BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD ELIHU HARRIS BUILDING AUDITORIUM 1515 CLAY STREET OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2001 6:00 P.M. JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 10063 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Allan Lloyd, Chairperson Mrs. Barbara Riordan Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Dr. William Friedman Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Barbara Patrick STAFF Mr. Mike Kenny, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Bob Fletcher, Chief, Planning and Technical Support Division Mr. Garh Honcoop, Manager, Strategic, Analysis and Liaison Section Mr. Bob Jenne, Senior Staff Counsel Ms. Cynthia Marvin, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch Mr. Dean Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch, Stationary Source Division Mr. Doug Thompson, Transportation Planner Mr. Bruce Tuter, Air Pollution Specialist PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Item 01-6-6 2 Remarks by Chairperson Lloyd 2 Remarks by Executive Officer Kenny 4 Air Pollution Specialist Tuter 5 Board Discussion 18 Dave Jones 25 Kenni Friedman 30 Randy Attaway 32 Sharon Brown 34 Dick Spees 38 Ellen Garvey 40 Steve Hemminger 46 Bill Haywood 52 George Smith 55 Shanna O'Hare 57 Dennis Fay 59 Margaret Bruce 61 Marcie Keever 62 George Britton 65 Maria Brown 68 AJ Napolis 68 Julia May 73 Greg Karras 77 John Holtzclaw 79 Judith Lamare 81 Betty Turner 84 Cindy Tuck 87 Richard Napier 89 Bruce Stewart 90 John Sakamoto 93 Jana Coons 96 Ethan Vaneklasen 96 Barbara Lee 99 Andrew Michael 100 Suzanne Phinney 101 David Jones 103 Tina Cosentino 107 Suma Peesapati 111 Flora D. Campbell 114 Azibuike Akaba 115 Annie Sayo 117 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Mike Tomas 119 Marty Dinidin 122 Lynne Brown 123 Donna Pindia 125 Ralph Sattler 125 Vincent Mow 128 Jeff Hartwig 131 Stuart Rupp 132 John Wolfe 133 Ethel Dotson 135 Charlie Peters 139 David Schonbrunn 143 Joanna Monk 146 Larry Armstrong 148 Jennifer Gunderson 152 Bob Shattuck 153 Raymond Lambert 155 Board Discussion 157 Motion 165 Vote 177 Adjournment 177 Reporter's Certificate 178 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good evening. The November 3 1st, 2001 public meeting of the Air Resources Board will 4 now come to order. 5 Would Supervisor DeSaulnier please lead us in the 6 Pledge of Allegiance. 7 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 8 recited in unison.) 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Would 10 the Clerk of the Board please call the roll. 11 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Dr. Burke? 12 Mr. Calhoun? 13 Ms. D'Adamo? 14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 15 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 16 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here. 17 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Professor Friedman? 18 Dr. Friedman? 19 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Here. 20 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Mr. McKinnon? 21 Supervisor Patrick? 22 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. 23 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Mrs. Riordan? 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 25 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Supervisor Roberts? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 Chairman Lloyd? 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here. 3 Agenda item 01-6-6, continuation of the Bay Area 4 State Implementation Plan. Tonight, we're continuing what 5 we began at the July 26th board meeting in San Francisco, 6 which is consideration of the San Francisco Bay Area 2001 7 Ozone State Implementation Plan. 8 I would like to thank everyone for coming and 9 look forward to your testimony. We expect it will be a 10 long, interesting evening. If you haven't signed up yet 11 and wish to speak, please do so with the Board Clerk, 12 Marie Kavan. If you have a written statement, please 13 provide that to the Board Clerk as well so that we can 14 have it distributed to the board members. 15 To fully protect the health of residents in the 16 Bay Area and downward regions the Bay Area needs to 17 continue its efforts, for the next several years to reduce 18 emissions of ozone precursors and particulate matter. 19 Attaining California's State standards for these 20 pollutants is the next big challenge, along with a need to 21 reduce health risks from air toxics. 22 But tonight, we are focused on the specific 23 obligation under federal law to adopt a plan that ensures 24 attainment of the federal one-hour ozone standard. And in 25 that narrow context, the Bay Area is much closer to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 achieving its goals. 2 While I'm still uncomfortable with the quality of 3 air quality modeling in the plan, it is simply the case 4 that better models are not currently available, and I've 5 searched hard on this, and they're not currently available 6 to identify the best attainment strategy. 7 Therefore, while it pains me, I think we have to 8 be patient till we get the central valley ozone study 9 completed, which will give us the database upon which to 10 develop a model, which will give us a much better tool for 11 evaluating various strategies. 12 I'm pleased to see that the plan includes a firm 13 commitment to revise the SIP over the next two and a half 14 years as new data come in and analyses are completed. The 15 mid-course review in 2003 will take advantage of the 16 latest information and modeling from the Central 17 California ozone study, which is the only feasible way to 18 improve the attainment demonstration before us today. 19 I'm also encouraged that since the last meeting, 20 the local agencies have held six community meetings and 21 added new measures to the plan. I'd specifically like to 22 thank the Chairman of the Bay Area AQMD, and, of course, 23 my colleague Supervisor DeSaulnier for the effort they've 24 had in conjunction with Ellen to make sure that there's 25 much stronger outreach and much stronger appreciation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 that's going on. And I think the efforts have been really 2 disciplined and I applaud that. 3 I would now like to ask Mr. Kenny to introduce 4 the item and begin the staff presentation. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 6 and Members of the Board. We believe this plan is a 7 positive step toward clean air in the Bay Area and down 8 wind regions. Implementation of the revised SIP will 9 result in many of the Bay Area's rules employing the 10 stringency of the South Coast regulations. 11 The plan also includes commitments to consider 12 additional refinery controls that would exceed existing 13 requirements anywhere in the state. At the initial board 14 hearing in July, staff proposed to add a new commitment to 15 the plan to reduce VOC emissions to the attainment target 16 indicated by the most conservative analyses. The revised 17 plan includes this joint commitment for an additional 26 18 tons per day of VOC reductions. 19 The responsibility for achieving those reductions 20 will be shared by the district, MTC, ABAG, this Board and 21 U.S. EPA, based on the emission sources under our 22 respective jurisdictions. This commitment has been 23 approved at the local level and is supported by U.S. EPA. 24 It would ensure that all agencies work cooperatively to 25 improve air quality in the Bay Area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 It also means that federal, state and local air 2 agencies, as well as the local transportation and land-use 3 agencies would be obligated to continue pursuing new 4 technologies and implementing controls to achieve these 5 additional reductions. This commitment becomes federally 6 enforceable with the SIP approval. 7 The staff will recommend that the Board approve 8 the plan today. Your approval would lock in a total of 9 271 tons per day of emission reductions and would allow 10 the Bay Area to avoid transportation funding sanctions 11 that will be imposed in January, unless the state submits 12 an approval SIP today. 13 Staff will lay out in more detail while this plan 14 merits your approval. We believe that the U.S. EPA would 15 also propose to approve the plan if you do today. You may 16 recall that Mr. Jack Rodman, U.S. EPA Region 9, air 17 director, testified at the July 26th hearing that with the 18 new joint commitment to achieve the full reductions 19 indicated by the most conservative attainment assessment, 20 the 26 tons per day, that U.S. EPA could propose to 21 approve the SIP. 22 And with that, I'd like to ask Mr. Bruce Tuter to 23 make the presentation. 24 Bruce. 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: Thank you, Mr. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 Kenny, and good evening, Chairman Lloyd and Members of the 2 Board. 3 (Thereupon and overhead presentation was 4 presented as follows.) 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: Since this is 6 the continuation of your July 26th hearing on the 2001 Bay 7 Area State Implementation Plan, our presentation focuses 8 on the Bay Area's efforts to attain the ozone standard, 9 including an update on how the local agencies revised the 10 plan in September. 11 Tonight, we ask you to consider and approve this 12 plan to attain the federal one hour ozone standard in the 13 Bay Area by the 2006 deadline. Since the July hearing, 14 staff and the co-lead agencies, Bay Area district, 15 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association 16 of Bay Area Governments have expanded their outreach on 17 this plan on other health and air quality issues. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: The agencies 20 held six evening meetings between August 23rd and August 21 30th throughout the Bay Area. Participants raised ideas 22 and concerns at these meetings reflecting the diversity of 23 issues in the Bay Area, such as refineries, power plants, 24 emission credits, smog check, transportation and growth. 25 We've also increased our oversight of those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 activities. We attended each of the community meetings 2 and met with community groups. We are participating in a 3 multi-agency work group to evaluate the potential for 4 further reducing of refinery emissions. We will continue 5 to be involved as the district develops its new rules for 6 these and other sources. 7 Mr. Kenny also requested that U.S. EPA assign a 8 facilitator to assess and recommend how to improve the 9 relationships between the agencies and the community. The 10 outcome of these efforts is a stronger air quality plan, 11 with a joint commitment to achieve 26 tons per day of VOC 12 reductions at additional measures that would be adopted if 13 found to be feasible. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: The air quality 16 goals in the Bay Area are different from many other parts 17 of the state an in deed the nation. The overlying goal of 18 providing good healthy air for all should be a priority 19 everywhere, regardless of the attainment status. 20 The first and most near-term goal is to meet the 21 federal one hour ozone standard. As it has been for 22 several years, the Bay Area is close to this standard now. 23 To attain this standard, according to U.S. EPA, the fourth 24 highest ozone level measured in a three-year period must 25 be 124 parts per billion or less. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 Based on monitored ozone levels from 1999 through 2 2001, the region is at 126 parts per billion now. 3 However, because of this combination of emissions and 4 weather conditions that determines ozone levels, there can 5 be considerable annual variability. This makes it 6 difficult to know just how close to attain the standard we 7 are, that is why continuing to reduce emissions is 8 necessary to ensure that the Bay Area will meet the 9 standard of it all under all weather conditions. 10 The plan is legally required to address how the 11 Bay Area would attain the federal one-hour standard and 12 only this standard. Beyond the scope of this plan are the 13 more health protective air quality goals to meet the 14 federal eight hour and state ozone standards as well as 15 the state particulate matter standard. 16 Like most urban areas in California, the Bay Area 17 also needs to reduce the levels of air toxics and their 18 associated health risks. The rest of my presentation 19 focuses on the goal of today's plan, the federal one-hour 20 ozone standard. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: To give you a 23 sense of how the Bay Areas ozone levels have changed over 24 time, we show the ten-year trend in the design value. 25 This is the monitored ozone value used to determine PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 whether an area attains the standard. 2 Bay Area levels have fluctuated on either side of 3 the standard over the last decade, including several years 4 in attainment in the early 1990s. However, in the late 5 1990s, the design value of the monitoring site had the 6 highest ozone levels, peaking at 12 percent over the 7 standard. 8 During the same time frame, Sacramento was 28 9 percent above the standard, San Joaquin Valley 23 -- I'm 10 sorry, 32 percent and South Coast 165 percent over the 11 standards. 12 The ozone monitors are a little more tolerant and 13 show only one day or none over the standard in 2002. The 14 Bay Area would attain it. 15 This slide illustrates the need to continue 16 reducing emissions so the region can attain the federal 17 one-hour standard despite year to year fluctuations and 18 weather that permits ozone permission in the Bay Area. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: The 2001 SIP 21 defines the actions all agencies need to take to continue 22 to reduce emissions and to demonstrate attainment no later 23 than 2006. This plan must include attainment target based 24 on available information. 25 Since we are still developing the scientifically PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 rigorous ozone law within northern California based on the 2 results of our intensive ozone study last year, the 3 current technical tools leaves some uncertainty about the 4 attainment target. 5 As a result, the revised plan now uses the most 6 health protective of seven analyses to set the target. 7 This analysis shows that the defined and quantified 8 measures of the plan must be supplemented within an 9 additional 26 tons per day in VOC reductions by 2006. 10 The commitments in the plan for new measures and 11 emission reductions meet the requirements of the Clean Air 12 Act and U.S. EPA. Once approved, those commitments become 13 federally enforceable. 14 While the plan before you tonight reflects the 15 best information we currently have available, the local 16 agencies have committed to conduct a mid-course review in 17 2003, based on the new ozone study data and formerly 18 revised the SIP in 2004. 19 The commitment reflects the technical uncertainty 20 inherent in using air quality modeling in areas close to 21 the standard. That schedule would also align the 22 reassessment of the Bay Area with the mid-course review 23 that we expect to include in the San Joaquin Valley's new 24 SIP as well. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: The key question 2 on any proposed SIP is how will the plan improve air 3 quality in the region. This plan commits to reduce ozone 4 forming emissions by 271 tons a day by 2006. The vast 5 majority of those tons -- I'm sorry. The vast majority of 6 the reductions under ARB, U.S. EPA or district regulations 7 is already on the books, which we created the foundation 8 of the ozone direction strategy. 9 A subset of reductions, 2,600 per day, was 10 included in the plan to respond to the uncertainty to 11 attain assessment. Over the next few years with local 12 agencies, ARB and U.S. EPA will identify measures to 13 achieve these further reductions from inclusion in the 14 next SIP revision. 15 If the mid-course reviews show that the region 16 has fewer or more reductions to attain, this commitment 17 will adjust accordingly. 18 The plan builds on the foundation with 19 commitments by the local agencies to adopt and implement 20 13 new measures for sources under their control and 21 evaluate 11 additional measures for possible development. 22 New measures for adoption would reduce emissions from 23 stationary sources, such as refineries; area sources, such 24 as architectural coatings and cleaning solvents; and 25 mobile sources through the use of transportation control PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 measures. 2 The District and MTC will evaluate the potential 3 effectiveness and cost of further study measures for 4 refineries and Transportation sources. Implementing this 5 package of new measures will bring the Bay Area's rules up 6 to the effectiveness of South Coast's existing rules or 7 beyond in a few cases. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: These three 10 rules the district proposes to tighten would result in 11 control levels comparable to South Coast through the 2006 12 attainment date. For architectural coatings, the district 13 proposes to adopt the suggested control measure approved 14 by this Board, which is comparable to the first phase of 15 South Coast rules. 16 Since ARB staff is committed to bring a proposal 17 to further tighten architectural coatings and limits back 18 to this Board, we expect the Bay Area would adopt any 19 further improvements. 20 Both the South Coast and more recently in the San 21 Joaquin valley have tighter requirements for solvents, 22 including limits scheduled to take effect in December. We 23 expect the Bay Area to adopt these requirements. This 24 measure would reduce the toxic components of conventional 25 solvents as well as the VOC emissions that contribute to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 ozone. 2 For surface preparation, we expect the district 3 will develop its measures based on South Coast 4 requirements including the limits scheduled to take effect 5 next month. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: On refineries, 8 the four rules the district has committed to adopt would 9 make Bay Area requirements comparable to the South Coast 10 or result in safer control that go beyond any existing 11 requirements. 12 Since the South Coast continues to evaluate ways 13 to further reduce refinery emissions, we would expect them 14 to also assess developing technology and tighten their 15 rules accordingly. 16 While the process vessel depressurization would 17 produce small routine reductions in VOC emissions, it 18 would provide important public health benefits, by 19 minimizing large releases from individual events. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: Following the 22 six community meetings and preliminary discussions in the 23 refinery working group, the district revised the SIP to 24 add four new further study measures for refineries. 25 Those measures are shown here with the proposed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 date to complete the evaluation. Since the evaluations 2 are well under way now, we believe the district could move 3 up the dates on the last three categories and complete its 4 study on all of these measures in 2002. 5 To improve air quality near and around 6 refineries, we are recommending to direct the district to 7 accelerate the evaluation and to develop any measures 8 determined to be feasible in the near term. ARB staff 9 will continue to participate in the working group and 10 monitor the district actions on these issues. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: In summary, this 13 plan would reduce ozone forming emissions in the Bay Area 14 by 271 tons per day over the six-year scope of the plan. 15 This represents a 27 percent reduction in VOC emissions 16 and a 19 percent reduction for NOx. 17 In addition to the commitments to develop new 18 rules, approval of the plan assures that Bay Area performs 19 the mid-course review through ARB to update the plan in 20 2003 and submit a formal supervision by April 15th, 2004. 21 The mid-course review will update the attainment 22 once we've improved and added the tools available. We 23 believe the plan is approvable because it meets the 24 applicable state and federal requirements, including the 25 California Environmental Quality Act. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 It includes the substantive emission reductions 2 to improve air quality. It pushes Bay Area VOC rules to a 3 level comparable with South Coast. It provides in the 4 revision to utilize new data. It includes a commitment to 5 improve the public process during implementation of the 6 plan at mid-course review. And it will be revised in 2004 7 when proven scientific tools are available. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: If the Board 10 does not approve the plan tonight, there are two primary 11 consequences. First, the public health consequence. We 12 would forego the air quality benefits of the plan and its 13 commitments for your rules. 14 Second, transportation conforming docs in the Bay 15 Area. Clean transportation projects are worth over $1 16 billion of this, because the new 2001 regional 17 transportation plan could not be approved by the federal 18 government. 19 The region is slated to receive about $200 20 million in federal funds and 700 million in state and 21 local dollars in year 2002 for projects in the new 22 regional transportation plan that would be stopped by a 23 conformity lapse. 24 The labeling SIP could cause the region to lose 25 federal share entirely. State and local funds are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 affected because the projects themselves require federal 2 approval. Without that approval, the projects could not 3 go forward even if they were financed entirely by the 4 State. 5 To avoid the conformity lapse of January 22nd, 6 ARB would need to approve the SIP including its new 7 conformity issuance budgets and submit it to U.S. EPA. 8 Once U.S. EPA has an approval secondhand, the agencies 9 must have posted it for the 30-day public review and 10 comment, finding that the emissions budgets were adequate 11 to demonstrate attainment. 12 This adequacy finding would then allow positive 13 conformity by the new Regional Transportation Commission, 14 and a permit for federal approval of that plan. 15 We have worked closely with U.S. EPA to develop a 16 plan that is approvable. You can improve public health 17 and assure transportation funding continues by the 18 previous plan. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: We recommend 21 that you approve the 2001 Bay Area SIP as an interim plan 22 that demonstrates attainment of the federal one-hour ozone 23 standard and that it would be revisited in 2004. To 24 ensure continued progress, we also recommend that you 25 direct the district to accelerate its review of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 refinery study measures, work with ARB staff to continue 2 assessing new technology opportunities to further reduce 3 emissions from all sources, pursue and develop feasible 4 measures that can be reflected in future plans, and 5 continue its efforts to increase and improve its outreach 6 to local communities. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST TUTER: To address the 9 scope of emissions from the regional transportation system 10 in the long term, we also recommend that the Board 11 encourage the three co-lead agencies to increase their 12 coordination on land use, transportation and air quality 13 planning, continue working with ARB to develop more 14 long-range strategies to reduce the rate of travel growth 15 in the region, which would also cut congestion, and 16 promote green fleet programs with all the city and county 17 agencies they can influence. 18 Finally, we ask the Board to improve ARB's 19 presentation in joint-district and MTC, ABAG and the U.S. 20 EPA commitment to achieve 26 tons per day of VOC 21 reductions by 2006 to support the most health protected 22 estimate of reductions needed to attain this. 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Again, 25 I'm struck -- and I appreciate the presentation. It PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 focused on why we're here tonight. It's very tempting to 2 look at the toxics and particulates and just about 3 everyone has been asked to look at that. But I don't know 4 about the -- you've looked at this plan. And the fact is 5 that we need that commitment. But when you look at it, 6 they get to 124, which is to 126 parts per billion. They 7 have a lot to do, but it isn't very far out of attainment. 8 I think what I would like to suggest when the 9 witnesses come forward is that to remember that we are 10 focused on this aspect of the plan, and so the focus on 11 the ozone attainment issue is most important. Part of the 12 other issues I'm sure we can go on all evening with. 13 Do my colleagues have any questions here? 14 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: To anyone on staff, but 16 I'll direct it at Mike, since he's the man at the top. 17 During our outreach meetings and also other discussions 18 that staff had, two of the things that come up quite 19 frequently is specifying the 26 tons and doing it as 20 quickly as possible. And maybe, Mike, you can mention it, 21 but maybe you could go a little bit further in terms of 22 your difficulty with the opportunities to be able to be 23 more specific. 24 And the second part is accelerating the further 25 studies. And when we approved it here in the region, we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 had four amendments that my colleagues accepted and we 2 approved that had to do with public oversight, 3 participation and also accelerating the further studies. 4 And you mentioned in the staff report, you thought you 5 could move it up to ones that are the stationary source 6 ones from December 2003 to 2002. 7 But in our meeting, we said that we wanted to 8 accelerate all of the further studies including TCMs as 9 quickly as possible. 10 So, Mike, the two issues are the specifics of the 11 26 tons and the difficulty with that; the ability to move 12 the further studies up and our ability during this period 13 to help the three co-lead agencies to move those up and 14 come back and amend the plans if they're reasonably 15 available to go ahead and do. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: All right. Let me 17 start with the 26 tons, and the difficulty with regard to 18 specificity. At the July Board, the Board did ask us to 19 go back and try to identify as much specificity as we can 20 or as we could. The fundamental difficulty there is that 21 this board over the years and the local districts as well, 22 have actually been looking at every possible emission 23 reduction strategy that we could. 24 And the problems that we have run into, 25 essentially at this point in time, is the result of our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 success over the years. And we have been very successful 2 at identifying ROD reduction strategies, NOx reduction 3 strategies. And consequently looking for opportunities 4 today that we can specifically identify as being cost 5 effective and feasible today was not as available as when 6 we hoped it would be. 7 There are examples for other states in which they 8 have some more obligations. Having not done anywhere near 9 as much as this Board has done or as local districts have 10 done, they did have the ability to provide that kind of 11 specificity. Unfortunately, though, you've been the 12 victims of your own success here, and that has been our 13 problem. So what we were trying to do is take advantage 14 of the technological advances that do occur and that are 15 occurring and use those as kind of feature opportunities 16 and then provide that specificity as time goes on. 17 With regard to essentially pulling ahead the 18 further study measures, our thought there was that, in 19 fact, this has been a very important issue in terms of 20 trying to figure out how to provide some level of 21 specificity. And to the extent that we want to try to put 22 as much effort and as much emphasis on providing that 23 specificity as soon as possible, we thought it was 24 actually reasonable to request the agencies to put more 25 resources in to try to provide that specificity sooner PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 than the two years we otherwise provide. 2 If, in fact, we put a greater amount of resources 3 into that, then, in fact, we can, at least try to fill out 4 that 26 ton sooner as opposed to waiting till later, and 5 so that was our thought process there. 6 We really looked at it as one which it was the 7 obligation on the agencies to essentially put the 8 resources, the emphasis, and time into it in order to try 9 to do it as quickly as possible. And we thought both the 10 local agencies and we should do that. 11 With regard to essentially our willingness to 12 work the local agencies, we think that, in fact, we have 13 to work with both local agencies. We think this is a 14 situation which we need to work with them and take 15 advantage of, essentially, some of the expertise that we 16 can bring to the table, and they also have expertise that 17 they can bring to the table. We also want to work with 18 communities to ensure that, in fact, they bring their 19 perspective to the table, so that, in fact, we have a 20 collaborative and a partnership type of approach that we 21 can identify the number of tons we need, and we can get 22 there as quickly as possible. 