Can you attach the slides as a file

Link to Blueprint update topics: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/Blueprint%20Topics%20for%20Subcommittee_line%20numbers.pdf

Link to Blueprints Updates Topics Table: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/Blueprint%20Update%20Topics%20Chart%209-28-20.docx

The AB617 Program intends to reduce toxics and criteria. The funding source is tied to greenhouse gasses. No all strategies in the blueprint are subject to regulatory mandates but rather strategies that are measurable to accomplish its objective. Given this landuse can be used as a measurable mechanism written in the blueprint as a vehicle to achieving the objective of AB617

I would like to invite dpr

I believe that as with other strategies Landuse should be characterized as a strategy rather than an authority if CARB feels it doesn’t have the authority. CARB has the discretion of funding those CERPS that perform

if landuse is included in the measure of performance then funding can follow

As a Stockton CSC member, I would like conflicts of interest to be addressed as soon as possible. We are currently voting on CERP measures with no disclosure from industry representatives whether they have a conflict of interest. They are not even clearly identified as industry reps, but their votes could determine whether their industry gets money. Disclosures and other procedures exist that could address this but nothing has been implemented and our plan is moving forward.

we had the same issues in shafter that csc discloses

disclosure had impacts on some cerps measures

Lets be honest, AB617 is intended to put front and center Disadvantaged Communities and it was brought forth by the legislature as an Environmental Justice Bill. Despite this intention, OCAP was inclined to accommodate air districts and industry. AB398 was already the accommodation to the industry, OCAP was not designed to be an environmental justice oriented division. If they were they would have paid greater attention to how to develop a Community Steering Committee and they had plenty of examples including this one : https://www.trackingcalifornia.org/cms/file/imperial-air-project/guidebook

In addition to land use, I would also stress the need for local governments be consistent with the CERP. I also agree with Ms. Margaret's concerns about enforcement.

OCAP runs its program like State Implementation Plan and its director at the time came with SIP Background

AB617 is not a SIP

I am sorry I forgot to introduce myself. Amy D Kyle, environmental health scientist, research scientist at UC Berkeley School of Public Health, though now retired. I also have served as a state regulator.

I agree with Mr. Olmedo that AB 617 is not about doing a SIP, though a lot of the blueprint is like that.

Regarding LandUse and New Significant Sources within AB617 selected communities must be be brought to the CSC for review and comment during environmental reviews.

Agreed! Let’s capture these best practices and institutionalize for future communities

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Environmental review involves the evaluation of the potential impact of a project upon the environment. Environmental review is a legal requirement for a variety of project types, including land development, change in land use, and change in regulations applicable to land use and development. Such evaluation is mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)​.The purpose of environmental review is to:Inform governmental decision-makers and the public of the potential environmental effects of proposed activities.Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.Prevent environmental degradation resulting from proposed land developments by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the County finds that the changes are feasible.Disclose to the public the reasons why the County approved the project in the manner chosen if significant environmental effects remain.

ARTICLE V. MEETINGS.5.1. Regular and Special Meetings. The Committee shall establish the time and place for its regular meetings. The date, hour, and location of regular meetings shall be fixed by resolution of the Committee. The Committee shall hold at least one regular meeting each month of every calendar year. In the event of a lack of agenda topics, pending technical analysis, or any other reason; the Committee shall hold a vote to determine if the following scheduled monthly meeting is cancelled. Special meetings and adjourned meetings may be held as required or permitted by law.5.2. All meetings of the Committee, including, without limitation, regular, special and adjourned meetings, shall be called, noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section 54950 of the California Government Code).

5.3. Notice. Notice of any regular meeting shall be made in compliance with Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section 54950 of the California Government Code).

Thanks for sharing @Luis

I disagree, I did not mischaracterize. My comments are all accurate. Wayne a respectfully agree with what you said about the 1 strategy to meet your statutory timeline. So we said the same thing. Also every single one of my observations clearly captured in the meetings (zoom). I also didn’t want to beat up SCAQMD, I mentioned examples of where improvements can occur to assure community is at the most advantageous position considering they are the most vulnerable and most disadvantaged of the stakeholders.

Is business considered part of the “community”? I thought it was but am unsure if this is a shared understanding. Food for thought; I’m open to hearing from others as the opportunity arises. From Janet Whittick, policy director at the CA Council for Environmental and Economic Balance.

Is priority being determined by # of times mentioned? (Could we vocalize this for everyone in the meeting?)

Hi Janet, There are CSC members that represent business within the 617 project areas. So in one way, yes they are part of the community. But some people are ref to community as the residents and EJ advocates.

