Comment Log Display

Mary Nichols, Chair  
California Air Resources Board 
 

Re: SB 535 Guidelines to Benefit Disadvantaged Communities


Dear Chair Nichols and Board Members,


We would like to applaud the California Air Resource Board (CARB)
for your work on developing SB 535 guidelines, which will support
the equitable distribution of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds (GGRF)
to benefit to the state’s most disadvantaged communities. Community
Health Councils (CHC) supports the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, particularly in low-income communities of color
disproportionately exposed to toxic air emissions with fewer
resources or opportunities to mitigate pollutions. The inaugural
year of the GGRF marks an important time in California to
strategically reduce air pollution and provides an opportunity to
ensure that health and resource equity are reflected in these
statewide funding policies. 

Low-income communities of color often live in neighborhoods with
higher levels of air pollutants and toxic air emissions sources.
Many communities in Southeast Los Angeles City and County,
including the neighborhoods of Boyle Heights, Wilmington and
Southeast Los Angeles and the cities of Long Beach, Vernon,
Huntington Park, and Commerce feature heavy manufacturing uses
adjacent or in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. These
industrial uses are generally clustered near the I-710 Freeway, a
major arterial for heavy diesel-fueled vehicles transporting cargo
from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, adding further
cumulative impacts. 
 
It is no surprise that the respiratory illness and chronic disease
rates in these neighborhoods are also disproportionately higher
than the general population. Asthma rates for children living in
port-adjacent communities such as Long Beach are almost twice as
high as the rest of the U.S.  Pollution related to the ports and
goods movement in California causes more than 2,400 premature
deaths annually and cancer risk rates up to 20 times higher than
federal clean air standards. These conditions pose serious health
risks for the residents and children living in these
neighborhoods.
 
CHC supports the SB 535 Coalition comment letter to the California
Air Resource Board (CARB), dated August 20, 2014. This letter
outlines a four-step framework to ensure that GGRF investments
result in tangible benefits for disadvantaged communities.
Framework steps include: 1) Establish a process with indicators and
metrics for project development, selection and evaluation; 2) clear
demonstration of how proposed investments will address the needs of
the most vulnerable residents of identified disadvantaged
communities; 3) disadvantaged community benefits of the proposed
investment must significantly outweigh its adverse impacts on the
disadvantaged community; and 4) clarify the relationship between
the location of an investment and its benefit (i.e., care must be
taken to ensure that the benefits of otherwise beneficial
investments are not reduced by locating them in proximity to harm).
By implementing the SB 535 Coalition’s four-step framework,
agencies can significantly meet critical economic and quality of
life needs for historically underserved, overburdened communities. 
In order to create transformative investments in disadvantaged
communities, the undersigned organizations and individuals also
respectively submit additional recommendations to further ensure
the equitable distribution of GGRF and greater emphasis on active
transportation in the criteria of benefits.

Identifying Disadvantaged Communities

Recommendation: Identify disadvantaged communities with the
CalEnviroScreen’s population characteristics and pollution burden
measures. Identifying high-need areas based on communities’
environmental health and socioeconomic status is not only required
by SB 535 but is also a scientifically-backed method for
understanding an area’s pollution exposure and vulnerability to
environmental health stressors.  To fulfill SB 535’s mandate,
disadvantaged communities should be selected with one of California
Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) proposed methods that
account for both pollution burdens and sensitive populations
(Methods 1, 4, or 5, defined in more detail below).
-	CalEPA Method 1: Using combined pollution burden   scores and
population characteristics  scores to identify disadvantaged
communities statewide
-	CalEPA Method 4: Using a high pollution burden score and
population characteristics score to identify disadvantaged
communities by region 
-	CalEPA Method 5: Identification of disadvantaged communities
using a categorical approach (high scores for both pollution and
population, high score for pollution/medium score for population,
and medium score for pollution/high score for population), by
region

Recommendation: Identify disadvantaged communities on a statewide
basis. With AB 32 and SB 535, the state legislature mandated
ensuring the most impacted and disadvantaged communities receive
economic and health benefits from policies addressing climate
change. The severity of environmental health stressors,
socioeconomic status, and sensitive population concentration varies
greatly across the state, as evinced by the distribution of
CalEnviroScreen scores.  If disadvantaged communities were defined
on a regional basis, rather than a statewide basis, communities in
regions with high concentrations of under-resourced communities may
go unrecognized while better-served areas receive GGRF. Only by
defining disadvantaged communities on a statewide basis can
California ensure the most disadvantaged communities benefit from
AB 32. 

Defining Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities

Recommendation: Expand Sustainable Communities and Clean
Transportation Criteria 1.1 (Low-Carbon Transit Projects) to
include active transportation infrastructure and incentives
projects.
Safe and accessible active transportation options, such as improved
bicycle and pedestrian amenities, can encourage travelers to avoid
private vehicles for all types of trips, including work commutes,
running errands, visiting friends and taking children to school or
day care. In Los Angeles County, nearly 20% of all trips are
completed on foot or by bicycle, yet only 1% of regional planning
funding is dedicated to pedestrian and/or bicycle projects .
Funding generated from the GGRF could support a number of active
transportation projects and programs, such as implementing bicycle
facilities, improving sidewalks and streetscapes for pedestrians,
and installing design treatments on streets to reduce vehicle
speeding. Further, walking and bicycling are the most affordable
modes of travel and are often a necessity for households with zero
or one automobile. Building safe and practical active
transportation options into daily activities could reduce the
amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in neighborhoods with the
highest needs.