23 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Just a follow up to 24 that, the staff report mentioned that Region 9, we asked 25 for a facilitator or mediator to come in. And Harry has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 provided us, at least, with some recommendations to the 2 regional agency. Maybe you could, on the one that he 3 suggests, that CARB should go ahead and start, and maybe 4 you could talk to that, because that provides a framework, 5 I think, for including stakeholders, both community 6 members and potential business people in the group that we 7 would organize. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: That's a good point. 9 Harry Saragarian who was the facilitator and he was 10 brought in by -- he actually works for U.S. EPA. And he 11 coordinated with all the different participants here. 12 There was the local agencies, the State agencies, the 13 federal agencies, communities. And he was looking at 14 opportunities to, essentially, work together to achieve 15 the objective. 16 What Harry essentially suggested is that there 17 are opportunities here for the Air Resources Board to take 18 the lead with regard to some of the technological 19 developments. And we think that's a good idea. We'd be 20 happy to essentially work with Harry to do that. 21 He also made suggestions with regard to MTC and 22 some of the opportunities that might exist there for MTC 23 to take the lead and to work with the communities. And, 24 again, we agree that this is a good idea to do that. And 25 further more, he made recommendations with regard to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 Bay Area and for them to take the lead on one aspect. 2 And we think that, in fact, what Harry is 3 suggesting is a good way to essentially pursue further 4 reductions and to also ensure that, in fact, we have good 5 communications across all the parties, so that we can move 6 forward together. 7 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Thanks, Mike. If you 8 indulge me just for a second. Mr. Chairman, I asked these 9 questions partially so that my colleagues may understand, 10 I think, what we've gone through since the last meeting, 11 but also to set the stage hopefully for, at least myself, 12 what I struggle with, and that's the point is although the 13 staff presentation, in terms of how close we are, but is 14 getting to the point where we can be reasonably assured 15 that we will actually get in attainment and stay in 16 attainment in the Bay Area. 17 So with a certain level of historic mistrust by 18 some groups of the regional agencies and us trying to do a 19 better job, and I think looking at our staff, we really 20 worked very hard at the six public outreach meetings. And 21 the APCO in particular going to six meeting and all of our 22 staff, worked very hard at that. And I personally feel 23 that we have turned a corner in that regard in terms of 24 community outreach. And I hope our staff here has 25 communicated that to you, Mr. Chairman. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 But the ability to sort of stay on course and 2 stay on top of some of the good changes we've started is 3 for me what I struggle with. So the questions are sort of 4 if we approve this, how do we, as a state agency, continue 5 to make sure that the Board itself, and certainly for 6 myself in particular, feels comfortable that we're making 7 progress as quickly as possible and can amend the plans as 8 quickly as possible. 9 And I'm particularly interested in some of the 10 recommendations that Harry has made, but also Mike when we 11 get through with public comment and heard what the public 12 has said, how we might be able to approve this, but 13 approve it in such a way that this is really a beginning 14 and not an ending. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 17 Any questions from my colleagues? 18 Yeah. Just reinforcing some of what you were 19 saying, Mark. Clearly, I'm also very supportive of 20 bringing up, not only studying those measures, but 21 implementing whatever is possible. There seems to be a 22 significant amount of interest to the fact to get this off 23 our back. We don't have very far to go, as long we have 24 reasonable -- it doesn't take very -- the sooner we can 25 begin to actually reduce emissions, the more likely we are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 to be in the summer, say, below normal attainment for that 2 year. And so I really agree that they get on that. 3 I think with that, we've got a number of 4 witnesses signed up. I think we've got about 20 so far. 5 We'd like to remind the witnesses who come forward and if 6 they do have written comments of the testimony, please 7 provide it to the Board. 8 First, I'd like to call Dave Jones, Councilmember 9 Kenni Friedman, and Randy Attaway from the Bay Area air 10 district. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, sorry. Dave Jones. 12 There's two of them. 13 (Laughter.) 14 MR. JONES: No, Dr. Lloyd. The problem with 15 these Welch names is they're so common. 16 (Laughter.) 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's true. I would say 18 Jones the Legislator. 19 MR. JONES: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd and members of 20 the Board. My name is Dave Jones. I'm counsel to 21 Assemblymember Dennis Cardoza who represents the San 22 Joaquin Valley. And the Assemblymember asked me to 23 express his regrets that we wasn't able to join you this 24 evening. He did appreciate, however, the opportunity to 25 testify before you personally back in July at your first PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 hearing on this plan. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: He certainly made a big 3 impression. 4 MR. JONES: And he appreciated the opportunity 5 for you to hear as well in terms of his constituents. 6 As you know, from that testimony, your studies 7 have included that the Bay Area contributes significantly 8 to down wind areas nonattainment for ozone purposes. 9 The Bay Area is the only urbanized area in the 10 state of California that does not have Smog Check 2, 11 enhanced maintenance and inspection program. 12 Smog Check 2, even without the test only 13 component, by your own staff's analysis, would reduce NOx 14 emissions in the Bay Area by nine tons per day. This 15 would be a significant benefit to the areas that 16 Assemblymember Cardoza represents and those other 17 down-wind areas, which are struggling mightily to deal 18 with their pollution and ozone attainment problems. 19 As Assemblymember Cardoza said, last year it was 20 simply unfair that the Bay Area is not implementing Smog 21 Check 2, even without the test only element of Smog Check 22 2. And we appreciated, as the Assemblymember said, the 23 comments of those board members and responses in his 24 testimony that recognized the inequity of this situation. 25 Assemblymember Cardoza is asking for two things, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 two very simple things. The first that you include Smog 2 Check 2 without the test only feature, the plan that's 3 before you this evening. 4 And second, that you initiate a transport 5 mitigation requirement rule-making process to adopt Smog 6 Check 2 as a transport mitigation measure as your statute 7 directs. 8 As for the first request, we understand at the 9 last hearing that there was some discussion between us and 10 your general counsel with regard to the amount of Smog 11 Check 2 that could be implemented in the Bay Area. While 12 we don't agree necessarily that all Smog Check 2 could not 13 be implemented, for the purposes of this proceeding and 14 what we're requesting you to do in the context of this 15 plan, we are prepared to accept Smog Check 2 without the 16 test only feature, because that will at least reduce NOx 17 emissions by 100 tons per day. 18 The opinion that was provided to you by your 19 general counsel last time opined that there was no state 20 prohibition against Smog Check 2 without the test only 21 feature in the Bay Area. It was only the test only 22 feature that your general counsel opined was prohibited by 23 state law. 24 As to the concern that I know will be articulated 25 by later speakers about the possibility of delay, we don't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 think that your inclusion of this requirement will require 2 this plan to be recirculated. There's been significant 3 analysis and public testimony about Smog Check 2. It's a 4 program which is well understood, and we think that you 5 can take this action this evening without having to 6 recirculate or cause any delays in the plan. 7 Assemblymember Cardoza also believes very firmly, 8 however, that since this has been an issue that he and 9 others of his constituents have raised for some time now, 10 it's simply not fair for Bay Area agencies to argue that 11 the clock has now run out on including this measure in the 12 plan, when it was those agencies which were a bit 13 disinclined to include it as a process which that plan 14 brought it forward to you. 15 As for our second request, Assemblymember Cardoza 16 greatly appreciated the comments of your board at the last 17 hearing with regard to initiating the rule-making process 18 to adopt a transport mitigation requirement that would 19 incorporat or include Smog Check 2 for the Bay Area. 20 He is concerned, however, that there's been no 21 public manifestation of the initiation of that rule-making 22 process so far. A draft rule has not been released. A 23 draft rule package has not been released. To your 24 knowledge, workshops have not been scheduled nor has a 25 board hearing been set. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 We appreciated what we thought was a directive 2 from your board to staff to move towards a January 2002 3 hearing that would provide you the opportunity to adopt 4 that rule. And we would ask that this evening you 5 reaffirm that direction so that we can continue to move in 6 a positive direction in that regard. 7 You've received numerous letters and other 8 correspondence from a broad group of individuals and 9 organizations in the central valley, local governments, 10 other air quality districts, business groups, farm groups, 11 and others. All of whom are urging you to do what is 12 right and what is best for air quality. 13 We appreciate the independence of this board. We 14 know that you will hear these views and consider them, and 15 we are very hopeful that you will act on them. 16 Thank you, Dr. Lloyd and thank you Members of the 17 Board. If you have any questions, I'm prepared to take 18 those at this time. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 20 Any questions or comments from the Board? 21 Thank you very much. 22 MR. JONES: Thank you, again. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Councilmember Kenni Friedman. 24 MS. FRIEDMAN: Thank you and no relationship to 25 the other Dr. Friedman. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 (Laughter.) 2 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: There's even 3 another one. 4 (Laughter.) 5 MS. FRIEDMAN: We're all over the place. I'll 6 tell my husband later on. 7 The San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control 8 District has implemented many necessary control issues. 9 However, we still are plagued by the down wind from the 10 Bay Area. We're requesting that the Air Resources Board 11 include Smog Check 2 in the Bay Area Ozone Attainment 12 Plan, and that the Board adopt Smog Check 2 as a transport 13 mitigation requirement for the Bay Area. 14 The San Joaquin valley suffers from a severe air 15 quality problem as a result of federal and state 16 regulators having imposed regulations, which increased the 17 cost of doing business in the valley. And regulators have 18 imposed Smog Check 2, which increases the level of testing 19 and standards for owners of vehicles in the valley. 20 Air Resources Board studies demonstrated that the 21 Bar Area contributes air pollution to the San Joaquin 22 valley and other down-wind areas. The studies indicate 23 that as much as 27 percent of the ozone in the northern 24 San Joaquin Valley is from the Bay Area. Bay Area 25 vehicles travels 141 million miles a day. Not only does PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 the air pollution from these cars go into the down wind 2 valleys, but the air pollution that's brought by the cars 3 themselves as they drive from the Bay Area into the 4 valleys, San Joaquin, Sacramento and Sonoma, and other 5 down-wind areas end up paying the cost of the air 6 pollution with poorer air quality, poorer health and 7 tighter regulations. 8 To make matters worse, the Bay Area is not held 9 to the same requirements that we are in the valley. Smog 10 Check 2 has not been applied to the Bay Area. Smog Check 11 2 involves a higher level of testing and emission 12 standards. The Bay Area should be held responsible for 13 pollution that it contributes to other areas. The Smog 14 Check 2 program in the Bay Area could eliminate 10 to 13 15 tons of ozone precursors. 16 It's time for the Bay Area to stop contributing 17 to the pollution in our valley. It's time for the Bay 18 Area to be held to the same regulations that the valley is 19 held to. It is only fair that the Bay Area be required to 20 have Smog Check 2 so that the Bay Area is held responsible 21 for its own pollution. 22 We ask that you include Smog Check 2 in the Bay 23 Area plan. Do not approve the plan without Smog Check 2. 24 And we ask you to adopt Smog Check 2 as a transport 25 mitigation requirement. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 3 Any questions from the Board? 4 Thank you very much. 5 Randy Attaway, Sharon Brown, Dick Spees. 6 MR. ATTAWAY: Good evening, Chairman Lloyd and 7 Members of the Board. My name is Randy Attaway, 8 Chairperson of the Bay Area Air Quality Management 9 District. And I'm here to urge your board to approve the 10 revised 2001 San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan 11 for the federal one-hour ozone standard. 12 The district has worked diligently with local 13 community groups, environmental groups, regulated 14 industry, stakeholders, your ARB staff and EPA to produce 15 a good federal ozone attainment plan that will produce 16 attainment for the national one-hour ozone standard by the 17 year 2006. I thank you and your staff for your help in 18 developing this plan. 19 Along the same lines of better cooperation and 20 communication, the district conducted six additional 21 community meetings since your July 26th meeting. These 22 meetings provided valuable opportunities for more public 23 participation in the federal air quality planning process. 24 I attended these meetings as did your board members, Mr. 25 DeSaulnier and Mr. McKinnon. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 I want to thank them for their interest and 2 participation. Those meetings proved valuable as a 3 two-way communication in the communication process. We 4 learned about a number of neighborhood concerns regarding 5 local industries and motor vehicle traffic and were able 6 to provide some good general information on air quality 7 and the ozone planning process. This plan before you this 8 evening will benefit communities throughout the Bay Area 9 and in down-wind regions. 10 You have a commitment from me that we will 11 implement the control measures contained in this plan as 12 quickly as possible. I will further commit to you that we 13 will work collaboratively with all the stakeholders to 14 conduct our evaluation of the further study measures in 15 this plan fully and as quickly as practicable. 16 Our agency has been working hard for more than 40 17 years to reduce air pollution in the Bay Area. We are 18 proud of our long-term record of success improving the air 19 quality for all the people who live, work and play in the 20 Bay Area. 21 Ozone, however, is a continuing problem. The Bay 22 Area Air Quality Management District is committed as ever 23 to resolving this problem in a way that involves and 24 engages communities, environmental groups, industries and 25 other governmental agencies. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 We are poised and ready to lead the San Francisco 2 Bay Area back into the state of attainment with the 3 federal one-hour ozone standard. I urge you to adopt this 4 plan for prompt transmittal to the EPA. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Randy. 7 Any questions from the Board? 8 Sharon Brown, Dick Spees and then Ellen Garvey. 9 MS. BROWN: Good evening. I have a cold so I'll 10 try to keep it as brief as possible and not cough all the 11 way. 12 I'm Sharon Brown current Chair of the 13 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and one of the 14 three co-lead agencies that prepared the ozone attainment 15 plan. 16 We at MTC greatly appreciate the suggestions and 17 leadership of the California Air Resources Board as 18 provided in this process. I especially appreciate the 19 Commissioners who came to all the meetings. 20 Years of good air quality planning are paying 21 off. And we have had two very clean years in the Bay 22 Area. We recognize that more needs to be done to maintain 23 this good record and achieve further emission reductions. 24 The ozone plan before you represents the next reasonable 25 steps the region should be making, and we at MTC are doing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 our part. 2 Steve Hemminger, our Executive Director, will be 3 making a presentation a little bit later this evening, and 4 he will talk to you about some of the specific measures 5 who the revised ozone plan includes for transportation. 6 MTC's commitment to provide mobility, while 7 addressing air quality issues, remains strong. The latest 8 transportation control measures together with the measures 9 that have been implemented since 1982 collectively cover 10 the gamut of logistical and measurable emission control 11 strategies. 12 In addition, our current three-year funding 13 program and long-range regional transportation program 14 contain numerous air quality beneficial programs for 15 maintaining a viable regional transit system to measures 16 that will reinforce the transportation land-use 17 connection, that is much a topic of discussion these days. 18 So you have a plan before you that represents a 19 collaborative process for ample opportunity for public 20 input. Where we cannot make commitments to new control 21 measures today, we have committed to studying them in a 22 time that make your -- or that have a course in the year 23 2003. 24 Finally, speaking as a local public elected 25 official, we've been involved in transportation for a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 number of years and I'm not going to say how many years 2 because I have no life. I am deeply concerned about the 3 possibilities -- 4 Actually, Mark and I had discussed on numerous 5 occasions that neither one of us have a life. I am deeply 6 concerned about -- 7 (Laughter.) 8 MS. BROWN: Actually, he's schizoid too, but 9 we'll discuss that later. 10 (Laughter.) 11 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: They know that, Sharon. 12 MS. BROWN: We never publicly stated that until 13 recently. 14 (Laughter.) 15 MS. BROWN: I'm deeply concerned about the 16 possibility -- he's going to get me for this, you know 17 that. But I am deeply concerned about the possibility for 18 a transportation lapse in the Bay Area. 19 Many other transportation agencies are equally 20 concerned as evidenced by the letters we have provided you 21 today and previously. We can move forward with air 22 quality planning implementation and further control 23 measures without crippling the transportation program. 24 Many have worked long and hard on it for many, many years 25 including myself, to get their projects ready for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 implementation. 2 The MTC staff has counted about $1.3 billion 3 worth of projects to potentially be affected by a lapse. 4 Any delay to projected delivery will have some effect 5 on -- I'm sorry, any delay to projects will have some 6 effect on project delivery, whether it's cost increases, 7 going back to contractors to revise their schedules or 8 having to stop ongoing work because we'll no longer be 9 federally reimbursable. 10 A delay in these projects will also be very 11 difficult to explain to the public particularly since all 12 indications from air quality indicators are that they're 13 headed in the right direction. Our commission, therefore, 14 urges you to approve the revised ozone plan today so that 15 EPA can begin its review. 16 Thank you. If you have any questions, I'd be 17 glad to answer any questions? 18 Thank you very much. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. I think from the 20 last meeting there was a feeling that maybe MTC was 21 invisible, and clearly in the time frame since the last 22 time there has been a significant effort to pull the air 23 district together with the transportation commission. And 24 there are a lot of ways in which the transportation site 25 can also be working very closely reducing emissions, so we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 appreciate that. 2 MS. BROWN: Thank you very much. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dick Spees, Association of 4 Bay Area Governments. Ellen Garvey at -- 5 MR. SPEES: Good evening. I'm Councilmember Dick 6 Spees with the City of Oakland. I've been on the council 7 for 24 years -- not quite, 23 soon to be 24. 8 I'm also past president of ABAG. ABAG, as you 9 know, represents the 99 cities in the Bay Area as well as 10 the nine Bay Area counties. Our administrative committee 11 sat in the hearing on the plan for concessions, as you 12 know. And the administrative committee unanimously voted 13 to add it. I urge your passage. 14 My colleagues have done a good job of explaining 15 it, so I'm not going to go back through that, and all the 16 urgency that we feel to get this plan in place and to get 17 on with the job. 18 But I am troubled by the discussion around the 19 valley and the Bay Area. I'm concerned about that. As a 20 long-time regionalist, I'm very concerned about it. 21 Somehow, it doesn't pass the common sense test. If you 22 really look at the issue, we were out of containment in 23 the Bay Area a couple of hours for one day in Concord and 24 up in the valley -- up along the -- I'm sorry, Bethel 25 Island actually. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 What concerns me if you look at the same time, 2 the value was added on an average of about 27 days. I 3 remember distinctly back when we were out of containment 4 40 to 50 days. Now, if the proportions held true, and the 5 down wind concept held true, the value would have been out 6 of containment 100 days or more, right, if the proportions 7 were correct. 8 So what I'm concerned about is that we don't get 9 hung up on this issue, but work together to resolve the 10 issues. So I'm hopeful that you will pass this measure 11 tonight and get on with it, so we can get the work done 12 and underway, continue our studies, work together and 13 let's see what we can do in the future. So we really urge 14 you to get it passed tonight. 15 Thanks. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. I think 17 one of the things you highlighted there is the fact that 18 the atmosphere doesn't quite behave in that way, because 19 of the nonrelationship and the formation of ozone with 20 hydrocarbon and NOx. 21 And that's, of course, one of the things we're 22 grappling with here, is to get a model of the Bay Area, 23 which we don't have information in a couple of year's 24 time, we have the information, so we can get back to them 25 and see the interactions in a maximum and meaningful way PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 between down-wind areas and the up-wind areas. 2 Ellen Garvey. 3 MS. GARVEY: Chairman Lloyd and Members of the 4 Board, good evening, my name is Ellen Garvey and I am the 5 Executive Officer of the Bay Area Air Quality Management 6 District. I'm here this evening to urge you to adopt the 7 revised 2001 Bay Area ozone plan that is before you this 8 evening. 9 I feel very strongly that this plan will help not 10 only clean the air in the Bay Area but upgrade better air 11 and improved health for those who live in the valley in 12 their air districts. 13 There are four reasons why I feel we should adopt 14 this plan that's before you this evening. I'd like to 15 briefly summarize them. 16 First, this plan is a product, if you will, of 17 the best technical tools and analyses that are available 18 to us currently. As the Chairman mentioned just a moment 19 ago in his opening remarks, we were able to use the best 20 tools that are available to us, and we look forward to the 21 central California ozone study to provide us with some of 22 the additional tools that we don't yet have. 23 Based on the regulations whether they are 24 federal, whether they're state, or whether they're local, 25 the plan that is before you this evening will reduce PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 Volatile Organic Compounds by more than 20 percent and 2 will increase nitrogen oxides by almost 20 percent. This 3 is due, in large part, to the work that the California Air 4 Resources Board has done with respect to mobile sources 5 and the fuels industry. 6 It is complemented by the work that we have done 7 at the local level on stationary source control measures 8 as well as transportation control measures. 9 The second point I'd like to make is that this 10 plan is a significant improvement over the original plan 11 that was before you at your July 26th meeting in San 12 Francisco. And the main reason for that is because this 13 plan contains additional further study measures that go 14 beyond those reasonable available control measures that 15 were in the original version of the plan. 16 A few words about these measures. If you step 17 back and look at all of the work that we have done in the 18 region and, in fact, we have done in California, we have 19 already done all of the very easy cost effective measures. 20 They have been implemented not only in the Bay 21 Area, but in virtually every major metropolitan area 22 throughout California. In order for us to continue to 23 improve air quality in the Bay Area, we need to be 24 creative and continue to push the technological envelop 25 for what is feasible and what is cost effective. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 these further study measures they do just that. 2 There are 11 further study measures in the plan, 3 four of them are stationary source control measures and 4 seven of them are transportation control measures. You'll 5 hear in a moment from Steve Hemminger my counter-part at 6 the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, who will 7 discuss with you the transportation element to this plan. 8 But I'd like to focus my comments on the four 9 further study measures for stationary sources. These 10 measures will either force technology that hasn't yet been 11 implemented or used anywhere in California or, in deed, 12 anywhere in the nation, that's one point. The second 13 point is that many of these measures will be new and more 14 creative, in a sense that they will look at the individual 15 units at particular facilities and look to see what type 16 of technological advances from an air pollution standpoint 17 we can realize at these particular facilities. 18 In adopting the plan at the hearing last week 19 with the three regional planning agencies, the message to 20 staff was very clear from the Board, from all three 21 boards, and that was that staff was to evaluate fully 22 these further study measures in a manner that was as quick 23 as possible so that we can get these implemented, if, in 24 fact, they were feasible, as quickly as possible. And you 25 have a commitment from me this evening that we will do PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 just that. 2 The third point I want to make is that the plan 3 includes a commitment to reassess the ozone strategy 4 that's based on a mid-course review from new modeling 5 data, as well as new monitoring date that we will realize 6 as a result of the central California ozone study. This 7 study will be completed in 2003. And we have worked 8 cooperatively with our down-wind neighbors for the last 9 two to three years on this study, which is really 10 fundamental to us understanding how ozone is formed in 11 central California, how it is transported and the 12 additional work that we, as a region, and we, in the Bay 13 Area, need to do to make sure that ozone levels continue 14 to go down and air quality continues to improve. 