APCD Board Meeting of August 20, 2026

So we're going to be out of here quick. Okay, all right good afternoon everybody I'd like to call to order the August 20th 26 meeting that Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors. Madam Clerk can we get a roll call please?

We have a quorum.

Okay, so is there any changes to our agenda today?

Good afternoon. One change, the board is agendized to consider whether to initiate civil litigation in closed session but we will not be moving forward with that at this time today. No actions required so the board can move forward to approval of the minutes.

Okay great let's move on to the approval of the minutes. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of June 25th? Dave Brown

approval. I'll second David Silva

Dr. Hartman?

Aye.

Thank you, motion passes unanimously.

Okay next item up is our administrative items. Is there anybody that wishes to pull any board member wish to pull any items off administrative? Not in Santa Maria, any in Santa Barbara?

Yes, Chair.

public comment on any of the administrative items?

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, we did not receive any public comment on the administrative agenda.

Okay well let's get a vote then on the balance outside E3.

Motion passes unanimously.

Okay, Madam Clerk can you please read E3 into the record.

Administrative Item E3 Notice of Violation Report receive and file the summary of notices of violation issued and penalty revenue received during the months of June and July 2026.

Your mic's off.

I want to express my concern regarding the total number of violations and it seems like most of them, hundreds of them were Rule 206.331 over seven and a half pages. It appears that these violations include Buelton, Goleta, The Prison, Santa Barbara County, Verizon, Alice Hall Guest Ranch, UCSB Vandenberg Space Force Base and Samson Clinic, just to name a few.

The notices I want to find out were notices sent to advise that it's coming due or it's just good business practice rather than give them a gotcha did you tell them that hey your billing or your paperwork is due on such and such a date? And that's really what I'm asking about if staff could report to that.

Definitely, yes. It is a long list of NOVs and we're concerned about that number as well. As far as our process for annual reports and that's all the 164 violations were issued in calendar year 2025 or for calendar year 2025 And we do have a process in place. We send courtesy reminders that the annual reports are due to all permitted facilities. They get a reminder in December, in January and two in February and their reports are due March 1st.

Verizon I think was one in particular where the contact information we had with Verizon wasn't actually there or the correct person any longer. So what we've elected to do this going forward is to start even earlier, to ensure with all of our permitted sources we have the correct contact person before we even start with the courtesy reminders.

What is your With regards to, what are the cost of the fees for this late charge? For the violation of not reporting on time. How much is that total each person?

Let's see in their report here I believe there are some violations that were settled for late NOVs. I think it's 640. 640 yeah you could see on the top of page 47 That was the cost to submit an annual report past the due date, the March 1 due date.

Do you feel that March 1 due date is adequate or doable?

It's for the prior calendar year and over the years...

Well that's

60

days. 60 days from the close of the calendar

year. We haven't had complaints that they haven't had enough time to fill out the information and with our four reminders before it was due, they would have had an opportunity to reach out to us and say they need more time.

How many how many

Do

we have all together, how many reports have to come in? Over

a thousand. I don't know the exact number looking at the engineer manager or at Caitlin on the total number of annual reports that we have over 1,000 permitted sources and each of those have to submit an annual report.

So percentage wise?

We're still doing pretty well.

About 10% are late.

Yeah, but it is an issue for us and we've had some conversation on how we can do better and how we can assist the sources get the information to us. And you know if if the March 1 due date is unrealistic for sources maybe that's some information we need to solicit back from all the permitted facilities we work with just to know if that time frame is causing a problem or is it the contact person that we have that's not accurate?

What's the nature of the payments that you take

We've got staff coming up to answer that.

Good morning, or good afternoon. My name is Caitlin McNally I'm the Compliance Division Manager with the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District and I just wanted to address the ability for sources to get an extension so we do allow one-time extensions as long as it does not become a pattern if they're having trouble meeting the March 1st deadline and that's something that is included in each of the reminders that Erin mentioned the December And January and February reminders each say, you know, contact us if you need an extension and we can approve that. So just wanted to

mention that. All right. And as far as payment, we take checks. We take credit card payments in cash.

Well I just

not Venmo yet.

