We will call to order the July 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

Would the clerk please call the role?

Here.

Director Dickinson.

Director Guetta.

Director Hume.

Director Kennedy.

Here.

Director Lopez Taft.

Vice Chair Maple.

Here.

Director Pratten.

Here.

Director Robles.

Director Rodriguez.

Director Sander.

Here.

Thank you.

Director Cerna.

Here.

Director Vang.

Thank you.

We do not have quorum yet.

All right, but we're close.

So go ahead and please join me in a Pledge of Allegiance.

And to republic for which is one of the individual delivery and justice for all.

Okay, if you please read the announcements.

Members of the public are encouraged 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 Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on Camcast and Direct TV Uverse Cable Systems.

Today's meeting will replace on Saturday, July 25th, 2026 at 1.30 on Metro Cable Channel 14.

Thank you very much.

We'll go ahead and skip the consent calendar for now because that does require a quorum.

That will take us item 6.1.

Could you please read that item, Selena?

Item 6.1, assessing ambient lead concentrations around Sacramento Executive Airport and have Catherine Chenchu in Chambers to give a presentation.

Good morning, Catherine.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Aquino and members of the board.

My name is Catherine Chen Chu and I am the air quality scientist in the Office of Community Air Protection and Monitoring.

Today we're coming back to the board as a follow-up to our discussion last September, and so I'll be presenting our plan to assess ambient lead concentrations around Sacramento Executive Airport.

As a recap of the September board meeting, the board asked a lot of really good questions regarding the historical lead contamination and remediation actions that took place at the decommissioned gun range at Mingan Park and asked us if we would be able to distinguish lead from aviation gas versus lead from potentially the uh resuspended soil near the decommissioned gun range.

In order to do this, we needed to look into this further to better understand the extent of the lead cleanup, the type of monitoring equipment that's available for use, and assess air monitoring at Mengen Park.

This slide provides a quick summary of the lead remediation, but please note that more detailed information as well as the monitoring and analysis that we'll be discussing in the following slides are included in your packet.

But as a quick summary, lead was detected above health screening criteria, which prompted a series of remediation actions, starting with the exterior, so areas that measured higher than the threshold were cleaned.

Uh parts of the property were encapsulated, areas surrounding were excavated, removed, and replaced with clean topsoil and mulch.

The interior was also cleaned up, and following these actions, um all the test samples returned lower than the health screening criteria.

And so a monitoring and maintenance plan was set into place, and Sacramento County Environmental Management Department sent a letter to the city of Sacramento stating that the property has met standards.

As y'all have been aware, uh the proposal was to place the portable lab at Mengen Park near the decommissioned gun range.

Based on the questions that you all asked, we um our team went back and thought about additional monitoring and measurements that we could incorporate and uh concluded that it would be important to also include an upwind monitoring site as well as monitoring for the additional monitoring on listed on this slide.

Having both an upwind and a downwind monitor will allow us to make comparisons between the sites.

Both sites will be collecting real-time particle measurements of different sizes as the smaller particle sizes can help us indicate aviation gas emissions, while the larger PM10 particles can help us indicate resuspended soil.

Both of these locations will also be collecting daily measurements of chemical fingerprints, which will help us determine the different source types, and I'll go into a little bit more detail on the next slide.

The data can be looked at in several different ways to do the interpretation and analysis.

The following five methods are different ways that we can look at the data.

First, as mentioned, we can look at particle sizes.

Chemical fingerprints can help us identify compounds that are closely associated with specific source types.

For example, bromine for aviation gas as bromine in the form of ethylene dibromide is added to leaded fuel to prevent lead from building up and damaging the engines.

While antimony and tin can help indicate lead bullets as antimony increases the hardness of the metal, and tin lowers the melting point of the antimony and lead mixture, allowing it to flow cleanly into the molds, creating more well-defined bullets.

We can also look at trends and correlation between particle sizes.

We can assess wind speed threshold and direction as soil doesn't become resuspended spontaneously, it needs high enough wind speeds in order to pick up that soil.

And statistical analyses can be applied.

For example, looking at meteorological correlation, um, which includes looking at the relationships between wind speed, wind direction, and the concentrations that are measured.

Complex modeling can also be applied to help determine the sources.

As part of our process in developing this approach, we've had many discussions the past few months with uh our air quality partners from local air districts, UC Davis Air Quality Research Center, Sonoma Technology, and our colleagues at CARP on these different methods.

And as you can see from this slide, the analysis is quite extensive.

And so it was suggested that we use a threshold that would prompt this additional analysis.

We want to ensure that we're doing this detailed analysis when lead concentrations are at levels that pose a potential health risk.

And so we looked into potential thresholds and based on established OEHA methodology on health risk assessments.

This concentration is equivalent to a one in a million cancer risk, which is a benchmark often used by regulatory agencies as a health-based screening criteria.

This is also consistent with air quality permitting procedures and is the most health protective calculation available.

Um I also want to note that it's below the federal health standard of 0.15.

Moving forward, we're seeking board concurrence on the next steps, which includes proceeding with the sampling plan as discussed.

In addition, since the last time the district updated the board, staff have become aware of upcoming repair and construction activities at the airport.

And so the district will continue to collaborate closely with Sacramento Executive Airport staff to stay informed on these activities, which include the aviators restaurant and a runway.

We'll also work together to identify the most optimal time frame for monitoring because we want to ensure that it can happen when there are representative airport operations.

And finally, the district will engage the community steering committee in discussing the proposed monitoring schedule.

That concludes my presentation for this morning.

Thank you all for your time.

Thank you.

Why does it say Director Vang?

Oops, because I'm not paying attention.

Okay, I think Director Cerna has some questions for you.

Did Mr.

Kennedy want to chime in?

Okay.

Thank you for the uh presentation.

Um I believe it was my line of question that initiated some discussion up here about trying to um discern uh and make distinct uh an understanding of what prospective or possible contamination might be attributable to uh um aircraft uh gasoline emissions or exhaust emissions versus the history of the shooting range, a pretty unique uh situation.

And so I I do um want to thank staff for the um due diligence that uh is plain from uh the conclusions that you've drawn.

Uh I do have uh a question though about the data that was collected to have this better understanding and and whether or not that can now be used.

For instance, the I think it was uh 33 1000ths of uh a micron was uh a threshold um you your chart said go-no go.

Uh but can that now be something that um for instance environmental impact reports, whether they're um subject to projects on airport property or in the surrounding community.

Um can that now be used as part of um uh a health assessment for those respective SEQA documents?

I think for our purposes, the 0.033 is to um prompt that additional analysis that we'll be looking at.

Um but I'll defer to Dr.

Ayala if he wants to add to that as well.

Thank you, Catherine.

Can you bring up the slides again?

Because I want to show um so the question is is well taken, and and I think the answer is is not going to be uh a clean yes or no, but it it depends.

And um that one.

So Catherine said the health standard is based on this number.

I think what you are asking is if you want to revise the way that we assess health impacts from any source including airports, the first thing that we have to consider is what is the state of the science and the process that the state has undertaken to revise this number.15.

The threshold that Catherine has identified is well below that.

We are being very conservative, and we are mimicking the way that we permit new uh new businesses, new activity.

So again, I'm I'm not giving you a yes or no answer.

I think it it it really depends, because again, we're not suggesting this is very specific to your questioning about the airport, and this is what we believe is the best approach.