15 We have made a commitment in the plan to do 16 whatever is necessary. Whatever the results of the 17 central California ozone study say, we, as a region, need 18 to do, and I'm speaking now for the Bay Area. You have a 19 commitment from me that we will do that and we made that 20 commitment in the plan. 21 Lastly, we heard your comments at your last 22 hearing regarding the community outreach process and a 23 strong desire, on your part, for us to continue that 24 process and hold additional public meetings to solicit 25 additional public input on this plan. We have held those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 meetings. We've had six additional meetings throughout 2 the nine Bay Area counties. 3 And these meetings they were very informative. 4 We learned about a whole host of issues. Many of the 5 issues we heard about related to the ozone plan that is in 6 front of you this evening. We heard about a whole host of 7 other issues related to the energy crisis, diesel 8 particulate, our toxic emissions control program, traffic 9 congestion, improved mobility, transit services, odor 10 control, our response to complaints. And we are not 11 letting any of these issues slip through the cracks. 12 If they are outside of the plan, I want you to 13 know that we are going to be following up on them with our 14 interested stakeholders to make sure that we are 15 responsive to these. 16 In response to the input that we received from 17 community meetings and in response to consultation with 18 the Air Resources Board, staff, as well as the 19 Environmental Protection Agency, community groups and 20 industry as well as environmental groups, we have made a 21 number of key revisions to the plan. 22 They include the further study measures that I 23 just mentioned, a commitment to achieve the additional 24 emission reductions we need by 2006, and a commitment to 25 relook at our plan based on the results of the central PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 California ozone study, and lastly a commitment to an open 2 and consultative process. 3 In conclusion, as my Chairman, Randy Attaway, 4 told you a moment ago, the Bay Area Air Quality Management 5 District is committed as ever to resolving the ozone 6 challenge that is before us today. And we want to resolve 7 it in a way that engages and involves as many stakeholders 8 in the community as possible, whether it's environmental 9 groups, industry or other government agencies. 10 And we have an opportunity to take a major step 11 towards that goal this evening. I urge you to adopt the 12 revised 2001 Bay Area ozone plan for the federal one-hour 13 standard and to transmit it to the EPA as quickly as 14 possible. 15 That concludes my presentation and I'd be happy 16 to answer any questions. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I have a question, Mr. 19 Chairman. I'd just like to know, did your board ever 20 consider including Smog Check 2 in your program? 21 MS. GARVEY: The Board has considered -- they 22 realize that Smog Check 2 may be coming to the Bay Area 23 through the transport mitigation process. And they 24 believe that that is the vehicle, if you will, to bring 25 Smog Check 2 to the Bay Area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: So was there discussion 2 about it, and then you decided there was a better and more 3 appropriate time to have it done or was there any 4 discussion about it whatsoever? 5 MS. GARVEY: The discussion over Smog Check 2 6 focused on our responsibility, if you will, as an up-wind 7 transport district to improve air quality down wind 8 through transport mitigation regulation. We have had a 9 number of other programs that we have implemented to this 10 end and my Board sees Smog Check as another step towards 11 taking us towards that goal. 12 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Ellen. 14 Steve Hemminger, Bill Haywood and George Smith. 15 MR. HEMMINGER: Good evening, Mr. Chair and 16 members of the Board. I'm Steve Hemminger. I'm the 17 executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation 18 Commission. I'm happy to be visible before you here 19 tonight, and I'm sure we will be seeing more of each other 20 as we work toward attainment of the ozone standard in 21 2006. 22 Like Mr. Jones, we did bring you some letters 23 that are in the blue packet. I'd especially like to draw 24 your attention to the last two. The second to the last 25 document is the official notification from the U.S. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 Department of Transportation to the Governor that we risk 2 a conformity lapse in the Bay Area by mid-January unless a 3 new conformity budget is approved. 4 And then the last document is a list of the 5 projects that are at risk. And I would draw your 6 attention not only to the volume of those projects, but 7 also to their variety, not just highway construction but 8 transit improvements around the region also would be 9 subject to delay and increased cost, if that lapse occurs. 10 There was some testimony at, I believe, your July 11 hearing that the lapse is something you don't need to 12 worry about, that they never really happen. They're just 13 something that's threatened and it doesn't occur. That's 14 not true. The Atlanta metropolitan area was in lapse for 15 two years and recently just emerged from it, and during 16 that time no federally assisted activities occurred. 17 There are two counties in Kentucky and one county 18 in Michigan that are currently in a lapse. And in those 19 areas no construction federally assisted is occurring. 20 But I want to be clear, we are not here tonight 21 asking you to approve just any old air quality plan so we 22 can avoid a lapse. We're asking you to approve a good 23 plan, so that we can avoid a lapse. This plan reduces 24 ozone precursors by 20 percent over current levels in six 25 years. And those current levels were good enough to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 register, as you've heard, only one violation of the 2 federal ozone standard this year. 3 This plan has five new transportation control 4 measures on top of the two dozen existing transportation 5 control measures that we have implemented over the years, 6 ranging from new express bus service in our region to 7 bicycle pedestrian projects around the Bay Area. 8 We've also included a commitment on MTC's behalf 9 to study seven additional transportation measures that 10 could help us meet the 26 additional tons per day in 11 emission reductions if needed to make attainment by 2006. 12 And like your district, we are committed and I can assure 13 you that your colleague, Mr. DeSaulnier, will ensure that 14 we study and implement those measures as quickly as 15 possible. 16 I'd like to conclude, however, by perhaps telling 17 you a little bit more about what we do, though, because 18 the SIP revision before you really is just a part of the 19 story of MTC's commitment to cleaner air and providing 20 moral alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel. Our 21 long range regional transportation plan really gives you 22 the broadest possible picture, and I'd like to conclude 23 with just a few fast facts from that plan, which is 24 scheduled for adoption by our commission in December. 25 The first is that it commits to fully maintaining PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 all the existing transit capital assets that exist in our 2 region. And, you know, those are quite significant, given 3 a variety of transit systems we have in the region, rail, 4 bus, ferry and cable car. We commit to fully funding that 5 transit capital rehabilitation need, despite the fact that 6 we don't fund $6 billion worth of local road repair 7 needed, that we have in the region, but we don't have the 8 money for it. So that's one clear indication of the 9 Commission's priorities for public transit. 10 Another indication is that of all the funding in 11 the plan over the next 25 years, some $80 billion, 80 12 percent is devoted to public transit in this region, which 13 is an extraordinary commitment on our behalf to provide 14 alternatives to people so that they don't have to just 15 drive around in automobiles. 16 Another commitment is that we are doubling the 17 size of our car pool lane network to provide another 18 incentive for bus travel and high occupancy vehicle 19 travel, people double and tripling up in their 20 automobiles, which is another way of not only using our 21 transportation systems more efficiently, but reducing 22 emissions. 23 We have some $600 million worth of new 24 investments in bicycle and pedestrian facilities in this 25 plan. And finally, I would note that in addition to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 20 percent reduction in emissions that we forecast for 2 this plan for the mobile source sector, we forecasted our 3 regional transportation plan from 2006 to 2025 an 4 additional two-thirds reduction in hydrocarbons and 5 one-third reduction in the NOx, and that reflects the 6 continuing commitment we have to public transit, to 7 alternatives, to the single occupant automobile, obviously 8 to continue the commitment you have, cleaning up vehicles 9 that people do drive. And we look forward to working with 10 you in a joint mission and urge you tonight to approve 11 this plan. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. One of 14 the, I think, staff presentations you had mentioned 15 creating of the transit fleet, is that happening? 16 MR. HEMMINGER: It is. Mr. Chairman, I think you 17 know that your board -- I don't think you know, I know you 18 know, that your board adopted a regulation that permits 19 the transit operators in the state to take one or two 20 paths. And I believe that you're hearing, I quoted Robert 21 Frost before. You may not up for frost, again, but the 22 point is that in our view those paths will eventually 23 coincide again with the new technology. 24 Many of the operators in California are pursuing 25 the CNG path. The Bay Area operators are pursuing the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 diesel path. We appreciate the fact that you permitted us 2 to do both. We also acknowledge the fact that you said 3 that for diesel operators they had to test zero emission 4 vehicles sooner, which we are committed to doing. And we 5 also believe, as I believe you do, that eventually all the 6 operators in California will not be using diesel or CNG. 7 They will be using some new technology and we are looking 8 forward to testing that. I guess it's coming up quite 9 soon in 2003, and ultimately transition into that. 10 We do have, as I think you know, some very large 11 clean fleets already, our rail systems are run on 12 electricity. The Muni system has a large portion of it in 13 San Francisco that's run on electricity, which is another 14 way we try to reduce emissions. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I appreciate that, and thank 16 you very much. At the Board meeting before last, there 17 was an admonishment from the Board of both the engine 18 manufacturers and the transit agencies, because we felt 19 that while we gave the transit agencies the dual path 20 approach, maybe there was some recalcitrance on some of 21 the districts there. So I'd hope that in your control 22 would be, again, urged to continue on the fast track, 23 because there is no interest to do that. 24 MR. HEMMINGER: We certainly will do so. In 25 fact, Mr. Chairman, we had a meeting yesterday of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 general managers of our major transit systems. This topic 2 was discussed and they clearly want to comply with the 3 letter and spirit of the regulations and we want to move 4 ahead as quickly as possible to that ultimate objective of 5 zero emission transit vehicles. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Great. The more we can get 7 out there the less we get in other areas. 8 Thank you very much. 9 MR. HEMMINGER: You're welcome. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Bill Haywood, WSPA, George 11 Smith, Harding ESE. 12 MR. HAYWOOD: Good evening. My name is Bill 13 Haywood. I'm the vice president for Ultramar Inc. and 14 general manager of the West Coast Refinery Golden Eagle 15 located in Martinez, California. 16 I also serve as the Chair of the RMT, Refining, 17 Manufacturers and Transportation Committee for WSPA, and 18 am also a member of BARC, the Bay Area Refining Committee. 19 And it's in that regard, that I speak to you this evening. 20 As you can consider the ozone attainment plan 21 before you, we feel it is important that you keep in mind 22 the context in which refineries operate in the Bay Area 23 both presently and in the past. 24 Virtually all the gasoline consumed in the Bay 25 Area, much of it in northern California, is refined in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 five local refineries operated by our member companies. 2 Collectively, we produce 6.6 billion gallons of gasoline 3 and 4.5 billion gallons of other fuels each year, pumping 4 over 1.1 billion per year into the Bay Area economy. 5 We provide 50,000 direct and indirect jobs as a 6 result of our operations, and pay over $105 million in 7 local fees and taxes. 8 Our refineries have invested $3.9 billion in 9 local capital improvements over the past decade. Our 10 clean air spending has averaged $50 million per year since 11 1995 with very impressive results. Since 1979, according 12 to our air district, Bay Area refineries have reduced 13 their emissions by 51 percent. Today, refineries account 14 for a mere 2.7 percent of the Bay Area's total emissions, 15 and only 3.4 percent of the VOC emissions. 16 In short, no other manufacturing industry has 17 done more in the past decade to clean the air. With only 18 3.4 percent of emissions, refineries are now being 19 required to provide 15 percent of the emission reductions 20 in the 2001 plan. Available air quality data shows 21 refinery controls will have little, if any, effect on 22 ozone attainment where it is truly needed in the Livermore 23 Valley. 24 That is why we are concerned that refineries are 25 being unduly targeted for a total of eight control PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 measures and study measures in this plan. WSPA has grave 2 concerns were the Board or EPA to return this plan for 3 further amendment to add additional control measures on 4 refineries. 5 Such action is not warranted, based on the 6 record. Significant study and discussion must occur 7 before any one of the intended study measures justify a 8 control measure. 9 WSPA supports adoption of the plan as published 10 in September 2001, despite our concern that it already 11 unduly focuses on the refiners. However, we strongly 12 oppose the imposition of additional control measures 13 beyond those already included in the plan. We firmly 14 believe such measures would yield minuscule environmental 15 benefits. And the associated procedural delay would 16 seriously jeopardize much needed transportation funding 17 for the Bay Area. 18 The Bay Area refineries invested hundreds of 19 millions of dollars in environmental improvements over the 20 past two decades and have achieved a track record of which 21 we are justifiably proud. Our refiners are committed to 22 working cooperatively with the air district to determine 23 how best to implement the control measures in this plan. 24 We will also dedicate our staff resources to 25 obtaining the best science and technology to determine the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 study measures which are reasonably achievable as required 2 by law. 3 Finally, refineries have not been as proactive as 4 we intend to be in keeping your board apprised of emerging 5 refinery issues. We promise to contact you more often in 6 the future in a more timely fashion as we come to 7 understand how important this information is to you. 8 We urge you to adopt the plan, as is, with no 9 further modification or delay. 10 I want to thank you very much for giving me the 11 time to address you this evening. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. I smile 13 here, because I think we got a lot of attention at the 14 last board meeting and several from there and other 15 groups. 16 Thank you very much. 17 George Smith, Harding ESE and Shanna O'Hare, City 18 of Oakland. 19 MR. SMITH: Good evening. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Excuse me, just before we 21 start. I understand, by the way, that I thought we had a 22 relatively short witness list. It's growing, and it's 23 gotten very long. So what I'm going to do with the 24 indulgence of the witnesses is limit it to three minutes 25 other wise we're going to be here till midnight. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 MR. SMITH: We'll try to do that in two minutes. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I've got a timer back there. 3 I hear what you're saying. Unfortunately, I 4 don't have any option, because I didn't -- I was looking 5 at one list, now I've got another one. But I understand, 6 I'm not happy about it either, but we have the option of 7 going all night and that's not just going to work. 8 MR. SMITH: We'll make it short. Good evening, 9 Dr. Lloyd and Board Members. My name is George Smith. 10 I'm the principle engineer with an environmental 11 engineering company calling Harding ESE. We're a national 12 firm with 75 offices nationwide. We have five offices 13 here in the Bay Area. We provide environmental 14 services -- 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Wait a minute now, you used 16 up half of your time on an advertisement for Harding and I 17 don't need that. 18 Tell us what you're going to do. 19 MR. SMITH: In reviewing the plan, it seems that 20 the focus on the refineries might be expecting too much 21 too soon. In looking at the myriad of process systems 22 involved, there are technology and safety issues to be 23 addressed. The plans require engineering technologies 24 that have yet to be engineered and installed. So this is 25 a tall order in the time frame specified. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 We heard last week in the meeting that even 2 shorter time lines were being encouraged. So we'd just 3 like to say that the quick fix is often attractive in 4 theory, but not feasible in terms of results achieved and 5 safety issues. In this instance, we were advised to 6 proceed with caution and against any unreasonable time 7 lines that lack flexibility. 8 We also recommend being open and considerate of 9 the scientific and engineering expertise that is available 10 on the path to improve air quality. 11 End of statement. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. I hear 13 you there, but I also recognize that, you know, probably 14 you get paid by the hour, so that a longer study time is 15 beneficial. 16 (Laughter) 17 MS. O'HARE: Chairman Lloyd, I'm Shanna O'Hare 18 with the City of Oakland Public Works Agency. Good 19 evening, I'm here as a representative of the custodian of 20 over 800 miles of local streets and roads. You heard 21 Steve Hemminger mention briefly that the amount of money 22 not going to local roads is very significant. That's one 23 of the reasons it's very paramount that we have to rely on 24 federal and state grants to maintain our system. 25 I'd like to put a bit of a face on the issue PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 before you tonight as I urge you to approve the revised 2 2001 plan. In Oakland we have a $1.1 million project in 3 that that will be delayed and we will lose that investment 4 entirely if this plan is not approved. 5 What that project does, even though it's a local 6 road project, and it tends to get thrown into the basket 7 of that's not a desirable project because it's not 8 transit. I'd like to tell you what this project does. 9 It's a 3rd Street extension in west Oakland. It's a 10 project that is directly going to serve our new AMTRAK 11 maintenance facility, which in turn is necessary to 12 service the new and expanding capital corridor service, 13 which, of course, is going to relieve Interstate 80, 580 14 and a number of other freeways by getting more people on 15 rail transit. 16 It's also going to serve emerging West Oakland 17 transit at a low-income, high unemployment rate of west 18 Oakland, that is currently going through redevelopment. 19 This project additionally includes facilities for 20 bicycles and pedestrians is a key link in the San 21 Francisco Bay trail. It will also include a new signal to 22 help pedestrians crossing streets that are accessing the 23 BART station. 24 So while it is going to be delayed and lost if 25 this plan is not approved, we would urge you not to allow PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 this investment to literally be thrown away. We worked 2 very hard to get these grants and we really can't afford 3 to have it go by the way of the wind, so thanks for your 4 consideration. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. Dennis 6 Fay, Margaret Bruce, Richard Napier. 7 An important message from my senior policy 8 advisor, World Series, Arizona 2 New York 0 bottom of the 9 6th. 10 MR. FAY: I guess I've been upstaged. 11 Good evening. My name is Dennis Fay. I'm the 12 Executive Director of the ALameda County Congestion 13 Management Agency, and welcome to Alameda County. 14 I'd like to thank this board and its predecessors 15 and all those that work so hard on air quality in 16 California, because my observation in the 30 years I've 17 lived here in California, air quality in the bay region 18 has gotten much better. It was horrendous in 1971 when I 19 moved here and it's dramatically improved over the years. 20 You have a letter from my Chair Tom Pico 21 requesting that you approve the revised plan at your 22 meeting today. And why would we want you to approve it? 23 You've heard about the impact on transportation 24 projects. You've heard that it's more than just highway 25 projects that might be delayed. Let me just give you a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 few examples in Alameda County of projects, not highway 2 projects directly, that would be impacted. 3 We're about to build a transit center that would 4 provide access for the Dumbarton Bridge bus express 5 service. That would be delayed if we're not able to move 6 forward. A couple of carpool lane projects in Alameda 7 County, one approaching the Dumbarton Bridge and one 8 approaching on 880 in the Silicon valley a very high 9 destination location for jobs in this region. Those two 10 projects would be delayed. 11 In addition to that, AC Transit, our local bus 12 operator there has purchased some buses which would 13 increase the service through some low-income neighborhoods 14 and, in fact, that service starts just on the other side 15 Oakland City Hall behind you here on San Pablo Avenue and 16 goes up into Contra Costa County. Again that purchase of 17 buses would be delayed if anything happens. 18 So I'm here to urge you to go forward with this 19 plan. And if you have any questions, I'll try and answer 20 them. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And I think the Board 22 certainly recognizes the topic and I understand what's at 23 stake here. I appreciate that. 24 Now, we've got, I guess, a new list, Marcie 25 Keever, George Britton, Maria Brown, AJ Napolis and Julia PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 May. 2 MS. BRUCE: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name 3 is Margaret Bruce and I'm the environmental programs 4 director for the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Fine. 6 MS. BRUCE: Thank you for allowing me to speak. 7 On behalf of the 190-member companies in the 8 Silicon Valley Manufacturing group, which works on a 9 variety of quality of life and public policy issues, we 10 strongly urge you to adopt the plan as proposed by your 11 staff. 12 We believe that this is a very good plan. 13 Improved air quality is in everyone's interest, and we 14 believe that the plan will improve air quality. We 15 applaud further the intention of this plan to accelerate 16 the feasibility studies and applaud the outreach efforts 17 that have so enriched the development of this plan. 18 Further, the consequences of having the 19 conformity lapse in this plan would so devastate the 20 transportation projects that are necessary to continue the 21 maintenance, in fact, bring up the infrastructure of our 22 transportation systems throughout the Bay Area. 23 The consequences of not adopting this plan would 24 be very serious. For those reasons we urge you to adopt 25 it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 Thank you very much. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 3 We have Marcie Keever, George Britton, and Maria 4 Brown. 5 MR. NAPIER: I thought you had said Richard 6 Napier. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I've got a new list 8 apparently. 9 MS. KEEVER: Hi, I'm Marcie Keever, and I'm staff 10 attorney at the Environmental Law And Justice Clinic at 11 Golden Gate University. I'm making these comments this 12 evening on behalf of Our Children's Earth. 13 The ozone attainment plan for the one-hour 14 national ozone standard, as approved by the agencies, on 15 October 24th remains inadequate and illegal. The plan 16 before you tonight is the exact same plan that the 17 agencies approved in July. 18 The agencies have yet to propose a plan that will 19 achieve ozone attainment in the Bay Area. The plan 20 continues to violate the requirements of the Clean Air Act 21 and the California Environmental Quality Act. It does not 22 do enough to pull the Bay Area into attainment for ozone. 23 This Board should reject the plan and require the 24 agencies to include measures in the plan that will provide 25 for real reductions in VOCs and NOx, so ozone attainment PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 can actually be achieved in the Bay Area. 2 The following are just a few issues that we have 3 of the current plan. First, instead of providing clearly 4 defined and enforceable control measures to obtain an 5 additional 26 tons per day reductions in VOC's, agencies 6 continue to give us the big promise that they commit to 7 adopt measures some time in the future. 8 The Clean Air Act requires that State 9 implementation plans to include enforceable emission 10 limitations. And here, due to the inadequacy of the plans 11 measures, the agencies are still unable to show that the 12 Bay Area will reach attainment for the federal one-hour 13 ozone standard by 2006. 14 This is what the agencies have done for the last 15 20 years. They have promised to try to reach attainment 16 and have yet to achieve enough ozone reductions. We are 17 still out of attainment. Why should public health wait 18 until 2003 or 2006 when there are measures available now 19 to get the Bay Area into attainment. 20 Agencies -- 21 (Applause.) 22 MS. KEEVER: Agencies who promise to adopt 23 measures do not relieve the agencies of the responsibility 24 to repair an acceptable plan. If this promise is 25 acceptable under the Clean Air Act, agencies would not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 have to produce a plan at all. A mere promise to EPA to 2 reduce pollutants would suffice. 3 And while we do support the use of the central 4 California ozone study to track attainment, but promise to 5 adopt or potentially not adopt future measures based on 6 the outcome of the study is not a legally acceptable 7 substitute for the submission of a complete plan that 8 describes how its control strategy will achieve attainment 9 by clean air. 10 Second, that agencies have what's available now 11 that will help achieve the goal of 26 more tons of 12 reductions. We and other groups in the Bay Area have 13 suggested these available measures and on numerous written 14 comments would ask that the plan incorporate these 15 measures. 16 Finally, given the inadequacies of the plan, we 17 still believe that to be a fair argument, that growth in 18 the Bay Area and the agencies failure to enforce air 19 pollution control measures will cause significant impacts 20 to air quality and the environment and necessitate a 21 reduction of environmental impacts. 22 In conclusion, the clinic and Our Children's 23 Earth request that this plan be rejected by this Board 24 until the agencies adopt enforceable measures to meet the 25 26 ton shortfall. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Could the legal 2 counsel just comment on the legality of this plan. 3 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Yes. We have reviewed 4 the plan with the staff and concluded that it is legally 5 sufficient to be submitted for approval to be approved by 6 this Board and submitted to U.S. EPA. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 8 MR. BRITTON: Thank you. I'm George Britton, 9 Deputy City Manager of Modesto. 10 I appreciate the effort of your staff and of the 11 agencies which have put together, I believe, an 12 aggressive -- 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What have you done to Ms. 14 D'Adamo. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: It's nothing personal. 16 (Laughter.) 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: City of Modesto. 18 (Laughter.) 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I will stay. 20 MR. BRITTON: I hope that comes out of someone 21 else's time. 22 (Laughter.) 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I was going to stretch my 24 legs, but now I'm going to sit down. 25 (Laughter.