HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - PUBLIC COMMENT_Sierra 2From:Adolfo Sierra
To:McLoughlin, Mark; Phan, V. Thai; Garcia, Norma; Nguyen, Ken; Rivera, Felix; Contreras-Leo, Cynthia; eComment;New General Plan; tmorrissey@santa-ana.org
Cc:Fregoso, Vince; Thai, Minh
Subject:Planning Commission Public Comment for Agenda Item No. 2
Date:Monday, November 09, 2020 12:51:20 PM
Attachments:MPNA Comment Letter on the GPU (vFinal).pdfsb1000-letter-santa-ana.pdf
To Planning Commission Members,
My name is Adolfo Sierra and on behalf of the Madison Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA), I am
asking the Planning Commission’s consideration regarding tonight’s Agenda Item No. 2. For
the reasons outlined in both letters, MPNA is opposed to staff’s recommendations 2a and 2b, and
urges the Commission to delay approving the GPU until appropriate community outreach,
particularly with the City’s environmental justice communities, can be conducted, and recently
elected incoming City officials are able to participate in the adoption process.
The University of California, Irvine School of Law Environmental Law Clinic submitted a copy of
MPNA’s comment letter on the City of Santa Ana’s General Plan Update provided to staff on October
30, 2020, and a copy of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Environmental Justice’s letter
on the GPU, for the Planning Commission’s consideration regarding tonight’s Agenda Item No. 2. For
the reasons outlined in both letters, MPNA is opposed to staff’s recommendations 2a and 2b, and
urges the Commission to delay approving the GPU until appropriate community outreach,
particularly with the City’s environmental justice communities, and recently elected incoming City
officials are able to participate in the adoption process.
Sincerely,
Adolfo Sierra
Interim President MPNA
October 29, 2020
Sent Via Electronic Mail: newgeneralplan@santa-ana.org
City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza,
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Comments on the City of Santa Ana’s General Plan Update
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Santa Ana’s (“the City’s”) General Plan Update (“GPU”) on behalf of the Madison Park Neighborhood Association
(“MPNA”). MPNA is a grassroots, resident-driven, non-profit organization that works to
promote health, education, and quality of life among the approximately 10,000 residents of the
Madison Park neighborhood in southeast Santa Ana, and in Santa Ana at large.1
As previously mentioned in MPNA’s letter submitted to the City on October 6, 2020 commenting on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (“DPEIR”) for the GPU,
MPNA has repeatedly raised concerns about the City’s inadequate outreach efforts to address
environmental justice (“EJ”) issues in the GPU. The residents that MPNA represents bear a
disproportionate share of environmental burdens, including pollution from hazardous wastes, air
emissions, and other sources.2 As such, Madison Park is defined as a “disadvantaged community” under California environmental justice (“EJ”) law.3 MPNA welcomes the GPU as
an opportunity for the City to address EJ concerns of its residents, and to reduce the impact of
health risks caused by environmental pollution in Santa Ana’s EJ communities.4 The General
1 Madison Park Neighborhood Ass’n, Our Mission, https://madisonparkna.webs.com/mission (last visited Oct. 3,
2020). 2 Environmental Justice, CITY OF SANTA ANA, https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan/environmental-justice (last
visited Oct. 29, 2020); see Environmental Justice Communities in Santa Ana, CITY OF SANTA ANA, https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/general-
plan/documents/EJ%20Communities%20Map_20200519_pubdist.pdf (last visited on Oct. 29, 2020). 3 See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 39711; Cal. Gov’t Code § 65040.12(e). The term “EJ community” is used
interchangeably with “disadvantaged communities” for purposes of this letter. 4 See Cal. GOV'T CODE § 65302(h).
Page 2 of 8
Plan (“GP”) is like a Constitution for the City.5 It influences, among other things, the City’s physical development,6 and serves as an opportunity for the City to engage with the public to guide that long-term development.7 In this letter, MPNA offers comments to address general EJ
issues with the City’s draft policies (“Policies”) and implementation actions (“Actions”).
