.5 to be in attainment with the EPA -- current EPA standard and it's going to be stricter in the future, as most of you know, we still won't have solved all the problems. So that was point one.

And with regard to an outcome that we've started to look at low birth -- well, excuse me -- pre-term birth. So premature births, there's quite an impressive relationship between exposures to criteria air pollutants throughout the valley and pre-term birth, specifically very early pre-term birth. And we have this crude multi-pollutant index where if you're in the top quartile, the highest 25 percent of exposure to the criteria air pollutants and you also throw in the highest quartile of traffic exposure based on traffic density near your home, then you have considerably greater risk of having a pre-term birth than if you live in a clean place without any exceedances -- excuse me. I shouldn't say

California Reporting, LLC 114

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25exceedances. But the lower three-quarters of the

population exposed to less pollution.

So I guess my point is, as a air pollution health effects researcher, the valley does, indeed, have a long way to go. And the people that are most impacted are people in low income minority communities. And our research also shows that.

We were enjoined by one member of the public that testified that not just to listen, but to act. And I think for the reasons that have just been discussed, we need to approve the current plan. Because not approving the plan doesn't gain us any benefit in terms of reducing pollution. And it will just bring down the wrath of federal EPA, which I don't think we necessarily want even the community health folks really don't want EPA to be stopping. I don't think they want stopping development in the Central Valley because Central Valley development involves jobs and transportation funds actually. So I think we should approve the plan, but I also think we should be trying to do more, especially in the near term.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Well, thank you for that. And I apologize if my attempt to inject humor was seen as undermining the issue.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: I can handle it. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I do want to say that your

California Reporting, LLC 115

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25point about the research again underscores the fact that

there is a difference between what we're doing here legally in terms of complying with the requirements of the Clean Air Act to come up with a plan to deal with a regional air pollutant which is based on these complex models and demonstrations that are based on numerical calculations over a particular monitoring station versus what people actually breathe on a day-to-day basis. And the research that you and your colleagues are doing has really helped educate many of us, even including me, about the fact that even meeting the air quality standards in and of itself doesn't guarantee that people in particular locations, especially those living along freeway corridors are being exposed to much worse pollution than the law necessarily wanted them to see. But that's just the way -- that's the way the standards work. That's the way the law works. We're still required to do a plan to meet those standard, regardless.

But what the testimony here today really reminded me of was the fact that even if we were to meet the standards, we need to be doing more in those parts of the state where people are exposed to the worst pollution. And particularly as we've been told time and time again, this tends to be correlated heavily with being in a low-income community being isolated, racial minorities,

California Reporting, LLC 116

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25ethnic minorities, and so forth, that we need to be

directing more attention and more resources in the direction of helping to improve overall exposures in those communities.

I'm hopeful since I'm always looking for something to be optimistic about that in addition to the progress that will come about from moving towards the standards that the ability that we now have to help direct some financial resources through the legislation that's going to be allocating money that comes out of AB 32 will be targeted exactly in that area. That's really the first time we've been in a position to do that. And thanks to the last year's legislation that the Governor signed, that the emphasis is on disadvantaged communities. So there may be some better news on the way.

But I agree with the thrust of your comment that not moving forward today would be worse than acting, it seems to me.

Yes, Dr. Sherriffs. BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Thank you. I also want to thank very much all who testified, both in person and submitted letters.

I would also agree that the fact that many who testified have had to leave in no way diminishes their contribution or the force of their arguments.

California Reporting, LLC 117

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25This is a very challenging process for everyone.

The goals are very challenging. I also recommend acceptance of the plan. And I do that as the representative to this Board of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, which voted unanimously in support of the plan. I also do that -- I don't feel too conflicted here, a little conflicted here, but not too conflicted, as a member of this Board conflicted for reasons that have been discussed.

The plan provides significant improvements in air quality, and we need to grab what we can grab. This is clearly going to lead to definite health benefits, both to individuals and communities. But it is never fast enough.

The San Joaquin Board moved that wood burning rule forward, and that means 90 percent of the residents of the Valley will be living in areas that meet that standard in 2017. But as has been mentioned, that means their ten percent, it's going to take another couple years to get there. And there are different health effects in the mean time for that group. We all want this as soon as possible.

There were many important observations and suggestions, expectations from those who gave testimony. And I really want to urge those who testified to stay engaged in this process, to attend the San Joaquin Valley

California Reporting, LLC 118

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Air Pollution Control District Board meetings, workshops,

their aspects of the plan that I think do have potential to be moved forward.

We've talked a little bit about charbroiling, and I can't request. I guess we're looking for jack in the black box to help us with that one. Sorry.

But this is not the last plan. This is not the last best plan. This is not the last standard that we will need to meet. We are committed to incremental progress. Better science as has been pointed out leads us in better directions, but also ends up presenting new challenges. So really appreciate the comments of those who testified, and the hope they will continue to be engaged and keep us moving in the right direction.

BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: If that's a motion, I will second the motion.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I will take the comment as a motion, and it's been seconded by Mayor Loveridge.

Are there any additional comments or questions? I should have closed the record before. The record is closed on this item. We will go ahead and vote.

If not, I'm going to ask the Clerk to call the roll. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Dr. Balmes?

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Yes.

California Reporting, LLC 119

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Ms. Berg? Ms. D'Adamo? BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Mr. De La Torre? BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Yes. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Mayor Loveridge? BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Yes. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Mrs. Riordan? BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Aye. Be different. Which means yes.

BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Dr. Sherriffs? BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Aye. Yes. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Professor Sperling? BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yes. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: Chairman Nichols. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:Yes. BOARD CLERK JENSEN: The motion passes. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much. And congratulations on a major step forward. Thank you very much.

We have one more item, but I think we should probably give ourselves a stretch break here. And let's give ourselves ten minutes. Is that sufficient? Okay. And then we will resume with our discussion of progress on SB 375. Thank you very much.

California Reporting, LLC 120

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(Whereupon a recess was taken.) CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Let's quickly move to the presentation. Staff, I know you've worked hard to put this together. But I'm going to ask everybody to be as quick as they can.

(Thereupon an overhead presentation was presented as follows.) MS. KIMURA: Thank you. I'll begin with some background on Senate Bill 375 implementation related to the San Joaquin Valley. --o0o-- MS. KIMURA: In September 2010, this Board set passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for all metropolitan planning organizations in California, including the Valley MPOs covering San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties.

At the time targets were set, the Board recognized that these MPOs were faced with several challenges, including the timing of their four-year regional transportation plan updates, the need for significant travel demand model improvements, and a policy decision the Valley MPOs need to make about how to coordinate their SB 375 planning efforts. This is a special option for the valley provided by statute.

California Reporting, LLC 121

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--o0o-- MS. KIMURA: The MPOs have made significant progress over the past two years. They've worked with each other and in coordination with ARB and the San Joaquin Valley Air District staff to build the technical and policy foundation for SB 375 implementation and sustainable communities strategy plan development.