How widely we can approach this to other um installations to other activities, I think we have to proceed with some caution.

Sure.

No, I appreciate the the response, and um we might be talking about something slightly different um in terms of um how you took the question.

So uh I'll go back to about 20 years ago when I was uh PM for a project called Greenborough, which became North Lake, which was uh the one of the largest annexations the city had undertaken in um 50 years in Natomas, part of the district I represent.

There uh was proposed at the time a school, basically in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of I-5 and 7099.

It was in the uh southeast uh part of the project area.

So there was a school site identified.

We wanted to understand what is the health risk associated with emissions, because it's at the you know, at the um junction of of two freeways and its proximity to the freeways was a valid concern.

We at the time, we the project team at the time, including our uh SEQA uh consultant and SEQA attorney, we were looking for not ways to tier necessarily, but to inform what would be a standard uh in light of kind of this unique situation where you're proposing uh a K-8, you know, within 200 feet of the shoulder of a of two freeways, essentially.

And so there would have been some value in in understanding, hey, was there any uh kind of governmental assessment that's similar to this that we can look to that informs the CEQA document?

That was really the genesis of the question today for me.

Is that is this uh of value to any private or public sector development initiative in Phil residential, for instance, or as uh I stated uh earlier, possible um redevelopment on the executive airport site.

Um because I I would think that it it could uh help inform uh health risk assessment, not to adopt this the very conservative threshold that it was adopted for this purpose, but at least to to help us better understand and keep from uh incurring the expense, especially if it if it's taxpayer dollars being used, the expense of very in-depth uh health risk assessments as it relates to lead contamination.

No, I I I I appreciate the question.

Um can you go back one more slide?

Um there you go.

Um I appreciate the question, uh, Director Cherna, and I'm gonna go to Mr.

Philly, who is our our sequa expert uh here.

But um we have come up with a really credible robust yard stick to the extent that you want to apply that to inform other locations?

Absolutely.

We're gonna present this to you as the best and greatest yard stick that anybody has come up with, and I cannot overemphasize the amazing investigative work that Catherine and the staff did, but it is a very specific yard stick, right?

It has these five analyses, and it is specifically to look at lead.

Now, to the extent that you look at another development and the concern is is something else, the yard stake you might want to apply and the analyses that go with it may look a little different.

But if it is just information, obviously uh the more the better.

But Mr.

Philly, please uh No.

Ayala.

The um as lead agencies, you have the plenary authority to set your own standards, uh typically based on latest science and pieces, and there are state and federal health standards that you will likely defer to when you go.

The monitoring and a big part of uh community air protection is to really understand what's going on in these communities to then better inform decision making.

But if it's a federal process, say for an airport, uh you would likely defer to a federal standard unless you, as the Board of Supervisors in your capacity as in that capacity can choose to do a different standard.

But typically you would defer to those standards.

So our ability to monitor is different than our ability to what is appropriate for public health.

Sure, no, the point is well taken.

I appreciate the responses.

I I suspect that it it it would be a value, but it would probably be um in the context of the long list of cited uh you know source material uh presented as footnotes at the end of a sequel document.

So thank you.

Thanks.

The last thing I'll say is again um staff identify very clear and disting fingerprints.

If you're talking about a different pollutant in a different development, the fingerprint is gonna be different.

The level maybe the when you're talking about the chemical composition of bullets, I suspect that the details um have been um finely um uncovered here.

So I appreciate the the attention to that detail.

Thank you.

Uh Director Kennedy.

Thank you.

Um so I was pretty intimately involved with the um gun facility uh because the the county was the lead agency under DTSC to investigate and direct the cleanup for the city.

Um did you in your investigation take into account did you did you review uh all of the processes that went through there?

Um I realize we're an air district and we were testing soil, um, but as far as to create a baseline so that we know where we're at if we're going to determine whether it's from AVGAS or it's from the shooting range, um, I think that that would help us set the baseline uh because we we went through pretty rigorous testing uh much to the city's chagrin.

Uh we it was contentious because they wanted to just do at the site.

We made them go across the street.

We knew we made them go into residential areas uh in Mangan Park to uh dig up soil samples and test those and and we're ultimately satisfied with the answer.

But my my question is are you looking at that as one of your documents in your investigation?

We have looked at um the monitoring that was done, the reports that were produced.

Um we also have um uh uh engineering and compliance director, Amy Roberts, who looked into closely into the remediation as well as Office of Community Air Protection uh Levi Ford.

And so um if either of them would like to add anything to that, I'll defer to Dr.

Ayala who to pass that on top of the Go ahead.

Uh good morning, Director Kennedy.

I can respond to that.

Yes, we did um after our board meeting went through all of the documentation that was uh prepared to make sure that we understood what remediation had happened during the remediation process.

I can say that the air district did give comment on the health risk assessment and monitor um and modeling that was being done just to verify that it was in line with what an air district would be uh performing in a health risk assessment.

So that was um you can say expert information that was provided during that time.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Director Maple, Vice Chair Maple.

All right, thank you, Chair.

Um, I just want to one thank my colleagues for raising the questions.

Um myself along with uh Supervisor Kennedy represent this neighborhood, and I actually live very close by and and visit the park often.

So I it's always um it's always a thought in the back of my mind.

I know it's a thought to many of our residents.

I see the president of the Ming and Park Neighborhood Association is is here, Jen Holden.

Um so I'll look forward to hearing your comments.

Um but you know, I I just think it's so important that we continue to have these conversations because yes, a lot of work has been done.

Again, thanks to Supervisor Kennedy and the county for the work before my time um to do that.

But I think there's still questions that exist from the neighborhood and the community.

Um, and I think there's also a lot of conversation uh both at the county and the city about what's next.

What are the next 23 whatever years look like for the airport, for the neighborhoods that surround it, and so it's always very important.

So one of the things I'm I'm excited about is the continued focus on on air monitoring so that we can continue to keep to keep that data and keep the community informed.

And so I just want to thank you for your work on this.

And uh, it was actually a very interesting read for me to read this report.

Thank you.

Uh Director Sander.

Thank you.

Um I sort of looked at the the number with some interest and tried to place it, you know, in other categories like an OSHA uh workplace number is 50 micrograms, not 0.033.

So would that be 30?

That's 1500 times this level.

Yeah.

Um and I think if I'm reading this right, the EPA's ambient air standard is probably about four and a half times this number.

Could you just talk a little bit about the significance of that difference?

Yeah, so the two purposes, it's two for two different purposes.

So again, this one is for uh screening criteria, whereas um for EPA, they go through um a lot of health research to establish a concentration that is determined um say for the public.

And so for our purposes, it's mainly to prompt the additional analysis so that we can evaluate is it uh primarily aviation fuel or resuspended soil.

So this is just uh a standard by which we would pursue further investigation.

Correct.

I just want to be sure the public's clear on that.

It's not a safety measure by itself because the safety measures are very widely based on whether you're working in an environment or it's just a normal ambient air situation.

This is just under under these conditions we will investigate further.

Correct.

Thank you.

Dr.

Ayala?

Just to add to Dr.

Sanders, so um your reference to OSHA is about indoor air pollution and occupational exposure.

What we're dealing here is uh air outside, ambient air.

Um the standards or health-based standards that EPA, the federal government, is the one that sets them.

