All right, we will call to order the March 27, 2025 meeting of the Sacramento Metropolitan

Air Quality Management District.

Would the clerk please call the roll?

Director Rikino.

Here.

Director Desmond.

Here.

Director Dickinson.

Director Gara.

Director Hume.

Director Kennedy.

Here.

Director Maple.

Here.

Director Melton.

Here.

Director Pren.

Here.

Director Roblas.

Director Rodriguez.

Here.

Director Sandor.

Director Sernah.

Here.

Director Vang.

We have a form.

All right, if you'd all please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance.

And go back to the European lady column it is an event we apporn.

All right, if you'd all please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance.

Greetings to the flag of the United States of America.

To Central Library for which it stands when nation under grain and is is the will of

to observe the meeting in real time at Metro14live.saccounty.gov.

Participate in person via Zoom video or teleconference line

and by submitting written comments to board clerk at airquality.org.

Comments will be delivered to the board of directors.

Public comments regarding matters under the jurisdiction

of the board of directors will be acknowledged by the chairperson,

distributed to the board of directors, and included in the record.

This meeting of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

is live and recorded with closed captioning.

It is cable cast on MetroCable Channel 14,

the local government affairs channel on Comcast and Direct TV,

Uverse Cable Systems.

Today's meeting replays on Sunday, March 30th, 2025,

at 11.30 a.m. on MetroCable Channel 14.

Very good. Thank you.

That takes us to our consent calendar.

Any questions from my colleagues?

And I don't see any member of the public here,

so I don't think we have any requests to speak.

So we'll entertain a motion to adopt the consent calendar.

Second.

All right.

We have motion to second all in favor.

All right.

Opposed?

Abstained?

Okay.

Next item is our discussion calendar.

Next item is the discussion calendar,

and the first item is the board member administrative updates,

and I have Megan Shepherd in chambers to give a presentation.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Directors.

Megan Shepherd, Director of Administrative Services.

Going to be giving a presentation on some board member

administrative updates.

Sorry, waiting for the PowerPoint to come up.

The first topic on, you can skip right onto the next slide.

Andrew, once it comes out, but we're going to be talking about

modernizing board compensation legislation.

Why is that important and why now?

We haven't haven't changed the board compensation

in many, many years.

It's been sitting at $100 per meeting per day,

for many years with a cap of $12,000 per year.

And with this legislation, AB2522,

it increased it, it doubled that to $200,000 and to $24,000 per year.

Things like everything else we're seeing in this world,

things become more difficult.

The workload, the governance, this is fairly compensating

for that increased difficulty in that workload.

Inflation, everything is costing more money for you as well.

And that retention and recruitment,

we need to keep the best board members on our, our Dias

and we appreciate the hard work that goes into

governing the air district.

Next slide, please.

And as I mentioned, the key changes really are the importance

of increasing that per DM rate from that $100 to $200

and the monthly cap to $1,000 to $2,000.

But it also allows for future adjustments,

which can be brought forth with coales

or future per DM increases.

And they just need to be brought forth at open meetings.

This increase for this next year,

which began in 2025, January 2025,

has been included in our projections

through the end of this fiscal year

and included in our fiscal year 2526 budget.

This will ensure fair compensation for all

and recognizes the growing responsibility.

Next slide, please.

And this is a little outside of our board here,

but really important, it does reflect Director Gera.

He serves on the cardboard.

And this, we do have members that can serve on that board.

Air districts are able to represent on that board,

but they were not getting paid at the same rate

as the other members they were getting paid a per DM.

So with this legislation, the board members,

the air district board members will now be getting paid

the salary that the cardboard members

are also getting paid.

So fair compensation, which will really encourage collaboration

and fairness amongst the local and state level members.

So and that will have no impact on our budget.

It'll be all at the state budget level.

All right, next slide, please, Andrew.

Perfect.

Now, to the next topic of teleconferencing

for board and special committee meetings.

There are two separate legislations on this as well.

Yet they go hand in hand.

This is effective this year, 2025.

The purpose of this was to update the Brown Act.

As you know, Brown Act calls for us to be in chambers

to post if we are location.

So if you are teleconferencing post your location,

as you'll see today, Director Gera's location

was to post it.

I'm using him as an example here,

but I was posting our agenda before it was posted

to the public.

