videoconference meeting air resources ...videoconference meeting state of california air resources...

VIDEOCONFERENCE MEETING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

CALEPA HEADQUARTERS

BYRON SHER AUDITORIUM

SECOND FLOOR

1001 I STREET

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2020

9:01 A.M.

JAMES F. PETERS, CSRCERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 10063

J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171

A P P E A R A N C E S

BOARD MEMBERS:

Ms. Mary Nichols, Chair

Ms. Sandra Berg, Vice Chair

Mr. Hector De La Torre

Dr. John Balmes

Mr. John Eisenhut

Supervisor Nathan Fletcher

Senator Dean Florez

Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia

Mr. John Gioia

Ms. Judy Mitchell

Senator Bill Monning

Mrs. Barbara Riordan

Supervisor Phil Serna

Dr. Alexander Sherriffs

Professor Daniel Sperling

Ms. Diane Takvorian

STAFF:

Mr. Richard Corey, Executive Officer

Ms. Edie Chang, Deputy Executive Officer

Mr. Steve Cliff, Deputy Executive Officer

Mr. Kurt Karperos, Deputy Executive Officer

Ms. Ellen Peter, Chief Counsel


A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D

STAFF:

Ms. Veronica Eady, Assistant Executive Officer

Ms. Annette Hebert, Assistant Executive Officer

Mr. Ryan Atencio, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Environmental Justice Section, Executive Office (EO)

Mr. Michael Benjamin, Division Chief, Air Quality Planningand Science Division (AQPSD)

Mr. Dave Edwards, Assistant Division Chief, AQPSD

Mr. Jorn Herner, Branch Chief, Research Planning, Administration, and Emissions Mitigation Branch, Research Division (RD)

Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, Branch Chief, Health and ExposureAssessment Branch, RD

Ms. Nesamani Kalandiyur, Manager, Transportation Analysis Section, Sustainable Transportation and Communities Division

Ms. Jackie Lourenco, Branch Chief, New Vehicle/Engine Programs Branch, Emissions Certification and ComplianceDivision (ECCD)

Mr. Allen Lyons, Division Chief, ECCD

Mr. Tony Martino, Manager, Aftermarket Performance Parts Section, ECCD

Mr. Gabriel Monroe, Attorney, Legal Office

Mr. Richard Muradliyan, Air Resources Engineer, Aftermarket Performance Parts Section, ECCD

Ms. Sarah Pittiglio, Manager, Research Planning Climate Analysis Section, RD

Ms. Kim Pryor, Branch Chief, Aftermarket Parts Certification and Audit Branch, ECCD

Mr. Randy Reck, Attorney, Legal Office



STAFF:

Ms. Elizabeth Scheehle, Division Chief, RD

Mr. Webster Tasat, Manager, Central Valley Air Quality Planning Section, AQPSD

Ms. Sylvia Vanderspek, Branch Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, AQPSD

Ms. Barbara Weller, Manager, Populations Studies Section,RD

Mr. Daniel Whitney, Senior Attorney, Legal Office

Mr. Earl Withycombe, Air Resources Engineer, CentralValley Air Quality Planning Section, AQPSD

ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. Alejandro Amador, Casa Familiar

Mr. Frank Bohanan

Mr. Chris Bruny, Gale Banks Engineering

Mr. Dale Drelinger

Mr. Sean Edgar, Clean Fleets

Mr. Moises Zuniga Gutierrez, City of Tijuana, Baja California

Mr. John Hernandez, Our Roots Multi Cultural Center

Mr. Ryan Kenny, Clean Energy

Mr. Ross Korns, Gale Banks Engineering

Mr. Braden Liberg, Edelbrock

Mr. Ed Marek

Ms. Denis McCoy



ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. Luis Olmedo, Comite Civico del Valle

Mr. Alberto Jabalera Oviedo, Autonomous University of Baja California

Mr. Max Pfeiffer, Maxwell Vehicles

Mr. Stanton Saucier, MPower Engineering

Mr. Peter Treydte, Specialty Equipment Market Association

Ms. LaDonna Williams, All Positives Possible


I N D E X PAGE

Call or Order and Roll Call 1

Opening Remarks by Chair Nichols 2

Item 20-7-1 Chair Nichols 6 Executive Officer Corey 6 Motion 8 Vote 8

Item 20-7-4 Chair Nichols 10 Executive Officer Corey 10 Mr. Olmedo 12 Motion 14 Board Discussion and Q&A 14 Vote 16

Item 20-7-5 Chair Nichols 17 Executive Officer Corey 18 Mr. Olmedo 19 Board Discussion and Q&A 20 Motion 21 Vote 21

Item 20-7-6 Chair Nichols 23 Executive Officer Corey 23 Board Discussion and Q&A 24 Motion 25 Vote 25 Board Discussion and Q&A 27

Item 20-7-2 Chair Nichols 29 Executive Officer Corey 30 Staff Presentation 31 Mr. Treydte 43 Mr. Pfeiffer 45 Mr. Saucier 48 Mr. Bohanan 51 Mr. Liberg 53 Mr. Bruny 55 Mr. Korns 56


I N D E X C O N T I N U E D PAGE

Item 20-7-2(continued)Board Discussion and Q&A 57 Motion 72 Vote 74

Item 20-7-3 Chair Nichols 75 Executive Officer Corey 77 Staff Presentation 79 Mr. Amador 95 Mr. Gutierrez 99 Mr. Oviedo 101 Mr. Hernandez 104 Board Discussion and Q&A 109 Mr. Olmedo 114 Board Discussion and Q&A 117

Public Comment Mr. Drelinger 134 Ms. McCoy 136 Mr. Edgar 139 Mr. Marek 142 Ms. Williams 145 Mr. Kenny 152 Mr. Olmedo 155

Adjournment 158

Reporter's Certificate 159


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

P R O C E E D I N G S

CHAIR NICHOLS: Good morning, everybody. The

July 23rd, 2020 public meeting of the California Air

Resources Board will come to order. And the Board Clerk,

I believe we have Mr. Sakazaki there, will call the roll.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, Chair Nichols.

Dr. Balmes?

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Mr. De La Torre?

Mr. Eisenhut?

BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Supervisor --

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: I didn't hear who you were

calling. Supervisor who?

CHAIR NICHOLS: We have too many supervisor. No.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Well, the name got cut off.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Fletcher. I apologize my

mask is -- is muffling my enunciation.

Supervisor Fletcher?

Senator Florez?

BOARD MEMBER FLOREZ: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Assemblymember Garcia?

Supervisor Gioia?

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Ms. Mitchell?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Senator Monning?

Mrs. Riordan?

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Supervisor Serna?

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Dr. Sherriffs?

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Professor Sperling?

Ms. Takvorian?

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Vice Chair Berg?

VICE CHAIR BERG: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Chair Nichols?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Madam Chair, we have a

quorum.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great.

BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Supervisor Fletcher, I'm

here too. Sorry. Didn't push my button.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Good morning. I have to say that

since we all have our pictures posted when we say our

names the winner of today's wardrobe contest is Supervisor

Serna, who is wearing the Air Resources Board T-shirt, the

new T-shirt design. It looks terrific. We get thumbs up.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

Okay. Great.

All right. So I want to open by saying that it's

great to be meeting with my colleagues this morning. And

I hope you're all doing well and needless to say, we all

hope that everything returns to normal as soon as

possible. But in the meantime, we are conducting business

via Zoom and we'll talk more about that as we go on. But

we have organized today's meeting to be as close as

possible to our normal Board meetings, but understandably

with the technology that seems to vary a little bit each

time we use it, there could possibly be some technical

problems. And if there are, we just ask in advance for

your patience.

I also want to announce that we have

interpretation services provided for today in Spanish.

And if you're using Zoom, there's a button labeled

interpretation on the Zoom screen. So you can click that

button and select Spanish to hear the meeting in Spanish.

(Interpreter translated in Spanish.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. And now I'm going to

ask the Board clerk to provide some further details on how

the procedures for today will work.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, Chair Nichols.

Good Morning, everyone. My name is Ryan Sakazaki and I'm

one of the Board's clerks. I will provide some


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

information on how -- on how -- on how public

participation will be organized for today's meeting. If

you wish to make a verbal comment on one of the Board

items or if you want to make a comment during the open

comment period at the end of the meeting, you must be on

Zoom's webinar or be calling in by telephone. If you are

currently watching the webcast on CalSpan, but do want to

comment, please register for the Zoom webinar or call in.

Information for both can be found on the public agenda.

To make a verbal comment, we will be using the

raise hand feature on Zoom. If you wish to speak on a

Board item, please virtually raise your hand to let us

know you wish to speak at the beginning of that Board

item. To do this, if you're using a computer or tablet,

there is a raise hand button. If you're calling on

telephone, dial star nine to raise your hand. Even if you

previously registered and indicated which item you wish to

speak on, please raise your hand at the beginning of the

item, if you wish to speak. If you don't raise your hand,

your chance to be -- speak will be skipped.

If you are giving your verbal comment in Spanish,

please indicate so at the beginning of your testimony, and

our translator will assist you. During your comment,

please pause after each sentence to allow the -- for the

interpreter to translate your comment into English.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

When the comment period starts, the order of

commenters will be determined by who raises their hand

first. I will call each commenter by name and then

activate each commenter when it is their turn to speak.

For those calling in, I will identify you by the last

three digits of your phone number.

We will not -- we will not show a list of

commenters. However, I will be announcing the next three

or so commenters in the queue, so you are ready to testify

and know who's coming next. Please note, you will not

appear by video during your testimony.

I would like to remind everyone, commenters,

Board members, and CARB staff to please state your name

for the record before you speak. This is important in the

new remote meeting setting, and especially important for

those calling in to testify on an item. There is the

normal three-minute time limit for each commenter, though

that time could change based on the Chair's discretion.

During public testimony, you will be -- you will

see a time on the screen. For those calling in by phone,

we will run a timer and then let you know when they -- we

have 30 seconds left and when your time is up.

If you wish to submit written comments today,

please visit CARB's send-us-your-comment page or look at

the public agenda on our website for links to send these


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

documents electronically. Comments will be accepted on

each item until the Chair closes the record for that Board

item.

I would like to give a friendly reminder to our

Board members and our CARB staff to please mute yourself

when you are not speaking to avoid background noise.

Also, when you do speak, please speak from a

quiet location. If you experience any technical

difficulties, please call (805)801-3676 so an IT person

can assist. Again, that's (805)801-3676.

Thank you. I'd like to turn the microphone back

to Chair Nichols.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you very much. And the

first item on today's agenda is a public hearing to

consider approval of the Eastern Kern Ozone Conformity

Budget Update. Just a reminder, that even if you've

signed up previously to speak, we need you to click either

the raise hand button or to dial star nine if you're on a

phone now before we actually get into the presentation so

that we'll be ready to begin public comment when the time

comes.

So, Mr. Corey, would you please introduce this

item?

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Yes. Thanks, Chair.

The Clean Air Act establishes transportation


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

conformity requirements which are intended to ensure that

transportation activities do not interfere with air

quality progress. The Act requires that transportation

plans, programs, and projects that obtain federal funds or

approvals conform to applicable State implementation plans

before being approved by a Metropolitan Planning

Organization.

The item before you today is the Eastern Kern

Ozone Conformity Budget Update. On July 27, 2017 the

governing Board of the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control

District approved the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Attainment

Plan. The 2017 Ozone Plan contained transportation

conformity budgets for the 8-hour ozone standard in the

attainment year 2020.

CARB subsequently approved the 2017 ozone plan

and submitted to EPA for approval. To support approval,

EPA has requested updated transportation conformity

budgets for the attainment year 2020. CARB staff has

developed and updated motor vehicle emission budgets as

requested.

CARB staff has determined that this update

satisfies the applicable Act requirements and therefore

recommends the Board approve the update and direct staff

to submit it to EPA as a revision to the California SIP.

That concludes my remarks.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Madam Chair, I think

you're muted.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

We are now ready to hear from any members of the

public who wish to comment on this item. Are there any

speakers who have raised their hands

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Madam Chair, there have no

speaker -- there are no speakers who have raised their

hands.

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. In that case, I will

close the record on this agenda item. Have all the Board

members had an opportunity to review the resolution?

I'll take that as a yes. May I have a motion and

second to adopt Resolution number 20-20?

VICE CHAIR BERG: Madam Chair, Sandy Berg. I'll

move.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank yo.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: John Blames. I'll second.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Madam Chair, Judy

Mitchell. I'll second.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Ms. Mitchell seconds.

And the Clerk will please call the roll.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Dr. Balmes?

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Yes.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Mr. Eisenhut?

BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: Yes.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Supervisor Fletcher?

BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Aye.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Senator Florez?

BOARD MEMBER FLOREZ: Aye.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Supervisor Gioia?

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Aye.


BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Yes.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Mrs. Riordan?

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Aye.


BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Aye.


BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Yes.


BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Aye.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Ms. Takvorian?

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Yes.


VICE CHAIR BERG: Yes.


CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Madam Chair, the motion


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

passes.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. Thank you.

The next item on the Agenda is item number

20-7-4, consideration of a proposed research contract with

the University of California at Davis titled, "Measuring,

Analyzing, and Identifying Small Area VMT Reductions".

And again, if you are listening today and you want to

comment, please click the raise hand button or dial star

nine now and we'll call on you when we get to the comment

section.

This item is listed on the agenda due to the

amount of the contract and also in order to comply with

the Board approval requirements in Government Code section

1091 because two of our Board members have an affiliation

with UC Davis, therefore Members Berg and Sperling will

abstain from the discussion and the vote.

The research proposal was developed in response

to the Board-approved research projects for fiscal year

2020-2021.

Mr. Corey, would you please summarize this item?

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Yes. Thanks, Chair. A

key element of the State's effort to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions from the transportation sector is the

requirement that Metropolitan Planning Organizations, or

MPOs, adopt Sustainable Community Strategies. However,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

the adoption of strategies does not guarantee the adoption

of policy and programming changes at the local level nor

on-the-ground changes in development that would produce a

reduction in vehicle miles traveled.

The objective of this project is to assess the

degree to which local and regional policies related to

transportation systems and land development patterns in

selected California communities have produced reductions

in vehicle miles traveled in order to inform best

practices to achieve Sustainable Community Strategy goals.

The execution of this contract will help to

support CARB's implementation of SB 375 and help pave the

way for our longer term climate goals as well.

CARB staff recommend that the Board approve

funding of the proposed research contract with the

University of California, Davis titled, "Measuring,

Analyzing, and Identifying Small Area VMT Reduction".

Approximately 199,500 is requested to fund this contract.

The contract was approved by the Board last December as

part of the 2020-2021 research plan and was approved by

the Research Screening Committee.

That concludes my remarks.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. Corey.

We will now hear from any members of the public

who wish to speak on this item.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes, Madam Chair. We have

one person who has raised their hand. Luis Olmedo.

I have activated your microphone. You can unmute

yourself and begin.

MR. OLMEDO: Hello. Good morning, Chairman

Nichols and members of the Board. My name is Luis Olmedo.

I am the Executive Director of Comite Civico del Valle.

And I just wanted to take the opportunity to commend the

Research Division and the work that they're proposing

today. But I also want to utilize this opportunity to

demonstrate how the Research Division could also

prioritize the border. We have had a deficit in data in

the CalEnviroScreen. And this is work that the Research

Division can do and prioritize to give us a good account,

an accuracy of the emissions that are being generated in

the cross-border that are affecting Californians, those

constituents and residents that are within the purview and

mandates to be protected of their air quality.

We at the border are interconnected with Mexico.

And we are just as valuable as every corner and every part

whether it be coastal, whether it be mountainous ares, or

whether it be agriculture. We are just as important as

any other Californians. And I'd like to take this

opportunity to ask that the Research Division or any other

division consider helping us at the border get an


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

accurate, true account of those emissions, so that we can

get a fair shake when it comes to the CalEnviroScreen and

those investments, whether it be through climate

investment, GGRF, or other programs equitably invested in

our border.

I want to thank -- you know, even though I bring

this to the Board, I do want to say that it's -- I do

have -- feel that we do get the attention, you know, from

the executive team, from the Executive Officer, and the

Board has always been very supportive. So I just ask that

the divisions also be as supportive in this -- in bringing

up -- bringing forth these priorities to the Board.

Thank you.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. Madam Chair,

that concludes our list of speakers for this item.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. Thank you. And duly

noted. I think it would be useful, but probably not right

this minute, Mr. Corey, maybe when we get to the border

item, in fact, to have just a brief summary of how

research projects actually get onto our list and contracts

developed and so forth. It's been a while since we've had

a discussion about that. I think the Board members are

generally familiar, but it's worth just reminding folks,

because obviously this is extremely important work that we

do. And since funds are always tight and especially now,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

it is important that we understand how the priorities get

set.

that.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: We'll be prepared to do

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. Thank you.

Okay. Then I will close the record on this

agenda item. And if all the members of the Board are

ready, I would appreciate a motion and a second to proceed

with executing this contract.

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Dr. Sherriffs motion

to --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Dr. Sherriffs made the motion and

a second?

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Hector, second.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Second Mr. De La Torre. Okay.

Then the clerk --

VICE CHAIR BERG: Madam Chair?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

VICE CHAIR BERG: We do have two Board members

that have their hands up. I'm not sure if that -- they

wanted to speak.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Oh, sorry.

VICE CHAIR BERG: No, it's hard to keep tack of

this.

CHAIR NICHOLS: And, no, no. I didn't have the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

list up here. You are absolutely right.

Okay. Ms. Riordan and then Ms. Takvorian. So

starting with Barbara Riordan.

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Oh. Well, Madam Chair, I

just simply -- I was going to offer a motion on the first

item on Kern's plan. And it must have just carried over

to this one. So it's an old raise your hand, I guess.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. I don't know -- I know for

myself, if I just click on the raised hand, I can make it

go away. I don't know if that works for you or not.

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Oh. Oh. Okay. I'll give

it a try.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Ms. Takvorian.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Yeah. There's a lower

hand on mine, so...

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Just to be different.

Who knows.

Thank you. Thank you, Luis, for testifying.

really appreciate that. And I was going to say what you

said, Madam Chair, as well, that hopefully we could get a

little bit more information when we have the border report

and then a follow-up probably to that.

And then to this item specifically, I just wanted

to say how important I think this item is -- this research


I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

item and how much I very much support it, because for all

the reasons that we all supported it the first time, but

also because small VMT -- small case study VMT is

critically important particularly right now. We've got

lots of issues related to transit and safety on transit.

