Comment Log Display

SUBMITTED BY THE SB 535 COALITION and PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS

Due to the severely compressed timeline for public comment
following the release of the Funding Guidelines discussion draft,
this letter--completed today--includes signatories from only those
organizations able to review and approve the detailed critique
within 4 hours. Therefore, the 15 organizations signing on
represent only a small fraction of the organizational support
behind these comments.

The following text is also attached as a PDF file. Please refer to
attachment for footnotes.


June 29, 2015
Mary Nichols, Chair
California Air Resources Board
	
	Re: Comments on Discussion Draft of Funding Guidelines for
Agencies that 	Administer California Climate Investments

Dear Chair Nichols and Air Resources Board Members:

The SB 535 Coalition and partner organizations across the state
welcome the opportunity to provide comments on the Discussion Draft
of the Funding Guidelines for Agencies that Administer California
Climate Investments. We recommend several ways to strengthen the
Guidelines to ensure that California Climate Investments maximize
environmental, economic and public health co-benefits for
California’s most disadvantaged communities and households. (We
previously submitted, on June 22, 2015, a separate letter detailing
our concerns with the proposed public participation process for
adoption of these guidelines and do not raise those procedural
concerns here.)

We offer several recommendations for strengthening the substantive
considerations at each step of the process detailed in Volume I,
which requires development of an expenditure record prior to
expending project funds, public outreach and robust annual
reporting requirements. We recommend several key ways to strengthen
Volume II’s approach for maximizing direct meaningful and assured
benefits to disadvantaged communities. Finally, we recommend
several ways to improve the data collection in Volume III’s
reporting requirements. 

I.	Require SB 535 Investments to Demonstrate how they Address
Priority DAC Needs. 

We agree with the Guidelines that project proponents and
administering agencies should be required to show how SB 535
Climate Investments provide benefits that address priority DAC
needs.  However, to fully implement this principle, Volume 2 should
set forth a clear process requiring a demonstration of how the
eligibility criteria chosen are responsive to a priority community
need. Projects ‘located within’ DACs should be required to
reference either CalEnviroScreen indicators or high priority needs
identified through community outreach conducted at either the
program or project level. Projects that ‘provide benefits’ to DACs
should reference common needs in DACs. Appendix 2.A should be
amended to require a demonstration of how the criteria selected and
the benefits provided will meet important community needs.

II.	Ensure Benefits for Low-income Households. 

Volume 1 requires all agencies receiving GGRF funds to “maximize
benefits to disadvantaged communities, wherever possible.” (p.21)
However, AB 1532 directs GGRF investments to both “disadvantaged
communities and households.” This distinction is important because
the disadvantaged households in any community are the most in need
and should gain the most from investments seeking to maximize
benefits to DACs. ARB could facilitate this approach by defining
“disadvantaged household” based on the socio-economic indicators in
the CalEnviroScreen and encourage agencies to target the benefits
of Climate Investments toward disadvantaged households both within
DACs and across the state. As AB 1532 applies to both investments
that qualify for SB 535 and those that do not, ARB should encourage
agencies to provide additional incentives for projects that don’t
qualify for SB 535 but provide benefits to disadvantaged
households.

Most importantly, projects that receive SB 535 funding should
provide benefits predominantly to low-income residents and
households. Not all residents of relatively disadvantaged areas are
socio-economically disadvantaged. Projects that are located within
DACs should be required to carefully target benefits to the
neediest households, ensuring these residents are the primary
beneficiaries.  While, some SB 535 programs are expressly targeted
to low-income residents or households, in all other cases, the
final Guidelines should direct agencies to require project sponsors
to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries will
be low-income. For example, a transit project located in a zip code
containing a disadvantaged census tract should be required to
demonstrate that it predominantly benefits disadvantaged households
through careful analysis of transit ridership.

a.	Reconsider Proximity Requirements. 

ARB should reconsider its proximity requirements for projects that
provide benefits to DACs. When carefully designed, some projects
that occur outside of DACs can provide substantial benefits to
members of DACs. Urban forestry projects occurring at Title I
Schools should be eligible to provide benefit to DACs.  While these
schools may not always be located within a half-mile of a DAC, they
serve the children of those DACs.  A tree-planting project or
community garden that provides fresh fruit and vegetables to these
underserved students unquestionably provides a benefit to DAC
residents. 