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I'll leave. 2 (Laughter.) 3 MR. BRITTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I 4 appreciate that observation. 5 Let me commend the staff for the effort that has 6 been brought into this plan and let me make some 7 observations. And I would hope the Board, as we struggle 8 with a very difficult challenge in front of you will 9 consider this. 10 In 1990, air transport was shown to be a 11 significant problem for air quality in the central valley. 12 In 1993 this Board's own study identified air transport as 13 a significant problem for ozone attainment in the San 14 Joaquin valley. 15 From 1996 to 1999 studies indicated that air 16 transport could contribute up to 27 percent of the 17 precursors for smog ozone violations in the San Joaquin 18 Valley. 19 You're now faced with a plan which, while 20 aggressive, says trust us again, let us study. Trust us 21 again and let us study the use of an already proved tool, 22 called Smog Check 2, which is applicable to every other 23 urban region in California. 24 Trust us again to study something else, so 25 perhaps what we have already known since 1990 can be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 addressed through an easier maybe less onerous, maybe less 2 expensive tool. 3 Three million people in the central valley depend 4 on your decision to protect us. Three million people 5 depend on your willingness to make very difficult choices 6 based on good science. Is there any debate about the 7 efficacy of Smog Check 2? I would suggest none. It is a 8 proven technology. 9 Is there any debate about air transport? No, I'd 10 suggest none, not since 1990, and not since certainly your 11 own studies of the late 1990s. We ask you tonight to 12 adopt Smog Check 2 as an element of this plan. We 13 understand that there are issues with funding, but those 14 are the keys to their own sell, which they put in front of 15 you. Those are decisions which have been made either 16 through delay or otherwise. 17 You now have the balance of the health and 18 welfare of three million people over the mountain with the 19 issues and the known facts and the very difficult choices 20 that face you tonight. 21 I would ask that you look at the record of 11 22 years, you look at the success of Smog Check 2 throughout 23 the state of California and please look to the health of 24 three million people. 25 I appreciate it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 2 (Applause.) 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Questions from the Board? 4 Thank you. 5 Maria Brown, AJ Napolis, Julia May, Greg Karras. 6 MS. BROWN: Good evening. My name is Maria 7 Brown. I live in Rio Vista, which is near there, which is 8 on the side of the Tosco refinery. I'm here, again, to 9 ask you to not make us wait any longer for changes. 10 We had a death last week in the neighborhood of 11 cancer. I brought a little companion with me who is 17 12 years old and lost her hearing in one ear already from the 13 '94 spill. How's that for not having a life. 14 Okay, thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 16 Thank you very much. 17 Next we have AJ Napolis, Julia May. 18 MR. NAPOLIS: Chairman Lloyd and members of the 19 Board, my name is AJ Napolis, and I'm the program director 20 for the northern California Communities for a Better 21 Environment. 22 The whole attack on the City of New York has made 23 us truly concerned with the realities of terror. The 24 current anthrax concern also reminds us that breathing 25 poisonous air is a serious concern for all. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 We are also starting to hear that at Ground Zero 2 cleanup workers are now being exposed to breathing toxic 3 air as they clean up debris of the twin tours. Well, 4 guests what? Many of our members who are here today live 5 along the fence line of the refinery and power plant 6 communities and they live in constant fear of an 7 experience on a daily basis of chemical spills, daily 8 refinery emissions and breathing poisonous air. 9 The disproportionate impact of this terror is 10 felt day-in and day-out by low-income and minority 11 citizens in the Bay Area. Many residents facing your 12 health problems associated with air pollution, including 13 childhood asthma and other health problems. 14 And while at the national level we attempt to 15 respond decisively to outside threats that impact our 16 health and our way of life on a regional level the air 17 district cannot respond with the same urgency. 18 Instead, the air district would have us all 19 believe that the loss of transportation funding is more 20 important than public health. What the priority dollars 21 or our people's lives. 22 In a recent Chronicle article, a staff writer 23 states, and I quote, "Forget Anthrax, Small Pox and 24 Bubonic Plague, people in Richmond and Benicia and 25 Martinez should be more concerned about Equilon, Ultramar, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 Tosco and Walero. This is a bigger public health concern 2 than the current bio-terrorism hysteria gripping the 3 citizenry," end of quote. 4 I submit that the public health of our children 5 and our elderly is a bigger public health concern than the 6 perceived loss of transportation dollars. Nevertheless, 7 MTC, representatives of ABAG, AQMD approved the second 8 draft plan, and the priority is very clear. 9 The ball is now in your court. You must decide 10 whether or not to adopt the second draft of the clean air 11 plan. In making this important decision, I urge you to 12 consider the environmental justice principles that your 13 body is set to adopt in December of 2001, a copy of these 14 principles you now have before you. 15 These principles make it clear that ARB's goal is 16 to ensure that low-income and minority communities fully 17 participate in our public process and share in the air 18 quality benefits. 19 The second draft plan before you violates these 20 very principles that are being proposed by the ARB EJ 21 guidelines on a number of points. 22 First, there's no integration of environmental 23 justice into the plan. Second, poor planning, public 24 notification and outreach give little opportunity for 25 low-income or minority communities to provide input. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 In fact, the environmental justice groups and Bay 2 Area residents who did attend these meetings made specific 3 recommendations during six poorly noticed public 4 workshops, and the air district completely ignored these 5 suggestions and made no substantial changes to the plan. 6 And yet we're led to believe that with the other 7 meetings coming forward and with the commitment from the 8 Air District that this will occur. I think not. 9 Third, there are no specific measures to reduce 10 26 tons of emissions. Instead, there are commitments, and 11 further studies. And, fourth what is the plan not to 12 consider or reduce cumulative effects and health risks. 13 A final principle, and I'm almost done is the 14 ARB's proposed policy is to strengthen the enforcement 15 activities at a community level across the state. This is 16 where you come in. Many environmental justice advocates 17 in the Bay Area and throughout the state are watching the 18 decisiveness and the willingness of this board to make a 19 decision that is in the best interests of the public 20 health, and to enforce state and federal requirements. 21 The decision you make today will greatly 22 influence how the environmental justice community will 23 support ARB'S proposed EJ principles and your commitment 24 to low-income and minority communities. Simply stated, 25 can this Board walk the talk? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 Today Americans across the country are rallying 2 around a fundamental and cherished type of ideal, a 3 principle, if you will, who will not allow outside threats 4 to change our way of life. Similarly, we ask that you 5 stand by your proposed environmental justice principles, 6 and allow our communities to continue with their way of 7 life in a healthy and fruitful manner. This is your 8 challenge, correct or reject the plan. Our communities 9 deserve a better environment. 10 Thank you very much. 11 (Applause.) 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'd just like to point out 13 EJ, as you know, this is work that the staff has been 14 working on with the Board and we'll be delivering on this 15 in December as you know, so this is not an endorsement by 16 the Board. 17 MR. NAPOLIS: I know that. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think the other part I've 19 tried to illustrate early on, in this particular plan we 20 are looking at the ozone issue. What you're addressing, I 21 think, are legitimate issues in terms of toxics in there, 22 which is slightly different than the ozone plan. It's 23 related to obviously human health. 24 We now have Julia May, Greg Karras and John 25 Holtzclaw. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 MS. MAY: I'm Julia May. I threw out my 2 testimony because there were so many mischaracterizations 3 of the facts provided tonight, I almost don't know what to 4 say. And I think people are feeling very low key and 5 rather depressed because it seems we're afraid that this 6 is headed towards adoption. 7 I want to respond to what you said just now. 8 First, I have to thank this Board. I thank you for what 9 you did at the last hearing. You threw the bad plan back 10 to the district, but the plan has not changed at all and 11 that's why we're very sad tonight that it seems that it's 12 headed for adoption. 13 Toxics in the community is not separate from the 14 ozone attainment plan. VOCs and NOx that cause the 15 formation of ground level ozone start from someplace. 16 They start from the large sources, the heavy industry, the 17 refineries and power plants where people breathe these 18 toxics. Then they go into the region and react to cause 19 smog to form and we are out of attainment with that plan. 20 (Thereupon a sign fell over.) 21 MS. MAY: Bad air is bad for you. 22 (Laughter.) 23 MS. MAY: We're out of attainment with the ozone 24 plan. We need to reduce the precursors that cause 25 regional smog and that hurt people in the neighborhoods. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 And then they go off and on days when we have clean, 2 supposedly clean air in the Bay Area, they blow away the 3 central valley where people have even worse air. 4 Now, last time EPA told this Board that they 5 believed that we need another 23 tons of reduction above 6 what is in the plan to reach attainment, the Board kicked 7 it back to the district. 8 They're coming back, but there is no commitment 9 to an additional 26 tons contrary to the slide you saw. 10 There is nothing in the plan that gives a commitment to 26 11 tons. It says by the year 2003, they will have completed 12 the study to decide whether or not they meet any 13 additional reductions. 14 We don't have 271 tons of reductions as the slide 15 showed. We have 12.5 tons in this plan. The additional 16 measures were adopted last December in the state plan. 17 This federal plan is only 12.5 tons per day inland. 18 Since the last hearing, the district found out 19 that there's another 13 tons of VOC emissions just from 20 refinery flares. If you read the plan, you will see -- 21 before in the last plan it said 0.1 tons per day from 22 refinery flares. We asked them to review this. We 23 provided evidence from the district. They reviewed it. 24 We thank them for this. This is one of the best things 25 that has happened. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 They found an additional 13 tons a day of 2 emissions just from this one refinery source, more than 3 the entire amount of reduction currently in the plan. 4 They also looked at the waste water ponds, which we would 5 like to see enclosed; the pressure relief valves, which 6 should be banned from venting into the atmosphere; marine 7 vessels, which need further controls. They agreed that 8 these are feasible measures, technologically feasible and 9 that there are huge emissions associated with them. There 10 has not been one additional ton of reduction added to the 11 plan. 12 We agree with the gentleman who spoke about not 13 wanting to see further studies. We do appreciate the 14 efforts of Supervisor DeSaulnier to speed up this process, 15 but the problem is right now there's no commitment to 16 anything in the plan. The Clean Air Act says you have to 17 identify measures to reach the reduction, you have to 18 decide how much you need. And what we're being told is we 19 think we needed the 26 tons, but we're going to wait a 20 couple years before we decide. 21 There's some feasible measures, but we're going 22 to study them and decide later. And these issues are 23 unrelated to the sources that cause the smog precursors. 24 That information is wrong. We urge you to reject or 25 correct this plan, please. I just don't know what to say PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 anymore about this, but we are at the mercy of this Board 2 to do the right thing. 3 Do you have any questions? 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Julia. I 5 appreciate, by the way, I'm aware of this and aware of the 6 workings of CBE with the district and with the ARB. It 7 has been very much appreciated. It's a tough job when we 8 sat together at that meeting there, and believe me, we 9 looked and pushed staff to try to find and identify these 10 measures, and I know Supervisor DeSaulnier as well. It's 11 frustrated me probably as much as you, but I think what 12 you heard tonight is a commitment from this board to try 13 to expedite the process, a commitment from the Bay Area 14 Board from their Chairman, their Executive Officer there. 15 And I think working with you we can accomplish 16 this. It's going to be tough, and I appreciate you 17 separating -- because I hear what you're saying about the 18 toxics and whatnot, but there is a differences, because 19 ozone is forming from the chemical and some other toxics 20 such as Benzene are very slow actors if at all, so it's 21 not -- it's apples and oranges in some of these cases. 22 So this evening you've got to focus on just the 23 small amount of the standard. We have to work together 24 very hard on all those other issues including obviously 25 we're going to have an extended discussion in December on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 some of the toxics on the EJ issues and demonstrate it. 2 MS. MAY: We look forward to working with you. 3 My colleague, one of our staff members will give you more 4 detail about how blatantly illegal the plan is, so we 5 don't think you can adopt this plan tonight. 6 Thanks for your consideration. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 8 Greg Karras, John Holtzclaw and Judith Lamare. 9 MR. KARRAS: Good evening. I'm Greg Karras. I 10 live in San Francisco. I'm here as someone who breathes 11 the air and lives in the Bay Area. I work at CBE as a 12 scientist. I'm proud of that, especially tonight. 13 I used to work for the Air Board and traveled to 14 the City. I will add to that today. 15 I'm speaking for myself and I'm going to be blunt 16 and respectful of your intelligence and of your time. 17 This is a sham. You've got this big concept that 18 was put before you that we've done so much that we can't 19 do anymore. What do you say to the fact that you've got 20 big, big power plants in southeast San Francisco, two of 21 them that have absolutely no air pollution control devices 22 on them at all. They inject water. That does reduce the 23 NOx. I hope you know, you certainly should, that when 24 they're building plants all over the Bay Area all over the 25 state that are adding to the pollution, they're putting in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 controls. This plan would not do that. 2 Refineries you probably know they used to run 3 gasoline out in the rivers back when they made lamp oil, 4 before there were cars. It was a by-product. They 5 externalized it. They don't do that today. 6 They've got gases, hundreds of thousands of tons 7 of them. They run them out into the air. They burn them, 8 not everywhere. A lot of them are already recycling 9 those. So don't tell me, don't tell the community that 10 there's nothing more than can be done right now. 11 And on the billions of dollars or millions of 12 dollars that they've spent. Well, the refineries profits, 13 and I've been reading their annual reports, they're in the 14 billions. And they've been going up year by year. They 15 don't talk about that. 16 In terms of more study, I'm a scientist. I think 17 some of you are too. It's really important and science 18 always answers questions and then asks more. But it 19 perverts science and it's bad for science as well as the 20 community when it's used as a shield to hide an answer 21 that you already have to say we're going to study it more. 22 You can study and find more questions and never do 23 anything, but there's things that you should do or people 24 will suffer. 25 I'm also here today for Nancy and Lavonia who PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 were friends of mine. I grew up with Nancy. She was my 2 cousin. Since today is the first day of the day of the 3 dead and it's a tradition in some of the communities in 4 Mexico and California to go out at midnight to the 5 cemetery and put the things that your loved ones who have 6 died like, like they're alive, give them those things and 7 come back the next day and celebrate. 8 I want to tell you that I went to the funerals, 9 both of them. Nancy was my cousin and Lavonia, and other 10 people here know too, both of them worked to help educate 11 and fight for education for young people in the poor 12 communities. 13 Schools emptied out those days to go to those 14 funerals, and they were really missed. And I know that 15 what they would want you to put on their graves is a 16 correct plan that does what you know can be done today. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 19 (Applause.) 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: John Holtzclaw, Judith Lamare 21 and Betty Turner. 22 MR. HOLTZCLAW: Chair Lloyd and Members of the 23 Board, I'm John Holtzclaw, and I'm here representing the 24 Sierra Club tonight. The Bay Area exceeded the federal 25 standards this summer, a very cold summer. What's going PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 to be the result in a normal summer? 2 Much of the reductions predicted from this plan 3 depend upon reductions in tailpipe emissions, which come 4 under question as not only vehicle miles traveled, but 5 vehicle miles traveled per capita continue to go up. As a 6 taking economy results in questionable fleet turnover, and 7 what we believe are too optimistic assumptions for the 8 impacts of the inspection and maintenance, I would ask you 9 to require Smog Check 2 for the Bay Area minus test only 10 Smog Check 2 for the Bay Area. 11 Second, I request that you require MTC to adopt 12 transportation control measures that result in no net 13 increase in vehicle miles traveled per capita, no increase 14 per capita. We have asked for this a number of times. We 15 asked in 1999 and 2000 MTC to adopt four transportation 16 control measures. One would require smart growth around 17 stations, transit stations, build transit rather than 18 highway expansion, and require parking cash out and 19 parking charges in commercial locations. We think that 20 would achieve no net increase in vehicle miles traveled 21 per capita. 22 In 1994, MTC evaluated what we call the Raft 23 Alternative, they had three of those smart growth, 24 transit, and parking cash out. And it achieved 80 percent 25 of the reduction vehicle miles traveled to no net increase PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 in vehicle miles traveled per capita. All we need is that 2 one more charge around in commercial locations. We can 3 probably achieve no net increase per capita. 4 We asked MTC to adopt that. MTC said they didn't 5 have the authority to do it. Your counsel informed MTC 6 they did have the authority to adopt those measures. So 7 we ask that those measures be adopted and we ask, 8 additionally, that you adopt additional limitations on 9 power plant and the refinery measures as requested by the 10 communities. 11 Thank you. 12 (Applause.) 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 14 MS. LAMARE: Mr. Chairman and members. I'm 15 Judith Lamare. I'm representing the Cleaner Air 16 Partnership. That's an air quality coalition in the 17 Sacramento region bringing together business, environment, 18 public health and government. I know the Board members 19 have received letters from many of our steering committee 20 members on a wide range of folks in the Sacramento region 21 urging you to include the enhanced Smog Check program in 22 the Bay Area SIP. 23 And you ask well, what does that have to do with 24 ozone attainment? I think there's a very clear and direct 25 relationship between the ozone attainment in the Bay Area PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 and imposing an enhanced Smog Check program in the Bay 2 Area that's equivalent to the one we have now, and that's 3 called All Feasible Measures. Clean air plans must 4 include all feasible measures. 5 We know dealing with a lot of uncertainty, 6 there's no secure path, there's no clear science that 7 tells you definitively what attainment strategy will work 8 with the Bay Area. As others have said we've been very 9 close for a very long time. 10 Now, a little story from Sacramento. In 1994, 11 our strategy was NOx limited will reduce NOx. But the 12 California Air Resources Board said no, you must reduce 13 hydrocarbons and NOx. And we said this is very onerous on 14 a very few businesses that we have. We have very few 15 sources. They're smaller. This just doesn't make sense 16 to impose these feasible measures on us when it doesn't 17 really help with our ozone attainment. 18 But instead of giving us the benefit of the 19 doubt, ARB did require a number of stationary source 20 measures in the Sacramento region, which is mobile source 21 driven. And, in fact, we did adopt expensive and time 22 consuming rules and took up a lot of staff time and board 23 time doing this, because the ARB insisted that we must 24 have all feasible measures in our plan. 25 It sounds good, but now the shoe is on the other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 foot, and we certainly expect ARB to make the same 2 requirement for the Bay Area. 3 We realize that you have heard from our 4 Congressman. And our congressman Matsui has been talking 5 to EPA and other congressional delegates. I just want to 6 say to the ARB board, I don't know why you would want 7 conflict that's really internal to California to be 8 climbing up into the D.C. arena. It doesn't make sense. 9 It makes you look bad, and I think we really have 10 opportunities here in California to work together if your 11 board adopts this plan tonight, without making amendments 12 that will help make it palettable to the regions outside 13 the Bay Area. I think you're going to find that the 14 conflict simply escalates. It's leaving a very bad taste 15 in the central valley. 16 Why would this state board want to adopt a plan 17 that has created so much controversy and a distrust and a 18 sense of dis-ease in the state. 19 A lot of boundaries that we're dealing with here 20 are quite arbitrary. Someone else could come along and 21 say oh, I think we need a plan that includes San Joaquin, 22 Sacramento and the Bay Area in one plan, why not. Well, 23 we just have these artificial boundaries and designs that 24 we've been working with, and we need to cling to those 25 artificialities sometime to make policy-making easier. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 But believe me, if we were united in this 2 northern California, central California region, we would 3 be extremely strong, innovative and we would be capable of 4 taking on the air quality transportation and land use 5 challenges that we're facing. By splitting up the Bay 6 Area, the plan deals with ozone one hour, we'll deal with 7 a transport some other day. And fragmenting our air 8 quality plan we're weakening ourselves. 9 I urge the Board to amend the plan tonight, send 10 it on its way with some good amendments. I urge the Board 11 to ask staff to work with these districts, the bay 12 district, the valley district, and their communities so 13 that we can truly be working together for air quality we 14 all deserve. 15 Thank you. 16 (Applause.) 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Betty Turner, 18 Cindy Tuck. 19 MS. TURNER: Good evening. My name is Betty 20 Turner. Thank you for allowing me to speak, Dr. Lloyd and 21 members of the Board. I represent the American Lung 22 Association of Sacramento, Emigrant Trails, which is a 23 local affiliate of the ALA of California. 24 Our mission in Sacramento is clean air, healthy 25 lungs and the elimination of lung disease. So I'm here to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 speak on behalf of our local affiliate, but also to state 2 that we share the views of ALA of California as stated to 3 you in a letter to you, Dr. Lloyd, dated October 31st. 4 I'm sure you received it. And I also appear here on 5 behalf of our state office. 6 For many years we in Sacramento have worked to 7 achieve healthy air as part of the air quality planning 8 process for our region. We have worked to create public 9 and business partnerships for an effective air quality 10 plan, and we're working just now on an expanded clean air 11 agenda to address transportation and land use measures 12 that support healthy air. 13 We don't have to tell you how difficult it is to 14 reach and maintain healthy air quality. You all know 15 that. In spite of our efforts using all feasible 16 measures, the Sacramento metropolitan area doesn't yet 17 have sufficient measures to achieve attainment. The 18 continuing transport of an excess of emissions from the 19 Bay Area makes our attainment even more difficult as many 20 have testified. 21 Time is running out for us. We are up against 22 deadlines more stringent than those faced by the Bay Area. 23 Thus, today we urge the Air Resources Board in your action 24 on the Bay Area plan to include all measures that are 25 reasonably available as required by the Clean Air Act. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 Specifically, we continue to urge that the ARB 2 act to reduce emissions transported from the Bay Area by 3 requiring that the Bay Area plan include the Smog Check 2 4 program. If Smog Check 2 were implemented in the Bay 5 Area, your staff has estimated that nine tons per day of 6 ROG and nine tons per day of NOx would be reduced by 2005. 7 Smog Check 2 is being implemented in every other 8 urban area in California. Clearly it is reasonably 9 available. 10 The Sacramento metropolitan area has an ozone 11 attainment date of 2005, and received both significant and 12 overwhelming, at times transport from the Bay Area. We 13 cannot afford to wait while the Bay Area reevaluates its 14 plan as proposed. Enough is known about the transport of 15 emissions from the Bay Area to take action now to mitigate 16 them. 17 In fairness to all who are affected by your 18 action today, we strongly urge your board to include Smog 19 Check 2 in the revised 2001 San Francisco Bay Area Ozone 20 Attainment Plan for the one-hour national ozone standard. 21 If, in its wisdom, your board requires that Smog 22 Check 2 be included in the plan, we could enthusiastically 23 support the plan. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 Cindy Tuck, then Richard Napier and Bruce 2 Stewart. 3 MS. TUCK: Thank you, Chairman Lloyd and Members 4 of the Board. My name is Cindy Tuck. I'm the general 5 counsel with California Council for Environmental and 6 Economic Balance. CEEB is a coalition with business 7 members, labor members and public members. And tonight we 8 support your staff's recommendation and urge the Board to 9 approve the plan for two reasons. 10 The first is that the plan is based on a 11 conservative attainment demonstration. All indications 12 are that implementation of this plan and fulfillment of 13 the commitments will achieve the federal one-hour ozone 14 standard for the Bay Area. That's the purpose of the 15 plan. It does what it's supposed to do. 16 The second reason, as you have heard tonight, is 17 a strong concern on Steve's part about the conforming 18 lapse. Our concern is about the suspension of federal 19 funding, but we're also concerned about the impacts on 20 jobs from that suspension of federal funding. And as you 21 know, this isn't the time to do something that hurts 22 California's economy or the Bay Area economy. 23 Now, we think having heard some of the comments 24 tonight and participated in the process throughout, there 25 are some concerns that the Board members may be wrestling PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 with in deciding how you're going to vote, and I'd just 2 like to touch on those briefly. 