Comment Log Display

June 29, 2015

California Air Resources Board
1001 I St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
 
RE: Recommendations to Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds Funding
Guidelines
 
Dear Chairwoman Nichols, Board Members, and Staff,
 
On behalf of the Action for Climate Equity (ACE) workgroup, we
thank the California Air Resource Board (CARB) for your leadership
in developing the draft Funding Guidelines for investments from the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Additionally, we thank you for the
opportunity to review the discussion draft and to voice our
concerns and suggestions regarding development and implementation
of the draft Guidelines at this stage.

The ACE workgroup is committed to improving health and increasing
access to opportunity among California’s most vulnerable
communities, we thank you for considering our input on several key
areas of the Funding Guidelines draft.  Although the Funding
Guidelines present an important step forward in elevating the
importance of strategic and equitable investment, more must be done
to maximize environmental, public health, and economic benefits to
disadvantaged communities across the State as outlined in Senate
Bill 535 and Assembly Bills 1532 and Assembly Bill 32.  As such, we
strongly urge the CARB to incorporate and address the following
recommendations in its Guidelines to ensure that Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund (GGRF) investments advance projects and efforts that
truly support the intended outcomes of relevant state mandates.

Ensure a Meaningful and Robust Public Process
 
Short Timeline for Review Undermines CARB’s Articulated Commitment
to Public Engagement
	
Meaningful public participation in prioritization and allocation of
GGRF investments is a fundamental component of maximizing benefits
to disadvantaged communities. As organizations that work closely
with residents and community partners to ensure equal access to
decision making processes, we are disappointed by CARB’s
unnecessarily rushed effort to adopt final guidelines. Earlier this
year we were assured by CARB staff that this process would allow
plenty of time for meaningful public input via ample review periods
and community workshops similar to last year’s process. However,
the short time frame for public review of these Draft 

Guidelines undermines the very nature of public participation and
contradicts the intent of SB 535. In fact, it undermines the very
guidance that CARB is providing to administering agencies of
ensuring early and ongoing engagement of disadvantaged communities
in each agency’s own guideline development and implementing
activities. Accordingly, we respectfully request that CARB extend
the timeline for adoption of guidelines until its August board
meeting to allow for meaningful public input and to allow staff to
both respond to concerns and to host workshops in key regions of
our state.
 
Require Community Resident Participation in the Planning and Design
of GGRF Projects and Ensure Investments Awarded Reflect Community
Identified Priorities and Needs
 
The overall success of GGRF projects that benefit disadvantaged
communities is largely dependent on the extent that projects meet
the needs of community residents as identified by the actual
residents that the project is intended to serve. Meaningful
participation of community residents in the planning and design of
projects is essential for the success of these projects. Project
applicants should be explicit on the deliberate steps they take to
achieve a meaningful level of participation.  While we appreciate
that the Guidelines touch upon engagement to DACs on page 11 in
Chapter V -- especially with regard to providing outreach and
notification of funding opportunities to DACs -- this language
needs to be strengthened to focus on the requirement of significant
public participation in the development of GGRF project proposals.
Additionally, while model benefits to disadvantaged communities
identified in the draft guidelines is useful to illustrate what
type of benefits project applicants should seek, these exemplars
must not serve as a substitute for community identified priorities
and demonstrated community needs and opportunities 

In its guidance to administering agencies, CARB should require all
agencies to prioritize projects that have strong public
participation and planning processes by assigning greater weight to
public participation in their scoring criteria.  All GGRF project
proposals must demonstrate how the local agency, non-profit or
private entity engaged and responded to community priorities.  For
example, all agencies should require their applicants to identify
the community-based public participation process and outreach that
culminated in the project proposal, and how this process allowed
for community identified needs to emerge and be meaningfully
reflected in the project, including a clear articulation of the
deliberate steps that were taken to ensure the process was
culturally and linguistically appropriate and accessible to the
residents of the project area.  They must also identify how the
local agency plans to engage community stakeholders in its
implementation activities. Only through these means can projects
realize meaningful, direct and assured benefits as reiterated
throughout the draft guidelines. We would like to take this
opportunity, however, to note that local opposition to affordable
housing development in communities where there is demonstrated need
for such housing opportunities has often impeded much needed
affordable housing development. Administering agencies and project
proponents need not consider such opposition to affordable housing
development.  