Likewise, affordable housing for low-income, very low income &
extremely low income households should be built in high opportunity
areas such as jobs centers, not merely in or within a half-mile
near disadvantaged communities.  Affordable housing near jobs
centers helps reduce VMT by giving low-wage workers the opportunity
to live near where they work. In fact, affordable housing is
especially beneficial in high-opportunity neighborhoods near
transit stations as it increases choices, mobility, and access to
opportunities for disadvantaged households. Table 2-2’s list of
common DAC needs includes the need for “jobs and housing closer
together (e.g., affordable housing in transit-oriented development
and in healthy, high-opportunity neighborhoods.” (p.13)
Furthermore, research indicates that there are “significant
barriers in developing affordable housing in high opportunity,
transit-rich neighborhoods.”  Despite this need, Appendix 2.A.
limits affordable housing projects to those within ½ mile of a DAC,
meaning that affordable housing in opportunity neighborhoods is
simply not contemplated by the framework. To maintain a clear
connection to DACs, SB 535 affordable housing projects could grant
occupancy preferences to residents of disadvantaged communities. 



III.	Require Multiple & Significant Co-Benefits.

As an approach for maximizing benefits, the Guidelines should
require all SB 535 projects to provide a minimum of two co-benefits
to be eligible. Appendix 2.A’s current approach explicitly relieves
agencies of the need to seek more than one co-benefit per project. 
Although the Guidelines need built-in flexibility, their primary
purpose is to incentivize projects that maximize co-benefits to
DACs.  One small step in this direction would be requiring more
than one Appendix 2.A eligibility criterion for SB 535 investments.
The Guidelines suggest that “to the maximum extent feasible,
administering agencies should work together to provide multiple
benefits” (p.21) and gives agencies the direction to “favor
projects which provide multiple benefits or the most significant
benefits.” If SB 535 projects were explicitly required to provide
multiple co-benefits, this would provide agencies with a stronger
incentive to seek opportunities to leverage resources to provide
multiple co-benefits.

If ARB continues to require only one co-benefit per project, this
might have the effect of a race to the bottom. For example, the
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Guidelines do not
award additional points for integrating co-benefits such as urban
forestry and active transportation. They also have the unintended
effect of dis-incentivizing deeper affordability because they
over-emphasize GHG reductions per dollar at the same time. Very-low
income and extremely-low income units require more funding than
market rate units, so the more competitive projects were those with
a minimum inclusion of affordability. Agencies have to do more to
include co-benefits in the "bang for your buck" equation, or else
they will end up being minimized. To maximize the benefits provided
by SB 535 projects, the Luskin Report recommended a “performance
management approach” using ranking/scoring systems to prioritize
smart and equitable investments that provide multiple, significant
benefits. This type of prioritization is also reflected in the
“best-value contract” model. The purpose of these approaches is to
create the conditions for a race to the top, where project
applicants find innovative ways to maximize the benefits that each
investment provides. This is an explicit strategy to get the most
out of the dollars that are directed at California’s severely
under-resourced communities.

Additionally, ARB should update Appendix 2.A’s criteria to ensure
that each one represents a minimum threshold of significance.
Appendix 2.A. should also include criteria responsive to each of
the needs commonly identified by DACs. Investments would qualify
for SB 535 by meeting two criteria and agencies would award to
projects that exceed the minimums. 

IV.	Provide More Direction and Approaches for Maximizing Benefits.


Volume 1 also requires all administering agencies to include
“approaches for maximizing benefits” in their guidelines and
solicitation materials. We appreciate that all agencies are
encouraged to use “anti-displacement policies, targeted funding,
outreach to engage community residents and representatives and
eligibility requirements or scoring criteria that encourage
projects to benefit disadvantaged communities” (p.31) in order to
maximize benefits to DACs. Unfortunately, while each of these
practices are essential for maximizing benefits, Volume 2 does not
provide sufficient details on how these approaches can be
consistently utilized by administering agencies. We urge ARB to
provide more guidance on each of these maximization strategies in
Volume 2. 

One maximization approach that the Guidelines do not address is the
need to consider the net benefits provided by a project after
considering possible adverse impacts to the community. SB 535
projects should avoid increasing public health or other burdens in
already overburdened DACs. Similarly, displacement of
socio-economically disadvantaged populations from investment areas
is an adverse impact that reduces the benefits to these households.
By providing clear direction on anti-displacement strategies that
can be utilized by all California Climate Investments, the
Guidelines will improve agency response to this critical concern.
For example, the Guidelines should require as a baseline that GGRF
investments do not cause a net loss of homes currently occupied by
lower-income households. Agencies should also award additional
points to projects that incorporate robust community benefits
agreements or project labor agreements. 

V.	Strengthen Jobs, Job Training and Reporting. 

We fully support the comments submitted by the Donald Vial Center
on Employment in the Green Economy at the University of California
Berkeley. 