Um goes through a routine process where um roughly every five years, every pollutant uh undergoes what is called a scientific uh assessment of all the literature in terms of the latest uh health impacts.

Um it's a very extensive process, and based on that, that's how the EPA comes up with these numbers.

Now we need to recognize that they haven't revisited the LED standard for some time.

Um, but it is always the reference that air quality agencies across the across the country uh are expected to use.

The number that we have come up with, as you can, as you noted, is well below that.

And the only reason we're saying we need a number is so that this analysis of five different metrics is very complex and is very expensive.

So what we're saying is we want to be efficient.

We don't want to go chasing something when the when the levels are gonna be so low that it's really not gonna tell us anything.

That's really what this means is it's making us more efficient.

And we appreciate the partners that work with us.

This has been a collective of scientists and engineers like Catherine from many agencies, and that's how we landed at the number.

Yeah, I think the federal number is 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter.

When did they set that?

How long ago was it?

Uh oh boy, it's been that was uh revisited in 2016, but it was to re uh they made a decision then to retain the 2008 standard.

So that was the last time it was updated.

So review without a change.

Yeah.

And you don't always have to change it, right?

Correct.

Correct.

Review is a review.

Okay, thank you.

Um any members of the public want to um speak on this item?

Feel free to come on down.

Thank you, Catherine.

Thank you.

Good morning.

If you'd like to just set your name for the record.

My name is Jennifer Holden, and I'm the president of the Mangan Park Neighborhood Association.

And is there a time limit for my comment?

Uh typically probably about three minutes, but you're probably the only speaker, so if you thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um so yes, hello.

I know some of you, I don't know others of you.

It's very nice to have this chance to speak with you today.

I have lived in Mangan Park for 22 years.

Um I own my home.

It's I call it the last almost affordable lower middle class neighborhood in Sacramento.

Um, we are proud of our homes and where we live and the opportunities that it provides because its location gives it a great space.

So we want to protect it and preserve it for a long time to come.

Air quality is a problem for the residents in the area.

The census track of Mangan Park and Hollywood Park, where uh Vice Chair Maple lives, has one of the higher rates of respiratory diseases on both the state and federal environmental justice scans.

Scores around 94 percentile.

That means in comparison to the census tracts across the country, only six percent of census tracts report a higher rate of respiratory disease than the census track for Mangan Park and Hollywood Park.

Next, the questions about the lead tolerance.

How much should we tolerate?

Also consider Mangan Park's amazing location in South Sacramento and the direction of the prevailing winds.

The winds from Mangan Park travel straight towards Curtis Park and Arden Arcade.

It goes right into the heart of a lot of our residential areas.

So we're just kind of based upon testing that Mangan Park has done with United Latinos.

We're kind of ground zero, but what happens in Mangan Park happens heading northeast because the prevailing winds are from the southwest, carries right over all of those other census tracts and disperses.

We do not want to compromise our opportunities in the area, and I completely agree and understand.

I have spent a lot of time listening to my neighbors talk about what they love and what they want for our area.

Um if there's any concerns about where lead might be coming from, the city tree nursery on 34th Avenue, that is the other half of the city property at the end of the takeoff end, those lead test results have never been released from the soil.

I'm pretty certain it's been tested.

We've never been told.

So if there are concerns, I would say please ask the city to order a lead test across the eight to ten acres of the former city tree nursery on 34th Avenue, the other end of the takeoff.

Um the park has been extensively tested, scraped.

Um we've been told it's been mediated.

Nothing has been done for the property city property immediately adjacent.

So that is one thought if there are concerns.

However, the last round of testing in Mangan Park was on the pool house roof.

Now then that is not anywhere near the prevailing winds for where the city tree nursery is.

Um I would not be worried about soil results from the the tree nursery showing up on the pool house roof, not to any significant amount.

So there is still a need for Mangan Park to have air quality monitoring for lead and quite possibly PM 2.5, based upon the not just the lead of the fuel of the smaller uh twin-engine airplanes that are traditionally the part of Mangan Park.

We are also hearing and getting reports from other neighborhoods of the increased jet traffic.

Totally different fuel, different traffic.

I'm getting calls and texts from two o'clock in the morning from Curtis Park saying, Did you just hear that?

And I'm like, yeah, I'm awake because I heard that.

We're getting that kind of traffic also.

That increases PM 2.5.

Given our environmental justice scans, we need this.

Our neighborhood is transitioning, going from an older residence to younger families, having their kids.

The kids are going to the park to play right at the end of the runway.

This is about protecting health.

This is ultimately also about saving money.

Where do you want to spend the money?

Do you want to spend it in air testing and remediation, or do you want to spend it in health care costs?

No one in my family has asthma.

I lived in Mangan Park for 10 years and developed adult onset asthma.

I have been collecting data for the last five years.

This is anecdotal, but when I cross paths with neighbors who've lived in the neighborhood more than 10 years, I ask does anyone in your family have a respiratory disease, especially asthma or COPD?

And I have yet to find a family that does not report that.

This is going on.

People are getting sick.

We don't know why.

There are still question marks as to why.

Lots of testing should probably still be done in order to protect the hardworking.

God bless them.

Great neighbors of Mangan Park.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Jennifer, for coming out.

We appreciate the feedback.

Selena, do we have any other requests to speak on this item?

Not on this time chair.

Okay.

Then Catherine, thank you very much for the report.

Um we are going to go back to the consent calendar now that we have a quorum.

Are there any questions from my colleagues on the consent calendar?

Any requests to speak on the consent calendar?

Not at this time, Chair.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed or abstained.

All right, the consent calendar passes unanimously.

Um, next item, please.

The next item on the agenda, item 6.2, carbon sequesteration and offsets facilitating local progress.

And I have Paul Philly and Chambers David presentation.

Good morning, Paul.

Morning, Director Aquino, members of the board.

I'm Paul Philly, uh program manager with the Transportation and Climate Change Division.

I'm here today to give a presentation on uh carbon targets here in the state of California and what the Air District is doing to help our local jurisdictions and development community achieve them.

Oh, and I have a clicker.

All right.

So uh speaking of things that happened 20 years ago besides uh Greenbrier, there was also the Global Warming Solutions Act, which was signed by the governor.

Uh and it was known as Assembly Bill 32, which really kicked off a brand new regulatory regime honestly across the nation when it comes to climate change.

Before this, there was executive orders, there was science, there was acknowledgement it was a problem, but this was the first time we had a legislative mandate with hard targets and also authority granted to state agencies to start pursuing those targets.

And it began with a uh reduction to uh 1990 levels by 2020, and the Air Resources Board was given regulatory authority to create regulations and market mechanisms to achieve that.

And as air districts, we are regulating things and helping reduce emissions is old hat for us, and so we were uh brought into also looking at uh greenhouse gases along with criteria air pollutants.

Uh it was actually successful.

We did achieve as the state the 2020 targets, and subsequently the legislature gave us new targets.

Uh right, the reward for work is more work.

So currently with uh AB 1279, we're trying to get to net carbon neutrality by 2045.

The way it typically has shaken out is we have a scoping plan, which is drafted by the Air Resources Board that lays out exactly how the different sectors need to achieve those reductions.