The San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Policy Council made up of elected officials from each of the eight counties, along with the eight MPO Executive Directors have continued to take a leadership role in coordinating efforts between the agencies.

Their efforts have resulted in completion of a significant amount of work so far on both travel model improvements and scenario planning, that support their SCS plan development efforts.

Moving forward, the MPOs have acknowledged there is still more work to be done, including ongoing information sharing with ARB staff on their continued multi-county coordination efforts. --o0o-- MS. KIMURA: Under the leadership of the Policy Council, the MPO initiated a joint process in 2010 to improve their travel demand modeling capability. This process, known as the San Joaquin Valley Model Improvement

California Reporting, LLC 122

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Program, or MIP, was funded by a $2.5 million grant from

the Strategic Growth Council. The funds come from Proposition 84 revenues.

Over the past two years, a team of technical consultants worked with staff from each of the eight MPOs to upgrade the models and modeling processes. The MIP resulted in a substantially upgraded and standardized travel models delivered in the summer 2012.

The new models standardized the software, inputs, and methodologies between the eight MPOs. This standardization enhances the MPOs' ability to share data and resources with each other, coordinate on model improvement and training efforts, as well as analyze multi-county issues. The new models are also designed to better evaluate the types of land use and transportation policies likely to be considered in their SCS plan development. They are built to be more sensitive to the effects of land use and travel network characteristics, travel cost, congestion, as well as socioeconomic variables, such as household income and vehicle ownership.

Work is ongoing to get the new models ready for official adoption and use in their RTP/SCS planning processes, and MPO staff anticipate releasing a calibration and validation report for the new models later this year.

California Reporting, LLC 123

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--o0o-- MS. KIMURA: A number of work efforts are also underway to support scenario planning as part of the MPOs RPT/SCS plan development. One effort focuses on incorporating planning information from recent demographic and housing market trend analyses into each MPO scenario planning discussions.

Most recently, a study by the Infill Builders Association and studies completed for the MPOs by the Planning Center and Concord Group provide new information on the housing market outlook specific to the counties in the Valley. These analyses address current housing supply levels and projected future demand and supply by housing type and tenure related to demographic, economic, social, and other trends. They suggest that in order to better meet future market demand, housing growth in the valley will need to include a larger proportion of smaller home types, smaller lots, attached, and rental housing.

A report released last week by the American Farmland Trust underscores the importance of this information to Valley planning agencies as they work on their SCSs, since plans that help meet these trends are also expected to help the Valley's farmland conservation efforts.In addition to working with newly available

California Reporting, LLC 124

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25planning data, the MPOs in partnership with the Valley Air

District have also invested in the development of a new county-specific land use scenario tool called Envision Tomorrow. This tool is intended to assist MPO and local agency planners in more easily exploring and quantifying the effects of different land use scenarios. The Fresno MPO has already started using this tool for scenario investigation with their local partners and stakeholders. --o0o-- MS. KIMURA: Local general plans are one guide for developing land use scenarios in the scenario planning process. For this reason, the MPOs and other Valley stakeholders are also working with their local member agencies to incorporate sustainable growth strategies into these and other local programs.

Currently, 14 of the larger cities in the Valley, including Fresno and Modesto, and 43 of the smaller cities in the Valley have ongoing work to integrate sustainable growth principles into their local general plans and other policy documents with help from both federal and State grant funds.

Furthermore, recognizing that SB 375 introduces a new planning approach with the SCS, the MPOs are working on a coordinated public outreach effort to get their residents and stakeholders engaged with the new process.

California Reporting, LLC 125

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Using funding received through another Proposition 84

grant, they are working to develop a public outreach strategy, coordinate workshops, and develop informational tools and displays.

In total, the MPOs in the Valley have received $4.5 million in Proposition 84 funds to support sustainable communities planning. --o0o-- MS. KIMURA: In anticipation of today's update to the Board, the MPOs also developed informational scenarios using early version of their new travel models. The scenarios for 2020 and 2035 are starting points from which each MPO will begin the local dialogue to develop strategies for their regional plans.

Some of the strategies evaluated in these test scenarios include increases in compact development and focused growth along existing major corridors and activity centers of each county. The results provide preliminary information about how the new models are representing these regions. Recognizing that the results will change as the RTP/SCSs are developed and refined, the MPO Executive Director's proposed and the Policy Council adopted a recommendation to ARB that five and ten percent reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 respectively be maintained on an aggregate valley-wide basis.

California Reporting, LLC 126

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25In making this recommendation, the Policy Council

reflected the Valley MPOs commitment to continue their coordination efforts. --o0o--

MS. KIMURA: ARB staff will continue to be actively engaged with the MPOs and stakeholders as the details relating to implementation of these joint targets are worked out. With first draft SCS plans anticipated this summer, ARB MPO coordination and information sharing will focus on reviewing the greenhouse gas technical methodologies in the first half of this year, followed by formal evaluation of MPO modeling and plans later in the year. That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, Ms Kimura. Obviously, this is a challenging task, and we're not finished. And there has been progress. And it's good to hear that people are optimistic about how far they can get with all of this, in spite of what I know are significant challenges. But I suspect we're going to hear suggestions for how folks think they could perhaps do better. So we should certainly be listening to that as well.

I think the good news is SB 375 has provoked a lot of work in a good way. I mean, it's positive assessment analysis thinking that is being done. And I

California Reporting, LLC 127

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25really think this supports a somewhat optimistic view I

guess of where we're headed on air quality overall as well because these things are not unconnected, you know, even though the plan is not part of our SIP. We know that the steps that are being taken towards sustainable community strategies and are designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will have a beneficial effect on air pollution as well. So it's perhaps a back-door way of getting there. But I think it's good to bear that in mind that there are co-benefits to everything I guess will be how I would put it.

We do have a number of people who have signed up who said they want to come talk about this. But we have a question.

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Thank you. I agree it's great to see the progress made and the buy-in of the process that's evolved.

Talking about next steps, obviously, staff are going to continue to be engaged with the MPOs. When does that Board hear again? What's that plan?

MS. KIMURA: So the process is once the MPOs finally Adopt their RTP/SCSs, which they have told us they anticipate to do in the fall of this year, ARB staff will undertake the process of reviewing those plans. And it is likely we will come back to the Board at that point and

California Reporting, LLC 128

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25report to you on our review. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. I'm going to start calling on people who have signed up to speak then, beginning with Betsy Reifsnider and then Patricia Taylor and Will Barrett.

MS. REIFSNIDER: Hello again. And thank you. Betsy Reifsnider, Catholic Charity Diocese of Stockton.

We are a signatory of the Seizing the Opportunity platform that I believe you all received. And in addition, we are part of a coalition of the Northern San Joaquin Valley working with historically marginalized groups who are trying to shape how their communities will grow and prosper, and the SB 375 process will help make that happen. So we're very encouraged.