The Guidelines must articulate CARB’s commitment to robust public
participation from project design through implementation and
provide the tools and authorities necessary to accomplish these
goals. We endorse CARB’s recommendation of technical assistance to
reach vulnerable communities and recommend that CARB further
articulate the need to create technical assistance resources for
outreach and to assist in project development and implementation. 
 
Expand Eligible Uses of GGRF Dollars 

In the General Guidance section, guiding principles state that
“investments may only support planning activities for achieving GHG
reductions if the planning component is directly tied to a project
that results in quantifiable GHG reductions, furthers the purposes
of AB 32, and results in a product that will achieve GHG reductions
when implemented.” We believe this principle directly undermines
the ability of disadvantaged communities to ultimately develop
projects that reduce GHG. Disadvantaged communities do not count on
necessary resources to develop projects with demonstrated
quantifiable GHG reductions until they engage in a planning process
to identify those projects. Further, Health and Safety Code section
39712(c)(4) (AB 1532) states that funding may be allocated to
projects that "reduce greenhouse gas emissions through strategic
planning and development of sustainable infrastructure projects,
including, but not limited to, transportation and housing.”
Accordingly, CARB should require administering agencies to allow
expenditure of GGRF funds for planning activities and
infrastructure projects when such activities will lead to further
investments and projects that reduce GHG through, for example,
increased infill development and improved transportation
opportunities. 

Our work in low income small cities and rural communities
illustrates the need for additional research to better qualify and
quantify GHG emission reductions for certain types of programs and
projects, including, but not limited to affordable housing projects
and transit programs. We believe that an effective means of
developing and distributing this much-needed research and data can
come from investing in pilot projects that can demonstrate GHG
reduction through their implementation and thus elevate best
practices. Health and Safety Code section 39712(c)(7) states that
GGRF funds may be allocated to “research, development, and
deployment of innovation technologies, measures, and practices
related to programs and projects funded  [from the GGRF].” We
suggest that CARB require appropriate administering agencies to
invest in projects that can demonstrate GHG reductions through
implementation and study of projects, programs and strategies that
currently lack adequate data with respect to their GHG emission
reduction potentials. 

All Projects Should Be Evaluated on their Potential Benefits to
Disadvantaged Communities
 
In order to maximize GGRF project benefits to disadvantaged
communities as outlined in SB 535, AB 32 and SB 862, administering
agencies should evaluate all GGRF project proposals on the extent
to which a project furthers co-benefits generally and specifically
for our state’s most vulnerable people.  Evaluation criteria for
project co-benefits for DACs must apply not only to those projects
credited towards achieving the SB 535 targets for investments in
disadvantaged communities, but all project proposals.  

Further, evaluation criteria for co-benefits for DACs should be
based on how clearly the project provides a direct co-benefit to
DAC(s), and how co-benefits are expected to be achieved.  CARB
should also direct agencies to place a greater prioritization on
this area of their scoring criteria and to provide a separate
scoring component for each co-benefit category such as
environmental, health, and economic co-benefits.  For example, we
recommend a scoring section on providing health co-benefits to
DACs, a scoring section on providing economic co-benefits to DACs,
etc., rather than combining all co-benefits under one scoring
section in an “and/or” approach.  This will ensure adequate weight
is assigned to each co-benefit in the scoring of projects and
maximize co-benefits to DACs in the GGRF. 

Maximize GGRF Co-Benefits to Disadvantaged Residents and
Communities

At $2 billion dollars and growing, the GGRF presents an enormous
opportunity to ensure significant benefits and opportunities to
both disadvantaged communities and residents throughout the state. 