And where the state has the authority, it typically acts and it creates a series of regulations, such as the renewable portfolio standard, which is clean energy, or the Calgreen Building Code, which is efficient buildings, or it is the market mechanisms, such as the low carbon fuel standard or cap and invest.

Uh however, the state doesn't have the authority in all of the sectors that need to achieve in order to hit the targets in the scoping plan.

Uh appendix D, you may have heard of, is all about local actions, uh, which is where you come in both as directors here and then as elected officials back at your home jurisdictions.

And this is typically acted out through your land use and CEQA decisions uh at your home jurisdictions.

So to achieve those statewide carbon targets, uh, the most common methodology used is with your climate action plans, which most of the jurisdictions here have as qualified climate action plans, so that if your jurisdiction takes these actions and the projects within take these actions, you are able to achieve your share of the reduction target.

And then there's also the greenhouse gas uh thresholds adopted by the district, which is a baseline that any project can use if you cannot uh be consistent with a climate action plan, or your project's weird and you want to use something different.

However, some projects aren't able to meet all of the aspects of those larger plans, and so if they don't want to have a significance and unavoidable determination, you can use uh off-site reductions or carbon credits in order to reduce your emissions down to the threshold that's been established.

So I want to talk a little bit about the different types of carbon reductions in California, and we've sort of broken them up into four big pieces.

One is the cap and invest market or the regulatory grade.

There are specific industries that are part of Cap and Invest, which is the ARB market, and they have very specific requirements for them, and they're used for specific industries.

And so it's a market with California and Quebec and a few others that are very focused on those pieces.

The larger market that's used more globally is the international voluntary carbon market.

So this is when anybody does a project, you get third-party verification, it creates uh a registry of what happened, it then gets put into a bank and then can be purchased.

So when you see carbon credits used at a CEQA project, this is typically what you're looking at is this international voluntary market.

And it can come from anywhere, although with recent court rulings, uh, you typically need those credits to meet California standards.

So, for example, the most recent carbon credit that I saw that was being used at also local jurisdiction was a foam factory in Virginia.

So that foam factory did certain things to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

It was verified by a third party, it was consistent with Golden Door and other California rulings, and thus could be used in California to meet uh CECOP purposes.

Um not wanting all of our money to go out of state.

Uh carbon markets are starting to be set up for CEQA purposes.

And the most recent one is actually around uh vehicle miles traveled.

Uh LCI, which is a state agency recently put together a vehicle miles traveled reduction bank.

And so that's a CECA grade, and it's based on substantial evidence, which is the CEQA standard.

Uh it still has to have verification and other pieces, but the standard to meet it is a little bit different than that international voluntary market.

And then finally, the one that we're probably most familiar with is non-credible reduction measures or just mitigation measures.

Uh you may have seen projects that have an impact, they do something off-site, and it's done on a project-by-project basis.

You can't sell the reductions from that project because it's being used to offset uh you know the main project of the of the piece.

So, with those four pieces in mind, I wanted to talk a little bit about what the role this air district plays in that process.

And uh we have a sequin land use section, and we have four main pieces as part of this.

One is to provide SEQA guidance as the local technical agency so that uh your staff has defensible ways to put these documents together.

We advocate for project design that reduces emissions uh to better protect public health.

We support your lead agencies and staff and technical review to make sure that any CEQA documents published in the region is consistent with every other document and done with state of the practice so you can rely on those numbers.

And we also develop uh mitigation options so that if a mitigation needs to happen, you can be sure of what the reductions are and that it's happening.

And it's that fourth piece that I want to talk about because we found a little bit of a hole in uh in a need for the region, and because of a confluence of a few things.

One is the Sacramento County General Plan uh put a lot of emphasis on natural and working lands and carbon sequestration in those areas.

Uh we also had the North State Building Industry Association ask us to look into an option for local carbon projects, again, not wanting to have to deal with the international voluntary market.

And there was also the comprehensive capital region climate priorities plan, which was a seven-county effort led by this agency.

And an early action that would create a lot of benefit was a local carbon bank, especially working around natural and working lands.

And so we started investigating what would it look like uh to have a local carbon bank.

Now, a carbon bank is typically a uh entity that holds carbon credits, which can then be traded or sold and used for mitigation purposes.

All carbon credits have to be real, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, additional, and quantifiable.

If I can't stand in front of a judge and say that this carbon credit meets all of those, it can't be a carbon credit.

Uh and there are lots of different methodologies that you can choose to do to create a bankable carbon credit.

Now, if we did have a local carbon bank, there are a lot of benefits that we could bring.

One is there would be a new voluntary mitigation option.

So you could use the local bank, and if it doesn't work for you, you could still use others.

Uh it would lead to investment in the Sacramento region so that the projects were happening locally and we could get those co-benefits.

Uh we did have support because you would have a streamlined review of those carbon credits.

Right now, if you buy something from out of state, it has to go to the lead agency to make sure it meets California standards.

They then call us, we then work with them, we make a determination, and then it happens, as opposed to here's some credits that are already ready to go and they're local, and you can drive out and make sure that the project happened.

Um that would be a benefit to a local one.

Uh without a local bank, that money flows outside of the region, and so do those benefits.

Now, we looked at uh what we've done in the past, and we actually do already have a local carbon bank.

Uh back in 2010, this board adopted Rule 250, which authorized the board to create a carbon bank.

And it was part of CapCOA's, which is the 35 air districts in California working together, uh greenhouse gas exchange.

And no carbon credits were banked in the preceding 16 years.

And so we were looking at why didn't that happen?

What do we need it to be successful?

There is a desire for local credits, but clearly what we have right now isn't working.

So we went and looked back at our land use policies and principles that this board has been supportive of over the previous years.

And one is um we've always heard uh when regarding sequenced land use is that we want things to be voluntary.

Uh we don't want to force anybody to do anything.

We need to be good enough for people to choose to use it and not uh a regulation.

We heard that it needs to be low cost and accessible.

If something is too expensive, then it's not feasible and it won't happen.

It needs to be defensible, and this is really important to me.

Uh we've been doing this for decades, and we've built up a lot of credibility.

And when we put our impramater on a CEQA documents, judges typically defer to the soundness of it.

And so anything we do is going to have to meet the highest of standards and current science.

And then it needs to be self-sustaining.

We want uh money coming into the bank to be able to fund the projects and the verification and still and not be a burden to the taxpayer.

Paul, um Director Cerna has a question or comment for you.

Thank you, Chair.

Um back to the opening uh comments about um Rule 250 and the fact that uh over the last 16 years we we have not had any currency with which to work.

Um is is part of that attributable to the fact that back in 2010, I don't think any jurisdictions had developed a CAP, right?

Um also I wonder out loud here whether or not to make it a viable opportunity, that is the utility and use of carbon credits, does it make sense for um local jurisdictions to, in addition to having some reference to that opportunity in their caps, but also in their general plans, um, because it seems like there's a whole litany of uh other land use authority that um would need to be exercised according to the you know respective document, the planning documents that govern how land use planning is um uh pursued in those local jurisdictions to make the whole system functional.

So I don't know if it was maybe cart before the horse is part of the problem or not.

So I'm wondering if you can address that.

You're you're right that in 2010 we were only four years into this carbon reduction piece, and I think a couple of things happened.

One is the international voluntary market became standard, and so the CapCOA exchange was a bit duplicative, and the need for sequel reductions wasn't yet as necessary as it is today.