We're particularly pleased to work closely with the San Joaquin Council of Governments and with their SB 375 Public Advisory Committee that they have started. And we believe that every county in the Central Valley should meet the eminently achievable targets of five percent by 2020 and ten percent by 2035.

We believe every county should have a transparent SB 375 process, and we believe that every county should report on its own reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled.

We ask ARB to help Central Valley Councils of

California Reporting, LLC 129

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Government work with underrepresented communities to find

ways for these communities to be fully engaged. And people do want to be engaged. At one of our community coalition meetings, we heard from San Joaquin County nonprofit hospitals that they conduct a community health needs assessment every three years. And they found that access to public transportation was one of people's biggest public health concerns through this needs assessment.

So finally, we're very encouraged, and thank you so much. And we hope you'll do everything to make the SCS targets ambitious and achievable, that reporting as transparent and specific and the planning process welcomes everyone. And I thank you so much for the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Ms. Taylor and then Will Barrett and Gordon Nipp. MS. TAYLOR: Madam Chair, members of the Board, thank you for this opportunity to provide you with a status report on 375 in the Valley.

My name is Patricia Taylor. I'm with the Madera County Transportation Commission. I'm here this afternoon to represent the San Joaquin Valley COG Regional Transportation Planning Agencies.

Lezlie actually did a fantastic job providing you and explaining to you the status of the SB 375 in the

California Reporting, LLC 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25valley. So my focus this afternoon will primarily be on

the valley's implementation efforts and our commitment.

The San Joaquin Valley MPOs are committed to development of an implementation plan for the targets. Now, this will occur as part of the SCS documentation. As it was mentioned earlier, in Lezlie's presentation, the Policy Council met December 14th and took the action to support the existing five percent and ten percent targets to be maintained. The individual eight county MPOs also took similar action at our November, December, and January meetings.

The valley has a long history of voluntarily coordinating efforts. And I'll touch on that in the next slide. Inter-agency planning efforts between MPOs and ARB will continue and is ongoing, especially over the months ahead as final numbers result from the SCS process.

Coordination is ongoing in the valley. It is nothing new to the valley MPOs. The San Joaquin Valley has a long history of successful coordination. As a matter of fact, in early 1990s -- actually 1992, the Valley determined that it is in our best interest to work together as it relates to air quality planning. So we all signed onto a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure a coordinated and regional approach to transportation and air quality efforts.

California Reporting, LLC 131

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Our working relationships in regards to

coordination and cooperation were related to transportation air quality has evolved over the years. And we have worked on a number of planning efforts together. Prop 1B, 99 bond funding, goods movement planning, the model improvement program, blueprint planning, and we've also had created the Policy Council, which was formed in 2006. And Lezlie also mentioned that's a 16-member Board made up of two elected officials from each county. It's a true partnership in working together on regional issues. And the main purpose is to build regional consensus on issues of valley-wide importance.

Each MPO is currently in the process of developing its RTP and its SCS and development continues through a public outreach effort. Some cost effective innovative strategies include the blueprint toolkit, which is an educational guide and a reference source. It's a voluntary way for local jurisdictions to identify strategies to implement SCS land use strategies.

There's ACE, which is the Altamont Commuter Express, the San Joaquin Intercity Rail, the BRT, Bus Rapid Transit, and increased vanpool and carpool programs.

I'll skip the next two slides for the sake of time.

California Reporting, LLC 132

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25For the next steps moving forward, development of

the implementation plan to document how the Valley will demonstrate compliance with the Valley-wide SB 375 target is anticipated to be completed within around the summer of this year. The development of the RTPs and the SCS each MPO will develop an individual SCS that will include a coordinated Valley-wide chapter. This is anticipated to be completed in the fall of this year.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So overall you're on track. MS. TAYLOR: Yes, we are on track. That's our goal. In conclusion, the Valley's MPOs have coordinated efforts since 2010 and are committed and moving in a positive direction towards implementation of SB 375. The MPOs recognize one size does not fit all and that differences among the MPOs should be recognized. Significant positive strides have been made and they continue to move forward. Thank you for the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks. I'm sorry for the curtailed time. Three minutes goes by really fast. I'll remind the others as well. Okay. Thank you.

Will Barrett, then Gordon Nipp and then Mario Talavera.

MR. BARRETT: Good afternoon. Will Barrett with the American Lung Association of California. Happy to be

California Reporting, LLC 133

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25here again today to talk to you about the Lung

Association's strong support for SB 375 implementation.

The Lung Association was engaged in SB 375 in the Legislature all throughout the RTC process and in the development of all of the SCSs to date. We're in the process now of hiring the new full-time staff to work on implementation both in the Valley and in the Inland Empire. Very excited about that.

The Lung Association's commitment to SB 375 is shared by a deep coalition that Betsy Reifsnider mentioned earlier. We're also a signatory to that. But also the public health and medical organizations that have testified before you along the way, including the Fresno Madera Medical Society who wanted to pass along their apologies they weren't able to be here today, but do share a lot of the same goals I have to speak to you about.

We know that building health into the planning process early is key to reducing the burdens of harmful air pollutants as well as a wide range of chronic illnesses associated with auto dependent community design.

At this point, we're working with several health partners to develop new health benefit data and other cobenefit data that could accrue across the valley using the rapid fire model scenario or a scenario that tracks with some of the housing market demand data that was

California Reporting, LLC 134

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25mentioned earlier. The preliminary results -- we're showing significant benefits within the Valley in 2035, including approximately $350 million in avoided health costs, 435 square miles of land conserved, billions of gallons of fuel saved, which translated into a few thousand dollars per year, and household savings, as well as $2.7 billion in infrastructure avoided cost for municipalities.

The COGs have been receptive to the need for more health information. To date -- and we will definitely be sharing our more developed data with them in the coming month. The Valley COG should certainly be commended for coming together in this coordinated effort. We know that the modeling improvements that have been made and the coordination that's gone on through the Policy Council will pay dividends as the eight plans come together in the future. But today, we just want to request that the Board work both to support the COGs in achieving their targets but also to ensure accountability to the targets as well. We ask that the Board support all of their COGs in achieving the five and ten percent targets individually. Clearly, some COGs will achieve these and go beyond these targets. But we would like to see all of the COGs hitting the five and ten percent even within a valley-wide

California Reporting, LLC 135

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25structure, because we don't want any of the individual

communities to miss out on the co-benefits that we see as so important.

We also believe secondly that the Board should work to ensure consistent progress is planned between 2020 and 2035 so that performance doesn't weaken in the later years of the program.

And then we would also like to see all the counties in the COGs evaluate and report the benefits of their own plans, even within the full valley-wide process, including VMT, greenhouse gas emissions, and any health co-benefits they can model.

So, again, we want to say we hope to see the plans developed into a strong basis for progress moving forward. We commend the staff of the ARB and the COGs for the work to date and look forward to being a resource to all the progress going forward. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for representing the health perspective in this process.