3 The first one is Smog Check 2. We understand the 4 valley's concerns, but as everybody here knows, this is a 5 very difficult issue with political concerns, legal 6 problems and technical problems. All those issues need to 7 be discussed thoroughly in a public process. ARB is 8 starting that process, and we urge that that go forward 9 and that all the parties participate and come to the table 10 to work out those issues. We think that's the right 11 place. 12 The second concern that you might be weighing is 13 the further study measures, certainly some of the 14 stakeholders would like the plan to go back, be amended 15 and have the further study measures incorporated as actual 16 control measures now. 17 We urge that the Board endorse the approach that 18 the three local agencies, or regional agencies took by 19 committing to the expedited review. And we would 20 affirmatively suggest that time be built into that process 21 that you ensure that the stakeholders have time for notice 22 of meetings and time to review the processes to comment on 23 issues of safety and such. 24 Moving quickly on process. There have been 25 concerns about process, but one thing is we participated PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 in five of the six community meetings. And I think the 2 good news is that everyone, including CEEB, has learned a 3 lot about process and improvements in the future. 4 So getting back to the bottom line, we urge the 5 Board to approve the plan. I'd be glad to answer any 6 questions. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 8 MS. TUCK: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Richard Napier, Bruce Stewart 10 and then John Sakamoto. Then we'll take a break for the 11 court reporter. 12 MR. NAPIER: My name is Richard Napier. I'm the 13 Executive Director for the City and County Association of 14 Government, representing Mike Sher, Jim Hartnett who sent 15 a letter into the Board. 16 Chair Lloyd and Board Members, I would just like 17 to make a few brief comments. I think it's important that 18 we keep in perspective of the level of nonconformity. 19 It's met over 99 percent of the time. I think, as your 20 staff has mentioned, there's some significant emission 21 reductions that can come out of this plan, which would 22 improve air quality. 23 As some of the other speakers have said, there is 24 a large potential to do -- a lasting potential to do more 25 harm than good and have a negative impact on the air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 quality. 2 Since the July meeting there has been extensive 3 collaboration among the stakeholders, which I think is 4 critical to the improvements in the plan. This plan would 5 affect 11 projects in San Mateo County, which could have a 6 negative impact, both on transportation and air quality. 7 I would urge you that was focused on by Chairman 8 Lloyd, this is dealing with just the ozone plan and should 9 not be held up by other issues that can potentially be 10 addressed in a better process. 11 On behalf of the 20 cities and counties in San 12 Mateo County, I would urge the approval of the ozone plan 13 as submitted by the three agencies. Thank you for the 14 time. And I'll respond to any comments you might have. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 16 Bruce Stewart then John Sakamoto. 17 MR. STEWART: Chairman Lloyd and Board, a special 18 thanks to Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier for doing a lot of 19 very good work. You are my Supervisor in Contra Costa 20 County. There's been a lot of push for these 21 organizations. First, Bruce Stewart with Richmond 22 Improvement Association. 23 My Association gives input on issues. The MTC a 24 and lot of programs the last couple years has a lot of 25 progress in this area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 My area is mostly for our public stand. My 2 situation is strange because of the fact that I became a 3 social justice advocate because of my health a few years 4 ago. I was concerned about the standing of PM 10 in San 5 Diego. While I was discussing the ozone, our hope over 6 the ozone, USBG built a hotel. That was five years ago. 7 But I am here as a resident of Richmond, 8 California. I don't have a prepared remarks or anything. 9 I'm here getting my health back in order. I do have a 10 passion for social justice in a certain way which ties to, 11 by coincidence, civil rights in 1964. 12 We are a tired and sick community in Richmond 13 California. I do have to applaud the effort of the Air 14 Resources Board and their efforts here in Oakland and to 15 the air quality management district. I've done a project 16 for the county before. Actually, I've gotten some 17 purposeful technologies before there was any kind of 18 meeting like this. I was at a site in San Francisco in 19 1993 -- I'll explain in front of the San Francisco Hotel a 20 certain engineer will -- we didn't -- well, had some 21 emissions going near. 22 My point is this, I'm in a strange situation and 23 former person who was heavily involved in engineering and 24 science. This is a difficult process. We do appreciate 25 the efforts of other social justice advocates in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 audience. I feel like Rip Van Wrinkle. I woke up to a 2 different world all quite unaware that I'm working with 3 people in a faith based community where -- we are a faith 4 based association. We are regional social justice 5 advocates as well as environmental justice. We have 6 members going to church throughout country based on recent 7 events. 8 We have EPA tracking -- I received training. We 9 work in a collaborative -- my point is I don't want to 10 risk my life too much more by certain individuals or 11 certain members. My point is I'm part of my community. I 12 have three children being raised in Richmond. My son is 13 playing a high school right now. I'm here because I want 14 to stress the point, we want to continue working with the 15 Board. 16 We want to continue our effort to disseminate. 17 We're just beginning this disseminating of information 18 about our health. This was created from a general 19 community. Data is important, which I want to represent, 20 data and collaboration. 21 Thank you very much. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You wanted to support the 23 plan? 24 MR. STEWART: Myself and our organization we do 25 support the plan. We'd like to get this process going, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 because of -- and this work with MTC, as well as everyone 2 else involved in the EPA. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 5 John Sakamoto and Ethan Vaneklasen. 6 MR. SAKAMOTO: Good evening, Dr. Lloyd and 7 Members of the Board. My name is John Sakamoto. I'm the 8 Senior Vice President for Eichleay Engineers. First of 9 all, I'd like to commend the air district and the Board 10 for the preparation and consideration of this plan. 11 I'd like to go on record in supporting the plan 12 and I urge that you pass this plan tonight. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 14 MR. SAKAMOTO: However, I would like to comment 15 on the execution of the plan, and in particular the 16 further study measures with regard to additional controls 17 on the Bay Area refineries. I ask that in the 18 consideration of these measures that staff and board 19 strongly recognize whether or not the plan for additional 20 controls are efficient, cost effective and reasonable. 21 Second as a professional engineer since 1990, I 22 have designed and engineered many, if not all, of the 23 marine vapor recovery systems here in the Bay Area. I ask 24 you to consider whether or not the control measures and 25 proposed reductions by these further studies can be and -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 can be far outweighed by compromising the safe operation 2 of these refineries. 3 In the design of these marine vapor recovery 4 systems, for example, we are certified by the US Coast 5 Guard. I am a recognized certified entity. We go through 6 an excruciating amount of detail to avoid marine tank and 7 refinery incidences. And this is in promulgation of the 8 Bay Area's Rule 44. 9 Lastly, I'd like you to strongly consider whether 10 or not any of these further studies and control measures 11 really help in the end result, which is maintaining and 12 meeting the one-hour ozone requirement in Livermore 13 Valley, where many of these refineries are located in 14 northern Contra Costa County and Benicia. 15 In summary, I support the adoption of this plan, 16 and I'm able to take any questions. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 We'll take a break now till 25 after that clock 19 back there, and we'll start off with Ethan Vaneklasen, 20 Barbara Lee and Andrew Michael. 21 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Sorry we took a little 23 longer, but the court reporter had to move his car. 24 (Laughter.) 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Latest update, by the way, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 the score is still two to nothing Arizona top of the 9th. 2 (Applause.) 3 (Boos.) 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Remember last night. 5 Okay, we'll start again. What I would say, by 6 the way, you know we've got about 25 or 30 witnesses to 7 go, so if there's anyone who would like to come up and 8 volunteer with one word testimony just say yes or no, I'll 9 greatly accept it. 10 Ethel, I know you don't qualify. 11 MS. DOTSON: I beg your pardon? 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I know you won't be satisfied 13 with yes or no. 14 MS. DOTSON: Yes or no what? I didn't hear you. 15 (Laughter.) 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I made an offer for the 17 people who wanted to come up to the podium and say yes or 18 no, they can come up now and then they cannot have their 19 three minutes. 20 (Laughter.) 21 MS. DOTSON: You did say I was the next speaker, 22 right? 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No. It's Ethan Vaneklasen, 24 Barbara Lee and Andrew Michael. 25 MS. DOTSON: Oh, not me. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So are you in support or 2 oppose? 3 MS. DOTSON: I'm going to talk. 4 (Laughter.) 5 MS. COONS: I just want to say that I'm Jana 6 Coons and I'm opposed, no. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Not thank you for 8 opposing, but -- 9 (Laughter.) 10 MR. VANEKLASEN: Good evening. Dr. Lloyd and 11 Members of the Board, thank you for being here this 12 evening. My name is Ethan Vaneklasen. I'm the Director 13 of Transportation Policy for the California Alliance for 14 Jobs. 15 The Alliance is a nonprofit organization 16 representing 1,700 construction and engineering 17 contractors throughout northern California, and more than 18 50,000 union equipment operators and laborers. We're a 19 very unique collaborative effort of business. 20 I'm here today to urge you, with all due speed, 21 to adopt the draft ozone attainment plan. Failure to 22 approve this revised air plan and resulting conformity 23 lapse will result in a delay of $1.3 billion in critical 24 transit highway funding. 25 Let's face it, we've been behind this curve far PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 too long, and it's time to catch up with and meet our 2 infrastructure needs and conformity lapses and we get into 3 a deeper whole. 4 Further more, failure to approve this plan will 5 not improve air quality. Rather, it's going to holdup 6 mass transit improvements along with road and highway 7 projects, both of which are key components to solving our 8 air quality concerns. 9 The delay will cost the taxpayers a lot of money 10 and limit the number and scope of transportation 11 improvements that we'll be able to afford. This will have 12 dramatic impacts both on road and highway projects as well 13 as transit projects. 14 Quite simply, a conformity lapse will cost the 15 taxpayers money and further deteriorate air quality. I'd 16 like to make a couple of quick points. 17 1.3 million people are coming to the Bay Area. 18 Seventy percent of those people are our own children. As 19 Steve Hemminger indicated, 80 percent of the money in the 20 regional transportation plan is dedicated to public 21 transit. Despite this, MTC's estimates indicate that the 22 motion, the number of daily trips, made on public transit 23 is only going to increase from 5.6 to 6.2 percent. 24 Additionally, and despite all of that, over the 25 next six years, ozone precursor emissions, as you've been PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 shown, are predicted to drop significantly, despite a ten 2 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled. Do we have a 3 responsibility to ensure clean air for our region? Of 4 course we do. 5 However, there's also a responsibility to meet 6 the challenges of our growing region. Holding up 7 critically needed transportation projects is not the way 8 to do it. Every minute lost in congestion is one we spend 9 at home with our families who are otherwise enjoying our 10 beautiful Bay Area. 11 The business community is relying on you and your 12 leadership today to protect our regional economic 13 vitality. Our future here relies on a solid 14 infrastructure and sound fiduciary decisions from our 15 policy makers. 16 Thank you very much. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 Barbara Lee, Andrew Michael. 19 MS. LEE: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members 20 of the Board. My name is Barbara Lee. I'm the air 21 pollution control officer in northern Sonoma County. And 22 I'm here also representing the County of Sonoma. 23 As you know, northern Sonoma is overwhelmed by 24 transport from the Bay Area. At the same time, we also 25 understand that this federal attainment plan is not the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 only means of achieving clean air in the Bay Area and in 2 the down-wind areas. 3 Failure to approve the plan, as you have heard, 4 will have serious consequences for the Bay Area 5 infrastructure and for funding for important projects. 6 You have also heard some very serious concerns 7 expressed on behalf of breathers within and outside the 8 Bay Area and we have concerns that those need to be 9 addressed. 10 I would suggest that you have the authority to 11 approve this plan and to address the needs of all of these 12 breathers in a variety of forums. People have mentioned 13 the transport mitigation regulation that your staff is 14 working on. You have passed out draft environmental 15 justice guidelines that your staff, as well as 16 representatives from the local districts, are working on 17 with you. There are also aggressive toxic reduction 18 measures currently being entertained by your staff and by 19 the staffs of many local districts. 20 There are other problems as well. I think that 21 you could, in good conscience move forward and ensure that 22 there is not a transportation conformity lapse in the Bay 23 Are and still ensure that the public health of breathers 24 is protected, and I urge you to do that. 25 Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Is northern 2 Sonoma County affected by emissions from the Bay Area? 3 MR. VANEKLASEN: We are overwhelmed according to 4 your staff. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Andrew Michael, Susan 6 Phinney, David Jones. 7 MR. MICHAEL: Chairman Lloyd and Members of the 8 Board, thank you for having me and good evening. I'm 9 Andrew Michael with the Bay Area Council. The Bay Area 10 Council is a business sponsored, CEO led organization that 11 represents the 270 largest and most significant employers 12 in the Bay Area. 13 And what I want to do is urge you to approve the 14 plan. The plan is diverse in terms of addressing 15 different sources, industry, mobile and transportation. 16 And the new control measures are adequate in moving 17 forward to meet the goals that need to be met to have 18 attainment. And I want to emphasize that some of the 19 study measures are also very important, and the Bay Area 20 Council looks at it as very important. 21 And one in particular that I'll focus on, for 22 instance, the parking cash out. The feasibility study on 23 that will be important, because it's important for us to 24 look at some of the key sources, obviously, of ozone and 25 the behaviors that we conduct ourselves in the Bay Area in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 terms of driving is a big factor. 2 So if we can look at some of these studies and 3 actually find some way to make headway in the change of 4 behavior on that, it would be a very big contribution. 5 The public review process has been extensive and 6 the conformity lapses, as many others have said, not only 7 would be bad for transportation and mobility in the region 8 but also would significantly be a negative effect on 9 public health and air quality. 10 So for those reasons, I'd urge you to approve it. 11 Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 13 Suzanne Phinney. 14 MS. PHINNEY: Chairman Lloyd and Members of the 15 Board. I'm Suzanne Phinney, Vice President of the 16 Sacramento operations for Aspen Environmental Group and 17 here representing the Sacramento Metro Chamber of 18 Commerce. 19 The Chamber of Commerce was here in July and 20 we're here three months later with the same message, we 21 want you to adopt a Bay Area SIP that includes Smog Check 22 2. And we're frustrated and disappointed that it still 23 does not contain Smog Check 2. Frankly, we don't 24 understand why. 25 It seems like the right place. It's a federally PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 enforceable document. It would put emission reductions on 2 a time frame that would actually make a difference to our 3 region. And that's where our Smog Check 2 requirement is. 4 We are under very tight time frames. We really don't have 5 the patience to study -- well, we don't have the luxury to 6 wait for studies, to wait for revising of SIPs, to wait 7 for additional rules. We need to reach attainment by 2005 8 and we actually have to show attainment three years 9 earlier, so we're talking next year. We need these 10 programs in place now. 11 Our community is doing everything that we can to 12 reduce NOx emissions, and we have a target of five tons 13 per day. It's not a very big number, but to us it's huge, 14 because our inventory is so much less than the Bay Area. 15 Anything that the Bay Area can do to reduce NOx 16 will make a difference for us and help us be in 17 attainment, which will allow for better air for our 18 citizens and for economic development as well. We face 19 the same conformity issues and loss of transportation 20 dollars and everything. 21 So we really urge you to include Smog Check 2. 22 If Sacramento and San Joaquin can do it, we're convinced 23 that San Francisco can do it as well. 24 (Applause.) 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 David Jones, Tina Cosentino, Suma Peesapati. 2 MR. JONES: Good evening, Mr. Chair and Board 3 Members. My name is David Jones. I'm a planning manager 4 with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 5 District. I'm here in lieu of my Director who had to 6 attend a board meeting today and wasn't able to make it. 7 The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 8 District has requested that your board not adopt the Bay 9 Area's Ozone Attainment plan unless it includes a 10 commitment to opt into the Smog Check 2 program to the 11 full extent allowed by the law, and that it also include 12 any other reasonable, available control measures already 13 adopted by down-wind districts. 14 The ARB staff report acknowledges ARB's 15 responsibility for ensuring the Bay Area's requirement in 16 Section 110(a)(2)(a) of the Clean Air Act and states that 17 the Bay Area plan does meet these requirements. Neither 18 the Bay Area plan nor the staff report acknowledges that 19 section 110(a)(2) also requires them to address intrastate 20 transport in the SIPs that they submit. 21 The ARB's interpretation is at odds with the 22 guidance that the EPA published on March 25th, 1999 in the 23 Federal Register, which says that intrastate and 24 interstate transport must be addressed. I'd like to read, 25 this is from page 14,443 Volume 64, Number 57 of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 Federal Register. 2 Section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(1) of the Act requires 3 SIPs to prohibit consistent with other provisions of Title 4 1 emissions, which will contribute significantly to 5 nonattainment in any other state. The EPA interprets 6 section 110(a)(2)(a) to incorporate the same requirements 7 in case of intrastate transport. 8 It's been well established that the Bay Area does 9 transport to the San Joaquin Valley. In fact, in the ARB 10 staff report, it states that they looked 15 days between 11 1995 and 2000 when the monitors in Stanislaus or San 12 Joaquin County exceeded the federal ozone standard. 13 The results of that analysis indicated that each 14 of the 15 days showed a transport influence from the Bay 15 Area. They stated that they believe that a majority of 16 the exceedances were due to a combination of local 17 emissions and transport from the Bay Area. Recent 18 photochemical modeling conducted by the San Joaquin valley 19 in preparation for our one-hour ozone attain demonstration 20 plan shows that the ozone peak in the northern region of 21 the San Joaquin valley was affected more by the 22 anthropogenic emissions from the Bay Area than it was 23 affected by the San Joaquin Valley anthropogenic 24 emissions. 25 The San Joaquin valley Air Pollution Control PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 District is taking the unusual step of commenting on the 2 Bay Area implementation plan because the San Joaquin 3 Valley cannot wait until 2004 for the Bay Area district to 4 include additional measures to address intrastate 5 transport in a future revision of the Bay Area SIP. 6 This is especially true for some of the control 7 measures, such as the Smog Check 2 program, which could 8 take the Bureau of Automotive Repair up to two years to 9 fully implement in an area the size of the San Francisco 10 Bay Area. And it would take another two years for all the 11 cars to cycle through the program. 12 Our attainment date is scheduled to be 2005, and 13 also the Sacramento valley is scheduled for attainment in 14 2005. That puts the fully effective program too far out 15 to be of use to us to make those attainment rates. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Are you wrapping up? 17 MR. JONES: I'm wrapping up real quick. 18 In the opinion of the valley district, the Bay 19 Area's ozone plan must include additional control measures 20 to mitigate their ozone precursor from contributions from 21 neighboring air basins. We are asking the ARB to send the 22 plan back to the Bay Area with instructions to include the 23 additional ROG and NOx control measures that other 24 districts have already adopted. And that at a minimum the 25 ozone Bay Area plan should include a commitment to adopt PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 and implement the Smog Check 2 program and opt in 2 immediately. 3 This would allow all vehicles subject to the 4 program to be tested prior to 2005 for the full clean air 5 benefits of the program to be available to the Bay Area 6 and down-wind districts. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You indicated that you're 9 using a model to look at your ozone attainment. And are 10 you hear -- there's a model used in the Bay Area to look 11 at that, and it's pretty crude, so we're waiting for the 12 results of the San Joaquin. 13 How much confidence do you have in your own model 14 and what model is being used? 15 MR. JONES: We're using the SARGAT model based on 16 the August 6th episode for 1990. We have confidence that 17 overall it's indicating -- 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: 1990. 19 MR. JONES: The episode that was modeled it was 20 1990. We modeled for 99 and 2005. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 22 Tina Cosentino. 23 MS. COSENTINO: Good evening. I'd like to first 24 start by thanking you for your vote on July 26th. Sending 25 this plan back to the local agencies to take additional PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 time for public review was certainly a beginning, and has 2 better informed us just in the Bay Area how far local 3 agencies are yet to really get it right. 4 Although six meetings in eight days with only two 5 weeks notice wasn't the ideal public process, the 6 facilitated dialogue was definitely an improvement. And 7 this forum provided some much needed time for local 8 agencies to connect the community and recognize how proud 9 they are for meeting environmental justice policies. 10 And in reflection of that process, I'd like to 11 introduce Ashlei who's one of our youth who'd like to read 12 to you something. 13 MS. TEMENA: This is by Rebecca Manson. "Dearest 14 Board, I feel like a pocket watch without at face. We 15 come from the pocket to these meetings to meet, but we 16 really have a face or do we. After every meeting, time 17 after time without being fixed or listened to to see if 18 the problem is fixable, you leave back into the pocket 19 broken and until the problems and the flaws are fixed, the 20 dirtier air plan, we'll keep coming out of the pocket. We 21 might not have a face, but we know the time has passed 22 that call for clean air." 23 Thank you. 24 (Applause.) 25 MS. COSENTINO: So where are we today? I think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 we have all gone through participating in this process in 2 the last several months. There's a really big disparity 3 here between power, who has it, who doesn't; race and 4 class; what does the community look like that this 5 decision is being implemented; who's the community you 6 represent here tonight; and do the decision makers sitting 7 at this Board reflect those community members; health, who 8 has the access to clean air, who doesn't? 9 When we look at the problem in the Bay Area, 10 we're looking at it on three different levels. We look at 11 the overall Bay Area smog levels. And as I remember 12 growing up in San Jose, year after year, it's like the 13 mountains disappeared. You didn't really realize you were 14 in a valley anymore. So I find it really difficult to 15 hear tonight that oh, we'll the problem is getting better. 16 Well, if you go out there and you look in the 17 valley and you don't see those mountains, a lot of other 18 areas I find it to be the same. 19 Fence line communities, there's a 20 disproportionate amount of those ozone forming precursors 21 which are first hit in the fence line communities. 22 They're found in Bayo Vista, which is right next to the 23 Tosco refinery. They're found in Richmond. They're found 24 in Bayview Point, East Palo Alto, down in San Jose in the 25 Alviso community. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 It's important to consider this, especially when 2 you're considering these environmental justice principles 3 that are going to be coming before you in December. 4 And thirdly, this invisible air base and 5 boundaries that we govern ourselves by don't really exist. 6 Barrier smog has been heard tonight drifts into the 7 central very, drifts into Monterey and it becomes a 8 problem for the entire state. 9 Today is the beginning of the day Dia de los 10 Muertos, which in the Latino tradition is remembrance of 11 community members we have lost. And tonight we'd like to 12 remember a special community member that we believe was 13 lost due to toxic exposure. 14 Her name was Victoria Oliver, and she was a 15 resident of the Bayo Vista housing community. She passed 16 away two weeks ago after a 13-year battle with cancer. 17 She lived on Dempsey Road, which was the closest in Bayo 18 Vista right on the fence line of Tosco. She ran a free 19 lunch program and the Headstart Program, and was a really 20 important part of the community and is very much missed by 21 the residents living there. 22 When we talk about health effects, we talk about 23 health and who has access to health and clean air. And 24 one of the things the youth in Bayo Vista did last summer, 25 because they were so concerned about seeing the asthma PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 rates seeing rashes, seeing allergies, headaches just a 2 number of things, we went door to door and we talked to a 3 lot of people in this community. What we found was that 4 over 50 percent of the households we talked to had at 5 least one or more children with asthma in it; over 56 6 percent had at least one or more children with allergies; 7 and over 40 percent had children who experienced rashes 8 for unusual lengths of time. 9 I'd like to ask you tonight to take a moment to 10 put yourself in someone else's shoes, to think about what 11 it may be like living a life possibly very different than 12 the one you live right now. Imagine the only place you 13 can afford is to live in a little apartment next to a 14 refinery or power plant or some other toxic site near you. 15 Imagine you have kids and even though you know the toxins 16 are affecting them, causing headaches, rashes, nose bleeds 17 and respiratory problems, you can't afford to move. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I would appreciate it if you 19 can, we've been very liberal with time, and bring it to a 20 close. 