I guess my concern is really business practices and how do we build goodwill with our customers and charging them for 60 days past due or charge them In this fashion, but you're telling me they're getting the notices and so forth. So that was my major concern. But maybe there's something we can do extra to build that goodwill amongst... And this is a circular because we're charging other municipalities and government agencies for their tardiness. So it's, it becomes a circular environment and economics.

Thank you. That's all I

have. Thank you, Director Brown. I appreciate it and we'll look further into what we can do to reach out to the permitted sources especially those that have been late not just this year but perhaps even for repeated years to see if there's something else we can do to assist in making this annual report submittal more timely.

That's all I had Chair.

Great any other comments on E3? Any public comment on E3?

We receive no public comment on item E3.

Okay, can I get a motion to approve E3

So moved.

Second. Moved by Patino seconded by Brown roll call please.

Motion passes unanimously.

Okay that takes us to F which is our director's report Miss Arlen Jenea will you please give your report to the board

okay thank you today I just have a few items I want to bring to your attention once first one is our Community Advisory Council We had a meeting scheduled in July for the discussion of our 2026 ozone plan, the report back to our advisory council on our cannabis permitting fees and also a modification to their charter bylaws to authorize remote participation under SB 707.

We had a quorum until that afternoon, and then we lost it unfortunately. So we had to reschedule, and our meeting with the group is next week on the 27th. We'll be meeting in Buelton with the same agenda. But I wanted to highlight this because We have this advisory council and it's very beneficial to our agency to fully discuss all of the issues that are regulatory development based before they come before your board. And I want to encourage all of those who have not yet or maybe recently lost a member to the Community Advisory Council to try to get those positions filled, and I know it's not easy I know it takes a lot of folks time, but with this remote participation hopefully it'll be easier for folks in the future. So I just wanted to put this on your radar right now we have 16 CAC members and we should have 26 so we're 10 shy So Laura and I will be following up with each of the directors who have vacant slots just as a friendly reminder that if you have anyone that wants an opportunity to participate in this advisory council, please work with us to get them added.

And then the next thing I'd like to just summarize briefly is wildfire season. It's here, we know it is here. It's definitely top of the mind for our agency. We've been doing a lot to prepare for the times when we're inundated with wildfire smoke working with public health getting all of our templates current and ready to go Checking the current air quality conditions, making sure we're not elevating to a level where we need to send out a watch or an alert. The fires that we've had recently being way up in the northwest they have blown offshore and headed south but they haven't impacted us more than pushing us from an air quality index green level to a moderate level. The Big Sur fire is also one that we've been watching since it's been happening for the last week or so, that we wanted to make sure didn't have a negative impact on us.

We have clean air centers throughout the county. We're working with the clean air centers so we have a process in place if and when we're inundated with wildfire smoke and we have unhealthy air quality conditions, we want to make sure that there's a process in place to open those centers for folks that need to go and have a place Good morning, everyone. Thank you.

Purple air sensors that provide real-time particulate matter information. And we haven't had any wildfires that really drive the need to know what your neighborhood air quality is, but once it happens everyone's going to want one and I just if all of you any of you have any contacts public agencies nonprofits schools places that you think could utilize a low cost air sensor please reach out to us and we can get that deployed. And that wraps up my report

Great. Do we have any questions regarding that? And do we have any public comment on the director's report?

Chair Lavanino, members of the board, we did not receive any public comment on the director's report.

Okay. Well, we'll close that out and move to public comment. Now it is time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on today's agenda. Did you receive any requests for public comment?

Chair Lavanino, we did not receive any requests to provide public comment on items not on the agenda.

All right, cool. That moves us to item discussion item H-1. Can the clerk please read that item into the record?

Certainly. Discussion Item H- 1, 2025 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Annual Report. Receive and file the 2025 Air Toxics Hot Spot Program Annual Report and associated presentation during which the district staff will present the report and discuss its content and significance.

All right, today we have Charlotte Mountain. She's remote she will be providing a presentation today and we also have Robin Cobbs here who is helping out with the slides and available for any questions that might come up I just want to put a spotlight on the two of them for a second they are very engaged in this topic not just in Santa Barbara County but the state entire state through our California Air Pollution Control Officer Association working group that is dealing with toxic issues.