Ensure employment and career development opportunities through GGRF
investments

All GGRF investments that involve training and/or hiring create
valuable training and job opportunities and benefits for those that
need them the most and build stronger local, regional and state
economies. This includes disadvantaged urban and rural areas where
access to education, career pathways and quality and diverse jobs
are limited for low-income residents.  Consistent with the economic
goals of our statewide climate laws and US DOT’s recent local hire
provision CARB should strengthen its guidance directed to agencies
on maximizing economic co-benefits for DACs.  All GGRF projects
that involve training and/or hiring should be scored based in part
on if they recruit, hire, and train local, low-income, re-entry,
and/or disconnected youth and adults, and other disadvantaged
workers regardless of whether the project is seeking SB 535 credit.


We recommend including the following language in the GGRF Funding
Guidelines:  

Priority should be placed on all GGRF projects that contain any of
the following: 

(a) Project labor agreements with targeted hire commitments; 
(b) Community workforce agreements that connect low-income local
residents to jobs or training opportunities; 
(c) Partnerships with training entities that have a proven track
record of placing disadvantaged workers in career-track jobs.

Targeted hire means an adopted policy aimed at increasing
employment of disadvantaged individuals, who are underserved or
have faced historical or other barriers to employment. This
includes:
●	Long-term unemployed or underemployed workers, low-income
individuals, formerly incarcerated individuals, farmworkers,
workers on public assistance, workers with a history of
homelessness, and at-risk youth.
●	Individuals residing in areas that have high poverty rates,
high unemployment rates, or other markers of economic distress.
●	Underrepresented groups of people such as women and
veterans.
●	Low-income individuals residing within close proximity to
the project site.
  
Increase Housing and Transit Opportunities for Lower Income
Resident and DACs

GGRF funds also provide much needed resources to address housing
and transit needs within and beyond Disadvantaged Communities as
defined by SB 535.  Guidelines should require administering
agencies to target GGRF moneys to support housing and transit
opportunities for lower income residents throughout the state. For
example, AHSC money not invested in or for the benefit of DACs must
be restricted to providing affordable housing opportunities in
non-DAC communities. Through this dual strategy of investing in
quality housing in disadvantaged communities and investing in
affordable housing opportunities where such opportunities may be
limited, CARB will support a comprehensive strategy to address
California’s multi-dimensional affordable housing needs and
opportunities.

GGRF Investments Must Not Directly or Indirectly Harm Disadvantaged
Communities
 
Deliberate steps must be taken to ensure that GGRF investments do
not inadvertently harm vulnerable, low-income residents of existing
communities that are targeted for increased investment. 

Ensure Anti-Displacement Protections When Appropriate and Necessary
to Prevent Displacement

Displacement continues to present a threat to lower income
residents living in many neighborhoods targeted for GGRF
investments.  CARB must go beyond merely suggesting that
administering agencies consider incorporating anti displacement
policies in their respective guidelines but rather require agencies
to include them.  We understand that displacement is a concern in
several communities but not in others. Accordingly, such guidelines
must reflect the need to ensure anti-displacement protections where
necessary, but not create an obstacle for jurisdictions and
communities that do not confront displacement pressures and
therefore have not yet developed anti-displacement policies and
strategies. 

Low-income residents who are displaced from their homes and
communities will not have the opportunity to enjoy improved access
to transportation, affordable housing, energy efficient buildings,
etc., and will continue to be pushed away from jobs and other
critical services.  Ultimately, these outcomes will have
detrimental impacts on low-income families who are then forced to
spend larger percentages of their income on transportation costs
and will inevitably exacerbate the effects of climate change on our
most impacted communities, rather than alleviate them.  These
outcomes and others stand counter to the intended goals of SB 353
and AB 32, and we strongly recommend that criteria be included in
the guidelines and application materials that protect communities
from harm.