21 MS. COSENTINO: I am. You may not have all the 22 power to change all the complicated socioeconomic 23 conditions that are out here in our Bay Area and in the 24 state, but you do have the power of decision making on the 25 ARB, that's your job. This is one of the most elemental PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 rights of life, the right to breathe clean safe air. This 2 Board has a very important decision to make tonight. It 3 will affect millions of people living here in the Bay Area 4 and living in the rest of the state. 5 I challenge you not to take it lightly, make a 6 decision for the people and correct or reject this plan. 7 Thank you. 8 (Applause.) 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Suma Peesapati. I will 10 indicate, by the way, I was very liberal to the last 11 speaker. You had two for the price of one. I can't let 12 that go on, so I would appreciate people keeping it to 13 three minutes, other wise I will have to cut you off. I 14 don't want to do that, but I'll have to, other wise we're 15 never going to get out tonight. 16 MS. PEESAPATI: Well, I'll certainly try. My 17 name is Suma Peesapati. I'm a staff attorney with 18 Communities for a Better Environment. 19 When I was preparing to speak today to talk about 20 the deficiencies of the plan that is before you, I felt 21 like I was being a broken record. And then I thought 22 further about why that was. 23 And the reason that I have nothing new to say 24 about the specific deficiencies of this plan is because 25 it's virtually identical to the last one. And as you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 remember, you rejected the last one in August with the 2 request to the air district to achieve an additional 23 3 ton per day reduction. The district has not committed to 4 any additional reductions as requested by this Board. 5 It is only committed to merely study whether or 6 not those reductions are necessary. This is the same plan 7 you saw in August, the one you rejected. It is not only 8 deficient as a matter of science and public health, it is 9 deficient as a matter of state and federal law. 10 The Health and Safety Code Section 41650 states 11 that this Board cannot approve a plan that does not comply 12 with the federal Clean Air Act. It specifically says in 13 Subsection B that the plan must include all reasonably 14 available control measures. As we have said in both oral 15 and written testimony time and time again, this plan does 16 not include all reasonably available control measures. 17 It doesn't even include measures that are part of 18 the state plan, measures that have gone through a 19 feasibility assessment, that, as a matter of law, are 20 reasonable. 21 Secondly, the district has proposed a potential 22 black box of 26 tons of reductions, as I mentioned before. 23 This is in direct violation of Section 110(a)(2) of the 24 Clean Air Act, which requires the inclusion of quote, 25 "Enforceable limitations and other control measures, means PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 or techniques as maybe necessary or appropriate to provide 2 for attainment of such standards in such area by the 3 applicable attainment date." 4 That does not mean a vague assurance of possibly 5 getting an additional X amount of reductions. That means 6 enforceable control measures and enforceable emission 7 limitations. That is the requirement of the federal Clean 8 Air Act, and that is what you are required to assure 9 exists in this plan. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think we've heard from our 11 legal counsel that the plan is approvable. 12 MS. PEESAPATI: We disagree. If you approve this 13 plan, you do so in violation of state law, and 14 specifically in violation of Health and Safety Code 41650. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Bring it to a close, please. 16 MS. PEESAPATI: Although, we understand that 17 you're reluctant to approve this plan for fear of a 18 conformity lapse, I would like to make it clear that 19 actual loss of funds has never occurred, that the worst 20 that we have heard of is a mere delay in funds. And 21 beyond all of that, the Legislature has specifically 22 defined your job today to make sure that this plan is 23 legally adequate. The Legislature has not included an 24 assessment of whether conformity lapse is going to occur. 25 A conformity lapse is not a relevant factor in this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 decision today. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We also have letters from 3 Legislators here urging us to approve the plan to avoid 4 that issue. 5 MS. PEESAPATI: Well, the expression of the 6 Legislature that is relevant is the one that exists in the 7 statute, with all due respect. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: With all due respect, you've 9 had more than enough time, so we will continue with the 10 next witnesses, please. 11 Flora Campbell. 12 (Applause.) 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Azibuike Akaba, then Annie 14 from San Jose. 15 MS. CAMPBELL: Good evening, Chairman and Members 16 of the Board. My name is Flora Campbell. I'm the 17 organizer for the West County Toxics Coalition. 18 I think this is a bunch of lies, deception and 19 deceit. The civil war can be thought of as the necessary 20 completion of the revolution. The ancient political idea 21 of equality found explicit recognition with the 22 ratification of the 14th amendment necessary to protect 23 the citizens of slaves freed after the civil war. 24 No state shall make or enforce laws which abridge 25 the privilege or communities of citizens of the United PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 States nor shall any state deprive any person of life 2 liberty or property without due process of law. 3 Originally intended for the protection of the 4 Windrose, this clause has been used by corporations to 5 protect their property. A corporation is a person in the 6 eyes of the law. The rights of people should be to secure 7 them in their homes, papers and effects against dangerous 8 chemicals that contaminate our children's brains, systems 9 and respiratory system tracks, against white power in US 10 Customs and US governments spread throughout negro 11 communities and neighborhoods called cocaine, crack. 12 From the cradle to prisons our children get high 13 off chemicals from big oil, breathing big oil and 14 chemicals has led many negros into chemical dependency. 15 It is long overdue. Cleanup and pay up. 16 Thank you. 17 (Applause.) 18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'm sorry. I'm probably 19 not pronouncing your name correctly. 20 MR. AKABA: That's okay. I'll pronounce it. 21 Good evening. My name is Azibuike Akaba. I'm with 22 Communities for a Better Environment. I'm one of the 23 staff scientists. I just wanted to say upfront that we do 24 not support the plan as is. We ask you to approve a plan 25 that actually works. So as it is, it is unacceptable. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 The first thing I want to address is one of the 2 myths about the regional smog is unrelated to problems of 3 industrial pollution sources, because I've heard, and Dr. 4 Lloyd isn't here, but I've heard him say today a few times 5 that it's a separate issue, but it's not. 6 It's hard to swallow that, that the idea that the 7 source that generates toxic hotspots for industry, which 8 causes the same pollution and contributes to the regional 9 ground level ozone, is NOx and VOCs. The VOCs cause the 10 ground level ozone and they themselves are toxic. 11 And it's toxic in a sense they cause respiratory 12 damage, cancer and many other health effects for people 13 who are normal. But then for people who have preexisting 14 medical conditions, they exacerbate the problems, so 15 that's why we want to address it here. 16 And NOx itself also causes deadly particulate 17 formations. And we know there's tons of evidence that say 18 that increase in particulate emissions also increases 19 heart disease and death. There's a direct correlation 20 there. 21 Also, there's evidence from a study in March of 22 1991 from a UCLA study that was published in the American 23 Journal of Public Health that says they found a markedly 24 decreased lung capacity among nonsmokers living in 25 polluted neighborhoods down wind of refineries. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 And we heard today the refinery representatives 2 and industry representatives say how they endorse the 3 plan. It makes me suspect. If they endorse the plan, 4 then it must not phase them. 5 Also, taking into consideration the children's 6 health, children are more affected because of their slow 7 rate of development of their lungs. So therefore, there's 8 a position where the children will be affected from the 9 pollution, from the NOx, the VOCs and the particulate. 10 That's why we're asking you to take seriously the review 11 of this plan and find out if it's inadequate, add more 12 reductions to the VOC's, that's what we're asking. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. And that is 14 the end of your time. 15 MR. AKABA: That was part one. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Perfect timing. 17 The next person. 18 (Applause.) 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: The next person is Annie 20 from San Jose is all I have here. 21 MS. SAYO: Greetings to all. My name is Annie 22 Sayo. I'm a resident of Milpitas. I'm a worker in San 23 Jose and a student at San Jose State. 24 I wanted to touch base on a few points here, 25 especially what Mr. AJ Napolis said earlier about NOx and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 VOCs having a lot to do with ozone. That's what I believe 2 in, too. That has a lot to do with ozone and the other 3 problems that's going on with environmental justice, and 4 environmental injustice, especially in Santa Clara County. 5 And we have been neglected for very long. What I 6 found from the Santa Clara County Department of Public 7 Health in 1997, 1,895 kids were hospitalized in Santa 8 Clara County for lung diseases that may be caused by poor 9 air quality such as chronic obstructive, pulmonary 10 diseases, Pneumonia and asthma. 11 The American Lung Association gives Santa Clara 12 County an F in air quality. And I emphasize that it may 13 be caused by poor air quality, because researchers are 14 saying they're still trying to research that. But I'm 15 just trying to say, like, it's -- I just want there to be 16 some kind of precautionary measures since we don't know 17 for sure what these causes are. And we're spending so 18 much time on research, we don't know exactly what these 19 things are causing. 20 So I'm trying -- what I'm trying to say is since 21 we don't know, let's try to push for everything that 22 everyone has been saying. I don't want to reiterate 23 anything, because I don't want to waste my time here. 24 And number two, we want to push for reducing the 25 26 tons of pollution and that will help San Jose, Milpitas PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 and Alviso all together, because right now trying they're 2 trying to build natural gas power plants in Alviso and San 3 Jose which is bringing the air down to Milpitas and 4 northern San Jose, where a lot of my family and where I 5 live -- where -- yeah, that's where we're located. 6 And that was all I had to say. I just want to 7 say that please do your job which is protecting the health 8 of Bay Area residents and reviving environmental justice. 9 Thank you. 10 (Applause.) 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: M. Tomas and followed by 12 Marty Dinidin. 13 MR. TOMAS: Yes, good evening. My name is Mike 14 Tomas with Communities for a Better Environment. First, 15 I'd like to thank the Board for letting me speak, and I'd 16 actually have an update on the score, it's 12 big 17 polluters zero communities of color. 18 (Laughter.) 19 MR. TOMAS: I'd like to actually -- I'd like to 20 first start off by just giving a little historical 21 background. 22 In 1917 there was a decision, Buchanan versus 23 Worley, which forbidded racial zoning for housing laws. 24 But as a way to subvert that decision, racial covenants 25 were established to prohibit white owners from selling PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 homes to people of color. 2 What the result was for people of color in San 3 Francisco was that they were forced to live next to 4 slaughter houses, junk yards, ship yards and power plants. 5 Today in Bay View/Hunters Point, 90 percent of 6 that community is people of color and over 50 percent of 7 that community is zoned industrial. So there's a 8 historical, racial problem that we have here, racial 9 discrimination that we have here, and the problems that 10 we're dealing with are health and environmental justice 11 policy. 12 I did review the environmental justice policy. I 13 applaud you for reviewing that and hopefully that you will 14 approve some form of policy. 15 There are a couple of caveats that I'd like to 16 include. 17 One, being -- 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We're addressing the ozone 19 attainment. 20 MR. TOMAS: Yes. I'm getting to ozone, sir. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But you've got three minutes 22 to do it. 23 MR. TOMAS: You're cutting into my time. The 24 issue is around enforcement, and they are possibly unable 25 to enforce. There were 1,300 violations that the air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 district didn't enforce, and they actually had to be sued 2 over. 3 The penalties in white communities are 500 times 4 higher than those in communities of color. Just yesterday 5 Communities for a Better Environment just settled its 6 agreement against the air district and Mirant for running 7 the Protrero powerplant peakers beyond the permitted 8 amount of hours. 9 (Applause.) 10 MR. TOMAS: If we didn't settle that lawsuit, if 11 we didn't file that lawsuit, there would have been a 12 potential increase in NOx by 2,000 pounds of NOx, which 13 would have created ozone. There are two power plants 14 right now in southeast San Francisco, a third proposed 15 power plant. Over 1,000 tons of NOx would be formed, 16 which would create an ozone -- continuing this ozone 17 problem. 18 This power plant they proposed to build in 19 southeast San Francisco will be the largest power plant 20 near a residential neighborhood in the State of 21 California. 22 We don't have time to study anymore. There are 23 people dying and dead already, and being punished. If we 24 wait three to six years, we will have another power plant. 25 We will have an expanded sewage pant, and we would have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 two major developments that would increase the ozone 2 problems in south San Francisco. 3 I plead with the Board to correct or reject this 4 plan and add the additional 26 tons to the plan. 5 Thank you very much. 6 (Applause.) 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Marty Dinidin, Lynne Brown, 8 Donna Pindia. 9 MR. DINIDIN: I'm from the same area this man is 10 from. My name is Marty Dinidin, and I've lived in San 11 Francisco my whole life. 12 And I've seen what bad air can do to people in 13 this area. They told my god father to move to Arizona. 14 He died when he was 45. They told my aunt when she was 15 dying to move out, too. She didn't. She died at 50. 16 My son and his family moved to Stockton and our 17 foul air settles there and now they have it worse. They 18 all have asthma. They've got breather things. They come 19 down here, they can't stay here. They've got to go back 20 home, because it's worse down there. 21 I hear these people at these meetings get up and 22 urge to pass this air plan as it's good for the Bay Area 23 transportation plan. Where do these people live? Alaska, 24 Antarctica. Maybe they should live here, where I do, 25 before they pass this plan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 Thank you for taking this plan back to reviewing 2 it, but what you are giving us is still not accurate. 3 Please try again. Don't approve it yet. 4 Thank you. 5 (Applause.) 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Lynne Brown, Donna Pindia, 7 Ralph Sattler. 8 MR. BROWN: Good evening, Members of the Board. 9 My name is Lynne Brown and I'm from Bayview Hunters Point 10 in San Francisco. 11 First, I'd like to address the lady, the cancer 12 lady. She said, well we need the money for the MTC, but 13 how much does it cost for a cancer patient to stay in the 14 hospital a year? Multiply that, we have over 2,000 people 15 have died in my community since 1980. We have just 16 recently -- our Supervisor Maxwell's son died. 17 We've got five diesel buses, two freeways, one 18 sewage treatment plant, two power plants. We've got the 19 naval shipyard, which it had a fire August the 16th, 2000 20 nobody from the Air Board came out there to take air 21 samples. 22 Once again, July 6th, we had another fire. And 23 then this landfill is toxic, PCBs, chlorine pellets, and 24 radioactive waste. You know, I mean if they can -- I 25 called down there and nobody came out. So we really need PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 some air samplings to be taken and some air monitors to be 2 done out there. 3 When they tried to smother the landfill, we had 4 500 trucks running out -- diesel trucks running in the 5 community for five months. You know, nobody came out. 6 You know, I called all the time, nobody responded, but 7 anyway, really -- 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Who did you call? 9 MS. BROWN: The Air Quality Board down in San 10 Mateo. 11 But anyway, what we need -- I've seen cancer and 12 it's bad. For the lady that said about we need the money, 13 what's more important? Is it health or money for you 14 guys? Is it health or money? 15 Come to my community any time, you're welcome. 16 They say it's gang banging and stuff. It's death, kids, 17 leukemia, cancer, kids, babies being born deformed, the 18 organs outside the bodies. Come any time. But we really 19 do need to find some way to reduce the tons in my 20 community, these 26 tons of pollution daily in my country 21 right away, because my community wants to breathe the same 22 way, the quality of air like the people in Pacific Heights 23 or Knob Hill. They don't have to worry about this. 24 And thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 (Applause.) 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Bob Sattler, Vincent Mow, Dan 3 Christians. 4 MS. PINDIA: Thank you for hearing me tonight. 5 I'm going to make this extremely brief. I am a member of 6 Communities for a Better Environment, and I'm a life long 7 resident of San Francisco. I live a mile and a half from 8 two power plants and in close proximity to two freeways. 9 All I can say in support of everything else 10 that's already been told to you tonight, is that I 11 strongly oppose this plan. And I hope that you will take 12 it back to the drawing board and see if you can't do a 13 little better for us. 14 Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 16 (Applause.) 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Update on the score 2, 2 18 bottom of the 11th, Yankee's at bat. 19 MR. SATTLER: My name is Ralph Sattler. I'm a 20 26-year resident of Martinez. I'm a ten-year member of 21 Communities for a Safe Environment, which is a different 22 organization. 23 I urge you to oppose the plan and to change it or 24 to reject it. In the presentation that was made tonight 25 on the overheads there, it said pursue feasible measures. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 It obviously should say to implement feasible measures. 2 There's talk about continuing studies on things that have 3 been known for years. The issues concerning farming are 4 not new. The issues concerning tanks, vessels and the 5 emissions that are released are not new. The studies 6 should have already been put in and there should be no 7 need for continuation for this to happen. 8 But there have been many changes that have 9 happened, because it's been forced upon in industry to do 10 so. The MTE situation that we have has now changed and 11 industry has taken a different stance than they did 12 originally four years ago. The RMP, which is Risk 13 Management Program, caused in Contra Costa county at least 14 ten firms to reevaluate and review the amount of toxic 15 input they had or to eliminate the use of those chemicals, 16 and no longer participate and provide a plan. 17 But I'd also like to talk to you about what I 18 consider an outrageous presentation made to you by the 19 person from Ultramar, which used to be Tosco. He says 20 that the refineries contribute, I think it was, 2.7 to the 21 overall contribution to the problem. He neglected to 22 mention the people that live in Crockett that had 16 days 23 of releases of exposure to them and they ended up going to 24 the hospital. He doesn't mention general chemical that 25 sent 20,000 people to the hospital. Some of them just PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 needed to be checked while others were seriously injured. 2 He didn't mention the people that died at Tosco, 3 four of them two years ago and one a year before that. He 4 didn't mention Rome Polank's death that had -- that got me 5 involved in Martinez there. And Rome Polank happens to be 6 a good example of what can be done now, rather than an 7 example of what we continued to see. 8 He didn't mention the releases that we experience 9 of October 14th and October 17th in Martinez. That is not 10 what a good neighbor is. That does not improve our air, 11 and it's not the charge that you have. The charge that 12 you have is to protect us from those things happening and 13 to improve this plan to where it's the best plan for the 14 health and people of the community. 15 One more statement and I'm finished. Unlike the 16 people from industry and the people who are here telling 17 you how favorable this plan is, we're not paid to be here. 18 We're not members of industry that are going to benefit or 19 some mutual benefit for this. We're here because of our 20 health and the health of the people that live in our 21 neighborhoods and I urge you to change this. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 24 (Applause.) 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Vincent Mow, Dan Christians, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 Jeff Hartwig. 2 MR. MOW: Chairman Lloyd and Board Members, I 3 appreciate this opportunity this evening. I've come from 4 the east coast, actually to do this presentation for my 5 company Waekon Corporation. Waekon has been a supplier of 6 equipment for the smog check program for some years now, 7 and we've been continued to try to develop technologies 8 that we think are appropriate for the circumstances here. 9 And I'm very pleased this evening to be able to 10 announce to you that there is an additional technology for 11 control of NOx that could be apart of the solution for how 12 we can add NOx control measures to the present program 13 without incurring excessive resistance from those business 14 people that have to foot the bill. 15 And I think that the lining here is pretty clear. 16 I've heard a lot of impassioned pleas this evening to add 17 Smog Check 2 to what is other wise an acceptable plan. 18 And were it that simple, I fully believe that 19 this Board, very dedicated people, who have accomplished 20 some admirable goals would do so in an instant. But it's 21 not clear where the $200 million or so is going to come 22 from to pay for that equipment. 23 If the repair community refuses to participate 24 because they don't believe there's an adequate business 25 case, it's clearly not in your power to supercede their PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 decision. 2 So what I would like to offer you is a control 3 measure that's actually been part of the program for 4 awhile, it's called an EGR inspection. But whereas the 5 present program is simply a subjective test, where a 6 technician, hopefully, uses a fairly primitive method to 7 actuate the EGR valve and listen for an idle change, 8 there's strong reason to believe that that test is not 9 being performed properly. 10 What has not been known before this study that 11 I'm holding in my hand was completed in the state of Texas 12 last year, is that EGR failures can count, can be actually 13 a component of 80 percent of the total NOx failures. 14 And if it's performed with equipment that is 15 designed for that purpose, very low cost equipment, that 16 may only cost, you know, a couple thousand dollars as 17 opposed to $30,000 or $40,000, the test can be performed 18 accurately. And for the California fleet, I think that 19 you would see a NOx reduction similar to the one recorded 20 here of nine percent to 18 percent for passenger vehicles 21 alone. 22 The study was performed in the best scientific 23 style by a company that's very well recognized here in 24 California. It's a research group. Waekon and the EGR 25 would be very, very happy to assist the Board with any PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 further information they'd like to gather. 2 We believe this test would be incorporated in a 3 very timely manner and can be part of a solution that 4 includes Smog Check 2 for those stations that are willing 5 to participate voluntarily. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 7 Mr. Cackette, would you like to comment on that? 8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: We have the 9 study. We've seen it and met with Mr. Mow today on that, 10 and also about the methodologies for implementing the 11 better pressure tested the evaporative system contained in 12 the plan, and we're looking at technology for both of us. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Do you think it has promise? 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I think 15 it has promise, but as he points out, it addresses part of 16 the NOx emission and these cars these days also depend on 17 a catalytic converter for NOx reductions as well as EGR 18 and we're finding quite a few catalytic converter -- not 19 failures, but low efficiencies high mileage and so we want 20 to make sure that the ultimate program, including the 21 hazmat, we have already in operation, addressed both of 22 those problems and not just the EGR. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 24 Dan Christians, Jeff Hartwig, Stewart Rupp. 25 Dan Christians. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 Jeff Hartwig. 2 MR. HARTWIG: Jeff Hartwig, Chevron. Stewart 3 Rupp. 4 MR. HARTWIG: Good evening. My name is Jeff 5 Hartwig. And I am manager of health, environment and 6 safety at the Chevron Richmond refinery. 7 I have a few brief comments for the Board this 8 evening. Firstly, as others have stated tonight, the Bay 9 Area refineries account for a relatively small percentage 10 of VOC emissions in the air district's inventory, 11 something less than four percent. 12 Yet they're a disproportionate burden in the 13 control measures and study measures in this plan, 14 approximately four to five times our prorated share, and I 15 believe this is unfair. 16 Secondly, many of the refineries' study measures 17 called for and have been evaluated in the past, and I 18 think we'll reach similar conclusions this time. 19 For example, the study on waste water ponds. 20 These ponds emit a relatively small amount of VOCs that 21 contribute to ozone, approximately a tenth of a ton per 22 day in the air districts inventory. The technology does 23 not exist today to control these emissions in a cost 24 effective manner, and at the same time permit the ponds to 25 perform the primary purpose, which is to treat the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 refinery process water before it's discharged in the San 2 Francisco Bay. 3 Those that suggest that technology exists today 4 are comparing apples to oranges for the reasons outlined 5 in the comments submitted by WSPA. 6 Thirdly and finally, although this plan places a 7 disproportionate burden on refineries and despite the fact 8 that I believe little value will come from a number of 9 study measures, Chevron is prepared to work cooperatively 10 and diligently with the air district and appropriate 11 stakeholders to complete the study measures as quickly as 12 possible. 13 I urge the Board to approve this plan as is 14 without further amendments. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 17 Stewart Rupp, John Wolfe Ethel Dotson. 18 MR. RUPP: Good evening, Dr. Lloyd and Members of 19 the Board. My name is Stewart Rupp. I work for an auto 20 plant in Fremont. We are in a joint venture with General 21 Motors and Toyota Motor Corporation which makes about 22 350,000 cars and we employ about 5,000 people. 23 I would just like to tell you that we've endorsed 24 the plan in its present form. Over the past 30 years, I 25 have worked closely in many respects with the staff of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 Air Quality Management District, and they have done a 2 tremendous job with improving air quality in the Bay Area. 3 I believe they're on the right track and I urge you to 4 adopt the plan. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 6 John Wolfe, Ethel Dotson, Charlie Peters. 