So at that time, Caltrans was still saying that climate change is speculative and we don't need to reduce our emissions.

Uh that was a long battle uh to get all of the state agencies on board with AB 32 and other pieces.

The regulatory environment today, with uh our 2030 targets coming and CEQA suits being more successful and overrides becoming harder has definitely created a regulatory shift.

And there's also a lot more interest in local.

That has become more important as time has gone on, where it's not just buying Amazon credits or credits overseas that needs to be enforceable by American courts, visitable by local jurisdictions to make sure that the projects are happening.

Dr.

Ayala.

I I think there's there's another I appreciate the question, Director Cernan.

There's another dimension that is interesting to share.

Back in 2010, you were at the Air Resources Board, and so was I.

What happened when AB 32 was adopted in 2006 and then the subsequent actions that Mr.

Philly described, um the role of the air districts when the state got active was not well defined.

There was an understanding, as Mr.

Philly said that clearly regional and local entities had to play a role, but that was not prescribed.

The State Board was, as you recall, focused on what is the big statewide policy, how are we going to the decarbonize?

The response of many air districts was a bit of let's just get ready.

And there was a lot of activity amongst the air districts at the time and amongst Capcoa that was anticipating some clear, well-defined role for local agencies in A B 32.

And as a result of that, you got a lot of these programs that the air districts spend energy and time to set up.

But like our role, like our agency's rule, they basically sat dormant because the reason the bank never got funded is very candidly, this agency also didn't emphasize that we needed to get it going for good reason.

Again, there was a lot of it was a very fast-evolving dynamic process.

Now, fast forward to today, as Mr.

Philly said, the landscape is very different.

And I, for one, uh appreciate it, the BIA put in this in front of us.

And as Mr.

Philly so expertly described to you, there's so many benefits that can stay local.

That's why we are willing now to spend the time and kind of tap into what the agency has already done.

That's really why we're here.

And to your point, once we have the bank and we've done the back-end work, you can use it in any project you want.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Director Dickinson.

Thanks, Chair.

Not not to not to uh uh digress too deeply into into ancient history, but but in 2010, if I recall, and in uh and in actually uh earlier years, and I don't know, maybe Kathy remembers this as well.

We had another program for offsets that we use for credits.

And uh I can't think of the name of it uh offhand, but we said we made heavy use of it at McClellan in particular for development there.

And um and a few other instances uh around around the county.

It was essentially a carbon credit program, but it wasn't it wasn't um devised uh under the Rule 250, which was the which you referenced and adopted in in 2010.

So that may be also part of the reason that at least in those early early uh years, Rule 250 wasn't wasn't the vehicle uh because we had this other the this other program.

So just that to add to the add to the flavor of this.

If I may just clarify, so that's a really good point, and uh sometimes is is good to be reminded.

That's a really good point.

You're referring to credits, emission reduction credits that have been longest standing that have to do with conventional pollution.

So this is the vanilla type, NOx reductions, PM reductions, VOC reductions.

The agency, like every other air agency across the nation, we have a very robust, mature ERC emission reduction credit system that runs and the agency does have a bank.

What we're talking about now is with AB 32 on the emphasis on climate change, now we're talking about carbon emissions.

So I think that that may be the distinction that you may be thinking about.

But clearly, we have an existing bank, and and frankly, we are we are borrowing a lot of the lessons and a lot of the tools that are already exist because again, carbon is just another pollutant that comes out when you have fossil fuel combustion, right?

Uh Director Lopez Taff.

Thank you, Chair.

I am struggling to find the right words because I am I'm new to air quality control.

Um speaking from a community like Citrus Heights, we are trying to attract projects, and we're very aware of fiscal impacts on every reporting agency, what are uh barriers to better building, and of course, we want it to be a clean build, we want to attract responsible operators to our community.

But our question that in inevitably comes from our residents is what's the fiscal impact of this?

In the dollars and cents of my everyday, I talked to a senior yesterday, and he said, all my costs are rising, but not my income, not my social security check, not my retirement, none of that is is rising.

And so when we talk about these actions, measures, considerations, what is your, you know, you say low cost.

Well, what does that mean?

Because that does not mean the same thing to a regular citizen.

And I'm here to represent that voice.

And so I'm gonna ask you, can you tell us what is the fiscal impact of the creation of such a bank, um, the implementation, the maintenance, the fee structure, the regulatory bodies and decisions that will inevitably come from it?

Because I think whenever I hear uh regulation, I hear fee structure.

And so while I struggle to understand a lot of the technical technical nature of this, I'm like every other resident who will ask, okay, regulation equals another barrier to me operating in in regular form and function of business.

You know, while this has been brought up by a business entity, I you know, we have to ask ourselves why did they bring it up?

Do they want to come first to market and say we have this regulation handled?

You know, we we help set the standard, and so you know, while have nothing against this organization, again, asking questions as a regular person uh who will inevitably be impacted by these decisions we make today.

Absolutely.

So one of the we all have a responsibility to meet our state air quality and federal air quality and our state climate targets.

And California has set up 35 different air districts so that each area can find the fast, the best way for them to achieve those targets.

And a big part of my job is to make sure that there are lots of options and they are the cheapest, most cost-effective ways consistent with community values to achieve that.

When we have set up our CEQA program, we didn't have a very prescriptive way that somebody has to build something.

We set a performance standard with lots of different mitigation options so that the development community can have choice.

Sometimes they will need to use cheaper equipment that is a little more dirty, but there's an off-site mitigation option so that they can move faster and get to market sooner.

We're really about keeping air quality whole and giving as many options to our development community as possible.

If the bank is too expensive, no one will use it.

And the time that we're putting into it is not going to be beneficial.

But I do want to stress that we are trying to find the most cost-effective ways and the most options so that if being compliant with the Citrus Heights Climate Action Plan is the best way, then that is the way a developer can go.

If it doesn't quite work out for their project type, they at least have additional options so that they can still keep air quality and climate whole, but still move forward in a manner that is consistent with their project goals.

All right.

Thank you.

Keep keep going.

There are more, right?

Okay.

So building off of that, um, we were trying to keep those costs in mind when we were designing what a bank could look like and what the structure could end up being.

And one of the things we looked into is where have carbon projects been successful.

And one of those is uh that State Carbon Bank I talked about, the regulatory grade credits, CCI, uh California climate initiatives, money comes down and then projects happen, and the State is able to claim all of those reductions.

There are programs that are heavily oversubscribed, where there are more good projects than there are uh money to do it.

And so we wanted to focus on those types of projects that are already ready to go in the region and just need a bit of funding in order to happen.

Uh right now, a lot of those programs are structured in that lowest tier, the non-credible reduction measures, where they're real, they're just not heavily verified and certified and on all of the other pieces.

And so what we wanted to do was look at those successful existing programs, add in additional verification and enforceability so that we can be certain that there are tradable credit and then be able to sell them to the development community at cost so that there could be projects in the region that have these local benefits and give the development community options for moving forward.

And so it's likely to be in the construction and building energy sectors that would be most likely to be using the credits, but it theoretically could be used for anything from if you want to offset a flight or things of that nature.

And we would structure it to be able to meet that CEQA grade standard where you would have substantial evidence that the carbon credits are real and happening.

Once that's successful, we could add additional protocols to these pieces so that we could expand the bank to be able to start functioning in a more traditional international voluntary carbon market.