And that'll continue with AB 2302.

But this just sets clear provisions

with the amount of times our board meets

that we will have two, we're allowed to have two

teleconferencing meetings for each of you as long as we have

a forum in chambers in the region.

So that will limit that teleconferencing to just the two.

And it would provide the consistency

for remote participation amongst everyone

and allow for flexibility.

All right, next slide please.

Now 2449, this one has been since,

in effect since 2003.

And while the 2302 will still ask for you

to disclose your location and post that

and have it be a public, public, allow public access.

2449 does not require public access

and does not require you to post your location

with just cause and emergency circumstances.

You do not need to disclose that.

It does need approval via this board.

So you'll submit your reason.

It does not have to be specific.

There is privacy and that is the reason for this.

Being ill, sick children having to care for a family member

or an emergency, unforeseen circumstances.

They just cause, as I said, go hand in hand

with the prior slide.

Where you do need to limit.

So if you're just, you're going to be,

at your home base location,

chair I know in past you have stayed in Folsom.

And that would count, but if you for a reason

had to care for a family member, you could stay

and you don't have to post your location.

You just have to let the board know.

I'm caring for a family member

and I'm not going to post my location.

And we can, that will be approved.

So it gives you all a bit more flexibility

and allowing you to serve the board

and they are district and meet your own needs as well.

So giving you that flexibility and having that hybrid ability.

Emergency circumstances again should be limited

as we don't see emergencies with the true definition

of the emergency, which is still a hard to define,

but it shouldn't be used often.

And I can provide more information on this

if you have any questions, but next slide, please Andrew.

And on a happy note, we have had our district board

orientation meetings, chair, Akino,

our clerk of the board, Salina Martinez,

Alberto, Dr. Ella, myself have been

to see a couple of our directors,

Director Rodriguez and Director Dickinson.

And we are scheduling more meetings.

We have our next one on April 8th.

So we're very excited.

And if you are interested in having us come out

and share some information about the district,

please let our clerk know and we'll be happy to come to you

and share some information.

So it's good background on the district.

And that next slide, please, please.

All right, thank you.

Do you have any questions?

So I just wanna make sure I'm understanding this correctly.

If, for example, I still wanted to zoom in

from Folsom City Hall, that requires advance notice

that would be published on the agenda

just like it always was.

But if I had a special circumstance where I was ill

or I needed to care for a sick child

or something like that, that can be done

on an emergency basis.

Basically, wouldn't require notification,

wouldn't require me posting my specific location.

Correct, it can be classified as just cause,

but the rest of that is correct, yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

I don't have any requests here.

Okay.

Well, this is a receiving file.

So I guess we can go to the next item, please.

Thank you.

Chair, I can't, I have my hand raised.

Oh, sorry.

Okay, sorry there. Dr. Yala.

Yeah, no, I just wanted to make clear for the board

that the legislation that you just heard about

was actually supported and driven by other entities.

For example, South Coast, air quality management district,

are friends where the ones behind some of the efforts

to balance the PDM.

So we're just sharing with you that these new mandates

are going to affect all of you in a positive way.

But again, we're just part of the collection

of agencies that have supported some of the adjustments

to the compensation.

So we just wanna make sure that you understand

that we were not necessarily sponsoring

or be kind to any specific piece of legislation about this.

Okay, thank you.

Next item, please.

Next item on the agenda is the board update

on new federal air quality priorities

and I have Alex, Pondock, Bar and Chambers

to give a presentation.

Good morning.

Mike's not on.

Oh.

Does it sound good?

Are we good?

Yes.

Okay.

So good morning, members of the board.

My name's Alex Pondock, Bar and I'm a new planner

with the Sacramento Air District.

I look forward to this opportunity

to share information with the board.

Because I'm sure you've heard there's been a lot of news

about changes to EPA policy at the federal level.

Today I'll discuss some of the impacts

on the Sacramento region of some of these recent EPA actions

as well as a CARB decision related to two requests

under the Clean Air Act that we're pending an EPA decision.

Next slide, please.

So as you may know,

did I turn out, as you may know, the federal EPA

sets health standards for different air pollutants

based on levels that will protect public health,

especially for vulnerable groups like children,

the elderly and people with respiratory problems.

State and local air regulators create

state implementation plans or SIPs

that demonstrate how each area that isn't meeting

these standards will progress toward meeting the standard.