Charlotte, I know has been an instructor on how to do a health risk assessment for individuals at both agencies as well as the State California Air Resources Board and Robin has been extremely involved in some of the CAPCOA working groups and we'll be talking about some of the efforts that are happening statewide in a moment. But Charlotte, I got you right when you're taking a sip. It's all yours.

All right great thanks so much Erin and thanks Robin for going through the slides. So today i'll be presenting on the 2025 annual report for the AB 2588 air toxics hotspots program as required by the California health and safety code next slide To establish some background, Assembly Bill or AB 2588 which was passed in 1987 is also known as the Air Toxics Hotspots Information and Assessment Act.

This regulation requires businesses and industries throughout the state to quantify and report their emissions of listed air toxics, assess the possible health risks from these emissions, and if applicable notify members of the public who are exposed to significant risk attributable to these emissions. The regulation was modified in 1992 to require facilities to take steps to reduce any significant risk as well. An overview of this process is shown on the right side of this slide.

Air toxics are a category of air pollutants defined by the state, separate from criteria pollutants or greenhouse gases. Air toxic pollutants have been determined to pose a potential health risk in humans. Some examples of common air toxics are diesel particulate matter for chloroethylene and benzene. There is a list of many hundreds of pollutants for which emissions must be quantified and reported to the state in order for them to prioritize which ones will be reviewed for development of health risk values. Only a subset of these pollutants already have health risk values assigned and are included in health risk assessments.

The State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHA, reviews available research studies to determine health risk values for various pollutants which are necessary in order to quantify an estimated health risk from exposure to that pollutant. Next slide. When I talk about health risk in the context of this presentation, I'm referring to the likelihood that exposure to quantified air toxic emissions will result in an adverse health effect. Under AB 2588, health effects are determined for cancer impacts as well as non-cancer impacts. Calculated cancer risks are expressed as chances in a million. This is the added risk of developing cancer that results from lifetime continuous exposure to toxic pollutants beyond the background cancer risks that exist from any other environmental factors or genetic risk.

Calculated non-cancer risks are expressed as a hazard index, which is a ratio of the modeled concentration of a pollutant to its reference exposure level. A reference exposure level simply means the maximum concentration at which the state has determined there are no adverse health effects. Meaning if the modeled concentration is equal to the reference exposure level, the calculated hazard index is 1.0 and no adverse health effects are expected.

Non-cancer risks are analyzed for three different lengths of exposure. There's chronic, which is 24 seven long term exposure, eight hour chronic, which is particularly relevant for workers and acute, which has a maximum one hour impact. In 1993, the district's board adopted our significant risk thresholds which are the same as the notification thresholds shown in the table on this slide.

They are equal to or greater than 10 chances in a million for cancer risk and a hazard index greater than 1.0 for non-cancer health impacts. These are the levels at which a facility is required to notify the public of the potential health risk created by their emissions. In 1998, the district's board set the risk reduction thresholds at the same levels meaning any facility required to notify the public must also reduce their calculated health risks to below these thresholds. Next slide.

Health risks are calculated using a process called a health risk assessment or HRA. The first component of an HRA involves quantifying air toxics in an emission inventory. Under AB 2588, sources submit to us an Air Toxics Emission Inventory Plan which describes how they are going to calculate their air toxic emissions. This plan would include emission calculation equations, emission factors, control efficiencies and any other parameters that go into the calculations.

Then they submit an Air Toxics Emission Inventory Report which includes an Excel workbook with all their emission calculations such as the example calculation sheet shown on the left here. And this follows the methodologies described in that plan. These emission inventory submittals involve extensive review by the district for completeness. Next, the air dispersion modeling is conducted using a computer software program that incorporates parameters for all emitting sources such as stack height, velocity, temperature, the dimensions and locations of nearby buildings, terrain data, meteorological data and much more.

The last step combines the emission inventory and air dispersion into another program that performs the risk analysis. User inputs include exposure durations, breathing rates and information for pathways other than breathing air toxics directly such as absorption through the skin and ingestion from eating vegetables onto which airborne toxics have deposited. Next slide.