And I think that these small-scale projects are going to

be a big part of the answer coming forward. So I'm really

leaking forward to that. And I know that the research

design is already there, but I hope that it -- it's kind

of considering as well some of the COVID impacts, because

I think that's the way that we're really going to have to

do transit and VMT reduction planning at this point. So I

think it's very, very timely.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. All right. Seeing no

further board members who have comments, then let's

proceed to take the vote, Mr. Clerk.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr. Balmes?



BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Yes.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Mr. Eisenhut?

Mr. Eisenhut?

BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: There we go. Yes.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you.

Supervisor Fletcher?





BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Yes












CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.


passes.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. Thank you very much.

Our next item is also a research contract with

the University of California. This one with UC San

Francisco title, "Impacts of Air Pollution on COVID-19


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Cases and Death Risk in California". And again to members

of the public, if you want to comment, please click the

raise hand button or dial star nine and we will call you

when we get to the public comment portion.

This item is listed on the agenda due to the size

of the contract and to comply again with the approval

requirements for Government Code section 1091, because two

of our Board members -- I'm sorry, one of our Board

members in this case is affiliated with UCSF. Therefore,

Dr. Balmes will abstain from the discussion and the vote.

Mr. Corey, would you please summarize this item?


This research proposal was developed to

investigate concerns about the impacts of air pollution

exposures to Californians during the current COVID-19

pandemic, including risks to vulnerable and disadvantaged

communities. The objective of the project is to examine

the impacts statewide of both long-term and short-term

exposures to air pollution on the risk for COVID-19 death

and severe illness.

Given the high levels of air pollution and the

higher impact of COVID-19 in low-income communities and

communities of color, this study is critical to determine

the increased health risks in California. Approximately,

106,000 is requested to fund this contract. Approval by


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

the Board will authorize staff to put the contract in

place to undertake the activities described in the

proposal. The contract was approved by the Research

Screening Committee.

And with that, we recommend approval and I

conclude my remarks.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. Are there any members

of the public who signed up to speak on this item?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes. We have one

commenter who has raised their hand, Luis Olmedo. I have

activated your microphone. You can go ahead and begin.

MR. OLMEDO: Yeah. As a member of the public,

I'd like to support the leadership of the Air Resources

Board on this matter. Imperial, as other areas of the

state, are hot spots for COVID-19. We are very well aware

of the implications of having an air basin and air

district that has not been able to meet federal standards

for particulate matter. We have a Salton Sea, which has

been our endemic, and is a climate crisis for this entire

California and the U.S. And we have transported

pollution, which has -- which I would say local, State,

and federal generates to utilize the exemption of -- but

for the emissions outside of the District in order to meet

compliance.

And COVID, as we have heard many of the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

I characterizations, have exposed these deep inequities.

would like to continue to reiterate the importance of

understanding and characterizing the -- the disease, being

the inequities, and the disadvantages that exist. Air

pollution being no exception, perhaps a major, major

culprit of increased probability of severe illness and

death.

We at the border would like to also have deeper

conversations with the Air Resources Board on this matter

from a public health standpoint and from a regulatory

standpoint.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you.

Is that the only witness?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes, Madam Chair. That

concludes the list of comments for this item.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. Okay. Thank you, Mr.

Olmedo.

We'll now proceed to the Board then after I close

the record, which I am now doing on this agenda item.

So if all the members have reviewed this, I do

see one hand up. That's Ms. Mitchell.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say that this is very important research.

Today, we heard the news that California has surpassed New


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

York in the number of COVID-19 cases. We have heard from

many of our stakeholders to stop regulation because of the

pandemic, but this emphasizes how important it is that we

go further and continue our research and our regular --

regulatory agenda.

We have the worst air quality in the nation and

we have a number of impacted disadvantaged communities

throughout the state, who are affected by COVID-19. And

so I heartily support this kind of research. I think it's

very important.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Would you like to make the motion

then?

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: I will make the motion to

approve this research proposal.


May I have a second?

VICE CHAIR BERG: Sandy Berg second

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Hector De La Torre

second.

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. Sandy got there

first, I think, so Ms. Mitchell seconds. And ask the

Clerk to please call the roll.


BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Aye.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22


BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: Aye.






BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Yes.






Supervisor Serna?

Dr. Sherriffs?

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Aye




BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Aye.


BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Aye.


VICE CHAIR BERG: Aye.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.


passes.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. Thank you, everybody.

Our third and final research proposal for today

is with the University of California, Los Angeles, titled,

"Ambient Air Pollution and COVID-19 Disease Severity or

Death Among Confirmed Cases in Southern California". And

again, if you wish to comment on this item, please click

the raise hand button or dial star nine now.

This item is listed on the agenda because of the

contract amount and to comply with Board approval

requirements in Government Code section 1091, because one

of our Board members is affiliated with UC Berkeley where

one of the researchers is also affiliated. So therefore,

Dr. Balmes will abstain from this discussion and vote.

Mr. Corey, please summarize this item.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Thanks, Chair. This

research proposal was developed in response to concern for

the impacts of air pollution exposures to Californians

during the COVID-19 pandemic. The work complements the

previous contract I just described. The objective of this

project is to examine the impacts of long-term exposures

to air pollution on members of the Kaiser Permanente

Southern California HMO for COVID-19 cases, severe


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

illnesses, and death.

Given the high levels of air pollution in low

income communities of color and the higher impact of

COVID-19 in these communities, this study will help

determine whether higher chronic air pollution exposure

contributes to worse COVID-19 progression in diagnosed

patients in Southern California.

Approximately, 608,000 is requested to fund this

contract. Approval by the Board will authorize staff to

put this contract in place to undertake the activities

described in the proposal. This contract was approved by

the Research Screening Committee.

And with that, we recommend approval. That

concludes my remarks

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. We'll now hear from any

members of the public who wish to comment on this item.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Madam Chair, there is no

members of the public who have raised their hand.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. And let me just see if any

Board members have raised a hand. No.

All right. Well, I'm just going to comment that

I think this is impressive all three of these items in

terms of the speed with which we have been able to

mobilize some of the top air pollution researchers in the

country who happen to be based in various branches of the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

University of California to do really important research

work that will give us results in the very near future

that will be helpful in terms of shaping responses to the

crisis.

So I just wanted to express my gratitude to the

members of the Research Screening Committee as well as the

staff for having moved into this smartly and for having

brought us some really strong proposals.

So I am going to close the record on this item

and ask for a motion.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Mitchell. I'll move the

item.


And second.

Don't all speak at once.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Sperling, I second. Dan

Sperling.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Dr. Sperling.

All right. Then we have a motion and a second.

And the clerk will call the roll.


Mr. De La Torre?



BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: Aye.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
















BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yes.






CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.


passes.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Chair -- Chair Nichols,

could I just add something briefly?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes, please. Go ahead.

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Yeah. Well, this --

this is so timely and it takes time to get reliable and

good results. But because this is so timely, I hope we

will be getting maybe even quarterly updates on some

preliminary results of these, because it is a moving

target. It's a very fast target and something we want to

be as well informed as we can. And we understand with

more time, the information is better, but it really would

be helpful to get regular follow-up on the progress on

these.

CHAIR NICHOLS: I'll take that as a request to

staff to get it onto our agenda hopefully within a few

months with an update on what we're learning from this

research.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Madam Chair?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Now that the vote is over,

may I make one comment in response to Dr. Sherriffs?

CHAIR NICHOLS: I believe can you do that, yes.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Well, in terms of the UCSF

proposal, or project, I'm a unpaid co-investigator. I got

official approval from Legal to do so. And I want to say


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

that that project hinges on getting data from the

California Department of Public Health, which hasn't

happened yet. And it is not entirely clear that it will

happen. That project's ability to go forward, let alone

give quarterly reports, hinges on getting CDPH

cooperation. And, you know, it hasn't happened yet. I

realize that CDPH is very busy dealing with the COVID

pandemic, but I think this is also important research, and

they need to get us the data. And we basically need

addresses for people who have been hospitalized or gone to

the -- yeah, hospitalized for COVID-19 and they have been

reluctant to give us the data so far.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Is that a result of staff

shortages or other concerns about data?

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: I would say that that's

part of it. You know, they're very busy. No question

about it.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Right. Well, I'll offer myself

as a possible conduit if we need to get some help for this

purpose, because this, as has already been said, is very

important and timely work, so --

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Thank you. That's why I

brought it up.

CHAIR NICHOLS: -- let's talk after.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

All right. Then let's move on to Agenda Item

20-7-2, which is the proposed Add-On and Modified Parts

Regulation. This is an item that's been worked on for a

long time by our staff team. And it's great that it's

finally come to fruition.

Again, reminding anybody who wants to comment on

this item to click the raise hand button or dial star nine

now, so we'll you into the queue.

This proposal will replace the current process,

which is used by manufacturers and staff, for the

exemption of add-on and modified parts for on-road

vehicles and engines. An add-on or modified part is any

potentially emissions-related component or device used on

a vehicle or engine that was not part of that vehicle or

engine when it was originally certified in California.

And this is a huge business. The new proposed procedures

are designed to improve the process to make it clearer and

more transparent, and make the whole procedure more

relevant for the kinds of vehicles and engine technologies

that we're seeing today.

Overall, these updated procedures are intended to

assure that the aftermarket parts industry continues to

have a practical pathway in demonstrating compliance with

our overall air pollution requirements.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Mr. Corey, would you please intro -- introduce

the staff report?


In order to sell, offer for sale, advertise, or

install add-on modified parts for on-road vehicles and

engines in California, a manufacturer must be granted an

exemption from California's anti-tampering law codified in

the Vehicle Code section 27156. These parts are commonly

referred to as aftermarket parts and are marketed to

consumers to add performance and style to their

emission-compliant vehicles.

An exemption provides CARB's findings that the

modifications will not adversely affect emissions or the

operation of the emission controls as certified by the

vehicle or engine manufacturer. The procedures CARB uses

to evaluate these aftermarket parts were last amended back

in 1990.

Vehicles and engines have changed quite a bit

since 1990. Emission control technologies and strategies

have become much more effective and complex. Accordingly,

staff and aftermarket parts manufacturers need updated

procedures for use in Vehicle Code exemption process.

Developed in close coordination with industry and

others, staff's proposed update will further ensure an

accurate and efficient exemption process for both CARB


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

staff and aftermarket manufacturers. The proposal is more

relevant to today's vehicles, and engine emission control

technologies, and aftermarket part designs.

Additionally, the proposal streamlines the

processing of exemption applications allowing for products

to be brought to market quicker. I'll now ask Richard

Muradliyan -- Muradliyan of the Emissions Certification

and Compliance Division to give the staff presentation.

Richard.

(Thereupon slide presentation was

presented as follows.)

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: Thank

you, Mr. Corey. Good morning, Chair Nichols and members

of the Board. I am pleased to present the proposal to

update and replace our current procedures for exemption of

add-on and modified parts.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: Since

the late 1960s, CARB has adopted and implemented standards

for vehicles and engines to regulate their emissions.

Vehicle and engine manufacturers have been able to comply

with these increasingly stringent emission standards by

developing systems and components designed to reduce

emissions, such as early success of catalytic converters,

EGR valves, and air injection.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: The

proper operation of these emission control systems and

components throughout the life of the vehicle or engine is

essential in reducing emissions. Because modifications to

vehicles and engines may impact the performance of the

emission controls, they are prohibited by California

Vehicle Code section 27156.

However, an exemption can be granted by CARB that

would allow the sale, offer for sale, or installation of

aftermarket parts on applicable vehicles and engines by

California consumers.

An exemption by CARB means information and data

has been submitted demonstrating that the use of the

aftermarket part will not negatively impact the

performance of the emission controls.

Selling and using aftermarket parts of otherwise

modifying a vehicle or engine without a CARB exemption may

subject parties to penalties of up to 37,500 per incident.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: Why does

CARB have an aftermarket parts program and why is it

important?

California has a rich car culture history.

Innovative manufacturers design and produce legal


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

modifications that are bought and installed by California

enthusiasts. CARB is the only agency in the country that

has an aftermarket parts approval process. As a result, a

CARB EO is typically recognized in all 50 states as a

legal modification. And the popularity of the program can

be gauged on the 200 plus exemption applications the

agency receives annually. CARB's aftermarket webpage is

also ranked as one of our most popular, used by smog check

stations and consumers to verify the legality of parts.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: Add-on

and modified parts are different than replacement parts.

A replacement part is defined as being functionally

identical to the original part in all respects, which may

affect emissions, including durability.

Simple examples would be spark plugs, air filter

elements, and distributor caps. Aftermarket parts can

best be described as parts or modifications that were not

part of the vehicle or engine when originally certified

for sale in California. Aftermarket parts are potentially

emission-related parts and modifications, manufactured

by -- marketed by manufacturers for emission-compliant

on-road engines and vehicles.

Reasons for using aftermarket parts can vary, but

most do it to improve acceleration, gain additional


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

horsepower, or just look cool.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN:

Aftermarket parts can be vary from simple

hardware replacement parts, such as those shown here, a

larger diameter throttle body, high capacity intercoolers,

cylinder heads with large valve diameters, or air intake

kits designed to reduce emissions -- I mean, reduce

restrictions.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: Do

complex systems or parts needed -- needing a skilled

mechanic for proper installation, such as a supercharger

and turbocharger kits, kits designed to increase engine

displacement, or a camshaft.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: There

are other aftermarket parts that may be considered high

tech or advanced parts for modifications. These parts or

modifications can vary from devices that modify engine and

transmission sensor inputs and outputs or new operating

software designed to increase engine and transmission

performance.

All of these parts on these last three slides

have a high risk of compromising the effectiveness of the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

emission control systems, impact emission levels, and the

performance of the on-board diagnostic system.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: CARB's

process of evaluating parts and modifications is nothing

new. In 1972, the first Executive Order, D-1, was issued

for an ignition module. The procedures have been updated

a couple times since 1972, with over 4,700 Executive

Orders to date as the program's claim to success.

These procedures last amended in 1990 have been a

practical pathway for over 800 companies in achieving

compliance for their add-on and modified parts, better

known as just aftermarket parts.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: Back in

the 1990 -- 90s, it would have been hard to imagine the

technological advancements we take for granted in today's

vehicles. I have prepared this slide to visually bring

back memories of the 1990s, and how much vehicles have

advance in the last three decades.

Both cars can get you from point A to B, but the

technology is vastly different. Our current procedures

were last amended when that 1990 California Certified Yugo

was built. And like the 2020 Corvette, staff needs an

update to the current procedures in order to better work


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

with aftermarket parts manufacturers in the daily

processing of submitted exemption applications.

There have been many changes in the design of new

vehicles and engines since the year 1990. Accordingly,

staff is proposing the new procedures for exemption of

add-on and modified parts for on-road vehicles and engines

to improve the exemption process in light of these

changes.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: CARB

staff did their due diligence in getting industry involved

in the development of the updated exemption procedures.

Two workshops were held at CARB's El Monte location with

eight additional meetings on specific topics, such as air

intake kits, intercoolers, fuel tanks, and ECM

programmers.

CARB staff also participated in meetings and

seminars at the 2018-2019 Annual SEMA Show, considered to

be the biggest aftermarket parts show. The fundamentals

of the new procedures were discussed in these seminars to

overflow crowds both years.

--o0o--


staff worked towards three main goals in the new proposed

procedures. Those are to clarify, streamline, and update


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

the aftermarket parts exemption process.

Clarify - make the processes easier to follow, so

manufacturers have better clarity on how to obtain a

Vehicle Code 27156 exemption.

Streamline - make the process more efficient.

Manufacturers spend less time preparing applications and

staff spends less time reviewing applications, allowing

manufacturers to get product to market quicker.

And update - make the procedures more relevant to

current and future engines and vehicle technology.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: How do

we achieve clarity?

The procedures inform manufacturers on the whole

exemption process. From start to finish, the proposed

procedures update the process with an easy-to-understand

format, detailing application submission requirements,

evaluation and testing criteria, selection criteria for

test vehicles and engines, require testing, and action

taken on an application by CARB staff. The proposed

application submission requirements provide manufacturers

clear requirements for the content included in their

applications, thereby resulting in better organized and

more complete applications, which will provide a faster

review by CARB staff.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

The proposed procedures also detail evaluation

criteria used by CARB staff when reviewing application

submissions and testing criteria based on device type,

providing manufacturers a greater understanding of the

requirements prior to submitting an application.

Selection of a test vehicle or engine is also

detailed in the proposed procedures. Manufacturers are

given the criteria that CARB staff will use to select a

test vehicle or engine. Manufacturers also are given

detail about test cycles, such as evaluation criteria for

emissions testing options, additional or alternate

testing, OBD testing, vehicle or engine break-in

requirements, and the format to be used when presenting

CARB staff data from a test laboratory.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN:

CARB's -- staff's proposal also contains a number

of elements that will work to streamline the exemption

process. Applications will be better organized based on a

new format that will be part specific. Applications will

be further simplified and more focused by narrowing the

scope of vehicle or engines that each application covers.

Accordingly, manufacturers will spend less time

preparing an application. And CARB staff will be able to

research decisions on applications in a more efficient


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

manner. Streamlining is also achieved by better organized

and consistently formatted laboratory reports.

The procedures would also offer a faster way to

process less complicated requests, such as -- such as

requests to make part number or name changes, model year

additions, extending an issued Executive Order to other

companies, or consolidating already issued Executive

Orders.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: Back in

the 1990s, high tech was considered a new memory chip for

the electronic control module. But times have changed,

and today CARB staff need to evaluate tuners that are

designed to reprogram stock coding software, signal

modifiers that alter sensor inputs and outputs, and

complex kits, such as superchargers that include new tunes

and add-on hardware.

Unless properly designed and tested, these parts

may significantly impact emissions. These type of

modifications are not addressed well in the 1990

procedures. The new proposed procedures better specify

more detail technical descriptions and testing

demonstrations needed to show no impact on emissions and

OBD.

--o0o--


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: The

proposed procedures also contain provisions that would

allow CARB staff to audit the compliance of exempted

aftermarket parts. CARB staff would procure off-the-shelf

exempted devices to perform audit testing. At a minimum,

audit testing will duplicate testing done by the

manufacturer during the exemption process, but it can also

include additional test cycles that represent real-world

driving.