Local districts, the state and EPA

all work together to implement control programs

and enforce emission reduction measures

that sources in the district.

In this graphic, you can see the Sacramento region

has made great improvements in our ozone concentrations.

The blue line shows the progress we've already made

and the green line shows the path of region

has been on to continue improving air quality.

Next slide, please.

EPA recently announced a reevaluation

of several past federal actions and decisions.

These include changes to the health-based air quality standards

like the PM 2.5 standard and other air quality regulations

among other environmental actions.

Well, the exact impact of these reconsiderations

is unknown while EPA is in the early stages of the review

and we wait to learn more.

There's a potential for changes

to project at emission levels

or a need to revise our quality plans.

However, California has many independent programs

and regulations to control air quality.

So the impact on the Sacramento region

may be less than in other states.

Z issues develop, there are more questions and answers for now,

but the district will continue to work

with our state and federal partners

to get a clearer picture.

Next slide, please.

Shifting to the issue of vehicle standards,

I'll give a little background

on the California wafer program.

So as with many areas of California,

vehicle emissions are the largest sector of emissions

in the Sacramento region.

Only EPA has authority to set and enforce

vehicle standards and requirements.

However, California can set more stringent requirements

with EPA approval through a waiver process.

Carbs submitted to waiver requests to EPA

for the clean fleets rule and the locomotive regulation.

However, a car withdrew those requests

in January of this year.

This withdrawal will result in different emission

reduction outcomes.

Next slide, please.

At this point, we know there are a lot

of questions about these changes.

Will there be an increase in emissions?

Will future emissions be higher than anticipated?

Will there be changes to the health-based standards themselves?

This graph represents a range of potential outcomes

that could result from these changes.

The blue bars show our current emissions

and the projected future levels

while the orange and purple show

the range of possible future outcomes.

The district will continue to discuss

with state and local partners as well as EPA

to understand the impact of these actions

and evaluate different options

to continue our air quality improvements.

Next slide, please.

To conclude, the district wanted to provide this update

to ensure that you are all aware

of these recent actions and decisions

while there's limited information for now

on these issues and many remaining questions.

What is clear now is that the impact

on the Sacramento region will be real and consequential.

We'll continue to provide further updates

as answers to these questions become more clear.

And the situation becomes more clear.

So thank you for your time and the opportunity

to share this information today.

I'm happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you, Alex.

Any questions for Alex?

Yes?

Director Hale.

Thank you.

A quick question on the one slide there

where it showed the blue and then the orange and the purple.

Sure is.

Health standard with a question mark.

Is the question mark because the level of the health standard

may change or what qualifies as the health standard

or what they use to quantify rather will change or?

Yeah, thank you for the question.

Yeah, so right now there's been no actually

actual decision on changing the health standard,

but we wanted to represent that this is one of the issues

that EPA has signaled that they're open to reconsidering

and that we may anticipate changes in the future.

But we don't know the details

of what that might look like yet.

Great, and then currently the health standard is based off

of parts per million emission standards.

What is the baseline that we would be operating from?

Sure, so it depends on the pollutant,

but the most important being ozone, yes,

that's measured in parts per million

of concentrations of ozone.

So that's what was represented on the initial slide

with the downward trend line.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Director Dickinson.

Thanks Madam Chair.

I am interested in the extent to which,

and this is referring to your slide about the withdrawal

of California waivers, the extent to which notwithstanding

whatever EPA may do, we can still set and enforce

health standards in California under the California Clean Air Act.

Yes, thank you for the question.

So the vehicle standards is one of those areas

where state authority is preempted under the Clean Air Act.

EPA has generally granted waivers for these vehicle programs,

but CARB chose to withdraw those two specific programs

among others earlier this year.

So until that issue was revisited and hopefully granted

those vehicle waivers in the future,

those specific standards cannot be enforced.

No, I understand that with respect to the vehicle waivers,

but the California Clean Air Act covers the entirety

of the spectrum with respect to regulation of emissions

and setting standards.

And so is there an assessment that you're aware of

that's been made of the extent to which there is risk

that in some way or manner, the California Clean Air Act

could be limited or preempted by the Federal Clean Air Act?

Is that something that's actively being discussed

at the state level in particular?