Our district first started the AB 2588 process in the 1990s by prioritizing sources and assessing the health risks from these sources. If the health risk results for a facility exceeded the board approved significant health risk thresholds, then risk reduction and public notification were required. In 1991, 51 significant risk sources were identified in our county. As these sources began implementing risk reduction measures by the year 2000 we had six significant risk sources remaining mostly oil and gas facilities. By 2015 all sources had reduced their risks to below significant levels. Next slide.

Then in 2015, the state updated their HRA guidance which required that all local air districts re-evaluate facilities under AB 2588. The steps in this process are displayed in the flow diagram on the slide. First after we determine a source is subject to AB 2588, we notify them that an Air Toxics Emission Inventory Plan or ATEIP is required describing how they are going to calculate their air toxic emissions like I mentioned earlier.

After the ATEIP is approved, the source submits an Air Toxics Emission Inventory Report or ATEIR, quantifying the emissions according to the approved plan. After the ATEIR is approved, the source conducts the HRA and submits the results to us. As shown there are three possible outcomes based on the results of the HRA. One path shown on the lower left of this diagram, if there are any risk results above a significance threshold. As a reminder that means cancer risk equal to or greater than 10 in a million or a hazard index above 1.0.

The facility has to submit a Risk Reduction Audit and Plan. That plan details how they are going to reduce their risks below significant levels. The public is also notified of the risk results then after the facility reduces their risks they are subject to quadrennial updates So every four years, they submit a brief report on what has changed at their facility since the last update. So we can determine whether there is concern they could now pose a significant risk and we need to go through the process again to get updated health risk results.

The second path shown in the middle of the diagram if the risk results are less than significant but either the cancer risk is greater than one in a million or any hazard index is greater than 0.1, the facilities also subject to the quadrennial update process. And lastly, the third path shown over on the right. If the cancer risk is less than one in a million and all hazard indices are less than 0.1, the facility becomes exempt from AB 2588. Next slide.

Per the 2015 state updates to the HRA guidance, the district initiated the reassessment of facilities under AB 2588. In 2025 we made progress on the submittals for these five facilities. AB 2588 work can span several years due to the iterative process of the ATIP, ATIR and HRA submittals. I'll discuss the first three facilities on the next slides. For PCEC, Orchid Hill and Newsell Technology, the HRAs were submitted to OEHA for their review in 2025. Next slide.

You might remember that I discussed Lockheed Martin during the AB 2588 Annual Report presentation last year. Since then, the HRA has been finalized and risk reduction has been implemented. This slide shows the previous significant acute non-cancer risk isoplethin purple located on public roadways immediately adjacent to the facility. The state regulation requires public notification to affected residences and businesses. However, as there are no actual residences or businesses within the significant risk isopleth, the district conducted a public notice via the website and our listserv, and we did not receive any comments during the public notice period. The risk reduction audit and plan has been implemented. Lockheed Martin proactively installed emission controls as soon as they identified the risk driver in their HRA, and the district has recently issued a permit to enforce these emission controls.

Next slide. The HRA for UCSB showed a significant acute non-cancer risk as shown in purple on this slide. Most of the significant risk was onsite at three different locations and a small part was on the beach immediately adjacent to campus, and these will all be shown in more detail on the next slide. Similar to Lockheed Martin because there are no businesses or residences within the significant risk isopleth, an online public notification is being conducted. The public notice began on July 15th and will run for 60 days. Next slide.

So here's a closer look at each of those three areas with the significant acute risk. The significant risks shown in the first two images were eliminated due to the removal of the wrist driving devices. The image on the left is that the facilities management offices, which are no longer present as a new housing complex is being built here and the significant risk was due to benzene emissions from the facility's yard gas station, which is also no longer present.

The image in the center shows the isopleth on classrooms and labs near Webb Hall due to acrolein from a natural gas generator at the Geology Building. This generator has been removed from the site. This brings us to the image on the right, which shows the Marine Biotechnology Laboratory near Campus Point Beach and the Lagoon. This significant risk was due to benzene from the gas station at this lab used to fuel research boats. The Risk Reduction Audit and Plan has recently been implemented via the installation of emission controls which reduce the acute risk to below significant levels.