Unhealthy Land Uses in Residential Communities

Placement of certain project types - e.g. waste diversion projects
- can potentially negatively impact communities - be they
disadvantaged communities or not. For example, they can create odor
and diminish air quality, increase traffic and negatively impact
the quality and character of neighborhoods. CARB must direct
agencies implementing these and other potentially harmful projects
to create and implement methodologies to ensure that such projects
do no harm.  

Major transit projects can negatively impact local communities
through increased traffic and emissions as well as through
displacement. Displacement, in these circumstances can both
displace families and industrial and other unhealthy land uses that
relocate to residential neighborhoods. For example, in Fresno
County the High Speed Rail Authority has begun to displace homes,
business and industrial facilities in preparation for initial
stages of construction. It is currently proposed to relocate
displaced industrial businesses to neighborhoods already
disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution that
rank among the top 5% of impacted census tracts according to
CalEnviroScreen. This is unacceptable and in fact further threatens
the quality of life of the very communities we are trying to
protect and that this program prioritizes. 

 
CARB must Improve Criteria for Assessing Benefit to DAC 

Several of the criteria included in Appendix A to volume two are
simply inadequate or inappropriate to demonstrate a direct, assured
and meaningful benefit to DACs. There are several examples of this
deficiency and accordingly we request that CARB work with
stakeholders to review and rewrite this critical component of the
guidelines. We offer some examples below as an illustration of our
concerns with respect to some key criteria, not as an exhaustive
list.  

Locating zero emissions vehicles n disadvantaged communities does
not necessarily provide a benefit to those disadvantaged
communities 

CARB identifies the domiciling of zero emissions vehicles, as well
as use of zero emissions vehicles, in disadvantaged communities as
a benefit to such communities. We question whether or not this in
fact represents a benefit to these communities.   We are concerned
that in many circumstances, such a project could negatively impact
a neighborhood by increasing traffic and diminishing the
neighborhood aesthetic and character without providing any real
benefit. 

Increased Job opportunities alone are not sufficient to demonstrate
a benefit to disadvantaged communities
 
As noted above, all projects should further employment and career
opportunities for disadvantaged communities and residents and
scoring criteria should reflect that mandate. Job creation, on its
own, should not qualify projects as benefiting disadvantaged
communities in most program areas.  For example, the AHSC program
must not consider that a housing program satisfies a benefit to a
DAC if it does not provide housing to the benefit of the DAC or DAC
residents. Job creation in a DAC must be an additional co-benefit
to other identified benefits of a project - e.g. improved housing,
transit, air quality and park space. 
 
Half Mile Proximity and Zip Codes as a Proxies for Benefit to
Disadvantaged Communities Is Inadequate
 
We remain deeply concerned with that the Draft Guidelines consider
that several project types constitute a benefit to disadvantaged
communities, by definition, if they are located within a ½ mile of
a disadvantaged community. As we noted in previous correspondence
to CARB on interim funding guidelines, proximity as a proxy for a
benefit are inadequate and misplaced. Improvements made to transit
stops, transit stations or AHSC projects located ½ mile away from
disadvantaged communities do not translate to and result in direct
benefits to residents of vulnerable neighborhoods. Walking a ½ mile
to a transit stop or station, for instance, is not feasible if
residents face multiple barriers to reach that destination. These
include walking long distances with heavy items such as groceries,
being accompanied by children or elders, passing through unsafe
areas, lack of pedestrian safety (sidewalks, lighting, paved roads,
crosswalks), walking alongside high speed traffic, and the presence
of physical barriers such as freeways, railways, fences, etc. We
recommend that CARB eliminate ½ mile proximity requirements and
instead require project applicants to demonstrate how proposed
projects directly benefit residents of disadvantaged areas without
having to overcome proximity burdens.

Additionally, projects located within zip codes that include
disadvantaged communities do not necessarily benefit the DAC at
all.  All criteria that assume a benefit to a DAC for projects
located within a zip code that includes a DAC must be eliminated. 
 