Attachment A submitted with this letter addresses specific issues with the Policies and Actions in
the GPU. MPNA urges the City to revise the GPU accordingly to incorporate EJ more robustly into the GPU. MPNA offers the following comments in response to the GPU, but is not limited to those in this letter or Attachment A. MPNA reserves the right to rely on any other comments
made at public meetings, or submitted in response to the GPU.
I. SB 1000 REQUIRES THE CITY TO INCORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
California law defines "environmental justice" as “the fair treatment of people of all
races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies,” including the “meaningful
consideration of recommendations from populations and communities most impacted by pollution into environmental and land use decisions.”8 According to the California
Environmental Protection Agency, “the aim [of environmental justice] is to lift the unfair burden
of pollution from those most vulnerable to its effects.”9
In 2016, California enacted SB 1000, which requires local governments to incorporate
EJ considerations into general plans updated after the beginning of 2018.10 To satisfy this requirement, a GP must “identify objectives and policies,” such as reducing pollution exposure,
improving air quality, and promoting physical activity, “to reduce the unique or compounded
health risks in disadvantaged communities,” and to adopt, or at least review, these objectives and
policies.11 SB 1000 also requires the identification of policies that “promote civil engagement in
the public decision-making process.”12 Recently, the statutory definition of EJ was expanded to include “meaningful participation” of the communities most impacted by pollution in
government decision-making.13 Importantly, SB 1000 requires that EJ policies must “promote
5 For a discussion by City Planning Manager, Vince Fregoso, on how the GP is the City’s constitution and is critical to the development of the City, see City of Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana Council Meeting Aug 18, 2020, YOUTUBE
(Aug. 19, 2020), [43:50 – 44:30], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7TLqfeWnws&ab_channel=CityofSantaAna.
6 Current Santa Ana General Plan, CITY OF SANTA ANA, https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan/current-general-plan (last visited Oct. 29, 2020).
7 CAL. GOV'T CODe § 65351 (2020); Current Santa Ana General Plan, supra note 6. 8 CAL. GOV. CODE, § 65040.12(c) (2020).
9 Environmental Justice Program, CALEPA, https://calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/ (last visited Oct. 29, 2020). 10 GOV'T § 65302(h).
11 GOV’T § 65302(h)(1)(A). 12 GOV’T § 65302(h)(1)(B)-(C).
13 In 2019, the California legislature passed AB 1628 which modified the state’s definition of “environmental justice.” CAL. GOV’T CODE § 65040.12(e) (2019) (modifying the definition to include: (1) the availability of a
healthy environment for all people; (2) the deterrence, reduction, and elimination of pollution burdens for communities disproportionately experiencing the adverse effects of that pollution; (3) governmental entities
engaging and providing technical assistance to communities most impacted by pollution to promote their meaningful
Page 3 of 8
public engagement in the public decisionmaking process” and “prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.”14
II. THE CITY SHOULD DELAY THE ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
In light of the compounding issues of the COVID-19 public health crisis, the civic
unrest over racial inequality, and the pressures of the election season, the City has not been able to perform effective outreach to EJ communities and should therefore delay the adoption of the GPU. MPNA shares some of these concerns with the California Department of Justice Bureau of
Environmental Justice (“DOJ”). In a letter commenting on the GPU, the DOJ stated that the
City’s accelerated timeline “does not appear to allow for [the] meaningful community
engagement [required by SB 1000] to occur.”15 By insisting on adopting the GPU by the end of the year, the City is ignoring one of the basic purposes of SB 1000, “to provide [EJ] communities with a meaningful opportunity to engage in government decisions that affect them.”16
Accordingly, the City should not complete the GPU process before the City fully engages with
EJ communities.
While the City has worked on this GPU for the past several years, it only began to
consider EJ six months ago. The City has held only 15 meetings with the residents of Santa Ana since it began addressing EJ in outreach events.17 However, these meetings have had relatively
low turnout.18 The City plans to take action after only having heard from a small fraction of
residents from the City’s EJ communities. While several years spent on outreach for non-EJ
concerns may be adequate for those purposes, the outcry from EJ communities to delay adopting
the GPU indicates that the attempts over the past several months to address EJ concerns were entirely insufficient.