Mr. Nipp. MR. NIPP: My name is Gordon Nipp. Again, I'm the Vice Chair of the Local Sierra Club Chapter of the Kern-Kiweah Chapter covering Kern County, Kings County, Tulare County, southern part of the San Joaquin Valley.

We also are Signatories on this Seizing the

California Reporting, LLC 136

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Opportunity document that I think you have a copy of. I've attended a number of SB 375 SCS meetings at Kern COG, and I think it's the staff at Kern COG is doing their best to address the issue.

I'm pleased that Kern County and the Valley are working to hit the five percent and ten percent targets. It wasn't always clear that would happen.

Much of the focus so far has been on coming up with a good computer model. An important issue to be sure -- I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, and I've done computer modeling myself. So it's certainly an important thing to be accurate in the computer model.

But I'm a little concerned that maybe we miss the point about actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There needs -- maybe there needs to be more focus on the underlying assumptions for the computer model. Maybe assumptions like urban growth boundaries and farmland preservation. And then making sure that the local agencies adopt policies and enforcement measures to assure that these assumptions are meaningfully implemented.

I would urge Air Resources Board to closely scrutinize the plans of counties to assure that these plans are transparent and they are implemented equitably and effectively to ensure that the proposed reductions in vehicle mile traveled and greenhouse gas emissions

California Reporting, LLC 137

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25actually occur, not only on paper, but on the ground as

well. Climate change is probably the foremost issue for my organization, the Sierra Club. It could very well be the defining issue for our species.

We thank you for your efforts to ensure that SB 375 is ambitiously and effectively implemented and enforced. And I thank you for coming to my hometown, Bakersfield.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks again. Is Mr. Talavera still here? I don't know if he wanted to testify on this item. Yes, come on down then.

And then Ms. Jonasson and Ms. Sharpe. MR. TALAVERA: Good afternoon, Board of Directors, once again. My name is Mario Talavera. I'm the President of LUCA, Latin Americans United for a Better Quality of Air.

I live in Fresno. I've been following the plan of this measure, SB 375. In Fresno, I have joined two others groups of public interest to signal how the Valley can take advantage of this opportunity. We appreciate the work of the Government Board of the Valley.

The Valley together is now at a point of reaching their objective, which is five percent and ten percent, which is a great advance in the few years.

California Reporting, LLC 138

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25The ambitious planification of use of the floor

and transportation can have big benefits for the Valley. All the citizens from all the counties in the San Joaquin Valley need to serve the benefits, such as driving short distances, a cleaner air, cleaner water, and a place to live that is safe, healthy, and accessible.

All of the counties in the Valley must begin ambitious actions, fulfill the objectives of the five and ten percent, and continue lowering the pollution in the following years.

The Air Resources Board must ask to every Board of the government that each of them informs about their reductions in miles -- in miles they have traveled per vehicle and on their reduction of winter gases. They must make this public throughout all the means of communication such as radio, TV, newspapers, internet. Every Board of the government that did not meet the five and ten percent, or if they did, in a speedy fashion. But then after that, going back in a significant manner, the Air Resource Board should investigate in-depth their report to be able to know that they are trying to make the effort as much as possible.

The Air Resource Board must make sure that the measure SB 375 is beneficial to all, the ones living in the San Joaquin Valley, and that no one and no group shall

California Reporting, LLC 139

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25be excluded. The Air Resource Board must be sensitive. The Air Resource Board shall make aware to the Committee in regards to the metropolitan organization as to how this measure SB 375 must be equal and the manner that it should not effect significantly the communities of low resources of the color.

The Air Resources Board must support the government boards of the Valley both in the study and in the community that are vulnerable and that will be effected financially and health-wise.

As I communicate this to you and transmit this also to your government, to your elected government officials.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. I need you to finish thank you. Thank. Great. Thanks.

We now have Elizabeth Jonasson. And then Sarah Sharpe, and then Gary Lasky.

MS. JONASSON: Good afternoon. Elizabeth Jonasson with Coalition for Clean Air in Fresno. And we are also signatories to the Seizing the Opportunity platform and agree with a lot of the comments made previously.

I have been directly involved in SB 375 in the Valley for a couple years now, particularly focused in

California Reporting, LLC 140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Fresno and serving on the SB 375 target-setting task force

and now the RPT roundtable for Fresno.

During this time, I have been quite impressed with the increasing openness of several Valley MPOs exhibited. The commitment to a more public process is definitely evident.

While there is still a long way to go in the SCS development in the Valley, I'm encouraged that the majority of the MPOs are easily demonstrating attainment of the targets, and I would like to see these every county reach these attainable five and ten percent attainable goals. I would like to encourage ARB to continue working proactively with Valley governments and organizations to properly resolve some of the outstanding issues, like ensuring consistent assumptions throughout the Valley and determining how targeted achievement will be measured in a way that encourages ambitious work in each county, and it doesn't hamper smart growth planning in neighboring counties. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Sarah, and then Gary Lasky and Roy Kendall.

MS. SHARPE: Good afternoon. Sarah Sharpe, Fresno Metro Ministry Environmental Health Program.

Keep it brief. I agree with many of the comments

California Reporting, LLC 141

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25already made. We also have been participating primarily

in Fresno County COG planning. I sit on the Environmental Justice Taskforce for the COG. And we have been following this for very long time as well. In fact, I remember when I was pregnant with my son, who is now two-and-a-half. We were organizing people to advocate for the targets. And we're pleased that we have now found we can meet them. We were, as many people mentioned, not sure we would get to this point. So we are very pleased that we have gotten to the point where we all agree these are reasonable targets. And now we can look at more ambitious targets in the future. So just wanted to put on the record that we appreciate your revision and oversight of this process. We want to make sure that it goes as smoothly as possible. We are and will be participating in the SCS implementation and development in Fresno County. And we have been very active in getting more people involved and able to understand what is happening with this and how much it can benefit our communities.

We think that there are, as you said, co-benefits that are numerous for clean air, public health, and as you know, sprawl is a major issue in Fresno and our neighboring counties. So we think this is a huge opportunity. We appreciate your efforts and want to

California Reporting, LLC 142

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25encourage you to have as much oversight as possible.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks. Gary Lasky. Mr. LASKY: Gary Lasky, Sierra Club Tehipite Chapter in Fresno.

I wish to clarify a remark I made earlier. There are 150,000 members of the Sierra Club in California. And we cover four counties, our chapter. I'm the Vice Chair of Fresno, Merced, Madera, and Mariposa. Three of these are within the air district in the Valley.

And our focus this coming year is going to be on working with Madera County to have the best possible SCS document they can obtain. We're deleted that the outlining counties, in particular, Tulare and Madera recently have agreedto the five and ten percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled.