If it is successful, we could start having projects in Virginia purchase projects here as opposed to the other way around, and we can be exporters of carbon reductions and importers of funds, which is something that uh Dr.

Ayala has been interested in making sure that we can build toward.

At the end of this, we always want to make sure that anything we do has consistent with community values, and so we've been working to put together a pilot where we can try this out for a season and then based on those learnings, determine how best to set things forward so that we can make sure that we're hitting all of these benchmarks uh that the board is concerned about.

So as far as next steps, I want to acknowledge in the audience is our climate coordinator Brianna Moland and uh our program supervisor of sequent land use Richard Muzzy.

They'll be coming back in the fall and explaining the pilot program that we're putting together, uh where we're working to start one of these projects in the region based on these protocols, so that we can have an actual project, have actual carbon credits, and then have an actual sale to sort of see how this works.

Based on those learnings, we'll either use Rule 250 or another regulatory vehicle so that we can then start having a formal bank uh in one year.

And that's the hope.

So with that, uh, we're all available for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dr.

Ayala.

I I I wanted to take another shot at uh answering uh Director Lopez staff's uh question, because I want to make sure that you guys are all comfortable with what we're talking about here.

Uh and first, uh, this is not a new regulation.

We're not telling anybody that they have to do this.

This is a voluntary program.

Second, we're not adding any new requirements.

What we are adding is more options.

You in Citrus Heights have already adopted and translated how the SAB 32 and other carbon requirements apply to your city.

So when you have an application for new development of any kind that is subject to those requirements, right now they have a narrow uh basket of options in terms of how to meet those requirements and mitigate, as Mr.

Filler said, air pollution that is generated naturally from development.

What we are saying now is we can create yet another option that we think has multiple benefits that is going to be lower costs, and most importantly, that is going to be a benefit to the region in terms of a new local investment.

That is what we are doing.

You can choose as a city and as a council to say, you know what, we don't want to participate, we're going to continue the status quo for our development applicants, and you you're perfectly fine doing that.

But we do think that this is going to add flexibility, and I believe that is why the BIA came up to us, because looking at the county climate action plan, they said, okay, this is a good plan, but it's fairly fairly narrow.

There's only a few things that the county is telling development we can do.

What we're saying is we can expand that option.

Thank you.

Director Dickinson.

So STA is also at the board level had a discussion of pursuing a VMT mitigation bank related to SB 743 mitigation that's the that's required for transportation projects.

And I am curious, what if what if any is the relationship between this pilot for establishing a carbon credit bank and uh not necessarily formally the STA initiative uh, but more broadly to the extent to which the this uh this pilot potentially could be used for uh VMT mitigation pursuant to SB 743, what's the interplay here, if any?

There is there says I am trying to think of the best way to describe this.

So right now in California, vehicle miles traveled is its own independent impact beyond carbon reductions.

And there are three aspects to it that the State Legislature has said.

One is the climate impact, which theoretically you could use our carbon bank to offset.

There is the impact to multi-modes.

So when there is more traffic and VMT and other pieces, there is less walking, biking, and it makes those activities more difficult.

And then there's also a mix of land use issue.

So when you have development spread out with large parking lots, it becomes very difficult to have walkable neighborhoods and other pieces.

Sort of I gave a speech about uh Rancho Cordova new area and how it took 20 years of development before they got the schools and the grocery stores and the Walmarts and the other pieces.

And so in lower VMT communities, those amenities are already there.

I would say from a CEQA standpoint, if you are trying to offset VMT that is significant, you could either use LCI or SDAs or SACOG VMT bank to do a one-for-one, or you would have to break up the impact of VMT into those three pieces and then do it independently.

So you could theoretically use the carbon bank for that piece and then perhaps use uh additional uh bicycling and walking money for the multimodal piece, and then perhaps uh use some sort of subsidized or other land use piece or an extra park or something for the uh mix of land use piece.

I am not an attorney, we do have one, but uh that hasn't yet been worked out in court as to how what that looks like uh if you are trying to get a less in significance for VMT without using VMT in and of itself.

But there is definitely a healthy debate in the secret community about if it is appropriate to break it apart into those three impacts and then address them independently.

Well, but uh so that I mean they are divisible, so uh I'm still curious whether whether you are in a part or are a part of the conversation about whether it would make sense or be viable to uh uh use carbon credits from the pilot potentially to address to address the carbon reduction, the VMT reduction, carbon uh portion uh related to SB 743, or are you looking at that as not not being as desirable as applying the carbon credits to some other uh some other type of projects?

I think we are interested in having as wide of a market as possible, because if there is more buyers and more sellers, then the bank is more useful and costs per ton goes down.

So if there is a jurisdiction that wants to use the carbon bank and why is that one on that uh purchase the credits for um reductions on VMT, you know, we would work with our sequenced land use staff to help you try to draft a very defensible document uh that you could stand behind and take to court.

Okay.

I mean it just seems to me that the it's a challenge.

This is uh the VMT mitigation bank is a challenge.

And so if there's if there's an opportunity here to uh share, so to speak, the the benefits of uh uh carbon credit bank, uh even on a pilot basis with the effort to to look at uh at uh VMT reduction for transportation projects, it it it just made it makes sense to be to be having to have that conversation in that relationship.

So so we hear you, uh Director uh Dickens.

So we'll have the conversation.

Um we would not be the opponent of that idea.

I think we would have to see, as Mr.

Phil has said, the way that the BMT bank is envisioned with the legislative intent, would would there be an opportunity to open it?

Why?

Because of Mr.

Philly, and you know, the planet doesn't care where carbon reductions happen as long as they happen.

And in the best of cases, you would have as wide a market as possible.

Uh but we would have to be careful in terms of is that allowed under uh the legislative uh statute that governs the setup of the VMT bank.

But we have a very good working relationship, as you know, with with all of our regional agencies.

We'll have to have that conversation.

So let me just let me just end with this then.

What if uh if you have gotten to the point of uh uh conceptualizing or thinking about where these carbon credits would be applied, what kind of projects are are we talking about?

So uh so again, um the the building industry association was the one interested.

Um uh again in response and reaction to the county's climate action plan.

So I suspect, as I uh uh alluded to in my comments to uh Director Lopez staff is if you if we have an application that has got new development and there is certain expectation for reduction either from the city or the county, they will now have a choice and say instead of doing what's in the cap, now we can go to the air district, because they have a viable bank that has credits, and then we'll just go to that.

But that is real again, we're not asking anybody to to go in that direction, we're simply giving the option we want to make it attractive uh so that hopefully we can continue to build it.

So yeah, so you so you're thinking about um uh buildings, basically.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Paul.

Um Celina, do we have any requests to speak on this item?

Okay, thank you.

Um Dr.

Allen, I want to do a quick time check because we may start to lose some people.

Do you want to continue with Megan and then your APC report, or do you want to switch those or no?

Yeah, I would like uh uh Ms.

Ms.

Shepherd to to give you the update on on her item and and if we need to sacrifice something, I'm I'm willing to postpone the APCO report.

Okay, okay.

Uh Selena, you want to introduce this item then, please?

6.3.

Yes.

Um item 6.3, telework headquarters and contract administrative updates.

And we have Megan Shepard and Chambers to give a present.

Good morning, Chair, Chair, members of the board.