During the limited, unsuccessful outreach the City has conducted, the City has not
sufficiently accommodated the needs of EJ communities. There have been multiple issues
conducting community outreach events online, including the lack of translation services,
technological difficulties, and a lack of necessary telecommunication services within EJ communities.19 Furthermore, residents of EJ communities are more likely to be essential
participation in all phases of the environmental and land use decision-making process; and (4) at a minimum, the
meaningful consideration of recommendations from communities most impacted by pollution into environmental and land use decisions).
14 CAL. GOV'T CODe § 65302 (h)(1)(b)-(c). 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Letter from Rica Garcia, Deputy Attorney General, to Verny
Carvajal, Principle Planner, City of Santa Ana, 8 (Oct. 16, 2020), https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/sb1000-letter-santa-ana.pdf.
16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, supra note 15 at 8. 17 Meetings & Events, CITY OF SANTA ANA, https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan/meetings (last visited Oct. 29,
2020). 18 The City’s largest meeting involved approximately 100 attendees, including City officials, but this event did not
even address EJ concerns in the GPU. See City of Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana General Plan Community Forum on Environmental Justice – October 19, 2020, YOUTUBE (Oct. 20, 2020), [1:17:00],
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxuBSmNJ9d4&list=PLJo7z4Yc7qKbnlTIQg0alYnFJ4i0LoWSm&index=1&ab_channel=CityofSantaAna.
19 Kathryn Cox, Language and Technology Access Problems in Community Meetings on General Plan (Aug. 1, 2020) (listing multiple issues and solutions related to public interaction performed by the City).
Page 4 of 8
workers,20 limiting the time they have available to engage in the outreach process. Now, the City requests residents, who already have to put their safety at risk to provide for their families,21 prioritize commenting on the GPU so that it can be adopted in November when instead the City
could wait until the public health crisis is resolved. Moreover, the intense demands of the civic
unrest over racial inequality and the pressures of the election season have coalesced with the
COVID-19 pandemic to diminish the already limited resources EJ communities can invest to comment on the GPU. The DOJ summarized this issue by stating, “[w]e recognize that robust community engagement will be difficult for the City to conduct when social distancing is still the
norm. Thus, we urge the City to not rush through its General Plan Update before the City has
opportunities to fully engage with the historically disadvantaged communities in its
jurisdiction.”22
One of the basic purposes of SB 1000 is to provide EJ communities with opportunities to meaningfully engage in government decisions that materially affect their livelihood.23 During the
lackluster outreach attempts that the City has undertaken, residents have consistently
and repeatedly asked the City to delay the GPU process. The Planning and Building
Agency claims it has relayed this feedback to elected officials, but also insists that the City
Council plans on voting to adopt the GPU on November 17, 2020.24 Because there are so many issues regarding ineffective community engagement, vague and nonbinding Policies and Actions,
and ill-defined timelines for the Implementation Actions, the City needs to comprehensively
revise the GPU and its outreach methods before EJ communities can effectively comment on, let
alone have their concerns addressed in, the GPU. If the City truly wishes to adopt a GPU which
prioritizes the needs of EJ communities, the City should delay the vote to adopt the GPU to allow these various issues to be resolved, and allow residents adequate time to provide comments
on the GPU.
III. THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN UPDATE SHOULD BETTER ADDRESS EJ CONCERNS
In recent attempts at virtual outreach with EJ communities, the City claimed to address 17 concerns of EJ communities. The City provided three documents describing what the City
heard (“What We Heard”) and how the GPU Policies and Actions address these concerns.25
However, in many instances these Policies and Actions only proffer vague, nonbinding
aspirations. Moreover, many of the EJ Policies and Actions do not adequately address the
20 See Health Equity Considerations and Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups, CTR. FOR DISEASE CONTROL,
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html (last visited Oct. 29, 2020); FRANCINE D. BLAU, ET AL., Essential and Frontline Workers in the COVID-19 Crisis,
ECONOFACT (Oct. 29, 2020), https://econofact.org/essential-and-frontline-workers-in-the-covid-19-crisis. 21 Health Equity Considerations and Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups, supra note 20.