I just wish to take a minute here and clarify that in an emerging and sprawling place where there is an opportunity for housing development, such as Madera County, we have a number of developments that are presently proposed. One is under litigation right now where Caltrans as well as the city of Fresno and others have filed suit. That's because one reason is the traffic that will be generated will be just enormous. Not only

California Reporting, LLC 143

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25the vehicle trips, but the conjunction. The developers have proposed that there be jobs/housing balance, three million square feet in one project for light industrial and commercial development. But the question is we've learned elsewhere in the state of experiences in Contra Costa County and Orange County back when I was a Ph.D. student down in Irvine that you may build the housing and try to find jobs there, but the people that can afford the housing in that community -- the people who work in that community may have to commute in from a lower cost housing place. So you end up with what may appear to be a housing/jobs balance on paper, but in reality you have commuters going both directions. That's something we want to avoid.

The good news is that with these five and ten percent guidelines, they're per capita, so that even though we increase our population, we have the potential to reach and exceed the reductions that are proposed in the VMT target.

And want to thank you all for your participation and particularly for the work before the Regional Policy Council when I was there last fall, and I recognize that CARB was doing their very best to help these different MPOs work together. And now that they have, we want to be sure that each one will be able to reach or exceed their

California Reporting, LLC 144

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25targets of five or ten percent. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Roy Kendall. MR. KENDALL: Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity.

My name is Roy Kendall. I'm from Visalia, California, and I'd like to offer three ideas. They're not necessarily new ideas. There's almost no new ideas. But these are just ideas that need to be considered to improve our air quality.

Number one is we just strictly enforce the existing, that is the current, speed limits on all our roads -- not just 99, 5, but in the city limits we strictly enforce the existing speed limits, you know we're going to reduce air pollution. It's a given. Lower speeds, lower air pollution. Higher speed, higher air pollution.

Number two is a given also. And everybody knows this. And that is that we tax cigarettes as a source of first and secondhand smoke. Additional tax as a source of air pollution.

And then third, that we just ban all fireplaces. We ban outdoor incinerators, and now we just need to ban indoor incinerators across the board. And I just wanted to let you know I agree with Gordon Nipp and the Sierra Club that we need to reject and improve. Thank you very

California Reporting, LLC 145

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25much. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Brian Newton. Mr. NEWTON: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Board members, and staff. Thank you for the work that you do.

My name is Brian Newton. I'm a founding member of Tulare County Citizens for Responsible Growth. We're a signatory to the platform that has been handed to you today. Our organization has been working on the Tulare County General Plan since 2005. We see rigorous implementation of SB 375 as an important piece of a much larger puzzle that might, if we're lucky and work hard, lead to more resource-efficient growth, improve the quality of life, for my, my family, and our neighbors, and make an important statement in the much larger challenge of climate change.

Frankly, we expect Tulare County to drag its heelsin embracing and implementing SB 375. So we need you, you and your staff, to push hard on Tulare and other counties to track progress or lack thereof on the VMT targets and to fully realize the many potential benefits of this important law.

On a more personal note, my wife and I have lived in Visalia since 18980. We raised our daughter there, but

California Reporting, LLC 146

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25she lives in the Colorado Rockies. She has hinted she

would like to return to Visalia to live. However, her first child will be born in June. And in good conscious, for the health of her child and our grandchild, I feel I must discourage her desire to move back here until the Valley's air quality improves. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Felicity Lyons. MS. LYONS: Hello, Chairman Nichols and California Air Resources Board. Thanks for the opportunity to talk about the San Joaquin Valley SB 375 targets with you today.

My name is Felicity Lyons. I'm the Sustainable Communities Coordinator at Housing California in Sacramento. And for those of you who don't know what we do, we are the voice in the State Capitol for children and seniors and families, people experiencing homelessness and everyone who needs a safe, stable, affordable place for people to call home.

We've also signed ontothe platform that you received a copy of and others have mentioned. And I just wanted to talk a little bit about the study that was referenced by the ARB staff that talked about the demand for small lot single family homes and attached family housing units, such as apartments and townhomes. The

California Reporting, LLC 147

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25result of the study should be weighed heavily when

planning for new development in the Valley, more focused growth pattern will save Valley households in driving and utility cost.

I also wanted to echo Mr. Lasky's comments about the jobs/housing balance and discuss that the jobs/housing fit is sort of the term that we use to make sure there is a good balance between wages and affordability of homes. And you'll find a description of that in our platform.

In addition to new housing development, the economic success of the San Joaquin Valley is dependant on low-wage workers, many of whom will never move into the newly constructed homes. So their existing homes are important to consider. Many live in dilapidated housing conditions, often in communities that lack basic infrastructure and opportunities for economic advancement. And so careful planning should ensure that all of these residents, especially low-wage workers are able to live where they work, use public transportation to get where they need to go and lead healthy lifestyles.

Regarding the targets, I also concur with the comment by others that each county individually should meet the targets of five and ten percent, and they should be recorded separately in order some ensure transparency to the public. As the Valleys work together, the public

California Reporting, LLC 148

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25should included in determining what guidance is provided

by ARB. Finally, ARB should help to ensure that SB 375 provide the benefits for residents across the San Joaquin Valley and that no community or residents are left behind by helping the Valley COGs to access the state-of-the-art methods that are available to identify environmental justice communities and examine health and equity benefits of scenarios and also perhaps form a panel of environmental justice experts and fund research projects on equity and environmental justice issues to provide technical assistance to the Council of governments.

Thank you for your time today. Housing California and our local partners here in the Valley look forward to continued engagement on SB 375 implementation.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks. Virginia Madueno. MS. MADUENO: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols, and distinguished members of the Air Resources Board.

My name is Virginia Madueno, and I'm a life-long resident of the San Joaquin Valley. I'm also a small business owner, community leader, and a community advocate.

I'm here to tell you or to ask you to continue to do the good work that you're doing and to do diligence in

California Reporting, LLC 149

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25working with our Valley COGs. Greater emphasis should be

placed on how we can all come together as a region to show a real commitment and ensuring a better quality of life for our residents.

Our Valley deserves leadership that can support an effort in helping to improve air quality for all.

We applaud the work already done and know that every county in the Valley can and should continue to do its due diligence in meeting the targets.

As a business owner, I recognize the importance and to find solutions for businesses and residence in the Valley to co-exist. It's a matter of coming together and finding meaningful dialog where we can again come together and find solutions that make sense for us as a Valley. I thank you for your time.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Craig Brown. MR. BREON: Good afternoon. Craig Breon, like Bri on crackers, without the crackers.

I'm the Regional Climate Change Program Director for the Sierra Nevada Alliance. We have 85 member groups up and down 400 miles of the Sierra, many in the southern Sierra. Part of my involvement here is to remind people while we continually say this is the San Joaquin Valley for the counties Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kern have

California Reporting, LLC 150

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25substantial land in the Sierra. And the decision made

under this law have heavy impacts, both for the future growth pressure and for the air quality of the southern Sierra. In coming down here, I was thinking of a cartoon. I have it on my computer, but I have to give the visual.

