BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD AIR RESOURCES BOARD 9530 TELSTAR AVENUE AUDITORIUM EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2005 1:00 P.M. JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 10063 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Mrs. Barbara Riordan, Acting Chairperson Ms. Sandra Berg Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Dr. Henry Gong Ms. Lydia Kennard Supervisor Barbara Patrick Ms. Patricia Salas Pineda STAFF Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch Mr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division Mr. Robert Fletcher, Chief, Planning and Technical Support Division Mr. Robert Jenne, Senior Staff Counsel Ms. Leslie Krinsk, Senior Staff Counsel Ms. Linda Murchison, Assistant Division Chief PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Ms. Lucille Ommering, Planning and Technical Support Division Mr. Dale Shimp, Environmental Justice Section Ms. Linda Smith, Manager, Health and Ecosystems Assessment Section Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman ALSO PRESENT Mr. Thomas Addison, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Dr. George Alexeeff, Deputy Director, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Mr. Steve Arita, Western States Petroleum Association Ms. Cynthia Babich, Del Amo Action Committee Ms. Diane Bailey, Natural Resources Defense Council Ms. Randa Baramki, Environmental Health Coalition Mr. Todd Campbell, Councilmember, City of Burbank Mr. Charles Castaneda, Community of El Monte Mr. Steve Douglas, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Mr. Bahram Fazeli, Citizen Ms. Georgette Gomez, Environmental Health Coalition Mr. Shebaka Heru, Society for Positive Action Ms. Sujatha Jahagirdar, Safe Drinking Water Advocate Ms. Francisca Jimenez, Environmental Health Coalition PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association of California Ms. Patti Krebs, Industrial Environmental Association Dr. Melanie Marty, Manager, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Mr. Jesse Marquez, Coalition for a Safe Environment Ms. Cynthia Medina, Del Amo Action Committee Ms. Maria Moya, Citizen Ms. Guadalupe Orozco, Barrio Logan Resident Dr. Bart Ostro, Supervisor, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Mr. Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals Dr. Trisha Roth, American Academy of Pediatrics Ms. Marie Sanchez, Barrio Logan Resident Ms. Mitzi Shpak, California Institute of Technology Ms. Diane Takvorian, Environmental Health Coalition Ms. Cindy Tuck, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance Dr. Barry Wallerstein, South Coast Air Quality Management District Mr. Mike Webb, California Building Industry Ms. Jane Williams, California Communities Against Toxics Mr. Stephen Zman PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Item 05-4-1 Acting Chairperson Riordan 4 Executive Officer Witherspoon 5 Staff Presentation 7 Dr. Michael Kleinman 35 Ombudsman Tschogl 42 Discussion and Q&A 43 Steve Arita 62 Stephen Zman 66 Steve Douglas 67 Sujatha Jahagirdar 70 Charlie Peters 71 Dr. Trisha Roth 75 Jesse Marquez 80 Diane Bailey 84 Bonnie Holmes-Gen 88 Ex Partes 94 Discussion and Q&A 95 Motion 98 Vote 98 Public Comment 100 Evening Session 104 Item 05-4-2 Acting Chairperson Riordan 105 Executive Officer Witherspoon 106 Staff Presentation 108 CalEPA Deputy Secretary Prasad 129 Discussion and Q&A 132 Jesse Marquez 145 Cindy Tuck 151 Dr. Barry Wallerstein 152 Diane Bailey 162 Burbank City Councilmember Todd Campbell 167 Mike Webb 172 Mitzi Shpak 175 Jane Williams 175 Francisca Jimenez 178 Randa Baramki 180 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Item 05-4-2(continued) Marie Sanchez 182 Guadalupe Orozco 183 Georgette Gomez 186 Maria Moya 187 Charles Castaneda 188 Diane Takvorian 192 Patti Krebs 196 Shabaka Heru 197 Cynthia Babich 200 Cynthia Medina 204 Thomas Addison 205 Bahram Fazeli 208 Discussion and Q&A 209 Motion 219 Vote 219 Public Comment 221 Adjournment 221 Reporter's Certificate 222 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Good afternoon. And 3 this is the April 28th, 2005, public meeting of the Air 4 Resources Board. And I'm going to call it to order. 5 And I've asked Member Berg to lead us in the flag 6 salute. And the flag is to our right, perhaps the 7 audience's left. If you'd stand please. 8 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 9 Recited in unison.) 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 11 I'd like to ask the clerk to the Board to please 12 call roll. 13 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Here. 15 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 16 Supervisor DeSaulnier? 17 Dr. Gong? 18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Here. 19 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 20 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Here. 21 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mayor Loveridge? 22 Supervisor Patrick? 23 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. 24 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Pineda? 25 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 2 Madam Chairman Riordan? 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Here. 4 Thank you. 5 Just before we start there is one note that I'd 6 like to make. And, that is, last week there was a 7 wonderful symposium. It's called the Haagen-Smit 8 symposium. And I know a number of the people who are in 9 this room who are on the ARB staff spent a lot of time, 10 I'm sure, making that a wonderful symposium. And Dr. Gong 11 reminded me that we are in a Haagen-Smit building. And he 12 also wanted to note, and I'm going to call on him, they 13 award to people of significant -- who have made 14 significant contributions to the environment awards. 15 And, Dr. Gong, do you want to talk about those 16 three recipients for this year? 17 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Certainly. I just wanted to 18 acknowledge for the record that the Board certainly 19 recognizes and appreciates the fine contributions of the 20 following three individuals, who are this year's 21 recipients of the Haagen-Smit clean air awards. 22 The first awardee, by alphabetical order, is Dr. 23 William Carter, a distinguished research chemist at the 24 statewide Air Pollution Research Center at UC Riverside. 25 Also Curtis A. Moore, an international consultant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 and writer on advanced environmental policies and 2 technologies. He's also worked with Dr. David Bates on 3 the Health and Clean Air newsletters on major air 4 pollution issues. 5 And last, but not least, Mr. Timothy Belian, 6 Executive Director of Coordinating Research Council, has 7 devoted a career of 35 years in developing and managing 8 cooperative research programs to enhance the performance 9 of on-road vehicles and the understanding of reducing 10 vehicular emissions. 11 So congratulations to these three recipients for 12 this year's clean air awards. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. Thank 14 you, Dr. Gong. 15 So that all my colleagues know how our meeting 16 will progress, let me just explain, as well as to the 17 audience. 18 We are having a split of an agenda. We're 19 starting an earlier agenda. We're going to take a break. 20 And then we are going on to reconvene again at 6 p.m. for 21 the second item on our agenda. 22 We are I think going to make great progress. I 23 would remind those of you who are interested in speaking, 24 I am going to use a timer. And while I don't know that we 25 have a lot of speakers on this first item, and if it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 appears that we are going to have a very small audience, 2 I'll extend some time later perhaps to you. But at least 3 let us begin with a three-minute time limit for your 4 presentations. And then if I think that there is more of 5 an opportunity, I may recall you if you have more that you 6 had wanted to say. 7 But I think in the interests of having everyone 8 heard appropriately, we are going to stay to our 9 three-minute rule. 10 We are going to resume, as I said, later for the 11 ARB's environmental program on our approval of the draft 12 air quality and land use handbook again at 6 p.m. 13 So we need to move on at this time for the 14 proposed amendments to the state ambient air quality 15 standard for ozone. 16 Let me indicate to the audience again, those of 17 you who are very familiar with our program, if you wish to 18 testify on this item, please sign up with the staff in the 19 front lobby entrance area of this building. If you have a 20 written statement, please provide 30 copies when you sign 21 up to the staff at that site. 22 The first item on the agenda today is 05-4-1, a 23 public hearing to consider amendments to the state ambient 24 air quality standard for ozone. This will be the second 25 standard review completed since the adoption of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 Children's Environmental Health Protection act. This law 2 requires the review of each state ambient air quality 3 standard to ensure that they adequately protect the health 4 of the public including infants and children. 5 Today's staff will present recommendations to 6 amend the ozone standard in order to ensure that it is 7 adequate to protect public health. 8 Mr. Witherspoon, would you like to provide us 9 with an overview of what the staff will be covering. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Madam 11 Chairman, and good afternoon. 12 As a preface to staff's presentation I would like 13 to briefly put California air quality standards into 14 context, because we often get asked, "Why does California 15 set its own air quality standards when the federal 16 government regulates the same pollutants?" 17 Standards setting is one of the first things the 18 newly established Air Resources Board was directed to do 19 back in the 1970's. Under state law enacted at that time 20 the standards you adopt are to take into account public 21 health, safety and welfare including, but not limited to, 22 illnesses, irritation to the senses, aesthetic values and 23 interference with visibility, among other factors. 24 Health-based standards are also to reflect the 25 recommendations of the Office of Health Hazard PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 Assessment -- excuse me -- Environmental Health Hazard 2 Assessment, a division of roles and responsibilities that 3 remains unchanged today. 4 As Madam Chairman indicated, in 1999 state law 5 was amended to require that the Air Resources Board 6 revisit all of its existing air quality standards in 7 priority order to make sure they're stringent enough to 8 protect infants and children. 9 This is the second set of revisions ARB has 10 completed under that mandate. The first review was of 11 particulate matter and was completed in 2003, I believe. 12 The next review will address our standard for nitrogen 13 dioxide. 14 Staff has concluded that the existing one-hour 15 ozone standard in California is not protective enough, 16 given all the available scientific evidence. Therefore, 17 we are proposing that you add a new eight-hour ozone 18 standard to the one-hour ozone standard that is already on 19 the books. 20 There's been quite a lot of discussion about the 21 benefits of the ozone standard we are proposing today. As 22 part of staff's presentation, we will be careful to 23 delineate the difference between the benefits attributable 24 to the proposed eight-hour standard as compared to those 25 that would be achieved from the standards you and U.S. EPA PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 have already adopted. 2 There's a white paper at your desk that also 3 indicates the quantitative benefits of one standard versus 4 another. 5 Dr. Deborah Drechsler from the Research Division 6 will present a summary of the staff report, staff's 7 recommendations, and the scientific rationale for the 8 proposed standard. Following her presentation, Dr. George 9 Alex'eeff of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 10 Assessment will make a statement regarding OEHHA's role 11 and recommendations. Finally, Dr. Michael Kleinman, 12 Chairman of the Air Quality Advisory Committee, or AQAC, 13 will present an overview of AQAC's review and 14 recommendations. 15 I'll now turn the presentation over to Dr. 16 Drechsler. 17 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 18 Presented as follows.) 19 DR. DRECHSLER: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman 20 and members of the Board. 21 This afternoon we are presenting staff's findings 22 on the review of the ambient air quality standard for 23 ozone and our recommendations for amending the standard. 24 We have arrived at these recommendations -- 25 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Can everybody hear? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 Can you all hear in the back? We're just checking this 2 new sound system. 3 I'm sorry, Deborah. 4 DR. DRECHSLER: That's all right. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: But I don't want 6 them to miss what you're saying. 7 I think everybody can hear you fine. 8 DR. DRECHSLER: Okay. We arrived at these 9 recommendations as the result of an extensive critical 10 review of the scientific literature on the health and 11 welfare effect of ozone exposure. 12 --o0o-- 13 DR. DRECHSLER: We'll be focusing on several 14 issues in this presentation, including why we are 15 reviewing the state ozone standard, the legal and 16 regulatory criteria for standard review, our findings and 17 proposed revisions to the existing ozone standard, the 18 health basis for the proposed ozone standard, some of the 19 public health impacts of current ozone levels, and an 20 overview of the comments we received from the public. 21 --o0o-- 22 DR. DRECHSLER: We'll start by defining an 23 ambient air quality standard and why we're reviewing the 24 ozone standard. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 DR. DRECHSLER: Under California law, an ambient 2 air quality standard is the legal definition of clean air. 3 This definition is key for today's consideration of the 4 proposed amendments to the ozone standard. Based on this 5 definition, a standard represents the highest exposure 6 that is unlikely to induce adverse health effects, and 7 represents the highest safe concentration for the given 8 averaging time. 9 Standards have four parts: They include a 10 definition of the pollutant, in this case ozone; a 11 concentration; an averaging time, for example, one hour or 12 eight hours; and a monitoring method. 13 By state law ambient air quality standards are 14 based solely on health and welfare considerations. 15 --o0o-- 16 DR. DRECHSLER: Standards do not include plans 17 for attainment. They are the goal to which attainment 18 plans aim. Attainment designations are governed by a 19 different regulatory process and, consequently, issues 20 related to attainment are not considered in the standard 21 setting process. 22 Standard setting also does not include 23 consideration of such things as cost feasibility or 24 implementation of controls. However, these issues are 25 considered when specific control measures are proposed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 --o0o-- 2 DR. DRECHSLER: As I mentioned, California 3 ambient air quality standards are based solely on health 4 and welfare considerations. This review of the ozone 5 standard addresses provisions of the children's 6 environmental health protection act, also known as SB 25, 7 which was passed in 1999. The act required that ambient 8 air quality standards be reviewed and set at levels that 9 protect public health, with a particular emphasize on the 10 health of infants and children. 11 State law requires that ambient air quality 12 standards be periodically reviewed to ensure that they do 13 adequately protect public health with an adequate margin 14 of safety. 15 The California ozone standard was last reviewed 16 in 1987, and considerable new health research has been 17 published since that time that is relevant to evaluating 18 the adequacy of the existing standard. 19 --o0o-- 20 DR. DRECHSLER: We are concerned about ozone 21 because exposure to this pollutant results in significant 22 and wide-ranging health effects, as consistently reported 23 in the scientific literature. 24 Also, statewide ozone levels frequently exceed 25 the current standard, meaning that many Californians are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 at risk of experiencing adverse health effects multiple 2 times per year. In addition, children may be especially 3 vulnerable. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. DRECHSLER: Ozone exposure is widespread, 6 although there could be considerable differences in total 7 exposure among individuals. This is because ozone is 8 primarily an outdoor pollutant. So people who spend more 9 time outdoors are at greater risk of experiencing adverse 10 responses. 11 In addition, research has shown that the health 12 effects of ozone exposure are roughly proportional to the 13 amount of ozone a person inhales. So the more a person 14 breathes, the greater their risk of experiencing adverse 15 effects. 16 So, generally speaking, the individuals at 17 greatest risk of experiencing adverse effects from ozone 18 are those who exercise or work outdoors and children who 19 typically spend a greater amount of time in outdoor 20 activity and breathe at a higher rate relative to their 21 size than adults. 22 --o0o-- 23 DR. DRECHSLER: The most populated areas of 24 California have many exceedances of the current state 25 ozone standard each year. This figure shows the trend in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 the number of days exceeding the California ozone standard 2 for the period 1988 to 2002 in the four largest California 3 air basins. 4 As you can see, the trend over the past 14 years 5 is toward fewer days per year above the standard. 6 However, the large number of days per year exceeding the 7 state standard, along with the large population affected, 8 gives an indication of why the ozone standard received a 9 high priority for full review. 10 --o0o-- 11 DR. DRECHSLER: This slide gives a perspective on 12 the extent of ozone pollution in California compared to 13 the rest of the country. The vertical bars on the figure 14 are the number of exceedances of the federal eight-hour 15 ozone standard. As you can see, California has, by far, 16 the largest number of exceedances in the country. 17 The slide also illustrates the seriousness of the 18 ozone problem in California and California's need for 19 authority to address a significant statewide public health 20 issue, which it has through provisions of the federal 21 Clean Air Act. 22 --o0o-- 23 DR. DRECHSLER: Currently California has a 24 one-hour ozone standard of .09 parts per million, not to 25 be exceeded, which is more stringent than the federal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 one-hour ozone standard of .12 parts per million. 2 The federal one-our standard is in the process of 3 being phased out in favor of an eight-hour average 4 standard of .08 parts per million that was set in 1997. 5 This concentration was selected from a range of .07 to .09 6 that was recommended by the EPA staff. The federal 7 standards also allow several exceedances per year. 8 For comparison, the World Health Organization has 9 recommended an eight-hour average standard of .06 parts 10 per million for Europe and Canada has a one-hour standard 11 of .082 parts per million. 12 --o0o-- 13 DR. DRECHSLER: Today we are proposing to amend 14 the California ambient air quality standard for ozone as 15 follows: 16 First, we recommend retention of ozone as the 17 pollutant definition. We recommend establishment of a new 18 eight-hour average standard of .070 parts per million, not 19 to be exceeded, based on recent health studies. 20 In addition, we recommend retaining the current 21 one-hour standard of .09 parts per million, not to be 22 exceeded, because the scientific literature indicates that 23 peak exposures are important. 24 Finally, we recommend that the ultraviolet 25 absorption monitoring method currently in use continue to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 be the monitoring method for ozone and that all federally 2 approved ultraviolet absorption samplers be adopted as 3 California-approved samplers. 4 This will not result in any changes in current 5 monitoring practices and will align California's 6 monitoring methods with those of U.S. EPA. 7 --o0o-- 8 DR. DRECHSLER: Next I'd like to turn your 9 attention to the process and procedures for setting 10 ambient air quality standards in California. 11 --o0o-- 12 DR. DRECHSLER: This slide illustrates the 13 regulatory process for setting standards that is required 14 by state law. Staff from ARB, the Office of Environmental 15 Health Hazard Assessment, commonly known as OEHHA, and 16 several contractors contributed to the draft staff report 17 which was released for public comment in June 2004 and was 18 presented at several public workshops during the summer of 19 2004. 20 The report included chapters on ozone chemistry 21 and physics, exposure assessment, background 22 concentration, welfare effects, emissions and the health 23 literature. 24 OEHHA's role is to provide a recommendation for 25 the standard based on the health findings of the reviews PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 contained in the various sections of the report. 2 AQAC stands for the Air Quality Advisory 3 Committee, commonly called AQAC. AQAC is peer-review 4 committee mandated by provisions of the California Health 5 and safety code. AQAC peer reviewed the draft report and 6 recommendations at a public meeting in January and 7 provided comments on the report and its findings in 8 writing. 9 The Committee also considered public comments on 10 the report and recommendations. The final report we are 11 presenting today incorporates revisions that address the 12 comments of AQAC and the public. It was released on March 13 11th. We held public workshops in Sacramento and El Monte 14 earlier this month to present the revised report to the 15 public and to receive comments. 16 --o0o-- 17 DR. DRECHSLER: As I mentioned, state law 18 requires AQAC to peer review the draft staff report and 19 recommendations. The Committee is appointed by the Office 20 of the President of the University of California. And 21 each member is an expert on one or more aspects of the 22 staff report. 23 The purpose of AQAC's per review is to assess the 24 completeness and conclusions of the scientific review on 25 which the proposed standards are based. The Committee PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 also makes findings as to whether the proposed standards 2 are supported by the findings of the literature review and 3 whether the proposed standards adequately protect public 4 health. 5 --o0o-- 6 DR. DRECHSLER: At the conclusion of their 7 two-day public meeting, AQAC found that the scientific 8 conclusions presented in the staff report are consistent 9 with the available data. They further found that the 10 staff recommendations are scientifically sound and well 11 justified. 12 The Committee made a number of suggestions for 13 changes to the staff report, largely oriented toward more 14 detailed discussion on or clarification of several topics 15 and addition of several scientific papers. The Committee 16 unanimously endorsed the proposed amendments to the state 17 ozone standard. 18 Staff responded to the AQAC review by revising 19 the report to incorporate the suggestions of AQAC. In 20 addition, the revised report released on March 11th also 21 addressed issues raised by the public orally at workshops, 22 at the AQAC meeting, and through written comments. 23 --o0o-- 24 DR. DRECHSLER: Next I'll briefly discuss the 25 findings of the scientific review. As I mentioned, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 proposed revision of the ozone standard is based solely on 2 health and welfare considerations. Staff reviewed about 3 1,000 health related scientific papers in the course of 4 preparing the staff report before you today. 5 --o0o-- 6 DR. DRECHSLER: Published papers that have 7 investigated the impacts of ozone exposure on human health 8 broadly fall into three categories: Controlled human 9 exposure studies; controlled animal exposure studies; and 10 epidemiologic studies. Because there is a very large body 11 of controlled human exposure data, we have primarily 12 relied on these studies in selecting the averaging times 13 and concentrations in our recommendation. 14 These data have been supplemented by 15 epidemiologic and animal study data. 16 --o0o-- 17 DR. DRECHSLER: Collectively the health 18 literature shows that ozone exposure is associated with a 19 number of adverse health effects, including reduced lung 20 function, increased respiratory symptoms, airways 21 inflammation, increased hospital and emergency room usage, 22 increased school absenteeism. And there's preliminary 23 evidence that high ozone exposure in active children may 24 be related to asthma induction. 25 There is also increasing evidence that ozone is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 associated with premature death. 2 The next few slides present a more detailed 3 summary of the health effects of ozone exposure. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. DRECHSLER: Controlled exposure studies have 6 several features that make them particularly useful for 7 standards setting. 8 Typically these studies include healthy adults. 9 Although there are some studies of children, adolescents 10 and people with mild degrees of chronic heart or lung 11 disease. 12 These studies give good measures of exposure and 13 response, and the protocols are designed to simulate 14 outdoor exposure patterns representative of people's 15 actual activity patterns. 16 However, they are very labor intensive to perform 17 and, consequently, only small groups can be studied. 18 Exposures to complex mixtures of pollutants are not 19 logistically feasible. And some subject populations 20 cannot be studies at all for ethical reasons such as the 21 seriously ill. 22 However, these studies provide important 23 dose-response information about the groups most likely to 24 have elevated exposure to ozone, those who work, play and 25 engage in active recreation outdoors. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 --o0o-- 2 DR. DRECHSLER: Review of the controlled human 3 exposure studies led to the findings that for one- to 4 three-hour exposures, the lowest ozone concentrations at 5 which adverse effects have been documented are .12 parts 6 per million for lung function decrements and increased 7 respiratory symptoms, .18 parts per million for increased 8 airway resistance, and .2 parts per million for airway 9 inflammation. 10 There are several limitations to this database, 11 including little or no data at concentrations below those 12 noted above except for lung function and symptoms. 13 There are only a few studies on children, 14 adolescents, and people with chronic diseases, although 15 the available literature does not support the notion that 16 these subpopulations respond at lower ozone concentrations 17 than healthy people. 18 --o0o-- 19 DR. DRECHSLER: Review of multi-hour controlled 20 human exposure studies led to the finding that for six- to 21 eight-hour exposures, .08 parts per million is the lowest 22 ozone concentration at which lung function decrements, 23 increased respiratory symptoms, increased airway 24 reactivity, and airway inflammation have been reported. 25 Again, there are several limitations to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 available database. For example, there are few data at 2 concentrations below .08 parts per million, there is one 3 published study at .04 parts per million, and one 4 unpublished study at .06 parts per million, both of which 5 reported no statistically significant effects. And again 6 there are few or no studies on children, adolescents or 7 people with chronic diseases. 8 As with the one- to three-hour exposures, the 9 available literature does not support the notion that 10 these subpopulations respond at lower ozone concentrations 11 than health people. 12 --o0o-- 13 DR. DRECHSLER: The next slide shows actual data 14 from a controlled exposure study and illustrates several 15 key points about responses to ozone. 16 This slide shows the typical time course of 17 change in a measure of lung function, forced expiratory 18 volume in one second, abbreviated as FEV 1, with exposure 19 duration in subjects exposed to filtered air, .04, .08, 20 and .12 parts per million ozone for 6.6 hours. 21 As you can see, FEV 1 decreases as a function of 22 both ozone concentration and length of exposure, although 23 ozone concentration has the greater effect. 24 The slide also illustrates the reproducibility of 25 responses with repeated exposure of the same individuals PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 to .12 parts per million indicated in the slide by the 2 double trend lines for .12 parts per million. 3 --o0o-- 4 DR. DRECHSLER: The next slide illustrates the 5 range of individual changes in FEV 1 in response to 6.6 6 hour exposure to .08 parts per million ozone. These 7 exposures included moderate exercise for 50 minutes of 8 each hour in simulation of a day of outdoor work or active 9 recreation. 10 Each bar shows the percentage of the people 11 studied who had the specified percentage change in FEV 1 12 following the exposure. 13 Note that with 6.6 hour exposure to .08 parts per 14 million ozone, 26 percent of the subjects studied had 15 decrements in FEV 1 greater than 10 percent, representing 16 an adverse health effect. 17 The slide also illustrates that some individuals 18 are especially sensitive to ozone, indicated by those who 19 had changes of 30 percent or greater. 20 --o0o-- 21 DR. DRECHSLER: Few controlled exposure studies 22 have investigated the effects of demographic factors or 23 ethnicity on responses to ozone. 24 There's no evidence that men and women have 25 different degrees of sensitivity to ozone. Adults over 50 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 years of age typically have smaller lung function and 2 symptom responses to ozone than younger people. But there 3 are no data on airways responsiveness or inflammation in 4 this age group. 5 Only one study has investigated the influence of 6 socioeconomic status, and one has compared responses of 7 African Americans with Caucasians. 8 Both found no differences in responses between 9 groups. There are no data on other ethnic groups. 10 Overall, with the exception of gender, there are 11 insufficient data available to draw conclusions as to 12 whether or not these factors impact responsiveness to 13 ozone. 14 --o0o-- 15 DR. DRECHSLER: Animal toxicology indicates that 16 laboratory animal species have similar acute responses to 17 ozone as human, including increased airway resistance, 18 airways inflammation, and reduced lung function. Studies 19 have shown that alternating periods of ozone and air 20 exposure result in repeated injury repair cycles that can 21 lead to fibrosis of the lung tissue. 22 These studies used higher ozone concentrations 23 than are currently typical of ambient conditions, and it 24 is unknown whether episodic exposure of humans to ambient 25 concentrations of ozone causes similar effects. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 Chronic exposure to ozone concentrations greater 2 than .2 parts per million, which is also somewhat higher 3 than current ambient concentrations, leads to changes in 4 airway architecture in infant and young animals. 5 --o0o-- 6 DR. DRECHSLER: We also reviewed epidemiologic 7 studies which investigate the relationship between 8 exposures and responses of naturally exposed populations. 9 Because these studies do not involve altering people's 10 natural exposures, they can include many people who cannot 11 be studied under controlled conditions. These studies can 12 also examine both short- and long-term exposures. 13 However, epidemiologic studies also have several 14 limitations, including that it is difficult to determine 15 the relevant exposure averaging time and the specific 16 pollutant concentrations inducing the observed effects. 17 Because ambient air is a complex mixture, these 18 studies also account for potentially confounding factors 19 such as weather and other pollutants present in the 20 ambient air. 21 --o0o-- 22 DR. DRECHSLER: The epidemiologic literature has 23 reported significant associations between ambient 24 concentrations of ozone and a number of adverse health 25 outcomes, including respiratory hospital admissions, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 emergency room visits for asthma, asthma exacerbation, 2 school absences, respiratory symptoms, new onset of asthma 3 with exercise, reduced lung function with long-term 4 exposure, and premature death. 5 Two recently published studies, one from Europe 6 and one from the U.S., provide new and stronger evidence 7 than previous studies that ozone is associated with 8 premature death. 9 The Gryparis, et al., study of 29 European cities 10 implicate summer ozone concentrations which are generally 11 higher than during other parts of the year. 12 Bell, et al., study of 95 U.S. cities found an 13 association for both summer and year-round ozone 14 concentrations for all age groups. 15 Bell also reported that the association between 16 premature death and ozone was greater when the analysis 17 included consideration of the ozone concentration over 18 several days. 19 --o0o-- 20 DR. DRECHSLER: The Health and Safety Code 21 requires staff to make findings relating specifically to 22 effects on children and infants, including susceptibility, 23 exposure patterns and interactions between ambient 24 pollutants. We concluded that there is no evidence that 25 children respond to lower ozone concentrations than PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 adults. 2 However, children often have a different exposure 3 pattern that includes high exposures due to more frequent 4 and longer duration of outdoor activity. In addition, 5 dosimetry studies suggest that children experience greater 6 exposure per unit lung surface area than adults. 7 Several studies suggest that high ozone exposure 8 during childhood may affect lung development, leading to a 9 lower attained level of lung function at adulthood. There 10 is also some evidence that high childhood ozone exposure 11 may induce asthma. 12 Our review found no evidence for interactions 13 between pollutants in any population group. 14 --o0o-- 15 DR. DRECHSLER: Adverse health outcomes reported 16 by studies specifically of children include asthma 17 exacerbation and emergency room visits for asthma, 18 hospital admissions, school absenteeism, upper and lower 19 respiratory symptoms, possible onset of asthma in active 20 children living in high ozone areas, and decreased lung 21 function in young adults raised in high ozone areas. 22 --o0o-- 23 DR. DRECHSLER: Now, I'd like to turn your 24 attention to the basis for staff's recommendations for the 25 ozone standard and how we used the findings from the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 scientific review to develop the recommendations for 2 revision of the state ozone standard. 3 --o0o-- 4 DR. DRECHSLER: As I mentioned earlier, 5 controlled human exposure studies formed the primary basis 6 for the staff recommendations. For a one-hour averaging 7 time we recommend retention of the current standard of .09 8 parts per million based on controlled human exposure 9 studies reporting lung function and symptoms effects at 10 .12 parts per million; the finding that epidemiologic 11 studies suggest adverse effects below .12 parts per 12 million; and epidemiologic studies on emergency room 13 visits for asthma suggest a lowest effect level in the 14 range of .075 to .11 parts per million. 15 --o0o-- 16 DR. DRECHSLER: State law requires inclusion of a 17 margin of safety in the recommended standards to address 18 uncertainties in the available data. Epidemiologic and 19 animal toxicology data contributed to the development of 20 the margin of safety. We believe that the recommendation 21 of .09 parts per million for one hour includes an adequate 22 margin of safety to protect children and other susceptible 23 groups as well as protecting against airway inflammation. 