7 MR. WOLFE: Good evening, Dr. Lloyd and board 8 members. My name is John Wolfe. I'm the executive vice 9 president of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, which 10 since 1937 has promoted efficiency and economy in 11 government for business and residential taxpayers in 12 Contra Costa County. 13 I would respectfully urge you to approve this 14 plan before you tonight. We're especially concerned that 15 it not be delayed, at this point, by additional 16 amendments. 17 My association members are concerned about fiscal 18 issues. They follow the money and they'd like taxpayers 19 to get their money's worth, and we have two fiscal 20 concerns that we'd like to share with you tonight. 21 First, we're concerned about the issues that were 22 brought forward earlier about John Sakamoto of Eichleay 23 Engineering. We're concerned that further studies, and 24 many of the additional amendments that some people 25 proposed, may burden the taxpayers and the consumers PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 because they may not give value for the money you're 2 spending, they may have reached a point of diminishing 3 returns are some of the suggestions that have been made. 4 They're expensive. They're unreasonable. And, at least 5 in the near future, our economy relies on the reliable and 6 affording source of gasoline. 7 As you've heard earlier tonight, the refineries 8 in the Bay Area are the ones that produce gasoline 9 consumed in the area, arguably the cleanest gasoline 10 produced in the entire world. We do not feel that that 11 should be jeopardized. 12 Secondly, we feel that a delay in this particular 13 plan would jeopardize neutral transportation funding, 14 which is also in the best interests of air quality in the 15 Bay Area. 16 We feel that an awful lot of time and effort has 17 gone into bringing the plan this far. It certainly deals 18 with ozone attainment and is an extremely good product and 19 it would result in effort by many of the parties. 20 I would urge you to approve it tonight the way 21 that it stands to not delay it any further. We thank you 22 for your time and efforts to improve Bay Area air quality 23 and urge you to continue on this quest to perfect the air 24 to strive toward zero emissions, but in the meantime adopt 25 the plan that you have. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 I thank you for the attention. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Would you like to take the 3 opportunity to say anything nice about one of our 4 colleagues. 5 (Laughter.) 6 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I just assume he not. 7 MR. RUPP: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 8 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: We'll wait for what the 9 next constituent who's going to speak has to say. 10 (Laughter.) 11 MS. DOTSON: Good evening. I respectfully 12 request a little bit more time. I can't talk too fast. I 13 have high blood pressure very, very bad. I'm taking 14 medication for it. I don't want to have no heart stroke 15 or heart attack here. 16 (Laughter.) 17 MS. DOTSON: I have to go to the doctor tomorrow. 18 You may wait until the end and I'm a little nervous. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Friedman is a 20 cardiologist. 21 (Laughter.) 22 MS. DOTSON: I can't talk fast. I'm telling you. 23 I'm serious. No joke. 24 See my friend, hold the picture up, Lavonia 25 DeJean over there. And she's passed on. I have another PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 friend that's very, very ill. Her name is Anna from the 2 City of Richmond, very ill. 3 Then our City Manager in the City of Richmond his 4 mother Mrs. Turner when we moved to Porchester Village 5 they moved there also, too. They've been there over 40 6 some years. Our City Manager's mother passed. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What was her name? 8 MS. DOTSON: Mrs. Turner. Her son's name is 9 Isaiah Turner, the City Manager. And his mother couldn't 10 see. She went blind, can't see good. So was my mother. 11 You can see I'm wearing glasses. 12 People are very, very ill. This is a serious 13 matter. And you see what they're doing with the Anthrax 14 back east. And I say that we're getting the Anthrax out 15 here that's coming from the refineries and the stationary 16 polluting sources. All of these symptoms that they said 17 that people are having that's the same thing that we're 18 having here. So you need to correct this plan or reject 19 it seriously. 20 They've got all the CDC, the EPA, Health and 21 Human Services all involved giving them all kind of 22 medications, saying you've got to take this and you've got 23 to take that. But what's happening to us? And they don't 24 want to scare people to let them know that they said oh, 25 it's in the soil, and the animals is eating it and it goes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 into the animals and then if you have any contact with 2 their blood, then you're going to get it. And I'm saying 3 well, folks don't need to be eating meat, because what 4 goes up comes done. And they really don't want to scare 5 folks, and they've been manipulated. It's a mess. 6 So we don't know what the stationary sources are 7 letting out all these tons of chemicals that messed up the 8 ozone. So you all need to do what you need to do. And I 9 talked about the tax issue before, which is the part of 10 CBE's plan, if I'm not mistaken. And I talked to Mr. 11 DeSaulnier. 12 Could you please -- you know I told you I was 13 going to bring it up, because it's getting to be December. 14 And Mrs. Turner, Mrs. Paysanger, Levonia DeJean, you know, 15 all these years that law should have been in effect, but 16 you all just let it go. And here the President is talking 17 about oh, Congress get to work and reduce the taxes down, 18 but you all haven't reduced our property taxes down, and 19 we have been poisoned and we are angry, and we want it 20 now. The law is already there. President Bush is talking 21 about them passing the law, but you all already got the 22 law. 23 What is the opinion, the legal opinion from -- 24 what's that, Mr. DeSaulnier. 25 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: When you're finished, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 Ethel, I'll respond. 2 MS. DOTSON: Pleases include that in your plan, 3 so that we don't have to sue you all, because we want -- I 4 don't want to have to pay my -- you all owe us -- I mean 5 you really need to follow the law, make the Air Board 6 follow at law. You all have a responsibility also, too, 7 because I included at lawsuit back in '89. It should not 8 have taken that long. 9 If you had, you know, do what you need to do, a 10 lot of folks wouldn't be dead, you would have your -- you 11 would be in compliance. 12 And I'm going to stand here while you do what you 13 have to. 14 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Ethel has asked for an 15 opinion from our Executive Officer and Legal Counsel on a 16 lawsuit that she brought some time ago. Mr. Kenny gave a 17 response to me. And I told Ethel a few days go I would 18 get it to her a week ago and I forgot it. And I've been 19 out to Richmond a couple times and I forgot it, but I've 20 got it on my desk and I'll get it to you tomorrow, unless 21 you have a copy with you. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I don't have a copy 23 with me. 24 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Ethel, I will deliver 25 it to your house this weekend if I have to. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 MS. DOTSON: Thank you. That's the other thing, 2 you all need to -- for people that's been living around 3 the exposure for so long, people need to be able to -- 4 because you all -- there's no place else in the country 5 that that law is in effect that we have to not be able to 6 pay our property taxes and we not be penalized for not 7 paying it until you all do what you need to do on that 8 very issue. 9 Okay, thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 11 (Applause.) 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Charlie Peters, David 13 Schonbrunn, Joanna Monk. 14 MR. PETERS: Good evening, Chairman Lloyd and 15 committee. I'm Charlie Peters founder and president of 16 Clean Air Performance Professionals. 17 I need your help. I'm very confused. This year, 18 tonight is being proposed as an open process and 19 consideration of input and public input. I went to the 20 meeting before the last board meeting, before they 21 reviewed the SIP for San Francisco. In that meeting one 22 of the questions that I asked was what does Smog Check 2 23 in San Francisco do? What reductions does it make? 24 The lady told me that -- and I told her that 25 significant reductions could be made and she clarified PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 with me that she and I just had to agree to disagree after 2 she had told me that she didn't have any answers as to 3 what Smog Check 2 did for the air at all. 4 I don't see how in the world you can approve a 5 plan that includes mobile sources and reductions in mobile 6 sources when I can't even get anybody to tell me if we 7 have a program that the public is mandated to participate 8 in if it does anything at all. And we're going to do 9 something, we're going to have somebody look and see if 10 they see a little leak somewhere or something. And we're 11 proposing that that does something very specific, but the 12 whole plan, we've got no answers whether it does anything 13 at all. And yet we're mandating the public to participate 14 in Smog Check and spending their money and have no answers 15 whatsoever that it does anything, I'm very confused and I 16 need your help. 17 We have a proposal -- first of all, let me say to 18 you that in my opinion Smog Check 2 in the State of 19 California reduces emissions currently, in my opinion, 20 1,000 tons a day, not the 60 or 80 tons that is being 21 reported, 1,000 tons a day. 22 The primary way that it does that is it sets 23 standards that affects the public's behavior, the repair 24 industry behavior, the car manufacturers' behavior and a 25 whole lot of cars don't get broken, because of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 standards set by the program. 2 And that can be improved 1,000 tons a day by 3 auditing it and demanding changes in the behavior where 4 it's appropriate. What I'm saying to you is we currently 5 have a system that is complaint based, where the 6 regulatory agency is demanded to get crimes and fines 7 while the public is being frauded. And so somebody who 8 tries to do the job properly fails the car, tries to fix 9 the car, gets investigated and gets thrown out of 10 business, while the guy who's the fraud who cheats is a 11 local hero. 12 While you give no credit to it whatsoever, the 13 Air Resources Board blesses the SIP that mandates that the 14 public go out and spend their money in this fraudulent 15 process. And out of -- I attended a meeting before your 16 last meeting. I attended your last hearing. I attended 17 five of your six hearings. I provided over 1,000 pages of 18 documentation. I provided documentation here tonight. 19 There is not one word of mention, in any way, shape or 20 form to our proposal, which is, in fact, one-page long and 21 can be proven in a very short time frame whether it works 22 or not. And it's about starting to create a little 23 respect for the motorists and the consumers and all of us 24 respecting each other and giving a little consideration to 25 stopping fraud, creating performance and creating PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 additional reductions in emissions. And it has not gotten 2 one iota of consideration whatsoever by this Committee. 3 And it is absolutely not acceptable to me and I am not 4 going to shut up and I am not going to go away ever. 5 (Laughter.) 6 (Applause.) 7 MR. PETERS: So I am confused. I want to know 8 why there is not one word of our proposed consideration 9 for it in this information that's being considered 10 tonight. This is supposed to take information from public 11 input and provide information back. There's not one word 12 of consideration. I'd like to know why, Mr. Lloyd. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'll ask Mr. Kenny. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: What he have before us 15 tonight, essentially, is a clean air plan for the Bay 16 Area. It is designed to address the ozone attainment 17 strategy for 2006. And what we were looking at is a 18 proposal that was provided by the Bay Area Air Quality 19 Management District, the Metropolitan Transportation 20 Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. 21 And the strategies that are presented in that 22 plan is before you tonight is essentially one that is 23 designed to achieve that clean air attainment goal of 2006 24 for ozone. 25 MR. PETERS: While the public is being frauded PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 with demands to get smog checks and if you're not given 2 one gram of reduction for credits for that system that 3 exists that the public is being mandated to participate 4 in, why? 5 I'd like your answer, sir. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 7 David Schonbrunn, Joanna Monk, Larry Armstrong. 8 MR. SCHONBRUNN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. 9 David Schonbrunn president of TRANSDEF. Unfortunately, 10 Supervisor DeSaulnier is apparently unable to be here with 11 us. 12 We've submitted extensive written comments to 13 which we've heard no staff response tonight. To make 14 these comments more accessible, I've distilled them to one 15 page, which I believe are being distributed right now, 16 which indicates the specific reasons that the plan before 17 you is unapprovable tonight. 18 The key one here is that the 27 ton per day 19 commitment, we believe it's 27 not 26, doesn't meet the 20 requirement to 110(k)(4). It will take the identification 21 of candidate measures and a commitment to adopt them 22 within 12 months before this plan can be approvable. A 23 commitment to maybe adopt 26 tons per day within five 24 years just doesn't cut it under the Clean Air Act. 25 We've also submitted Sierra Club's news letter, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 which describes the transportation land use air quality 2 picture in the Bay Area, where activists are trying 3 mightily to link these together, despite massive 4 resistance from the local agencies. 5 We're asking for TCMs to make this link, because 6 if agencies don't act now to reduce BMT growth, it will be 7 much more difficult later due to the continuing spread of 8 auto-dependent sprawl. 9 Your own staff recommendation says, "Develop more 10 long-range strategies to reduce travel growth." We're the 11 people with the creative ideas to do just that. We're 12 telling you that a raft of control strategies are 13 reasonably available now, and we have submitted them into 14 the record, and the agencies rejected every single one of 15 them. And that they can be adopted now in Section 16 172(c)(1) says that they have to be adopted now as RAC. 17 The purpose of the conformity process is to see 18 that federal funds don't exacerbate air quality problems. 19 I've provided you on the back of our one-pager a list of 20 project types that are exempt under a conformity lapse. 21 As you can see, there's plenty of good projects that can 22 be funded, so the issue that this is going to slow down 23 the economy or whatever is unfortunately incorrect. 24 The only reason that we're faced with a 25 conformity lapse is the ongoing refusal of the Bay Area PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 agencies to adopt sufficient measures. They've brought 2 this upon themselves. We were there in 1999 on the ozone 3 SIP. They refused to adopt additional measures. 4 Let's be clear about the emissions reductions in 5 this plan. The vast majority of them are the result of 6 past actions by your board, and will occur whether or not 7 you approve this plan. As far as the 12 tons per day of 8 local VOC reductions in the plan, we urge you to cut these 9 out of the plan, adopt them tonight and submit them to 10 EPA. 11 We, too, want to see these reductions made 12 enforceable, but you don't have to adopt the rest of the 13 plan to accomplish that. The resolution of admissions 14 we've brought before you could come through the mediation 15 process that you have set into motion by a request for 16 facilitation to the EPA. 17 This process can develop the control strategies 18 to reach regional needs, but it's not going to happen 19 unless the agencies are motivated to engage in good faith. 20 And that, we unfortunately, have to tell you has not 21 happened to date. 22 We urge you to adopt the 12 tons of control 23 measures tonight, reject the plan and send it back for the 24 development of additional control measures. 25 Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 (Applause.) 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 3 Joanna Monk, Larry Armstrong, Jennifer Gunderson. 4 MS. MONK: I'm Joanna. I was going to come up 5 here and just say one thing, which was that in the future, 6 if there's a potential time constraint that at the outset 7 you should say everyone has a time limit or at least 8 please keep your comments brief. I think it was kind of 9 unfair how the first few speakers got to say everything 10 they had to and then other speakers like Suma got 11 completely cut off. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Let me say that there are 12 13 speakers from CBE. You have had about an hour's worth of 14 testimony. The people who spoke earlier represent 15 individual entities. I don't think I've been unfair. 16 MS. MONK: Well, that's debatable. But also I'd 17 like to finish what Suma was going to say. 18 There are a couple things. First of all, well 19 this is something I want to say, and I think other people 20 have said it. By approving this, you're approving the 21 same thing that you rejected in July, which seems to go 22 against common sense to me. And not only would you be 23 going against your own common sense, you'd be rewarding 24 the air district for ignoring your request for amendments 25 by failing to include the community, which they attempted PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 to do, but they had a very poor attempt at that. 2 And the other thing that I wanted to say was that 3 basically what needs to be done is to include all 4 reasonably available control measures, or at least lock in 5 those 26 tons per day that are available, and that's only 6 refinery measures. There's other ways to reduce air 7 pollution. We're only looking at refinery measures here. 8 And it's really simple to just add in a few measures and 9 have some serious reductions that will improve public 10 health and greater climate change -- I mean that will 11 improve climate change, but prevent it. 12 So please, you know, think about this and think 13 some more. 14 (Applause.) 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 16 Yes, Mr. Kenny. 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I just want to clarify 18 one thing. There's been a number of witnesses who have 19 actually commented that 26 tons per day needs to be locked 20 in. The 26 tons per day were locked in by the Bay Area 21 board when it adopted the plan. And if this Board was to 22 approve the plan at 26 tons per day, it would also be 23 locked in. 24 The difficulty that this goes to, is the 25 questions that Supervisor DeSaulnier raised at the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 beginning is that this Board and the local boards have 2 done a substantial number of things to essentially achieve 3 emission reductions. And the task for us, and it is a 4 difficult task, but it's one that we're willing to take 5 on, and I'll also comment in saying that the local 6 agencies are also willing to take it on, is to try to find 7 out what we can do to identify additional specific 8 measures to flesh out those 26 tons. But this Board, in 9 approving the plan, would be putting those 26 tons into 10 the air quality attainment effort for the Bay Area. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I appreciate the 12 clarification. 13 Mr. Larry Armstrong. 14 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. My name is Larry Armstrong. 15 I come here tonight, I guess, as both a citizen and also 16 I'm in the smog check business. And I participate in the 17 California smog check program in both the Bay Area mostly 18 and I also operate still one place in the, what's called 19 the, enhanced area that has the so-called Smog Check 2. 20 I hear people coming before you asking to have 21 the Smog Check 2 adopted in the Bay Area. I have some 22 serious reservations whether those people actually know 23 what it does or what it doesn't do; what we have in the 24 Bay Area, what it does and what it doesn't do. 25 But I'm going to say, I think you people have the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 responsibility to find out the answer to that and not just 2 proceed with something that somebody tells you that gets 3 these results. The problem is that when we deal with our 4 air, for some reason or another, we have a bad habit in 5 the state of California to cook the books. And so you are 6 liable to get information that is not exactly accurate. 7 So I would urge you to make sure that the information you 8 are getting is really accurate and is portrayed correctly, 9 not necessarily to my point of view, just correctly. 10 Before you ask the public in the Bay Area to 11 shell out a billion dollars or so in money out of their 12 own pocket before testing that may not be anymore 13 necessary than what we already do, I would urge you to 14 take some time there. 15 As I was sitting out in the audience, I thought 16 about a few years ago I was in Colorado in an air meeting 17 and I asked the question of one of the car manufacturers 18 of whether they were going to require their dealers to 19 have dynamometer systems in order to be able to work on 20 their new cars with the OBD 2 system, which are on all of 21 the cars that are now being sold in the United States, I 22 believe today. 23 The answer from the gentleman from Ford was no. 24 And then that was backed up by the gentleman from General 25 Motors and Chrysler. And all of them say they had no PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 intention of forcing the dealers to buy dynamometer 2 equipment to verify whether the systems on their cars were 3 working. 4 They reason they weren't going to do it is they 5 didn't need it. So if there was ever a time to have a 6 dynamometer in the state of California, it was maybe 20 7 years ago, and it's not today and it's not tomorrow. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Larry, can you wind up. 9 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir. 10 A couple of quick points here. I sit here and I 11 listened to the transportation people talking about where 12 we're going to spend the public's money. And I said this 13 before and I'll just say it briefly again, we're spending 14 about three percent of the public's money to build 15 roadways that 94 percent of the people choose to use over 16 mass transit. 17 In the area of transportation, I think we've got 18 a math problem. We don't have an emissions problem there. 19 We're actually creating more emissions with the policies 20 that we're using instead of creating systems that move the 21 people around efficiently. 22 We talked here tonight about how we're afraid of 23 the feds. And I asked the question at one of the meetings 24 and if you go into a service station, gas station today 25 and buy gasoline for your car that the vapors that are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 displaced by putting gasoline into your tank go back into 2 the gasoline tank at the station and then they go back 3 into the truck and then they go back supposedly to the 4 delivery system and get absorbed that way. 5 In the case of federally controlled airplanes, we 6 take the fuel out to the airplane, and I was told that we 7 just dump it wherever it goes, either into the air or onto 8 the ground or whatever it goes. 9 So when we're spending our time being afraid of 10 the feds, maybe we ought to ask them if they'd maybe do 11 their job first and then come and talk to us about doing 12 something different here. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So are you supporting or 15 opposing? 16 MR. ARMSTRONG: I filled out the little card, I 17 put neutral. I've got to leave it to your expertise to 18 decide whether to pass this thing or not. And literally I 19 was going to sit back in the back of the room and not say 20 anything tonight, until the lobbyist from the valley came 21 rolling down the aisle and it started to work on me, so I 22 figured maybe I better say something. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Jennifer Gunderson, Bob 24 Shattuck, Raymond Lambert. 25 MS. GUNDERSON: Good evening. My name is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 Jennifer Gunderson and I represent the Moffett Park 2 Business and Transportation Association, which is an 3 organization of member employers in the Moffett Park area 4 in Sunnyvale. 5 We are very concerned about the potential loss of 6 over $1 million in transportation funding should this plan 7 not be approved. Our employers are counting on improved 8 transit infrastructure and service that will enable their 9 employees to choose sufficient alternate vehicles to get 10 to work in Sunnyvale from not only the nine counties in 11 the San Francisco Bay Area, but also from San Joaquin, 12 Sacramento, Yolo, Sonoma and Monterey counties. 13 We believe the revised ozone attainment plan is a 14 good one with the Transportation control measures included 15 in the plan. We strongly encourage you to approve the 16 plan tonight. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 18 Bob Shattuck, Raymond Lambert. 19 MR. SHATTUCK: Chairman Lloyd and Members of the 20 Board, my name is Bob Shattuck. I'm with Lennar 21 Communities in Sacramento. First I want to thank you for 22 the opportunity to speak today and for your patience in 23 hearing us all out. I'm here on behalf of myself, my 24 family, my company and the Building Industry Association 25 of superior California, which is basically the Sacramento PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 area. 2 We're here to ask that you include Smog Check 2 3 in the Bay Area plan, or at minimum adopt Smog Check 2 as 4 a transport mitigation measure. Clearly, in our mind, 5 this is a feasible measure. It should be included in the 6 plan. It is being implemented in other areas of the 7 state. It's not some mysterious measure. And it's very 8 important to the Sacramento area that you do this for our 9 health reasons, for our own company and for or own 10 transportation system, which also depends on attainment 11 and the same standards that you've heard discussed today. 12 Not only do we share the air with the Bay Area, 13 on certain days and on certain conditions, but we also 14 share a number of vehicles with the Bay Area, because 15 people from the Bay Area drive in our air basin. And you 16 know air basins are kind of hard to distinguish because of 17 geography. And if we're going to solve this air quality 18 problem and help the air, we can't afford to turn our 19 backs on readily available feasible measures that help 20 reduce -- that are proven to help reduce NOx problems. 21 We have to learn to cooperate across basins. And 22 we're looking to the ARB to help in this matter and to 23 insist that these measures be included in the Bay Area 24 plan. 25 We know that transport is not our only problem in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 Sacramento. And we have taken what we believe is a very 2 aggressive and creative approach towards NOx control, but 3 again that will only work if we cooperate across basins 4 and if we all do our part. 5 I can use an analogy. It's not unlike if the 6 Sacramento area were allowed to dump pollutants 7 unrestricted into the waterways, because they go down the 8 stream to some other place. It's those other communities 9 problems to deal with it. 10 We have to deal with the air the way it flows 11 just like we have to do deal with the water the way it 12 flows, and that means we have to deal with it at sources 13 as well as where it ends up. 14 So that's what I was here to say. And I do want 15 to thank you for your time and opportunity to speak and I 16 want to encourage you to include Smog Check 2 in the plan, 17 or as I said, at a minimum as a mitigation measure so that 18 we can get that program going here as well and help us all 19 achieve clean air. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Raymond Lambert. 22 MR. LAMBERT: Dr. Lloyd and members of the Board, 23 My name is name Raymond Lambert, and I'm the Director of 24 Community Affairs for the City of Richmond. 25 And I'd like to also say that in terms of my PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 comments, they do not represent the Mayor or the Members 2 of the Richmond City Council nor do my comments represent 3 the City Manager and the City of Richmond, but my comments 4 represent myself. 