If the veh -- if the vehicle or engines with the

part installed fail to meet the evaluation criteria or

testing reveals a defeat device, the applicable Executive

Order may be revoked.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: With

these proposed new procedures, the expectation is less

effort by manufacturers to complete and submit an

exemption application and a faster turn around on staff

review and approval, providing a pathway for manufacturers

to bring product to market faster. The time-consuming

need for questions and answer discussions with

manufacturers would be greatly reduced, making the

exemption process more efficient overall.

CARB's Aftermarket Part Exemption Program doesn't

provide for new emissions reductions from on-road fleet,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

but instead protects the emission benefits of our

stringent new vehicle and engine standards By ensuring

that emissions and emission control system performance is

not degraded through the use of the aftermarket part or

other modification.

--o0o--


staff has worked closely with industry during the

development of these procedures. Since release of a

proposal, industry has asked for clarification on a couple

of issues. Manufacturers have asked if the approval of

multiple applications can be combined into a single

Executive Order, primarily to make product labeling

easier.

The answer to that question is yes, through the

procedures provisions for consolidating Executive Orders.

The industry also wanted to confirm that test

data generated for one application can be carried over for

use with other similar applications. The new procedures

would allow staff to approve carry-over requests for test

data when the test vehicle or engine continues to

represent the worst-case selection for the vehicles or

engines to be covered by the application.

The timing of the selection of worst-case test

vehicles or engines is another concern raised by industry


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

to minimize processing delays caused by the time required

to find and procure the vehicle or engine once selected.

Staff has made clear to the manufacturers that test

vehicle or engine selection can be addressed in the

planning stages of the exemption process based on a

preview of aftermarket part applications that a

manufacturer expects to submit in a given year.

--o0o--

ECCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MURADLIYAN: We

recommend that the Board adopt the proposed resolution,

which would approve the proposed regulation and exemption

procedures, and allow staff to further develop 15-day

changes, if needed.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. I think it's time

then to turn to public testimony. But if there are any

Board questions before we do that, we could take them now.

Any specific questions on the presentation or the

proposal?

Okay. Seeing none. Let's move to the public

comment then.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Okay. Thank you, Madam

Chair. We have four commenters who currently have their

hands raised. If you wish to make a comment on this item,

please click the raise hand button or, if you're on the

phone, dial star nine now.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Our first three commenters -- oh, and I apologize

if I mispronounce your name. Our first three commenters

are Braden Liberg, Peter Treydte, and Max Pfeiffer. So

Braden, I have activated your microphone. You can unmute

yourself and begin.

Hello, Braden, are you there?

I see your -- you've -- of, you're unmuted now,

but we can't hear you. So we'll move on to our next

commenter. Braden, on our screen is the call-in number

and access code for this meeting, if you dial star nine --

if you call in and dial star nine, we can listen to your

comment that way.

So we'll move on to -- we'll move on to Peter.

Peter, I've activated your microphone. You can unmute

yourself and begin.

MR. TREYDTE: Good morning, can you hear me?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: We can.

MR. TREYDTE: Great. Good morning, members of

the Board. Thank you for the time allotted to speak to

this matter. My name is Peter Treydte. I'm the director

of emissions compliance for the Specialty Equipment Market

Association, also known as SEMA.

You saw in an earlier side some information about

the SEMA show. This is a gathering of industry members

within our industry. And our industry is a relatively


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

large industry. We represent about $46 billion worth of

commerce per year. Many of our members are small business

owners, and many of them are in California, and provide

jobs to people within the state.

I'd just like to point out how important a

SEMA -- excuse me, a CARB Executive Order is to our

industry. As pointed out in one of the slides, once an

Executive Order is issued for an aftermarket product, that

product is considered legal in all 50 states. And that's

very important to our members.

We -- SEMA has been working closely with staff on

these procedures. We've been in numerous workshops and

meetings. And SEMA is generally supportive of the

procedures. We've gone through a number of iterations of

language and improvement to the language, and -- but with

all of that, we've come down to really two points that

we'd like to -- that we feel remain that need attention.

One of those is related to the limitation of the

application scope. With these procedures, the scope of

vehicle coverage for a given application is very limited.

We've discussed this with staff. I would draw your

attention back to slide number 17. I think it points out

these same issues that we're discussing, and staff's

proposals for resolving those issues. So the limitation

of scope we feel is of concern.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

And then the second issue is the selection of

worst case vehicles test vehicles to represent a group of

vehicles. We are adamant that there needs to be

collaboration between staff and industry on selecting

those vehicles, and that this needs to happen at least

annually.

So we are coming to -- SEMA is requesting that

the Board -- the Board members would require staff to

address these concerns in the procedure language during

the comment period. And SEMA would be happy to

collaborate with staff in this process. We've been over

this a couple of times already and have language prepared

that could support that.

Thank you very much for the time and we just

appreciate the opportunity to speak.


Our next commenter is Max Pfeiffer. After Max,

we have Stanton Saucier, Frank Bohanan, and a phone number

ending in 433.

So, Max, I have activated your microphone. You

can unmute yourself and begin.

MR. PFEIFFER: Good morning, members of the

Board. My name is Max Pfeiffer. I am the founder and CEO

of Maxwell Vehicles.

I'm coming to you guys with an aftermarket quirk


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

I guess I could say. We are a powertrain conversion

company that retrofits Class 2b cargo vans with

all-electric powertrains. We started trying to be able to

sell our electric conversion in California about a year

and a half ago. And I've been going through the

aftermarket process for about a year and a half. And I

still don't have an EO. And what's -- what's clear is

that, you know, an all-electric conversion should be

pretty straightforward, right? There's no emission

systems. It's EV. We take the gas tank out. We take the

engine out. We take the exhaust out.

And what I've -- what I've kind of come to

realize is that, you know, since 1990 without a whole lot

of change, there really isn't a process for this. It's

kind of like a round peg, square hole situation. And so

we need to update the aftermarket process to have a path

for new technology, specific zero-emissions technologies

that are in accordance with the excellent and progressive

goals that CARB has set to -- towards cleaner air in

California.

So what I'm proposing is basically a section that

has statements to the effect of, you know, if you're

completely removing the emissions system, and you're going

to install zero-emissions technologies. These should be

granted a blanket exemption purely based on that. And


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

that the only requirement should be to demonstrate that,

hey, we've removed all the emission systems, they won't be

put back in, and this is going to be, you know,

zero-emissions technology.

And what this lets us do is -- is really push

towards these goals, you know, get -- get zero-emissions

technology on the ground and developed. Aftermarket

offers a lower cost pathway to do this. And I'm not the

only company that's struggled with this. Talking to

people in the Innovative Technologies Branch and other

companies outside of ARB, I've learned that there's a lot

of people that have kind of run into problems with not

being able to get an exemption for clean fuel

technologies.

So I really -- I really hope that you -- that

this -- this modification made into procedures to make it

easier for companies like ours to help work with CARB to

achieve the clean air goals that we're going towards. And

this is especially important now since COVID-19. And I

want to particularly emphasize the viability of our

company's product, given that we're offering the only

conversion in the Class 2b space. And it's the only

conversion that is not only scalable, because it's built

on large OEM components, but it also is cost effective

enough that it does not require HVIP funding.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

So again, I just want to appreciate. Thank you

guys so much for taking the time to update this process,

and really emphasize the need to streamline aftermarket

EOs for emissions exempt zero-emissions vehicles.

Thank you very much.


Our next speaker is Stanton. I have activated

your microphone. You can unmute yourself and begin.

MR. SAUCIER: Okay. Good morning. Can you hear

me okay?


MR. SAUCIER: Okay. Thank you very much.

First, thank you for the opportunity to address

the Board. As Mr. Pfeiffer pointed out, sincerely respect

the work that gets -- gets done at CARB. To be sure, I

visited Beijing and Mexico City, and, yeah, it certainly

could be a lot worse than it is.

So that being said, I wanted to point out two

primary things. First, with regard to Mr. Muradliyan's

comments at the beginning, the focus seemed to be heavily

on enthusiasts. What I wanted to point out here was that

there are literally tens of thousands of disabled drivers

and passengers whose mobility independence depends on this

process, because as it is through this process that many

of us that are in the business of rendering vehicles


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

accessible to passengers and wheelchairs, it's through

this process that we're able to get the vehicles

recertified. So it's -- it's hugely important to the --

the mobility-impaired community on account of that.

So that being said, I wanted to point out that

with specific regard to these types of vehicles,

paratransit and non-emergency medical transportation trips

generally include up to two passengers, including one or

more people in a wheelchair. Accordingly, you end up with

a payload requirement of around a thousand pounds.

Accordingly, most paratransit and non-emergency medical

transportation vehicles are based on a mini-van or Class 2

vehicle platform.

Unfortunately, most firms currently producing

electric cargo vehicles are not pursuing smaller than

Class 3, because of more stringent applicable FMVSS

requirements.

Unfortunately also, the excess weight required to

meet the Class 3 capacity requirements results in a

vehicle that is too heavy with insufficient range and

gradability to make a suitable paratransit vehicle.

Combined with the added burden -- added burden of a

suitable HVAC system, the Class 3 vehicles currently

available barely make a hundred miles in range and lack

the gradability necessary to satisfactorily clime a hill


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

like the one at the Griffith Observatory.

Though there are electric automobiles currently

available that can easily manage 250 miles of range on a

charge and pull the hill at Griffith Observatory with the

AC running full blast, the drive components, the motors,

batteries, controllers, et cetera, are not available in

the aftermarket.

Accordingly, technology therefore exists to build

a suitable Class 2 EV. But doing so requires combining

components from multiple manufacturers and recertifying a

vehicle originally certified under another set of emission

standards.

Moreover, as is a suitable Class 2 --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Your time is up.

MS. SAUCIER: -- vehicle or EV platform -- oh, my

goodness. I've run out of time. I'm sorry.

Well, billions of pounds -- or billions of trips

result in 28 billion pounds of CO2 that could be removed

from the air, if we could get a suitable Class 2

requirement.



Our next speaker is Frank Bohanan. Frank, I have

activated your microphone. You can unmute yourself and

begin.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

MR. BOHANAN: Yes. My name Frank Bohanan. Good

morning, members of the Board. I've been working on --

with CARB staff on the EO process since 1992, 19 years of

that was with SEMA in different capacities. I've also

worked with OEMs, most recently with GM, on this matter.

Nobody disagrees that there is a need for these

revisions. The vehicle technology, the emission standards

have changed dramatically since the last revision in 1990.

However, one thing that has not really been addressed as

well as it was before is the growing gap between what the

OEMs are required to do and what staff is asking the

aftermarket to do.

So put it mildly, the vehicles have gotten much,

much, much more complex. The standards have gotten much,

much, much lower. You know this.

However, the aftermarket has not been able to

facilitize to the extent that the OEMs have. The OEMs

have millions and millions of dollars worth of equipment,

lots of people, lots of expertise. They're able to run

long development programs. They're able to run

accelerated aging and so on.

The aftermarket can't do that. It does not have

the means. It does not have the funds. It does not have

the resources. I've outlined in my written comments

specific details as to where I think some changes could be


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

made to reduce the burden on the aftermarket. I've also

given specific recommendations on what specific actions

may be taken.

In general, they fall into several categories.

There are some definitions that I believe need to be

added. Terms are used, but not clearly defined.

Likewise, some guidelines relative to some criteria that

are going to be used for evaluation, such as what is a

defeat device? People who are familiar with this know,

but obviously a lot of people in the aftermarket are not

that familiar.

The testing dollars are excessive and there are

ways to reduce that. Again, I would like my comments --

my written comments to be incorporated into the 15-day

changes. There are guidelines necessary in order to

better understand what the compliance requirements will

be.

One of the things that I am concerned about, and

was mentioned in the presentation, is the possibility of

the audit including other testing methods. I don't think

it's really applicable with aftermarket companies to hold

them to a different criteria to, in essence, move the

goalpost years down the road when they were not properly

informed at the time of the application what they needed

to do to comply.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

OEMs can do testing to cover all possible

eventualities. The aftermarket cannot. So again, I refer

you to my detailed comments and I'd like those

incorporated into the 15-day period.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is a phone number ending in 433.

And after that, we have Chris Bruny.

So phone number ending in 433, I have activated

your speaker. Please state your name for the record.

MR. LIBERG: Hello. This is Braden Liberg. Can

you hear me?


MR. LIBERG: Hello. Good morning, Chair Nichols

and Board members. My name is Braden Liberg. I'm the one

that couldn't get on the first -- the first presentation.

Thank you for putting me on my phone.

I represent Edelbrock Comp, a high-performance

aftermarket performance company that's been in business

since 1938. I wanted to thank Richard Muradliyan and the

CARB staff for all their efforts that they've done through

in order to update these rules. They have spent quite a

bit of time working with industry over the past couple of

years in order to update this from the 1990 standards.

Overall, we accept the proposal that CARB is


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

putting forth on this procedure set with a few comments

that we would like to be addressed in the Final Statements

of Reasons. And the comments are somewhat addressed in

the presentation that Mr. Muradliyan gave, but I want to

reiterate them here.

One is about streamlining. And it has to do with

the vehicle coverage requirements. So the vehicle

coverage right now can be split apart into so many

separate sections that it's difficult. In order to have

the same number of EOs, it would require a lot more

paperwork to get the same type of coverage, even though

the similarities between vehicles are there.

A second point would be the so-called worst case

vehicle selection process is not clear as to how you would

determine that. And the number of worst case vehicles

looks like it could be increased, which would also

increase costs for testing from what the procedures were

before, which would also increase the -- kind of the

opposite effect, the streamline will increase the amount

of documentation needed.

The last one is a more minor detail that would

help production in order to add a part number to the EO

label that is being proposed.

All of these are summarized in my written

comments that have been submitted for this. And I wanted


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

to thank you for hearing me out, as well as the rest of

industry. And we look forward to seeing the comments

being addressed in the Final Statements of Reasons.



Our next speaker is Chris Bruny. Chris, I have


begin.

MR. BRUNY: Hi. Thank you to the Board for

allowing us to speak. This is Chris Bruny. I represent

Gale Banks Engineering. I just wanted to do two things.

One, I wanted to thank the folks at CARB, especially Rich

Muradliyan and all the staff for actually engaging with

industry on this. We're one of those small family-owned

businesses in California. And we've been working with

CARB -- I think our first EO was in 1986. So we're very

familiar with this and support it.

And what we'd like to do is continue to work

through SEMA to refine some of these new rules. They're

absolutely needed and we're glad it's happening. We just

want to help clean them up and make sure once they're

implemented that it's easier going for all of us.

So with that, thank you very much for your time,

and have a great day.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. We had one


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

person left, but he lowered his hand.

Ross, did you want to speak? You can re-raise

your hand. Okay.

Ross, I have activated your microphone. You can

unmute yourself and begin.

Ross, are you there?

You're still muted.

MR. KORNS: Can you hear me?


MR. KORNS: My name is Ross Korns. I'm also with

Gale Banks Engineering. I run our emissions program here,

compliance program. I just wanted to thank the Board

members for hearing all of us out and all of our comments.

And thank you to Rich and CARB for all of your efforts on

these updated procedures.

I do have -- do have one concern that was voiced

earlier for -- there are some items that are coming into

the aftermarket that are widely cross-platform compatible.

So I just -- hopefully, we can come to a procedure for

those types of items that would cover hundreds or more of

vehicle manufacturers and test groups.

That's really all I had to comment on. Thanks

again for your -- for listening and for your

consideration.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Madam Chair, that concludes our list of

commenters for this item.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, thank you. Then I think we

can go back to discussion with -- at the Board level.

First, I want to make sure that staff has an opportunity

to respond to any issues in the comments that you would

like to address. Maybe I'll do this in the form of a

question. Several of the commenters pointed out areas

where they felt that there could be a solution in the

implementation of the new regulations. I know this is a

very complex program and that we're trying to make it much

more simple. At the same time, it seems as though there's

still room for process to be worked out as we actually

work with the new regulations, that there will still be

questions and issues about interpretation. So I'd like to

have some comment on that point.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Annette Hebert,

Assistant Executive Officer will pick that up, Chair, and

may be followed up with Allen Lyons the Division Chief of

the Certification Unit.

So, Annette.

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER HEBERT: Yes. Good

morning. This is Annette Hebert. I'm Assistant Executive

Officer, Southern California Headquarters.

I just wanted to have just some high-level


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

comments. First of all, I wanted to make sure the Board

is aware that the Legislature has supported and directed

us at CARB to expand our aftermarket parts program to help

evaluate and process applications faster, so they did give

us additional staff. And in doing that, CARB has taken

the initiative to reorganize a little bit to have a

aftermarket parts focused branch with additional staff

focused all in the effort of helping streamline and

processing applications.

As we discussed today, the technology of the OEMs

have become very, very complicated. And the aftermarket

parts industry, as clever as they are and the ingenuity

that they have, sometimes don't know all the OEMs' tricks

behind the scenes, because it's confidential business

information, which requires our staff to do deeper dives

and uncover some information, and link the two together

without being able to share with the aftermarket parts

industry. So I wanted to make sure the Board understood

that fact.

I also wanted to mention that SEMA has been

closely working with us for years, and SEMA has, in the

last few years, actually added their SEMA garage as Peter

mentioned, where they are helping process applications for

their members through our process quicker. So I wanted to

acknowledge that all these things together are helping


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59

promote quicker review, in addition to the proposals today

that are going to help streamline and provide clarity and

update the procedures to accommodate.

For more specific comments to address, I'm going

to go ahead and turn it over to Allen Lyons, who is our

Division Chief over the Emissions Certification and

Compliance Division.

Allen.

ECCD CHIEF LYONS: Yep. Good morning. Thanks,

Annette. Yeah, I'd like to make a couple of responses to

the comments. I think one of the common things we heard

in the testimony is a concern that more narrow -- narrowly

focused applications is going to result in there being

more applications needed to cover a manufacturer's product

line.

We think that's generally accurate. However, we

think that ultimately it will be more efficient for staff

to review and dissect these applications when they're

provided to us in a more focused and narrow way. One of

the problems we have with the existing procedures is that

we get some very broad, very complex applications that are

actually more difficult for staff to dissect in terms of

pulling out the information they need to make decisions on

whether, you know, certain parts are going to work from an

aftermarket perspective on certain products.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

60

So we have made clear to the manufacturers that

while the applications are narrowed and more focused and

there may be more submitted, we think that we can take

those pieces and, you know, for example, combine reviews

of two applications submitted in parallel that cover

similar products. And we think ultimately that's going to

make it more efficient for us to make the right decisions

about whether again these parts are appropriate for the

specific models that they're being applied for.