22 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, supra note 15 at 8. 23 See Cal. GOV'T CODE § 65302(h).
24 City of Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana General Plan Community Forum on Environmental Justice - October 19, 2020, YOUTUBE (Oct. 20, 2020), [1:40:00 – 1:42:00], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxuBSmNJ9d4.
“We will continue to send that message internally here [to] staff. But also ensure that our decision maker[s] hear and understand that that message is being spoken. And we have communicated that in the past . . .”
25 City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency, City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Draft Environmental Justice Overview (Sept. 14, 2020) (on file with author).
Page 5 of 8
concerns of EJ communities. Generally, unresolved issues with the Policies and Actions can be summarized as:
1. The City’s EJ Policies and Actions do not incorporate the feedback from EJ
communities;
2. Many of the City’s Policies and Actions are not specific or binding; and
3. The timelines associated with Actions proposed to address EJ concerns are too indefinite.
Sometimes these concerns are present in combination; that is, a Policy or Action may raise two or all three.
These concerns are not only expressed by MPNA but also echoed in the DOJ letter
mentioned previously. The DOJ stated that the measures lack “specific information about how
community organizations and stakeholders will be identified,” a “timeline for implementation of these programs,” and “benchmarks that the City has set to ensure implementation.”26 These concerns are repeated throughout the DOJ’s letter, specifically regarding the failure to engage
with EJ communities to address lead contamination,27 the failure to specifically address how
pollution will be ameliorated in EJ communities,28 and the failure to designate appropriate
distances or standards for buffer zones between industrial uses and sensitive receptors.29 An in-
depth discussion of how the Policies and Actions fail EJ communities follows.30
a. The City’s EJ Policies and Actions do not incorporate the feedback from EJ
communities.
The GPU Policies and Actions fail to adequately address the concerns raised by EJ
communities through the limited feedback the City has solicited over the past six months. Failure
to incorporate feedback from EJ communities will perpetuate the mistrust between the City and its EJ residents if not addressed before adopting a new GP.
Within Policy LU-3.2, the City commits to engage residents in improving programming and
facilitating community engagement for decisions affecting land use and development. 31 While
these goals are admirable, the relevant Policies and Actions do not commit the City to engage
with EJ communities in ways repeatedly requested by these communities. For example, in "What We Heard," the City claims to address seven engagement concerns including access to
technology, language barriers, more advanced notice for public meetings, and tailoring outreach
26 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, supra note 15 at 5. 27 Id. at 5–6 (“[A] particular resource available to the City in developing policies to address lead contamination is
the impacted communities themselves. We recommend that the City consult with disadvantaged communities in its jurisdiction to solicit ideas on how to address the pollution burdens related to lead contamination.”).
28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, supra note 15 at 6 (“[T]he Policy does not identify what types of regulations would be applied to facilities and does not provide conditions or thresholds that would trigger when such
regulations would be applied.”). 29 Id. at 6 (“[The City’s] policies do not go on to designate appropriate distances or standards for buffer zones” and
“do not identify what is considered ‘in close proximity’ or any standards for determining when a buffer should be established or even what an appropriate buffer is.”).
30 For comments on more EJ Policies and Actions, see Attachment A. 31 CITY OF SANTA ANA, SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: LAND USE ELEMENT 6 (Sept. 28,
2020), https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/general-plan/documents/Draft%20General%20Plan/Sept%20Draft%20Elements/09_LandUse_draft_20200928.pdf.
Page 6 of 8
efforts to EJ communities. 32 The City cites 12 Policies and Actions addressing these concerns;33 however, the Policies and Actions do not rectify issues that EJ communities have raised regarding the GPU process itself. For example, EJ community residents have requested, among
other items, professional, simultaneous interpretation services be available at public meetings,
more advanced notice for community meetings, tailored outreach several weeks before scheduled
meetings. 34 These recommendations have been absent from the GPU process. Furthermore, providing more time to solicit feedback from EJ communities and incorporating that feedback into the GPU will yield a GPU that better addresses EJ concerns. Therefore, the City should
incorporate into the GPU the recommendations that EJ communities have already requested from
the City, and the City should delay the vote to adopt the GPU so that EJ
communities can provide more valuable feedback.
b. Many of the City’s Policies and Actions are not specific or binding.