24 This standard will protect against relatively 25 short peak exposures and is particularly relevant for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 protection of children and adults who are playing, 2 exercising or working outdoors for relatively short time 3 periods. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. DRECHSLER: We also recommending establishing 6 a new eight-hour standard of .070 parts per million based 7 on 6.6 to 8 hour controlled human exposure studies that 8 have reported lung function and symptoms effects, airway 9 hyper-reactivity, and airway inflammation at .08 parts per 10 million. 11 We have applied a margin of safety in 12 consideration of the finding that about 26 percent of 13 individuals participating in the supporting studies 14 exhibited large changes in lung function following 6.6 15 hour exposure to .08 parts per million ozone. 16 The two controlled human studies at .04 and .06 17 parts per million reported no statistically significant 18 effects. 19 --o0o-- 20 DR. DRECHSLER: Epidemiologic studies suggest 21 that there may be adverse effects at eight-hour 22 concentrations less than .08 parts per million. In 23 addition, studies on emergency room visits for asthma 24 suggest a lowest effect level, in the range of .065 to .09 25 parts per million for an eight-hour averaging time. This PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 standard will provide protection from multi-hour 2 exposures, and is the particularly relevant for outdoor 3 workers and people who engage in multi-hour recreational 4 exercise and outdoor activities. 5 --o0o-- 6 DR. DRECHSLER: We are proposing two standards to 7 address different exposure patterns. Ozone-induced health 8 effects are roughly proportional to the amount of ozone 9 inhaled. Although ozone concentration has the greatest 10 influence on response magnitude. Because of this, we need 11 standards that protect against both short-term peak 12 exposures and longer lower concentration exposures to 13 provide adequate public health protection. 14 --o0o-- 15 DR. DRECHSLER: Now I'd like to turn your 16 attention to some of the health impacts of current levels 17 of ozone exposure. 18 --o0o-- 19 DR. DRECHSLER: We performed an analysis to 20 estimate some of the public health impacts associated with 21 current ozone levels compared to the recommended ambient 22 air quality standards for ozone. The purpose of the 23 analysis was not to select or justify the recommended 24 standards, and it was performed after the recommendations 25 were finalized. Rather, the purpose was to illustrate the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 public health impacts associated with ozone exposures 2 today. 3 The numbers we are presenting today are somewhat 4 different than those in our staff report to reflect the 5 results of an incremental analysis approach that I will 6 explain momentarily. 7 --o0o-- 8 DR. DRECHSLER: Our calculations suggest that 9 current ozone levels are associated with a number of 10 health impacts. Specifically we estimate that the 11 following impacts are associated with current ozone 12 concentrations and would be avoided with attainment of the 13 proposed standards: 630 premature deaths; 4,200 14 hospitalizations for respiratory diseases; 660 emergency 15 room visits for asthma in children under 18 years of age; 16 3.7 million school absences among school children; and 3.1 17 million minor restricted activity days among adults. 18 Since the analysis did not include all possible 19 endpoints, it is likely that the total impacts of current 20 ozone levels are greater than presented here. 21 It is important to recognize that the endpoints 22 used in the benefits analysis are not those on which the 23 proposed standards were primarily based. 24 The health impacts analysis was performed using 25 population-based studies of more rare, but also more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 serious, end-points to obtain an estimate of some of the 2 public health impacts associated with current ozone 3 levels. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. DRECHSLER: The numbers presented on the 6 previous slide compare the health impact of current ozone 7 levels with those that would occur with attainment of the 8 proposed standards. In response to public comments, we 9 also estimated the incremental reduction in health impacts 10 that would accrue with reaching each air quality goal on 11 the way to full attainment. 12 This slide shows our findings for two endpoints: 13 Premature death and school absences. Note that the scale 14 is different for the two endpoints. 15 For premature death, the incremental analysis 16 estimates that attainment of the federal eight-hour 17 standard of .08 parts per million would avoid 360 deaths. 18 An additional 180 deaths would be avoided with attainment 19 of the state one-hour standard of .09 parts per million 20 and another 90 would be avoided with attainment of the 21 proposed eight-hour standard, for a total of 630 cases 22 avoided at full attainment on an annual basis. 23 For school absenteeism, the incremental analysis 24 estimates avoidance of two million school absences with 25 attainment of the federal eight-hour standard, an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 additional 1.1 million avoided school absences with 2 attainment of the current state one-hour standard, and 3 another 600,000 avoided school absences with attainment of 4 the proposed eight-hour standard, leading to a total of 5 3.7 million fewer school absences at full attainment. 6 --o0o-- 7 DR. DRECHSLER: During the 45-day public comment 8 period we received comments from industry and community 9 groups. The comments fall into several basic topic areas. 10 --o0o-- 11 DR. DRECHSLER: One issue is concern that the 12 proposed standards may overlap natural background levels. 13 Our literature review led to the conclusion that the 14 long-term average background ozone concentration in 15 California is about .04 parts per million, which is below 16 the proposed standards. 17 Several commenters have also expressed concern 18 that stratospheric ozone intrusion could lead to 19 nonattainment designations since the proposed ozone 20 standards are close to the background level. Existing air 21 quality analysis methods are able to identify such 22 exceptional events. Further, existing policy allows 23 values identified as exceptional events to be excluded 24 from the attainment designation process. 25 This process is only applied if a questionable PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 measurement would be the deciding factor between an 2 attainment or nonattainment designation. 3 There was also a comment that we have not 4 considered the beneficial effect of reduced skin cancer 5 due to ground-level UVB absorption by ground-level ozone. 6 Staff believes it is unlikely that any such -- 7 staff believes it is likely that any such effect would be 8 very small because the change in UV absorption would be 9 restricted to only a very short path length, typically a 10 few hundred meters. The limited literature on this topic 11 does not support the commenter's contention. 12 --o0o-- 13 DR. DRECHSLER: Several commenters believe that 14 we have not adequately considered the economic cost of 15 meeting the proposed standards. As I noted at the 16 beginning of the presentation, under California law 17 ambient air quality standards are the definition of clean 18 air and are based solely on health and welfare 19 considerations. We are not permitted to consider costs of 20 attainment in standard setting. 21 State law deliberately separates the processes of 22 defining clean air through ambient air quality standards 23 and attaining the defined clean air goal. Staff 24 recognizes that it will likely be difficult to attain the 25 proposed standards. But the scientific literature clearly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 demonstrates that the proposed standards are necessary to 2 protect public health in the manner specified by state 3 law. 4 There will be economic costs involved in 5 attaining the proposed standards. But under state law 6 these cannot be considered in the standards-setting 7 process. The costs of particular control measures are 8 evaluated in detail when control measures are proposed. 9 We also received several requests that we present 10 the health impacts analysis in an incremental manner, the 11 results of which we have already discussed in today's 12 presentation. 13 --o0o-- 14 DR. DRECHSLER: So to summarize, staff is 15 recommending that the Board adopt the proposals to amend 16 the state ambient air quality standard for ozone. 17 As I discussed earlier, state law defines ambient 18 air quality standards as the maximum safe concentration 19 for a given averaging time. This means that adverse 20 effects are unlikely in people who undergo the defined 21 exposures. 22 The recommendations are based on an extensive 23 review of the scientific literature on the public health 24 impacts of ozone exposure. 25 To conclude, we recommend that the Board adopt PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 staff's recommendation. 2 And now Dr. George Alexeeff from OEHHA will 3 discuss OEHHA's role in the standard process. 4 OEHHA SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 5 ALEXEEFF: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the 6 Board and members of the public. My name is Dr. George 7 Alexeeff. I am Deputy Director for Scientific Affairs of 8 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 9 It's a separate department in the environmental protection 10 agency of California. 11 With me today are Dr. Melanie Marty, Chief of our 12 Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section, and Dr. Bart 13 Ostro, Chief -- just to the right of Dr. Drechsler, Chief 14 of our air pollution epidemiology unit. 15 OEHHA, which is our shortened name, has the 16 statutory responsibility for making the health-based 17 recommendations for ambient air quality standards to the 18 Air Resources Board. Our effort was led by Dr. Bart 19 Ostro, whom most of you know. 20 Recent legislation, SB 25, required us to review 21 the standards with a specific focus on infants and 22 children. OEHHA's staff evaluated all the available 23 epidemiologic literature and the chamber studies, which 24 Dr. Drechsler just alluded to, in order to develop a 25 health-based recommendation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 Children's health impacts from current ozone 2 exposure include increased asthma prevalence, increased 3 symptoms from asthma exacerbation, and an increase in 4 missed school days primarily from respiratory illnesses. 5 We believe our recommendation to retain the one-hour 6 standard of .09 parts per million and to establish a new 7 eight-hour standard of .070 parts per million is necessary 8 to provide additional protection for California's 9 children. 10 Dr. Ostro, with assistance from the Air Resources 11 Board staff, also conducted the health benefits 12 assessment, which estimated the improvements in the health 13 of our children and reduced impacts on the elderly and 14 other susceptible populations if these recommendations 15 were implemented. 16 Thank you. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 18 Are there any other comments, Ms. Witherspoon, 19 from the staff before I go to the Ombudsman's Report? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, now we're 21 going to hear from Dr. Michael Kleinman with the Air 22 Quality Advisory Committee. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right. Thank 24 you. 25 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 Madam Chairman, members of the Board, members of 2 the audience. 3 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 4 Presented as follows.) 5 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: The Air Quality 6 Advisory Committee is an independent committee that 7 reviews the output of ARB and OEHHA. And the SB 25, as 8 you've already heard, indicated that it was necessary to 9 review health standards. And as a result of that, the 10 current .09 ppm standard was found both by the panel of 11 experts that were convened to review the literature, the 12 staff of both OEHHA and ARB, as well as the Air Quality 13 Advisory Committee not to provide adequate protection or 14 margin of safety for children or adults. 15 If I can have the next slide. 16 --o0o-- 17 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: The health 18 protectiveness of the standard was -- was -- sorry -- was 19 evaluated. And essentially the magnitude of risk when 20 ambient levels were at or near the existing standard were 21 still measurable and created health hazards. 22 Next slide. 23 --o0o-- 24 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: The review 25 specifically for ozone indicated the need for a more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 stringent ozone standard, which included a differing 2 averaging time. Rather than one hour, a longer-term 3 standard was indicated, or a more stringent one-hour 4 standard was indicated. 5 --o0o-- 6 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: The review of the 7 literature conducted by OEHHA and ARB included a very 8 thorough examination of the published literature over the 9 past several years. As Dr. Drechsler indicated, more than 10 a thousand articles were reviewed. 11 The information was integrated, interpreted and 12 various assessments were made, and the recommendations 13 were provided for the evaluation by the Air Quality 14 Advisory Committee. 15 --o0o-- 16 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: AQAC is appointed by 17 the Office of the President. It's an independent 18 committee, which means that the individuals involved in 19 the committee had nothing to do with the writing of the 20 staff documents or the recommendations. We strictly 21 evaluated the health basis and the relevance of the health 22 related literature to the recommendations made by the 23 staff. 24 In addition, each member of AQAC underwent very 25 thorough investigation in terms of potential conflict of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 interest, and before any member was actually appointed by 2 the office of the president. So the AQAC is an 3 independent scientific body. 4 Next. 5 --o0o-- 6 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: The expertise on the 7 committee represented exposure assessment and monitoring 8 of pollutants, individuals who were practicing medicine in 9 the clinical setting as well as in the research setting. 10 We covered pulmonary and pediatric medicine, epidemiology 11 studies of health effects and toxicology, as well as 12 individual who has extremely excellent expertise in health 13 benefits analysis and economics. 14 Next. 15 --o0o-- 16 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: We found that the key 17 studies relevant to the health effects were very well 18 documented in the staff recommendations. However, there 19 were some recent studies that had not been included, and 20 our recommendations were to include those. And, as Dr. 21 Drechsler said, they were. 22 All of the modifications that the committee made 23 or the recommendations the committee made were in support. 24 We found that -- unanimously we supported the 25 recommendations. And none of the changes, you know, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 resulted in a revision of the conclusions. 2 --o0o-- 3 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: The report adequately 4 looked at susceptible populations and identified various 5 groups that might have been susceptible. 6 One caveat to the proceedings is that, as was 7 indicated, there is very little data available on some of 8 these potentially susceptible groups. And so, if 9 anything, the existing data where Dr. Drechsler had 10 indicated there was no evidence that children were more 11 susceptible; there really wasn't good evidence that they 12 were less susceptible either. 13 There's a need for additional research in these 14 areas. 15 --o0o-- 16 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: There was a very good 17 assessment of the potential uncertainties. And that was 18 an area that the committee looked at very carefully, to 19 make sure that the range of potential standards was 20 reasonable based on the literature. 21 --o0o-- 22 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: The differences in 23 exposure patterns were adequately examined. But there 24 could be an expansion of that provided that new research 25 is done. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 --o0o-- 2 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: The Committee 3 unanimously endorsed the staff recommendations to retain 4 the one-hour ozone standard of .09 ppm and to include an 5 eight-hour standard at .07 ppm, both of which were set -- 6 were listed as not to be exceeded. And that provided part 7 of the deliberation on margin of safety. 8 --o0o-- 9 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: The committee's 10 concerned that the current literature is still inadequate, 11 that we need more research on some of these susceptible 12 groups. We need more research on adequate averaging times 13 and better information on the results or the effects of 14 peak exposures versus long-term chronic exposures. There 15 are also very, very few data related to the exposure of 16 fetuses and neonatal individuals, which the current 17 literature is very suggestive of being very sensitive. 18 --o0o-- 19 AQAC CHAIRPERSON KLEINMAN: To that end, we 20 suggest that improved monitoring for epidemiological 21 purposes to better understand personal exposures to ozone 22 as well as other oxidant gases, which may not be captured 23 by the current UV assessment method. And better 24 assessments of health effects in susceptible populations, 25 which would include development of new indicators of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 biological responses that could then be related to 2 long-term health effects. And also a better understanding 3 of the links of changes in pulmonary function with the 4 development or the progression of lung disease. 5 And I'd like to thank you very much for the 6 opportunity to present these findings. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 8 We appreciate that. And I think you've given us some 9 opportunities as our Research Department looks for future 10 projects that perhaps this is a way to achieve some of 11 that investigation that is still lacking that would fill 12 in some of the gaps. 13 Thank you. 14 Ms. Witherspoon, any other items before I go to 15 the Ombudsman? 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No other 17 presentations, just that we're available to take 18 questions, the entire list of witnesses that you heard 19 from. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: We will indeed ask 21 our questions in just a moment. 22 But I do want to ask Madam Ombudsman to describe 23 the public participation process that occurred while this 24 item was being developed, and share any concerns or 25 comments that you might have. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Thank you. 2 Madam Ombudsman -- 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: That's all right. 4 Some days I am an ombudsman. 5 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: You got me confused there for 6 a second. 7 Madam Chairman and members of the Board. The 8 item before you has been developed with input from the 9 Western States Petroleum Association, the Alliance of 10 Automobile Manufacturers, the Engine Manufacturers 11 Association, Center for Economic and Environmental 12 Balance, California Farm Bureau, California Chamber of 13 Commerce, Consumer Products Association, Chemical Industry 14 Association, and the Food Processors Association. 15 Staff initiated their effort to amend the 16 regulation for the state ambient air quality standard for 17 ozone in the summer of 2002. Since that time, they have 18 held six public workshops. Three were held in Sacramento, 19 two were held in El Monte, and one was held in Fresno. 20 Staff also had several individual meetings, all 21 in Sacramento, with stakeholders. Approximately 30 22 stakeholders attended each workshop. There were two 23 meetings with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 24 three meetings with WSPA, CCEEB, Alliance of Automobile 25 Manufacturers and other trade groups, and a meeting with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 the Community Advisory Council from Monterey Air Pollution 2 Control District. 3 On March 11th, 2005, the staff report and Board 4 hearing notice were published. More than 2200 5 stakeholders were notified of the document via the list 6 serve. 7 Thank you. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 9 Now, Board members, do you have any questions? 10 Let me start to my right. 11 Dr. Gong, do you have any questions? 12 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Perhaps I should wait till 13 public comment. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. Berg. 15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I actually just had a couple 16 of questions. 17 Could you help me in understanding, when we have 18 an eight-hour limit standard versus an eight-hour, how the 19 math works? When we have .09 for one hour, do we assume 20 the other hours are less and that's how we come up with a 21 .07 eight-hour standard? 22 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 23 This is Richard Bode. 24 So are you tacking about how do we identify 25 attainment of the standard? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Not necessarily the method of 2 attainment. But I'm having a hard time with the math. If 3 we start with a .07 for one hour times 8, would exceed the 4 .09. 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think the 6 standard is .09 for one hour and .07 for eight hours. So 7 it's possible to meet the .09 for one hour and have enough 8 readings of .07 for an eight-hour period to exceed the 9 eight-hour standard. 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So then we would assume then 11 that during the day at some point there would be less than 12 .07 to average it out? 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We don't make 14 assumptions. We measure every hour on the hour, and then 15 count them off in eight-hour increments and calculate the 16 average for each eight-hour increment. 17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So the data shows that 18 there -- with the hour-by-hour counting, that that is 19 possible? 20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's 21 correct. You may have a .11, a .10, 2.09's, and then some 22 values below .07. But you take a consecutive eight-hour 23 period, you take each hour's reading inside of that, add 24 them together and divide by eight. 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. And also what is the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 current one hour and the current eight hour? The actual, 2 not the standard. 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Staff, can 4 you tell us the current peaks in California? 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: South Coast -- 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: This would be the 7 highest, wouldn't it? 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right, the 9 highest values in California, on the order of about 16 or 10 17 parts per million -- .16, .17. 11 And then in the Bay Area they're at the federal 12 standard of .12. But they still exceed the state standard 13 of .09. So they have values in the 9, 10's. 14 And in the Central Valley I think the peaks are 15 .13, .14. 16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Then do we think it's 17 possible for the South Coast to obtain .7 for an 18 eight-hour period? 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The standard 20 established by the federal government, which is .08, we 21 have until 2021 to attain in southern California. So 22 assuming that they meet that mark, we would attain the 23 proposed standard of .07 some time after 2021. 24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: It's going to 25 be quite difficult and take a lot of effort to get to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 current standards and the proposed standards each day of 2 the year. But you measure progress against how many days 3 a year you've attained it versus what it used to be. So 4 we can do it -- in many areas of the state we can do it 5 for far greater periods of time. 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. And the 7 area of exceedance shrinks. You might remember a 8 presentation that was given by Lynn Terry and her staff 9 showing how the cloud has shrunk geographically over time. 10 Even when the peaks haven't come down, the area of 11 exposure has shrunk considerably. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor 14 DeSaulnier, do you have any questions? 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: No. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I can't see you. 17 The problem is I can't see down -- Ms. D'Adamo, 18 any questions for staff? 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes, thank you. Just in 20 follow-up to Ms. Berg's questions on measurement of the 21 standard. 22 Do I take it to mean then that you have a rolling 23 average on the eight-hour, and all of our monitors 24 throughout California keep track of the one and the 25 eight-hour standard? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Our monitors 2 measure continuously. And they may go out for 3 calibration. But they tend to do that during an hour when 4 the ozone levels are low, so it doesn't matter whether you 5 have that data or not. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. And then just a 7 follow-up question on background. 8 I don't know what slide it was, but in response 9 to some of the comments raised that the proposed standards 10 may overlap the background. And it was noted that the 11 long-term average is .04. Would that -- I'm assuming that 12 that's statewide. 13 Are there any regions of the state where this 14 might be a more valid point to raise than other regions? 15 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: In the coastal 16 areas where most of the population resides the background 17 coming off the ocean appears to be 40 parts per billion or 18 less. It does have some variation depending on time of 19 year. In some of the elevated locations in California, 20 you have the possibility of transport from Asia, which 21 appears to occur in the spring, which is not when we get 22 our peak ozone levels due to urban pollution. And there 23 is a possibility of ozone coming down -- leaking down from 24 the stratosphere. However, that's covered in our natural 25 events policy, where we would be able to identify those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 episodes and exclude them from the area designation 2 process. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And, Bart, what 4 about the valley? 5 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: The valley 6 would -- basically sea level areas, the background would 7 be .04 due to non-urban pollution. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Why do you account for 9 transport from Asia? Is it because we wouldn't have any 10 control over that? Because you're generally speaking 11 background does not account for transport, or that was 12 what I understood. 13 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: With Asia the 14 concern is -- it doesn't -- we actually have very little 15 or no evidence that ozone is coming from Asia. But we do, 16 and a prior Board presentation shows you, that there is a 17 possibility of transport of aerosols from Asia primarily 18 due to huge dust storms in the Mongolia area. 19 There is a possibility of transport of ozone 20 because it's the same -- you know, the same wind flow. 21 But the concern with Asia is more of the growth -- 22 expected growth in car ownership and emissions. And so 23 that's something we feel like we need to track. 24 However, this transport from Asia only appears to 25 occur in the spring, which is generally when we have some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 of our lowest ozone levels here in California. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But then with regard to 3 intrastate transport, those levels or those figures would 4 not be included within background levels? 5 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Right, right. 6 We're basically looking what's coming off the ocean. You 7 know, obviously there's a contribution of global emissions 8 to what's coming off the ocean. But generally it's -- our 9 long-term measurement show it's 40 parts per billion or 10 less. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. D'Adamo, also 12 when we do transport studies, we look at days on which 13 California areas exceeded the ozone standard and where the 14 mixture of pollutants came from. And those are between 15 May and October typically. So you wouldn't see the China 16 transport in that time period. And then of course you 17 look at the wind patterns in California and the amount of 18 intrusion from other air districts. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And those would be 20 accounted for in the emissions inventory as opposed to 21 background levels? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Oh, it's a 23 meteorological study and tracer study. So it's both 24 emissions in the atmosphere, the processes that bring them 25 to different parts of the state. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Another point to 2 consider is that when we have ozone episodes here in 3 California, it tends to be general stagnation conditions. 4 So the primary contribution to those episodes is the local 5 emissions rather than long-range transport from other 6 countries. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. Kennard. 8 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you. 9 I have two questions, one relative to the federal 10 standards. And obviously a lot of this is politically 11 driven. 12 But is there any discussion at the federal level 13 of changing the standards either up or down? 14 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yes, actually the 15 U.S. EPA is going through a review of their ozone 16 standards. They actually have a first draft of their -- 17 what they call their criteria document, a review of the 18 scientific literature that has just come out. And that's 19 currently being reviewed by their Clean Air Scientific 20 Advisory Committee, which is their counterpart to our 21 AQAC. They expect to promulgate a standard by 2007. 22 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: And obviously their -- the 23 staff's view is to lower the standard? 24 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Their staff has 25 not taken a position yet whether to change the standard or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 retain it. 2 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Okay. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. Kennard, one 4 key difference between California and the U.S. EPA is that 5 they decided to revoke the federal one-hour standard in 6 California. Your staff is proposing to retain hours. So 7 we have a difference of opinion about the importance of 8 short-term exposures and spikes and ozone reading. The 9 standard has not yet been revoked. They propose to revoke 10 it. Litigation is anticipated, and so it might be some 11 time before that's resolved. And in the meanwhile, 12 they're undergoing the review that Mr. Croes spoke about. 13 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you. 14 My second question is: Although staff cannot 15 evaluate the economic impact with the standard, what is 16 your sense of -- and you mentioned not being able to 17 attain the federal standard until 2021 and this new 18 eight-hour standard until thereafter. Is it your sense 19 that it's because of technological -- technology will not 20 be able to allow for the meeting of that standard or the 21 cost will be so prohibitive? 22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think it's 23 a combination of both of them, that the technology that we 24 need to fully attain the standard and control every source 25 to the degree necessary is not available and the cost is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 quite high, as we know it now. And what we're hoping, as 2 time goes on and we progress towards the federal standard, 3 our options for technology will improve and the costs will 4 come down. And I guess we hold out the motor vehicle 5 control program as an example of that, how great things 6 have been done over the last 20 years. But they haven't 7 spread that resource category. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just so you 9 understand, EPA didn't determine upon what year southern 10 California would meet the standard and then pick that 11 deadline. They picked up existing dates in the federal 12 Clean Air Act and then transplanted them out to match the 13 new promulgation of the standards. So they just repeated 14 the scheme of moderate, serious, severe and extreme areas 15 and how many years from the date of promulgation you'd be 16 given till the date of attainment. There are some 17 provisions in the Clean Air Act for bumping up to higher 18 categories and obtaining more time. 19 In the current scheme, 2021 is the final date by 20 which an extreme area may attain. But law requires you 21 must do it as expeditiously as possible. And when we 22 submit plans in 2007, ePA will render judgments back to us 23 whether we're moving as quickly as we should or whether we 24 need in fact additional time. 25 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. Pineda. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Given that we're lagging on 2 the federal standard -- and perhaps I missed it -- what 3 are the projections for attaining this proposed standard? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We haven't 5 projected that yet. We're preparing analyses for the '07 6 plans. And so we'll have a good sense then of how close 7 we are to attaining the federal eight-hour of .08. And at 8 the same time we can run a projection for emission trends 9 of how much later than that .07 would be attainable. 10 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: And then I have a second 11 question. And it's just -- I'm just very curious. 12 On the national eight-hour standard exceedances, 13 can you tell me a little bit about what differentiates the 14 West Coast from the rest of the United States? Is it 15 population, climate? I just want to understand that. 16 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: I think it's 17 actually both. Our -- because we have consistent winds 18 coming from the west and we have these steep mountains, we 19 tend to have a greater concentration of air pollution. We 20 also have a higher density of population and a higher 21 density of sources. So it's both the emission density as 22 well as the meteorology and the geography. 23 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Thank you. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Dr. Gong. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I changed my mind, Madam PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 Chairwoman. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I told him only 3 women can change their minds. But that's okay. Go ahead. 4 BOARD MEMBER GONG: But I'm learning from all the 5 women on the Board. 6 (Laughter.) 7 BOARD MEMBER GONG: But actually it's all your 8 questions that have stimulated me to ask the questions now 9 rather than wait. I'm sure there'll be more later. 10 But I have two questions. 11 One first one is: With the new eight-hour 12 standard, if approved, is there an estimate of how many 13 air basins or counties will flip-flop from attainment now 14 to nonattainment, in that sense? Just to get an idea. 15 And the second question is actually for Bart 16 Ostro of OEHHA, who I think was very instrumental, as was 17 mentioned, in developing the Health Benefits from Reducing 18 Ozone Exposure table, the infamous table. 19 The numbers that are given are pretty black and 20 white. And I assume that there's going to be a range. 21 And does that range affect the final outcome, I guess? 