Waste Diversion and Utilization Program Area Must Redraft Criteria
Demonstrating Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities 

In last year’s funding cycle, an anaerobic co-digester in Tulare
County received $2.9 million from the Waste Diversion and
Utilization fund. The project is located within a disadvantaged
community. The project contains a food rescue component but there
is no discussion of the scope or reach of that component. and, no
discussion of the impact of the project in general on the community
in which it resides. The project threatens to compound air quality
and odor concerns in the community. In fact, residents opposed the
project, citing in their opposition that project proponents failed
to meaningfully analyze air and water quality impacts. Community
residents were not aware that project proponents were seeking funds
for the project while residents were voicing their opposition to it
based on potential environmental concerns. The community at issue -
Matheny Tract - currently ranks among the top 10% of impacted
census tracts according to CalEnviroScreen. 

Facilitate Technical Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities
 
Disadvantaged communities are most in need of additional resources
to both develop and implement GGRF projects. Agencies and
organizations representing disadvantaged communities lack the
technical and financial capacity to put forward project proposals
that reduce GHG emissions and maximize co-benefits. The first cycle
of AHSC funding demonstrates a dire need for technical assistance
to disadvantaged communities to apply for housing and
transportation related investments. Technical assistance, along
with revised application procedures and guidelines that we will
work with along with administering agencies, is also needed to
strike geographic balance to ensure that all of our regions enjoy
equal access to much needed funding. Our experience in working
directly with small cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley,
Imperial County and the East Coachella Valley demonstrates a need
for ongoing outreach and assistance in developing projects,
preparing applications and implementing activities once funding has
been awarded. We have heard from local decision makers and staff
that they do not have the capacity to develop and implement project
ideas without additional support and guidance. Additionally, we
believe that technical assistance will ensure that funds reach and
improve the quality of life for the intended recipients of the
investments. 
 
Accordingly, the Guidelines must promote and ensure support within
agencies and from third party providers to conduct outreach and
help develop and implement project proposals.

Ensure Transparency in GGRF Investments

In Volume 1, Section II.B, the Guidelines read, "The goal [of the
guidelines] is to align investments with the environmental,
economic, public health and other public policy goals of the GGRF,
while providing consistent and transparent implementation of all
GGRF programs" (Page 6).  Several agencies have failed to make
applications for GGRF investments available for public review or
otherwise provide information regarding applications, in particular
those applications that were not successful. CARB should require
administering agencies to post all applications received and the
related scoring evaluations for each application received. This
will ensure transparency in all GGRF programs and will allow the
public and administering agencies to regularly evaluate the
effectiveness of the programs and make adjustments to ensure
equitable distribution of funds. By requiring agencies to publicly
post all program related materials a transparent and accountable
process will be created from beginning to end; one in which public
input is valued and respected.
 
-Linguistic inclusion in outreach efforts: It is critical that ARB
oversee the translation of grant guidelines and solicitation
materials, particularly for competitive grants for businesses,
farms, and individuals. In order to ensure participation by
disadvantaged community residents and small farm and
business-owners, administering agencies must conduct outreach
efforts in-language and in-culture, and must use administrative
funds towards these ends. CRLA has already provided a list of
languages to ARB staff for inclusion in the guidelines: Spanish,
Hmong, Vietnamese, Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin), Punjabi.
 
-GHG Quantification Methodology/ Cal EE Mod: Disadvantaged
communities have higher emissions figures due to climate,
topography, and concentration of toxic industries. Cal EE Mod’s
testing is dependent on land-use and site specifications determined
per-area, with a sustainability criteria dependent on existing
lifestyle and infrastructure within the community. For example,
proposed Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities projects in
communities such as San Francisco test positively due to their
existing sustainability indices, i.e. existing low-emissions
transportation, existing use of bike and pedestrian transit, and
the ability of a proposed project to “link in” and avail of these
existing green elements. This causes a weight against disadvantaged
communities for a lack of existing infrastructure in conjunction
with existing greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air pollutants,
and appear negatively on Cal EE Mod reports. For the purposes of
grant administrations that utilize Cal EE Mod as a methodology for
GHG reductions quantification, ARB must look into updating the
quantification software or using a set of criteria for GHG
emissions reductions that levels the scale for disadvantaged
communities.
 