My name is Megan Shepherd.

I'm the director of administrative services.

That's really loud.

Sorry, I need to pull the microphone away.

All right.

And I'm going to give some updates on our telework policy, the district headquarters, and our upcoming labor negotiations.

All right.

As part of our annual review, management evolve management evaluated the telework policy to ensure it supports our current operations, workforce, and mission.

We looked at several objective measures, our performance management framework, district performance metrics, employee satisfaction survey, our operational accomplishments, and the recent developments in the state telework policy.

We have determined that our current hybrid model continues to effectively support the district's needs.

But why do they uh the current model support what we do?

It's not just based on one factor alone.

It's based on the overall performance of the organization.

From a performance standpoint, the district continues to successfully deliver major initiatives like area and the community emissions reduction plan, all while maintaining our current duties and our organizational goals.

From an accountability perspective, the hybrid model is supported by intentional management practices.

We maintain regular leadership and team meetings, hold regular one-on-one check-ins, we have our monthly all hands day, and we maintain our performance management efforts.

This policy that is established is a minimum in office requirement.

In fact, over half of our employees are on location more than half of the time, just due to the nature of their work.

Whether that be at the headquarter office, uh air monitoring stations, at business meetings or partner agency meetings, uh conducting inspections, or attending community meetings.

The operational needs determine where the work is performed.

So going forward, we're going to continue to monitor this policy through our established performance and feedback measures.

If adjustments are needed, we'll make them.

This policy is ongoing and will continue continue to formally review it annually.

So it ensures that we meet both the district needs and the needs of our employees.

I wanted to provide a update on the headquarters building strategy that can we continue to explore opportunities to sell the building.

However, the downtown commercial real estate market remains challenging.

Buyer interest is limited.

Given the market conditions, we're continuing to keep all options open.

Selling may remain a possibility, but we're actively exploring opportunities to lease the available space and operationally use the space our space better.

At that same time, we're making targeted uh cost effective improvements, such as new entryway doors, first floor flooring, and uh common area upgrades.

This will improve the employee experience and make the building more marketable.

Vice Chair Maple has a question or comment.

I can wait till the end.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Um but we will continue to monitor the market, uh, pursue leasing opportunities where it makes financial sense, and uh keep you all informed of any significant developments.

And finally, uh our last slide here uh employee association contract negotiations.

Our current uh MOU with the SAC Air District Employees Association does expire on June 30th, 2027.

Uh both management and Sadia uh have established their negotiation teams, and uh we're finalizing the ground rules, which will govern the process.

Um we have set up four bargaining sessions, which begin in August, and of course we'll keep you all informed.

Uh, but we're well positioned for uh well good negotiations.

Um but that is it for my presentation today.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you, and I'm happy to answer address any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Chair Maple.

All right, thank you, Chair.

Um, and appreciate the presentation.

I think um well, one, it's important for us to know as the board how these conversations are going with our employees and our our assets, including the building that we own.

But also I think it's important context right now.

Um it's not happening in a vacuum.

We see what's happening at the at the state level, there's a return to office order and that and the impacts of that on downtown and communities.

But I I really um I think it's so important that we've had these discussions through the subcommittee over the last couple of years, um, and that we lead as the air district because we um you know, early on, the air district sent a letter um to the state during the beginning of the COVID pandemic and talked about how having work from home options and flexibility actually led to improvements in the air quality, and we did see that.

Um so as air quality district, I think leading with our actions is really important, not to mention the benefits that it can have for our employees and their families and their ability to have a quality of life.

And so I'm really glad to see that that's this is something that we're continuing to do to have that flexibility and hopeful that we can find a path forward for the building in the future.

So thank you for your work.

Thank you.

Director Dickinson.

Thanks.

I've I I appreciate this report.

And I think that uh you know, we have to a certain extent conflicting uh interests and values here.

Um there's no question that there are benefits to telework from an environmental um uh point of view.

I think that I think there also are clearly uh benefits to having people in in the office.

Now that that is colored uh for the district, of course, by by the extent to which staff is out in the field as a regular part of their duties and and and responsibilities.

But uh I'm I'm curious as as you say you're gonna stick with the with the telework policy for the next year, whether or not it makes sense with new hires, so not people that are on the existing staff, but new hires to start thinking about a a um greater amount of if you want to say obligation to be in the in the office than is than is um applied to existing uh existing employees.

I'll I'll take a stab at that because um one of the one of the items that uh Ms.

Shepard mentioned is um we're very diligent in terms of surveying uh the employees.

And in fact, uh Director Dickinson, one of the one of the things that we heard in the latest uh employee survey that informed our recommendation is precisely what you are saying is when you are uh new to the air district, uh and this is the employees and and the manager saying, we do need more uh face-to-face interaction.

So one of the things that I'm um I'm asking us to do is to come up with recommendations.

The reason we do surveys and take some of the other metrics is so that we can put in place a policy that is best for the times that we're living in.

And one of the things that we're likely going to be pursuing is precisely what you are saying is for the new employees, I think they they would want it, and I think their supervisors would also want it.

So stay tuned because we're going to come back with some organizational updates based on the survey.

But the point about teleworking, we want to be data-driven.

And as Ms.

Shepard alluded to, um, we're being very careful at using this framework that we presented to you from day one, and as best as we can, we can meet the intent of the executive order from the governor in terms of bringing all the state workers back by continuing the telework policy.

Yeah, I well, I I think it makes sense uh to uh look at over time as the as the workforce turns over that that there is a uh expectation that from day one that that there's going to be a continuing uh requirement to be in the office more.

And then and then it doesn't become uh a matter of taking something that people who are on the staff now accept as what they think should be it it just modifies things on a gradual basis to the point where it's um uh I think more helpful to have people in the office.

So thanks.

I I don't know what this means, rear staff for request to speak.

That's me.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm sorry I pushed my little request to speak.

I didn't want to interrupt, I just virtually raising my hand.

Um I really appreciate um, Mr.

Chair Director Dickinson, uh, your comments.

Um and I do think that's a really fair observation.

We we all came to the office five days a week in the past, no matter where we worked, uh that was the standard.

And as newer staff are hired, newer staff are graduating from college and coming to the workforce, uh joining in a telework, it doesn't give you that same opportunity.

Uh that's why the uh my fellow directors and I are working um on ideas on how to bring that staff in to meet with the other teams, to work together and collaborate.

We have that all hands day where we have charity events, we have events uh every time we come in so that we can collaborate and network.

So we're really always trying to improve, and we know that this policy won't just stop here.

We will continue to look forward and brainstorm ideas, work with our staff, and try to keep everyone as engaged as possible, because it's not just about the work perform, it's about the happiness of the team and employee.

Chair, I'm sorry.

I uh you know uh I I appreciate that, but I I mean during the period of basically 21 to 24, I worked for an for an organization that was virtually all remote.

Uh and I personally went into office um very few times.

But I really missed uh I I I realized during that period of time, I really missed the the full breadth of what people in the in the organization were doing, because I didn't see them except on on a screen, and and then only for limited periods of time and for particular purposes, and I really I'm I'm I just I missed the fullness of uh what they were doing.

Uh and I think that made me um I I I won't I wouldn't say this made me less effective in what I was I was doing because I was able to get the information I needed in order to carry out what I was tasked with, but I didn't have that that sense of the organization that that I'd had in previous occasions working where it was five days in the office.