22 And this is all, I'm sure, especially from your 23 epidemiological background, educated guesses as to what 24 the maximum and minimal, for example, mortality rates may 25 be. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 But I just want to get a feel for the impact, if 2 you will, of the incremental health benefits, as it's 3 called. I know that you've used the epidemiological data 4 and that this table really is separate from the basis -- 5 the primary basis for the state standard setting, which is 6 really based on the clinical studies according to Dr. 7 Drechsler's report. 8 Anyway, those are two general questions. And 9 I'll allow you to go for it. 10 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 11 Let me address which air basins might be in 12 attainment and out, comparing kind of the federal standard 13 right now to the new proposed California standard. There 14 really are about three air basins that -- actually two air 15 basins since that are in attainment that would flip over 16 to out of attainment with the new California standard. 17 Some of the these air basins are right on the edge of 18 attainment with the new standard. And some of them, such 19 as the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley, are far from 20 attainment. 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: But, staff, 22 is there any air basin that currently meets the California 23 one-hour standard that will become nonattainment with the 24 new eight-hour standard? 25 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 For the one hour, that would become 2 nonattainment? 3 I believe -- it looks like Lake County actually 4 would be one of those that would be -- 5 (Laughter.) 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We'll here 7 from Bob Reynolds. 8 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 9 Though they are very close actually to being in 10 attainment. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. Terry's 12 getting a map of the nonattainment areas for the federal 13 eight-hour standard. And then we can show that to you and 14 then tell you who else would come in with the proposed 15 California eight-hour standard. 16 And then who's going to take the incremental 17 benefits? 18 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION 19 SUPERVISOR OSTRO: Bart Ostro. 20 Well, Dr. Gong, as you mentioned, there's a wide 21 range of studies out there on the association between 22 mortality and daily concentrations of ozone. There's 23 probably about 30 or 40 studies published both here and in 24 Europe indicating associations. 25 So we basically took our estimates from among all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 those different studies as opposed to pulling out one 2 particular study. We tried to get a -- provide a sense of 3 the range of the estimates provided in those studies. And 4 that's the basis of our low, medium, and high estimates. 5 So in the table in our document we have an 6 estimate and then we have our newer estimates that try to 7 indicate the incremental changes. And we will put 8 confidence intervals around each one of those. 9 But to give you an idea of what the numbers look 10 like, if we go from current concentrations to the .070 11 eight-hour average, using our methodology, as Deborah 12 indicated we're expecting about -- or predicting about 630 13 cases of mortality prevented by meeting the standard. And 14 the confidence interval is roughly about 50 percent on 15 either side. It's roughly around 300 to 950 or so. 16 So that's our range of estimate for the current 17 health effects that we see right now. Or another way of 18 looking at it is the health effects that would be reduced 19 in terms of mortality from attaining the current levels. 20 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I think you described in the 21 handout your methodology for calculating that, correct? 22 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION 23 SUPERVISOR OSTRO: Right. 24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: And I must say, even I 25 understood it, not being a statistician and all. But I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 think I understood it. And I can see the pattern, the 2 logic that you're applying. 3 So you're fairly confident, staff, yourself, that 4 these numbers are ballpark at least? 5 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION 6 SUPERVISOR OSTRO: Yeah. As you probably recognize with 7 these estimates, there's a lot of uncertainties that go 8 into each step of them. Looking at the changes in ozone 9 that we're predicting, using our design values, looking at 10 the dose response estimates from the epi studies, looking 11 at base line mortality rates and so on, all these things 12 involve some good judgment and uncertainty. 13 We did have our estimates peer-reviewed by the 14 AQAC team. And we've used a methodology that's very 15 similar to that used by U.S. EPA in their report to 16 Congress and in their regulatory impact analyses. So 17 we -- and we also had the team, the Abt Associates team in 18 Boston -- or in Cambridge that does a lot of work for U.S. 19 EPA. They've also looked at our methodology and indicated 20 that they thought it was a reasonable way to go. 21 So there always can be differences of opinion. 22 But I think all the reviewers that looked at this have 23 indicated that they thought it was a fair and not 24 obviously biased way to calculate the estimates. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Will this infamous table be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 put into the actual publication of this resolution or 2 whatever? 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Let me address 4 that, because it's an Air Resources Board product. It is 5 our proposal, because of the public comments received to 6 include, incorporate a version of that chart that you have 7 in the staff report following today's meeting and to 8 circulate that for 15-day public comment. 9 And as we spoke to some of the stakeholder groups 10 before the hearing, who are concerned not just with the 11 methodology and with this one display, but also like the 12 slide you saw that very clearly illustrated the 13 incremental benefits in bars, that we include something 14 like that in the staff report. So we'll do that as well. 15 And then we need to make some text changes in the 16 executive summary. And it's our intent to do all of that 17 as sort of a follow-on to your deliberations today. 18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I support that. 19 Before I forget -- Oh, Bart, did you have -- 20 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION 21 SUPERVISOR OSTRO: Just one other thing to add to that, 22 from this table. That I think it's a reasonable comment 23 that several industry groups made to look at the 24 incremental effects of going from the federal attainment 25 of .08 to our proposed standard of .070 eight-hour, to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 look at that increment. Our initial estimates just looked 2 at what happens going from current levels to our proposed 3 standards. So this way we'll look at what additional 4 benefits we get from going beyond the federal standard. 5 However, I don't think it necessarily makes sense 6 to divide up that increment into one hour versus eight 7 hours. The standards are meant to be taken together. 8 Those numbers are affected by assumptions about the ratio 9 between the one and eight hours, which might change over 10 time. So I have less faith in how much of the eight-hour 11 can be parceled out to one hour alone versus the effects 12 together. 13 So my own assessment is that the second column or 14 the mid-estimate of what happens going from the current 15 level to the one-hour standard probably is not as easily 16 defensible as just going from what happens to the current 17 standard to the federal standard and then -- that's 18 right -- the current ambient level to the federal and then 19 the federal to our level. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's precisely 21 the type of comment we hope to elicit during the 15-day 22 review process. So that as we incorporate this 23 information in the report, we do so with the appropriate 24 nuances. And thank you for that. 25 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I would also like to 2 acknowledge the efforts and conclusions of the AQAC 3 Committee. I know Dr. Kleinman and his group worked hard 4 on this, particularly during those two days in Berkeley, 5 which I attended. And their deliberations were well 6 thought out. 7 I also wanted to thank Dr. Drechsler for an 8 excellent presentation about the ozone standard that we're 9 hearing about today. Excellent. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Dr. Gong. 11 And I would second that. I think staff's presentation was 12 very good. And the additional requests that the Board 13 made through Dr. Gong I think is going to be very helpful 14 for the public understanding and raised by some of those 15 who are speaking. 16 I think I have -- all the questions have been 17 asked from the Board at this time. So we're going to move 18 on to public testimony. 19 You'll be happy to know that because of the 20 number of sign-ups I have made a decision, a corporate 21 decision here to allow for five minutes for each 22 presentation. And I want to tell you, that we are 23 technically advanced here in El Monte. And there is a 24 system where we have a timer there at the podium where you 25 will make your presentations. And it will indicate to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 you -- the first four minutes feel free to talk. But it 2 does come on with the last minute and says it's time to 3 sum up. And there's actually a little buzzer at the end 4 of that. 5 So Steve Arita, you're the first one who has 6 signed up to speak. So you're going to get to test the 7 system. Go right over there to the microphone. 8 Followed by Stephen Zman. And Steve Douglas, 9 you'll follow Stephen. 10 So, Steve, I hope this works. And if it doesn't, 11 you're -- you're professional enough, we'll work through 12 this together. All right? 13 MR. ARITA: Okay. Thank you very much, Madam 14 Chair. 15 Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the 16 Board. For the record, my name is Steven Arita with the 17 Western States Petroleum Association. And as staff knows, 18 we have worked very closely with them throughout 19 development of the proposed eight-hour ozone standard. 20 And we certainly appreciate their willingness to work with 21 us and our issues and concerns. And, in particular, I 22 would just like to acknowledge Mr. Richard Bode for his 23 patience for taking my constant calls over the last 24 several months. 25 I'd just like to start by saying that we very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 much appreciate staff's presentation. In particular, the 2 recognition that there definitely needed to have -- or be 3 some clarification in regards of how you report the health 4 benefits and, in particular, the incremental benefits that 5 would be gained with the proposed standard that's before 6 you today. We do think it's important that the 7 information is reported accurately and clearly so that the 8 public can understand what it means and, more than that, 9 do not misrepresent or misreport information. And I know 10 ARB takes reporting information very seriously. And we 11 very much appreciate the fact that staff has acknowledged 12 our concerns in that during this 15-day period, and Ms. 13 Witherspoon's recognizing our concerns as well during this 14 15-day period to make sure that the information is 15 reported accurately and clearly. So we do very much 16 appreciate that recognition. 17 I would just like to also raise though one 18 concern we do have. As noted in the staff presentation 19 and in the current staff report, the draft that came out 20 in March 11th, I believe it was, staff has gone and 21 recalculated the numbers, and literally -- I mean I think 22 it's -- you know, it's being made public for the first 23 time today. You know, we do have concerns that there is a 24 new methodology that has been developed. And I certainly 25 understand and heard Dr. Gong's comments about the new PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 methodology. 2 I would just like to point out that I am a little 3 concerned that this is new information, a new methodology 4 that has been developed. For the most part, the public 5 and the regulated community is not aware and is not -- 6 does not know how this was done. And, you know, our 7 recommendation to staff was that they really should hold a 8 workshop and explain so that we and everyone else who's 9 going to be having to deal with this thing fully 10 understands how this new methodology was calculated, the 11 conditions and the calculations and the assumptions that 12 were taken. Because certainly going from 540 to a new 13 number now of 630 is certainly a change. And I think 14 certainly at a minimum we would urge the Board consider 15 having staff conduct a workshop so that they can explain 16 just how this new methodology was developed and the 17 assumptions that went into it. So we would urge you to 18 consider that. 19 I think this can be done, quite frankly, because 20 I certainly understand that you do have a standard before 21 you today. We would just suggest for your consideration 22 that you set aside the health benefits section, not the 23 standard, but the health benefits section, and allow staff 24 to hold a workshop so that they can explain what they did. 25 I think in staff's presentation there was plenty of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 information noted about the fact of using a lot of the 2 human chamber study data as the basis for setting the 3 standard. And, quite frankly, we believe, it is our 4 position that the Board has enough information that they 5 can continue their deliberation on the standard today in 6 the absence of having to have the health benefits section 7 and that they can move forward and make a decision 8 today -- on the standard today. So with that, that really 9 summarizes my comments. 10 Again, we appreciate staff's recognition of our 11 concerns and that they will clarify the incremental 12 benefits and certainly report it very clearly. And we 13 definitely look forward to working with Ms. Witherspoon 14 and her staff in that regard. 15 Thank you very much. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. 17 Arita. And interestingly enough, you didn't get to the 18 point where it buzzed. So I'm hoping it buzzes. But I'm 19 not sure how I'm resetting this, so that will be real fun. 20 Let's see here. 21 MR. ARITA: I can talk some more if you -- 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: No, no, no. We'll 23 be talking. We'll be talking. I'll get a technician 24 here. 25 Great. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 Ms. Witherspoon, would you care to comment 2 on this -- 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, I would. 4 And it may just be a term of art. But we're happy to 5 convene a public meeting to talk about the method we 6 applied and walk people through it during our whole 15-day 7 comment period process. We reserve the workshop for when 8 we're in regulatory proceedings. And, as Mr. Arita 9 indicated, he doesn't see the need for you to delay your 10 regulatory decision on the standard. So we would just 11 say, yes, we'll meet with you and we'll call it a meeting. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. They'll meet 13 with you, Mr. Arita. Thank you. 14 All right. Stephen -- 15 MR. ZMAN: Madam Chair, I'm going to pass my 16 time. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: You're passing? 18 MR. ZMAN: Yes. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: You're not going to 20 speak? 21 MR. ZMAN: I am not going to speak. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right. Steven 23 Douglas. 24 Well, we'll try this system again and we'll see 25 how this work. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and members 2 of the Board. And I'm Steven Douglas with the Alliance of 3 Automobile Manufacturers. We represent nine car and light 4 truck manufacturers and sell over 80 percent of the new 5 vehicles in California. 6 I'd like to start off by also recognizing the 7 staff and Richard Bode. They did a terrific job, and they 8 were more than willing to meet with us throughout this 9 process and explain it. So I think they've done a good 10 job. 11 I'd also -- one of our comments was to address 12 the incremental benefits. And I would also encourage a 13 workshop to look at the benefits and the new 14 calculations -- or, I'm sorry -- a meeting, and would be 15 more than happy to participate in the meeting. 16 I also would encourage them to look at the 17 incremental benefits of this standard, the eight hour, 18 versus combining it with the one hour and the eight hour. 19 I think it's important when you adopt a new standard to 20 know the benefits of that standard as compared to the 21 existing standard. So I would encourage you to look at 22 providing the incremental benefits of the one hour. 23 See, I have four minutes left and I haven't been 24 buzzed yet. 25 So I'll quickly -- we had one other issue that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 I'd like to address. And I think it's come up with the 2 Board members during the discussion. And that's really 3 the very essence of good public policy is trying to find 4 the balance between the cost and the benefits. And the 5 staff report provides the benefits in terms of the health 6 assessment, but there isn't any discussion of the cost. 7 Now, fully -- we fully understand that it's impossible to 8 calculate the cost of the standards at this point or 9 meeting them. So we're not asking for that. 10 But what I think would be helpful and I think 11 maybe what would address some of Dr. Gong's questions is 12 an evaluation of the emission reductions that would be 13 necessary to meet this. I think this is reasonable. And 14 I think it's something that the staff can do, is: Do we 15 have to -- would the state need to reduce emissions by 50 16 percent to meet the proposed standards, would it need to 17 reduce emissions by 80 percent, 90 percent? What number 18 is that? And I believe that the staff can calculate that. 19 And I'm not proposing that you hold up the process to do 20 that. But I think it's important information, and it 21 addresses kind of the balance between the cost and the 22 benefits. And I think if the staff would do that over the 23 next six months, or maybe in their next SIP program, I 24 think that's important to address as it's associated with 25 this standard. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 And those are my comments. I'd be happy to 2 answer any questions. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right. Are 4 there any questions for the speaker? 5 I don't see any, Mr. Douglas. 6 Staff, do you want to respond to his request? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's correct that 8 we cannot do it at this time. We are preparing to do it 9 as part of the '07 attainment plan analyses. And it has 10 to be geographically specific looking at the mix of 11 emissions in each region, its meteorology, et cetera. And 12 I believe at that time we could run analysis out past the 13 federal eight-hour standard to the seven hour. The place 14 you'll probably see it first is in the Bay Area or other 15 areas that are just -- are looking -- wrestling with the 16 eight-hour standard alone. Because, you know, their 17 publics will want to know faster than anyone else who has 18 still many years to go before they get to the federal 19 eight hour. But at that time we'll have the tools to test 20 out the more distant standards. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Ms. 22 Witherspoon. 23 Thank you, Mr. Douglas. 24 Moving on. Charlie Peters. 25 Not here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 Sujatha-- and, Sujatha, I apologize. I'm not 2 going to pronounce your last name because I'm just not 3 sure I can. And I'd rather you did it for the record. 4 MS. JAHAGIRDAR: My name is Sujatha Jahagirdar, 5 and I am the clean air advocate for Environment 6 California, which is a statewide environmental group with 7 about 85,000 members across California. 8 Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify 9 today. And I'm here to offer unequivocal support for the 10 staff proposal to adopt the proposed ambient air quality 11 standard for ozone. 12 As noted by staff's presentation, ozone poses a 13 significant health risk to millions of Californians. And 14 these health risks will be further outlined by my 15 colleagues with the American Lung Association. 16 But what I would like to focus my comments on 17 actually is that, in addition to these health effects, 18 it's worth noting that countries around the world have 19 adopted or are considering adopting more stringent air 20 quality standards for ozone than the proposed California 21 standard today. 22 For example, the Canada-wide air quality 23 standard -- where I was born actually, so it's a 24 particular point of pride -- for ozone is your 0.065 parts 25 per million averaged over eight hours. The World Health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 Organization, as noted by staff, has an ozone guideline of 2 .06 parts per million for an eight-hour exposure. The 3 eight-hour ozone standard for New Zealand is .05 parts per 4 million. And this standard is currently under 5 consideration in the UK. And, finally, Australia has a 6 one-hour standard for ozone at 0.01 parts per million and 7 a four-hour standard of .08 parts per million. 8 So in light of the health effects outlined by 9 staff and will be further elucidated by the American Lung 10 Association, and the example set internationally, I would 11 urge the Board to adopt the staff proposal with all due 12 haste. 13 Thank you very much. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 15 And thank you for your testimony. 16 Charlie Peters, I saw you walk back into the 17 room. Are you ready? 18 MR. PETERS: Sure. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I called your name 20 and you were gone. 21 Give us your name for the record please. 22 MR. PETERS: Yes, Madam Chairman and Board. I'm 23 Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals. And 24 we represent motorists. 25 This subject matter is a lot of interest to me. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 I certainly don't have any education or anything that says 2 that I should be paid any attention to. 3 (Laughter.) 4 MR. PETERS: And there's been a few people who 5 have ignored me a lot over time. But I have provided for 6 you some opinions that are related to this issue, I think. 7 I will give you just a little anecdotal situation 8 that took place here in this neighborhood a little while 9 ago. 10 I went on a track scholarship to Citrus JC here 11 which is in the neighborhood. At that time it was so bad 12 on some days you could not see across the football field 13 at noon. And that wasn't with any fog. That was just how 14 thick the air was at that time. 15 I was from an area that at that time was a much, 16 much nicer place that, Madam Chairwoman, you may have some 17 experience with, called Redlands. And I was captain of 18 the cross-country team and so on. And I would go out even 19 during the summer time and run maybe five miles a day just 20 for something to entertain myself. 21 I went down there and I could not go a hundred 22 yards without stopping and hacking and coughing, and it 23 was pretty amazing. 24 I will say to you that within probably a week I 25 was whoopin' everybody that was there, which included a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 guy which was the record -- quarter mile record holder for 2 the junior college league. 3 So I also saw a study that indicated that a 4 healthy person subject to .12 ozone level first day on the 5 treadmill would be degraded considerably, second day in 6 the same environment would be degraded a lot less, and by 7 the third day was actually performing better than 8 standard, fourth and fifth days were better than standard. 9 So what effect the ozone has is of interest to me. And so 10 how does it exactly affect people's health? Certainly 11 when you get into that when you're not used to it, it 12 certainly has a pretty negative impact. 13 The Air Resources Board may be getting 14 responsibility for a smog check very soon. I have two 15 things in your packet that I am suggesting might solve the 16 problem here or at least significantly contribute to it. 17 If in the smog check program what was wrong with a car, 18 somebody cared enough to find out if what was broken ever 19 got fixed; which the current regulatory process does not 20 ever do that I'm aware of. And if we got relief from the 21 requirement of oxygenates in our gasoline, the combination 22 of those two could probably cut our pollution level in 23 half in a year and probably not cost anybody a dime. As a 24 matter of fact, probably save us a bunch of money. 25 Seems to me as though these heavy standards PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 probably have an awful lot to do with taxing the public, 2 collecting money from people and giving it to pals, not 3 necessarily with doing policies that would affect the air 4 and clean it up and make it better. 5 So I have some pretty strong reservations that 6 all this data may require a little additional look before 7 a final decision to go forward takes place. Possibly it 8 might be appropriate to set it a little higher -- it's 9 not -- if it's just about setting standards, it's just 10 going to cause people a whole lot of money to build a 11 house or to drive a car or to do anything to be a 12 California citizen, and there isn't any real benefits. If 13 there's nothing here about making it better, then I 14 suggest that you do further study before you go forward. 15 Do I believe that we should clean up the air in 16 California significantly? Absolutely. Do I think there 17 are ways to accomplish that? If somebody would pay 18 attention to looking at the possibility and try it, I 19 think there's significant opportunities that we are 20 ignoring that we could put in place. I think all it 21 really takes is for Arnold to pick up the telephone and 22 make two one-minute phone calls and this would be on its 23 way. 24 We sit here and blame the federal government for 25 all of our pollution problem because we're putting ethanol PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 in the gasoline, which costs us more money, gives us less 2 gas mileage, creates more pollution. And we're going to 3 blame George Bush for this somehow or another just doesn't 4 pass the laugh test. We can regulate the refiners in 5 every way. But, gee, we can't control the amount of 6 ethanol. In my view that doesn't pass the laugh test. 7 If the public were to provide a little support 8 for Arnold, I think we'd have that fixed, I think we'd 9 have a management of smog check fixed. Because all he has 10 to do is call the Chief of the Bureau of Automotive 11 Repair, and in a one-minute conversation we'd have a 12 management program in to determine if what's broken is 13 getting fixed and to put in procedures to help get that 14 done more often, which would significantly help the 15 public. If you do all of that, in my opinion, you'd 16 contribute a thousand dollars to every man, woman and 17 child in the State of California in economic positive 18 impact. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you, 20 Charlie. Your time is up. 21 MR. PETERS: Thank you. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Appreciate it. 23 Okay. Next speaker is Trisha Roth -- Dr. Trisha 24 Roth. 25 DR. ROTH: Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Trisha Roth. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 I'm a pediatrician. And I'm here today on behalf of the 2 American Academy of Pediatrics for the California 3 District. The American Academy of Pediatrics represents 4 5,000 pediatricians. 5 And I'm speaking on behalf of the Health Network 6 for Clean Air, a network of health organizations working 7 to improve air quality in California, coordinated by the 8 American Lung Association of California, as Chair of the 9 American Academy of Pediatrics Chapter 2 Substance Abuse, 10 which includes Los Angeles County and six other counties 11 in southern California. I've testified on the effect of 12 chemicals in the environmental tobacco smoke as they 13 affect not only asthma, but also ear infections and a host 14 of other respiratory illnesses. 15 I have testified before this Board at your 16 meeting in September 2004 where you unanimously adopted 17 the first-ever regulation to achieve the maximal feasible 18 in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor 19 vehicles. Thank you for that historic decision. 20 Health care professionals urge strong support for 21 strengthening of California ambient air quality standards 22 for ozone. Today I'm here to communicate the strong 23 support of health professionals for the proposed 24 amendments to strengthen California's ambient air quality 25 standard for ozone. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 I would like to commend the excellent staff work 2 by the California Air Resources Board and the Office of 3 Environmental Health Hazards in assessing ozone health 4 effects and recommending a new and more stringent health 5 protective standard. 6 Health organizations strongly support adopting a 7 new eight-hour California ambient air quality standard for 8 ozone at the 0.70 parts per million level, not to be 9 exceeded, and retaining the current state one-hour 10 standard for ozone at the level of 0.9 parts per million. 11 Both standards are necessary to protect communities in 12 California both from short-term peak exposures and 13 long-term exposures that contribute to respiratory 14 illnesses, impaired lung function and growth, 15 hospitalizations, emergency room visits, asthma attack, 16 and premature death. 17 Statewide health organizations supporting these 18 proposed standards include: The American Academy of 19 Pediatrics; the California Nurses Association; the 20 American Heart Association, Western States, the Regional 21 Asthma Management and Prevention Initiative; the Medical 22 Advocates for Healthy Air; the Fresno County Asthma 23 Coalition; and the American Lung Association of 24 California. 25 In your packet you'll find a letter from the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 Health Network for Clean Air. Make sure you all got that. 2 If you didn't get it, let us know. 3 3. The proposed amendments for California 4 ambient air quality standards for ozone will protect the 5 public health. Ozone is a powerful oxidant and 6 respiratory tract irritant. Children and infants are 7 among the most susceptible to defects of ozone. They 8 breathe faster than adults, they spend more time outdoors, 9 and their lungs continue to grow and change through 10 adolescence. Asthma rates in children have increased 11 dramatically over the last few decades. 12 The work that I do in my practice supports the 13 conclusion that people are suffering from ozone pollution 14 and that tighter standards are necessary if we are truly 15 going to protect everyone from pollution-related 16 illnesses, including infants and children. 17 I have seen countless parents without any family 18 history of asthma who cannot understand why their child 19 has developed the most common chronic disease of 20 childhood. After seeing so many of these cases and 21 recognizing that experts agreed environmental factors had 22 to contribute to the rising number of asthma cases, I 23 became involved in advocating for children's environmental 24 health outside of the office. 25 There is ample scientific evidence that ozone and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 other air pollutants are related to the increased asthma 2 exacerbation causing emergency room visits, 3 hospitalization, and missed school days. 4 Recent studies have suggested that ozone exposure 5 in children may impair long-term lung function and may 6 cause asthma. We know that ambient air quality standards 7 are not sufficient to protect children. 8 The Journal of the American Medical Association 9 recently published a landmark study linking exposure to 10 ozone to a significant increase in premature deaths in 95 11 urban communities throughout the country. The 12 relationship between mortality and ozone was evident even 13 on days when pollution levels were below the current 14 federal eight-hour standard of 80 parts per billion. 15 In closing, on behalf of health professionals, I 16 urge you to adopt the eight-hour average of .07 parts per 17 million standard, not to be exceeded, and the one-hour 18 average of 0.09 parts per million not to be exceeded. 19 Adopting the proposed new ozone standards will ensure that 20 the state's air quality goals reflect the most recent 21 scientific research on air quality and health and will 22 ensure that vulnerable populations including children are 23 adequately protected. 24 In addition, adoption of these standards will 25 continue California's history of national leadership in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 the field of air quality improvement. 2 Thank you very much. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 4 I appreciate your presentation. 5 The next person, Jesse Marquez, and followed by 6 Diane Bailey and then Bonnie Holmes-Gen, our last speaker. 7 MR. MARQUEZ: Good afternoon. Thank you for this 8 opportunity. My name is Jesse Marquez. I'm Executive 9 Director of the Coalition for a Safe Environment. 10 Our organization is one of the babies in the 11 environmental world of things since we're now only out 12 fourth year. When I started the organization we were 13 called the Wilmington Coalition at that time because we're 14 headquartered in Wilmington and that's where I've lived 15 all my life. And for those that don't know, that's where 16 the Port of Los Angeles is located. 17 Well, in these four little humble years of ours 18 we've now dropped the name Wilmington from the coalition 19 because we now have members in 12 cities. 20 Now, that's significant because it reflects the 21 type of work that we've done and the faith and hope that 22 many communities have put into our organization. 23 The Port of Los Angeles is located in Wilmington 24 and in San Pedro. The Port of Los Angeles is the number 1 25 air pollution source in southern California. Our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 neighbor, the Port of Long Beach, is the second largest 2 air pollution source in southern California. In 3 Wilmington we have four oil refineries, and our neighbor 4 in Carson has another one that borders us, and there's 5 four more refineries within five miles. 6 So we are here 100 percent to support the new 7 standards that are being proposed. This needs to be done. 8 There has been some question as to should you 9 include the one hour. Well, yes. I'll explain to you 10 why. Because in one hour Conoco Oil -- Conoco field's oil 11 refinery can have a breakdown. And in two instances one 12 of those breakdowns extended from Wilmington north about 13 ten miles, crossing seven cities. So we're not talking 14 about a pound or one ton. We're talking about hundreds of 15 tons that came out in that one hour before it was put 16 under control. 17 On another day, that same Conoco Oil Refinery had 18 other problem. But this time it didn't blow north. It 19 went east towards Long Beach. And it was also about seven 20 to ten miles long. And all that was under control in 21 about one hour or less. 22 Another time in Wilmington between two resident 23 houses, a company called Magnus Oil Company, which we 24 never even heard of, one of its valve pipeline connections 25 broke and out spewed these gases, these oilies, these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 waters, whatever chemicals came out of it, and it took 2 about an hour or two for it to get under control. 3 So we see little examples like that where things 4 could happen in one hour. In fact, if you were to ask our 5 local South Coast Air Quality Management District about 6 the number of complaints filed by residents, it's 7 hundreds. But then you ask them by the time they got an 8 inspector there how many times they were able to verify 9 that accident. We're lucky if it's 10 percent of the 10 time. Because the truth of the matter is by the time the 11 inspector does get to anywhere, nine out of ten times it's 12 already gone. So we need to have that one-hour standard 13 to catch those circumstances when there's a blip on the 14 screen. 