In terms of worst case test vehicle selection,

these -- we are not intending under these procedures to

increase the amount of testing manufacturers have to do to

gain coverage for products relative to that amount of

testing that they do today. The provisions allow for us

to carry over test data from one application to satisfy

the requirements for another similar application. And

we've communicated to the manufacturers that we think

that's going to be a common practice and we think it's an

appropriate practice to carry over that test data and

minimize the actual numbers of tests that the

manufacturers have to do to get coverage.

A quick note with respect to the comments about

electric vehicle conversions. Our procedures do have a

category for manufacturers to submit packages that convert

conventionally-powered vehicles over to electric power.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61

Those requirements do though -- essentially what we're

doing is approving a kit that's sold to the public. Then

they take that kit and then they basically install it onto

their vehicles.

And so our approval process is streamlined and it

is relatively easy to get through, but we do need to know

what's in that kit, what kinds of instructions are given

to the purchaser of that kit, so that they can properly

take out the conventional powertrain and put in the

electrical powertrain.

We are working with Max Pfeiffer's organization

on a weekly basis now to get him through that application

process, and -- but overall, you know, once we can get the

information we need to see what the kit contains and how

it's to be installed, it is relatively simple process.

And I think I'll stop there. But if there are

any questions that you'd like me to -- or comments you'd

like me to address, I'd be happy to.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Well, I see a couple of

Board members have their hands up, so I'm sure you'll be

standing by if we need you.

We'll start with Phil Serna.

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Thank you, Chair. So,

Allen, just partially responded to the question I had,

which was really wanting to know more about the concerns


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

62

that were raised by the speaker who has faced EO

acquisition challenges for zero-emission conversions. Of

course, you just mentioned the -- kind of the kit

protocol, if you will, that we have in place. I guess the

remaining question I have then is does that mean that for

any and all businesses that have emission to convert ICE

propulsion systems to zero-emission, they -- are you

saying that they actually have to use a singular

technology we approve or -- I have to believe, at this

point, there are probably a whole spectrum of different

technologies that could be deployed for conversion

purposes. So I guess I'd like a little more specificity

in terms of, you know, if I'm -- if I'm doing Phil Serna

Conversions, do I just have one choice and a very narrow

path to follow, at this point, to make sure that I can get

my EO?

ECCD CHIEF LYONS: No. Thank you for the

question. No. No. There's certainly no limitation on

the types of technologies or kit designs that can be

approved under our procedures. All we're saying is that

if you've got a particular technology or kit that you've

designed and you want to sell that, you know, retail for

people to buy and to convert their electric vehicles, that

kit requires an approval under our process.

And again, it's a very streamline approval


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

63

process, which largely amounts to just letting us know

what that kit contains and how it's to be installed. But

certainly you could have many different kits of that type

that use different technologies and apply to different

vehicle models. They just go through the process, you

know, that we've laid out.

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Great. Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay, then Dan Sperling.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: I've got a question. You

know, I'm listening to the speakers. It occurred to me

that many of the -- probably the great majority of these

retrofits are for performance or to be cool, but there's

another set that's -- I'll say is in the public interest,

and that would be for mobility-impaired and for

environmental improvements. Is -- is it appropriate to

think about prioritizing or easing the restrictions or the

processes for those that are in the public interest versus

those that are, you know, for performance for, you know,

personal enhancement? So that's a question.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Annette or Richard?

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER HEBERT: I think

Allen was going to address that.


ECCD CHIEF LYONS: Sure, I'll take that -- that

issue. I think the one specific example that was brought


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

64

up in the testimony today are wheelchair-access vehicles.

And these are typically mini-vans that are converted to

accommodate wheelchairs. We, historically, exempt these

modifications under our procedures. And typically, the

modifications entail either moving or replacing the fuel

tank, relocating the evaporative canister, and reline --

re-running or modifying vapor lines that allow the

hydrocarbon vapors to be burnt into the engine.

There are significant -- there is a significant

potential for evaporative emissions to increase greatly

from these modifications if they're not done correctly.

So under our procedures, we do require some evaporative

testing and some minimal OBD testing to make sure that

work is done right.

The requirements under the procedures proposed

before you today are largely carryover from our existing

procedures and those typically work well when

manufacturers are able to successfully get through those

procedures as a matter of routine. In fact, I signed an

Executive Order yesterday exempting a wheelchair-

accessible modification.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: So I guess the answer is

no?

ECCD CHIEF LYONS: Well, I guess -- the broad

answer, I guess, is that while we recognize the importance


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

65

of these -- availability of these vehicles, there, at the

same time, are the potential for there to be significant

emissions increases, if the conversions are not done

properly and if there's not some test data that shows that

they work.

So I think the -- from our point of view, I don't

think the two are mutually exclusive. We think that there

is a reasonably efficient process manufacturers can go

through to get these types of approvals completed, so that

they can go ahead and develop and market these types of

vehicles.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Is this an area where there are a

lot of companies in the business or only a few, just out

of curiosity?

ECCD CHIEF LYONS: I may turn to Jackie Lourenco

to get the details on that, but I think that by and large

the most common exemption request we get here is in the

wheelchair-accessible van area.

CHAIR NICHOLS: It is. Okay.

ECCD NEW VEHICLE/ENGINE PROGRAMS BRANCH CHIEF

LOURENCO: Yeah, there's a limited handful of companies

that are in this business. And they are streamlined,

because they certainly do not do any exhaust emissions

testing. So we limit them only to the evaporative

testing, whereas Allen described where we expect that


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

66

there would -- there could be some impacts.

CHAIR NICHOLS: So there's an attempt being made

here to expedite, but still not to just exclude them from

attention, because of --


LOURENCO: Absolutely. We want to maintain that those

vehicles will be meeting the emission requirements.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Right. Okay. Ms. Mitchell. I'm

sorry, Dan, did you have a follow-up or...

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: No, that's fine. Thank

you.


ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER HEBERT: Chairman

Nichols --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER HEBERT: -- this is

Annette Hebert. I'd like to further address Professor

Sperling's question.


ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER HEBERT: I just

wanted to point out Professor Sperling that, as I

mentioned, the addition of staff and the reorganizing

internally for aftermarket parts, along with these more

streamlined and clarifying procedures in general, should

make the processing of all applications quicker. And part


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

67

of the idea of separating them into different categories

is to make things like, hopefully electric conversions, if

the applications are complete, quicker, or, you know,

things like conversions. If the application is filled out

appropriately and the information is correct.

So the whole idea behind what we brought to you

today is to more quickly process all applications. I just

wanted to make sure you mentioned that.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yeah. Thank -- so, you

know, just as a kind of a closing thought on this is, you

know, we are -- these regulations really make it hard for

small companies compared to the big OEMs, as a few people

pointed out. And, you know, we are -- you know, it's

dis -- you know, it makes it hard for small businesses.

And given that, it just seems like if there's some small

businesses that are doing something more in the public

interest, we ought to try to be a little -- more

supportive of them. But it sounds like you're kind of

moving in that direction, so that's good.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, I think, from my own

experience having gotten involved because of a complaint

from an owner who wanted to do one of these conversions, I

had a chance to look into the situation a little bit.

can't say that it's perfect, but I think the staff really

bends over backwards to get these particular kinds of


I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

68

conversion out quickly.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Great. Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: You're welcome.

Ms. Mitchell.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I will say that both Dan and Phil have covered some of

the concerns that I had. I do want to address one issue

that was brought up by Braden Liberg from Edelbrock.

Edelbrock is company in my area and I know this company

and the family that runs it. But he added that was there

a way to require a part number to the part that is subject

to the exempt order? Could somebody from staff cover

that?


LOURENCO: Yes. The -- we thought that that was a really

good idea that Braden had. And so one of the things that

we can cover in some 15-day comments would be to adjust

the language to allow something like that. The labeling

language we just wanted to make sure that labels were

clear, so we -- we had the word "only" in the language

limited to one part number, the manufacturer

identification, and then the Executive Order number. And

so certainly this is a good addition to put the part

number on the label, so we can fix the language to allow

that.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

69

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Okay. Great. Thank you.

I think the other thing is the regulation

attempts to streamline. And that streamlining actually

happens in the implementation as Chair Nichols has noted.

So I think it might be useful for the Board to get a

report back on this, after it's implemented, to see how

it's working. I don't know what that timeline would be,

but I just think that might be useful for us.

And I was really concerned about the conversion

of the Class 2 vans from, you know, an internal combustion

engine to a zero-emission engine, which is something that

we really want to promote and support. And as I

understand it, the concern is not from the emission's

system, but from the evaporative emissions that might

happen.

But I think it would be useful for us to take a

look at this in a few months. Annette may have an idea on

what that timeline is, but, you know, after it's

implemented to see it. Maybe it's a year from now. I

don't know how we would -- would do that, but I would

suggest that we might take a look at that.

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER HEBERT: Yeah. This

is Annette Hebert, Assistant Executive Officer. Ms.

Mitchell, with the -- some of the 15-day changes, we'll

have to go through that process, and get those changes out


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

70

and commented on, and then finalize the regulation, and

start using it and implementing it. So I'm thinking it's

going to be at least a year before we go through all that

process before we actually start using the new procedures.

And we'll probably need some time to roll it out. So I'm

thinking no sooner than a year or a year and a half before

we could come back to you. Maybe two years would be

ideal, but it would be at least a year from now.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Thank you. Thank you.

just would just suggest that as a possibility here. Thank

you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Sandra Berg.

VICE CHAIR BERG: Sorry. I had to unmute.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to circle back

to two things. One, Chair Nichols had specifically asked

if within the 15-day change does staff feel that some of

the issues we heard from the speakers that we're going to

be able to have the bandwidth or that we feel that

adopting the regulation as we have it now can cover the

things that you still want to work with industry, so the

implementation part? So are we comfortable as staff that

the concerns that we heard that they're going to be

covered in the 15-day and you will be able to work with

stakeholders and wrap this up in a way that makes every --

makes you comfortable?


I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71

ECCD CHIEF LYONS: Chair, this is Allen Lyons.

I'll take a shot at that. Yes, I believe so. We've

identified the label language that we can make a change

to, to allow the part number to be added. We've also

identified some changes that need to be made with respect

to the OBD testing that is required. Working -- we've

spent quite a bit of time working through the written

comments we received earlier this week. And we think by

and large most of these can be handled under the existing

procedures, or in some cases, we think that the reasons

for not accepting the change make sense to us. But by and

large, yes, we -- we think that we can resolve these

remaining issues through the 15-day process.

VICE CHAIR BERG: Well, I really appreciate that.

This is very complicated and so I appreciate you giving me

some examples, but I know there's a lot of complication.

And so as long as you feel that you have the ability, and

I heard yes, then I'm very encouraged by that, because,

you know, it is a situation where many, many parts work in

many, many ways. And so even though you've made it look

very easy on the presentation, I know it's very

complicated. And so thank you on that.

The only other comment I do have on the

conversion is I do think there's a difference between a

retail package and a company that is set up only to do


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

72

conversions. These people are experts, or certainly

should be experts, and what they're doing, they're very

focused. And so I'd be interested, and when you come back

a year and a half from now, really hearing about that

specific segment of the industry, because we certainly

hope it grows. And they're doing some very pioneering

work.

And they -- if they are fully focused on only

conversions, I think we need to be their best friend, not

meaning that we aren't holding people accountable, but

that we are as forward-thinking as the technology is

taking us all. So I would just encourage that.

And then, Madam Chair, after you close the

record, I'm happy to move for you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. I'll just quickly then

close the record, unless there's additional comment.

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER HEBERT: I'm sorry,

Chairman Nichols, I would just like to clarify one thing.

The staff were thinking that a report to the Board perhaps

in the memo would be the mechanism by which we reported

back on how the process is working and not an actual Board

item. I just wanted to clarity that's okay and understood

by the Board.

VICE CHAIR BERG: That's great.

CHAIR NICHOLS: I think that's often more


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

73

efficient.

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER HEBERT: Great.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yeah. It would be public and it

would be posted, but it just wouldn't have to be out on

the formal meeting docket agenda.

Okay. So I am going to close the record on this

item. But if it is determined that additional conforming

modifications are appropriate, the record will be reopened

and 15-day notice of public availability will be issued.

If the record is reopened for a 15-day comment period, the

public will be able to submit written comments on the

proposed changes, which will be considered and responded

to in the Final Statement of Reasons for the regulation.

Written or oral comments received after this hearing date,

after today that is, but before a 15-day notice is issued

will not be accepted as part of the official record on

this agenda item.

The Executive Officer may present the regulation

to the Board for further consideration, if warranted. But

if not, the Executive Officer shall take final action to

adopt the regulation after addressing all appropriate

conforming modifications.

Okay. At this point, then we have a motion from

Ms. Berg. Do I have a --


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

74

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: De La Torre second.

CHAIR NICHOLS: De La Torre second, okay.

Then the Clerk will please call the roll.


Dr. Balmes?





BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: Yes.

















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

75

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yes.


BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Aye.




CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.


passes.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you all very much.

This has been -- I know been a long process, but I think

we're almost there. It's really -- it will be a major

update to our -- one of our really core programs, so

thanks to all.

The last item on the agenda is a public meeting

to hear an informational update on CARB's

California-Mexico border activities. So we will be

hearing from the public on this item, but we don't have a

formal action in front of us.

This is really exciting though that we're able to

be here today to hear these -- the news about what's been

going on, because I think there's a lot going on at the

border. Historically, there has been significant interest

in air quality efforts at the California-Mexico border.

Certainly back in 2018, we directed staff to pursue


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

76

actions to reduce harmful emissions at the border. And

since that time, members of the community, the air

pollution control districts, and CARB have been working

together through various efforts to develop methods for

doing this, and that includes at the federal level through

U.S. EPA's new iteration of their environmental border

program, which we're looking forward to hearing more

about.

The Board members will remember that when we were

in El Centro last January to consider the area's AB 617

Community Emissions Reduction Program, we heard from many

community representatives on both sides of the border, and

we'll be hearing today about a focus on community action,

as an important approach to dealing with these

long-standing concerns.

We're looking forward to hearing more about these

efforts, recognizing that everyone recog -- everyone is

well aware of the fact that we have new and distinct

challenges in this process recently, as a result of the

current public health crisis with the COVID virus.

Since this information is, as I said before, only

for the Board members' edification and comment, there's

not any formal action that will be taken, but I'm sure

Board members will have some comments to make also and

suggestions for the staff.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

77

So, Mr. Corey, would you please introduce this

item?


And as you noted, staff will present an informational item

update on our efforts at the California-Mexico border

region to improve air quality, including

cross-programmatic, collaborative, and community-focused

actions. So while recent measures have resulted in air

quality improvements in the border region, we can see that

much, much more needs to be done and we'll be talking

about that.

The California-Mexico border region has a long

history of inequity compared to other parts of the state.

These inequities have proven key in the disproportionate

negative impacts on border communities, in terms of the

environment, and in public health.

Additionally, the recent global pandemic has only

highlighted these underlying conditions. We recognize the

disproportionate impacts on the region and the existing

struggle border communities face under the current

conditions. To that end, we partnered with several

community allies and you'll hear from them, as you noted,

as part of this update.

So today, mindful of our role, we're here to

acknowledge the struggle and offer a roadmap for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

78

addressing these conditions by improving air quality in

this unique region of the state. In addition to the

workplan for the region that staff discussed previously,

we have recently moved to reorganize our existing

resources to increase collaboration with community groups

and academic institutions on both sides of the border to

complement the work already underway with government

agencies, such as with the U.S. EPA's new Border 2025

program.

I also wanted to note that we've realized the

need to have a single staff, a point of contact, to

coordinate our border California-Mexican border efforts

and assign that responsibility to Ryan Atencio. Ryan has

experience working on multimedia issues in the border

zone, has lived, worked, and attended school in San Diego,

Imperial, and Mexicali. And his currently portfolio

includes many of the stakeholders we seek to engage.

I've asked Ryan to convene regular meetings with;

staff working in the border region to coordinate efforts

across the divisions and to lay the groundwork for

development of an integrated strategy for improving air

quality in the region.

And with that, I'll ask Ryan Atencio of the

Executive Office's Environmental Justice Team to give the

staff presentation.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

79

Ryan.

(Thereupon an overhead presentation was

presented as follows.)

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Corey, Chair Nichols, and Board members.

First, I'd like to say thanks to our stakeholders and all

the guests taking the time to participate and listen to

this update. As you will see, we'll be highlighting these

partnerships. I'd also like to thank all of the

incredible staff hear at CARB for their efforts across and

within different programs in addressing air pollution at

the border. As you'll see, this is truly a

multi-programmatic effort.

Next slide.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: Today

we're going to hear an overview of the border region

issues. And we'll also be hearing about recent CARB

efforts at the border zone. Mr. Corey mentioned a few.

But just to offer a glimpse of things that we'll be

hearing about. We'll be hearing about things like

incentive programs for agricultural replacement measures

that have funded over $3 million and 62 projects within

the border zone. That's the FARMER Program, for instance.

You'll be hearing about things like CARB's supplemental


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

80

environmental program -- project program that's funded

close to four million in the border region since 2018.

I'll be highlighting things like the Enforcement

Division's pilot remote sensing project called PEAQS,

another acronym for Portable Emission Acquisition System,

where they were deployed in Calexico in March 2020, and

they were -- they identified vehicles as higher emitters

and were able to issue eight citations because of these

actions.

You'll also be hearing about other recent CARB

efforts at the border as well. And we'll also be hearing

about ways that we can build upon these actions and these

programs. It's quite the foundation we have already as

you'll see. But as Mr. Corey noted, there's a long way to

go. And also, and I think one of the most important

pieces of today we'll be -- we'll be giving a platform for

partners and guest speakers from the border region on both

sides of the border, partners and stakeholders that we're

working with to get their perspective so that we can get

insights into what it actually means to see, and to feel,

and to live their every day.

Next slide.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: So the

California -- Baja California border region is -- as was


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

81

mentioned in a previous public comment, is connected.

It's all connected, connected by a common cultural

history, familial ties, ecological resources, and

economies. The region has experienced population growth

lately with -- and frequent movement of people and goods

back and forth throughout the border, industrial activity.

And all of this presents certain and unique environmental

issues to the area.