So I'm not personally aware of an assessment on that,

but I'll maybe defer to Dr. Ayala on that

to see if he has more information on that issue.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alex, and thank you, Director Dickinson.

We haven't had the chance

and when I say we, the collective, we,

over the last few years to test the theory that you are proposing

and that is you are absolutely correct.

Just the same way that we have national and land

being in equality standards, California has adopted

I mean, equality standards that traditionally mimic

what the national standards have been.

We haven't been in the situation we are today,

which is what you're referring to.

And that is good California proceed on its own

setting its ambient equality standards

and then dictate what regulations and rules

need to be adopted to get the reductions to meet the standards.

That's something again that we haven't seen.

And I suspect it will be one of the tests

that we will hear about.

Now, to your question, we haven't heard anything about that.

At this point in time, as Alex mentioned,

the only action we have seen is the stay has pulled back

on some of the rules and EPA has announced their intent

to revisit a number of the rules

that had already been in place.

So, and while I have the mic,

I'll report that we are pleased that the new leadership

at EPA has already reached out to us

and many other equality agencies.

And we're already on the calendar to begin the discussions

and direct conversation with the new leadership

that was just recently confirmed at EPA.

So, in the future, as more information emerges,

we'll bring it back to you.

But at this point, as Alex said,

we just want to make you aware that this is happening

and we don't have a lot of answers just yet.

Okay, Vice Chair Maple.

Thank you, Chair.

And I really appreciate the presentation.

I know there's still a lot unknown.

I'm sure we'll find out more as time goes on.

But, you know, I remember several regional boards

and that are having similar conversations

with the federal government about, you know,

what snacks, how are things gonna change?

And so, I just, my request would be,

sounds like Dr. Yoll already said this

that we're kept abreast.

So, if there are changes that are being discussed,

that there are a force of this body

so that we can discuss them and be made aware

and just really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Definitely the intent.

Thank you, Alex.

All right, next item, please.

Madam Chair, Director Gator has a few.

Oh, I can't see him on the screen here.

Oh, thank you.

Don't worry, Madam Chair, I'm on the big screen

over there, I'm here.

But one, I think Dr. Yoll responded with most of the issues,

one thing that I wanted to highlight is that

even though the advance, the ACF,

the advance clean fleets waiver was pulled

that only affects the private industry,

still all municipalities under the ACF would still be affected

and then in combination with the clean truck partnership,

which is the settlement agreement between the state

and the manufacturers to continue to produce that is still in place.

And just most recently at the Bioenergy Association,

we heard directly from some manufacturers

like Cummins Motors that produce heavy duty vehicles

that they do not intend to change course

in their manufacturing of zero emission heavy duty vehicles.

That doesn't mean that there isn't concerns and questions

about the change in demand

because obviously losing the private market

is a, the mandate on the private market is a big issue.

But there is still movement forward and the direction,

one because of what has been proposed,

or at least what's been discussed,

doesn't change our air attainment targets.

The targets are still there

and we're still moving towards those targets.

Now, whether they get more stringent, I think, will know,

but we still have our current targets,

and that means that we still have work to do.

Thank you.

Okay, next item, please.

The next item is the Air Pollution Control Officers Report.

And I have Alberto Ayala on the line to give a presentation.

Thank you, Andrew.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair and board members.

I'm bringing you a number of information items.

Some of them left over from the last four meetings,

you may recall, we postpone given timing the APCO report.

So I just, there's a few things that we need to make you aware of

and we'll get right into it.

Next slide, please, Andrew.

So the first one is SB88.

We talked to you about this piece of legislation

that we are co-sponsoring with our friends

at the Placer County Air Pollution Control District.

And this is moving pretty fast,

but quickly through the process

so we want to make you aware of what we are attempting to do here.

And we very much appreciate the support

of the Bioenergy Association of California.

They have been fantastic, sort of leading the charge,

pulling all this together.

What we are attempting to do here is promote the utilization

of existing biomass resources.

From our perspective, we're particularly interested

in agricultural biomass utilization

because obviously we're a strong agricultural region.

And the current way to manage that biomass

is essentially to manage open-pio-burning.

And we're very proud of the program that we have

to manage the burning and the smoke impacts from that.

But here we see an opportunity to go beyond

and do much better than having to burn the biomass.