I meant among the CG as we discuss specific language. But thank you for your response

The purpose of the Committee is to support active community involvement and collaboration in the development of a Community Emissions Reduction Program, hereinafter referred to as “Program,” by providing a forum for identifying community issues and potential solutions with all relevant parties. The Committee is to also support the development of a Community Emissions Monitoring Program to help establish new programs and/or expand upon any existing program(s).The Committee shall be responsible for discussing and providing recommendations to the District Board regarding the development and implementation of the Program, including but notDetermination of the final boundaries of the community to be served under the Program; Community profile and technical assessment; Approaches for community engagement and outreach; Mechanisms for engaging with other agencies; Issues and sources contributing to the community’s air pollution challenges; Strategies for developing/implementing the Program;

Program targets and strategies;Program Enforcement; andMetrics to track Program progress

ARTICLE II. PURPOSE.

I think the numbers being added to the chart are ambiguous. Some areas for which consensus has been reached (such as stipends) still need to be fixed in the blueprint. But they will not be mentioned in this discussion and so not getting numbers. These are might be the ones that are actually most capable of being fixed in this immediate shorter term iteration of the blueprint. The discussion now is about those that have not reached a full consensus.

ARTICLE I. AUTHORITY.This Charter is adopted by Board of the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, hereinafter referred to as “District,” for the AB 617 Community Steering Community, hereinafter referred to as the “Committee,” to establish rules, policies, and procedures for its proceedings. In coordination with local environmental justice organization Comité Civico del Valle, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “CCV”), the Committee was established by the District Board pursuant to Resolution No._____, under the statutory authority of California Assembly Bill 617 which is designed to implement a strategy to reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants in environmental justice communities affected by a high cumulative exposure burden.

Thank you!

All the cut outs are language in imperial Charter for your use at your discretion if you find useful. Imperial has also looked at best models in other communities. we are always looking to learn and for better models.

To Janet: The business perspective should definitely be included, both directly regulated industry and small proprietors. What is key is the role of business voices. I think it would be helpful for community advocates to know what business reactions and contributions are likely to be to community initiatives. For example, is an affected facility or industry opposed to a community objective? Or perhaps not the objective, but the approach to achieving it? In the absence of a business voice while initiatives are considered may just mean that communities just see “opposition” but miss the opportunity to effectively address it.

Likewise, not engaging businesses allows them to not be public and forthcoming with communities on their intentions.

Please note me down for statutory authority agency collaborations, thanks!

++ more trust building and direct interaction and collaboration w/community members where they live

@Janet, same could be said about business. While you make an effort to deliberately engage EJ, its not the case from business and simple as CEQA and LandUse and Business applicants can engage community but they too often don’t. Why is it that communities expected to be the ones to engage industry yet industry does not pay the same courtesy in the many tools available to them in the most simple the application and permitting process. The scale is definitely not balanced and heaviest influence and deepest pockets held by industry. AB617 intends to remedy and level the playing field. How would be level an already unbalanced scale.

Luis, I don’t disagree with you about the need for industry to engage with community when making project decisions, especially in terms of CEQA and siting. It’s often not done, to the detriment of all. My point in asking about our meaning of “community” is to understand what we are explicitly saying the written doc.

Imperial has opted to make all seats “only” community corridor.

3.2. Qualifications. Each member of the Committee shall either reside, work within, or provide service to the community corridor (Calexico-Heber-El Centro), as defined by the Community Air Protection Program. Additionally, each member shall meet the qualifications of his or her position as set forth in Section 3.3 below.

above is the imperial qualifications and there is agreement that we welcome workers that come with industry experience but are not regulated industry themselves, investors, ceo’s, etc.

I agree business and industry should be included in the discussion to provide their perspective. The missing piece is CSC members *knowing* that they are representing business/industry, which is not always shared, and having reps *recuse themselves* if they have a material interest tied to their vote (ie will you/the place you work for materially benefit if what you are voting for passes; if so you should not vote on that). That could be spelled out in individual charters but would be better if there was a statewide standard for how this is handled.

@catherine, in imperial all CSC appointment decisions are mode in partnership with both chairs from Air District and Environmental Justice

Applications are reviewed in partnership with air district. Its a true parnership

Focus is on the community definitely. I think business engagement and inclusivity is good and helpful for all of us to enter the discussion and move through it together. All members have to agree on the mission of 617 to be involved. I like what Deidre had to offer. If business is not showing up collaboratively, we need to know about it. Thank you.

Jonathan Pruitt- EJ program coordinator at Catholic Charities Diocese of Stockton, also a member of Stockton's Steering Committee. I want to echo Catherine's point about who's who. On our list of steering committee members, we have industry members indicated as "EJ Advocates".

Jonathan and Catherine, I wasn’t aware of that issue in Stockton and would be interested in hearing more. That doesn’t help those of us trying to transparently engage. I’ll try to get our contact info, but feel free to connect with me anytime on any of these issues and concerns. janetw@cceeb.org. And thank for sharing your experience.

@ Jonathan, I'll take a look at the roster again. We can work with the air district to get that corrected as necessary

Thanks Janet. I just emailed you with my contact information so we can connect offline.

