Page One

The City Council was unable to act Tuesday on a second air quality study that might definitively determine health risks to people who live or work near Interstate 80. 

Mayor Shirley Dean submitted a recommendation to the council asking the city manager to develop criteria for a second study that would thoroughly and definitively asses the risk of respiratory disease in west Berkeley. While the first study, completed in September, showed dangerous levels of air pollution, it was criticized by air quality officials as inconclusive.  

Councilmember Linda Maio submitted a competing recommendation at the Tuesday meeting, but the council did not have time to discuss it. Maio’s proposal called for a reworking of the first study and a collaboration between the city and various government, health and environmental organizations to develop a regional public awareness campaign that links emissions to the health and well being of the community. 

“If we’re just going to study, study and study, we won’t get anything done,” Maio said. “I want to partner with other cities and groups and I want action that will end up with results.” 

Dean said she didn’t think the two motions were incompatible. “I don’t mind rewriting the first study or forming committees as long as we do a more definitive study,” she said. 

In June, the City Council allocated $10,000 for the first study, which focused on west Berkeley primarily along I-80. Acurex Environmental Corp. of Mountain View, deployed a series of monitors, or filtering devices, that collected particles from the air that were analyzed and summarized in a report completed in September. 

According to the mayor’s written recommendation, the study showed there were high levels of two toxic compounds, acrolein and formaldehyde. Both are associated with vehicle exhaust. 

But, a review of the study by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, was critical of the study. According to the BAAQMD report the project duration was too short and the collected data was insufficient to estimate health risks.  

Dean said approving $10,000 for the report before determining the extent of the project was ill-conceived and any future proposals to address emissions coming from I-80 would carry more weight with a thorough and definitive study.  

“I’m concerned we’ll spend another year talking about how we need another study and I’m there already,” Dean said. “I think we should do another study and do it right.” 

Maio, who put the original study on the agenda in June, said she had the idea after reading a 1999 report by the Bay Area Regional Asthma Management and Prevention Initiative. The report analyzed asthma hospitalization rates in Alameda, Solano, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties. 

In Alameda the highest rates of hospitalization for asthma were among residents who live along the I-80 corridor. 

Maio is convinced the cause of the high level of asthma and other respiratory illnesses is related to auto emissions, especially those generated by the popularity of sport utility vehicles. 

“There needs to be more awareness about the impact of our driving habits,” Maio said. “People should know that driving an SUV has consequences for you, your family and your friends.” 

Richard Varenchik, a California Air Resources Board spokesperson, said the majority of SUVs are used as passenger vehicles but their allowable emissions are three times higher. He said legislation was passed in November 1998 that will reduce SUV emissions beginning in January 2004. 

The City Council is scheduled to discuss the second air quality study at the Dec. 17 meeting.