For instance, the exposed salt playa at the

Salton Sea, the rivers that flow north with, in certain

cases, pollution, the emission from -- the emissions from

idling vehicles at these land, ports of entry, these

border crossings. So when we talk about the border

region, as you'll see in the graphic here, we're talking

about from the Pacific Ocean -- for the California-Mexico

border region from the Pacific Ocean to through Arizona.

But we're also talking about kind of what was defined

under the La Paz Agreement of 1983, so about a hundred

kilometers north and south of the international boundary

line.

Within this zone, there lies two air sheds, the

San Diego-Tijuana air shed and also the Imperial-Mexicali

Valley airshed.

There's almost two dozen different tribes in this

region alone, so that's kind of the geographical setting


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

82

that we mean to say when we talk about the border zone.

And, of course, as it relates to air quality, pollution

crosses the border from California to Mexico and from

Mexico to California.

Next slide.

Slide number four, please.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: So when

we talk about these airsheds and the border zone, we need

to introduce and just remind folks of this concept of

transboundary airsheds. So we're talking about air basins

that actually extend across the international boundary, so

that are shared with California and Baja California that

are bifurcated by the boundary line.

So sources of pollution in the region include

things like agricultural burning, burning of waste, tires,

and trash, unpaved roads, mobile sources, industry, of

course, dust being released from the receding lakebed at

the Salton.

Next slide.

Slide number 5, please.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: Thank

you. Mr. Corey mentioned -- touched upon some of the

latest issues, as well as the Chair did. So we wanted to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

83

take a moment here and to remind folks exactly what the

scenario and the setting for the environmental justice is

in the border region, with a history of environmental

inequities, economic impacts, and public health issues, as

we're seeing as of late. Many sources of environmental

hazards uniquely impact this region. Air pollution

continues to be a pervasive hazard in the border region,

things like traffic, unpaved roads, the list that we saw

previously.

Of course, one of the things that we know here at

CARB, and everyone should know by now, that can seriously

impact health, the negative effects of climate change.

Given the border region's hot and dry climate, the

existing environmental hazards and community

vulnerabilities, this is a very real and ongoing threat.

Many areas in the border region, particularly in

rural communities, continue to experience high levels of

drinking water contamination, so -- and just to mention

again a unique aspect is those ports of entry, the land

crossings -- the land ports of entry, the border

crossings, where traffic -- passenger light-duty, but also

heavy-duty traffic is concentrated at these areas and

concentrated like, for instance, in the urban areas of San

Diego County.

Regarding economic impacts, the border region has


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

84

been long -- has been marked by large increases in

economic integration and border trade over the last couple

of decades since 1994's trade agreement. Major industries

in the area, for instance, agriculture can generate

environmental hazards, like pesticides, dust, particulate

matter from agricultural burning, water pollutants from

livestock operation for instance. The rapid economic

growth has contributed to a lot of these sources in the --

of pollution in the region. So this growth increases

goods, for instance, trucks -- truck shipments going back

and forth across the border, and result in a higher demand

of limited resources, and with development to support

rapidly growing communities. All of these challenges

affect things like air quality through traffic, waste

production, and disposal, and water quality.

Just a word on the unemployment levels to kind of

paint the scenario here. I remember back in the Great

Recession, El Centro and Imperial County had a -- at one

point, I believe the highest unemployment rate, I want to

say, in the nation. And it's a approaching that again as

of late, because of the public health crisis. The

unemployment rate in Imperial County in June 2020 was at

27.3 percent. For San Diego County in June 2020, the

unemployment rate was 13.9 percent. This compares to --

both compared to unadjusted unemployment rates of 15.1


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

85

percent in California.

So we know that childhood asthma rates, the

prevalence rates in Imperial County have consistently been

among the highest in California. We know that exposure to

pollution contributes to things like asthma, lung disease,

cardiovascular disease. We know that people in

communities of color have been disproportionately affected

by these in this border zone, but also by the Coronavirus.

And I just wanted to remind folks - I probably

don't have to remind the members of the Board - of the

recent Harvard study that looked at the link between the

long-term exposure to certain air pollutants and

Coronavirus death rates. Researchers found that April's

data showed that even a small increase in PM2.5 was

associated with an eight percent increase in death rates

from COVID-19.

So there is a lot of underlying issues. And then

you put on top of that this latest health crisis, and

that's what's kind of going on in terms of these

environmental impacts and environmental justice issues at

the border right now.

Next slide.

Slide 6, please.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: But what


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

86

are we doing? What can CARB do? So just to remind the

Board that in 2018, CARB adopted Imperial County annual

PM2.5 implementation plan and the PM10 redesignation

request and maintenance plan.

In 2019, CARB selected the portside community in

San Diego for inclusion into the Community Emissions

Reduction Program. And in 2020, the Board in El Centro,

in fact, as the Chair referenced, approved that CERP --

that community's CERP for the Imperial, El Centro, Heber,

Calexico corridor. So we're talking about these

implementation plans that cover the basin scale. We're

also talking about addressing, through the Community

Protection Program -- Air Protection Program air quality

at the community scale.

Other recent efforts from other CARB programs --

and there's a lot. There is a lot of work going on and

just to mention a few things. CARB is pursuing a

continuation of air monitoring -- regulatory grade air

monitoring at two sites in Mexicali this year to collect

PM2.5 data. CARB continues to support the Imperial Valley

Mexicali air quality alerts and forecasting system.

This service enables residents of Imperial County

and Mexicali to take steps to protect their health when

air quality is unhealthy. In terms of community air

protection incentives, CARB -- in the border zone, CARB --


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

87

five -- CARB has invested $5 million so far with the air

districts there to over 50 projects, achieving an

estimated 176 tons of oxides of nitrogen and reactive

organic gases, and 13 tons of PM emission reductions. All

of that money was invested in disadvantaged and low-income

communities, with over 60 percent of these funds directed

to the selected communities.

There was a comment on research at the border.

just wanted to make a note for the Board and for the

public that -- and our Research Division will be embarking

on a new project this year whereby the -- we'll be using

remote sensing -- a remote sensing device to measure

vehicle exhaust emissions at two border community

locations, San Ysidro and Calexico to mesh the vehicles

that air pollution impact on communities.

So there is, and there has been, a lot of recent

actions across the Board. It's a Board-wide effort. But

we know that we need to build upon these.

Next slide, please.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: So we

heard the Board's direction in 2018, in terms of

collaboration and collaborating with communities. And we

think that that's going to be a major focus of our efforts

going forward, kind of these ways to build upon some of


I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

88

the traditional air quality programming we're doing, that

I mentioned, these pathways to improvement besides

collaboration would -- and with communities, governmental

partners, and researchers would be things like develop --

development of projects that can bring resources to bear

in the border zone to collaborate -- excuse me, to -- for

instance, in terms of bringing re -- resources to bear,

working with our federal counterparts at the U.S. EPA's

border program, and -- in Region 9. And, in fact, on the

East Coast as well as of late, we've been working with

some of those folks.

But through the Clean Air Act section 105

granting program trying to work within the Border 2025

program that's coming up to bring resources through the

North American Development Bank, for instance, that can

fund environmental infrastructure projects; things like

working with CalEPA and other boards, departments, and

offices in CalEPA to bring resources to bear in terms of

projects, like on waste and used tire burning, working

with CalRecycle for instance.

And then advancing -- advancing the things that

we know have worked and can be built upon, things like the

air quality monitoring networks along the border, and, of

course, conducting outreach and education to increase

awareness in local communities in the border region.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

89

Next slide, please.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: In terms

of collaboration, just wanted to highlight some of our

partnerships at the local levels working with the air

districts, Imperial County, and San Diego, working with

the cities of Mexicali and Tijuana, working with local

universities like San Diego State, the Technological

Institute of Mexicali, and the Autonomous University of

Baja California, working with our governmental partners

and stakeholders across in Mexico, like SEMARNAT, and the

Secretary for Environmental Protection in Baja California,

the existing task force there -- quality task force there

in Imperial County, and, of course, working with CalEPA

and U.S. EPA.

Also working through some of the vehicles that

are -- that have been kind of created through these

programs like the 617 steering committees. Also, working

with some of the existing networks that actually predate

617, like the IVAN network in Imperial.

So we like to take our opportunities wherever we

can get them to do the air quality work that we know needs

to be done in the border region and work with as many

partners and stakeholders as we can.

Next slide.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

90

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: Of

course, we can't talk about developing projects and air --

specifically air quality without mentioning the Salton.

And we continue to work with our governmental counterparts

in the California Natural Resources Agency on their

draft -- and support them in their work on the draft dust

suppression action plan. I'd like to continue to work

closely with the California-Mexico Border Relations

Council, through CalEPA and their, for instance, solid

waste working group to clean up waste tire piles and

reduce the burning of tires in the region.

I mentioned Border 2025, the next iteration of

U.S. EPA's border program in the border area. We plan to

work with our counterparts in this program. We have

worked with them in the previous iterations of this

program, and we plan to continue to work with them once

that framework is finalized later this year. And we're

looking forward to it. We'll also be submitting a comment

letter on their draft framework very soon.

And then working with the work groups that exist

already in the region, things like environmental justice

task force, like the EJ task force run out of the

Department of Toxic Substances Control's office in El

Centro, working with our partners where we can within


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

91

CalEPA, like the Water Board, CalRecycle, and Department

of Pesticide Regulation and others.

Next slide, please.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: So when

we talk about advancing air monitoring and engagement,

this kind of goes back to working with the community as

well, and that charge to -- from the Board and the

realization that our programs can work best when we keep

the community in focus and in the forefront of our

efforts.

So, for instance, in addition to the traditional

basin-wide ambient air monitor -- monitoring quality

network that we work with, for instance, in -- in Imperial

County, we work with the local air district out there. We

support them in those efforts. We also support

community-led efforts like the IVAN model in Imperial and

like the recent low-cost sensoring network in Mexicali,

for which we supported that effort and that group in

Mexicali to put together this network.

I mentioned that we support Mexicali's air

quality websites and mobile apps. I also wanted to

mention and lift up the workplan, the draft workplan, that

was previously put, and worked through the Air Quality

Task Force in Imperial -- in Mexicali. There are


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

92

strategies in that workplan that staff put forth and

worked on, things like a media campaign to increase

awareness of environmental impacts of things like burning

waste, fireworks. There's also a number of strategies

that were identified in that workplan that we're moving to

work on.

Next slide, please.

--o0o--

MS JENSEN: Ryan, just so you're aware, we're

having some technical problems on this end, so that's the

reason for the delay. So apologies for that.

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: Thanks,

Tracy.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: So, of

course, what does this all mean in terms of, you know,

taking actions? Are we measuring this and tracking this?

And so just a few words on the tracking piece. So through

the program -- the programmatic infrastructure themselves,

like, for instance, through this implementation planning,

it has -- part of that process is the quantitative

milestones built into that plan. And so, for instance,

the SIP must provide for steady progress in reducing

emissions during the years leading to attainment. And

those interim reductions are known as quantitative


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

93

milestones.

So under the adopted PM2.5 plan that I mentioned

earlier, for instance, that air district, Imperial County,

in their SIP proposed several new rules and new source

performance standard certifications for things like

wood-burning fireplaces and wood-burning heaters. So

implementing these would serve as a quantifiable way to

measure the progress towards achieving these quantitative

requirements.

Also, as it relates to AB 617, the metrics that

we can track, for instance, for community emission

reduction programs, they have -- there's annual reports

that are going to be generated that report back to CARB

from these steering committees and districts reporting

back identifying a suite of metrics for tracking the

progress and achieving those emission reductions as

identified in their approved CERP. So that's another way

that we can track -- if I can say track the tracking of

these of these programs.

And in terms of air monitoring and other

programming, I'll just say a few words. For instance, the

Enforcement Division, they annually put out an annual

report. CARB has ongoing regularly scheduled heavy-duty

vehicle inspections in Calexico, in the border-crossing

and surrounding areas. We can also track things like


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

94

settlement agreements. For instance, in 2018, the diesel

enforcement -- CARB's diesel enforcement targeted

heavy-duty diesel noncompliance in Imperial Valley,

resulting in bringing eight companies back into compliance

with the Truck and Bus Regulation for failing to perform

due diligence when hiring fleets.

We can also track things like incentives. In the

border zone, since 2012, the very, very famous and

successful Carl Moyer funding program -- since 2012

investments of 22 million has resulted in over 300

projects funded achieving over 1,000 tons of oxides of

nitrogen and reactive organic gases and 40 tons of PM,

particulate matter, emission reductions. So those are

things that are being tracked and those are things that we

can point to in the border region as something to invest

our programmatic time and resources on, and something to

coordinate across programs, and something to track, and to

lit up that tells us things like where we have been

successful and where there's challenges. And there's

always challenges when we talk about this region, as

you've seen.

But -- next slide.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: But I --

instead of, I think, continuing to kind of talk about


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

95

things that our amazing staff and programs have done

across the board, I thought -- we thought it was also

important to give a platform to folks so they can tell us,

they can tell you, they can tell Sacramento what it's like

for them living in this area and also working with CARB on

projects that they have, that we have together. And so

we've invited a series of guest speakers.

And so, if I can, I'd like to close out this

informational update by giving a platform to some voices

from the border region. So I'd like to start out with a

close partner that we work with from the group Casa

Familiar in San Ysidro, Alejandro Amador. Alejandro, if

you can hear me, I'd like to pass the mic to you so you

can say a few words to the Board and to the public.

MR. AMADOR: Yeah. Thank you, Ryan. Good

morning, members of the Board and the rest of the

attendees on this meeting. My name is Alejandro Amador

and I'm the Community Air Program Supervisor at Casa

Familiar. Casa Familiar for those who are not familiar

with our organization was founded in 1973. And it's the

leading non-profit organization directing the border

community of San Ysidro, a recognized disadvantaged

community by CalEnviroScreen.

San Ysidro residents face many challenges that

impact our quality of life. However, being surrounded by


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

96

three freeways and being directly adjacent to the busiest

land port of entry in North America, air quality is

definitely one of the biggest concerns.

Approximately 60,000 vehicles queue for hours to

cross from Mexico into the U.S. in the morning and back to

Tijuana in the evening hours. This has led to the San

Ysidro and Otay Mesa, our neighboring community to the

east to constantly report the highest level of black

carbon in San Diego and one of the highest levels of

particulate matter in the state.

Casa's work on community-based monitoring started

with a preliminary study funded by OEHHA that showed us a

clear correlation between the border wait time and the

amount of air pollution on the community throughout the

day. In 2018, Casa Familiar was awarded a community air

monitoring grant by CARB through AB 617 to set up and

manage a community-based air monitoring network in San

Ysidro. This grant allowedCasa to build capacity within

our own organization and higher two San Ysidro residents

to become community air quality technicians. One of these

technicians has been myself, which at the time I was a

mechanical engineering student at San Diego State. And

I've always been a lifelong resident of the San

Diego-Tijuana region.

Some of the work performed with this funding


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

97

includes the monitoring of at least 15 sites around the

community with low-cost multi-pollutant monitors designed

by the research partners. With these instruments, we

collect data of pollution that will -- of carbon monoxide,

nitric oxide, and particulate matter across San Ysidro.

This data serves as an information and a tool for

the community, as well was guidance we use in our

institution for our advocacy work. For example, being --

the use of this data to successfully advocate for the San

Ysidro School District to adopt a resolution on January

of this year to convert their school fleet -- the school

bus fleet into zero-emission vehicles starting on 2021.

These funding also allowed us to carry

community-to-community trainings, in which Casa Familiar,

along with some other of our partners teach other

communities to approach -- our approach to community-based

monitoring, as well as lessons learned throughout our

research and advocacy efforts.

Last year, we carried the first of three of these

type of trainings, where we invited community-based

organizations from San Diego, Imperial Valley, Orange, and

L.A. County.

Additionally, for this San Diego-Tijuana border

region, our partnership has expanded and is currently

informing a Border 2020 project led by the University of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

98

Washington where six sites were monitored in Tijuana with

the same multi-pollutant monitors to begin to understand

and complement the impact of the border and other

pollutant sources on the airshed shared by our binational

region.

All of this and much more of the work conducted

by Casa Familiar is to improve the quality of life of our

historically marginalized community. And despite the

lasting air quality concern that ports of entry and other

binational sources of pollution bring to border

communities, we do not believe that the solution is to

shut down the border or pretend that the air ends and

starts at the border. It is to see both sides of the

border as one region make plans and policies, and allocate

resources accordingly.

We acknowledge and appreciate the effort that

CARB has done to address these border issues, but we

should continue to insist on the development of cohesive

collaborative cross-border data sharing, policy, and

planning to address mutual concerns of environmental

health.

We should promote strategies that do not ignore

health equality and they are inherently bound together and

share the same air basin. I introduced also the case for

the communities in Imperial and Mexicali region. We


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

99

should always prioritize investment and the implementation

of cross-border strategies to mitigate and manage the

strain on our border communities.

Thank you. Thank you, Ryan.


you, Alejandro. Thank you very much for joining us.

--o0o--

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: Board

members, at this time, I would -- the previous slide

please. Number 13.

There you go. I'd like to invite a partner

and -- that we're working on a project from the City of

Tijuana. And I just want to remind folks that if -- the

speaker presenting in Spanish, I can -- we can do

consecutive translation if they pause.

(Spoke in Spanish.)

MR. ZUNIGA(through interpreter): Good morning,

Board. Thank you for having me. My name is a Moises

Zuniga Gutierrez. I'm a member of the 23rd City Council

of Tijuana in the environmental department there.

I'd like to thank CARB and staff for inviting me

to speak here today. And also in the name of the Director

of the Department that I work in Veronica Corona, and also

with the -- working with different governmental

stakeholders in the community. We look forward to this


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

100

exchange of ideas and the dialogue on these very important

issues, very high among them, of course, climate change.

To begin, Tijuana has three monitoring stations.

And we work with the State of Baja California on that.

That's why the project that we have with CARB and the

relationship that we have is so important. We would like

to see and we need to see the results of these data and

what they tell us about the air quality in here in our

community.

The project that we're working on includes 50

low-cost sensors. So we're going to be dividing up this

tranche into two different tranches of 25 monitors. The

first 25 are going to go into zones of high traffic in the

urban core. The subsequent 25 low-cost monitors are going

to go in industrial areas that we know emit -- that have

emissions into the atmosphere. Very important to have the

results and this information that will result from this

data, so that we can begin to develop public policy around

these results, for instance, so we can develop policy and

try to develop projects like urban greening for instance

and very -- and another project that's being done in

Mexicali that we'd like to try a flag program here in

Tijuana.