We can actually utilize the biomass as a new resource

and create low carbon fuels, including hydrogen.

And Senator Caluero has authored the legislation

and she's been a great supporter.

And this is moving and we're asking basically the state

to develop a quantification in terms of putting a value

on the benefit of avoiding the emissions

that would otherwise come if we continue the current practice.

And the last thing I'll say here is,

so the legislation is moving through the process.

It was a move through the Senate is moving

not to the assembly and I just want to acknowledge

Director Gera who's taking a particular interest in this.

You may recall he is the air district representative

on the Basin Y Erpohshu-Torque Council,

this collection of nine air districts representing 11 counties

in Northern California.

The BCC has also taken interest in this topic.

Next week we're going to have legislative day.

So we have a number of BCC members,

including Director Gera.

We're going to be meeting with a number of legislators,

again, to continue to push this idea that the time is right

and the interest is there.

The climate bond has some money for this.

We're asking for more funding from the state,

but we think the time is right to think bigger and better

in terms of how do we deal with this biomass that is out there.

It also benefits forest biomass,

so this can be a tool for wild fire management.

So again, this is moving and we are one of the close sponsors.

So we wanted to make you aware of that.

Next slide, please, Andrew.

The next are easier topics.

I just want to make you aware as well that obviously some of you

are going to be coming to CAP to CAP.

And the air district and myself in particular,

we have a leadership role in the air quality team.

And we have identified three topics that we're going to carry this year.

And you can see the topics here directly from the issue papers.

We're asking for funding incentives for businesses

to help with compliance with some of the standards.

We're asking for not losing some of the federal funding

that we get as an agency for air quality monitoring.

And we're also obviously supporting the fact

that we want to make sure that the agencies and in particular,

EPA has the right staffing level so they can not only assist us,

but assist businesses and communities.

We are in the leadership role for CAP to CAP for the air quality team

along with our friends from SMUD and Valley Vision.

And SMUD is carrying an issue paper related to battery storage

and framing it as energy independence.

We have all this renewable energy.

And in many cases, it's excess renewable energy

that we have to essentially throw away.

We want federal support to continue to develop the energy storage capabilities

that SMUD has been leading.

And they want to carry that on.

And the third one is what I just talked about.

We're also going to carry a message to our federal agencies

that utilization by MSG has great potential,

again, for energy diversification.

And in particular, for us, hydrogen.

Next slide, Andrew.

As you know, we are on the board

of the California Evolution Control Officers Association.

CAP COA is a great advocate for some of our most important interests.

And very much 9 out of 10 times, we're going to align with CAP COA priorities.

And the association we're presenting all of us at districts

in California has submitted a budget request to the administration.

And these are the three areas that we collectively have identified as priority.

The first one is AB 617.

You have heard about us talk about the Community Apertion Program.

We're asking for both money for projects, as we call incentives.

So these are subsidies that we can provide to businesses

to community members so that they can implement cleaner projects.

And then the other thing we're asking for is what we call implementation.

Meaning we have a number of expectations as an air agency,

just like every other district.

And we need the funding for those to fulfill those expectations.

The second program, speaking of agriculture, is the acronym is farmer.

You can see here what that means.

And this is again, basically funding that will help us identify

what are the alternatives to agricultural burning.

Some of you may be aware that in the Sunwaking Valley, there's already a ban.

So in the valley farmers can no longer burn the residue.

And the reality is there hasn't been many good alternatives.

I mean, there are some alternatives, but they're very costly.

And they are difficult to scale.

So there again comes in our idea with the Biomanage Utilization Bill.

The last one is for wood smoke reduction program replacing wood stoves.

And the last thing is clean cars for all that is very much an ongoing conversation.

Clean cars for all is a program that we and for other air districts,

the larger districts have been implemented for years.

And right now we are seeing a shift of the state to develop its own.

Clean cars for all program that they want to implement statewide.

And we're asking to make sure that it's in a coordinated fashion

and that we are districts that have been doing this for a long time

and have many success stories continue to get the funding.

Right now we are we're set to run out of money if no changes are made.

The Bay Area Air Programme at the district and the Sunwaking

have already run out of money.

We probably have less than a year to go through our program.

And as of right now we are very much advocating.

And in fact, today there's going to be a coalition of stakeholders

attending the ARB board meeting to basically deliver this message.