-GHG Quantification Methodology/ COMET-Farm: For quantifications of
 GHG reductions under CalFIRE and CDFA, resources must be made
available to understand the GHG reductions capacity of diversified
agriculture. COMET-Farm is an advanced modeling tool that is suited
to large-scale agriculture and is excellent for carbon foot-print
mapping for rangeland, pasture, and large scale irrigated crop
land. Residents of DACs, small farmers and community gardeners who
are pioneering greenhouse gas reductions projects in their
communities require a modeling tool that can allow non-profits,
small farms and business owners to receive the same
spatially-explicit data on climate and soil carbon sequestration
available to large-scale growers to determine their eligibility for
CalFIRE and CDFA funds.

Appendix 2.B- Show all regional maps.  Alternative, show regional
maps of Urban Area, Rural Agricultural Area and Rural Border
Region.
Table 2.B-1 & Table 2.B-2, add 1 example each of project type
specific to rural, rural agriculture and rural border region.

TABLE 2.A-8 Waste Diversion and Utilization (step 2-D) Project
includes recruitment, agreements, policies or other approaches that
are consistent with federal and state law and result in at least
25-50% of project work hours performed by residents of a
disadvantaged community participating in job training programs
which lead to industry-recognized credentials or certifications. 
Table 2.A-2 Transit Projects.  (Add to Step 2- Provides Benefits
To) Project provides greater mobility at the California
International Border Crossings and increased access to clean
transportation for disadvantaged community residents by placing
services that are accessible by walking of a disadvantaged
community and provide GHG Reduction Benefits to Disadvantaged
Communities in close proximity to the California International
Border Crossing, including ride-sharing, car-sharing, or other
advanced technology mobility options associated with transit (e.g.,
neighborhood electric vehicles, vanpooling, shuttles, bike sharing
services); or 
Public Process
Your agency released the documents for public comment on June 16,
2015 with the understanding that the public comment period would be
closed on June 29, 2015.  This effectively provided 13 days for
public participation.  The length of this comment period is
offensive as it relates to a document that contains about $2.3
billion in funding.  Furthermore, the ARB documents were not
presented in any language other than English. We know that
English-only effectively and quite obviously limits the
participation of Spanish & Hmong speaking populations. Even more,
ARB decided to host one single workshop and public hearing in
Sacramento to discuss these guidelines.  In recent months, our ACE
workgroup members independently and combined with many others
across the state requested to have as many as 10 hearings across
the state.  Those requests were obviously disregarded. 
Interpretation of Statute
In the current funding guidance, it is specified that 25% of the
proceeds are to be used providing benefits to disadvantaged
communities, 10% of which has to be located directly within a
disadvantaged community.  This is consistent with the interim
guidelines proposed last year; however, it sets for a problematic
interpretation of the law.  Under statute, SB 535 directs the state
“to allocate 25% of the available moneys in the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund to projects that provide benefits to disadvantaged
communities, as specified, and to allocate a minimum of 10% of the
available moneys in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to projects
located within disadvantaged communities, as specified.”  We
interpret this language to mean that 10% within disadvantaged
communities must be used in addition to 25% to provide benefits to
disadvantaged communities.  Even if ARB is uncertain about the
language of this passage in the legislation, it is correct to
assume that the intent of the bill was to provide important and
needed benefits to disadvantaged communities across the state. 
Under the current interpretation that the agency is exercising, it
is taking a conservative view and disregarding the intent of the
law in the process.  By not adding 10% to the 25% established, the
agency is taking a conservative stand that moves to provide less
benefits to disadvantaged communities, clearly making a backwards
step against the intent of the law. 