15 Because -- I'll give you an example of what 16 happens there. An Afro-American friend of mine, Richard 17 Gatewood, had only one dream, which was to be in the IBW 18 Local 11 Electricians Union. He passed all the tests, his 19 interviews, and was just waiting for the day to be called. 20 Well, he got sick with asthma that Friday afternoon. 21 Saturday he was getting worse with his acute asthma, 22 checked himself in emergency. That Saturday night he went 23 into coma, and on Sunday he died, thirty-three years old, 24 leaving a beautiful wife and two children. 25 So when there is an episode for eight hours or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 someone is exposed for eight hours, it can have a 2 traumatic effect. And he didn't die by cancer, so he's 3 not counted in that 1500 or 1400 per million. Some people 4 get lost in that statistic. 5 Or we have the case like Ms. Mora, who came with 6 me. Five years ago her husband, who never smoked, never 7 worked out in industry, never had asthma, and never had a 8 respiratory problem, all of a sudden collapsed. Well, for 9 five years now he's been a little company of Mary's 10 Sub-acute hospital with lung failure. He's hooked up to a 11 ventilator and oxygen, and had a tracheotomy put in two 12 years ago, and has never left the hospital since then. 13 But I don't see industry ever showing up to help 14 pay his million dollar plus bill that's been dumped on the 15 public now because his private insurance ran out in less 16 than 12 months. 17 Or right now, I would like to take you to visit 18 Mrs. Romero's daughter, 17 years old. She's had lung 19 failure three times in the last 18 months and weighs 67 20 pounds right now. 21 That's why we are concerned, and that's why we 22 support these. When they talk about the cost, I'll tell 23 you some cost. Union of Concerned Scientists put out a 24 cost of $22.1 billion in the State of California for 25 public-subsidized costs due to health care. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 And I was at the Haagen-Smit conference last week 2 when a ship manufacturer of engines and another expert on 3 ship fuels did a presentation. And we asked him how much 4 more would it cost a ship to switch from its regular 5 diesel fuel to low sulfur diesel fuel. And I gave him the 6 specific example: An 8,600 TEU ship, which is containers, 7 on a ship from China to here, eight-day trip, the whole 8 trip, 250 tons a day times $268. When it all boiled down, 9 he got the little numbers, it was $62 per container more 10 for that ship to switch over. Now, you divide that by the 11 products -- 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Jesse, we're going 13 to have to sum up. You're out of time. 14 MR. MARQUEZ: When you divide that by the 15 products, it came out to pennies. The pennies in the 16 container. If you asked us, public, would we prefer to 17 pay a few more pennies to have the absolute best fuel for 18 ships, for trains, for anything, the answer is yes. 19 And so I thank you. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you, 21 Jesse, very much. 22 Diane Bailey. 23 MS. BAILEY: Boy, that's tough to follow. 24 Good afternoon, members of the Board and staff. 25 My name is Diane Bailey and I'm a scientist with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 Natural Resources Defense Council. And I'm here today in 2 strong support of the proposed ozone standards. 3 We're already signed on to a detailed comment 4 letter, which you should have in your packet. So I don't 5 want to go into all of the statistics in the science, of 6 which you've heard much of. And I think there's a very 7 clear case in support of these standards. 8 What I do want to share with you today is a few 9 paragraphs from a recent article in Mother Jones magazine 10 that offers a window into what families that are impacted 11 by asthma actually go through. And although this is about 12 the west side of Chicago, I think that it means the same 13 thing here in California in our cities, in Los Angeles, 14 Oakland and Fresno and beyond. 15 So please just indulge me just a few paragraphs. 16 To Tanisha Ammons lives on the west side of 17 Chicago in a rented four-bedroom apartment. The 18 neighborhood is working class. The street is reasonably 19 quiet. The apartment's not far from the local elementary 20 school and it's an easy drive to Midway Airport where 21 Cornelius Cook, Ammons' husband, works the night shift. 22 When he leaves for the airport, Ammons, who works 23 by day as a nursing home aide, lies in bed listening for 24 the sound of her four sons sleeping. For many parents 25 this is the day's most peaceful time, a hard-won silence PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 in which you can hear yourself think again. But for 2 Ammons bedtime is often its own her harrowing beginning. 3 Sometimes it's Jacquez who starts. He's the 4 oldest, at eight, a devotee of Spiderman and Harry Potter, 5 a sensitive kid who writes poetry. In the hours after 6 midnight Jacquez begins coughing. It's slow at first and 7 then it revs up, until the boy is sputtering in machine 8 gun intervals. 9 Then it's Marcus, who is seven, chiming in with 10 his own cough, a raspy hack that can go on for hours. 11 Ammons listens to it almost nightly now, this 12 haunting call and response between the two brothers. 13 Marcus' cough has grown especially scary in the 14 last year. "It sounds like he's choking," Ammons says. 15 "He barely sleeps." Nor does Ammons, who gets up an gives 16 the boys cough syrup or a puff of albuterol. Or 17 occasionally she just stands in the doorway to make sure 18 they're all right. 19 On a bad night her other kids join in. Semaj, 20 the four year old, coughs so violently that she doesn't 21 even bother putting him in his own bed much anymore, 22 preferring to keep him next to her to make sure he doesn't 23 turn blue. 24 Omarion, who is two, has a chronic cough as well. 25 An then there are the really bad nights when the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 albuterol doesn't help and one of boys, usually Marcus, 2 starts struggling to breathe. This is when he has to be 3 raised to Cook County Hospital's emergency room, where 4 he's given drugs to release the invisible stranglehold on 5 his airways. 6 When it's over and the boy is breathing normally 7 again, Ammons relaxes but only for a while. Marcus' 8 symptoms usually return within days. "I never stop 9 worrying about it," she says. 10 Well, I hope that you can keep this story in mind 11 when you're making decisions such as these ozone 12 standards. I think it's very important to consider the 13 personal impacts that are behind the number of statistics. 14 And I have a copy of this article if you'd like 15 to read the whole thing. 16 So we know that when the ozone levels go up, so 17 do hospitalizations for asthma. And there so many other 18 health impacts, but you've heard them all. 19 So to sum up, we're very grateful to ARB for 20 reviewing these standards and for strengthening them. In 21 particular, we strongly support the proposed new 22 eight-hour standard of .07. We strongly support the 23 retention of the one-hour standard of .09. And we also 24 support the not-to-be-exceeded form of the standard, which 25 is very important. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 will benefit greatly from these improved standards. And 2 the state will save money on health care costs. 3 I hope that this Board will take yet another 4 precedent-setting step and adopt these proposed standards 5 today. 6 Thank you. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much, 8 Diane. Appreciate that. 9 Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 10 Bonnie, I have to -- while you're coming up I 11 have to share with you, as I was driving in to the meeting 12 today, the Report Card from the American Lung Association 13 was on the radio station that I was listening to. And so 14 your organization has been working hard. And I thought, 15 isn't it interesting, the timing. Did you arrange that, 16 Bonnie? 17 MS. HOLMES-GEN: No. But we certainly would like 18 to take advantage of it. 19 (Laughter.) 20 MS. HOLMES-GEN: I was going to bring that up 21 also. And it just was very timely since our national 22 organization has released our annual State of the Air 23 report. And we've found again that large numbers of 24 people across the United States of course are breathing 25 unhealthy air. In fact, over half of the population in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 our country is breathing air that's unhealthy from 2 particle pollution or ozone pollution -- ozone pollution. 3 So this is, again, a great concern. It's a call 4 to action. And I think you're part of the call to action 5 today. You've become a role in it today by adopting these 6 new ozone standards and setting health-based standard, 7 setting precedent nationally and setting a goal that will 8 protect the lives, the lungs of Californians. 9 So we're of course here today to urge you to 10 adopt the proposed ozone standards, the new proposed 11 eight-hour standard at .070, to retain the one-hour 12 average standard of .09 ppm, and to remind you that we 13 don't believe either of those standards can stand alone. 14 They're both necessary for all the reasons that you've 15 heard. I think Jesse Marquez was very eloquent about the 16 importance of the one-hour standard and need to provide 17 protection, especially for those sensitive individuals, 18 children and those that have asthma and other lung 19 illnesses. 20 I also wanted to make the point that we believe 21 that these standards are especially justified given the 22 conservative approach taken by the staff in determining 23 populations at risk, given the fact that children are 24 harmed for life from their exposures to ozone. We're now 25 understanding that any injury to the lung during the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 developmental period in children can have permanent 2 consequences, as you know. And there's also concern about 3 the developing fetus and impacts on the fetus from 4 pollution. 5 And these standards are also especially justified 6 given the tremendous numbers of individuals in the 7 populations who are suffering from ozone-related 8 illnesses. 9 I think you know that the premature deaths are 10 just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the health impacts 11 of ozone. We've seen some pretty startling numbers today 12 presented by your staff in terms of health impacts; in 13 addition to the thousands of hospitalizations every year, 14 the hundreds of premature deaths that are caused by ozone. 15 You've heard that there are 3.7 million school absence 16 days that have been linked to exposure to ozone. And this 17 is again a very startling figure. School absences of 18 course affect the children's -- affect a child's ability 19 to learn, in addition to just affecting their quality of 20 life and of course providing, you know, traumatic 21 experience on those unhealthy days when they're suffering. 22 But these school absences affect children's 23 ability to learn they lead to lost work days for parents 24 and caregivers. And children -- children with asthma miss 25 on average a week of school a year, which of course has a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 tremendous impact on their learning experience. And as 2 you know, childhood asthma is an epidemic in California. 3 And ozone is a very well known trigger of asthma. 4 So these standards are necessary to protect 5 against all the health effects you've heard articulated. 6 But we're particularly concerned about asthma and lost 7 school days among the other health effects. 8 I want to make the point that, as you've been 9 told, the California standards for ozone and other air 10 pollutants are required by law to be health-based 11 standards. And this means that they should include the 12 most up-to-date scientific information. And they are not 13 supposed to be based on any consideration of economics. 14 And I know you understand that, but I think it's important 15 to always bring that up and to remind everybody that's 16 here that, you know, those are considerations that are 17 taken into account later on in the process of developing 18 regulations and developing local and statewide plans to 19 meet these standards. 20 Today, your job is just to determine the level at 21 which public health is protected. And we believe your 22 staff has done a very good job and brought you standards 23 today that will guarantee some protection for public 24 health and especially protect children. 25 We know it will be difficult to meet these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 standards. But that doesn't mean that we should settle 2 for something lower and something that's not health 3 protective. 4 So in closing, we urge you to move forward today, 5 without any delay, to adopt the standards that are before 6 you. Californians are depending on you to set standards 7 at a level that will protect the public, protect those 8 with asthma, protect those with emphysema, with 9 bronchitis, those that have other lung diseases. And as 10 you've been reminded, there's emerging evidence, that 11 ozone is also affecting those with heart illnesses. And 12 so there's many reasons for you to move ahead today. 13 In addition, your decision is important on a 14 national level. Because, as you've heard, the federal EPA 15 is undergoing its own review of our federal ozone 16 standards. And your decision today will have tremendous 17 significance for that determination also. 18 So -- 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Bonnie. 20 I think this is the end. 21 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Okay. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: But we appreciate 23 your comments. And then, again, the timeliness of the 24 American Lung Association's air quality report. And I 25 might add, of course L.A. was top on the list. But PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 Atlanta had dropped off the list. So that was a good 2 thing. 3 Ms. Witherspoon, do you have any further 4 comments? 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing further. 6 But when you come to the resolution, we caught an error in 7 one clause that we'll bring to your attention. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. We'll do that 9 at that time. 10 Board members, I just have to go through the 11 closing of the record. So bear with me a moment. 12 Since all testimony, written submissions, and 13 staff comments for this item have been entered into the 14 record, the Board has not granted an extension of comment 15 period, I'm officially closing the record on this portion 16 of Agenda Item No. 05-4-1. Written or oral comments 17 received after the comment period was closed will not be 18 accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 19 item. However, the record will be reopened for at least 20 15 days to make the amended staff report available for 21 public review. 22 When the record is reopened, the public may 23 submit written comments on the changes to the staff 24 report, which will be considered and responded to in the 25 final statements of reasons for the regulation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 At this time, I need to ask for ex parte 2 communications. And then we'll go on to our discussion 3 and further questions from staff or comments from -- 4 pardon me -- further questions to staff or comments by our 5 Board members. 6 Let me go to the right. 7 Are there any ex parte communications at this 8 time? 9 Ms. Berg. 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yes, I had some ex parte 11 communications with Steven Douglas and Eloy Garcia with 12 the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers on April 25th by 13 telephone. And it was consistent with their testimony 14 today. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Dr. Gong. 16 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes, I had ex parte 17 communications on April 25 with WSPA, Steve Arita and 18 David Lee. And also on the same day via telephone as 19 well, Steve Douglas and Eloy Garcia from the Alliance of 20 Automobile Manufacturers, consistent with their testimony 21 today. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. D'Adamo. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: No. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: For myself, I had 25 spoken by phone to Steve Arita from WSPA. And the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 conversation was very similar to what he testified to 2 today. 3 Ms. Kennard. 4 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: No. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. Pineda. 6 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: No. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor Patrick. 8 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes, Madam Chair. Thank 9 You. 10 I did have a phone conversation on Friday, April 11 22nd with Steve Arita from the Western States Petroleum 12 Association. And that conversation was consistent with 13 his testimony today. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. And let me 15 just remind people that we may communicate off the record 16 with outside persons regarding Board rule-making. We just 17 simply must disclose the names of our contacts and nature 18 of the context of that conversation on the record. And 19 this requirement applies specifically to communications 20 which take place after the notice of the Board hearing has 21 been published. 22 Now, moving on to discussion -- discussion of the 23 item before us. 24 Board members? 25 Dr. Gong. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 BOARD MEMBER GONG: No question. Again, I want 2 to acknowledge the roles everyone played in this process. 3 I know whenever we go over these standards, each time, 4 whether it's at the state or federal level, it's like 5 giving birth to a baby. But it's not just a nine-month 6 pregnancy. It's nine years sometimes. 7 (Laughter.) 8 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So I know that a lot of work 9 went into this. And I appreciate the interactions with 10 OEHHA, with AQAC, other professionals, industry, 11 community. We all have a role in this. And certainly I 12 think they've crafted a very meaningful and thoughtful 13 eight-hour average, which I support. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 15 Any other comments from the right side on this. 16 How about left? 17 Supervisor Patrick. 18 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes, Madam Chairman. 19 I would say that I support it as well. Although 20 I really do have concerns about the next phase of this, 21 the meeting of the standard and the billions of dollars 22 that it's going to cost to do that. 23 But I recognize that's not part of our charge 24 today. Our charge today is to look at the public health 25 aspect of it. And in that way I'm fully supportive of it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Any other 2 questions, comments? 3 Ms. Kennard. 4 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I'd like to echo 5 Supervisor Patrick's concerns. I'm also troubled by the 6 lack of technology and the very significant dollars yet 7 unknown to comply with this. But I will absolutely 8 support this because I think it's definitively the right 9 thing to do from a health policy standpoint. 10 And I also believe it's the right thing to do 11 irrespective of the technology and the cost, that if you 12 don't set a high standard, you don't even get close to 13 that. 14 So I would definitively support it for those 15 reasons. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Let me ask 17 staff to -- because the next item will probably be the 18 motion to approve the resolution. So tell us where we 19 need to correct something. Or what is it that you would 20 like to do? 21 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL KRINSK: Madam Chair, 22 looking on page 5 -- 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Do you want to 24 identify yourself for the record. 25 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL KRINSK: I'm Elizabeth PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 Krinsk, Senior Staff Counsel. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 3 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL KRINSK: On page 5 of the 4 resolution we have Finding No. 15. It discusses, 5 "Clarification of the health benefits discussion in the 6 staff report is useful in enhancing public understanding 7 of the incremental health effects of obtaining the new" -- 8 it says, "one-hour standard." It should be "eight-hour 9 standard." 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes, that would be 11 right. I hadn't noticed that. Thank you. 12 Ms. D'Adamo. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd like to move adoption 14 of Resolution 05-31, with the proposed change. 15 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Second. 16 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I will second it with the 17 addition of the health benefits table -- 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. 19 BOARD MEMBER GONG: -- or thereof. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Any further 21 discussion on this item. 22 Let me then ask for a voice vote on the motion to 23 approve Resolution 05-31. 24 All those in favor signify by saying aye. 25 (Ayes.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Opposed, no. 2 Motion carries. 3 Ms. Pineda. 4 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Yeah, I just had one 5 question for staff. 6 Since there is a concern around cost and the 7 standard, at what point in time would you be able to come 8 back to us with some sense of will be entailed to meet the 9 standard? I assume that at the time of regulation that 10 assessment will be made. What is the time frame that 11 we're looking at? 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: When we prepare 13 the state implementation for -- from federal standards, 14 they include within them as much of an economic assessment 15 as we were able to do. And we apply what we estimate 16 future costs of pollution control and future benefits, and 17 we use the original economic models to calculate secondary 18 and tertiary effects ripping through the economy, any job 19 losses that might accrue, et cetera. And we haven't done 20 that analysis for the new more stringent federal ozone 21 standard or this one. 22 So we'll have some assessment of that in '07. 23 And then, you know, as we get closer to it, the estimates 24 will become more precise. And as I indicated, both the 25 Bay Area and San Diego will be closer than other regions, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 and we'll get to those analyses first. It will be a long 2 time before we have that number in Los Angeles. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Let me thank 4 all of those of you who testified today. We appreciate 5 your thoughtful comments. 6 We are going to take one more item, Board 7 members. This is under open comment period. 8 We do have one person wishing to speak. Charlie 9 Peters from Clean Air Performance Professionals. 10 If you'd come to the microphone, Charlie. And 11 you're going to have four minutes. 12 MR. PETERS: Thank you very much, Madam 13 Chairwoman and Board. 14 Just as a quick comment. The proceedings that 15 just happened, it would be interesting to see the ozone 16 level and the asthma level over time and how that's 17 worked. That might add some interesting consideration to 18 that. But that's not what I've stepped up here to say. 19 There's some significant consideration going on 20 within the State of California right now concerning the 21 possibility of the smog check program monies and policy 22 being switched to the Air Resources Board responsibility. 23 And that's a very provocative possibility. And it is 24 not -- it's been considered by the Legislature at this 25 point. And I'm not seeing any dissent other than my PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 dissent indicating kind of basically what I said to you in 2 my previous testimony today, that we need to do something 3 to responsibly manage the program to make it more 4 effective. 5 The Air Resources Board prior to 1994 was a 6 significant participant in the policy issue in what we 7 call an IA review committee, which is airport officers and 8 the Air Resources Board and a consultant. So you had 9 previous significant input. We're at a very interesting 10 place in the political process, in the financial process 11 in California right now. I would petition Madam 12 Chairwoman and Board to give some consideration to taking 13 a look at this process and to giving consideration whether 14 we can actually create a benefit, no matter which way this 15 decides to go, from this point forward for the State of 16 California. 17 And with the Air Resources Board very possibly 18 getting that responsibility here quite shortly, certainly 19 by the first of the year, maybe it's time to start giving 20 some consideration as to whether it's appropriate to make 21 some changes that might create some better benefits than 22 where we've been in the past. 23 So I just wanted to bring that to the Board's 24 attention that I think it's important. What I think and 25 other people think is not always the same. But I wanted PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 to at least share that with you, that I would petition you 2 to give that consideration. There happens to be in my 3 packet testimony that I gave to Senator Flores in Central 4 Valley indicating specifics of that, and we certainly 5 would appreciate your consideration. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Charlie. 7 Appreciate that. We'll check into it. Thank you very 8 much. 9 That concludes then the open comment period. 10 And we will reconvene back in this room at 6 p.m. 11 Yes, Jesse, a question? 12 MR. MARQUEZ: One last comment. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Oh, then you need to 14 come to the microphone. 15 MR. MARQUEZ: I wish to offer a sincere thank you 16 on behalf of all the children and families in California 17 who will benefit from this. 18 But I do want to share something else since there 19 is -- there seems to be a big concern about money and how 20 this will become affordable. 21 The top ten oil refineries in 2004 averaged five 22 billion in net profit in 2004. The top ten oil refineries 23 in California averaged three billion net profit in 2003. 24 WalMart cleared one billion in net profit last year. The 25 Port of L.A. averages 4 to 600 million in net profit every PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 year. 2 So if industry does their part, I'm sure we, the 3 public, can contribute a few more pennies to make it 4 happen. 5 Thank you. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Jesse. I 7 appreciate your comment. 8 So we'll reconvene back here at 6 p.m., Board 9 members. I'm sure Ms. Witherspoon will give us some 10 direction about what we are going to be doing between now 11 and then. And I would just share with you that if you 12 need to call your offices or, you know, make contact, 13 you're certainly welcome to use the Chairman's office in 14 two buildings over. We'll be happy to share that with 15 you. 16 Otherwise, let's adjourn. And we'll reconvene 17 promptly at 6 p.m. And we look forward to our next agenda 18 item. 19 Thank you. 20 (Thereupon the Air Resources Board recessed 21 at 3:20 p.m. and reconvene at 6 p.m.) 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 EVENING SESSION 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Let me just share 3 with you -- and some of you are going to need to help me 4 just a bit. If there is anyone who needs a translation 5 device, we have them. They're in the back of the room. 6 And, Patricia, do you want to raise your hand. 7 Patricia is back there, and she'll make sure that if 8 somebody needs this, it's available. 9 And if somebody should come to our hearing a 10 little bit later this evening and you know that they could 11 use one of these, please direct them to the back to 12 Patricia. I'd appreciate that. 13 We'll reconvene our meeting. And good evening. 14 And I welcome you to a continuation of the Air Resources 15 Board meeting. 16 And let me remind you that anyone who wishes to 17 testify on tonight's agenda item, please sign up with the 18 staff in the front lobby. I'm going to assume that 19 everybody was contacted. But just in case, if you want to 20 speak on tonight's agenda, we would welcome that, but we 21 do need you to sign up. 22 Also, as I begin, I've looked around the room and 23 sort of determined about the time limit. And I'm trying 24 to set this up so you as people who are going to testify 25 will sort of know what your time frames are. It appears PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 to me to be that we can take for each speaker five 2 minutes. 3 And I have a timing device. And there is a 4 device on the speaker's podium. And when I call your 5 name, if you'd come forward to the podium. And then I 6 will turn the clock on and you'll see that it has a 7 variety of lights and it will sort of tell you when you're 8 getting towards the end of your speech and ask you to sum 9 up. And that seems to have worked very well today, and 10 I'm just going to leave it in place. 11 But know that at this moment you'll have five 12 minutes. And what I will probably do -- I mean if we get 13 a rush of 50 more people, they may not be able to take 14 five minutes. But at least those people who have signed 15 up so far, you will have five minutes. 16 As I mentioned, this is Agenda Item 05-4-2, the 17 proposed guidance document entitled "Air Quality and Land 18 Use Handbook: A Community Perspective." 19 The handbook presents staff recommendations to 20 local planning agencies for consideration of air pollution 21 impacts in local land use decisions. The relationship 22 between land use decisions and air pollution exposure has 23 come up several times in previous Board meetings. 24 For example, my colleagues will recall that the 25 Board has recently heard about the results of the health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 studies that show a variety of health risks associated 2 with living near busy roads and freeways. 3 The development of this handbook grew out of the 4 environmental justice policies approved by the Board in 5 December of 2001. As some of you will remember, we made a 6 commitment at the time for the ARB staff to work with 7 local planners, transportation agencies and air pollution 8 control districts to address air quality impacts at the 9 community level that are a result of land use decisions. 10 Based on the comments and questions from the last 11 several Board meetings, I'm sure that my colleagues will 12 be very interested in this item and hearing the staff's 13 recommendation on this very challenging and complex topic. 14 I would like to ask Mrs. Witherspoon to introduce 15 this item and begin the staff presentation. 16 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 17 Presented as follows.) 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Madam 19 Chairman. 20 Over the past two years ARB has partnered with a 21 range of community groups, environmental organizations, 22 business organizations, local air districts and other 23 state and local agencies to develop the proposed "Air 24 Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health 25 perspective." PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 The handbook contains recommendations for the 2 siting of new sensitive land uses such as homes, schools 3 and day-care centers that are not addressed by 4 conventional permitting requirements. It provides 5 available information on the potential health impacts of 6 citing such land uses near sources of air pollution. And 7 it makes distance recommendations to avoid those impacts 8 where possible and supported by available scientific 9 evidence. 10 It also provides information on air quality 11 issues relating to land use and promotes the consideration 12 of localized air pollution impacts in the land use 13 decision-making process. 14 Please keep in mind that this handbook is 15 advisory, not mandatory. The Air Resources Board has no 16 authority over land use per se. In the development of 17 these guidelines, ARB received valuable input from local 18 government about the spectrum of issues that they believe 19 should be considered in the land use planning process. 20 These include housing and transportation needs, urban 21 infill, community economic development priorities and 22 other quality-of-life issues. Staff believes all these 23 factors are important considerations and is adding yet 24 another to the list with this handbook. 25 With that in mind, I'll ask Lucille Van Ommering PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 of the Planning and Technical Support Division to present 2 the proposed Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. 3 MS. OMMERING: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. 4 Can you hear me all right? 5 Good evening, Madam Chairman and members of the 6 Board. 7 My presentation will discuss staff's proposed 8 guidance document entitled "Air Quality and Land Use 9 handbook: A community Health Perspective." As indicated 10 in the title, the handbook focuses on community level 11 issues. This effort builds on previous ARB research and 12 technical work on the regional linkage between land use, 13 transportation and air quality. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. OMMERING: In today's presentation I will 16 discuss the development of the handbook. I'll then 17 provide a discussion of the handbook's recommendations, 18 present key issues stakeholders raise during the 19 development process, identify next steps for outreach and 20 information updates, and conclude with our recommendations 21 for Board action. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. OMMERING: First a little bit about why we 24 developed the Air Quality Handbook. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 MS. OMMERING: In December 2001, the Board 2 approved policy and actions for environmental justice. 3 One of the policies called for staff to develop guidance 4 for land use agencies on how to help prevent localized air 5 quality impacts in communities. That guidance has been 6 developed in the form of the proposed handbook before you 7 today. 8 The effort was initiated through ARB's 9 environmental justice stakeholders group, who provided 10 critical and constructive input. Our community health 11 program also pointed out the need for guidance that 12 address land use. 13 In conducting special monitoring studies in 14 several California communities, we found that historic 15 land use decisions have sometimes resulted in homes and 16 schools being immediately adjacent to air pollution 17 sources. Toxic tours conducted by community members also 18 highlighted this problem. 19 --o0o-- 20 MS. OMMERING: We conducted one of our community 21 assessments in Barrio Logan, a neighborhood in San Diego. 22 It was there that we found how past language practices can 23 contribute to air quality problems such as elevated 24 localized exposure. 25 In this neighborhood, like others in the state, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 chrome platers were located next door to homes. We 2 conducted a special monitoring study that found high 3 levels of hexavalent chromium at the home immediately next 4 to the facility. 5 The chrome plater study in Barrio Logan 6 demonstrated to us the role that distance can play in 7 reducing exposure. In this case the monitored levels of 8 hexavalent chromium decreased significantly with distance. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. OMMERING: We also looked at numerous studies 11 that pointed to elevated health risk near high traffic 12 emissions, especially truck traffic. 13 Like the community studies we conducted in Barrio 14 Logan, the traffic studies also showed a strong 15 relationship between risk and proximity. Several traffic 16 studies looked at health effects in children and found a 17 variety of adverse respiratory effects. This included 18 reduced lung function, increased asthma symptoms and 19 increased hospitalizations compared to individuals living 20 further away from these traffic sources. 