Thank you Mary

Kevin - thank you so much for acknowledging that many of us who happen to work for industry have chosen to work in air quality field is due to our concern and desire to make our world a better place to live. We are all breathers too. :-)

Thanks for bringing this up Jonathan, first I've heard of this concern from you, and we're happy to get that corrected. Will touch base with our staff.

@Christal and @Jonathan - it has already been raised with the district and is corrected in the roster posted online

Yes I just responded privately to Jonathan. it was a typo on the website and was corrected a while back.

Having an accurate list is great, so thanks for fixing it. Especially now that we only meet on Zoom, that doesn’t mean we know who everyone is, who they represent, or how they are voting, so look forward to further discussing how we can address conflicts of interest and transparency.

(2) Within one year of the state board’s selection, the district encompassing any location selected pursuant to this subdivision shall adopt, in consultation with the state board, individuals, community-based organizations, affected sources, and local governmental bodies in the affected community, a community emissions reduction program to achieve emissions reductions for the location selected using cost-effective measures identified pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).

We may not reach consensus and it wom

won’t be “fun” but this is a very important discussion we are all having.

The Coalition For A Safe Environment believes that the CSC should only be compose of community members from identified disadvantaged communities. Industry may attend the meetings and submit public comments but have no voting representation. AB617 does not grant industry a seat at the table. Jesse N Marquez I will be participating today in a limited capacity due to health problems I am currently having.

How do CSC want to engage industry? Given how the legislation is written, it seems CSCs get to determine their membership. Whether they are on the CSC or not, how will CSCs learn how how to deal with industry?

@Jaime @ Jonathan @Skott Thanks!

Erica- CSC WCWLB: I mentioned the need for Env Justice Training as well.

I think business should be added to the training with CARB and districts on community engagement..

Thanks Erica Blyther!

It would also help include other funding sources outside of AB 617 funding that help industries retrofit/replace equipment to be cleaner. Other funding sources that are available that year. Include that in the CERP process when Air Districts break down each measure by costs and emission reductions.

++ training on community engagement

I Agree with Deidre. The public forum is definitely a place where they engage, comment and share expertise. There are times where industry is invited to share their business practices specially when there is misinformation that industry can explain. The CARB consultation group already recognizes and engages industry. The community CSC’s are and should be designed to engage all stakeholders but the table should be Disadvantaged community. So I think these matters can be visited and improved through this blueprint update.

Regular folks need specific training on how to engage with regulated business that have permits to discharge to the airshed and land use/CEQA agencies. We need help to become knowledgeable about the process and what to expect as fruits of these efforts. Ignoring air quality concerns because the land use was in the General Plan or there is not something that specifically prohibits. It seems the Department of Justice - legal is needed to get the attention of CEQA agencies and this does not build community capacity that is sustainable.

Buckets though I prefer the term baskets

1. The Blueprint needs to reflect a partnership between the ARB, the districts, and the communities and build mechanisms throughout that ensure that the process and products fully reflect this partnership. Communities need to be considered and treated as authors of the products and conveners of the process.

2. The Blueprint needs to better serve the needs of all parties for creating shared understanding and information resources using principles such as those for co-creation of knowledge that spans the expertise of the ARB, the districts, and the communities without setting any above the others. As the communities shoulder the burden to understand the way that the ARB and districts understands air pollution and health and think it should be addressed, the ARB and districts should shoulder the burden to understand the way that the communities understand air pollution and health and think it should be addressed. The process should be designed to reflect the blending of the two perspectives to create the best results and not one over the other.

3. The technical elements of the Blueprint should be scrutinized in light of the experience in the first rounds of planning to determine where the technical elements contributed to progress and where they did not. The Blueprint incorporates a lot of existing methods that were not designed nor intended to address community scale impacts. Evaluation of how well they worked and what they contributed is needed Alternative approaches that are faster, cheaper, and easier to understand should be considered. An effort should be made to design a process that can be completed in a shorter rather than longer time period (one year?) to reduce the burden on community members and delay in addressing pollution

4. The Blueprint should be better tied to the data systems and platforms of the ARB and the districts so that community assessment and planning can be scaled up to address all impacted communities within a reasonable time frame, perhaps five to ten years. (It may be that other data systems and platforms may also be relevant here.)

bucket 2 is something i like to better understand. its clear community is in a deficit, how do we approach to benefit all when community in a deficit.

Thanks @Amy!

It was deliberate, but maybe I’m wrong.

I agree with Dr. Balmes. I would like bucket #1 be changed to the working Dr. Balmes offered. Remove (CSC, CARB, Air District, Industry, …..)

number 1 could have been stated i.e. I propose it be removed ()

I believe its sufficient to write as “establish and define partnerships to achieve EJ in CAC’s”

*DAC’s

Strong work on the facilitation! Thanks!