Next slide. The HRA for Vandenberg showed a significant cancer risk driven by explosive ordinance disposal, which primarily affects the fish ingestion pathway. Therefore there is only a significant cancer risk to individuals that consume fish from the on-site lakes or ponds at Vandenberg for a 30 year exposure duration. Because this is a necessary activity to safely dispose of explosive materials it cannot be eliminated nor can it be controlled due to the open nature of the process.

For that reason, Vandenberg will be addressing risk reduction through fishing practices. In January 2026, Vandenberg suspended all hunting and fishing due to staffing restraints entirely unrelated to the district or AB 2588. Because Vandenberg has suspended all fishing and will be controlling fishing if and when their hunting and fishing program is reinstated, the significant cancer risk has been reduced below our thresholds. Next slide.

State guidelines allow local air districts to utilize air toxics analyses conducted as part of our permitting process in lieu of requiring separate quantification of air toxics emissions to satisfy the requirements of AB 2588. In 2015, for consistency with the new state guidance, the district completely revamped our modeling guidelines for health risk assessments.

This ensures that all analyses conducted under Permitting New Source Review and CEQA review will satisfy the requirements of AB 2588. The majority of the district's toxic work occurs under permitting NSR and CEQA to ensure that no new significant risk facilities are created. That is, if a proposed project results in a significant health risk we work with the source to make changes to their project or refine the assessment before the permit is issued. This results in an HRA showing less than significant risk levels and negates the need for the source to go through the full AB 2588 process.

26 HRAs were approved by the district in 2025 under NSR and CEQA, preventing new significant risk facilities from being created. Other work by District Toxics staff has focused on streamlining. Substantial updates have been made to our modeling guidelines for HRAs most recently updated in November 2025. We also updated the gas station, HRA application form and associated emission factors to stay up-to-date with state published data and we updated our AQIA modeling guidelines and created modeling protocol tables for AQIAs. AQIs are just another type of modeling exercise that are required by our NSR rule in certain situations.

Lastly, the screenshot on the right side of this slide shows the Diesel Internal Combustion Engine Screening Tool finalized earlier this year. The bulk of the work behind creating this tool was completed in 2025. CARB has been largely absent from non-diesel air toxics work for years, having pivoted its focus almost entirely to diesel particulate matter and placed non-diesel toxics on maintenance mode. The roadmap represents a reengagement and new commitment to existing and emerging air toxics issues. CARB has expressed their appreciation and the need for local Air District staff's toxics expertise across NSR, CEQA, and AB 2588 in developing this roadmap.

CARB has formed a work group with Capcoa to partner with local air districts to obtain our input on priorities, such as expanding their Air Toxics Monitoring Network, streamlining the TAC identification process and improving public data access through visualization tools. The draft roadmap was recently released to the public on August 12th with the comment period running through September 16th. Next slide.

Emerging issues in air toxics include the newly developed draft cancer potency factors for acrolein and ethylene oxide. OEHA estimates that acrolein impacts on public health are similar to diesel exhaust. Previously, there has been no OEHA-approved cancer potency factor for acrolein. It's difficult to quantify the magnitude of the risk statewide due to issues with the source test method, unreliable emission inventories throughout the state, and the fact that contributions from different source types are unknown.

Acrolein is emitted from virtually any fuel combustion device. Ethylene oxide has a revised draft cancer potency factor substantially higher than its existing factor. Its primary sources are medical sterilization facilities and their associated warehouses, of which there are none currently permitted in Santa Barbara County though we did recently receive an application for one such sterilization facility.

We're working with the rest of the CAPCOA workgroup and CARB pushing for an ATCM to address this acrolein risk, and have consistency statewide as these cancer potency factors are finalized in the next year or so. Next slide. Other air toxics of note are PCBTF and diisocyanates, both emitted primarily from autobody shops. Risk data for PCBTF was finalized in 2022 and the reduction of risk from this pollutant is in process as paint manufacturers reformulate coating products.