21 The studies linking traffic emissions with health 22 impacts build on a wealth of information on the adverse 23 health effects of air pollution. 24 A major component of the health risk from traffic 25 emissions is diesel particulate. It contributes most of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 the urban air toxics cancer risk in California, and also 2 contributes to premature mortality associated with fine 3 particulate pollution. 4 Because some groups, such as children, the 5 elderly and those with existing illnesses, are especially 6 sensitive or vulnerable to the effects of air pollution, 7 we focus special attention on what we're calling sensitive 8 land uses. These land uses are where sensitive 9 individuals spend most of their time. Residences, schools 10 and day-care centers are examples. 11 While it will take time to address existing and 12 compatible land uses, we think it's important to avoid new 13 siting situations that may pose a health risk. 14 Taking such preventative action when siting new 15 sensitive land uses is just one more way, along with 16 California's comprehensive air programs, to reduce 17 existing air pollution exposures, especially to diesel 18 particulates. 19 Our goal is to reduce diesel particulate 20 emissions 85 percent by 2020. But in the meantime we want 21 to avoid new high risk exposures if possible. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. OMMERING: We think land use agencies have a 24 unique role to play in deciding the sensitive receptors 25 from the standpoint of air quality. Here's why: While PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 local air agencies require permits for new air pollution 2 sources, this is not generally the case for new sensitive 3 land uses. For example, local air districts may not be 4 aware of proposals to site new residences near the air 5 pollution source. Nor can a local air district control 6 where sensitive land use is sited even if close to a 7 source of air toxics. 8 This makes it very important that the agencies 9 responsible for land use planning and permitting consider 10 localized air quality impacts as part of their 11 decision-making process. 12 Land use agencies have the authority to consider 13 air quality impacts along with other factors. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. OMMERING: We recognize that land use 16 decisions are complex. Land use agencies must balance 17 multiple policies goals. Good air quality is one of those 18 goals, along with housing and transportation, economic 19 development priorities, and other quality-of-life issues. 20 We continue to believe that good information on 21 air quality impacts can improve the decision-making 22 process, although we do recognize it can make the process 23 more challenging. Our hope is that with careful 24 evaluation, concepts such as infill development, higher 25 density, and transit oriented development can be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 compatible with both regional and community level air 2 quality goals. 3 ARB has long supported concepts like 4 transit-oriented development because of the regional air 5 quality benefits. But taking a second look at the issue 6 of localized impacts is also important. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. OMMERING: The approach we took with the 9 handbook and its recommendations reflects the nature of 10 land use planning. The decision-making authority for land 11 use rests with local government. Our responsibility is to 12 share what we know about the potential localized impacts 13 of air pollution while we continue to reduce emissions at 14 the source. The handbook is advisory and it does not 15 establish regulatory standards of any kind. It is 16 intended to provide land use decision makers with 17 information on the potential health impacts of air 18 pollution sources. 19 The handbook encourages appropriate separation 20 when citing new sensitive land uses. This preventative 21 approach complements our diesel control program and other 22 programs to reduce existing risk. 23 It's also important to remember that risk is not 24 distributed equally on a geographic basis. Being too 25 close to a source can increase the risk, sometimes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 significantly. 2 Lastly, handbook recommendations are designed as 3 a starting point and they are no substitute for more 4 site-specific information when it exists. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. OMMERING: I will now provide on overview of 7 the handbook's recommendations. These recommendations are 8 based on what we know about these sources from the 9 standpoint of the proximity issue. 10 --o0o-- 11 MS. OMMERING: Before going through the 12 recommendations I'll summarize the process we used to 13 develop them. 14 First, we compiled and evaluated the available 15 scientific information on health effects and the impacts 16 of distance. This resulted in a list of eight categories, 17 for which we had enough information to develop 18 recommendations. In most cases the available health 19 information was for cancer risk. But in the case of the 20 traffic studies, we considered the respiratory effects 21 shown in children. We identified and tried to address 22 data limitations and uncertainties where possible for each 23 category. 24 We also compared the relative cancer risk for the 25 categories and found a very wide range. Because of this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 wide range, it was clear that a uniform risk-based 2 threshold would be impractical. Instead we took a more 3 qualitative approach and tailored each recommendation to 4 minimize the highest exposure for the individual category. 5 To do this we used the available data on the risk that 6 pollutant levels drop off with distance from a source. 7 I'll provide examples in a few moments. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. OMMERING: The handbook provides specific 10 distance recommendations for six source categories: 11 Freeways and high traffic roads; distribution centers; 12 major service and maintenance rail yards; chrome platers; 13 dry cleaners that use perchloroethylene as the cleaning 14 solvent; and gasoline dispensing facilities, more commonly 15 referred to as gas stations. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. OMMERING: The Handbook also provides general 18 recommendations for ports, refineries and sources of dust 19 problems and odor complaints. 20 Before I review each of the recommendations in 21 more detail, I want to provide some background on relative 22 risk. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. OMMERING: This slide is intended to make two 25 types of comparisons. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 First, we show the average regional air toxic 2 risk in California's urban areas, which range from about 3 five hundred to a thousand in a million in different areas 4 of the State. The high end is the South Coast, followed 5 by the Bay Area. 6 About 70 percent of the cancer risk is from 7 diesel particulate. These regional averages do not 8 account for the effects of proximity to an air pollution 9 source. 10 Next we show examples of localized risks that are 11 calculated independently for different source categories. 12 The highest risk categories are diesel particulate 13 sources. Using the example of freeways, the range of risk 14 varies by traffic volume and other parameters. But even 15 lower volume freeways pose a high localized risk. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. OMMERING: This slide illustrates the 18 phenomenon of pollutant drop-off with distance. These 19 measurements were taken at the 405 and the 710 freeways in 20 the L.A. region. As you can see, measured concentrations 21 of vehicle-related pollutants dropped dramatically at 22 about 300 feet. So while exposure can still be high 23 within a thousand feet of the source, the highest 24 exposures occur within a few hundred feet. 25 Another freeway study we examined showed a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 similar trend of concentrations of traffic-related 2 pollutants declining with distance, primarily in the first 3 500 feet. These emission studies prove to be an important 4 part of the picture when considered along with the 5 traffic-related health studies. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. OMMERING: For the next few slides I'll 8 review the specific recommendations and identify the key 9 factors that led to our selection of particular source 10 categories. The recommendations were based on a number of 11 studies and references which we list in the handbook. 12 As I've already summarized, in developing our 13 recommendation of 500 feet for freeways and high traffic 14 roads, we relied upon compelling health-based studies that 15 looked at the health risks to individuals in proximity to 16 diesel PM from freeways. 17 These studies indicate that living close to high 18 traffic volume roads and associated vehicle-related diesel 19 PM emissions can lead to localized health risks well 20 beyond regional levels. Close proximity increases both 21 exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. 22 The impact however decreases with distance from the 23 freeway. 24 --o0o-- 25 MS. OMMERING: Distribution centers are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 facilities that serve as a transfer point for goods. They 2 include cold storage warehouses, goods transfer of 3 facilities, and intermodal facilities. We recommend 4 avoiding the siting of sensitive land uses within a 5 thousand feet of distribution centers because the large 6 number of trucks that travel in and out of these centers 7 are a major source of diesel emissions. Trucks that 8 transport perishable goods are usually equipped with 9 diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, or TRU's, 10 which are also a source of diesel PM emissions at 11 distribution centers. 12 Our recommendation was derived from technical 13 analyses we conducted in developing ARB's air toxic 14 control measures for TRU's and for truck idling. We also 15 relied upon a South Coast District air modeling analysis 16 that was conducted in Mira Loma, where large distribution 17 centers are located in proximity to homes. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. OMMERING: Rail yards are also a major source 20 of diesel PM. They may be located near intermodal 21 facilities which attract heavy truck traffic. They can 22 also be sited in mixed industrial and residential areas. 23 Our distance recommendation of a thousand feet 24 from a service and maintenance rail yard was based on 25 ARB's study of the Roseville rail yard. In this study, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 the risk associated with the locomotive operations was 2 highest in the area immediately adjacent to the rail 3 yard's maintenance operations. 4 --o0o-- 5 MS. OMMERING: We also recommend that when land 6 use agencies are siting within one mile of a rail yard, 7 they should consider possible siting limitations in 8 mitigation approaches. There are a number of other rail 9 yards in the state similar in activity to the Roseville 10 yard, and we are assessing the impacts of some of these 11 yards on neighboring communities. 12 --o0o-- 13 MS. OMMERING: As I already described in my 14 discussion of Barrio Logan, chrome-plating operations use 15 hexavalent chromium, which is a highly toxic compound. 16 Regulation of chrome-plating operations has reduced 17 statewide emissions substantially. However, even with the 18 best control technology, chrome plating operations and 19 associated fugitive dust emissions compose a health risk 20 to nearby individuals. The remaining health risk to 21 nearby residents is a continuing concern, and our studies 22 at Barrio Logan bear this out. 23 Due to the variability of chrome plating 24 operations and the highly toxic nature of hexavalent 25 chromium, we established a conservative distance PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 requirement of a thousand feet as a precautionary measure. 2 Perchloro-ethylene, or perc, is a cleaning 3 solvent most commonly used by the dry-cleaning industry. 4 The ARB and other public health agencies have identified 5 perc as a potential cancer-causing compound. By 6 establishing a 300 to 500 food distance recommendation, 7 ARB recognizes that even though perc dry-cleaning is well 8 controlled, some perc emissions continue to recur and 9 still have potential to pose significant risks to nearby 10 individuals. In addition, we recommend not co-locating 11 sensitive land uses an perc dry cleaners in the same 12 building. 13 The South Coast AQMD has adopted a rule requiring 14 that all new dry cleaners use alternatives to perc and 15 that existing dry cleaners phase out the use of perc by 16 December 2020. 17 Over time transition to non-toxic alternatives 18 should occur. However, while perc continues to be used, a 19 preventative approach should be taken when siting new 20 sensitive land uses near these operations. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. OMMERING: Gasoline dispensing facilities, or 23 gas stations, tend to be located in areas close to 24 residential and shopping areas, and continue to be sources 25 of Benzene emissions. By establishing a distance PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 recommendation of 300 feet from a large facility and 50 2 feet from a typical gas station, we hope to address 3 potential siting new sensitive land uses near this type of 4 polluting source. 5 California air district studies have shown that 6 typical gas stations pose a risk of less than ten in a 7 million at 50 feet. However, the emerging trend of new 8 high volume stations could pose a greater risk above the 9 regional background or local air district health risk 10 thresholds. Hence, the recommendation for additional 11 distance. 12 --o0o-- 13 MS. OMMERING: Like rail yards and freeways, port 14 activities are a major source of diesel PM and are 15 therefore a growing air quality concern for both nearby 16 communities and regional air quality. 17 Ports are huge complexes with a large number and 18 concentration of diesel engines. We currently have a risk 19 assessment of ports underway as part of the 20 administration's initiative on goods movement. But based 21 on the magnitude of emissions, we would expect localized 22 impacts. 23 The Schwarzenegger administration has recently 24 launched a statewide initiative on goods movement. As 25 part of this initiative, the administration has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 established a Cabinet-level working group headed up by Cal 2 EPA and the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency. 3 One of the goals is the mitigation of the environmental 4 and community impacts of the ports and goods movement 5 through California's waterways, ports and rail lines. 6 One of the activities ARB is undertaking as part 7 of these initiatives is to develop a statewide plan to 8 identify strategies and reduce emissions from trucks, 9 trains, ships and related equipment. This includes 10 analyses of the relative impact of key emission sources. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. OMMERING: Refineries are another category 13 where we encourage land use agencies to avoid siting a new 14 sensitive land use immediately downwind of the source. 15 Refineries are among the largest industrial 16 facilities in California and emit a variety of potentially 17 toxic air pollutants. Because these facilities are 18 subject to extensive air district controls, health risk 19 assessments performed by refineries indicate a low cancer 20 risk. However, we have limited data on the noncancer 21 effects from many pollutants emitted from these 22 facilities. 23 Refineries are complex air pollution sources, and 24 we recommend that the local air district be consulted 25 regarding siting of sensitive land uses in the immediate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 vicinity of refineries. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. OMMERING: Although local air districts 4 typically have nuisance rules for odors and general rules 5 for regulating dust sources in their jurisdictions, these 6 types of commercial activities continue to be the most 7 common sources of air pollution complaints and concerns 8 from the public. 9 Exposure to unpleasant odors and dust can cause 10 health symptoms such as nausea and headache. Facilities 11 that can cause odor and dust complaints may also be 12 sources of air toxics. The handbook does not specify a 13 distance for these general categories. However, we do 14 encourage land use agencies to consider a number of 15 factors before siting of sensitive land use in order to 16 avoid odor or dust complaints in a specific situation. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. OMMERING: I will now briefly review the key 19 issues we confronted during development of the handbook. 20 In addition, I'll discuss our outreach plan for 21 disseminating information on the handbook to local 22 governments and other affected stakeholders. 23 I'll also touch upon how we intend to 24 periodically update pertinent information that will be 25 useful for land use agencies. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. OMMERING: During the development of the 3 handbook, community interest groups and environmental 4 organizations recommended that staff address the issue of 5 cumulative impacts. In other words, they wanted us to 6 look at the impacts that can occur from a concentration of 7 multiple sources that individually comply with air 8 pollution control requirements, but in the aggregate may 9 pose a public health risk to exposed individuals. 10 The handbook focuses on one aspect of the 11 community exposure, that of near-source impact, which is a 12 contributor to the overall cumulative impact. 13 However, we're also currently conducting a pilot 14 project on cumulative impacts in southern California under 15 the Cal EPA EJ initiatives. As we improve our 16 understanding of the science, we will be better able to 17 make recommendations regarding cumulative impacts. 18 In a separate issue, housing, transportation and 19 building interests express concern that the handbook 20 recommendations would result in fewer opportunities to 21 meet important state and local policies and mandates for 22 new housing, infill projects and transit-oriented 23 development. 24 Throughout the process, we've recognized that 25 this is an important and changing issue. Comments we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 receive from the California Department of Housing and 2 Community Development highlighted some specific concerns 3 that I'll address in the next slide. 4 --o0o-- 5 MS. OMMERING: We received several comments from 6 housing advocates including the real estate and building 7 industry as well as the California Department of Housing 8 and Community Development. HCD's comment letter best 9 reflects the points made by housing groups. And I will 10 use it to respond to the key issues. 11 First, housing advocates were concerned that the 12 handbook recommendations set regulatory standards. The 13 handbook is advisory and does not establish regulatory 14 standards of any kind. 15 HCD then raised concerns that the handbook 16 advocates the use of conditional use permits for 17 residential developments. The language in the handbook 18 regarding conditional use permits was meant to address the 19 uses of such permits for polluting facilities and not the 20 siting of sensitive land uses. The section was written 21 early on in the development of the handbook and should 22 have been clarified. 23 HCD also took issue with a flow diagram in an 24 appendix of the handbook that outlined the permit review 25 process. The diagram was designed to illustrate key PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 points in the land use siting process where air quality 2 land use agencies interact. It was not meant to ignore 3 the fact that land use agencies also work with other 4 agencies beside the air district. 5 HCD was concerned that the diagram implies that 6 air district input occurs at the final application 7 decision point. We developed the diagram to address this 8 very point. We encourage land use agencies and air 9 districts to interact at every step of the process, and we 10 use the diagram to express that. It appears we were not 11 clear enough on this point. 12 HCD requested individual qualifiers for each 13 source category for which we made recommendations. We 14 heard this comment at our March 4th workshop. As a 15 result, we added clarifying notes to the recommendation 16 table. These qualifiers are also included in the general 17 text of the handbook. 18 HCD questioned the basis for our recommendations 19 for distances from freeways and other high traffic roads, 20 particularly rural roads. Our recommendations for rural 21 roadways were based on language in state law addressing 22 the siting of schools. Our recommendation extends the 23 same distance factor to other sensitive land uses. 24 HCD also expressed concern that the handbook 25 encourages land use agencies to perform additional PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 analyses when making decisions. They were concerned that 2 land use agency staff would not have the resources or 3 expertise to perform these analyses. 4 For major projects, we would anticipate the 5 project proponent will be responsible for the additional 6 analyses, not the land use agency. We also believe that 7 the air agency can be helpful in providing basic screening 8 analyses using the tools mentioned in the handbook. These 9 screening tools are designed to be used primarily by air 10 quality agency staff or consultants. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. OMMERING: During the workshop process, we 13 received comments about the importance of outreach on this 14 document. We proposed to partner with the local air 15 districts, particularly those in the major urban areas, to 16 reach out to their local land use agency counterparts and 17 to local elected officials. Air districts are the first 18 stop for local agencies that need technical assistance 19 concerning specific sources and pertinent air quality 20 data. 21 We've already spoken directly with local air 22 districts about their interest in partnering with us to 23 address land use issues. The Bay Area, South Coast and 24 San Diego districts have already agreed to take the lead 25 in working with their local land use agency counterparts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 to consider the handbook's recommendations. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. OMMERING: As new information is developed, 4 we intend to make it available to handbook users through a 5 wide variety of mechanisms. This would include 6 information on emissions, health effects and other 7 scientific data. We'll continue to work with local air 8 districts to incorporate results of the community 9 assessment pilot programs and special studies. And of 10 course we will continue to develop and approve upon our 11 existing cumulative assessment tools. 12 --o0o-- 13 MS. OMMERING: In conclusion, we recommend that 14 you approve the handbook for distribution to local elected 15 officials, land use related agencies and interested 16 stakeholders. We also recommend that staff be directed to 17 work with the local air pollution control districts 18 through CAPCOA on an outreach plan. 19 Thank you for your attention. And that concludes 20 our formal presentation. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 22 Ms. Witherspoon, any additional comments on your 23 part? 24 All right. Let me open it up to Board members 25 for any questions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 Dr. Gong. 2 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you very much. 3 I think at this moment it would be timely to ask 4 Dr. Shankar Prasad to step forth and give his perspective 5 of this land use document. 6 Dr. Prasad, as many of you know, is currently in 7 the California EPA, formally of the Air Resources Board. 8 But still he's in charge of the Environmental Justice 9 Program at the entire department level. So he was 10 instrumental as one of the key architects of starting this 11 process, and also finishing it to a certain extent today. 12 So I'd be -- I would like to encourage him to 13 step up and give his perspective about where we're at with 14 this document. 15 CALEPA DEPUTY SECRETARY PRASAD: Thank you, Dr. 16 Gong. 17 Madam Chairman and members of the Board. Thanks 18 for the opportunity. And it's actually a great pleasure 19 to be here today for me personally and to all of you 20 because historically -- are just this moment in 21 California. It is the second most historic moment. The 22 first day was on December 13th, 2001, when you adopted the 23 EJ policies and action items at the same building at about 24 the same time of the day, but at a much later time. 25 And very frankly, it feels very strange to see PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 you all standing as -- not as an ARB staff, but as a -- 2 you know, from a different perspective. 3 Dr. Lloyd sends his greetings. And both of us 4 are extremely happy and pleased to see that an action 5 which we initiated in 1999, June, under the name of a 6 neighborhood impacts program ultimately has culminated 7 into a wonderful policy directive and your dates -- 8 importance step and you will be planting a seed to what 9 the future costs of this whole moment will be in this 10 state. 11 And I also want to compliment the extremely 12 talented and technically capable staff at ARB, with whom 13 we have had multiple discussions, various times agreed, 14 disagreed, but ultimately came through to where we are 15 today. 16 And I also want to thank a number of stakeholders 17 with whom we have worked with over the years. And without 18 their help we would not have been here. So it is very 19 nice that where we are, and I hope that you'll be able to 20 approve the document. 21 Having said all these glorious things, I have to 22 say a few -- couple of points -- just two things. First, 23 as the staff pointed out, had we considered the cancer 24 risk alone in the context of even the freeways, we 25 probably would have ended up in the same dilemma as with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 the ports and refineries. But we took a step beyond, and 2 the staff evaluated that and came up with the siting 3 criteria. 4 So of course we are limited by the data. But it 5 is time for us, and the Board can direct the staff, in 6 order to dedicate the resources necessary both in terms of 7 where there is a research or in terms of the staff time or 8 whatever the resources are necessary, so come 12 months, 9 18 months from now we have some clear idea about what to 10 do in relation to those. Because as many of you know, 11 those two will be geared for a bigger lot of expansion, 12 especially in southern California. 13 Second, in the policy and action items, one of 14 the -- I mean you may all recall they all carried the 15 carts of the policies in our buses for all these years. 16 And there are many things. We have completed a few 17 things. There is a line which says the staff will develop 18 land use guidance, land use and permitting items. So the 19 question now we have done is the land use part of it. The 20 part that we need to address, both -- is how do we 21 incorporate this land use or a citing criteria into the 22 permitting context? I know this sends chills in -- it 23 sends a chill even in me. It will be a major challenge as 24 to how to get into that step of incorporating this siting 25 criteria, all the cumulative impacts, into the permitting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 arena. But, however, as we know if we start, let's say, 2 today and ask the CAPCOA to step up, the stakeholders to 3 step up and given directive, maybe five years from now 4 we'll have that guidance as well. 5 Once again, thank for the opportunity. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Dr. 7 Prasad. And we appreciate the fact that you're here. 8 It's very important. 9 Other questions, Dr. Gong? And then ill go down 10 the line there. 11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Just some comments. 12 I've been also involved in this EJ process. And 13 I've actually learned a lot about land use and air 14 pollution and other items. Probably more than I really 15 wanted to. But, nonetheless, I look at this land use 16 document that you so eloquently described to us today 17 really as part of, as you said, an outreach of the ARB. 18 And I too look at this as an outreach, giving the 19 community at large, meaning everyone in the community, 20 valid information, full disclosure, if you will, a 21 transparent process of understanding what are the 22 questions that they should ask. And practically speaking 23 we do that on an everyday basis when we want to buy a 24 house or move to a new area: Why do we want to live 25 there? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 So I think these are very practical issues that 2 come up. And I think that this document does provide 3 knowledge and a foundation of due process for questioning 4 how we think about this process. 5 At the same time, sort of shoring up what Dr. 6 Prasad said, the document is not perfect and it's not a 7 hundred percent done, so to speak, or the process. 8 The document goes a long way again in giving 9 information to the community at large. But obviously 10 there's some issues that I noted. And I'll just quickly 11 go through them. 12 The ports and the refineries. Those areas seem 13 to be the weakest part of the table, 1-1 or whatever. No 14 exact distances are given, because a lack of -- or limited 15 data on that area. And I understand that. But 16 nonetheless I think that that's an issue that needs to be 17 continually understood and investigated so we can put down 18 perhaps some numbers in the future. 19 Another issue that I brought up in a previous ARB 20 meeting was the reverse of what we're talking about today. 21 And this document I believe does not address that fully. 22 And perhaps wasn't meant to be. But we've been talking in 23 this document about siting of -- I may get this wrong -- 24 siting receptors near sources. But what about the 25 reverse, siting of sources near receptors. And the reason PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 I bring that up is: I was recently given a paper to read 2 from Environmental Health Perspectives, April 2002. It's 3 entitled "Environmental Justice and Regional Inequality in 4 Southern California: Implications for future research." 5 First author is Rachel Morello-Frosch. And then there's 6 Drs. Pastor, Carlos Porras and James Sadd. 7 And essentially they did studies looking at this 8 issue of environmental justice, and found that -- let me 9 see if I can find the right phrase here -- that indeed it 10 looked like from their review there was a significant 11 input of industry into low socioeconomic areas rather than 12 the reverse. So that's something I think we need to keep 13 in mind as well in this document. And I don't think the 14 document again addresses that issue. 15 Now, all that I've said is to be done, I guess. 16 And that really leads to my final point, and that I think 17 this is a wonderful document. However, I don't want it to 18 be the last document, so to speak. And I hope that we can 19 make this a living document with revisions in the future 20 to update it, to keep the stakeholders talking to each 21 other, and to basically encourage more research in the 22 appropriate areas. 23 With that, it can still remain a guideline of 24 land use and air pollution. But, again, I'd like to see 25 more of a active -- proactive role for the future for this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 document, even though we haven't approved it yet. But I 2 think there's more to be done despite the great amount of 3 work and thought that's gone into it. 4 Thank you. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 6 Any other comments or questions for the panel on the right 7 side? 8 Ms. D'Adamo. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. Just a couple of 10 questions here. 11 First of all, on the interrelation between the 12 freeway and the high traffic roads, and then some of the 13 site-specific recommendations that staff has on 14 distribution centers, rail yards and ports. 15 On those three sites, it seems that -- and of 16 course I don't know because I don't spend a lot of time at 17 these facilities. But it seems that a great portion of 18 the challenge is the mobile source side of the equation, 19 when trucks leave distribution centers, when they leave 20 ports, et cetera. And so just wondering I guess in areas 21 where there's intense urbanization, that is where the 22 freeway and high traffic road would kick in. For example, 23 when a truck leaves a port and is no longer at the port, 24 that we're seeing, you know, hundreds and hundreds of 25 trucks leaving the port, at that point the freeway and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 high traffic road requirement would kick in at 500 feet. 2 But I'm thinking about areas where there's not a 3 lot of urbanization yet. For example, at a distribution 4 center where that's where the main activity is felt and 5 the main impact is felt with the trucks leaving the 6 distribution centers. And we're seeing in the valley, for 7 example, distribution centers and then later on down the 8 line housing developments. 9 And so those roads near the distribution centers, 10 I don't -- my sense is they would not yet be classified as 11 high traffic roads. And so just wondering if staff could 12 comment on that. 13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: You're right in 14 terms of the rural roads. We did look at some of the 15 traffic volumes. And, surprisingly, CalTrans count data 16 shows that even large stretches of I-5, which we know has 17 a lot of traffic, would fall below that threshold in terms 18 of just the freeway issue. But in terms of distribution 19 centers, what -- you know, we calculated based on our 20 refrigeration unit, ATC -- Air Toxics Control measure, and 21 then looked at a number of trucks going in and out of a 22 facility. And that -- you know, regardless of where that 23 would be located, that level of truck activity and TRU 24 units would pose a substantial risk if new sensitive 25 receptors were sited very close by. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 So that was the rationale for coming up with a 2 thousand feet around distribution centers. And that would 3 apply statewide based on the way the calculation was done. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, what about the roads 5 leading to the distribution center? 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: In this -- 7 you're questioning -- 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm picturing a 9 distribution center that's near I-5, and housing is 10 encroaching on the distribution center, and rural roads 11 leading to the major freeway artery, I-5, for example. 12 Unless those rural roads are classified as high traffic 13 roads, there wouldn't be the restriction of 500 feet that 14 this report would recommend. 15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Right. At this 16 point in time -- you know, we didn't have a lot of data on 17 rural roads. So in absence of the data we simply said 18 state law requires this analysis essentially for schools 19 being sited at that traffic volume. But we don't -- we 20 haven't done a risk assessment, you know, for all the 21 different roads and different traffic volumes. So you're 22 right, the recommendation wouldn't apply widely in more 23 rural areas like the San Joaquin Valley with respect to 24 the freeways and the roadways. It would for the 25 distribution centers. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There's a couple 2 things to keep in mind. Simply by making the observation 3 that freeways have an impact on public health, I think 4 we're going to change people's mind-sets about what they 5 anticipate volumes will grow to be and over what time 6 frame. Because there's also the compensating effect that 7 is perhaps underplayed in the document, the 20 years out 8 we see these emissions being greatly abated, even sooner 9 at the distribution centers based on the control measures 10 you have adopted. 