Many of the City’s Policies and Actions in the GPU are ambiguous, and most Policies
and Actions, on their face, do not seem to “reduce the unique and compounded health risks” and
pollution burdens faced by EJ communities as required by SB 1000.35
One way the Policies and Actions are not specific is that they omit crucial information. For instance, Policies LU-3.8 and LU-3.11 call for buffer zones between areas of heavy emission
sources and sensitive receptors, but the GPU fails to define what the size of the buffer zone
would be.36 The California Air Resources Board recommends a minimum distance of 1,000 feet
for the buffer zone.37 Because sensitive receptors such as children and the elderly are the most
vulnerable members of the community, the City should offer them protections with the utmost care and attention to detail in the GPU. Similar ambiguity can be found in many other Policies
and Actions.
Another form of ambiguity present in the Policies and Actions stems from the choice of
language used. For example, Action 2.10 requires the City to “evaluate public open space and
park requirements in the Zoning Code for residential and non-residential uses” and to “consider requirements and/or incentives to aggregate public open space areas required by
two or more uses to form larger and more usable areas and facilities” (italics added).38 However,
this Action does not actually require the creation of incentives, the aggregation of public open
space, or anything beyond mere evaluation and consideration. Not only is this discouraging
to residents in EJ communities who already live in higher density neighborhoods and have less access to open space,39 it is particularly problematic considering the lack of other Policies
32 See City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency, supra note 25. 33 The City cites Policies LU-3.2, CM-1.2, OS-2.2, and Actions A, B, C, D, F, AA, CC, and DD. See City of Santa
Ana Planning and Building Agency, supra note 25. 34 Kathryn Cox, supra note 19.
35 Cal. GOV'T CODE § 65302(h)(1)(A). 36 CITY OF SANTA ANA, supra note 31 at 6–7.
37 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY & CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, AIR QUALITY AND LAND USE HANDBOOK: A COMMUNITY HEALTH PERSPECTIVE 3–7 (Apr. 2005),
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf; STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, supra note 15 at 6. 38 CITY OF SANTA ANA, supra note 31 at 71.
39 Veniece Jennings et al., Promoting Environmental Justice Through Urban Green Space Access: A Synopsis, 5 Environmental Justice 1, 1 (2012), https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/ja/2012/ja_2012_jennings_001.pdf.
Page 7 of 8
and Actions that would require the City to create more open space. Therefore, the City should revise the language in the Policies and Actions to meet the specific needs of EJ communities.
Accordingly, the City should revise its current EJ Policies and Actions within the GPU to
be specific and binding, and the City should consider additional Policies and Actions to address
the unique concerns facing its EJ communities. c. The timelines associated with Actions proposed to address EJ concerns are too
indefinite.
In all but two Actions, the GPU only includes the starting year and the agency involved
in the Actions, providing no real assurance that the proposed actions will be completed in a timely manner.
For example, pursuant to Action 3.6 of the Land Use Element, the City will establish a
program to eliminate lead-based paint hazards, with priority given to EJ areas.40 However, the
Action does not estimate the time required to complete this action, only that the work will begin
in 2022.41 Plans like this may involve major changes and can take years to implement. By not
providing clear, actionable timelines for the Policies and Actions, the City leaves EJ
communities in the dark, not knowing when their concerns will even begin to be addressed.
Action 3.5 in the Economic Prosperity Element also illustrates the need for more detailed
timelines. Action 3.5 provides that the City will “encourage existing businesses to invest in
technology and best practice [sic] to transition to sustainable business practices.”42 The absence
of a specific timeline for this Action is troubling because the timely transition to sustainable
business practices is particularly salient for EJ communities which already face disproportionate
impacts from pollution exposure and climate change.43 Moreover, MPNA and other EJ
communities have repeatedly requested that the City do more to eliminate industrial sources and
heavy emitters from their communities, especially in regard to the S. Main Industrial
Corridor. Therefore, the City should seize the opportunity the GPU presents
to include actionable timelines for the transition to sustainable business practices.