OEHA finalized risk data for one diocyanate in 2022, and risk data was assigned to other diocyanates in 2025. The inclusion of risk data for all of these pollutants indicates significant acute non-cancer risks even with relatively low levels of usage. The CAPCOA CARB Auto Body Shop Work Group has developed draft guidelines for auto body shop HRAs, and ATCM may also be needed for addressing the acute non cancer risk and for statewide consistency. Next slide.

Here's just a brief summary of the points I discussed during this presentation. We've accomplished a lot this past year and will continue to address health risks through AB 2588, NSR and CEQA as well as coordination with CARB and CAPCOA. And next slide that concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to take any questions. All

right, any questions from the board? Santa Barbara? Let's go to Director Nelson first then we'll come back then we'll go to Santa Barbara.

Thank you, Chair Labadino. Just a question about what I heard on that presentation that if somebody is above the 1.0 threshold then they must mitigate down to below that? That's what I heard. So is that a standard that we require for permits to be under that?

Right, exactly. So if we get a permit application for a project and it triggers the need for a health risk assessment will run that health risk assessment and if the results are above it was 10 in a million for cancer risk on hazard index is what they call it of 1.0 for non-cancer impacts. then we would work with the source to modify the project description however needed or potentially do kind of a more refined health risk assessment, to get a result below those thresholds before we issue the permit. We're not going to issue a permit for a project that we have an HRA showing a significant risk.

Okay I guess what i want to try to understand because it seems like this legislation was about noticing when it's above that number and that's not necessarily a restriction

Yes, so exactly. Yes when it was first passed in 1987 it was kind of a public notification right to know kind of legislation but then it was later modified in the early 90's to include that risk reduction component as well. So the legislation does require that risk reduction audit and plan step that I introduced early in the presentation, so we're taking a proactive approach under NSR and CEQA by not allowing a facility to get to that point in the first place. So then they don't have to go through a public notice or risk reduction because they're already below the thresholds.

I guess my issue though is where does that proactive restriction come from? Is that a staff-driven decision or is that actually something that this body has set up as a standard?

Has it been included into our rules and regulation, Dave? I was hoping you can come and talk about how the HRA thresholds have been regulatory supported by our district.

Yeah, good question. So I think the easy short answer is no that the significant health risk values that were board adopted in the mid-1990s have not been incorporated into any of our rules or regulations. That those are their board adopted thresholds they apply to all of our AB 2588 work and we've through our policies used those same thresholds as our significance thresholds for our permitting work

And I do want to highlight that these thresholds are helpful when we have new sources come in and we're able to work with them on modifications or even more in-depth refined analysis. To my experience, since I've been here for the last ten and a half years there has not been one source that has not been able to be permitted based on an HRA value.

And if I may add to just kind of expand on what I was talking about, the logic with applying those same thresholds to our new source review permitting toxics work is that if we didn't do that, for example issued a permit to somebody who had health risk greater than our significant thresholds they would just immediately get bounced into the AB 2588 process. Which is a very time consuming and therefore expensive process that really, you know people don't want to do that. So it's just much more efficient to take care of that risk up front and address it when they're designing their project through the new source review or even in the CEQA stages when they're just planning it to make sure that they don't have a significant health risk that they'll then have to come back and reduce under AB 2588.

Yeah so I guess my issue is though somebody can reduce their project, so i mean the economic value of that project may go down because they're having to reduce the scope of their project to get below one and we're saying that that's a restriction. We're not gonna let you go above one for non-cancerous risk assessment meanwhile so that might also hurt the economic value of that project yes it sounds like everybody's been able to get under that but It may have not been about the original project description, right? Somebody may have wanted to do more on their project but they'd have to bring it down to satisfy this regulation which was only a noticing regulation not necessarily a restrictive assessment. So that's why I'm curious about how this rule is being implemented on a project in particular because I think that that's not necessarily what we want.

I think it's more of a policy decision and not necessarily something staff should drive.

Yeah I just want to mention that it was, the regulation was initially as Charlie mentioned, Charlotte mentioned. It was originally just a right-to-know regulation and it was just you know, you do the math, you tell people when there's a significant risk but it was modified in the 1990s to make it a, to require the risk reduction So that regulation does require it. So once they're in AB 2588, if a significant health risk is identified, they must reduce that risk. They have a five-year deadline to do so which can be extended but yeah, that part of it is not a district policy.