11 But what we've seen as a pattern, not just the 12 one that you're describing in San Joaquin Valley where a 13 distribution center's plopped down in a rural area and 14 housing grows up around it, but in Mira Loma housing was 15 there and distribution centers are being put on top of old 16 housing lots and right up next to existing housing, 17 without any thought about the traffic pattern moving in 18 and out of them. And so there is an existing problem. 19 And so what we're hoping to do is raise the 20 sensitivity, and the people can think about this. And if 21 that rural road you're talking about is anticipated to 22 become a major arterial, they'd think twice about how much 23 of a buffer they'd like to keep on either side of it. You 24 know, they might need to contemplate lane expansion later 25 on and that sort of thing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 But I think we're going to raise the level of 2 awareness throughout California on that point. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Right. Well, I know staff 4 has been working on this for years, and you really deserve 5 to be complimented. I think this is a major step. And I 6 agree with Dr. Gong. I think we've got, you know, maybe 7 some more dialogue that needs to occur. 8 And just a couple of points on where I think this 9 is a very touchy area. But as I go through the report, I 10 almost feel -- it almost -- it's a night to feel proud, 11 but I almost kind of feel sickened too, because I look at 12 all these areas where basically, had better planning been 13 done or had planners even been aware of it -- I don't 14 think anyone was doing anything, you know, to the offense 15 of public health at the time. But when you look at gas 16 stations in residential neighborhoods, for example, dry 17 cleaners, all of these existing uses are basically going 18 to be grandfathered in. 19 And when I look at the San Joaquin Valley, I view 20 it as a real opportunity because the growth has yet to 21 occur. I mean we're seeing quite a bit growth, but we 22 expect that there's going to be even more. 23 On page 33 -- or 123 of the staff report -- I 24 guess it's page 33, on Table 1-3, it refers to examples of 25 other facility types that emit air pollutants of concern. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 And on that list are a number of examples that I see, 2 again focusing on, you know, just the area where I live, 3 with agricultural operations, municipal incinerators. I 4 know of an example of a tallow plant where housing came 5 second. 6 And so these are examples on this list, are those 7 that, as I read this chart, the issues should be addressed 8 or could be addressed through the permitting process. But 9 I'm actually seeing it, you know, the other way around. 10 These facilities are already there, and we're seeing 11 housing moving toward these facilities. And so I just 12 think that -- as much as I hesitate to raise an ag issue 13 because I know a lot in the agricultural community would 14 be very sensitive to this, but at the same time there's 15 lot of folks out there that are feeling the conflicts. 16 They've been out there doing -- engaging in normal routine 17 agricultural practices, land preparation, harvesting, 18 application of pesticides. They've been going along just 19 fine. And now there's houses right across the street, 20 schools, churches. 21 I've heard at several Farm Bureau meetings how 22 frustrating it is for them that, you know, we need more 23 churches -- there's more people, we need more churches. 24 But do they have to site the church right across the 25 street from an almond farm where there's going to be, you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 know, harvesting and other impacts that later on the 2 church parishioners complain to the farmer about the 3 impacts of their operations. 4 So just wondering what kind of dialogue you've 5 had so far and if you think that further discussion would 6 be fruitful? Not looking at these in terms -- this list 7 in terms of permitting, but the other way around. 8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: We did -- 9 especially relative to this sort of encroachment on 10 agricultural lands, we have mentioned it in a number of ag 11 forums and presentations that we've given. So, you know, 12 we've tried to make them aware of this document as well so 13 that perhaps it can be helpful to them when sensitive 14 receptors are being sited in these ag areas. And 15 certainly if this document goes forward, the outreach to 16 local government in the valley is going to be a big 17 effort. And we would hope to have, you know, ag 18 stakeholders and many others involved in the outreach and 19 supporting the concept of taking a little care and thought 20 here. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: In those 22 conversations we did find the agricultural groups to be 23 supportive of what we were doing. They are already 24 required under different statutes to maintain buffer 25 zones. And when land encroaches, what that means is they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 have to give up productive land at their fence line, pull 2 back in and reestablish the buffer zone. 3 You'll also notice in your packet there's a 4 letter from the Department of Pesticide Regulation, which 5 is challenged with managing pesticide drift, among other 6 things. And they too are supportive of what we're 7 attempting to do here, because while -- you know, they 8 will still be charged with managing drift, if you don't 9 have people immediately adjacent to the field the job's a 10 little bit easier. 11 So, yeah, they're very familiar with buffer 12 zones. I think they didn't turn out tonight because, what 13 they said to us is, "We're already living with them. 14 We're used to the concept. We're comfortable with the 15 concept. So you will not hear any opposition from us," 16 was their message. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. Good 19 questions. 20 Ms. Kennard? 21 Supervisor Patrick? 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: It gives us some 23 challenges. And having lived through some of that myself 24 as a supervisor and as a city councilwoman, I think there 25 has to be an understanding for some of those uses that are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 in place. And then when newer uses are being cited or 2 proposed, there has to be mitigation, there has to be 3 buffering. And this is going to challenge a lot of people 4 who have heretofore maybe not had to be as creative as 5 they should be. 6 And it really gives us I think some great 7 opportunities to see better land use planning and to be 8 very creative in the process. And it can be done. It can 9 be done very well if we -- if people in the approval 10 process -- and I'm speaking more of the elected bodies -- 11 are sensitive. And that's who we need to reach. We need 12 to reach the elected officials. And of course their 13 staffs have to raise those issues many times. And there 14 is a learning curve for those elected officials. And so 15 we just -- and they're elected different times, they're 16 terms do not coincide. So it's a constant learning 17 process. 18 And so as we go forward with what I hope is a 19 document that we can approve today, the challenge will be 20 to always keep it on the front burner of those who are in 21 the land use policy decision-making places. That's going 22 to be our challenge. This may not have been the bigger 23 challenge. The other may be the biggest challenge. 24 Now, if I might, and unless -- Ms. Berg, I'm 25 sorry. I did not call on you, and I apologize. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: No, it was no problem. 2 In the presentation I noticed that airports 3 weren't mentioned. And could we have a comment about 4 that? 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: We wish could 6 have come up with something on airports. We realize it's 7 a big issue from many aspects. 8 But in terms of just the air quality piece, we 9 don't have a lot of data. We weren't able to come up with 10 a specific recommendation. But certainly that is a hot 11 local issue. And, you know, if we get to the point, as 12 Dr. Gong has asked us to do, to keep this updated, that's 13 certainly something we will strive to come up with if the 14 data presents itself. 15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. We have our 17 sign-up sheet now petty well completed. 18 And I noticed that there are some who have signed 19 up who were not here when I first made my recommendations, 20 and so I'm going to repeat myself. And I apologize for 21 that. But I want everybody to know as they're preparing 22 to come forward to testify what kind of guidance I'm going 23 to give, because I want to have everybody have an 24 opportunity to be heard. 25 We're going to have five minutes for each PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 presentation. There is a timer at the speaker's stand. 2 And it will indicate to you with kind of a green light for 3 the first three minutes. Then when you have two minutes 4 left it sort of has a yellow light and it will tell you to 5 begin to sum up. And because I want everybody to be 6 heard, I'm going to hold you pretty much to those time 7 limits. And I'm looking forward to the testimony and I'm 8 also looking forward to your management of time. 9 The first person that I'm going to invite forward 10 is Jesse Marquez. 11 And I'd like people to come forward, to give your 12 name for the record and also if you represent an 13 organization. 14 And then let me indicate, Jesse, before you 15 start, Cindy Tuck, you will be following Jesse, Barry 16 Wallerstein following Cindy, and Diane Bailey. And so 17 that gives you the first four individuals. 18 And, Jesse, begin. 19 MR. MARQUEZ: Yes, my name is Jesse Marquez, 20 Executive Director, Coalition for a Safe Environment. 21 We're an environmental justice community located in 22 Wilmington, the heart of Los Angeles in terms of the 23 harbor area. 24 We also have members in 12 cities throughout the 25 Long Beach and Port of Long Beach and Port of L.A. area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 Basically I have two things. I'll be showing you 2 some photos. 3 But I want to, first of all, state to you that 4 I'm here to support this new document and ask that you do 5 vote and approve it today, because I think it's a very 6 valuable first step. And sometimes we need to take the 7 baby first step to get up and running, you know. However, 8 there are ways to go on that, like if you used some ideas 9 and suggestions as to what else needs to be done for the 10 future next generation of this. 11 For example, to make it easy for a city, for a 12 county, I believe one of the recommendations should be to 13 list in the case of a city the top 100 air polluters. 14 Let's make it simple. Have every city set aside some 15 time, have someone assigned to list 100. They can obtain 16 that from AQMD data and wherever it's necessary. But to 17 have it as a working model, so that when there is a 18 planner there at the city hall, he or she can just pull 19 open the drawer and here's a list already made. And it's 20 a simple recommendation that can be put together over 21 time. 22 In the case of a county, then I would recommend 23 maybe going to the top 250, top 500. 24 Then I would also suggest a map. This way the 25 planner knows that he has to pull out the list, pull out a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 map. And this way as a reviewing documentation, this 2 helps them along that process. 3 I think their books should also recommend and 4 cite some legal guidance. There have been CEQA lawsuits. 5 There's been NEEPA lawsuits. There's been other land 6 planning and health code type violations. I think this 7 document should cite some of the most blatant errors and 8 mistakes that cities make. This way these planners don't 9 make the same mistake and reinvent the wheel. Let's try 10 to keep it simple, provide them some guidance there. 11 Another thing it needs to emphasize a little bit 12 more are on existing land uses. Because in the case of 13 Wilmington, we have the Port of L.A. expanding and 14 tripling in size. The Port of Long Beach is our neighbor. 15 It's doubling and tripling in size. The refineries are 16 tripling in size. You know, I mean everything is just 17 going outrageous for us. So we need to look at some of 18 those things. 19 I noticed in the book there's guidance like for 20 refineries. Well, another thing faced in San Pedro, 21 Wilmington and Carson is that we have fuel storage tank 22 facilities that are not refineries. But yet they store 23 tens of millions of gallons of diesel fuel, jet fuel. We 24 have to deal with those fumes as well. 25 There's also new intermodal facilities being PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 planned. And right now the Port of Long Beach and the 2 Port of L.A. are supporting a brand new one, and it will 3 be south of the existing one. Well, the only problem with 4 south of the existing one is Hudson Elementary School in 5 Long Beach and a park right next to it and a day-care 6 center right next to it. So sometimes we have to have 7 some forward vision. 8 I was in Sacramento Monday and Tuesday, and they 9 were pointing out some information in terms of onramps and 10 offramps. But what they didn't tell is whether or not did 11 they need to expand those because there was a distribution 12 center. So now they needed to make it a truck route. 13 That was not disclosed. 14 So now I'd like to just point out some of these 15 photos right here. This is Conoco Oil Refinery where you 16 can see residents are right up against the fence to the 17 refinery. 18 Here's another one from a front-yard view of the 19 refinery. 20 Here's two blocks from the Port of Los Angeles. 21 Another view. This is Wilmington Elementary 22 School, with the Port of Los Angeles just a couple blocks. 23 And the refinery is four blocks to the right of it. 24 This is another view of the school and children 25 crossing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 Here we have a school bus coming right from the 2 main source of everything, again exposing children either 3 going to school or coming home from school. 4 Right here is a park. And you can see all the 5 port facilities just right across the street from the 6 park. 7 Right here is the horseshoe pit. And to the left 8 you see the DWP Power Plant, with the stacks right up 9 above it. 10 Right here is a federal government housing 11 project with a play field, with the China Shipping 12 terminal right behind it. 13 Another view of the China Shipping terminal one 14 block over. 15 Right here is a baseball field. And you can see 16 the oil well right behind it. What you can't see because 17 it was daylight is a smoke stack, and it's always burning 18 something there. But the baseball field is right there. 19 Right here is the Harbor Occupational Center in 20 San Pedro. And you can't tell too well, but right above 21 the ridge is actually a truck route. So sometimes you 22 have trees right there. But if you're there at 6 o'clock, 23 7 o'clock in the morning, there are thousands of trucks. 24 And so you know what the impact of trucks are in the 25 harbor. Right now everyday there are over 45,000 truck PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 trips a day. These are diesel trucks. The projection to 2 the year 2025 is that those will increase to 121,000 truck 3 trips a day. That's what we're faced with. 4 Right here is another park. Right behind it is 5 the Kinder Morgan fuel storage tank facility. And there's 6 houses all around it. 7 Right here, just a sign, Kinder Morgan, so you 8 see that's what it is. 9 Here's another view of that park with another oil 10 derrick right behind it. 11 Here is a hazardous waste facility. And in the 12 next photo there is the front gate to the hazardous waste 13 facility right in the neighborhood. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Jesse, we've come -- 15 MR. MARQUEZ: And the last photos here are just 16 showing that railroad tracks. To the right are brand new 17 housing tracks and to the left they're building brand new 18 housing tracks. 19 And then the last photo, if you just jump real 20 quick, I just want to show you the last one -- one more, 21 two more. 22 Okay. Go back one more, one more, one more. 23 Speed it up to the last photo. 24 Right there. It's Conoco Oil Refinery. That day 25 that smoke went north ten miles across six city PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 boundaries. 2 Okay. Thank you. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Jesse. 4 And, you know, a picture is worth a thousand words. Thank 5 you for your pictures. 6 Cindy Tuck. 7 MS. TUCK: Thank you, Chairwoman Riordan and 8 members of the Board. For the record, my name is Cindy 9 Tuck. I'm General Counsel for the California Council for 10 Environmental and Economic Balance. 11 I'm very pleased to be able to be here tonight to 12 testify in support of the land use handbook. 13 CCEEB has been actively involved in the 14 development of the handbook since the beginning, so it's 15 been almost two years. And from the beginning we thought 16 that this was a very important effort. 17 Early on we agreed with the community groups that 18 both community residents and businesses have a common 19 interest in local governments not creating incompatible 20 land uses in the future. So we had common ground. There 21 were a lot of issues. This was the most difficult EJ work 22 product at ARB to date. But we all agreed we had a lot of 23 common ground, so we should be able to get there. 24 You know, CCEEB did have concerns on the last 25 draft, the prior draft. But since the workshop at UCLA we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 worked with staff and staff did add a Table 1-2 and some 2 other changes. And basically what these changes did was 3 add more information about how the distances were 4 developed, and staff went over some of that here tonight. 5 And they also added relative risk information, which we 6 thought was helpful information for the local governments. 7 We appreciate staff's very hard work on this 8 document. And I just want to thank Linda Murchison and 9 Lucille Van Ommering in particular for their patience and 10 persistence on this document. 11 And in closing, I'll just note that we're pleased 12 to be able to be here tonight in support. And it was very 13 nice to fill out a green card on this document. 14 Thank you. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Cindy. 16 And we're just very pleased that CCEEB is in support and 17 recognizes how important this document can be in helping 18 give guidance to policymakers. 19 MS. TUCK: Thank you very much. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Barry Wallerstein, 21 Diane Bailey. And then next would be Todd Campbell and 22 Mike Webb. 23 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 24 Presented as follows.) 25 DR. WALLERSTEIN: Good evening, Madam Chair, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 members of the Board. I'm Dr. Barry Wallerstein, the 2 Executive Officer of the South Coast Air Quality 3 Management District. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. 4 I also serve on your EJ working group and I'm a member of 5 the Cal EPA Advisory Committee on Environmental Justice. 6 I'm here tonight in strong support of your 7 approval of this document. It is a landmark item for this 8 agency and I think for the state. 9 If I could have the next slide. 10 --o0o-- 11 DR. WALLERSTEIN: I'm going to also show a few 12 photographs. But the point I want to make is actually 13 underscoring something Cindy just said. Without this 14 document, everyone loses, whether we're talking about the 15 community members or the businesses. And I'd like to 16 demonstrate that to you tonight also with a series of 17 photographs. 18 --o0o-- 19 DR. WALLERSTEIN: The first photograph is a 20 historic photograph of chrome crankshaft. This was a 21 large plating operation immediately adjacent to a school, 22 with the ducks pointed out towards the school. 23 Fortunately that facility's no longer operating. But it 24 started much of the environmental justice movement here in 25 southern California. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 --o0o-- 2 DR. WALLERSTEIN: If we look at the next 3 photograph, we might say, well, that roof and that 4 industrial building next to the apartment house doesn't 5 look so onerous. But in fact they're only separated by 6 relatively few feet. 7 --o0o-- 8 DR. WALLERSTEIN: And the next slide shows 9 results of air monitoring conducted by our joint staffs, 10 which shows right across the street from that plating 11 facility we had a risk on average equal to about 171 in a 12 million compared to our normal background here in South 13 Coast at 27; and maximum measurements that were up at over 14 2,000 in a million. It's also important to point out, 15 just a half a block away from this facility is an 16 exclusive private school where people are paying very 17 large amounts of money to send their kids for a fine 18 education. And we found very high elevated risks there as 19 well. 20 --o0o-- 21 DR. WALLERSTEIN: The next photograph is of an 22 emerging controversy in San Bernardino near the Union 23 Pacific rail yard, where the rail yard wants to expand to 24 the north, take over the park, eliminate the child care 25 center there -- and it's the only park in the community -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 and would be catty-corner to Ramona Alessandro School, 2 which has already been the subject of a number of EJ 3 complaints. 4 Your type of guidance is needed to help steer the 5 decision by local government in a matter such as this. 6 --o0o-- 7 DR. WALLERSTEIN: The last photograph is actually 8 my favorite. This is the I-15 just south of the 60 9 freeway. And this is a new development where the 10 developer really tried to do the right thing. These are 11 home offices that you see the windows opening up on to the 12 freeway. And across from these are the homes. So you 13 don't have to drive to work. You just walk across in the 14 plaza there and go up the stairs to your home office. 15 Those windows -- I had my staff go out and stand 16 on the side of the road, safely, and use a tape measure to 17 measure the distance. Twenty-five feet, about the 18 distance to Carol of my staff sitting there in the 19 brightly colored coat. 20 Clearly not a good decision. 21 --o0o-- 22 DR. WALLERSTEIN: The next slide is of a recent 23 letter we've received from Senator Dunn regarding a very 24 minor modification to a plating facility directly across 25 from a school, where the Senator now has the impression PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 that we at the agency are trying to expose children to 2 toxic impacts. We're now going to do a full risk 3 assessment of that facility. Our inspectors are going to 4 be in that facility more frequently. We're going to do a 5 community meeting. 6 So when I say everyone loses, the community 7 loses. And a business that's been there for ten years is 8 now going to be under extreme pressure to move. The 9 business loses. 10 So we need to try and prevent these situations. 11 --o0o-- 12 DR. WALLERSTEIN: We are committed, as your staff 13 had mentioned to you, to work with you, to do the 14 outreach, so you have our firm commitment to do that, and 15 to work with businesses and local government to get better 16 decisions. 17 --o0o-- 18 DR. WALLERSTEIN: So in conclusion what I'd like 19 to say is the education and the information you are about 20 to provide is going to lead to reduced air pollution 21 exposure and better public health. 22 And if anyone comes before you tonight and says, 23 "Well, this is not smart growth that's being articulated 24 in your document," we would propose to you that they have 25 the wrong definition of "smart" and they need to rethink PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 their definition, because high exposure to air pollution 2 is not smart growth or good for the public. 3 Lastly, I'd like to note, in response to one of 4 Dr. Gong's comments, that in fact a week from tomorrow we 5 will be taking to our board a draft regulation so that we 6 can move to final hearing that would set requirements for 7 any new facility that wants to locate adjacent to a school 8 that would say that that facility must meet a risk of one 9 in a million. And I'm very hopeful that we will be moving 10 that forward. And we have some other items scheduled for 11 later this year that addresses the question of, not just 12 local government doing its fair share of the work here, 13 but us at the local districts starting to do a better job 14 of what we approve. 15 And with that, I thank you, and urge your 16 approval of the document. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 18 And we very much appreciate the fact that you're here in 19 support. And also with the effort that's going to need to 20 follow this if we approve this tonight, which is, as I 21 mentioned before, the bigger task, getting the word out 22 and continuing to speak to the policymakers and the 23 approvals. 24 Yes, Ms. D'Adamo has a question for you, if you 25 wouldn't mind, Dr. Wallerstein. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes, just curious about 2 what your district does currently and if you anticipate 3 that you would change the way you do business in terms of 4 getting involved at the planning commission level. At 5 what do you -- how do you find out where businesses are 6 going to be sited and at what point do you attempt to 7 engage in the process? 8 DR. WALLERSTEIN: First of all, we're trying to 9 improve our outreach, as you are, to local governments so 10 that the local government planners come to us before they 11 prepare their documentation and recommended decisions for 12 the planning commissions. We also are working with the 13 elected officials to make sure they know we're a resource 14 for them. 15 In addition to that, when we become aware of 16 community concerns about a project, we offer our technical 17 services to the city or the county as well as the 18 community and the business in the analysis of the issues. 19 Your staff referenced a study, for example, we did in Mira 20 Loma looking at large warehousing operations that were 21 planned near a high school. And the results of our study 22 actually affected the outcome of a decision by the county 23 board of supervisors where they decided not to proceed 24 with that particular project as was originally proposed. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just as a follow-up. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 think the best-case scenario you talk about, you know, 2 hopefully we're going to have -- everyone is going to win 3 as a result of this -- I think we can get their sooner if 4 those decisions get made prior to getting to a full 5 elected body -- elected body. Instead get made either in 6 the planning offices or planning commission meetings. 7 DR. WALLERSTEIN: We would agree. And we 8 actually have a document going to our board again a week 9 from Friday that is complementary to your document, also 10 intended for land use planners. And what we would propose 11 is to work with your staff to set up forums for the 12 planning staffs at the city and counties to inform them 13 about these documents and the services that we can offer, 14 so that we're early on in the process. And we would 15 propose to do the same for the building industry as well. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Just interjecting 18 just a little built here. While, yes, it's good to have 19 the thought that some of these issues could be resolved 20 early on, there is still a process of appeal, which often 21 times goes to an elected body regardless of whether it's 22 at a planning commission level, whether it's at the 23 Department of, you know, Land Use Planning. You get to 24 appeal your project. So it's going to ultimately get to 25 those decision makers. And I -- having been there, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 guess, Ms. D'Adamo, I tell you, that's where you've really 2 got to make the impact. And they set the direction, quite 3 frankly, for the land use planning departments and they 4 appoint the planning commissioners. So it all kind of 5 funnels up there to the top. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I agree. But -- 7 well, I guess maybe I should clarify my statement. Out of 8 a concern that we don't end up seeing a situation where 9 there's a tremendous amount of conflict, where the 10 decisions perhaps -- or not decisions, but compromise 11 could have been worked out in an earlier stage, that is 12 what I'm just suggesting. 13 And also out of a concern -- I know there's -- 14 perhaps we'll hear from some witnesses that may be 15 concerned that this will turn into a regulation as opposed 16 to an advisory document, that local planning commissions 17 will accept it as a de facto regulation, that it's best to 18 have whoever could be a resource, that local air district 19 or whatever, raise the concerns early on so that 20 developers don't invest the money and go down a path to 21 the point where it ends up getting hashed out at the 22 ultimate stage. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Right. And that 24 they have an opportunity to do some -- I think -- the 25 design -- the design is so critical in this. And that can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 be encouraged at the planning department level to those 2 who are proposing whatever the project might be. And a 3 lot of it is design. I mean, for instance -- you know, I 4 know exactly where you are showing that picture of the 5 housing and the offices that are right on the freeway. 6 Had they been able to flip that maybe in some way where 7 there was buffer, still had the same footprint of 8 property, but placed maybe garages, maybe put green belt 9 or something along there, and then put the offices and 10 housing further back in, you might have accomplished 11 exactly what you needed to do, you know. It's all a 12 matter of good design in many cases. 13 DR. WALLERSTEIN: And actually the document we're 14 taking to our board is design feature oriented. So it 15 complements your document beautifully. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Great. Good. 17 Well, anyway, thank you. 18 DR. WALLERSTEIN: Thank you. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Any other questions 20 for Dr. Wallerstein? 21 Ms. Berg. 22 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Will you making that 23 available to the other districts? Do we do sharing of 24 information after you've done the complementary work? 25 DR. WALLERSTEIN: Absolutely, through CAPCOA. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Great. Thank you. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Great. 3 Thank you very much. 4 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Would you also share it with 5 ARB Board? 6 DR. WALLERSTEIN: Yes, we've shared it with your 7 staff already. They've been very helpful. 8 (Laughter.) 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 10 Diane Bailey and then Tod Campbell, Mike Webb, 11 and Mitzi Shpak. 12 MS. BAILEY: Good evening, and hello again. 13 My name is Diane Bailey and I'm a scientist with 14 the Natural Resources Defense Council. And I'm very happy 15 to say that I'm here today in strong support of this land 16 use document in front of you. 17 This important guidance document is a much needed 18 tool for land use planners throughout the state and I urge 19 you to adopt it as proposed, with a few modifications that 20 I want to suggest right now. 21 But first I want to highlight that there's such a 22 critical need for this document. 23 You've heard a little bit, and you're going to 24 hear a lot more, of testimony tonight about the impacts of 25 bad land use decisions throughout California. And I think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 it's important to note that while the land use guidance 2 can't address those existing problems as it's written 3 now -- and that's a separate conversation that we will 4 have to have at some point in the future. 5 And you'll also hear a lot about the flaws of 6 this guidance from others. However, none of these issues 7 should be used as an excuse to delay adoption of this very 8 important document, and I can't emphasize that enough. 9 It's so important to get this into the hands of land use 10 planners as quickly as possible. 11 I don't think that there are any planners out 12 there that knowingly put people in harm's way. And this 13 guidance will help them understand that while some air 14 quality problems such as smog are regional, that other air 15 quality problems are in the form of very concentrated 16 toxic hot spots and these can be avoided just by placing 17 certain land uses only a few blocks away from each other. 18 In a lot of cases we're just talking about a few blocks of 19 separation. 20 And I also want to stress that when we're talking 21 about separation distances, we're not talking about vast 22 dead zones where nothing can be built. We're only talking 23 about separating the very sensitive sites from pollution 24 sources. 25 I also want to note that it's not common PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 knowledge among land use planners that sources like dry 2 cleaners and metal platers can pose serious health 3 threats. And this handbook will close that knowledge gap. 4 It'll provide much needed guidelines for planners that are 5 helpful, yet nonbinding. These are not regulatory or 6 legal, as you've already heard. 7 So what does the environmental justice community 8 want from the Board tonight? Well, I have two requests 9 that I think represent a lot of other people here tonight. 10 And they have to do with the recommendations in the 11 handbook on freeways and distribution centers. 12 With the freeways, we'd like to recommend that 13 the Board take action to change this handbook so that it 14 recommends a thousand feet of a separation distance 15 instead of the proposed 500 feet. 16 And with distribution centers we'd like to 17 recommend that they be brought into other facilities that 18 receive the same number of trucks. In the Handbook, the 19 way it's written now, it lists distribution facilities 20 that receive over a hundred trucks per day or 40 trucks 21 per day that have the more polluting refrigeration units 22 on them. And there are a lot of other facilities out 23 there that aren't specifically distribution centers but do 24 generate heavy truck traffic or refrigeration units. So I 25 would ask that the Board direct staff to include that or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 add that as a revision right away. 2 I want to talk a little bit more about freeways, 3 because I think that it's sort of a disparity that the 4 freeway recommendation is at 500 feet in the handbook and 5 the distribution center recommendation is at a thousand 6 feet, yet these two sources are listed in the guide book 7 and highlighted because they both generate a lot of truck 8 traffic and the toxic diesel exhaust coming from these 9 trucks. And, therefore, I think they should be treated 10 similarly. 11 Though I'll urge you not to cut the recommended 12 distance from distribution centers to 500 feet, but to 13 increase the recommended distance from freeways to a 14 thousand feet. And I think that there's a lot of science 15 to support that number. I'm a little concerned that the 16 500-foot distance taken for freeways was taken from SB 17 352, a bill that we did several years ago to try and keep 18 schools from siting too close to freeways. And I just 19 want to caution folks that the 500-foot distance in that 20 bill was a political compromise and it was not based on 21 the science. And while it's true that the pollution 22 levels do drop off within the first 500 feet of freeways, 23 the health impact studies show a very strong link between 24 respiratory health impacts within a thousand feet of high 25 traffic roadways. And one example of that is the OEHHA PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 study of schools that was done just a few years ago. And 2 it documented respiratory difficulties, increased risk of 3 bronchitis and such illnesses among students going to 4 school within a thousand feet. I think they used 300 5 meters, which is a thousand feet. 6 So I just want to bring that to your attention 7 and ask for your consideration of that change right away 8 today, along with the change on the distribution centers 9 to broaden that. And you'll hear more about that from my 10 colleagues. 