Recommendation: Include commercial uses that will encourage local
jobs and employment opportunities as well as provide neighborhood
amenities, such as retail, banks, and healthy eating establishments
in Criteria 1.2 (Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities).
In addition to affordable housing and employment centers in the
vicinity of high-quality transit service and active transportation
infrastructure, local commercial and retail uses would further
bolster reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Nearby neighborhood
amenities reduce the need for residents and employees to drive to
purchase food or access services and also cultivate a stronger
sense of geographic and social community.

Recommendation: Include park development as projects or initiatives
that would benefit disadvantaged communities, particularly
“park-poor” neighborhoods, in Criteria 1.7 (Urban Forestry).

The Quimby Act, a California state law, allows jurisdictions to
charge a development impact fee, equivalent to providing a minimum
of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for new development.
This is generally used as a standard for park level of service.
While certain neighborhoods greatly exceed this standard, a
“park-poor” neighborhood such as Southeast Los Angeles has less
than one-half of an acre per 1,000 residents . This is made more
disparate when considering that Southeast Los Angeles has a
population of over 250,000 residents . Including park development
in the definition of projects and initiatives that would benefit
disadvantaged and “park-poor” communities would provide critical
public open space, greenery and physical activity opportunities for
residents across the state. Further, expanded parkland would lead
to reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for disadvantaged
communities. 

Recommendation: In agreement with the SB 535 Coalition letter,
establish that no intended or unintended harm will be imposed on
disadvantaged communities as a result of GGRF-funded projects or
initiatives. Examples of unforeseen or unintended harm would
include, but not be limited to: 
-	Prevention of any transit service cuts within or servicing a
disadvantaged community without replacing or improving transit
service to that community;
-	Prevention of new any street configuration design that would
favor the movement of automobiles over active transportation modes,
without the safe and accessible inclusion of walking and biking
infrastructure in that design; 

Ensure Minimum of 35% of GGRF Funds Dedicated to Disadvantaged
Communities 

Recommendation: Spend at least 35% of Auction Funds in
disadvantaged communities. SB 535 requires the state to allocate a
minimum of 25% of GGRF funds to projects that would “benefit
disadvantaged communities” and a minimum of 10% of funds “located
in disadvantaged communities”. To avoid double-counting investments
that would serve the state’s most vulnerable communities, GGRF
should invest a total minimum 35% of available funds to
disadvantaged communities. Nearly a quarter of the state’s
residents live in poverty and 40% live dangerously near roadway
pollution demonstrating a significant need for these investments. 
Whether due to politics, oversight, or institutionalized racism,
policies have allowed disinvestment and disproportionate pollution
exposure in communities across California. Many of these same
communities overburdened by pollution will also see greater air
quality deterioration and heat island effects as the climate
changes. Agencies should reverse this disinvestment and burden by
ensuring disadvantaged communities receive at least, and ideally
more than, 35% of available funds.

Public Engagement

Recommendation: Include community engagement processes in all
infrastructure projects eligible under Sustainable Communities and
Clean Transportation Criteria 1.1 (Low-Carbon Transit Projects),
Criteria 1.2 (Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities) and
Criteria 1.3 (Low-Carbon Transportation). To reduce unforeseen harm
from all funded projects intended to reduce GHG emissions,
community engagement and input should be required for
infrastructure and operations changes within and affecting
disadvantaged communities. These recommendations could also lead to
improved effectiveness and efficiency of proposed projects by
ensuring they are implemented in communities where they will be
utilized and supported by local residents and businesses.

Recommendation: Encourage broad public engagement by accepting
“telecomments” at the Air Resources Board Meeting. Many residents
and community-based organizations are interested in the GGRF
guidelines as demonstrated by the robust attendance at the related
Cap-and Trade Auction Proceeds workshops. Due to scheduling and
financial constraints, attending and commenting at a Sacramento
hearing is infeasible for many residents outside the area. We
request the Air Resources Board  (ARB) accept telecomments through
a website portal to allow broad input. Although this may be
impossible for the September meeting, moving forward, efforts like
this will help allow impacted communities meaningfully engage in
decisions that impact their neighborhoods.
 
We, the undersigned community organizations and individuals,
respectfully submit our recommendations to strengthen the criteria
to determine whether GGRF projects are located within or provide
benefits to disadvantaged communities in California. We look
forward to beginning efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
an equitable manner and addressing disproportionately affected
communities’ environmental burdens by prioritizing pollution
reduction. We also hope to continue working with the state
legislature and state agencies to ensure that GGRF allocations
continue to invest in sustainable projects to reduce air pollutants
in California and no other purposes.

Sincerely,

 
D. Malcolm Carson, General Counsel and Policy Director for
Environmental Health
Community Health Councils

Alina Bokde, Executive Director 
Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust

Eric Bruins, Planning and Policy Director
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition

Denise Hunter, President & CEO
FAME Corporations

Jaime Edwards-Acton
Executive Director