It's a room like this with a banner that says, "Climate Summit," and the PowerPoint presentation has energy independence, preserve forests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water, healthy children, et cetera. And then there is a curmudgeon in the back saying, "What if it's all a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

Even if you didn't think that SB 375 was going to do great things to reduce vehicle miles traveled and therefore greenhouse gases, as Chair Nichols was talking about the co-benefits, what this law can do in a modest form in the next 10 to 15 years, if implemented right, is bring us a little more affordable housing to these communities, to allow lower income people to spend a little less money on transportation on a yearly basis, to have some additional preservation of farmlands and foothills, and to have slightly more optimistic outlooks for our local jurisdiction's budgets. But those co-benefits alone make this something tremendously

California Reporting, LLC 151

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25valuable. And there's a lot of us in this room that are going to help with the heavy lifting here. It's the general plans, the individual development projects, the transportation projects that come forward. But if you guys set the ground rules or help set the ground rules, you've heard what many of us who have signed onto this platform, including my organization, have emphasized in terms of what we'd like you to focus on.

I hope you do read through this. It took a long time for us to put it together and a lot of different groups and different interests to come up with what we thought our recommendations for the right path forward here were.

And I urge you to work today in what you say to us, tomorrow in what you say to your staff, and in the next months in what you say to the local jurisdictions here to realize the benefits of this fairly important law.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks. Daniel O'Connell and then Autumn Bernstein. MR. O'CONNELL: Hi. Thank you for coming down to the Valley and listening to us.

Daniel O'Connell, San Joaquin representative for American Farmland Trust.

And I wanted to start and propose that land use

California Reporting, LLC 152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25policy is going to be integral to the implementation of

SCS and RTP objectives in San Joaquin Valley. I'm going to illustrate that in a few PowerPoint slides in a moment.

But I wanted to start off by acknowledging and referencing this document that AFT also signed onto. And it's been called a platform. And I'm still wondering what the correct wording of this is. An enormously diverse amount of public interest organizations worked together for a very long time to do this.

And it's our -- so what is it? I wrote down it's an expression of values. It's an articulation of a process. And it's an avenue for civic engagement and education, not only amongst ourselves as we learn and work together, listening deeply to each other and all of our own personal concerns or interests, but how we're going to interact with COGs, with you. This is the Valley in a lot of ways speaking what we see and want.

The opportunities and promises of the SCS are extraordinary. And you hear often the co-benefits represent for me, as we worked on this platform, I think it's starting to represent a vision for the Valley where we want to go.

So this is in there. And this is the conservation portion of it. I'm just going to pass by it pretty quickly for time's sake. But it lays out a process

California Reporting, LLC 153

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25that a COG or the people working on a general plan in a

city or a county can work on. It's a process there for conservation and how they can interact with SCS.

Let's move onto the San Joaquin Valley. This map juxtaposes irrigated farmland with irrigated areas. The dark green are prime or statewide importance under the Department of Conservation's mapping. The light green have some problems, high salinity, water problems, environmental sensitivity.

Let's take a closer look. An enlargement of the map shows projected urban development in red and orange. If the current trends continue, all of those areas in red and orange will be developed. The red would be saved if the B-plus scenario of the San Joaquin Valley blueprint is implemented. Juxtaposing urban expansion with the Valley's prime farmland puts a premium on efficiency of development. Developing land efficiently for each new person, job, and dollar of economic activity.

How is San Joaquin Valley doing with its efficiency of development? We're developing a six-people per acre. As you see, it's very low. How I frame this is we are one of the least efficient, yet we have the most valuable resources, and extraordinary problems that the co-benefits of this sort of planning and SCS would greatly help.

California Reporting, LLC 154

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--o0o-- MR. O'CONNELL: I'd like to end with this picture of Los Angeles in 1915. Up until 1955, it was the most productive ag region in the United States for more evidence and research AFT has a new report that I referred to accept in calling saving farmland and growing cities

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS:We do have your report. MR. O'CONNELL: Thank you very much for coming down here.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I saw it in advance. Appreciate you guys are working on this. Of course, it's about land use.

Autumn Bernstein and then Curt Johansen and Keith Bergthold.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Board. My name is Autumn Bernstein. I'm the Director of Climate Plan. We're a statewide coalition working to advance sustainable and equitable communities. And SB 375 is a major focus.

It's nice to see you all again. It's nice to be here at this point in the process with so much success with SB 375 around the state. And now here we are in one of the most challenging regions and regions with the greatest opportunity. So I want to commend both your staff as well as the COGs here in the Valley for the

California Reporting, LLC 155

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25tremendous amount of work they've done so far getting us

to this point where we are finally having a conversation, not about the targets, but about what the vision is for the Valley and how we can achieve those targets in a way that maximizes benefits. So we're really excited to be at this point.

But we also do have concerns. And we want to encourage your leadership to make sure that we follow through with the remainder of this year to the finish line where we have strong SCSs for all eight Valley counties.

I have some specific recommendation, as you can imagine, for how to make that happen. So we think that having a single Valley-wide target makes a lot of sense. This is one region. There are many trips that go across county lines. It makes a lot of sense. We want to make sure that we don't have a situation where progress is inequitably distributed across the region.

When we are looking at the SCAG SCS, I'm sure you remember there were a lot of concerns about equity of air quality impacts in the region, places like L.A. that are investing in transit are going to see better air quality improvements and places like the Inland Empire, we're not going to see the same improvements.

We think the potential exists for that on a massive scale here in the San Joaquin Valley if we have a

California Reporting, LLC 156

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25situation where some of the COGs are doing all the heavy

lifting and others are sitting on the sidelines. We can't have anyone sitting on the sidelines, and we can't have any back sliding. That's what got San Diego into trouble. And currently, at least one of the COGs here in Valley is anticipating they are going to back slide with their IGG reductions.

So we need your leadership to make sure that every single county is achieving the targets. There are ways we can encourage those counties that are doing the most, like Fresno, to do as much as they can. And we can hold the others accountable who might otherwise sit on the sidelines. So we really encourage you to have your staff work with the COGs in the coming months to clarify how this is going to play out, how the target of -- how we're going to demonstrate that we've achieved the targets in every county and make sure that everyone is taking ambitious action.

And lastly, I would say while there has been a lot of progress with the technical tools in the Valley, there are a lot of issues that are unresolved. And we hope you will be paying close attention to issues like inter-regional travel and making sure assumptions are consistent across regions. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks. Appreciate that.

California Reporting, LLC 157

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Curt Johansen. MR. JOHANSEN: Good afternoon. Thank you very much. My name is Curt Johansen. As President and on behalf of the Council of Infill Builders, we appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today.