11 There are also some requests that we have to 12 improve the handbook in the future. And I think it'd be 13 really helpful if the Board directed staff to work a 14 little further with stakeholders and come back in six 15 months or a year with revisions to this handbook. Because 16 there's still a lot of issues that have not been resolved, 17 and I think they're important and deserve future 18 consideration. But, again, I don't want them to hold up 19 the adoption of the handbook tonight. 20 And I'll just list a few of those -- 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Diane, I think 22 we're -- you've gone your limit. 23 MS. BAILEY: Okay. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: So is there somebody 25 else who can make that on your behalf? Or can you do it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 very quickly? 2 MS. BAILEY: Let me just sum up. 3 Just a few of the issues that I want to highlight 4 is the lack of adequate handling of cautions for 5 refineries and chemical plants. I think that there's a 6 lot of work to be done on that end and that staff should 7 consider RMP's, or risk management plans, and I'm not sure 8 that those have been considered. 9 And I want to note that of the top 15 fees that 10 have been charged in the toxic hot-spot program, about 11 half of those are connected with chemical plants and 12 refineries. So this is a really important source. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you 14 very much, Diane. 15 MS. BAILEY: Thank you. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Appreciate that. 17 Next speaker is Todd Campbell, Councilman. 18 BURBANK CITY COUNCILMEMBER CAMPBELL: Hello. How 19 are you? 20 My name is Todd Campbell. Most of you know me 21 more as a policy and science instructor for the Coalition 22 of Clean Air. But I am coming before you tonight as a 23 council member from the City of Burbank. 24 And I want to thank the staff and the Board for 25 the hard work that went forward to create this document. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 But also hopefully I will be thanking you later on for 2 adopting this guidance document, because I think it's 3 extremely important. 4 As you all know, southern California is no longer 5 the land of orange groves. It's a quite complex, fairly 6 complicated urban society. And decision making is 7 becoming more and more difficult even for a local decision 8 maker that's fairly knowledgeable about air quality 9 issues. 10 One example is the goods movement system tripling 11 over the next 15 years and how that's going to impact a 12 city like Burbank, who has an airport, two freeways and a 13 railway. 14 I think Board Member D'Adamo is correct in her 15 concerns about not having certain specifics about 16 communities that haven't been planned. And just looking 17 at Sacramento for the last seven years, me doing equality 18 work, boy, is that town really growing into a huge city. 19 And it inches closer and closer to that airport. And I 20 don't know if the city council knows it now, but when that 21 community gets really close and underneath the flight 22 path, they're going to wish they never ever put the 23 community underneath the flight path; being a council 24 member with an airport and problems that go on daily and 25 daily. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 I would also say that local decision making or 2 decision makers are constantly struggling to find ways to 3 educate themselves. There's a conference in Pasadena in 4 June, I think -- I'm not doing an advertisement, but it's 5 in June. And it has a number of important issues that 6 we're struggling with. But none of them -- it's pretty 7 much all over the place. It's not in one document. And 8 this is why it's important that you adopt this tonight. 9 I can tell you personally from my own city's 10 perspective, I have seen proposals to put a 11 transit-oriented development project wedged in between our 12 brand new Magnolia Power Project, which is a utility -- 13 you know, one of our combined cycle natural gas power 14 plants with SCR, has ammonia. I wouldn't want my people 15 next to that. And it's -- on the other side is the 16 MetroLink but also the 5 freeway. 17 Very, very tight. Not something that we'd want 18 to run into. And I thought -- I wasn't one of the 19 council. I think it might have been approved. 20 Another project was to -- because we're looking 21 for soccer fields, to take over a former industry site and 22 put it right next to another freeway and have our kids 23 play on those fields. 24 You know, I know that these are areas that we all 25 are concerned about. I know that Dr. Froines shared with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 me a story about Dr. Gong about some of his studies. And 2 Dr. Froines said it would be great to put some of the 3 human studies close to these high impact receptors. And 4 Dr. Gong was smart enough to say, "No way am I going to do 5 that to the people that I'm evaluating." But we as 6 decision makers make those decisions every day and we do 7 site facilities that are close to these high toxic or 8 highly impacted areas. 9 The City of Burbank has already started to use 10 this draft document. We're going through our general 11 plan. We're also updating our land use element. And 12 we're incorporating an air quality element within that 13 plan. And with any luck -- and we have a lot of 14 education; unfortunately the Brown Act prohibits me from 15 doing too much education, except in the council -- but 16 hopefully an environmental justice element as well. 17 And we are hoping to redevelop -- well, strive to 18 distance our industry from our residential communities. 19 We're trying to create public transit corridors that make 20 sense and revitalize our urban blight with mixed use, 21 pedestrian friendly, transit-ready development, so that 22 hopefully we can maintain our hometown feel, we can 23 maintain the qualities that Burbank has that has -- that 24 makes me a third generation Burbank resident and other 25 families third, fourth, fifth generation Burbank PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 residents. 2 I would like to say -- a couple of points on -- 3 that this also benefits business too. There was a 4 suggestion at the L.A. Chamber of Commerce meeting last 5 Wednesday -- sometimes it's hard to keep track of my life 6 because it just seems like I go from meeting to meeting -- 7 about weakening CEQA. And that -- the argument about 8 putting forward something like this or keeping CEQA in 9 play actually removes the housing -- or the ability to 10 create low income housing. And I have to say that I 11 almost missed tonight because I just dedicated a 144-unit 12 senior center that's actually an artist colony and it's 13 very exciting and it's going to be paired with our unified 14 school district and it's a great opportunity. And I go to 15 these all the time. 16 But my point is is that we need the guidance, we 17 need to be able to tell our local decision makers who are 18 not normally educated on these issues -- I know I'm over 19 time; I see your face -- so that they make good decisions. 20 And the proposals that are coming forward to us are, 21 "Let's gut CEQA. Let's just pay a fee and let me build 22 what I want to build." And the problem I see with that 23 is: What if I was a chrome plater and I paid you a fee 24 and I placed myself right next to a school. How are you 25 as decision makers going to be able to mitigate that risk? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 And I would submit to you that you won't be able to. In 2 fact, what we will be doing is actually incurring greater 3 costs not only to that business but also to the taxpayers 4 for having to relocate that facility. 5 And with that I'm going to conclude. 6 And thank you for this. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Todd. I 8 appreciate the local government perspective. 9 BURBANK CITY COUNCILMEMBER CAMPBELL: Absolutely. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Our next speaker is 11 Mike Webb, followed by Mitzi Shpak and followed by Jane 12 Williams, followed by Francisca Jimenez. 13 MR. WEBB: Good afternoon. My name is Mike Webb, 14 and I'm with the California Building Industry Association. 15 We represent home builders throughout the State of 16 California. 17 And unfortunately I find myself here tonight to 18 oppose the issuance of this document. 19 We do support many of the efforts that the Board 20 has made to improve air quality. However, we believe that 21 this handbook conveys mixed messages regarding housing and 22 land use. We believe that it creates new potentials or 23 opportunities for opponents of development to actually 24 stop that development. 25 We recognize that the recommendations made in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 this handbook are only advisory. However, we also realize 2 that these recommendations will be used to put political 3 support to push the recommendations at the expense of job 4 creation, economic development and new housing 5 construction. 6 We believe that the document adds confusion to 7 the state's environmental policy. The land use debate 8 that's taking place in California right now is the debate 9 over how to promote more infill development. There's a 10 big movement to move housing closer to job centers and 11 closer to transit centers. 12 We unfortunately believe that this handbook 13 places a chill on recent efforts to increase infill, 14 higher density, mixed use, transit oriented, and brown 15 field development. We support the goals of increased 16 urban development and have worked with government to 17 remove the obstacles that prevent that kind of development 18 from occurring. But we believe that the handbook goes in 19 another direction and looks to place more restrictions on 20 this type of development. 21 We find ourselves faced with conflicting policies 22 that are coming out of government right now. On one hand 23 we have this document that looks to limit development in 24 urban areas under the auspices of environmental justice. 25 However, on another side of government we find recent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 legislation that looks to limit development in suburban 2 and urban fringe areas and encourage more urban 3 development and smart growth under the auspices of air 4 quality improvements. And, frankly, the building industry 5 finds itself in a quandary over where can development take 6 place. Seems that one hand is saying that we can't 7 develop here and the other hand is saying that we can't 8 develop there. 9 But what we have to realize is that there is a 10 housing shortage in California. And we all know that 11 housing prices are skyrocketing. And we need new housing 12 to come in. And we're afraid that this handbook sends the 13 wrong message for that kind of development. 14 Lastly I just want to touch on a common comment 15 that was made during the presentation and that this -- it 16 was that this document is just advisory and it's just 17 going to be used to supply information to cities and 18 counties. If that's all that the document would do, I 19 doubt that I would be here right now. We have no problem 20 with providing information to local governments in order 21 that they can use it to make land use decisions. However, 22 the document goes far beyond that. The document makes 23 blanket recommendations that determines when and where -- 24 excuse me -- where development should take place. And 25 that's what we have very big concern with. And it's for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 these reasons that we must oppose the issuance of this 2 document. 3 Thank you. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Webb. 5 Mitzi Shpak, followed by Jane Williams, Francisca 6 Jimenez and Randa Baramki. 7 MS. SHPAK: Thank you. 8 My name is Mitzi Shpak, and I'm representing 9 California Safe Schools and Action Now, a grass roots 10 environmental group. And I want to speak in support of 11 your document. 12 We feel these recommendations will help protect 13 public health, especially the health of children, and this 14 is an important proactive and preventative document 15 similar to the successful Los Angeles Unified Integrated 16 Pest Management Policy which has become a national model. 17 This document puts the "smart" back into smart 18 growth and the "sustainable" into sustainable development. 19 Thank you. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 21 MS. WILLIAMS: Hi. I'm Jane Williams, the 22 Executive Director of California Communities Against 23 Toxics, which is a statewide coalition of environmental 24 justice organizations. 25 And the last time I was in this room I held my PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 infant in my arms and testified in favor of your 2 environmental justice policies. 3 I have served over my 15-year career on numerous 4 advisory committees, both at the federal level and the 5 state level. But I can tell you that this one has been 6 the most challenging and also the most rewarding, because 7 communities across California, communities that I 8 represent, have struggled with chrome plating facilities 9 next to day-care centers, they've struggled with 10 refineries next to schools, they've struggled with huge 11 industrial facilities in their communities. 12 And my mother, who actually came before me as the 13 leader of the organization that I now head, very often 14 would be in the Legislature or in front of planning bodies 15 and she would name the 11 children in our community that 16 all died of brain-stem cancer. The cause of that is still 17 unknown. But right next to the playground where all of 18 these kids played are two gas stations. And we'll never 19 know why these kids died, we'll never know what caused 20 their deaths. 21 But we do know that siting kids in sensitive 22 receptors next to major sources of air pollution and risky 23 sources of air pollution -- they don't have to be large. 24 It can be a chrome plater that's small that's releasing 25 huge amounts of Chrome 6 into a play yard. It can be a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 dry cleaner co-located with a day-care center. It can be 2 a refinery next to a school. It's not large sources. It 3 can also be small sources. 4 And this land use planning handbook document, 5 which we have spent so much time -- and I've spent so much 6 time with Cindy Tuck and Patti Krebs and Mr. Wallerstein 7 and Shankar Prasad and the staff that you see before you. 8 There were times when I felt like I spent more time with 9 them than I did my own family on this process. So as a 10 veteran of this process, I have to say that it has had 11 many challenges. 12 This document that you see before you is clearly 13 walking on the edge of the precipice between, you know, 14 complete unfettered development, put whatever you want 15 wherever you want, which has been what we've done in the 16 past. 17 And I see the side of this document as Maggie 18 Porales, whose brother died of cancer, went to the Suva 19 school next to one of the facilities that Mr. Wallerstein 20 put up there; I see the teachers, four of the female 21 teachers at that school who miscarried within a three-week 22 period; I see the other 14 children that died in the space 23 of seven years at that school, all from similar types of 24 cancer. 25 So while I think the Building Industry PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 Association has very valid points, I am sorry but my 2 conscience and the faces of those dead children are what 3 have motivated me to stay in this process when many of my 4 colleagues felt that we were nuts to stay at the table. 5 So I thank you, everyone who's been involved in 6 this. It has been a herculean task. And I almost 7 hesitate to say I look forward to working on this some 8 more because -- 9 (Laughter.) 10 MS. WILLIAMS: -- quite frankly, I would be 11 lying. But, as we all know, there is a lot left to do. 12 And I just wanted to say one accolade. Dr. 13 Prasad has been a hero in this process. He has brought us 14 back to the table at times when we left meetings kicking 15 and screaming, swearing we'd never come back. So a 16 special thank you to him as well. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 18 He's in the back of the room. You can thank him 19 personally. 20 Francisca Jimenez. And then we'll have a 21 translator for her. 22 MS. JIMENEZ (through translator): Good evening. 23 All the members of the Board, my name is Francisca 24 Jimenez. 25 I'd like to speak to you a little bit of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 success that my community has had -- I'm talking about 2 Barrio Logan -- with the help of EHC agency and the ARB 3 study that was conducted in our community regarding the 4 diesel-powered trucks transit in the streets of Barrio 5 Logan. 6 And I tell the Board the San Diego City Council 7 approved the ordinance prohibiting the transit and parking 8 of these diesel-powered trucks in residential homes, 9 specifically on Cesar Chavez Street and half a dozen of 10 these residential streets. This would be in effect as of 11 December of December 2005. 12 The benefits for our community will be the 13 elimination of diesel particles, the reduction of dust 14 around our community. The kids are going to be able to 15 walk to their schools more safety, without the fear of 16 having to go by these large trucks. Noise would be 17 reduced. 18 So thanks to the effort of all of you for these 19 documents, which would be great too for all of us. And it 20 has to be renewed according to the necessities of each 21 community. 22 Once again I would like to thank each of you. 23 And good night. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 25 Next is Randa Baramki, Marie Sanchez to follow; PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 and following Marie, Guadalupe Orozco. 2 MS. BARAMKI: Good evening. My name is Randa 3 Baramki, and I'm the Co-director of the Toxics Free 4 Neighborhood Campaign with Environmental Health Coalition. 5 Tonight we'd like to propose that you approve the 6 document. Since the last public hearing -- meeting 7 focusing on land use and air toxics guideline in March -- 8 staff as well as leaders in the community have had several 9 opportunities to utilize this resource. 10 We're discussing proposed projects with city 11 officials. 12 We have used it in many, many occasions. And one 13 of the biggest ones -- last occasions that we've done is 14 that we've developed a Barrio Logan vision plan with the 15 community that actually proposes to remove 21 major 16 polluters that are scattered in this three-mile area that 17 are distributed amongst residential areas. And we have -- 18 you have in your hands, I believe, a copy of the 21 19 polluters and all the toxics that are emitted. 20 Those polluters once removed to an industrial 21 zone to the south of the neighborhood, together with 22 buffer zones that would mitigate pollution, will make room 23 for the highly needed residential units. We are proposing 24 to add about 12 to 1600 affordable units in the Barrio 25 once these 21 polluters move. And with the help of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 guidelines, we will be able to accomplish that. 2 In addition, we also are proposing buffer zones 3 from the freeways, also with the guidance -- with your 4 guidance, as well as buffer zones from the industrial -- 5 big industrial polluters like the shipyards that are 6 present in Barrio Logan. 7 We have also submitted a letter to you, a comment 8 letter, about the certain chapters and things that we 9 believe should change in the handout -- in the handbook -- 10 sorry. And I'm not going to talk about this since this is 11 in your hands right now. 12 But I do want to talk about something else that 13 is not in the letter. That is, that we do recommend for a 14 buffer zone that's between sensitive land uses and 15 distribution centers that are attracting over a hundred 16 diesel trucks trips per day. That is currently stated in 17 your section on distribution centers. And we see that the 18 same science should be applied for any facility attracting 19 over a hundred truck trips per day, namely, the ports. 20 That the ports, we know, as some of the Board members -- 21 Mr. Gong, in particular, mentioned that there's a lack of 22 unlimited data on the ports and study of the ports. But 23 we do know that most of them have more than a hundred 24 trucks per day. 25 In National City, the port of National City has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 over 500 truck trips per day. And as a matter of fact 2 some of the developers have suggested putting 300 units -- 3 I mean many units 300 feet from the port. And this causes 4 a great risk to the inhabitants of those units. 5 As well as in Barrio Logan, we know that also 6 there's the port of the 10th Avenue terminal has more than 7 500 trucks per day that crosses through the community out 8 of that facility. 9 So what we recommend is to be consistent, and 10 that there should be an additional recommendation for 11 buffer zone for facilities attracting high diesel truck 12 traffic that should match the recommendation for 13 distribution centers for the ports. 14 But we do approve of the handbook, and we thank 15 you very much for all your hard work. And we would like 16 to continue working with you in conjunction with our 17 community action teams in Barrio Logan and other 18 neighborhoods. 19 Thank you very much. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 21 And I assure you that we look forward to working with you. 22 Thank you. 23 Next speaker Marie Sanchez. 24 MS. SANCHEZ (through translator): Good evening. 25 My name is Maria Sanchez. I am a member of the group EFC. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 And I'm also a resident of Barrio Logan. 2 Please excuse me. I am a little nervous because 3 this is the first time I have to address such a 4 distinguished audience from ARB, as the rest of the 5 audience that express it here. 6 I would like to say that it is a racial 7 discrimination, the use of land where industries are mixed 8 between houses and school, that affects in a direct way 9 the health of kids, pregnant women, and the elderly. 10 Thus, I would like to thank you for your support 11 and your comprehension so that the use of land can be 12 solved in a positive way in our community at Barrio Logan. 13 I hope that my humble opinion is useful in order 14 to reach these large changes that we're looking for. 15 Thank you. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 17 And for those of you who've traveled from Barrio 18 Logan, we appreciate that. That's been a long drive. And 19 I know that there are others out in the audience who have 20 traveled that distance, and we very much appreciate that. 21 Our next speaker is Guadalupe Orozco, followed by 22 Georgette Gomez. 23 MS. OROZCO (*through translator): Good evening. 24 My name is Guadalupe Orozco. I'm a resident of Barrio 25 Logan. And I'm also a member of the -- committee of EHC. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 What we're fighting for is a community that is toxic free. 2 I wanted to thank you for inviting our community 3 to this meeting, so that we can express our opinions and 4 talk to you about what we're doing in order to improve our 5 community. 6 I will talk to you about the vision of Barrio 7 Logan. This vision is the result of a huge effort from 8 all the residents of Barrio Logan. Through this vision we 9 have created some principles which in turn would change 10 the use of land. 11 Gosh, I got lost. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Take your time. 13 That's fine. 14 MS. OROZCO (*): We've been knocking door to 15 door. And most of the residents agree with this vision, 16 because our main principle is a separation of industries 17 and residents. 18 I beg you to accept this guidance that we're 19 getting here so that there is a principle of improvement 20 in our community. And I would like to thank you 21 beforehand at the approval of these guidelines. 22 And if you allow me. What you can see here is 23 the future development in Barrio Logan. What I was 24 pointing at was the polluting industries area. And I as 25 saying before, this is the vision of the future of Barrio PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 Logan. 2 I was not ready for the map. But what you can 3 see there in purple is the separation of the industries. 4 But the goal is for you to bring more services, more 5 community services to our neighborhood. 6 I'm really sorry. I was not prepared for this. 7 Therefore, I am quite nervous. 8 It goes for all the commerce. The deal would be 9 to take away industry out of the community and keep the 10 small businesses and support them and prevent them from 11 being kicked out as it was happening before. 12 For us to get more school, to have a community 13 center which is one thing that we don't have yet. And 14 instead of building houses that are unaffordable for our 15 community, what we would like is to have affordable 16 housing, things that would be accessible to our current 17 residents. 18 And any doubts, any questions that you may have, 19 you're more than welcome to contact the offices of EHC. 20 Thank you. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 22 MS. OROZCO (*): Good evening. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 24 And, again, thank you for coming all that distance. 25 Georgette Gomez, Maria Moya, and Charles PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 Castaneda. 2 MS. GOMEZ: Greetings to all. My name is 3 Georgette Gomez. I'm with the Environmental Health 4 Coalition. I'm a community organizer. I want to thank 5 you for allowing me to speak today. 6 I encourage the adoption of the land use 7 guidelines presented to you. My understanding is that 8 these guidelines will be changing throughout the years. 9 But I also would like to -- I would like -- I 10 hope that location of the power plants are reviewed in the 11 future. For example, we are currently dealing with a 12 power plant in the south bay in Chula Vista. This power 13 plant was built in 1960. And the operation of this power 14 plant emits air pollutants and particulate matter. 15 Particulate matter has been linked to respiratory 16 illnesses like asthma, among children and the elderly. 17 The location of this power plant is near a 18 community of color and low income. This community has 19 suffered the impacts of this power plant. 20 I really encourage you to study more the impacts 21 of power plants emissions and operation method. But most 22 importantly, I encourage you to recommend a safe buffer 23 zone, which has not been addressed in this handbook right 24 now. 25 The Bay Council, which is a coalition of San PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 Diego environmental organizations, have written a -- 2 Deadly Power, which is a study on the South Bay Power 3 Plant. And I don't know if you guys are familiar with it, 4 but I have copies of it. Should I submit them or give 5 them to somebody? 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes, please. Please 7 give them to our clerk and we'll distribute those. 8 MS. GOMEZ: Okay. So I'll do that. And that's 9 it. 10 Thank you. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. Thank 12 you very much. 13 Maria Moya. 14 MS. MOYA: Good evening. My name is Maria Moya, 15 and I'm also with the Environmental Health Coalition. I'm 16 lead organizer with the Toxics Free Neighborhood Campaign. 17 And I just want to touch back on some of the 18 comments that my colleagues made and just reiterate the 19 impacts that we -- the Barrio Logan community has suffered 20 because of land use issues because of the mixed use land. 21 The health impacts to the community have been 22 huge. Twenty percent of the children in Barrio Logan 23 suffer from diagnosed asthma. Twenty-seven percent of the 24 children from Barrio Logan have at least two symptoms of 25 asthma, but have no diagnose because of a lack of medical PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 insurance. Eighteen percent of the adults in Barrio Logan 2 have diagnosed asthma. It is estimated that around 134 3 children from Barrio Logan suffer daily symptoms of asthma 4 where they need to take medication on a daily basis. 5 Also, 10 percent of the visits to our clinics are 6 related to asthma or respiratory problems. 7 Children in our community lose thousands of days 8 of school days because of illnesses related to asthma or 9 upper respiratory problems. 10 I want to urge you to accept this guidance and to 11 look at what we have. We already have the data in Barrio 12 Logan. We have the data that ARB did with a chrome 13 plating shop. 14 Mixed use zones allows for all type of emissions 15 to be. And we know about the impacts of diesel. We know 16 about the impacts -- but we don't have the information of 17 cumulative effects, and I know that it's a huge, huge 18 impact in the community. 19 So I urge you to adopt this guidance. 20 And thank you for having us here. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 22 Thank you again for coming the distance that you came. 23 Let me ask Charles Castaneda. Diane Takvorian, 24 if you will follow Mr. Castaneda. And Patti Krebs 25 follows Diane Takvorian. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 MR. CASTANEDA: Good evening. My name's Charles 2 Castaneda. I'm a lifelong resident of El Monte. 3 What I would like to see added to this would be 4 laundry facilities on the list of targeted industries, 5 such as valet services that's in our community. 6 I'd also like to have added fugitive dust 7 companies for manufacturing of dust, such as J.R. 8 Manufacturing. 9 These two industries are in our community. They 10 have escalated in their operations, where we are suffering 11 from dust, chemical odors, and a high traffic flow of 12 diesel trucks in our community now. 13 We've been working with the City of El Monte, and 14 they've done their best to work with these industries. 15 But the industries have money, and they're not about to 16 move. 17 I suggest that we would add maybe to this list 18 where we would amortize these industries where they're 19 impacting our kids and our health and our welfare. 20 Amortizing zones with these industries would help us live 21 a little bit more healthier. We would like to amortize 22 these industries out because -- they came in 30 years ago. 23 And when they were manufacturing small things, it was 24 fine. But now they're manufacturing things that are 25 causing health problems for our community. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 1 It may take 30 years to amortize an industry out. 2 But I think it's worth it to the health of our communities 3 and for our children. 4 The land use that they're trying to adopt 5 tonight, I'm not fully aware of what it is. I just got on 6 board. I'm just learning more and more about the system 7 and how it works and how we're to present things to a 8 board such as yourselves. 9 I do represent the community. I am a community 10 spokesperson and activist, if there's anybody here tonight 11 that could help us with our situations. AQMD has been out 12 numerous times. But because of the guidelines being not 13 strong enough to help us, where they have to actually see 14 the particulate matter crossing boundaries when it 15 diffuses. You really can't see it, so -- but we know it's 16 there because they put out test plates and they find the 17 evidence. But still we can't do anything about it. 18 Land use. In the City of El Monte the general 19 plan never really was planned out very well. So we have a 20 mixed use of industries and residential areas. One of the 21 other industries that should be added to the list of 22 fugitive dust would probably be Greg's Foundry. It's been 23 there for a great deal -- a great many years. And, you 24 know, to find out what they're doing to the kids' health 25 at a school called Rio Vista would be a great help for us PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 191 1 to figure out what we're going to do with that industry. 2 I've worked for the school district for a time. 3 And we used to have to sweep off the roofs of the schools 4 where you would have a black soot on top of the school 5 buildings. So I can imagine what the kids' lungs look 6 like when they're running around breathing in this dust. 7 I don't have anything else to say other than, you 8 know, as far as this guideline that you're trying to 9 adopt, I'd like to know more about it, I'd like to get on 10 board, I'd like to learn more and see what I can do to 11 help develop more things that are going to protect us and 12 our environment. 13 Thank you very much. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. 15 Castaneda. 16 Let me just comment. You named a couple of 17 things that we had not thought of, and we'll take that 18 certainly under consideration. Because over a period of 19 time I think we're going to be revising this. And you 20 mentioned laundry facilities. And I think we'll have to 21 think about that, because I had not -- that is not one 22 that we'd have ever considered. And so maybe if you have 23 a moment and can stay a little bit after the hearing, 24 maybe someone from the staff can speak to you about that. 25 And we certainly hope that you have from our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 192 1 agenda an example of our handbook that we are going to 2 hand out. I think they're probably on the back table. Am 3 I right? 4 So be sure and get that. And I have a feeling if 5 there are -- it looks to me like there are several back 6 there. So why don't you take more than one for your 7 group. And then we will work with you. 8 So if you can stay until we're finished, and then 9 we'd be happy to talk to you. 10 MR. CASTANEDA: Thank you very much. I will. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Since you're in our 12 neighborhood or we're in your neighborhood, one or the 13 other. 14 MR. CASTANEDA: Yeah. Well, my family's been 15 here since the early 1900's. So -- 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I think we're in 17 your neighborhood then. 18 MR. CASTANEDA: Thank you. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 20 Diane Takvorian, followed by Patti Krebs. 21 MS. TAKVORIAN: Good evening. Thank you for the 22 opportunity to address you. 23 My name is Diane Takvorian, and I'm the Executive 24 Director of the Environmental Health Coalition, who you've 25 heard a lot from tonight. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 193 1 I just want to add my voice to the strong support 2 that Environmental Health Coalition has for this land use 3 guidance handbook, and the great thanks that we want to 4 give to the Air Resources Board staff for all of the hard 5 work that they've done, not only in this handbook, but to 6 bring some amount of health to Barrio Logan and to our 7 communities in San Diego. 8 I have to agree with Dr. Prasad, that this is 9 truly historic. And I think it's -- I don't even want to 10 say this. But 20 years ago in 1985 the City of San Diego 11 passed a resolution that said, "Gee, we don't think that 12 these kinds of uses should be located next to homes and 13 schools." It was 1985. I had to look it up. 14 And the last 20 years would have been a lot 15 easier for the residents that you've heard from today. We 16 wouldn't have had to live through Master Plating, we 17 wouldn't have to live through the other plating shops and 18 the 20-plus other facilities that Randa has told you 19 about. 20 So this handbook will make things much, much 21 better for us, and we wouldn't have to live with the 22 growing number of trucks that we've got coming through the 23 community. 24 I also serve as the Co-chair of the California 25 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, the Cal EPA PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 194 1 committee. And I want to say that I think that you are 2 really taking a lead role there in advancing some of the 3 key recommendations that have come out of the 4 environmental justice recommendations of two years ago, 5 2003: Advancing land use, which was a key recommendation; 6 the use of precautionary approach; and the attention to 7 cumulative exposures. So we really thank you for your 8 work in that. 9 Let me just say cup many things that I think need 10 to get added. I would agree with Dr. Gong that we have to 11 address the siting of new polluters in our communities. 