Currently, we're in the beginning phases of

deploying this plan and the first 25 monitors. So there's


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

101

a couple of criteria that we need and we're locating them

based upon things like, for instance, telemetry or WiFi

access, electrical access, things like this.

We're very excited about this partnership and we

recognize it is just the beginning. But nonetheless,

we're very excited about the project and starting it out.

It's a start, so that the City of Tijuana can have the

information that we need regarding air quality and what

areas of the community are impacted from contamination and

which ones are not. And I would just like to, once again,

thank you and let you know that we're continuing the

project.

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: Next,

we'd like to invite a partner from the University of --

Autonomous University of Baja California, Alberto

Jabalera.

(Spoke in Spanish.)

MR. JABALERO(through interpreter): First, I'd

like to say thank you for having me visit you here from

the Imperial Mexicali Valley. Thanks for -- again, thanks

for having me. I'm a full-time professor at the

university and also lead the civic association. I lead a

civic association in Mexicali as well. All of the work

that we do in this resident citizens committee is

voluntary.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

102

Every day we see in Mexicali and we feel that the

air pollution is getting worse and worse. And actually

the photo that you showed in the top of your presentation

is unfortunately sadly world famous because that was taken

in Mexicali.

In Mexicali, there's a frequent, as you know,

change in the -- in government at the municipal level, but

one thing that remains is -- unchanged are these

environmental issues that we face. The highest sources --

the greatest sources of emissions are industry and

agriculture in and around Mexicali. So the laws exist on

the books to address this, but they're not being complied

with. For instance, there's a couple of power plants just

west of the city. And there's also a beef production

plant that contaminate the area. At the same time that

this is going on, it's hard to get support from the

government. And the community itself we have to take this

on and we have to address this issue ourselves.

Previously, there was a project that had 50

sensors -- low-cost sensors from CARB that are work --

that make up part of the network in Mexicali.

We see that this network shows bad air quality,

but nothing is being done about it. We began working on

the other side with the partners out there, the Comite

Civico in Imperial Valley and Luis Olmedo and we've gotten


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

103

some political discussions.

If Mexicali is contaminating, it's affecting

Imperial and if Imperial is contaminating, it's affecting

Mexicali, there is no division there. We have two -- we

have two monitors in Mexicali, part of the IVAN network,

but we need more. We need to put more monitors and we

need to support this model more. The existing low-cost

network as I mentioned earlier, we need to support it.

There's some sensors that are failing and it needs -- it

needs support.

I'd like to ask CARB to appoint someone that can

be there and be the point person on the border in the

border region on these issues to help -- to help address

these issues. So everything that we accomplish in

Imperial County is only half of the solution. If we don't

do anything in the Mexicali side, we're not going to see

advances across the basin.

I'd like to thank staff, thank CARB for inviting

us, and for having this more of a general and global

discussion on this issue. This is a project with

wide-ranging implications. I know this, because I -- I'm

a professor here at the university. We know and we work

in this area.

We'd like to work on a binational project and a

binational plan, because we've seen countless dollars and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

104

count -- funding of countless dollars and projects not

accomplish what needs to be accomplished. And we're

available to work on creating policies with CARB to

address these issues.

Okay. Thank you, CARB, from Professor Jabalera.

STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST ATENCIO: And here

to close out the presentation, we have a member of the

Imperial Valley and a member of the steering committee

there, a partner that we've worked with and that we know.

And I'll give the last word to Mr. John Hernandez of Our

Roots Multicultural Center in Imperial, California.

John, I'll pass the mic to you.

MR. HERNANDEZ: Good morning, Board members and

good morning, Chair, and all those that are present.

Most of what my thoughts were during this

discussion have pretty much been articulated and brings to

mind one of the previous discussions, if I can use it as a

metaphor, where it talks about add-ons and modifications

to engines. So what we need in Imperial County is add-ons

and modifications to our economic engines on both sides of

the border, because it is those economic drivers that have

left us, the community -- the impacted disadvantaged

community with all these problems that we have, all these

negative impacts of air quality and water quality that's

well documented.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

105

You know, I think that CalEPA and CARB has been

around now for, I don't know, 30, 40, maybe CARB 30 or

CalEPA 50. I don't know, vice versa. But I feel that

during these last 30 years or 50 years that I can relate

to, I've lived here all my life and it's 70 years. I've

seen the growth and the benefits to agribusiness, you

know. From the time that I was a young child seeing

braceros in their working conditions to the strikes in

United Farm Worker making it better for people like my

parents and family members to today where we still

struggle with these injustices of air quality and health

inequities, which certainly have been magnified by what

we're suffering in COVID - and it's no secret, it's

national media telling what we're suffering here -- that,

you know, people before you have neglected us.

I have to say that what I'm seeing over the last

ten or dozen years is a change of attitude, change of

focus. I'm glad to hear that -- that there may be some

type of border focus that, you know, the information is

in. You know, the last 50, 60, 70 years our agribusiness

is at $2.2 billion. But yet, our social safety net of

unemployment, Medi-Cal, Medicare, public services,

homelessness all that is probably more than that.

And so the development in the future of our

community mandates that the attention be brought from


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

106

those that have already had these problems across the

country and across the globe to help us work through this.

As we try to engage our local decision makers, who we're

having a difficult time convincing of these things, we're

seeing changes from the makeup of our boards and

commissions, our biggest economic driver, the Water Board,

of course, who've controlled for these last hundred years

3.1 million acre feet of water, and, you know, the value

of that across the state, and also has led to the demise

of the Salton Sea and Mexicali's Delta because of the need

for water across the country.

But nonetheless, we suffer. And our communities

are experiencing bad air quality just because they can't

afford to pay water to water their lawns, their yards,

their gardens. And so this creates a lot of dust in the

neighborhoods, the alleys, the roadways that are really

neglected and so forth.

So I think that -- that what I'm hearing is that

this focus hopefully will bring a little peace of mind to

me who has -- who have lived here all my life, who was a

veteran, who is senior citizen, who wants it better for my

grandkids that, you know, I won't be treated as a

stepchild, or feel neglected, or even abused by the lack

of attention.

You know, I can remember when CalEPA was run out


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

107

of town in my community. And then -- and there was -- you

know, the authority was -- you know, was not there at

certain times to really take on the -- the economic power,

because the political will just wasn't there.

So I -- I thank you for the opportunity. I thank

you for the opportunity that AB 617 has given us to

address the -- to identify the emissions in our community

and to find ways to reduce them. I know that since

CalEnviroScreen and the monitoring -- the technology and

monitoring, the satellite imaging and all these things

that are being done across the globe provides us with the

proper tools to address these issues. But nonetheless, we

also need a presence, a presence by the California Air

Resources Board to collaborate and coordinate with this

community and with Mexico as we're a region, and it's

clear that these impacts are across border. But

historically we've said, oh, okay if it wasn't for Mexico,

we'd be meeting this standard.

But nonetheless, these companies are U.S. -- a

lot of them are U.S.-based companies that are doing

business over there that are contaminating or the market

is in the U.S. Certainly, a -- the majority of the

vehicles that cross the border are U.S.-licensed vehicles.

And the transportation corridor of the mobile sources of

the trucks that are increasing goods and services across


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

108

the States of Mexico that come across here in this border

region that have just moved right through are also things

that I think is under CARB's jurisdiction, in terms of

mobile sources. And we now will be identifying the

stationary sources that I think we really didn't know

about as a community.

So as far as the new trade agreement with Mexico

and this potential to work with -- with what was an ag

bank for development, I think we missed out over the last

dozen years, because a lot of that went to wind, solar,

geothermal. Now there's eyes on lithium. But our

community is left out of the equation. We don't seem to

reap any benefits. They might throw a little bit, you

know, our way in terms of, you know, a little social

token. But as far as a coordinated effort for sustainable

community development in our inner cities and in our

communities I think that we've been left out.

So I appreciate the opportunity. Most of these

statistics, the details, I'm sure you have them. I'm sure

you have them at your disposal and that your staff is very

capable of providing them to you. But I think that you

need to hear from those of us that have lived here all our

lives. Two weeks shy of 71, by the way, and hopefully

still working to make it better for those in my community.

Thank you very much for your time and thank you,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

109

Ryan, for allowing me the opportunity to participate.


you very much John for everything and for joining us.

Last slide. And that concludes the presentation.

--o0o--


you, Mr. Corey, Chair, and the Board.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Ryan. I think before

we proceed to more conversation and to hearing from

members of the public, that it would be good to address

the issue that was brought up earlier by Luis Olmedo about

the research. And so I know Mr. Corey is prepared to talk

a little bit now about how projects get into that queue

and how we prioritize things. And I believe he has our

Director of our Research Division also with him.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: I do. Thanks, Chair.

And as you noted, the research within the agency, in fact,

it's called for in the Health and Safety Code in law. And

it's been there for 50 years recognizing -- you know, the

Legislature recognized fundamentally much of what we do,

our work, the foundation is built on science and research,

both that we do and that what we draw on through partners.

So in a moment, I'm going to call on our Director

of the Research Division. But I'm going to ask Elizabeth

Scheehle, who's the Chief of the Research Division and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

110

also actually a co-author of the IPCC's, the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth

assessment that she was a contributing author on, as well

as a number of other accomplishments to give some more

context on, one, how do we develop the research plan, what

is that process, how are those priorities established?

Also, the role of the Research Screening Committee that is

also set in law and that this Board appoints experts at

some of our most illustrious research institutions, as

well as others in -- with expertise in science, range of

public health, engineering, and so on, and the role that

they play for any proposals that this Board considers.

And a fundamental truth, which is there's many

more ideas than there are and is budget to actually

support. And we can touch on that as well.

And lastly, the key role that partnerships play

both in California, other research institutions, private

sector, and many of our research efforts that are

collaborations with the academic community and others.

But with that, Elizabeth, I'd like to ask that

you provide a little bit more detail and color in terms of

the plan, the development of the plan, and how projects

are selected.

And a last point, because Mr. Olmedo brought this

up, I do want to acknowledge his tremendous expertise in


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

111

the border, in air quality monitoring, and establishing

and building the IVAN network, as well as community

engagement and our ongoing work and partnership. And I

will be reaching out to Luis following this meeting to

connect him directly with Elizabeth, because it sounds

like that would be a useful conversation to have.

So with that, Elizabeth.

RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF SCHEEHLE: Thank you, Mr.

Corey and thanks Chair Nichols and members of the Board

for the opportunity to discuss our research planning

process.

First, I'll talk about the Triennial Research

Plan. We develop that every three years and bring it to

the Board to outline our key initiatives and research

questions for the next three years. In fact, we'll be

bringing one back to the Board in January of 2021.

And based off of that, each year we develop a

research plan using input from the public, academia,

communities, other State agencies, as well as CARB

priorities all focused on from the Triennial Research

Plan.

The process starts with a public concept

solicitation. Our one for this year just ended about a

month ago now, but we do actually leave the site open.

And if anyone misses a deadline, we'll consider the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

112

concepts next year. And staff are currently reviewing

over 130 concepts that were received.

We have been working to expand our public and

community input, as admittedly our prior processes had

been more oriented to the academic community. We have

reached out to community groups. And last year, we held

our first webcast research roundtable and we're expanding

that this year.

We had scheduled research roundtables throughout

communities in the state from mid-March through June, but

obviously had to change our plan with the stay-at-home

order. We are now seeking additional public input through

workshops that we will host and resume between August and

October.

Concurrently, we will be meeting internally and

with other State agencies to consider concepts and discuss

upcoming priorities and needs. In order to take full

advantage of our limited funds, we look at large

comprehensive projects that address CARB priorities in a

holistic manner. We also try to leverage funds where

feasible.

Once we have determined research concepts we wish

to move forward, we present those to the Board. Upon

Board approval, we solicit proposals on the projects first

from the many State universities and colleges. We bring


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

113

the selected proposal to the Research Screening Committee

for approval. They provide valuable comments that ensure

our projects are the best possible, and their input is

very valuable.

There are always more good research concepts than

we can fund unfortunately with our limited budget, but we

move forward and try to address the best as comprehensive

projects that we can.

I also wanted to mention directly some of the

work that we're doing on the border. In addition to the

real-world light-duty vehicle emission measurements that

Ryan mentioned, I also wanted to talk about our recently

concluded study on sources near and across the border. It

will help improve the CalEnviroScreen for that area. The

recent contract provides more information on the probable

sources and dispersion pattern of emissions coming from

sources in Mexico and across the border. We will reach

out to Mr. Olmedo on existing and potential research

projects.

I'm open to any questions that the Board members

may have.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. I think we can go to

board members for any questions and comments. This has

been a very rich presentation. It was particularly great

to hear from the regional experts who were brought in to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

114

participate in this. So that's been a great conservation

so far. Let me just see who has their hands up, beginning

with Judy Mitchell.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Mary, could I just

interrupt for a second. Are there any public folks that

want to testify?

CHAIR NICHOLS: I have no idea, because I didn't

ask. So I thought the Board members might want to jump

in, but if there are people waiting --

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: That's also fine. I just

want to make sure that --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, that's a

good reminder. I'll ask our Board Clerk to let me know

who's -- how many people and we can --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, Chair. We have

one commenter with their hand raised. If you wish to

speak on this item, please raise your hand or dial star

nine now. I looked we have -- oop. Okay. Yep. Our one

speaker is Luis Olmedo. Luis, I have activated your

microphone. You can go ahead and begin.

MR. OLMEDO: Yeah. Hello. Again, for the record

my name is Luis Olmedo, Executive Director of Comite

Civico del Valle.

There's not a whole lot I'm going to say on it.

I think it's a very powerful presentation. It's what we


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

115

would hope would have been happening before, but I'm glad

that we are engaging the community groups on both sides of

the border, our academic partners. That is what we would

hope would have happened. I do want to highlight that

some of the stress -- the frustrations - not stress - the

frustrations we have had is that California has the

responsibility to its residents, to its stakeholders

throughout California and without exception to the border

region.

We have many conversations with our brothers and

sisters in Mexicali. In fact, I was born Mexicali before

I came into the Imperial Valley, so I've always been in

this air basin. But we understand, you know, that at the

end of the day, we need to make sure we set priorities in

the border region, so that we can assure that we are going

beyond.

And you remember, Chairman Nichols and members of

the Board, when you came a few years ago - I think it was

2017 - and we said we've got to do more than just rely on

this Board for. And that's, at that time, when the Board

said, yes, we agree with that, we support that, and then

there was deployment of a report. On the onset of that

report, we realized this is not going to work out. All

right, and so it has been sort of a tug of war since then.

I'm really pleased to see this presentation. It was -- it


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

116

was not a short presentation, but I think it was a long

overdue presentation.

Back in 2018, the Board again took action and

supported us, and the -- and in the ask of a border unit.

We are still waiting for that support from the new

administration. We hope that -- that the -- that the

administration -- that the Governor and the Legislature

provide CARB the necessary resources to be able to

establish and grow with the necessary resources border

unit.

That's where we're at and I just want to thank

the Executive Officer. I want to thank the Board. I want

to thank Ryan, who has extensive experience working here

locally in the border since 2017, I believe, was the first

time I met him. He was working for DTSC at the time. And

I want to thank all my colleagues from the Mexicali side,

and I hope that we continue on this -- on this level of

engagement, again from -- on both sides of the border in

coordination with the Imperial and the San Diego side to

coordinate into Mexico.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Luis. And I have a

message for you also, which is Happy Birthday.

MR. OLMEDO: Thank you for recognizing that.

appreciation it. This is -- you know, COVID isn't, you


I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

117

know, the best conditions to celebrate, but I hope to see

you -- all of you in person soon, and I'll take a hug for

you Ms. Nichols, Board Chair.


Okay. Was that the only public comment then on

this item?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes, that was, Madam

Chair.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. All right. In that case,

let's go back the Board members and back to Judy Mitchell.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Thank you, Chair Nichols.

First of all, I want to compliment Ryan Atencio on a very

good presentation and congratulate him also on his new

position as the staff person that will be the liaison on

these cross-border issues.

Professor Jabalera mentioned the picture in slide

two, and I noted it as well as we went through the slides.

It's really remarkable. It really shows the kind of air

pollution that is -- is found in that region. Also,

pictures on slide nine were very informative as well.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and those

pictures certainly are.

However, I also wanted to say that what we are

doing today validates what we are doing under AB 617 and

the Community Air Protection Program. It has been an


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

118

avenue and a pathway for us to take a closer look at the

cross-border issues and at specific communities. But I

did make the trip with our CARB colleagues to El Centro

last January and it was for me extremely informative,

because I had never been to that region. And it helped me

focus on other parts of California that perhaps we hadn't

looked at very closely. And I think it was probably true

for my colleagues on the Board who joined me in that trip.

One thing that was mentioned by our guest

speakers was to work on a binational plan. And I think

that would be useful. I don't know how we actually

implement that, but I think CARB could be a strong

instrument in helping that happen. A number of years ago,

as a local elected official, I was working with a group of

other local elected officials from United States, from

Southern California actually, with local elected officials

in Mexico. And there were frequent meetings between those

groups.

That just -- it just comes to mind, because that

was happening a number of years ago. I think it --

somehow it went away. But I think CARB could be

instrumental in helping get progress on some kind of

binational agreement that affects and works on the

cross-border air pollution issues.

So I want to thank Ryan again. Oh, and I did


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

119

have a question for our research people. This was brought

up by Mr. Luis Olmedo and we thank you for your

contributions here, but it isn't clear to me who can

institute a research project. Can a group like Mr. Olmedo

as an NGO institute that, begin that, initiate that or

must it come through a university? How would somebody

actually get the research project that they want done on

the -- on the -- in the -- in the pipeline for

consideration?

RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF SCHEEHLE: This is

Elizabeth Scheehle. I can answer that. There is a public

concept solicitation process. So in terms of submitting

ideas, the public, anybody can give us information through

that process as well as through our Research Roundtable

public meetings that we have.

We are required, when we solicit proposals, to go

to California State University and college first. And

then beyond that, if there's not the needed expertise

there, we put it out for a larger proposal. But community

groups can work with researchers as well at California

Universities. And we do encourage those sorts of

collaborations.

CHAIR NICHOLS: I think there's a lot of examples

of that actually, of projects where the university base

also includes a very active community participation


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

120

element as well.

RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF SCHEEHLE: Yes, and I --

it's increasing as well.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: So would it be useful for

Mr. Olmedo to approach universities and solicit help from

them on the kind of research that he's seeking?

RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF SCHEEHLE: I think that

could be a helpful process to work with universities and

researchers, and develop concepts that are put through.

And if there is something that goes out through the UC

solicitation process, folks having a familiarity with the

community groups helps.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Great. Thank you. Thank

you very much. And thank you, Ryan, for a very good

presentation. Ryan speaks excellent Spanish, so he's the

perfect guy for the job.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great.

Dr. Balmes.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Thank you. And I also

agree that the presentation was very effective at

demonstrating the need for increased focus on the border

region with regard to improving air quality and addressing

Environmental justice needs in -- on both sides of the

border.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

121

So a couple things. I'll try to be quick,

because I see my -- several Board members also want to

speak. So with the issue of community groups getting

involved in research projects, Mr. Olmedo knows very well

how that -- how to do that, because he partnered with Paul

English at the California Department of Public Health,

Mike Jerrett at UCLA, and colleagues at UC Berkeley as

well to get initial funding that resulted in the IVAN

network. So that's a -- Mr. Olmedo's IVAN network is a

perfect example of the kind of collaboration that would

also work for a CARB funded research project.

I especially want to thank the speakers from the

Mexican side of the border. I 100 percent support us

trying to be as collaborative as possible with our Mexican

colleagues both in academia and in government. And I was

pleased to hear that there are several IVAN monitors

already in Mexicali. I'm not surprised, but I actually

hadn't realized that before.

I think we can get a lot more done to help

citizens on both sides of the border, if we're working

together as much as possible. And hopefully, the federal

approach to binational collaborations will improve sooner

rather than later. But California, you know, can, as Ms.

Mitchell said, play a major role in trying to develop a

truly binational approach to air pollution at the border


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

122

or as -- it's really environmental exposures, both air and

water, at the border.

As AB 617 Consultation Group Chair, I again want

to thank Mr. Olmedo for his contributions to the

conceptualization and implementation of AB 617 plans, both

monitoring and emission reduction plans. And I understand

his frustration that it's taken so long to get where we

are and we need to move forward more aggressively. But I

think, Luis, that the AB 617 process has been a good

vehicle for improving things in the border region, as well

as elsewhere around the state. So I just want to say hang

in there and we'll continue to do good work together.

And so the last thing I want to say is I'm aware

of other issues in Imperial County aside from air quality.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted Imperial valley

tremendously to the point where it's health care system

has been completely overwhelmed. And I know that from

firsthand experience. In my recent stint of doing

inpatient work at San Francisco General Hospital, I

actually was involved in the care of an Imperial Valley

patient who had to be transferred all the way up to San

Francisco for ICU care at our hospital. And so that's an

important context which, you know, needs to be emphasized

that it's not just air quality that we're dealing with in

terms of the border issues in terms of public health.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

123

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thanks. Thank you. Mr. De La

Torre.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Thank you, Chair.

Thank staff for the presentation to -- obviously, to

the -- to our fellow Californians on this side of the

border. Thank you for your involvement on this.

(Spoke in Spanish.)

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: I just said -- I just

thanked our colleagues across the border for all of -- for

their involvement and that they could see our commitment

to continue to work together with them on environmental

issues on the -- on the border.

I have two comments. One is related to the

progress that we've made. Two years ago, when we had the

first of these presentations about the issues, mostly on

the Mexicali side - I don't recall how much we talked

about Tijuana at the time - the Board was very supportive

of addressing these issues. And we -- I'm very pleased

that we've come this far, that there's monitoring taking

place. We saw in El Centro, you know, some of the -- some

of the issues from the folks on the Mexicali side who came

over to our meeting and shared their views at that time

about the pollution back and forth between the two sides

of the border.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

124

So I'm very pleased with where we're at. I know

my colleagues will -- are still committed and we will

continue to -- to engage with our neighbors to the south

and continue to improve our efforts at monitoring, at

mitigation, at reducing emissions, et cetera. So I'm very

pleased with where we're at.

And then my final point, when I was in the

Legislature, I was a member of the Border Legislators

Conference. I think we should engage them. The Border

Legislators Conference, as Eddie Garcia knows, is a group

of legislators from both sides of the border from

California to Texas. And this could be maybe a

subcommittee effort of the Baja and California legislators

to work on these issues.

They've done similar projects on tires -- tire

waste in the past, and probably still -- still are. But I

think that that's an opportunity to get the Legislature

involved in these issues of how we move forward.

So I'm happy to connect our staff with the

Council on State Governments, which supports the Border

Legislators Conference, and get them engaged on this issue

with our legislators in Baja California Norte.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. I think that's a

terrific idea. And I would very much like to see you


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

125

follow up on that with staff, because I think there's a

way that we could use that to also piggyback on the

binational idea that Judy Mitchell was raising earlier.

We can talk about that further, but air pollution control

and actually water also. Hard to know whether you want to

combine them in this -- for this purpose or not.

But under the Clean Air Act, there is precedent

for an actual cross-border air pollution control agency

being created. And I think it's something that may be --

may be ripe to do here as well.

Okay. Diane Takvorian next.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Thank you, Chair. I

just want to add my voice to commending staff for the hard

work and this international diplomatic relationships that

really are yielding a very robust workplan I think. I

want to appreciate Ryan's work and CARB's designation of

him as the liaison. I think it's a really good step

forward and I think it's more -- it's certainly more than

a one-person job.

So I think this is a good start. But to

reinforce something I think that Luis Olmedo said, I think

we do need a border team. And that I think would -- maybe

building on some of what my colleagues have said, you

know, we have been involved in the Border 2020 and now

2025 opportunities that are really federally directed.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

126

But those opportunities are quite limited for a variety of

reasons, even more so now. So this state-to-state

partnership I think that's being discussed is really a

great idea and one that we've done previously in a variety

of ways. So I think I would be very supportive of doing

that.

I really appreciated the inclusion of community

members from both Mexico as well as Imperial, and San

Ysidro, and San Diego. And I think it's really important

that those voices be included and really demonstrates the

work Ryan that you're doing and that others are doing in

order to ensure that it's a real binational effort.

You know, I appreciate that San Diego was also

included or referenced, even though this is largely

focused on Imperial and Mexicali. And I do think that

there are similarities, but there's differences as well.

One of the similarities I think -- that I think CARB can

really take more action on is the heavy-duty truck traffic

issues, as CARB is leading the country. I hope that we

can have an impact on the border-crossing trucks at just

as -- Mesa Otay[SIC], there's about a million trucks a

that are -- and most are going back several times -- back

and forth several times a day.

So there seems to me to be a lot of opportunity

there for us to really take some action with all the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

127

leadership that we're showing on heavy-duty truck traffic.

So I don't -- I would hope that that's another -- I know

we're doing that work in terms of monitoring and some

intervention, but I think there's a lot more that we can

do. So, to me, that's a -- that's a key area for us to

focus on.

And in regards, last point, to the research, I

would agree that we need more research. I think there are

already partnerships that California universities have

with obviously like UABC and Colef. So those are

universities that have a long history of partnering with

California universities, and hopefully they can do more of

that.

And also, I think to reinforce John Balmes point,

you know, research can also start with community

organizations, like Luis's organization and others. So

the -- it doesn't have to be led by an academic

institution. So hopefully we're very open to that as CARB

as well. So those are -- those are my comments. And

again, thank you so much for such a great report.

Appreciate it.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great. I see we have John

Gioia's hand up and I also got a text message around the

Cape of Good Hope I think that our Board Member Eduardo

Garcia also wanted to be recognized and apparently wasn't


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

128

able to get the little hand up feature to work. So we'll

go with John and then to Assemblymember Garcia.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

And, Ryan, thanks for the thorough presentation.

And I think all of this really does demonstrate

pollution issues, health issues, don't respect borders,

right, whether it's a country border, or a state, or a

city, or a county, having cooperation across borders is

really important. And I'm really glad that we were, prior

to COVID, able to go down to the Imperial Valley and see

some of these issues firsthand.

So -- and, Luis, thank you and your team for

hosting us and for all of your leadership there in making

this happen. And it was very good to see presentations

from both sides of the border, because that continual sort

of cross-border cooperation and partnership is going to be

important and vital to the success of this effort and

we -- I think the new sort of position that's been created

will need to be supported and obviously made more robust

to continue this work in an effective way.

So I just really wanted to acknowledge all of the

participants on both sides of the border who've remained

committed to this. And I think it's a model for

cross-border partnership in solving the everyday issues we

ever. And in a way, sometimes I wish we had this level of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

129

cooperation in cross-state or cross-county issues that we

deal with in other parts of the state. If we had type of

partnership for all these other issues, we'd be a lot more

successful.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. Okay. So are you

able now to be unmuted, Mr. Garcia?

ASSEMBLYMEMBER GARCIA: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Perfect.

ASSEMBLYMEMBER GARCIA: Thank you for the

acknowledgement. I wanted to just say that, you know, my

colleagues have made some excellent points as it relates

to some of the potential follow-up or follow-through with

what we've seen to be an excellent presentation by Ryan.

And without a doubt, I want to acknowledge, you know, his

work with the presentation, Richard's leadership directing

the efforts, and without a doubt recognizing Veronica

Eady's work along the border with our environmental

justice groups. Specifically, as we're talking about the

border, I'd like to recognize, you know, some of the work

being done in Imperial County and in San Ysidro Chula

Vista area.

I wanted to just highlight, you know, because

much has been said in our speaker and public comments Luis

Olmedo, who's a friend and a colleague, in this work for

us in our district highlighted, you know, the need for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

130

additional research, and that this pandemic has raised

additional profile in the many systemic, you know,

challenges that we -- that we face in Imperial County.

The presentation highlighted the issue of, you know,

water, air pollution, the unemployment circumstances. Dr.

Balmes mentions the issue of the health care

infrastructure. All of this has come to a kind of

accumulation and has created what we can refer to as a hot

spot when it comes to this pandemic that we're facing.

And so there is a need for additional

information. And, you know, in times like this, I think

we need to make it a point to be intentional and look at

this through the lens of equity, right, and making sure

that we're stretching ourselves to make these investments

as much as we possibly can in these regions that are

facing these challenges, unlike other parts of the state

that face other challenges, but not as in-depth as what

we're seeing with this pandemic.

So I just wanted to kind of highlight that, and

really as action items or follow up, I think the

recommendation about the boarder legislators being aware

of the work that's happening in our region is extremely

important. The Council of State Governments can certainly

help us do that and raise profile for purposes of

positioning for the Border 2025 efforts, right? If we can


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

131

demonstrate that we're ready to go and we have things in

the queue that we might be in a better position to be

funded through federal government efforts with the Border

2025 prioritization. So that's one -- one reason why I

think that's an excellent idea and hoping that we can

follow through with that.

The other is, you know, I work with a handful of

legislators that represent the border region, myself,

Senator Hueso share legislative responsibilities in

Imperial County. And you have a large contingency of San

Diego border legislators. I think it would be important

for CARB to follow up with a presentation or sharing of

this information to all of those members of the

legislature, so that when it comes time for us, for

myself, to advocate for additional funding, whether it be

for 617 programs or for that matter specific border region

issues, they're up to speed on the matters, and it makes

it easier for us to get their support and take action,

whether it be through a budget or through legislative

actions.

And so those are some of the, I think, action

items that we might be able to take. And again, I just

want us to really think about the current situation that

we're faced with at the border. And I know that Imperial

County has really overshadowed many of the other parts of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

132

the state that are facing significant challenges with this

pandemic. But places like National City, San Ysidro, and

Chula Vista have not been, you know, short of similar

challenges that we've seen in Imperial County and what we

see as a consistent denominator here is people of color,

poor that have already long challenges with public health

circumstances in their region.

So any opportunity that we get to make additional

investments and take steps to bring forward greater

activities in our collaborations, I certainly hope that

this Board and the agency will see fit.

So those are my comments. I'll close with just

saying thank you again for the unprecedented level of work

that's happening on behalf of CARB on the border and

working with our border partners, our sisters and brothers

in Baja California, in this case Mexicali and Tijuana.

Those are my comments and thank you, Madam Chair,

for allowing me to speak.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you very much. I'm sorry

for the difficulties you had getting in, but it's -- happy

to hear from you.

I think we also should acknowledge again just the

contributions of the speakers that were brought into this

proceeding both from Mexico and from Imperial, and the

fact that there have been people who have been working on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

133

these issues for a long time, and who have a lot to say,

and who have also a tremendous amount of expertise and

capacity. So I think that there's a combination of

attention, which has certainly increased recently, and

focused on the border, but also it's being really met

with, I think, a great capacity to absorb and to utilize

whatever we're able to mobilize in terms of -- in terms of

research, and equipment, and all the rest of it. So it's

really a very hopeful -- very hopeful development, I

think.

Will, with that, I think we probably have

concluded this conversation. We do need to turn to the

public comment period more generally, if there are people

who wish to address the Board on any matters that were not

specifically on the agenda for today, there is an open

time for that.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes. Thank you, Madam

Chair. We have five people with their hand currently

raised. The first one Zzeria? I have activated your

microphone. Please unmute yourself and begin.

Hello. The username is Zzeria, spelled

C-z-e-r-i-a. I've activated your microphone. You'll need

to unmute yourself if you want to speak.

Okay. If you are experiencing technical

difficulties, you can go ahead and call that -- call the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

134

number on the screen now and dial star nine to raise your

hand.

We'll move to the next person, David Drelinger.

David, I have activated your microphone. You can unmute

yourself and begin.

MR. DRELINGER: I want to briefly thank everyone

for giving me a few minutes to address the Board. I'm

impressed with what you guys are doing for California.

It's greatly appreciated as a long-time citizen and

community member of the Sacramento area.

I'm asking you to look into the Clean Cars 4 All

Program, which was established pursuant to 44124.5 of the

Health and Safety Codes. This is program that's been a

long time in the working. I will read the relevant part

of the rule of 44124.5, which says, "Beginning in the

2018-19 fiscal year, and every fiscal year thereafter, the

State Board shall set specific measurable goals for the

replacement of passenger vehicles and light- and

medium-duty trucks that are high polluters". Section (c)

says, "The State Board shall take steps to meet the goals

set forth pursuant to subdivision (b). The steps shall

include, but are not limited to, updating the guidelines,

and no later than January 1st, 2019".

The issue is that in the Sacramento region, there

seems to have been a broke -- there's a breakdown in the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

135

process. I'm a participant of the program who was asked

to take part and be a beta -- take part in the beta. This

program was originally slated to rollout in Sacramento in

December. Then it -- of 2019. Then it was pushed back to

spring of 2020. I completed the application process,

including a visual inspection, on May 29th of this year

and was then told essentially leave your vehicle as it is.

Very shortly we're going to be giving you an award letter,

which will allow me to trade my vehicle in as a -- what's

considered a disadvantaged community member for a $9,500

grant towards the publish of a new electric vehicle or

plug-in hybrid, which I believe is a great idea.

That's -- I already walked through the process laid out by

Mrs. Scheehle earlier in this present -- in this meeting.

What I'm asking is that the Board members look

into this as required by 44124.5 and set goals for the

rollout of this program, because there is a lot of

disadvantaged community members who are in the hold

pattern right now due to whatever breakdown in the

legislative and communication process between GRID

Alternatives and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air District.

I believe GRID Alternatives has done everything

they can and certain members of the Sacramento Air

District have done everything they can, but I do believe

there is not a lot of accountability in this area and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

136

that's why there has been a lag.

Again, I would appreciate just some oversight

with this matter. Thanks, ladies and gentlemen of the

Board and any meeting participants.


CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. I will ask Mr. Corey

to look into this and to give us a report. It can be in

writing, not waiting for the next Board meeting, just to

let us know what the outcome of his investigation is.

Thank you.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Will do.


Our next three speakers are Denise McCoy, a phone

number phone ending in 050, and then a phone number ending

in 418.

So first, Denise, I have activated your

microphone. You can unmute yourself and begin.

MS. McCOY: Yes. Thank you. Hello. My name is

Denise McCoy with Community Health for Environmental

Empowerment. And I am here to formally request an

investigation into the misconduct by the Sacramento Metro

Air District that has led to the removal of three

African-American women, including myself, from the AB 617

steering committee -- South Sacramento-Florin steering

Committee for being voices of dissent. I am the third


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

137

African-American woman and the fourth person of color that

has been removed in a year. This must be investigated.

Speaking for myself, my experience with the Air

District has been discriminatory from the very first day

that I started attending AB 617 steering committee

meetings in February 2019, which I communicated to this

Board on July 25th, 2019. Since then, I have watched the

Air District harass, discredit, and cause the removal of

three other people of color before me for merely speaking

up and being voices of dissent.

Targeting people of color, particularly

African-American women, for the purpose of silencing them

is the definition of systemic racism. I can't cover the

harassment, discrimination, discrediting, and systemic

racism that four people of color have been subjected to

within the past year in the time allotted me.

You talk about deaths from COVID-19, but what are

you really willing to do about it? Statistics has already

shown that the deaths are correlated to the very health

issues that plague EJ communities due to environmental

racism. But the Air District has done everything possible

to silence those asking for real change.

The Air District stated that they support the

movement for a change inspired by the death of George

Floyd, but they have had their knee on the necks of people


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

138

of color, mostly African-American women, trying to

advocate for their communities.

I can't breathe. There is a lack of black voices

in these EJ communities. They have been silenced. What

are you really willing to do to address the systemic

racism that is causing death in our communities and

silencing our voices?

The numbers speak for themselves and warrant and

investigation.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Ms. McCoy.

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Chair Nichols.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Excuse me, we have a hand raised

by Supervisor Serna.

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Thank you, Chair. And I

appreciate Ms. McCoy taking the time and to speak her

piece today here and her patience in waiting to do that.

I think the issues that she rightfully brings to our

attention as the State Board, but also, for me in

particular, I have feet in both positions as a member of

this Board, but also as a member of the Sacramento

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. And I just

want to commit here very publicly, especially to Ms. McCoy

that I am committing to work with both Richard and

Veronica and her staff on this matter that has been


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

139

brought to us, and -- but I also will be doing the same

working with the administrative leadership of our local

air district.

These -- this accusation is a very serious one

that I want to get to the bottom of and understand what's

at issue here. And I appreciate again the fact that it's

been brought to our attention, my attention in particular.

Thank you.


Ryan, who's next in the queue.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Okay. Our next commenter

is a phone number ending in 050. I have activated your

speaker. You can go ahead and begin.