5 First of all, I'd like to say to the Board that 6 I'm a native Richmond resident. I was born in the City of 7 Richmond in northern Richmond down where the Chevron 8 refinery is. I'd like to personally thank the Bay Area 9 Air Quality Management District, because I'm a young man 10 who grew up in the 40s and 50s where the ozone level was 11 high. 12 But I want to thank them today for we have some 13 of the cleanest air in the Bay Area. The people in the 14 City of Richmond breathe some of the cleanest air, so I 15 personally want to thank you for that. 16 Also, as to the Director of the Office of 17 Community Affairs, I work with 39 neighborhood 18 organizations in the city of Richmond, and we have an 19 umbrella organization which is the Richmond Coordinating 20 Council. We have representatives that come to this 21 coordinating council meeting. 22 I'd like to say tonight that in terms of a 23 coordinating council which represents all the neighborhood 24 organizations in the City of Richmond, they have not taken 25 a position on this. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 As a matter of fact, in the City of Richmond, we 2 have fence line neighborhood organizations, which we call 3 the community advisory panel. They meet on a monthly 4 basis with Chevron. And the purpose of that, Mr. Chair, 5 is to make sure that there's a nexus with the community 6 and that the community is informed and that the community 7 has information. 8 Then, finally, what I'd like to say is in terms 9 of there was a picture that was displayed in the audience 10 of Principal Mrs. Dejean. I'd like to say that I worked 11 with this lady for over ten years. Her passion is 12 education. Her passion was to improve the test scores of 13 the African-American community. 14 I'm a little bit disturbed that the organization 15 is using her picture, because if she was here today, she 16 would stand before you and let you know that her biggest 17 concern in the City of Richmond was children. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. That 19 concludes the public testimony. 20 Mr. Kenny, do have any -- 21 (Thereupon a discussion was held 22 off the record.) 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Since this is not a 24 regulatory item -- 25 MS. DOTSON: The lady's name is right here and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 she was on dioxin. So, Ray, you're out of order. You are 2 really out of order. You are really out of order. And 3 this woman comes from Mossville, Louisiana. I didn't put 4 this in this newspaper. He made the statement, so I want 5 to correct that so -- because he made the wrong -- this 6 Lavonia Dejean name is right up here, you know. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The person right there is 8 recording right there. 9 MS. DOTSON: Okay. You know, you're really out 10 of order. Don't you dare. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. Since this is not 12 a regulatory item, it is not necessary to officially close 13 the record. However, we do have a resolution before the 14 Board for action, I'd like to open it up for discussion. 15 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 16 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: A couple questions 17 first, Mr. Chairman. 18 Mr. Kenny, we had a resolution handed to us from 19 some community groups this evening and maybe you could 20 talk to us about any reservations you might have about 21 that. 22 One of the things that I said in my opening 23 comments was things I've struggled with is trying to make 24 this a beginning, if we are to approve this resolution. I 25 think we've learned a lot from the community meetings, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 both in terms of how it might apply to this resolution, 2 Mr. Chairman, and also things that we will do outside this 3 resolution that we've learned. Only time we'll be able to 4 build a trust that I hope the people who are in the 5 audience who have been critical of the district and the 6 regional agencies, we have a job to do to build that 7 trust. 8 But they gave us a recommendation today, and I 9 briefly had an opportunity to talk with him. It seems as 10 a lay person that it could be done to put the pressure on, 11 but you've expressed some reservations and you're the 12 experts, so help me. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I did look at the 14 language that was provided and it was essentially proposed 15 modifications to the resolution. 16 And in the first paragraph that was provided, 17 there was some bolded language. And it appears that that 18 language essentially is simply quoted language from the 19 federal Clean Air Act. And that is essentially what the 20 law is, and so therefore there really is no objection to 21 that language. 22 The difficulty, however, in that first paragraph 23 is I think the hope of the Communities for a Better 24 Environment is that the Board would essentially determine 25 that this particular plan, before today, does not meet the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 requirements of the Clean Air Act. 2 And as you've heard from the staff, we actually 3 do believe that, in fact, this plan is consistent with the 4 requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. And it's the 5 staff's belief that, in fact, the Board should approve 6 this plan. 7 With regard to the enumerated sections that are 8 below that, numbers one, two and three, the staff does 9 have objections to all three of those particular 10 provisions. And the reasons we have objections to those 11 particular provisions are that we do believe that they 12 provide time constraints on the Board with regard to when 13 we would be able to accomplish the objectives that this 14 Board is trying to accomplish with regard to implementing 15 this Board's clean air plan. 16 We do believe that we should work with the 17 communities and with the local districts to try to move 18 forward as expeditiously as possible. And as part of 19 the -- as we discussed at the beginning of the Board 20 hearing, Harry Saragarian did make a number of suggestions 21 that we think are good suggestions, that would incorporate 22 all parties participation, as a way of trying to move 23 forward quickly, expeditiously and that would allow us to 24 identify potential solutions that we could actually then 25 proceed with. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Explain to me another 2 option that we suggested earlier on was a conditional 3 approval. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: The difficulty with a 5 conditional approval is essentially the conformity one 6 that's been discussed previously. What we are looking at 7 today is essentially a request to you that this plan would 8 be approved. We are talking about a number of follow-up 9 actions that we think the Board should direct us and the 10 local districts to be involved in, but those would not be 11 a federal condition of action. 12 They would instead be actions that this Board has 13 directed us to take under state law and this Board's 14 authority under state law to move forward. The benefit of 15 that is that we can then move forward with all of the 16 things that have been suggested. And yet, at the same 17 time, we would not condition those things to be completed 18 within any specific time frame, which could implicate the 19 federal conformity determination within the January 23rd 20 time frame. 21 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, that's 22 all I have for questions. Maybe after my colleagues ask 23 questions, I'd be happy to make a motion for discussion or 24 board action. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Very good. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 Questions from our colleagues. 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mrs. Riordan. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'd just like to ask staff 5 when -- and I'm sure I'm reading it correctly, but we 6 talked about revisiting this in 2004. 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: That's correct. The 8 rationale there was that we have before us a plan which is 9 based on fairly limited modeling. We will, in the next 10 two years, have more sophisticated modeling that would 11 result in the Seacoast study, which is currently under 12 way. 13 And we will then be able to use that modeling to, 14 essentially -- to apply that modeling to the Bay Area. 15 And we will then have more sophisticated information and 16 we can bring back to you a plan that really does reflect 17 reliance upon those more sophisticated models. 18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: But that would not be able 19 to be done any earlier? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: It could not be done 21 any earlier. Essentially, we need that amount of time to 22 essentially complete the Seacoast effort, complete the 23 analytical work associated with it and then to develop a 24 model to be utilized. 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: What's the constraint PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 in -- I'm not really familiar with modeling. What 2 constrains us to -- because we're talking about a 3 significant amount of time. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We are. And 5 essentially what it is is that the Seacoast effort was the 6 result of about $28 million in funding. And it was a 7 result of a lot of effort that was undertaken during the 8 summer ozone season. 9 Once we have all that information, we need to go 10 through that information, analyze that information. Once 11 we've actually completed the analysis of the information, 12 we then incorporate that into a model element. And there 13 is, essentially, a need to calibrate that model against 14 realtime events. And it, essentially, is not the fastest 15 process. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Looking at some of the dates 18 in the resolution, I know Supervisor DeSaulnier mentioned 19 this earlier, clearly, I feel that we've got to move fast 20 here, to some extent. We can't move too fast. 21 But to make the study results available by the 22 end of 2003 to me that should be at least at the end, no 23 later than December 2002 and hopefully earlier. 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: What page are you on, Mr. 25 Chairman? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'm on Resolution page 5, 2 third paragraph down. 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The other part I had is that 5 on page nine, it says, "Be it further resolved that the 6 Board directs the Executive Officer to report back in 2003 7 regarding the status of the District's rulemaking..." 8 Again, I think we should add something similar by 9 December 2002 with a progress. Is that feasible. I 10 recognize, you know, it's going to be ongoing. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think it is feasible. 12 And I think basically the key there will be that the local 13 agencies and we will have to essentially dedicate greater 14 numbers of resources to try to do it on a faster time 15 frame, but I think that's reasonable and not only doable. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think we've heard tonight, 17 particularly from the CBE, that basically a doubt of the 18 district's commitment here, the Bay Area district's, 19 commitment is not going to follow through. 20 And, again, I think we believe that, because 21 we've heard from the Chairman and the Executive Officer, 22 but I think to make sure to honor our commitment to the 23 citizens, I think it would be good to make sure we all 24 work together and see that progress is being maintained. 25 That's been one of the tough things for me this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 evening is to try to separate out some of the concerns on 2 the toxic side of what we're looking for a plan and to 3 realize that we need to make probably an improvement 4 there, at least a potential improvement. 5 On the ozone, we don't need very much there. So 6 I think it's a big challenge. And because the area also 7 of the -- the transport issue that's going to be a very 8 very important one. We decided we're going to look at 9 that in the transport mitigation plans. And there are 10 many issues that I think to look at there, as we've heard 11 earlier. We've got to evaluate all the potential measures 12 we can look at, including smog check. 13 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, if my 14 colleagues don't have any questions, I'd like to try to 15 put a motion together for discussion and make a few 16 comments. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. By the way, I really 18 appreciate, Supervisor, your leadership you've showed on 19 this board. And we sure recognize that you've got a lot 20 at stake here with the Bay Area. And your leadership 21 since the last meeting has really been outstanding, we've 22 received. 23 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I'm glad you specified 24 on this issue. We'll have to talk to you about how I'm 25 doing on the other issues. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 I appreciate that, Alan. And I think for me this 2 has been both an opportunity and certainly a challenge. 3 And I will make this motion with some degree of anxiety, 4 because I think the Bay Area should be in attainment. 5 I don't think we should be here. I think by 6 virtue of our natural talents and abilities both vis a vis 7 the people we've got working for us and the people we work 8 for, as well as our national advantage in terms of the 9 weather pattern, the Bay Area should be attainment, and we 10 shouldn't be having these arguments, and we should be in 11 attainment regularly. 12 And as I've teased some of my colleagues, it's 13 not like horse shoes, where you're close. We've mentioned 14 that, and it's valid to bring it up. As the former 15 regional administrator pointed out to me, either you're in 16 or you're out. And right now we're out and we need to get 17 back in as a public health issue. 18 So what I've struggled with is how to put as much 19 pressure on all of us to make sure that we do get back in 20 at the earliest possible time. 21 So along the lines of what you suggested, Mr. 22 Chairman, is I would suggest three conditions or 23 amendments or directions within this resolution, which is 24 Resolution 01-27. And the first is to follow up on what 25 you suggested, is that the further study measures all be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 brought back by December of 2002, but that along the lines 2 of what our Executive Director said, because I know when I 3 suggested this some weeks ago to Ellen, her concern was 4 our ability at the regional levels to be able to have 5 staff to do it, so we're going to need some help from CARB 6 to make sure that this happens. So I would include that 7 as the first amendment. 8 And then also direct staff to implement their 9 recommendations that the facilitator from Region 9 has 10 made in terms of oversight groups and to bring back a 11 report, and this goes along with what you suggested as 12 well, Alan, within six months from the Executive Officer 13 or myself in terms of the progress on the implementation, 14 not just for further studies but all directions in the 15 resolution. 16 And that number three, that we specify the 17 tonnage in 23 tons as soon as possible, and we come back 18 with a report and give us an update on that. 19 So that would be the three that apply to this 20 specific motion. 21 Outside of this, I'd like to suggest my two 22 colleagues from the valley that we ask staff to convene a 23 meeting between -- and that we head this, Supervisor 24 Patrick and Board Member D'Adamo, but that CARB staff 25 convene a meeting between the Bay Area District and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 down-wind districts and invite our legislative delegation 2 to be part of that to deal with Smog Check. 3 Personally, I feel with the comments from the 4 stationary sources as we try to identify those tons, we're 5 going to be looking at Smog Check, because I tend to agree 6 with them, although we can do some of these further 7 studies that the community has asked for, we're going to 8 be looking at every source we can. 9 So in reality I don't think the Bay Area can 10 deny, in spite of some of the criticisms to the accuracy 11 by some of the speakers that we're going to have to look 12 at them, not just as an equity issues, and I've said 13 before, I do believe there's an equity issue. 14 But within that, I think there are greater 15 things, other things that we have to talk about in terms 16 of the educational growth that's going on. And I think 17 this provides a real opportunity for us to engage with our 18 down-wind neighbors. And I would say we clearly know in 19 the Bay Area that the nine Bay Area counties, as currently 20 defined, no longer in reality exists. It's a 19 Bay Area 21 community that includes the ten counties that surround us. 22 So beyond the air quality and transport issue, we 23 really have to develop a greater dialogue with our 24 neighbors, but this is an opportunity in this instance. 25 So I make that as a suggestion for comments and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 direction to staff outside of this motion that we should 2 pursue no later than the first quarter of next year and 3 perhaps we can look at transport mitigation, obviously, as 4 part of that discussion. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I think that's an excellent 6 suggestion, Supervisor, but I think it really goes -- and 7 I'm sure you're including in Judith Lamare's comments, our 8 friend from Sacramento, because I think her comment that 9 you know clearly, we're all in this together in a way 10 that's very, very important. 11 So I appreciate your leadership and the 12 leadership of the Congressman from Sacramento to work on 13 this issue. 14 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Thank you, Mr. 15 Chairman. 16 By the way, the Yankees won three to two in the 17 bottom of the 12th. I thought it was a good way to end. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well I, too, really 19 appreciate the leadership on this issue and the Chairman's 20 as well. However, I remain dissatisfied with the plan and 21 I will be voting no on it this evening for a number of 22 reasons. 23 (Applause.) 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I don't want to appear to 25 be obstructionist, because I think that we've really come PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 a long way in this debate. My particular concern has to 2 do with the fact that I think we can do better. I think 3 we can do better. 4 (Applause.) 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think we can do better 6 on the Bay Area's plan, and I think there is much further 7 to go, and in particular on the study measures and on the 8 smog check issue. 9 I will definitely take you up on your 10 recommendation and want to be working closely with you and 11 others and with the legislators that are interested. And 12 I would also like to, at some point, I think we need to 13 have, at least an initial discussion, amongst ourselves 14 and with some of the legislators who are particularly 15 concerned, but would like to invite those that are 16 interested in the transport issue to join us as well. 17 I think that there's a place for industry, the 18 environmental groups and the down-wind neighbors on this 19 discussion. 20 And, again, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to appear 21 to be obstructionist, but I think we have a little more 22 work to do on it. 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I see the message, in deed. 25 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, I'll make my PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 comments right now. I have to agree with my colleague 2 from Modesto, that this falls short of where we need to 3 be. 4 (Applause.) 5 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I'm very concerned that 6 there does not seem to be the political will in this area 7 to do what we're already doing in the San Joaquin Valley. 8 As we have been adopting rules in the San Joaquin 9 valley, quite frankly, we're not going with Bay Area 10 rules. We're going with South Coast rules. We have to, 11 because we have to clean the air. 12 And I'm very concerned that there was an 13 opportunity to meet us on this and to say, in deed, that 14 you want to go the extra mile to help us with the huge 15 challenge that we have, and folks fell short, and that's 16 very disappointing. It's disappointing for the people in 17 the Sacramento valley. It's disappointing for the people 18 in the San Joaquin Valley. 19 However, I will say, I always stand ready to work 20 with Supervisor DeSaulnier on any issue of mutual 21 interest. He has shown tremendous leadership, and I think 22 that there could not be a better representative of the Bay 23 Area on this Board than Mark DeSaulnier. 24 He's done a fabulous job. So I am certainly not 25 at all concerned with his position nor indicating in any PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 way that his leadership has fallen short, because I would 2 say that's absolutely not the case. 3 But I, too, feel that it's a matter of equity. 4 It's a matter of fairness and I'm disappointed. And I 5 would be very disappointed to go home and face all the 6 cities and all the counties and all the transit agencies 7 that have said that they feel that we needed to have a 8 Smog Check 2, and I would not be representing them if I 9 voted in favor of this plan. 10 (Applause.) 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Supervisor 12 Patrick. Again, for me, this is one also which is 13 extremely difficult. As a technical person, I'm troubled 14 by the fact we're trying to -- it's not very tangible. 15 You can't grip it. You can't taste it. 16 But where I come from is different than last time 17 I think is that I think the Bay Area, both the MTC and the 18 AQMD there really heard us. And I put a lot of faith in 19 the commitment of the Chair and the executive staff at the 20 Bay Area and in MTC. And I think we're going to -- and 21 the industry, because I think we've got the industry's 22 attention. We're going to look to them to really help us 23 on this. 24 If we don't, we're going to let them pull us 25 down. And we're also, I would think, this industry more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 or less would want to get this off our backs, that little 2 bit of extra. 3 But I also am sympathetic, and again, I 4 appreciate, despite if you think I was cutting you off, I 5 appreciate the number of people coming from CBE with 6 sincere interest and commitment here, spending your time 7 coming here. So I really appreciate it as well, so it 8 makes it very tough. 9 But I think the message here is that we really 10 have to work together not just on the ozone, but on 11 everything else. But I'm relying on the good faith of all 12 of us here to pull through. And this is a chance where if 13 we don't work together, then we have to come down much 14 heavier. 15 And I think it's time to give that. I've been 16 appreciative -- and, again, I would echo what Supervisor 17 Patrick said, I think that it's a privilege to work with 18 Supervisor DeSaulnier here in his capacity, which I know 19 is not easy being on both boards. And so I have 20 confidence that the process will work. 21 If it doesn't, I think we've got to see if there 22 are other ways to do it. 23 So I will support the plan. 24 Dr. Friedman. 25 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Well, after PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 several nights of testimony and a lot of reading, I think 2 it's kind of simple, in retrospect, to appreciate how the 3 task today would be a lot easier if some past decisions 4 and actions could be undone, and had a long time ago kind 5 of average that this started recently had been a lot more 6 extensive and lot more inclusive. 7 But you can't change the past in my view. And 8 the challenge I think today is really not to cut off our 9 nose to spite our face. I think that we have -- the Board 10 has a pragmatic comparative to go forward so as not to 11 lose -- you can't risk more than a billion dollars to 12 enhance the quality of life of the citizens of California. 13 Do we have to do more? Absolutely. It is 14 mandatory to model the areas attainment on more 15 sophisticated and a reliable manner. Decisions that are 16 not based in good science are bad decisions, and this 17 really has to happen. 18 Should Smog Check 2 become a fact? I believe it 19 must. I, however, believe that this should be done in the 20 context of a transport issue. I personally will be more 21 than dismayed, I will be disenchanted and, quite frankly, 22 angry if in some reasonable time frame this area does not 23 incorporate Smog Check 2 into its area. 24 I think that, you know, tonight's action is in no 25 way some kind of a final solution, but I do believe that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 the passage of the revised SIP submission is an important 2 step in a proper direction, and so I'm going to vote for 3 it. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to 5 follow along and agree with Dr. Friedman. This is but the 6 first step in a long journey. And this Board is going to 7 be watching very carefully that progress is made. We have 8 an excellent staff working for us. And with their 9 knowledge, the onus is on all of you who are sitting in 10 the room who are part of this Bay Area district to keep 11 moving forward. 12 We are relying on your good faith efforts, and we 13 have heard a lot of commitments tonight for that, but we 14 will be watching and we will continue to watch throughout 15 these next three to four very critical years. So the work 16 is before us, the cooperation is necessary, and I am going 17 to support it. 18 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Just following up on -- 20 BOARD MEMBER SUPERVISOR: I have an update on the 21 ball game. I'm kidding. 22 (Laughter.) 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Following up on that, I think 24 Dr. Friedman's comment, I think, is particularly 25 appropriate, at a time when we're all nervous from many of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 the disasters that have hit us here at a time when the 2 Governor's holding an economic summit tomorrow to try to 3 help in California. 4 I think while there's nothing more important to 5 us on this Board than public health, it would not be 6 serving this Governor well if we added to that nervousness 7 by putting those significant dollars and jobs at risk. So 8 I think that, Dr. Friedman, I appreciate your reminding me 9 of that as well. It's very, very important. 10 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 11 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I just briefly wanted 12 to thank you all for the generous comments. I believe 13 that of all my public appointments and jobs, this has been 14 one of the most enjoyable. And certainly in traveling 15 around this country and the world, there's nothing I'm 16 associated with that is held in as high esteem and respect 17 from most people who know about air quality in California 18 than the Air Resources Board and the people who work for 19 us. So the feelings are mutual both to my colleagues and 20 to staff. 21 And to staff, having said that, I very much 22 appreciate the comments of all my colleagues. 23 Dr. Friedman and Board Member Riordan, I think 24 this should be a clear measure to the Bay Area that this 25 is a beginning, and we've got to prove to our critics over PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 there that we've changed. And this is an opportunity over 2 the next six months to a year to demonstrate that. We've 3 got a lot of work cutout for us for a long time of 4 creating this kind of situation. 5 So I look forward to working collectively, but I 6 think it requires CARB staff's, in particular, full 7 engagement. 8 And in terms of Smog Check, I appreciate where 9 both of you and your comments and how you're voting on 10 this, but I really look forward to discussing all of the 11 issues around Smog Check and the issues between the Bay 12 Area and the valley in the next six months or so, so we 13 can have some real changes. 14 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 16 I think we have a motion. 17 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Second. 18 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Resolution is 01-27 19 with the three amendments that I mentioned in my comments. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Seconded by Dr. Friedman. 21 All in favor say aye? 22 (Ayes.) 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Against? 24 (Noes.) 25 So we have four in favor, then we had is it Ms. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 D'Adamo, Supervisor Patrick against, so four to two. 2 Thank you all for that. We don't have any more 3 business, thank you for staying all this time. 4 (Thereupon the California Air Resources 5 Board meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 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 November, 2001. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License No. 10063 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345