IV. CONCLUSION
For generations, EJ communities have been systematically marginalized and ignored by
the City. The most heavily-impacted census tract in Santa Ana ranks in the 100th percentile
40 CITY OF SANTA ANA, supra note 31 at 72.
41 Id. 42 CITY OF SANTA ANA, SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT: ECONOMIC PROSPERITY ELEMENT 16
(Sept. 28, 2020), https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/general-plan/documents/Draft%20General%20Plan/Sept%20Draft%20Elements/03_EconProsperity_draft_20200928.pdf.
43 Yvette Cabrera, Will COVID-19 give Santa Ana officials an excuse to ignore the city’s lead crisis?, GRIST, Oct. 26, 2020, https://grist.org/justice/will-covid-19-give-santa-ana-officials-an-excuse-to-ignore-the-citys-lead-crisis/;
LINDA MAZUR, ET. AL., INDICATORS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS 1–4, (Dec. 1, 2010), https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/document/climatechangeej123110.pdf.
Page 8 of 8
statewide for toxic releases, the 99th percentile for cleanups, the 98th percentile for groundwater threats, the 95th percentile for traffic pollution, and 95th percentile for hazardous waste.44 SB 1000 was enacted to address these and all of the environmental justice issues in Santa Ana, yet
the City’s unwillingness to listen to EJ communities or adequately address their concerns will
lead to the adoption of a GPU that falls far short of the requirements and spirit of SB 1000. If the
City wants to atone for its past mistakes, it must first learn how to listen to EJ communities and delay the process of adopting the GPU. MPNA urges the City to make changes to the GPU in accordance with the recommendations herein, in Attachment A, and provided in comments by EJ
communities and other stakeholders. There is still time to conduct robust engagement with the
City’s EJ communities. MPNA urges the City to not squander the opportunity before it to right
its past wrongs and develop a GPU the City and all of its residents can be proud of and trust to advance environmental justice in Santa Ana.
Sincerely,
/s/ /s/ /s/
Adolfo Sierra
Interim President, Madison Park Neighborhood Association
Jose J. Rea
Treasurer, Madison Park Neighborhood Association
Leonel Flores GREEN Community Organizer, Madison Park Neighborhood Association
/s/ /s/
Ethan Licon Daniel Mittelstein
Certified Law Students
Environmental Law Clinic
UC Irvine School of Law
cc. Brett Korte
Clinical Fellow
Environmental Law Clinic
UC Irvine School of Law
44 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, supra note 15 at 4.
Page 1 of 14
Attachment A – MPNA Comments on the GPU
Environmental Justice Draft Policies and Implementation Actions
Policy ID
Draft Policy
Comments and Concerns
M-1.1
Achieve zero fatalities from traffic collisions through education, enforcement, and infrastructure design.
The City should focus on no/low emission transportation options, such as public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure.
M-1.3
Utilize technology to efficiently move
people and vehicles and manage motor
vehicle speeds.
The City should focus on no/low emission transportation options, such as
public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure.
M-1.5
Ensure that new development and City
projects maintain or improve the current
level of service for all modes of transportation.
The City should prioritize maintaining and improving the level of service in
environmental justice ("EJ") areas.
M-1.7
Proactively mitigate potential air quality, noise, congestion, safety, and other
impacts from the transportation network
on residents and business.
The City should commit to mitigating both current and potential impacts from the transportation network. The mitigation should be substantial, and
the City should describe methods for how it plans to mitigate these impacts
within this policy. Moreover, schools should specifically be included with
residents and businesses.
M-3.1
Expand and maintain a citywide network
of nonmotorized travelways within both
the public and private realms that create
linkages between neighborhoods, recreational amenities, schools,
employment centers, and activity centers.
The City should commit to prioritizing EJ areas in the expansion and
maintenance of these travelways.