We're implementing a state regulation that requires that that health risk get reduced below that one hazard index or the ten and a million cancer case level.

Santa Barbara.

Okay, okay. I'll go everyone wants to talk. Okay. Just want to start with also understanding thank you for the presentation just to be clear for like public consumption of this. This is not meant to be like a comprehensive map where pollution or air pollution toxics are taking place. This is just for a map to identify specifically projects that fall into AB 2588 correct? Just to ensure that that's where we're starting at as level set

Are you asking about the maps that I showed earlier in the presentation with those risk isopleths?

Yeah, basically when you're looking at this AB 2588 hotspot program we're not saying that the only place that matters it's not that this is the only place where there's air toxics taking place. It's just that who falls under 2588 correct?

Right, yes there are only certain facilities subject to this regulation.

I bring that mostly because i know we've been talking a lot especially with Guadalupe and about how we're trying to look into the 617 conversations with them and agriculture is not in any part of that and so I was just knowing these are separate and understanding that there's concerns about pesticides and air pollution there I was wondering like with a community like Guadalupe where would they see those concerns if it's not in a hot spot air toxic I think sometimes our air policies fall into silos and we don't realize how they interact with each other. I'm just curious if you could walk us through where that might be captured?

Yeah, definitely. There are a couple maps compiled by different government or agencies such as OEHAS CalEnviroScreen that incorporates a lot of different health indicators is what they call it in that mapping tool where it'll show the impacts all across the state and it kind of compares different census tracts to the other ones in the state. I think there's also an EPA version that's very similar idea to that I think that's maybe what you're getting at, where it's addressing more than just air toxics and more than just facilities subject to a specific regulation. Yeah,

I guess I'm just... Thank you. Go ahead. I would

like to add just a little bit to that the AB 2588 program is a source-specific analysis. It's not a cumulative impact of all the various risk, toxic risks that might be present in a community. That definitely is being discussed and CARB's effort with the toxic roadmap that's underway now especially as it relates to AB 617 communities across the state. The cumulative impact of not just one source but all sources in that area is being addressed Currently, there's just no guidelines that we have or any Air District or even CARB has developed yet to assess multiple sources of toxics that might exist within a set geographic area. That works in the development now but not yet available

Gotcha. So just for our board's governance understanding, this is a very specific topic we're having not a comprehensive map when we just understand what's being fed but I was going to ask also follow-up of the district's perspective of how we could do better state policies and thank you for your already giving that answer to them so I appreciate your information.

Right Christina? I mean Director Hernandez?

I do have a follow-up question in regards to Director Silva. I understand that there is no projects being proposed like in Guadalupe or this Vandenberg Space Force we are seeing, there's like no fishing so there is no exposure to cancer but what about the neighboring cities? Is there any education in regards to you know regards to that exposure? Specifically as it relates to the Vandenberg Project? Yeah, correct. Or just even the air pollutions as we speak about you know there's no fishing so they already mitigated that factor but we know that fish swim so is there I guess just speaking out loud if there's any education ever regards to hot spots in neighboring cities

We over the years and Charlotte please add and Robin as well and even Dave, toxic has been something that we have developed educational materials on. We have an infographic that actually was been around for maybe I don't know close to 20 years I think now and we're in the process of updating that right now. When you do a survey in the community as far as the importance of air quality air toxic definitely rises to the top so we know it's something that we need to continue educating and sharing information on.

For this 2588 analysis that we're required to do, it's site-specific. And I know in the conversation with Vandenberg before the ban on hunting and fishing was in place Signage was another concept where they would be educating the community members and those who live on site of the risk associated with that, and not to eat the fish that are out of that specific lake. So when we do have risks that exceed the one in a million or ten in a million communications for that specific source is in place but Big picture, countywide all risk. I think that's an area we need to continue expanding and providing more information and understanding of various sources of air toxics and what that might mean to individuals.

Perfect, thank you. I see muscle rock there and I've heard stories of individuals going out there and getting some magic water which would mean water in oil, oil on water. And so when we talk about toxics that's just something that came to mind. Thank you. Director