Next slide.

We wanted to give you an update on again,

some of the federal changes that you have been reading in the news just like us.

In the previous informational item you heard from our staff to tell you

specifically about some of the rules and regulations that EPA is reconciling.

You have also heard about the federal funding and the potential for cuts or freezes.

So we wanted to give you an idea of what that means for us.

That air district runs about six or seven different programs that are funded federally.

And what that means is the funding we get from the federal government.

Accounts for about 15% to 20% of our total operating budget.

And you may recall and some of you are going to see this in the next hour.

Our operating budget is on the order of 25 million dollars a year.

So you can see the scale of the impact if federal funding is indeed frozen or just straight out cut.

Again, we don't know how EPA is going to is going to approach some of these funds.

Right now they're still live and we're able to charge against against those federal funds.

But I want it you to be aware because again, it's 15 to 20%.

You know, it's not going to break us, but it's definitely going to impact.

And the fear is that without federal funding, we're just going to have to see some of the some of the activities.

Again, air quality monitoring.

You know that we have a network of regulatory monitoring stations.

Those are mandated by the Cleaner Act and the Cleaner Act says that the federal government needs to provide funding for agencies to to run those stations.

If the funding goes away, we're going to be in a real bind to figure out, you know,

how do we continue to operate a network that is supposed to continue to be running.

So again, a lot, a lot more questions at the point and answer.

I do want one.

When you be aware that federal funding and some of the issues you're reading in the news, in the news media, it is going to impact the district directly.

Next slide.

And the last thing I want to share with you just as an FYI is, you know, thankfully remote teleworking continues to be an option.

The reason I'm not in chambers with you is I'm coming to you from got to Hanna Columbia.

I was invited by the World Health Organization to come and join their global conference on our pollution and health.

And again, I just wanted to make you aware of that.

And obviously, this is not only a privilege and an honor personally, but I mean, the fact that our agency is here.

There's about I heard a hundred participants representing 60 countries in Columbia meeting under the UN Charter.

So again, just wanted to let you know, this is my ABC report.

I'd be happy to take any questions or comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Aala. Director Kennedy.

Thank you, Chair. Dr. Aala, the threat to the air quality, I mean, the air monitors.

Does that include areas within AB 617 boundaries?

Are those somewhat safer because they're different or are they just as vulnerable?

Yeah, that's a really good question, Director Kennedy.

So it does not include the AB 6, the AB 617 South Sacramento community because you may recall.

What we have deployed in that community, as well as many other areas around Sacramento are these portable sensors.

What we are talking about is a dozen or so of these more elaborate fixed ambient quality monitoring stations, like you see them around.

And I think that's a really good question.

I think we do need to give you guys all.

But essentially, with all the programs, we'll continue to run.

Okay, thank you. And does does every board member get their own air quality?

Yeah, something.

Literally.

You know, that's a really good question.

I think I think we do need to give you guys all.

But I think that's a really good question.

I think we do need to give you guys all.

But then you have to commit to actually setting it up running it and sharing the data.

City Hall.

Okay, Vice Chair Maple.

Thank you, Chair.

Just quickly, I wanted to congratulate you, Dr. Ayala.

It's a really incredible honor for you to be there.

Is there anyone else from California?

Any of the other districts being represented?

I think it's a great question.

I think it's a great question.

Um, that I am aware.

No, it's incredible.

I've seen.

Um, a couple of.

Attendees.

But they're mostly academics.

From UC Berkeley and a couple others.

There is some attendance from the US, but again.

The, the US EPA was supposed to attend and they pulled, pulled out.

And I haven't seen any other.

I think it's a great question.

I think it's a great question.

But no, we're having this conversation under such.

Scarcity of, of US representation.

So yeah, I'm, like I said, I'm.

I'm very pleased to hear to be here.

Representing and bringing back some of those experiences here.

Well, thank you for representing the United States of America.

Abroad.

We really appreciate it.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

That takes us to board ideas, comments, and AB 1234 reports.

I think that I normally would do try to zoom in from the city of full sun to, you know, one fewer car on the road.

But today I rode light rail in with Supervisor Rodriguez.

And it was clean and convenient and we had a good time.

So.

I'm no request to speak.

So it's 941 and we will adjourn.

Thank you, everyone.

Good job.