12 This isn't over for us. And it's clear that regulations 13 are -- do not work well enough for us to prevent the 14 siting of new polluters in residential communities. And 15 the communities that you've heard described here, we have 16 mixed use zoning. Those polluters are able to come in 17 today, tomorrow. So if we don't have this go both ways, 18 we have a critical problem. We would suggest -- we don't 19 want you to delay, but we would suggest that's an 20 amendment you need to make immediately. 21 Secondly, I want to reiterate one of the points 22 that Randa made, and say that we think that the roadways 23 and distribution centers separation needs to be amended 24 immediately, that we need to have all facilities that 25 attract diesel trucks or bring diesel trucks to them and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 195 1 then many have them go out on the roadways, need to have 2 the same buffer zone of a thousand feet. Because we have 3 many that can't just be described as distribution centers. 4 So it seems like any facility that has those 5 characteristics needs to have the same separation. So we 6 would hope that you would change that as well. 7 And then also -- not to hound you too much. But 8 we do have a list of the things that we hope you'll work 9 on next, and power plants are one. We have a cement 10 manufacturing facility that's being proposed right next to 11 an affordable housing project. So we need some guidance 12 on that. We have many auto body shops in our communities. 13 And of course we have a great number of shipyards. So all 14 of those I know are on your list of others to do, we would 15 want to help you to work on those as quickly as possible. 16 And then of course the thing that we really have 17 to do is address those facilities that are existing and 18 within our communities now. And we understand the role of 19 this handbook is not to do that. But we want to work with 20 you to promote the relocation of those facilities into 21 appropriate industrial areas where there is a buffer. And 22 we believe, again, those things have to be done as soon as 23 possible, because the residents that you met tonight and 24 their families are sacrificing their health and the 25 quality of their life as a result of those existing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 196 1 sources, and those won't be resolved by the new 2 development guidance that you've given. 3 So, again, thank you very much. Yes, we still do 4 have a list. But we appreciate all of your efforts. 5 Thank you. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. And 7 thank you for agreeing to continue to work with us. 8 Patti Krebs and then Shabaka Heru and Cynthia 9 Babich. 10 MS. KREBS: I'm Patti Krebs from the San Diego 11 Industrial Environmental Association. And I do want to 12 thank the ARB for allowing our organization to participate 13 over the past couple of years in the development of this 14 handbook. 15 And the tremendous pressure for housing in San 16 Diego has led to dozens of proposals throughout the entire 17 county to convert industrial zone land to residential. 18 And we have relied on the work that's been going into this 19 handbook as some of these projects have come forward. I 20 wanted to give you just a few examples. 21 In fact, one was a plating shop that had been in 22 Barrio Logan voluntarily moved to a new industrial area. 23 And, lo and behold, they had a church and a day-care 24 center proposing to locate right on their fence line. 25 We've had condos just one street across from a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 197 1 major Frito Lay distribution center, with hundreds of 2 trucks per day. 3 And we had apartments proposed next door to a 4 window manufacturer with toxic air contaminants. 5 So I started going out to planning agencies with 6 my draft guidebook in hand and they paid attention. I 7 think it was really -- it was an eye opener for them. And 8 I think that they have begun to realize that the smart 9 growth in transit-oriented development isn't jobs and 10 housing on top of each other, but rather that they should 11 be near each other and have some kind of separation. 12 We look at the handbook as being about prevention 13 for the benefit of both businesses and the community and 14 we feel it's a very valuable tool for the land use 15 agencies. 16 Thank you very much. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. Thank 18 you, Patti. And I'm glad you've had some real positive 19 things happen as a result of just the draft document. 20 MS. KREBS: We did. Thank you. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Let's see. Shabaka, 22 followed by Cynthia Babich and then followed by Cynthia 23 Medina. 24 MR. HERU: Good evening. My name is Shabaka 25 Heru. I represent two organizations, the Society for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 198 1 Positive Action and the Community Coalition for Change. 2 Before I get started, I'd like to give my 3 greeting to the stenographer. I remember seeing you up in 4 Sacramento and we had to give you a break because we wore 5 you out up there. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: We may wear him out 7 here too. 8 MR. HERU: It's good to see you again. 9 We're very much in favor of this document because 10 it raises the awareness of land use decision makers about 11 environmental health consequences and their -- of the 12 environmental health consequences of their decisions. 13 There are opportunities to make better land use 14 decisions. Use -- the example that comes to mind first 15 for me and my community is Magic Johnson Park. There were 16 a bunch of abandoned industrial businesses, and we turned 17 it into a huge park. And I go up there practically every 18 other day on my bike or I walk over there. And it's one 19 of the only or very few examples of something that really 20 came out positive when there was some effective planning 21 and there was some involvement by community members, and 22 we're very pleased with that. 23 Right now we're involved with several issues 24 regarding land use. And from the experiences that I've 25 gleaned from dealing with the people that helped me do PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 199 1 what I do as far as like dealing with environmental 2 issues, land use is probably one of the most important 3 aspects of the overall package. 4 What we found though is that very often there's 5 something like trains passing in the night between the 6 community members and the officials. We don't know what 7 they're doing and it seems as though sometimes they don't 8 care what we're doing. 9 But it's a lot like finding out that if you just 10 turn on a light, you can find out something very positive. 11 This whole adventure has allowed me to see a lot 12 more than just my community. I've met Jesse Marquez in 13 Wilmington and I've been exposed to the ports. I've 14 worked with Lane and William Smart with developing a 15 community benefits agreement regarding the development of 16 an L.A. Airport. I've met Angelo Logan out in the east 17 yard. And it's really been an experience to see how 18 communities -- or how his community was affected by the 19 rail and the traffic. I met Penny out in San Bernardino 20 and to see how warehouses were being developed out there 21 without much consideration for the residents or schools. 22 I just strongly recommend that you would adopt 23 this and that -- I know it's just the beginning, but that 24 we can use this as that first step on the journey to try 25 to get to doing something important. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 200 1 The other part of that is that I just hope it's 2 not too late. Because some of the things that I see with 3 regard to the quality of the air and the quality of the 4 water, they make me wonder if we can ever get it back to 5 where it once was. 6 Thank you. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 8 Thank you for being here. 9 Cynthia Babich. 10 MS. BABICH: Yes. My name is Cynthia Babich and 11 I'm the Director of the Del Amo Action Committee. We're 12 an environmental justice grass roots group in a 13 predominantly Latino community in the unincorporated L.A. 14 County strip. 15 We are downwind from the Exxon-Mobil Refinery, 16 which emits 1.6 million pounds per year of toxic 17 contaminants into the area. It's the largest emissions 18 from any of the sources in California. And many of the 19 emissions are toxic air contaminants, including Benzene, 20 which is a known carcinogen. 21 Among that, this community is wedged between the 22 110 Freeway and the merger of the 405 freeway. We have 23 Jones Chemical Chlorine Transfer Station. We have two 24 Super Fund sites. One was the West Coast's largest 25 manufacturer of DDT, which does have emissions even though PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 201 1 we've been told it doesn't. We have Benzene floating on 2 our groundwater. And we're also adjacent to the Del Amo 3 Waste Pits, which was a World War II synthetic rubber 4 plant in which they decided out of the 390 acres that they 5 had to develop it, that they would dump the most toxics of 6 their wastes directly in our backyards. 7 Having said all that, I thought I chose my 8 community very carefully ten years ago. I looked for good 9 parking. I wanted to make sure it wasn't too stuffy, as I 10 put it, and that it was a well-blended community. 11 There was large open areas. Which now I know if 12 there's any open area in the Los Angeles County area, 13 there must be a reason for it. 14 (Laughter.) 15 MS. BABICH: There was a huge area next to my 16 house in which I started -- and thank God I wasn't 17 successful -- in putting in a community garden. And that 18 I think really began my journey into being an activist, 19 which took me away from my other journey of singing to 20 butterflies very happily in my backyard, 21 "La-la-la-tra-la-la, everything is okay." 22 We've been looking a lot, because we've started 23 with our involvement with the Super Fund sites and now 24 we've really turned our attention to other areas like air 25 emissions and groundwater contamination and land PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 202 1 contamination. 2 And we've been looking at some of the general 3 plans. And because we're in unincorporated L.A. County 4 strip, we find that the City of L.A. borders us. Their 5 general plan says heavy industrial, ours says residential. 6 So this document is really important as an overarching 7 document when general plans clash. 8 My personal experience with bad land use -- and I 9 see this document as a really important step into the 10 future. We do, as you've heard from other speakers, need 11 to go back and address some of the bad land use planning 12 that we've had in the past, which is a circumstance of our 13 community. 14 I personally carry a large amount of DDT in my 15 body. I am not able to have children because of the 16 surgeries I've had because of this one particular 17 contaminant. 18 And even though there was this encroaching of 19 these toxic sites, my community was slated to have these 20 toxins sited in it because it was a predominantly low 21 income Hispanic community. And this is I think what 22 really got me involved. It made me very angry that in 23 this day and age communities are still being targeted in 24 this kind of a way. 25 Tonight, I hear the proponents of housing and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 203 1 real estate companies in opposition to this guidance 2 document, and it really chills me to the bone. The greed 3 for money is an amazing thing. And that should not drive 4 this process of decency and how we treat each other. I 5 think just to want to make money and build homes because 6 there's a housing shortage on areas that going to poison 7 us is just inappropriate, it's wrong, and it's criminal. 8 And I would be very embarrassed if I was them speaking 9 tonight. 10 I just want to say we need this guidance 11 immediately. I just -- since I can't have children, I'm 12 one of those animal people. And I just put one of my 13 favorite dogs to rest today. And I remember a lot of 14 scientists coming to us when we started getting engaged in 15 our community because we had many questions and no answers 16 and them telling us to watch our animals. Because of the 17 fast metabolism in animals, a lot of things would manifest 18 in them that we would be looking at later. 19 And I can only pray to God that my life doesn't 20 end the way that my little Pumi dog ended. He actually 21 had tremors from these contaminants. And I had to put him 22 to sleep to stop his suffering. 23 So we need to move forward now. You have great 24 colleagues of ours that are willing to work with you. 25 We're willing to work with you. And bravo for all of you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 204 1 that were brave enough to stay in that room for the last 2 two years because, quite honestly, I think I would have 3 burned that bridge. 4 Thank you. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. Thank 6 you very much. 7 Cynthia Medina and Tom Addison and Bahram Fazeli. 8 MS. MEDINA: Good evening. My name is Cynthia 9 Medina, and I'm the Outreach Coordinator for the Del Amo 10 Action Committee. And I live in the Del Amo Action 11 Committee community. 12 Tonight I'm going to -- this is my personal 13 story. And it started about 24 years ago when my family 14 moved into the Del Amo-Montrose community. And we were 15 happy and excited moving into our first house and starting 16 a part of the American dream. 17 Four years later, my son at the age of nine was 18 diagnosed with diabetes. And his doctors couldn't explain 19 to us how or why he got sick. But now he's 29 and he's 20 blind and on dialysis. 21 And my other daughter at the age of 20 was 22 diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. And now at the age 23 of 27 is crippled and scheduled for a knee replacement 24 surgery. 25 And my seven-year-old granddaughter, who lives in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 205 1 our home and was raised there, has asthma. And she has 2 very bad skin rashes where the doctors can't say exactly 3 what it is and they can't help her. So she scratches 4 every single day. And like what I've heard before, she's 5 missed a lot of school. And that is just a cycle that 6 needs to be stopped. 7 Oh, gosh. 8 Bad land use planning. I think, you bet, our 9 homes should not have been built at the back doors of 10 these toxic chemical factories. And what's worse, is that 11 policies are still allowing homes to be built in our 12 communities. 13 There has to be strong and productive 14 relationships with planning staff, planning commissioners, 15 council members, supervisors, everybody involved. It will 16 take all of us to ensure bad planning does not continue. 17 And this handbook is a positive move in that direction and 18 it needs to be adopted. 19 Thank you. And sorry for the emotion. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: No, we can 21 understand that. And we thank you for being here this 22 evening. 23 Let's See. Tom Addison. 24 MR. ADDISON: Good evening, Chair and members. 25 The hour is late, so I'll be brief. My name's Tom Addison PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 206 1 and I'm with the Bay Area Air District. And I'm here 2 today to speak in strong support of your adopting this 3 handbook tonight. 4 So many of the problems that we grapple with, 5 either as local air districts or the regulators on your 6 staff or as community members, are a result of unfortunate 7 planning decisions that have been made in the past. And I 8 think that this handbook is that critical first step on 9 trying to get better decision making in the future. 10 What does that do for us? Essentially it frees 11 us up to start -- to continue addressing the problems that 12 we're grappling with now instead of making our jobs as 13 regulators, activists, industry folks sort of worse in the 14 future. So, you know, I think that really is what this is 15 all about. 16 And you've certainly heard a range of 17 perspectives and opinions about the handbook. It doesn't 18 include, for example, all sorts of facilities. It doesn't 19 have where the scientific studies are absent largely, the 20 sort of distance buffers that some would like. 21 And, you know, certainly it's a document that can 22 and, I'm sure, will be improved and worked on over time as 23 you continue the efforts of the last -- how many years has 24 it been now? And that's all good and those are important 25 things to do. But fundamentally you know, our perspective PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 207 1 is that adopting it tonight is that critical first step, 2 and we encourage you to do that. 3 From our perspective in the Bay Area, we 4 certainly got lots of the sources that are mentioned. 5 Ports, refineries come to mind. And we're glad to have a 6 statewide document that helps us work with our local 7 jurisdictions around siting new facilities in proximity to 8 those sites. 9 And that's one thing that I want to make sure 10 that I convey to you, is that as a local air district 11 we're committed to working with your staff to try to do 12 the outreach to -- in the Bay Area are 110 local 13 jurisdictions -- to make sure that this is not something 14 that was a sort of two-year process with an endpoint, but 15 to make sure that some of the recommendations and findings 16 in this document are actually implemented and used by 17 those folks. 18 And, indeed, we've already begun that. The draft 19 handbook has been out there. Just three weeks ago the 20 City of Berkeley came to us with signing a day-care 21 facility in west Berkeley near a site that's been somewhat 22 controversial in the past, Pacific Still Castings. And it 23 really is helpful to have a document like this that we can 24 share with, in this case, the City of Berkeley planning 25 staff that try to inform their decision making. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 208 1 So I thank you, and we encourage the adoption. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 3 And thank you for representing the Bay Area. 4 And also I think you're on the list of agreeing 5 to help us in our outreach. Appreciate that. 6 And our final speaker. If you would identify 7 yourself for the record. 8 MR. FAZELI: Sure. I'm Bahram Fazeli. I'm 9 Acting Southern California Director with Communities for a 10 Better Environment. CBE is a statewide environmental 11 health and justice organization. 12 We strongly support the document and commend the 13 staff in their great effort of gathering the input and 14 putting this document together. 15 Just a brief comment, that in your process of 16 approval tonight, we hope that you can introduce a motion 17 in that Air Resources Board will come back in a reasonable 18 period of six months to a year and address the specific 19 issues that were raised by community and environmental 20 groups and that have not been addressed to the extent that 21 they should have been addressed in this document and we 22 have raised those issues in our letters and in our 23 comments -- verbal comments tonight. 24 So we are hoping that with your approval of the 25 document you will set in motion a process and that we can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 209 1 come back and to see a stronger document in the near 2 future. 3 Thank you. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 5 I think it's going to be under review. 6 But I also note that we need to see how it 7 functions as well. So I don't want to recommend a 8 premature review, because I'd like to see how well our 9 outreach is going. That's my personal point of view, just 10 to respond to your suggestion. 11 But I know this Board is going to be very 12 interested in the document if it is approved. And so we 13 appreciate your comments very much. 14 Board members, let me ask first if Ms. 15 Witherspoon has any further comments. And then I'll open 16 it up to your comments and questions. And then we'll work 17 with the resolution that's before us. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just on the last 19 point that was raised about the report back. We too want 20 to see how well this document functions in the real world 21 and continue working through some of the anxiety that 22 certain stakeholders feel about ways in which it might be 23 detrimental to their activities and see if we can get some 24 confidence in it. 25 Also, we are engaged in roughly 12 to 18 month PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 210 1 pilot projects on environmental justice where we're 2 gathering the kind of information that would feed directly 3 into the next revision of this document. So my sense is 4 that we'll be ready in 12 to 18 months rather than 6 to 5 12, but certainly back in that timeframe with the next 6 round of environmental justice policies, whether it's 7 supplemental documents or revisions to this one. So that 8 would be my reaction. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Board 10 members? 11 Yes, Dr. Gong. 12 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. Just a quick 13 question. 14 Is there an ongoing EJ group that is going to 15 persist, after tonight in other words? 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We have an 17 environmental justice stakeholders group that stopped 18 meeting at a point during the process -- 19 I've got a walk out? 20 -- frankly. And Jane Williams alluded to that. 21 And they came back to the table when we had a product that 22 finally broke through the wall and addressed concerns in a 23 satisfactory way. 24 And what we tend to do is assemble working groups 25 around the work products. For example, we had much more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 211 1 district participation in a conflict resolution handbook 2 because they were the ones responsible for sorting out 3 complaint resolution in their jurisdictions. And as we 4 move into stationary source permitting discussions, which 5 was recommended by Dr. Prasad, the number of industrial 6 participants would rise sharply. 7 There's also the Cal EPA Environmental Justice 8 Advisory Group, which is created by statute and meets 9 quarterly. And we are participants in that process. 10 So there's multiple bodies talking about these 11 issues. And no day goes by where we don't have someplace 12 we're connecting on environmental justice questions. 13 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So you feel comfortable that 14 we have enough ongoing dialogue -- 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Oh, yes. 16 BOARD MEMBER GONG: -- on a frequent basis? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Oh, yes, almost 18 more than we can handle. 19 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Okay. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. Berg. 21 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Would it be appropriate that 22 we would calendar just an update 6 months to 12 months 23 from now? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Certainly, it's 25 been our practice to give you annual status reports on our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 212 1 environmental justice programs. If you'd like them 2 semiannually, we can do that too. 3 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. D'Adamo. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think that staff just 6 did a fabulous job and I don't want to get too involved 7 with directing staff as to how you proceed at this point. 8 But I do think Ms. Berg raised a good point about the 9 airports. And I understand that you don't have all the 10 data that I think that you feel that you need. But I 11 think that rather than necessarily waiting for it to come 12 in -- I don't know what all would be involved, but maybe 13 taking a little more action on that. I'd be curious to 14 hear in a year and a half if some additional progress 15 could be made. 16 And then on the chart, Table 1-3, that I 17 mentioned earlier, I see power plants is on there. And of 18 course the agricultural operations. I'd like to hear back 19 when you do come back with the report on how the permit 20 process fits in to some of these decisions. 21 And then of course the gentleman who's concerned 22 about the laundry facilities, which I assume that you 23 noted as well. Thank you. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. Kennard. 25 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you. I have a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 213 1 comment, two questions and a request. 2 But first I'd like to thank Dr. Prasad. This is 3 a tremendous achievement, and it's due almost singularly 4 to his initial leadership and his continuing leadership. 5 And I don't want to discredit anyone else's great efforts. 6 But you have to have someone of his caliber and dedication 7 and diligence to get this far. 8 I recall being in graduate planning school. And 9 I'm at the age now where I don't disclose any clues as to 10 my age. But I can tell you it was a long, long time ago. 11 And the dean of the school at the time, Larry Suskind, had 12 his whole life's work based on the siting of undesirable 13 uses across country. And at that time there was no 14 scientific data that linked kind of health issues with the 15 siting of things like power plants and landfills. And so 16 at that point in history it was really just kind of the 17 equitable distribution of nuisance kind of uses. And it's 18 just phenomenal how long it's taken for the analysis to 19 come and make the clear health connection between these 20 types of uses. And I'm very pleased that it's come to 21 that. It's just too bad it's taken so long. 22 My questions are -- first, we received a letter 23 from the State Housing Community Development Department, 24 who recommended against approval. And I was wondering if 25 staff could comment, explain how they got there. I was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 214 1 very curious about their letter. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, I'll start, 3 and Lynn can chime in. 4 We reached out to housing advocates, both 5 governmental agencies and private groups, early in the 6 process because we were sensitive to and concerned about 7 all housing and affordable housing in particular. And 8 from the beginning, we were urged by the housing advocates 9 not to make their lives any more difficult than they 10 already were, that -- the private advocates, who came in 11 first, told us that nobody wants affordable housing near 12 them. 13 And they didn't want to be responsible for 14 putting people in harm's way, but please, would we be 15 utterly, absolutely sure that it was dangerous before we 16 recommended not putting people there, so that we consumed 17 no more land than was absolutely necessary and did not 18 give rise to more Nimby-ism than is absolutely necessary. 19 And, for example, that's how we came out with our 500-foot 20 recommendation from freeways, not a thousand as we've been 21 asked to do. 22 The public agencies were present but slower to 23 express their views and concerns. And I think what 24 happened is they felt them all along, were troubled by the 25 expectations that had been placed upon them by the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 215 1 administration, the process that's underway to reform 2 CEQA, to ease infill development and how this might make 3 their job and government more difficult. And they 4 listened patiently. I don't think we had enough time, 5 because they came to their conclusions about a week or two 6 ago. And we sat down and had a lengthy meeting and 7 understood the seriousness of each other's concerns. 8 I will say that the letter we received, more than 9 half of the specific points we believe can be cured by 10 slight editorial changes in our document clarifying what 11 the flow chart meant, adding sentences here and there, "We 12 are not dictating you work to planners. We're not 13 qualified. We meant these as tools for air 14 professionals," things of that nature. 15 But the fundamental point, don't say anything 16 about public health. We didn't feel we could do -- and be 17 responsible in our duty as air pollution regulators -- 18 that because we have all this information about the 19 proximity effect of air pollution, we have an obligation 20 to tell it to other people who are making decisions 21 without that knowledge. And we don't mean to tell them 22 what the outcome has to be. But we want them to be aware 23 of it. 24 And I think had we had a few more months to keep 25 talking with housing and community development, they would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 216 1 have come out in the same place CalTrans did, where 2 CalTrans also felt that we were going to make their lives 3 siting freeways harder, they'd have to pay for more land 4 adjacent to the freeways, you know, a bigger buffer zone 5 than they ordinarily buy, were eminent domain issues. But 6 at the end of the day CalTrans said, "We'll work with you 7 on this." And we've worked with CalTrans of course for 30 8 years. And we had more trust going in, we had more trust 9 coming out. And we're just now establishing a 10 relationship with housing and community development, and 11 we just have to keep working together. 12 But based on their letter, based on the testimony 13 you heard from BIA, I'm quite certain that that dialogue's 14 going to continue at the highest levels of government and 15 we will keep working on mutually satisfactory solutions. 16 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: My second question is 17 legal in nature. I couldn't go without asking a legal 18 question of course. And also speculative in part. 19 And, that is, because this is advisory there's 20 absolutely no penalties or any other mechanisms to force 21 compliance with this document. However, that being said, 22 over time if communities and developers fail to kind of 23 take this into account, could there be possibilities for 24 basis for litigation on the part of the plaintiffs as a 25 result of the negligence of not going -- not taking the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 217 1 advice of this document? 2 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL KRINSK: The short answer 3 is, no, there can't be. 4 There may be some disclosure requirements on the 5 part of realtors. But that's a question that our Legal 6 Office hasn't looked at. We're not experts in that area. 7 And we would leave that to attorneys in the Department of 8 Housing to look at. But as far as litigation against 9 communities like city and county planning departments, 10 boards of supervisors, no, there would not be liability. 11 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: What about against a 12 developer? Could this be a known -- a known factor of a 13 health risk? 14 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL KRINSK: Only if there's a 15 law, some kind of tort law that would be subsequently -- 16 enacted subsequent to this. Currently, no, there's no law 17 that would be broken on the basis of this document. 18 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: That's too bad. 19 (Laughter.) 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor Patrick. 21 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I don't have to disagree 22 with you on that one. 23 (Laughter.) 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I'm sorry. You 25 didn't finish your request. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 218 1 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: My outline. 2 My request is that -- as we heard from staff that 3 they'll be continuing refinement. And I just wanted to 4 accentuate the letter in particular. That was quite 5 detailed. That was signed by NRDC and several others. 6 And I just wanted to make sure that that was certainly 7 taken into account and certainly also Mr. Castaneda's 8 questions and emphasis on some issues that may have been 9 dropped. 10 So thank you very much. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor Patrick. 12 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I just had to disagree 13 with my colleague when she wants cities and counties to be 14 sued. 15 She did just said, "I know you can't be sued, but 16 it would be a nice thing." 17 (Laughter.) 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: It's hard -- you're 19 sitting between two supervisors. 20 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I know, I know. 21 (Laughter.) 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: If I might then. 23 Since this is not a regulatory item, it is not necessary 24 to officially close the record. However, we do have a 25 resolution before us for Board action. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 219 1 So Board members. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd like to move 3 adoption -- 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Excuse me. Do we have any ex 5 parte? We don't need to do any -- 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: No, there's no ex 7 parte on this. It's not a -- 8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. I'm sorry for the 9 interruption. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: No, no, no. It's a 11 good question. But it is not required on this particular 12 item. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd move adoption of 14 Resolution 05-32, with the addition that staff come back 15 within a year to a year and a half. Is that about where 16 we landed? 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I think so. A year 18 and a half would certainly be... 19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I second. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: There is a second. 21 Any further discussion on the motion? 22 All those in favor signify by saying aye. 23 (Ayes.) 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Opposed, no. 25 The motion carries. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 220 1 And so that concludes this part of the agenda. 2 I would like to say to everyone who did 3 participate in this, it's just not what you did this 4 evening. As I understand, you've participated a lot. And 5 so we appreciate those many hours that you've given. And 6 we look forward to you continuing in that effort. 7 And then let me say to the staff again, very good 8 job. And a lot of work is still in front of us, and so I 9 encourage you and support you on that. 10 And then to the staff here in El Monte and the 11 staff who came down to set this meeting up, this has been 12 wonderful and we thank you for all of your efforts. The 13 technical people were terrific. I think the sound system 14 was the best we've ever had. And I thank you for the 15 timing system. 16 Board members, for those of you who are new, this 17 hearing room is of course not with this particular stage 18 or dais. And so this all has to be set up when we come. 19 And so it's a real effort, herculean sort of effort. And 20 I do want to acknowledge the staff that has been just 21 terrific about doing the work that needed to be done to 22 make this meeting I think very successful. So I thank you 23 all. 24 And to our reporter, I hope we haven't done you 25 in. I sort of did forget you. But thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 221 1 Thank you. 2 Jesse, one final comment. 3 MR. MARQUEZ: Yes. As a result of ARB working on 4 this land use document and our local South Coast District 5 working on a document, there are several of us 6 environmental justice organizations already talking with 7 our state senators and assembly members to submit a state 8 law next year. So legislation-wise we are pursuing that. 9 And I can 99.9 guarantee that it will be submitted next 10 year. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right. Thank 12 you very much. 13 And I'm going to adjourn the meeting. 14 Thank you. 15 (Thereupon the California Air Resources 16 Board meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 222 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting was 7 reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified 8 Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and 9 thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said meeting. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 13th day of May, 2005. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 License No. 10063 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345