Now I don't think we're going back to five days in the office.

I mean, I'm not I'm not suggesting that.

I'm just suggesting there is there is value to having people together that goes beyond what might be reflected in data and how you assess that against the data points that you are gathering, I think is the is the challenge.

All right.

Thank you.

Did we have any requests to speak on this item?

Okay.

Then that takes us to our APCO report.

All right.

I'll try to run through this information as quickly as possible.

I appreciate you sticking around.

Um, so just have a bunch of FYIs for for you all.

Um as you know, the AB 617 uh requirement of uh submitting a community emission reduction plan or SERP uh has been completed.

Thank you to Chair Aquino for coming up to uh the June 22nd celebration, and we're actually going tonight uh to deliver it uh to the Air Resources Board at their um uh at today's meeting.

So just wanted to acknowledge that and obviously milestone, but now the work begins because now we have to implement the 27 strategies in the plan.

Next slide, please.

Um we have been out in the community.

This is clear uh message from you all.

We want to be out there and and and convey and deliver the message uh of what this agency represents uh for the region in terms of our air quality mission.

We have been um uh at various events and and obviously we try to capitalize on the world event of the World Cup.

Um and we came up with some messaging in terms of hey, you want to play soccer, go for it, but you need clean air.

So uh kudos to our staff for being creative.

Next slide, please.

Um we need your help and we'll we'll get your information, but please uh make a mental note.

We are about to kick off uh our next solicitation.

As you know, we do this every year.

Uh to the extent that the State continues to invest in the clean energy transition, we're gonna continue to fight for our piece of the pie.

And uh we're about to kick off our our uh funding opportunities on the order of 20 million, starting uh as as you see in the summer with school buses and lawn and garden equipment for for businesses and and homes.

And then after that, we're gonna transition to some of the other categories that you see.

So we're gonna sort of organize this in a way that that kind of makes sense in terms of how we roll out the money.

So again, when the solicitation opens, you're gonna get an email from the clerk, uh, included in your in your community newsletters, your your activities, and obviously we can provide more information.

Next slide, please.

Um this is the first urban development project that we have been able to accomplish with ABC 17 uh community air protection uh investment funds.

And this is an amazing uh uh example of the new type of work that an air quality agency is doing.

The complete streets project on Franklin is is the first of what we uh hope to be uh many of them.

And again, this is what we can accomplish for the region if we continue to do our part in the AB 617 program.

Uh so just wanted to make you aware of that.

We just had the the river uh uh cutting uh yes uh this week, early this week.

Um next slide, please.

Um were there and and you heard about uh peak energy.

Uh we were uh very thankful for have been been invited.

Um this is a a new manufacturing facility that is gonna be uh manufacturing the next generation of batteries that we're gonna see in the electricity industry to store the renewable energy uh that we are so blessed to get here in California.

And obviously, this is simply an acknowledgement, and we as a permitting agency, we're ready to work with them.

Because this is the kind of thing that we want to see uh in the region.

Um just wanted to share that with you.

Next slide, please.

Um again, uh we're also at the forefront of new science and technology.

Uh we are very pleased and honored to be uh sponsoring a conference that is taking place as we speak at UC Davis this whole week international conference.

We're talking clean energy, environment, sustainability, and the fact that it it is here and that it is us, I think it's is is a uh testament to uh the kind of change that we want to make in our region, the country, and beyond.

Next slide, please.

Um if you are around on August 2nd and we'll send you a flyer uh uh our um our partners uh the we have 12 air districts, I believe, that have come together.

Uh we're gonna be out in front of the west steps of the Capitol.

Uh, we're gonna close down 10 between L and N, and we're gonna showcase something we're calling clean air clean solutions.

What is the role of our agencies like us and what are the technology solutions that we're seeing and funding and putting on our roads and our homes in our businesses?

It's gonna be a great event.

It's meant to be festive.

Again, our target audience is our legislative leaders.

Uh, but if you want to come and see, is basically a collection of anything and everything that is actually giving us these air pollution reductions and carbon reductions uh that we keep talking to you about.

Next, and then the last slide.

And then again, we cannot forget our 30th celebration.

Uh thank you to all of you who have replied to us to participate.

Uh but again, I think um it's not is not a good thing for us to forget that in spite of the challenges, and you've heard me say this before, our era hasn't been this clean in the last 25 years.

Hands down.

And we have the data to back it up.

And I think it is important that this agency that is going to turn in its current incarnation as a special independent district, is starting 30.

So our friends of validation have have opened up a nice opportunity for us to pick it back on their event, and we're gonna take it and and please come out.

So that concludes my APCO report.

Thank you.

Uh on behalf of the board, I just wanted to make a couple comments.

Um want to thank uh district staff and the South Sacramento Florent community for all the work on um getting to this milestone of completing the community emissions reduction program.

Special thanks to Janice Lamb Snyder for all her work.

Um I'm gonna repeat the comments that I said at the event a couple weeks ago.

Um, when my father had his last meeting on this dais as part of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, his colleagues, including um Director Dickinson, gave him a going away present, and it was two live pigs.

And it was because my father used to say he didn't want more plans on a shelf.

He wanted projects in the ground or pigs.

And so, although I think there's a lot to celebrate about getting the plan completed, it's really only the first step, it's just the beginning, and now we have to implement it um so that the folks in that community who've worked so hard on the plan will see the benefits with you know the result of of better air quality and better health.

So again, thank you very much.

I do think we might have one person who wants to speak on the APCO report, so come on down, good morning.

Go ahead and introduce yourself.

Thank you so much for your comments, Chair.

I I couldn't agree with you more.

Uh so good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the board.

My name is Kendra Masius Reed, and I'm here speaking today as the former uh deputy director of the Franklin Boulevard Business Association and the Franklin Neighborhood Development Corporation.

Um I am now proudly serving on the board of directors.

So I am here today to express our gratitude and appreciation for the community greening incentive program, which um I don't know if you had a site up there, but that would be helpful to pull up.

Um so the City of Sacramento's climate division was recently awarded a total of $338,000 through this program.

So the funds are going to help transform a community known as the Franklin Boulevard Business District, an area that has long been under resourced.

The Franklin District is located within the SB 535 and AB 617 boundaries and is considered an area that suffers from extreme air pollution due to its proximity to Highway 99.

Your award of 338,000 will help our recently completed Franklin Boulevard Complete Street project that you see on the screen.

Um we had the ribbon cutting on Monday, it was wonderful.

Um I had actually been working on that project for about six years, so we're really happy to get to that point.

Um it'll help provide additional tree canopy landscaping and maintenance that will complete and sustain our investment in an underserved community for years to come.

Without these funds, our project would be unable to provide enough tree canopy and infrastructure to reduce heat and increase air quality and provide maintenance over time to ensure the trees and landscaping are well established.

We very much appreciate investments in programs like the community greening and incentive program, and we hope that your organization is able to continue to contribute these dollars where they are needed most.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming out and for waiting to the end.

Thank you.

Okay, if we have nothing else that takes us to board ideas, comments, and AB 1234 reports.

Anybody, anybody?

All right.

Any um public comment requests for items not on the agenda?

Not this time, Chair.

Okay.

Then thank you everybody for sticking around.

We will adjourn at 1024.