The Council of Infill Builders is a nonprofit corporation of real estate professionals committed to improving California throughout infill development. The builders seek to educate the public and decision makers about the benefits of well-planned, sustainable infill by conducting and supporting research on market based solutions for healthy, prosperous and complete communities. We are pleased to be here today to present, "A Home for Everyone," San Joaquin Valley Housing Preferences and Opportunities to 2050 by Arthur C. Nelson as a contribution to the scholarship on infill development in California. We hope this scholarship and data will improve the decision making process related to growth and development in California's Central Valley and lead to improved air quality outcomes for its cities and counties.

As Lezlie mentioned, the report concludes based on consumer preference data and economic trends that up to 45 percent of all the residential construction between 2010 and 2050 will need to be attached homes, as opposed to stand-alone single-family residences if we are to meet

California Reporting, LLC 158

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25future demand in the Valley. That's 37 percent of the

housing supply, compared to the 30 percent that exists today. While demand for large lot homes will still exist as a piece of the market going forward, since 86 percent of the Valley housing supply is already skewed to the single housing type, the great majority of all new detached homes moving forward should be on small infill lots to meet the rising demand.

The Valley can accommodate much of this future demand by developing an existing urban and suburban centers and commercial corridors and converting existing non-residential buildings and vacant land to multi-family housing. The consequence of this would be preserved farmland, more efficient use of energy, support for transit and more livable communities with reduced air pollution.

Positive legacies for the environment as well as for society no longer need to be seen as opposing forces. These legacies are not measured in months or years. They are measured in decades and generations. Our children are depending on us to get this right.

As California transitions to an ethical use of its land, the Council of Infill Builders is proud to be working with you on the front lines of that transition.

California Reporting, LLC 159

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thanks for your work. Keith Bergthold.

MR. BERGTHOLD: Good afternoon. Very grateful for you to be in the Valley and considering what we're up against here.

I'm Keith Bergthold. I lead the planning team at the City of Fresno, who is developing the new general plan. Our City Manager, Mark Scott, sent you a letter before this meeting. We are very admiring the work of our Valley COGs. It's excellent work. It's very necessary work. It's not sufficient for implementation.

You have eight counties and 62 cities with land use zoning and entitlement powers. If they don't figure out how to implement SB 375, this is sort of just a talk we're having. I think the ground game is playing out in the press now with regard to the relationships of different cities and counties. There's lot of new unincorporated development proposed that does not comply with SB 375, unless they have their own set of facts.

So we're really encouraging you to consider a lot more conversation, engaging maybe some task forces to talk about the reality of implementation and the feasibility of doing these things together as cities and counties led by

California Reporting, LLC 160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25the kind of technical expertise that our COGs bring to the

table. We are hoping that you won't just consider an aggregate target that we feel won't get traction. We need another conversation about this. And we're grateful for your consideration.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Amanda Eaken. MS. EAKEN: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Board. Amanda Eaken with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

I know you've all been sitting for a long time and are probably very hungry, so I'll be brief.

I do want to thank your staff and also the staff at the Valley cities, counties, and COGs for the last few years to implement SB 375.

Now, you've heard a lot, probably too much, about targets, the Valley-wide target. And I can actually see both sides of this conversation, but I do want to say this: I personally would not want to be the Executive Director of an MPO that did not meet the five and ten targets. We're all for collaboration, but we feel that every MPO can find a way to meet this performance standard. And for those MPO showing back sliding, I think that has been proven to be a bad strategy in the past.

As a devoted member of the Targets Advisory Committee, I do want to ask, could we move on from the

California Reporting, LLC 161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25subject of targets and start talking about strategies? I

think that's a much more interesting and important conversation, is what strategies we can put into place to strengthen our communities, clean our air, and improve public health.

You heard from Ms. Kimura about two recent reports that offer strategies, building -- and also from Mr. Johansen -- building a mix of housing types to meet the demands of a diverse housing market, as the Counsel of Infill Builders recommends, can help to save farmland, as the American Farmland Trust urges.

As we've seen from some of the other successful SCSs, preliminary analysis suggests that this strategy could save hundreds of square miles of farmland, hundreds of millions of dollars a year in public health costs, and reduce infrastructure cost.

I think the nice thing about being the region to go last in this process, it shouldn't be a mystery at this point in the process what strategies -- okay.

I just want to thank the MPOs for their efforts to outreach to our groups and take our recommendations and look forward to process moving forward. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks. I know you've been working hard on this issue and it is complicated and obviously still unfolding. So we appreciate the basic

California Reporting, LLC 162

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25message that we've been getting here. We have three more witnesses here, Byanka Santoya, Dennis Fox, and Mike Wells. I know you signed up for public comment, but it's about 375. So let's hear from them and then we'll have a little discussion.

MS. SANTOYA: Hi again. Good afternoon. I'm Byanka Santoya, resident from Arvin.

I'm in support for the SB 375 because, as our Valley created these plans, we ask -- we ask you and the county to have -- to strongly consider for our environmental justice our need to have these COGs help us to create clean air in our communities with bad air quality, as we want to see the benefits of the outcomes of the health of the communities at this point.

So thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Dennis Fox. MR. FOX: Madam Chairwoman, members of the Board, I'm Dennis Fox. And I'm going to talk to three negative externalities. And some things I don't have answers for. I think they're in your purview.

One is the -- we've been talking about the fireplace burning. And I don't know if you are aware of -- I'm not -- of the results of Oregon and Colorado's use of catalytic converters on fireplaces and stoves. And

California Reporting, LLC 163

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25I want it to be cost effective -- if people have such a --

this would be at the state level --

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Can you raise the microphone a little bit, please?

MR. FOX: Oh, okay. Thank you. Maybe you don't want to. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think if you're going to be standing there, we should be listening.

MR. FOX: Well, anyway, it might be cost effective if you gave a tax credit to people who purchased a catalytic converters, if they're worthwhile, which you would have the information for.

And you can fund that like Ruckelshaus founded the EPA by carrot and the stick, but putting a tax on fireplaces and fireplaces would pay it on new construction. But ones that have catalytic converters would get a tax credit.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'm sorry. Your comment isn't really related to SB 375.

MR. FOX: Yeah. The main thing is the some of a few things that get to us is some of the things like the city has with -- we don't coordinate our lights here. I don't think we can. And we would need help for you and that is a major impact.

The other major impact -- that's why I say I

California Reporting, LLC 164

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25don't think we should be blaming everybody else here that

our air comes from other places. However, permits are given elsewhere for impacts here. Burning permits are given from San Luis Obispo County for areas in our air basin. How you handle that's your problem.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think you have some questions which deserve answers. Maybe not right here. Maybe you could send a letter and we'll get you some answers. We could do that. Okay. Thanks.

Mike Wells. MR. WELLS: Good afternoon. Mike Wells from Fresno Metro Ministry.

Just wanted to thank you again for coming to the Valley and for the work that you do statewide that helps us to be able to see our mountains and at the same time has a lot of other co-benefits, as several people have mentioned before. It helps our health, and that's one of the things that our organization is a strong advocate for.