The GGRF statutes not only call for the funds to “maximize economic
. . .  benefits to the State,” they further direct the implementing
agencies to “foster job creation by promotion in-State GHG emission
reduction projects carried out by California workers and
businesses.” (Vol.1, p.15) It is critical that GGRF investments
“result in jobs and job training as a component of funded
GHG-reducing projects,” (p.22) not only “wherever possible,” but to
the maximum extent feasible. We also urge ARB to include a guiding
principle that directs agencies to implement wage and skill
standards that will enable the creation of good jobs and a skilled
workforce. 

To maximize benefits to disadvantaged communities, all Climate
Investments should be encouraged to employ targeted and local
hiring and training of workers from disadvantaged households to the
maximum extent feasible. (This should not, however, be the sole
eligibility criterion for SB 535 funds. To qualify for SB 535
funds, a project should provide additional co-benefits outlined in
Appendix 2.A.) ARB should direct administering agencies to
prioritize projects that meet baseline targets to increase access
to good jobs and training for disadvantaged workers. ARB should
also direct administering agencies to prioritize projects that meet
baseline wage and skill standards, which will help to ensure good
quality jobs and good quality work that maximizes greenhouse gas
emission reductions and other co-benefits. ARB should direct
administering agencies to work with relevant stakeholders to
identify appropriate wage and skill standards and targets for
hiring and training workers from disadvantaged communities and
households.

In addition to data on the number of jobs provided, all GGRF
programs that result in jobs or jobs training should provide data
about the quality of jobs that were funded by California Climate
Investments. In order to measure job quality, ARB should collect
data on entry-level and median hourly wages or entry-level and
median total compensation (hourly wage plus benefits) for each job
classification/trade. Reporting requirements should also track the
contracting dollars that went toward disadvantaged business
enterprises such as small business, and businesses owned by women
and minorities.

VI.	Increase Transparency

While we appreciate that the Guidelines request that “both program
and project-level status and outcomes . . . be easily accessible to
the public” (see Vol. 1, p.23) this component should be made more
robust. Administering agencies should be required to make project
applications and proposals public via the internet, to enable
community members to see what is proposed and weigh in if desired.
Because there currently are no standardized quantification methods,
members of the public desire as much information as possible about
how different entities are quantifying co-benefits.

VII.	Quantification of Co-Benefits. 

We acknowledge that ARB has not yet developed quantification
methodologies. Quantification of co-benefits is necessary for
standardized reporting and to the creation of consistent standards
for measuring the significance of the benefits provided. We are
glad to see ARB’s ongoing commitment to quantifying the co-benefits
provided by Climate Investments and we will continue participating
in the development of robust methods quantification methods. 

VIII.	ARB should Increase Minimum Percentage of GGRF Dedicated to
Disadvantaged Communities. 

The intent of SB 535 is to direct investments to disadvantaged
communities in excess of their share of the population, in order to
address the historic and ongoing burdens of pollution and
under-investment those communities have long suffered. ARB should
not count the 10% of investments that must be located within DACs
as a subset of the 25% required to benefit DACs. (see Vol. 1, p.6)
Rather, ARB should require at least 10% of SB 535 investments to be
located within DACs and an additional 25% to provide benefits to
disadvantaged communities and households resulting in a minimum of
35% set aside for DAC benefits. 

***

Incorporating these recommendations will help increase our
potential to achieve the significant environmental, public health,
and economic outcomes outlined in AB 32 and SB 535 and ensure that
SB 535 investments credited as benefitting disadvantaged
communities maximize benefits for our communities with the greatest
need.  

Sincerely, 

Mari Rose Taruc, State Organizing Director
Asian Pacific Environmental Network

Dean S. Toji, Co-Chair
Asian Pacific Planning and Policy Council (A3PCON) Environmental
Justice Committee

Chuck Mills, Director of Public Policy and Grants
California ReLeaf

Bill Magavern, Policy Director
Coalition for Clean Air

Damien Goodmon, Executive Director
Crenshaw Subway Coalition

R Bong Vergara, Director
CYPHER

Alvaro Sanchez, Program Manager, Environmental Equity 
The Greenlining Institute

Alexandra Suh, Executive Director
KIWA (Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance)

Ben Russak, Policy Analyst
Liberty Hill Foundation

Veronica Padilla-Campos, Executive Director
Pacoima Beautiful

Marybelle Nzegwu, Staff Attorney
Public Advocates Inc.

Gordon Snead, Director of Development
SBCC Thrive LA

Laura Muraida, Research Coordinator
SCOPE

Bob Allen, Policy and Advocacy Campaign Director
Urban Habitat

channa grace, President
Women Organizing Resources, Knowledge and Services (WORKS)