Scope of Funding Agencies
Although the following is not totally within the authority of the
California Air Resources Board, we must make this suggestion in
this context because it speaks to a firm belief within our
workgroup.  One important way to reduce GHG emissions from several
sources, and to provide benefits to disadvantaged communities is to
include a program for “targeted compliance and enforcement actions”
administered by Cal-EPA and/or the Air Districts.  The scope of
this program, can serve the rest of the agencies as they
conceptualize their own projects, and can help to bring immediate
benefits to disadvantaged communities.
Context
One of our ACE workgroup members-Central California Environmental
Justice Network currently hosts two resident reporting networks of
environmental hazards that allow community members to inform
compliance and enforcement actions in severely impacted communities
in Kern and Fresno counties.  Over the last several years of
operations, the projects have been successful at preventing
pollution from unregulated and regulated sources by informing
regulatory agencies about potential violations to environmental
law.  These projects have prevented and/or corrected emissions from
dairies, oil extraction operations, biomass power plants,
agricultural burning, pesticides, contaminated soils, composting
facilities, hazardous waste facilities, mobile sources, etc.  These
preventable emissions have undoubtedly helped disadvantaged
communities, and helped to reduce GHG emissions. It is important to
note that often-regulatory agencies at Cal-EPA or the Air Districts
cite lack of resources as a problem that limits their ability to
provide pro-active and coherent enforcement
Applicability 
Within the context of the GGRF funds, there are several programs
that can benefit from stronger enforcement and compliance efforts,
including the Low Carbon Transportation, Water & Energy Technology,
Agricultural Energy and Operational Efficiency, Healthy Soils, and
Waste Diversion programs.  Furthermore, this program can stand on
its own and significantly reduce GHG emissions via targeted
enforcement and compliance actions in disadvantaged communities. 
For these reasons we firmly believe that this program should be
included. 
Job Opportunities
In almost all of the programs, ARB sets forth guidelines for
providing benefits to community in relation to work hours. 
Currently, ARB is setting forth that the project may 1) result in
at least 25% of project work hours performed by residents of a
disadvantaged community, or 2) result in at least 10% of project
work hours performed by residents of a disadvantaged community
participating in job training programs which lead to industry
recognized credentials or certifications.  We contend that these
numbers should be raised to at least 50% and 25% respectively,
adding emphasis and points to projects that demonstrate their
ability to provide wages and/or salaries that mirror those of the
state’s median household income.  Furthermore, we request that you
add the following benefits to all programs that relate benefits via
work hours with the distinction that these are “and” statements
rather than “or” and thus will not count if the project only meets
one of these:
1.	Project prioritizes job security for residents of a
disadvantaged community that are hired to complete the project, and
maintain those residents through operations and maintenance of the
project in future years.  
2.	Project provides full-time positions with benefits for residents
of disadvantaged communities.
3.	Project complies with all relevant laws prohibiting
discrimination based on a protected status for all new hires. 
4.	Project submits plans for providing incentives for new employees
to use alternative transportation to and from work sites.
In providing benefits to a disadvantaged community, providing only
25% or 10% of work hours to residents of that community is not
enough to enhance the quality of life for the community. 
Furthermore, any lack of attention paid to wages and labor
practices can have the opposite effect than intended and serve to
further perpetuate income inequalities within already struggling
communities.
On Affordable Housing And Sustainable Communities Projects
Under the draft guidelines, the section for located within that
mentions that the project must be “designed to avoid displacement
of disadvantaged community residents and businesses” is weak and
must be strengthened.  From an environmental justice perspective,
this statement sounds very much like problematic legal requirements
that have played out in many court cases regarding the placement of
toxic waste facilities and other undesirable land-uses.  The
problematic elements that often, projects that are not explicitly
designed to displace disadvantaged residents, do end up causing
those displacements anyway.  This statement should be edited to
detail a few key ways to ensure that the projects in fact avoid
displacement. We propose that the statement read:
A majority (50%+) of the project is within one or more
disadvantaged communities and reduces vehicle miles travelled, and
the project is designed to avoid displacement of current
