Comment Log Display

See Attachment for signed letter on CCTA letterhead:

Dear Secretary Rodriquez and Chairman Nicols:
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority respectfully offers the
following comments on the identification of disadvantaged
communities (DACs) proposed by the California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA) pursuant to Health & Safety (H&S) Code
39711 and the Interim Guidance proposed by the Air Resources Board
(ARB) for state agencies administering Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund monies pursuant to H&S Code 39715.
While the Authority strongly supports the goal of investing for the
benefit of disadvantaged communities, we have serious concerns
about using the CalEnviroScreen’s 20% cutoff (Method 1) to identify
these communities. Clearly, current law allows CalEPA to use
population-based or environmental metrics when establishing its
definition of disadvantaged communities. By requiring that a census
tract score relatively high on virtually all 19 criteria, CalEPA’s
proposed Method 1 would eliminate too many low-income and
environmentally-burdened communities in Contra Costa and the Bay
Area from potential funding. 
Many communities that are severely disadvantaged in terms of
income, air quality, asthma rates, low birth weight and other
factors nonetheless fall outside of the top 20% threshold. 
Consider the following counterintuitive results of Method 1: 
	Of the top 10 most impoverished census tracts in the Bay
Area — where poverty rates exceed 70 percent— not a single one is
included in CalEPA’s definition. 
	Of the 46 census tracts that are identified by Method 1,
20 are census tracts where the poverty rate is actually less than
50 percent. 
In Contra Costa, some of our most disadvantaged communities fall
outside the top 20% boundaries from CalEPA’s Method 1. They include
large portions of the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, Pittsburg and
Antioch as well as the unincorporated communities of Rodeo, Tara
Hills and Bay Point. 
We respectfully urge you to consider the alternative put forward by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as “Method 6,” as well
as their recommendation to remove the pesticide variable as it is
unfair that Bay Area residents exposed to pesticide are ignored
simply because the exposure isn’t in an agricultural context. In
addition, we agree that whatever tool is adopted ought to account
for cost of living differences and that the use of “rent burden” is
an appropriate way to make this adjustment given that the cost of
living differences are largely due to the cost of housing. Lastly,
we urge you to set the threshold for determining disadvantage at
the top 30% rather than 20% or 25% so as to minimize overlooking
disadvantaged communities whose scores might be on the cusp of the
stricter thresholds.   
We are aware of the extensive time and energy that OEHHA and CalEPA
staff has spent creating and improving upon CalEnviroScreen over
the last two years. Rather than asking that the CES be jettisoned
altogether, Method 6 builds on that work. 
What does Method 6 look like for the Bay Area? 
	It includes 221 census tracts, home to approximately
938,000 Bay Area residents. 
	90% are transit priority areas where the region is trying
to focus growth.
	71% have 30% or higher concentration of households living
in poverty.
	62% are considered “rent-burdened,” where at least 15% of
households are spending 50% or more of their income on rent 
	Over 2/3 are MTC Communities of Concern
Finally, we respectfully encourage you to take more time to
identify disadvantaged communities and the method for determining
project benefit so that you can carefully consider public comments
before you make a final decision. Given the millions of dollars in
high-profile public funds at stake and the scores of worthy
projects that will be vying for funding, it is imperative that
state agencies develop the program guidelines in a transparent
manner that allows for meaningful public input. 
ARB’s scheduled adoption of its interim guidance on September 18 —
just two full days after the close of public comment— leaves little
opportunity for ARB staff to consider these comments before
finalizing their proposal.  CalEPA has indicated a similarly rushed
schedule with plans to finalize identification of DACs by the end
of September. It is not clear to us why these decisions need to be
made so quickly, and we therefore respectfully ask for an extension
of the timeline for adoption of the interim guidance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed guidance.

Sincerely,

Randell H. Iwasaki