MR. EDGAR: Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: We can. Please state your

name for the record.

MR. EDGAR: Thank you. This is Sean Edgar. And

Clean Fleets is providing these comments on behalf of the

refuse and recycling hauling companies from the City of

Sacramento to National City. And these companies have

proactively deployed natural gas vehicles and

infrastructure for the past two decades.

Chair Nichols, we were thrilled last month when

you stated that Omnibus Rule would provide a clear set of

incentives for the very low emission natural gas engines.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

140

We take you at your word and did a follow-up call with

program staff. It's not clear to us, at this point, where

in he Omnibus proposal the furthering of low NOx RNG

engine deployment is fostered.

So we're working -- looking forward to working

with you, because this has obvious implications for

near-term progress towards San Joaquin and South Coast

deadlines, especially where the solid waste haulers are

making decisions with thousands of vehicles covered under

the Truck and Bus Regulation replacement requirements.

The haulers and their municipal partners have

borrowed heavily to implement Senate Bill 1383, Organics

Management and Renewable Natural Gas, or RNG,

Requirements. When your 2016 Mobile Source Strategy

called for 900,000 low NOx trucks by 2031 our members

answered that call and can't be left holding the bag of

stranded costs for a fleet that may get no credit for RNG

projects in the Omnibus, Low NOx, ACT regulations.

The ACT market signal that you have sent is that

pro-RNG investments by public agencies and the haulers may

have the rug pulled out from under them, unless we work

together and you all deliver on the clear set of

incentives that the Chair discussed.

Transitioning to Mr. Corey and Mr. Cliff, our

coalition has worked in good faith for over two years to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

141

forge the landing spot for incentives to continue low NOx

deployments, after your recommendation was to graduate us

out of HVIP. You have not helped us find that landing

spot and our coalition cannot accept the exclusion of

refuse trucks in the upcoming Moyer Program changes.

So you may be asking yourself why leading

environmental service providers operating some of the

cleanest fleets in the country are desperately in need of

low NOx and a natural gas pathway for RNG. As the

private -- first privately operated fleets to deal with

CARB mandates, we've been getting off of diesel for over

20 years and cleaning up the remaining smaller diesel

fleet ever since. We took a leap of faith when you passed

the 2003 Trash Truck Rule to transform the fleet under

what was a fuel neutral regulation at that time.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: About 30 seconds.

MR. EDGAR: We chose to mitigate instead of

litigate. To be clear, our industry has invested over $1

billion in clean natural gas trucks and infrastructure to

help implement your vision. We know it will take decades

and billions of dollars from unidentified sources if the

ACT Regulation will succeed. So for next month's hearing

on Omnibus, we'll count on you to discuss and deliver

those clear NOx incentives in the near term to continue

our progress and provide 1383 compliance for the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

142

jurisdictions we serve with renewable natural --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Time is up.

MR. EDGAR: -- gas low NOx engines.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is a phone number ending in 418.

I have activated your speaker. Please state your name for

the record.

MR. MAREK: Good afternoon. My name is Ed Marek

from Shasta County.

Can you hear me?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Oh, we can, yep.

MR. MAREK: Okay. Thank you. I'd like to

comment just on CARB and the State of California's role in

promoting electric vehicles and electric vehicle

infrastructure in general. And pardon me if I'm blunt and

this comes off as an arrogant grievance to some extent.

But I'm really quite concerned, in that, while I'm --

I've -- I've been driving an electric car almost ten years

now. And I'm quite convinced that in 20 years, most

Californians will -- Californians will be driving electric

vehicles. It looks like five years from now, we'll have

the situation where, even though there are hundreds of

millions of kilowatts stored in electric car batteries on

hot summer afternoons, and these cars are largely parked


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

143

within a few feet of electrical outlets, the battery

storage will be completely unavailable to the California

energy grid.

And I think that CARB has had a role in doing

this -- leading this situation. Again, ten years ago,

when electric cars were first introduced, it was clear

that -- to me - it was clear I think to many people - that

the whole point of having battery storage on cars was to

have two-way electricity transfers. Electric vehicles are

not just useful for transportation, they are, in fact,

grid extensions in both location and time.

Unfortunately, since that time, because though

CARB has reduced incentives and the State of California

for various aspects of the electric car distribution and

other alternative fuels, everything from extraordinary

expensive hydrogen refueling infrastructure, to pardon me,

but essentially fraudulent Tesla battery swapping

programs - hundreds of millions of dollars in ZEV credits

were awarded, I believe, for that program - CARB and

California have done nothing to promote grid extension

capability for electric cars.

And in fact, the result of this compliance car

manufacturers, Tesla and CCS --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: About 30 seconds.

MR. MAREK: -- have -- I'm sorry, are you


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

144

speaking.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: You have about 30 seconds

left.

MR. MAREK: Sorry -- have produced cars that do

not have the capability to benefit the grid at all. And

now it looks like as a consumer, I'm going to be stuck

next year with the choice of electric cars to buy, none of

which I can use for their best -- best use.

While I only have 30 seconds left, I -- there's a

lot more I'd like to say, but I'd just like you to

consider carefully what CARB and California can do now to

remedy this situation. It just seem very strange to me

that --


MR. MAREK: -- incentives are provided for all

sorts of programs --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, sir. Your time

is up.

MR. MAREK: -- for the program that will most

benefit the electric grid.

Thank you.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. Before you go,

sir. Can I get your name one more time, just so we have

it.

MR. MAREK: Sure. It's Ed Marek, M-a-r-e-K.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

145

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Madam Chair, this is Judy

Mitchell.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: This an interesting

concept. And I think I would like to ask whether we could

have a report on this aspect from our staff as some point.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yeah. Yeah. I was going to say

we've been -- we have been actively involved in a task

force that's actually led by the Public Utilities

Commission, which is working on this connectivity issue.

We don't have direct jurisdiction. Although, I think we

might be able to be helpful for sure, but we're very

interested in the idea. And we have been actively

participating in trying to overcome some of the technical

barriers to doing exactly what the gentlemen is referring

to. So I think we'll -- I'll just ask staff to follow up

with him directly.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Um-hmm.


Our next speaker is Zzeria. So, Ms. Williams, I

have --

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Oh, there. It looks like

your microphone is now unmuted?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

146

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you hear me now, because

before it wouldn't unmute.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yep, we can hear you.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Yeah. So my name is

LaDonna Williams and I'm part of a community-based

organization, All Positives Possible.

Since I've only got three minutes, I'm talking

really fast, so I'm hoping you hear me. I want to know if

CARB has done a resolution on condemning racism. If they

haven't, I would strongly suggest that you do. You're

touting AB 617 as a -- as a success and it is not for our

black communities.

As Ms. Denise McCoy commented about the racism

that she has encountered, it is rampant through our

communities when black women particularly stand and speak

out on issue affecting their communities. I, too, have

been a victim of racism and being ousted by communities,

particularly Mr. Luis Olmedo - I forget how to pronounce

it - but down there in Imperial Valley, who I have had

communications with. More pleasant recently.

However, I was part of a meeting where black

truckers were being excluded out of the air pollution

process. They were not being engaged. And I attended a

meeting down there in Diamond Bar, where Mr. Luis was, and

it was a literally a lynch mob that ganged up on me, and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

147

another member had to intercept, simply because I voiced

our concerns of the racism excluding black votes.

This is continually being played out in our

communities throughout the Bay Area. You cannot use West

Oakland as a model community that CARB is properly

engaging with our black communities. You are not. You

need to focus on the issues that are affecting black

communities involvement in your processes.

It sounds good when you're doing these

presentations. But when you talk with folks like Denise,

myself, Ms. Dodson over there in Hunters Point area in

Richmond areas, those folks that you use as a go-to that

you're comfortable with that don't push back against you

on your racism, those are the voices, along with Mr. Luis

and other Latinos who are part of discriminating against

blacks through these processes. These conversations must

be had, because we are not only just verbally being

attacked, but in many cases, we're being physically

attacked, where other members have to step in the way of

these folks who think that it's okay to silence black

women in this movement.

This is not acceptable. And so I heard Mr. Phil

Serna say that, you know, he's going to take these issues

very seriously. I hope that you follow through on that.

And I would suggest that we do a presentation on the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

148

conditions of black folks in environmental justice,

particularly AB 617, and how CARB engages with black

folks. It's time for change. We can't look at the -- the

protest in the streets and say, okay, yeah, we identify

with that and then you go back to your comfortable offices

and you allow this to continue. Times are different now.

We are not going to stand for this --


MS. WILLIAMS: -- any longer. And we are

expecting that you all take this serious and we want some

immediate action on this right now.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Ryan Kenny. Ryan, I've


begin.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Can I just say respond.

MR. KENNY: Thank you and good afternoon.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: I'm sorry. Can I just

respond to Ms. Williams as we have been doing to some of

the public speakers, Chair.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes, go ahead.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Yeah. Thank you.

Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to ask that we

have a follow-up conversation on this. I think the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

149

suggestion that CARB have a statement on racial justice is

really an important one and one that we should consider

that we would take forward and we can think about and talk

about how we have those conversations within CARB. I

think for both staff, for the Board, for the air

districts, clearly, this is a moment in time that we

really need to address and it has been a moment. We're

looking at it right now, but we have also been looking at

it for decades.

So I just want to take those comments and thank

Ms. Williams who I have served on multiple committees with

and who I know is very dedicated to environmental justice.

And let's hear these concerns and create a platform and an

opportunity for those to come forward, so that we can

really address them. I think both -- we all have work to

do internally, as well as with associated agencies that we

have.

So I just -- I don't want to just not comment on

that. If it's possible, I'd like to see this come back.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yeah, I appreciate that. I'm

sorry if I was slow in reacting, because I was formulating

a suggestion for how to proceed, because I shouldn't say

obviously, but it's obvious to me that it was a direct

request for action. And therefore, I think we -- we do

have an obligation to respond for all the reasons that you


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

150

say.

I feel that this is an area where it would

behoove us to use the expertise that we have in-house and

to ask, while she's still on our staff, to have our own

Assistant Executive Officer for Environmental Justice take

a lead in advising about what -- what is -- would be the

most appropriate and most expeditious process that we

could use. These are issues that have been obviously

around for a long time, and -- and have multiple facets to

them from how we engage with communities in 617, which has

certainly come up today to -- you know, to how we hire,

how we -- how we work in-house as well.

So I think it's -- if I could proceed in this

manner, what I'd like to do is to ask Veronica before she

departs, working through Richard, to come up with a

proposal for what the best next step would be. But, yes,

we should absolutely respond.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: That would be great.

Thank you so much.


BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Madam Chair, if I

might --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: -- say something. Like

Supervisor Serna, I'm a member of the South Coast Air


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

151

District Board and a member of this Board, both of which

boards are collaborating on the AB 617 communities.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Um-hmm.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: And like Supervisor

Serna, I will engage my -- the officers, the staffers at

South Coast Air District Board to inquire into this --

into these issues and the complaints that we're hearing,

and do whatever we can do on the Air District side working

with CARB to correct any -- any discrimination, anything

that is occurring in our AB 617 communities.

So our Chair at South Coast is African-American

and we have a very robust EJ program in the South Coast.

But this is obviously an issue that concerns me greatly

and would -- would want to work on it, and work with

Veronica Eady on it in any way that I can.

So thank you much.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Yeah, we heard some very specific

charges. And so, you know, it's not just a matter of the

systemic issues, it's also a matter of the specific I

think that has to be addressed as well. So thank you for

volunteering.

So, Ryan, what's next? Who's next?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes. So we have Ryan

Kenny. Ryan --


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

152

CHAIR NICHOLS: That's right.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: -- you can unmute yourself

and begin.

MR. KENNY: Great. Good afternoon, Madam Chair

and members of the Board. I'm Ryan Kenny with Clean

Energy, and appreciate the time today.

Chair Nichols, I'd like to ask for your help.

You told us last month at the ACT Regulation hearing that

there are a clear set of incentives forthcoming in the

Omnibus Rule for low NOx trucks. And as you recall, you

had stopped testimony pretty early to say that ACT is just

one of several rules, including the next one, the Omnibus

Rule, that will have a clear set of incentives for

literally -- for very low-emission natural vehicles and

other liquid fuels.

We actually as an industry had a follow-up

discussion at staff's invitation a week later, and they

actually confirmed to us that that wasn't correct. We

were very concerned that the Omnibus Rule will not be a

key driver early low NOx vehicle adoption.

In fact, they clarified and confirmed our concern

that the 0.02 NOx standard will not be required until the

year 2027. Now, as you recall, with our ACT testimony,

many of us expressed that there needed to be inclusion of

low NOx trucks to achieve near-term emissions reductions.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

153

And with a 2027 0.02 NOx regula -- requirement,

we're -- we'd like to see improved incentives ahead of the

next -- next month's vote. So we'd love to have you stick

to that commitment. We'd love to have staff work with us.

I'd like to invite staff to meet, or anyone else in our

coalition, so we can have that conversation. But we

really would like to have near-term emission reductions

driven by low NOx trucks with renewable fuel.

And I'll also echo the previous comments that --

which kind of goes hand-in-hand. And, you know, we had a

commitment by staff nearly a year ago to improve the Carl

Moyer program as an effective landing spot for incentives

for low NOx trucks after graduating out of HVIP. And to

date, hardly any conversations have taken place. Those

that have, we've come up to a final proposal by staff.

And the proposal would, in our view, only incentivize

about a hundred new trucks. And, of course, the Mobile

Source Strategy suggests a goal of 900,000 low NOx trucks

by the year 2031. So we'd really like to see Carl Moyer

change and improved. And again, we offer to invite staff

to work with us to do that.

And again, we're very concerned about HVIP

incentives being -- moving forward without any low NOx

truck incentives. We feel that's coming. So we really

need a good effective landing spot with Carl Moyer.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

154

Again, as time runs out here, I'd invite staff to

please work with us. We need to build bridges. And our

industry is very, very frustrated with the continued

exclusion in many of these regulations.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. I'm very frustrated

by us being accused of being a liar. So if I was

misinformed, I need to find out exactly how I was

misinformed, because I certainly did not intend to mislead

you about what was in the proposed regulation.

So I will take it upon myself to get informed

about what's going on. You may not be happy or satisfied

with the results, but at least we will have clarity about

what's included in these regulations, and if at all

possible, an explanation of why. So I will take that as

an assignment to myself.

MR. KENNY: Thank you, Chair Nichols. And again,

I don't want to say that we are accusing you of being a

liar. We were not doing that whatsoever, but we would

just like to have clarification and continue with that

commitment. We don't think you were lying. We just think

there might be some misinformation and we'd like to have

that cleared up.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you

MR. KENNY: So thank you for mentioning that.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

155

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. Okay.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. Our last

speaker for open comment is Luis Olmedo.

I have activated your microphone. You can go

ahead and begin.

MR. OLMEDO: Yeah. Hello again. For the record,

this is Luis Olmedo, Executive Director, Comite Civico del

Valley.

And I would like to use this -- utilize this time

for three topics. One is -- is Salton Sea. I want to

make sure that in the near future we bring that. That I

ask Board Chair, and members of the Board, and the

Executive Officer that we have a discussion similar -- is

that progress that has been made at the border. But let's

not forget that the Salton Sea is one of the largest

climate crises that we're experiencing in California and

the United States, you know, alongside, you know, the

threats to our coast.

I also would like to support those comments that

LaDonna Williams -- who I've had many conversations with,

and I understand that a lot of times 617 is associated to

myself, to my organization as a policy that we support.

But I'd like to clarify that we support it for what it

could be. We don't support it for what it is.

And this is why it's so important for LaDonna and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

156

others to also show up at the Friday meeting, where we

called an emergency meeting to address, you know, these

very issues, you know, of structural racism.

Living in the border where it's predominantly

Latinos, over 85 percent, we failed to participate in the

census, and we're doing our best so we can have a complete

count, which would easily put us, you know, over 90

percent Latino living in this area.

I have personally, as well as my organization,

faced these old guard -- the structural racism that exists

within government. CARB is not, in any way, exempt from

those behaviors. And I understand the administrations a

lot of times inheritance -- inherits these behaviors and

the protections that the government gives government

workers a lot of times does not help eradicate and

eliminate these types of behaviors.

And not long ago, DTSC was exposed that some of

their employees were actually communicating and

exacerbating these racial inequities that exist. I'm glad

that, you know, Board Chair, members of the Board

recognize that it is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I know I've had many conversations of this with Executive

Officer Corey. And I'm glad that in real-time there is

direction being given, in this case, to Veronica Eady.

And as my final words, I do want to not take away


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

157

from the attention -- you know, first of all, elevate the

importance, and that I agree with LaDonna and they

experienced this. That's why we need a blueprint that

requires that "must do" instead of "may do" -- that "will

do".

But finally, I want to just celebrate the fact

that -- that Veronica Eady does leave a legacy of

progress. And whenever is to come next will have a

difficult time Filling her shoes, but more than anything

is to maintain --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Than you.

MR. OLMEDO: -- to keep the progress moving

forward of the legacy that she -- that she leave. And I

feel like we're not losing an ally, a partner, but that

we're expanding that into other areas and other districts

that can hopefully follow the same --

BOAR CLERK SAKAZAKI: Okay.

MR. OLMEDO: -- principles that were brought into

the CARB.

Thank you.


Madam Chair, that concludes our list of

commenters for open comment period.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Well, that's I think the

largest number of open public comment participants that


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

158

we've ever had. I don't know of making -- I guess using

this platform makes it at least easier, which is good.

Okay. Do any Board members have any final

comments that they feel a need to make at this point?

Because if not, I think I'm just going to adjourn the

meeting.

All right. Seeing none. I want to thank

everybody for being here, for participating actively, and

look forward to seeing you next month and soon, I hope in

person. Thanks. Bye-bye

VICE CHAIR BERG: Thank you.

(Thank yous.)

(Byes.)

(Thereupon the Air Resources Board meeting

adjourned at 12:57 p.m.)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

159

C E R T I F I C A T E O F R E P O R T E R

I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand

Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify:

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the

foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting was

reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified

Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and was

thereafter transcribed, under my direction, by

computer-assisted transcription;

I further certify that I am not of counsel or

attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any

way interested in the outcome of said meeting.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

this 3rd day of August, 2020.

JAMES F. PETERS, CSR

Certified Shorthand Reporter

License No. 10063


videoconference meeting air resources ...videoconference meeting state of california air resources...

Documents