disadvantaged community residents and businesses by 1) providing a
record of public participation and public interest in the project,
2)require an economic displacement mitigation plan, 3)provide a
plan for community benefits outside of the proposed project.
Furthermore, when directly talking about affordable housing
projects, ARB must establish a guideline for more points to
projects that allow low-income residents to reach homeownership. 
This can further prevent displacement in the future and allows for
residents of disadvantaged communities to improve their quality of
life.  These projects are to provide housing that is decent, safe,
and sanitary, modest in size design and cost that allows for
residents to afford owning them.
Lastly, line A under the Provides Benefits to section should be
updated to reflect ¼ mile as opposed to ½ mile from a disadvantaged
community.  This will ensure that the project is much more
accessible to community members. 
On Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Under the criteria to qualify as located within, we suggest that
you add “mobile homes” as buildings that can receive improvements. 
From working with low-income, minority populations in the San
Joaquin Valley, we often see that mobile homes are not terribly
mobile, but do tend to need costly repairs that can aid with energy
conservation, but also to improve the quality of life of these
residents.
On Water Use and Energy Efficiency
Under the criteria to qualify for projects located within, ARB
should consider adding a section C that helps to improve, repair,
or replace private water well infrastructure in disadvantaged
communities.  Working with these communities in the San Joaquin
Valley, we often run into problems where low-income residents are
dependent on private well that have not been serviced in many
years.  Some of these wells have begun to go dry, and/or use
antiquated diesel pumps, and/or have leaks that serve to waste
water and energy.  In the past, it has been difficult to provide
assistance to these residents given that they are on private water
wells and are solely responsible for their maintenance. 
Nonetheless, there is room here to include them and be able to
provide assistance that will ultimately serve to improve the
residents’ quality of life, energy, and water efficiency.
On Waste Diversion and Utilization
The current thinking for approaching this program is a bit
problematic given that these types of land uses are not always
considered benefits, and more often considered undesirable land
uses.  Therefore, presenting them as benefits when located within
communities is somewhat problematic and could be contested by many
community members who live near these types of land uses.  This
applies to things like biomass, anaerobic digesters, recycling
centers, dairy digesters, etc.  For these reasons, we propose that
ARB make the distinction that in order for newly proposed projects
to be considered benefits while proposed to be located within a
disadvantaged community must comply with all of the following:
1.	Provide a record for a robust public process that shows
meaningful community input and community interest in the project.
2.	Requires Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) to sequester
GHG emissions, and criteria pollutants to a nearby community.
3.	Provide a comprehensive Conditional Use Permit and Community
Benefits Agreement that incorporate community mitigation methods
and community requirements.  
4.	Provide a local hire prioritization mechanism that seeks to get
a total of 60% facility employment hired from the local community.
For projects that are already located and operating within a
community, the current guidelines detailed in the draft proposal
for “located within” can still apply.   Furthermore, ARB can
provide scoring guidelines that require incentivize or provide more
points for measures like traffic divergence outside of
disadvantaged communities, the use of low-emission trucks, etc. 
The incorporation of the above recommendations into the Funding
Guidelines will help to support the success of GGRF investment
projects, and will ensure that benefits credited toward
disadvantaged communities are not only targeted, but maximized in
our communities with the greatest need.  Significant environmental,
public health, and economic outcomes as outlined in SB 353 and AB
32 can be achieved if the GGRF process is accountable, transparent,
and, most importantly, inclusive.  Once again we thank you for your
leadership and commitment to this work, and respectfully ask for
your support of these important recommendations as you finalize the
Funding Guidelines.  
 
Sincerely,

Cesar Campos
Coordinator
Central California Environmental Justice Network	

Luis Olmedo
Executive Director
Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.

Humberto Lugo
Coordinator
IVAN Network

Janaki Jagannath|
Community Legal Worker, Community Equity Initiative
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
	
Veronica Garibay-Gonzalez, MPA
Co-Director
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability	

Rey Leon
Executive Director
SJV LEAP