I love SB 375. In our organization, we have an environmental health program that has been focused on air quality. We have an obesity prevention program that's focused on strategies for reducing obesity. And we have hunger and nutrition programs that works on the local food slow food movement. And SB 375 has given us an opportunity to collaborate, pull all of these programs

California Reporting, LLC 165

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25together. Almost every strategy that SB 375 especially

requires of local jurisdictions to reduce greenhouse gases has huge implications for quality of life, for public health.And one of the projects that we have is Smart Valley Places, is a HUD and EPA grant that helps 14 other cities in the Valley to implement some of these strategies. And it also -- we have a Community Leadership Institute in those 14 cities where dozens of people in each of those cities who normally don't engage in these kinds of issues, who would never show any interest on things that would save the polar bears, all of a sudden they're delighted to find out the things going on at the City Council, Fresno City Council, dozens of people turned out to speak in different languages to advocate for the alternative for our cities' growth that is not only saving our farmland, it's reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it's just good for quality of life.

And I guess the one comment I want to echo is that we're all for the importance of regional cooperation and coordination of these efforts, as Keith mentioned. Without the regional coordination, it's just not going to happen. It's not going to work.

But we're also very much in favor of the local accountability that each county needs to attain their

California Reporting, LLC 166

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25targets that have been set. And so we want to just

continue to advocate for that. And again thank you very much for the work you're doing.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thanks to everybody. I know we said that before, but not just for coming here today to talk to us, but for the work that you all are putting in to make this program succeed. It is remarkable the amount of citizen activism and focus that has been leveraged.

When SB 375 passed and was signed, I think many of us were hopeful, but we couldn't be sure, that this would actually lead to the kind of results that we're seeing here. And somebody who has worked on some of these issues for a very long time, you know, even to hear the words "regionalism" being spoken in some quarters where it is today I just think wouldn't have happened a while ago.

So it really has been a sea change, even though it in some cases taken a very long time and we're certainly not done yet, by any means.

The basic theme that I think I have heard from just about every single speaker is we need to have the regional targets and they need to be good. But we also need to make sure that every county and every jurisdiction is participating and doing their bit. Nobody wants to be the one, you know, admittedly shining student, but never

California Reporting, LLC 167

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25the less the only one who's following the rules if other

people aren't. And it is going to take a sense of equity if you're going to keep even the more progressive, if I may use that word, jurisdictions implementing programs if they see their neighbors not doing it. And particularly if people get rewarded for not participating.

So clearly, this is a delicate task because people start from different places, not just politically, but in terms of their actual on-the-ground land use and economic base and so forth. All counties are not created equal exactly. And so getting everybody to move forward in parallel or working together, while recognizing those differences, is what the challenge is.

But you know, we've got some amazing talent that's appeared here today. People who are investing not just their personal time and expertise, but bringing other resources for their organizations and doing studies and reports and all of that.

So I think it's fair to say that this is a good news story overall and that we should, as a Board, do everything we can to encourage you. And I know our staff is spending time here and has devoted a lot of attention to delivering messages, but not being heavy handed, but at the same time, giving enough information and sense of policy direction so that, you know, the ARB hasn't just

California Reporting, LLC 168

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25disappeared from the scene and left everybody on their own

until we come back in and say, "Oops, you didn't do it right." I think we've been present but hopefully not overbearing throughout all this process. And I think we need to just continue on that path. I think it's working pretty well.

Dr. Sperling. BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Just one sort of closing comment, not implying that no one else should say anything. But I know we're all in a rush to get out.

As someone who has tracked this from the beginning and actually on the research side of it for decades, I do want to reiterate that it really is impressive progress here what's happened in the last few years and the change in attitudes and the engagement that we're starting to see.

And I do want to emphasize as many -- what I want to emphasize is, as many speakers did say, that the goal here really is revitalized communities, healthy communities, better use of land. That's what it's really about in the end.

And I also want to say that those cities and counties that are serious about these goals that -- to get more desirable communities, more sustainable economically successful communities, they're going to achieve that.

California Reporting, LLC 169

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25But they're also going to be well-positioned for future

funding that is very likely to be available for those communities that are making good progress in achieving the goals that we're talking about here.

So I just want to lay that out as just another inducement to be doing the right thing. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Yes, Dr. Sherriffs. BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: We're all hungry and getting a little irritable. I'm getting irritable.

I'm just reminded from this discussion -- again, really appreciate the testimony. And really appreciate the involvement of the various governmental agencies, particularly the public and people of the advocacy groups being involved in this. It's that engagement that's needed to move this forward.

But SB 375 means something different in every part of the state. And yes, the focus is on greenhouse gas emissions and concerns there, climate change, but that means something very different in the Valley. This is an agricultural valley. I think I don't think there is anybody in the room who saw that picture of L.A. in 1955 and said, "Oh, that's not what we want. We want a different vision here in the Valley."

And this really -- there is a special threat to

California Reporting, LLC 170

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25agriculture and special opportunities. And there's so

many co-benefits that come out of this in terms of ozone pollution, PM2.5, in terms of smarter planning, preserving agricultural land. But in terms of what we need to do in terms of these greenhouse gases and the threat that represents to agriculture and the way of life, it's going to change what happens with water. It's going to change where certain crops can be planted. This potentially is a huge impact on the Valley. So wonderful to hear this engagement.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Any other comments on this item? Yes. BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just want to key off on something that Keith from Fresno mentioned. And that is task force. I would just say pick up the phone and call us, you know. This is your plan, each individual county's plan, the region's plan. And wherever you think that we can be helpful, just get ahold of us. And really want to complement those that are here from the COGs, the Regional Policy Council. That is where -- my opinion is that's where things started to turn around. And I know you put a lot of time into this, and I know you're very committed in going forward. Look forward to working with you.

CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I would just second those comments. It has really been remarkable to see the strong

California Reporting, LLC 171

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25work coming out of the Valley COGs. And I think at the

beginning people were not expecting that. So it's been -- that's been a terrific thing.

Okay. We have no action to take on this item. We're just sending you forth with our blessings and desire to keep it up and do more.

And with that, we're not quite ready to adjourn because we're required to take public testimony or comment on anything that anybody wants to say to us while we're sitting here. And we have two people who said they want to do that. They are Mr. Giegos and again Mike Wells. This is on matters other than those that we've just been hearing about, if you wish to come forward.

MR. WELLS: I didn't have public comment. CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Oh, you were put in the wrong spot then. Thank you. You spoke very eloquently before. There was a Mr. Giegos who apparently was here earlier. We're not seeing him right now.

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much. (Whereupon the Air Resources Board meeting

adjourned at 1:44 PM)

California Reporting, LLC 172

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby certify:

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting.

I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any way interested in the outcome of said hearing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of February, 2013.

TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR Certified Shorthand Reporter License No. 12277

California Reporting, LLC 173

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