CM-1.2
Engage residents and community facility users to provide input for facility
improvements and programming.
The City should prioritize engagement in EJ areas, and address barriers to
participation, including language and technology barriers.
Page 2 of 14
CM-3.2
Continue to support the creation of healthy
neighborhoods by addressing public
safety, mitigating incompatible uses, and
maintaining building code standards.
The City should update this Policy to commit to "mitigating and correcting incompatible uses."
CM-3.6
Promote access to affordable, fresh, and healthy food options citywide through efforts such as community gardens,
culinary classes, and neighborhood
farmers markets.
The City should identify food deserts1 and prioritize those areas, particularly where they overlap with EJ areas, in this Policy. This Policy should also be changed to "promote, and provide where feasible, access to .
. . ."
CM-3.8
Promote access to affordable, fresh, and
healthy food. Repurpose underutilized
spaces and City-owned vacant land as a
strategy to improve community health and
increase the number and accessibility of opportunities for health and recreation
activities. Prioritize the redevelopment of
such sites within environmental justice
area boundaries that are also underserved
by parks and recreation opportunities.
This Policy should be changed to "promote, and where feasible provide, access to . . . . "
CM-3.9
Coordinate with the County Health Care
Agency to promote healthier communities through education, prevention, and
intervention programs, and other activities
that address the root causes of health
disparities and inequities in Santa Ana.
The City should not only coordinate with Orange County Health Care
Agency, but should also commit to soliciting recommendations from the
Orange County Health Care Agency that prioritize the resolution of the
disparities and inequities faced by EJ communities.
CN-1.2
Consistency with emission reduction goals
highlighted in the Climate Action Plan
shall be considered in all major decisions
on land use and investments in public
infrastructure.
The City should update this Policy to commit to considering and
prioritizing the Climate Action Plan in all major decisions.
1 See generally Jessica Caporuscio, What are food deserts, and how do they impact health?, MedicalNewsToday (Jun. 22, 2020),
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-are-food-deserts.
Page 3 of 14
CN-1.5
Consider potential impacts of stationary
and nonstationary emission sources on
existing and proposed sensitive uses and
opportunities to minimize health and safety risks. Mitigate or apply special considerations and regulations on the
siting of facilities that might significantly
increase pollution near sensitive receptors
within environmental justice area boundaries.
MPNA reiterates the California Department of Justice's comments on this
Policy.2 Neither this Policy nor others identify the types of regulations that will be considered or provide any conditions or thresholds that trigger the applications of these regulations. In addition, the DOJ states, "There also
appears to be nothing in the Policy requiring implementation of identified
regulations to reduce pollution exposure, or defining the types of pollution
and identifying the timeframe for implementing such regulations."
CN-1.15
Collaborate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and local stakeholders in advance of designation as a
priority community for air monitoring and
reduction, and implement measures and
strategies identified in other air monitoring
and emissions reduction plans that are applicable to and feasible for Santa Ana.
Local stakeholders should be defined to include school districts and
members of EJ communities, among others.
EP-1.9
Avoid potential land use conflicts by
prohibiting the location of sensitive
receptors and noxious land uses in close
proximity.
The City should define "close proximity." As also recommended by the Department of Justice, the City should commit to creating buffer zones of
at least 1,000 feet between industrial uses and sensitive receptors.3
EP-3.3
Promote the development of sustainable
and equitable new land use plans that proactively mitigates negative impacts on
existing residents and businesses.
This City should commit to developing "sustainable and equitable new land
use plans that proactively mitigate[] negative impacts on existing residents
and businesses."
LU-1.3
Promote the creation of new open space
and community serving amenities in park
deficient areas, with priority given to those
that are also within environmental justice
area boundaries.
This Policy should be changed to "Promote the creation of, and where
feasible create, new open space and community serving amenities in park
deficient areas, with priority given to those that are also within
environmental justice area boundaries."
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Letter from Rica Garcia, Deputy Attorney General, to Verny Carvajal, Principle Planner, City of Santa Ana, 6 (Oct. 16, 2020), https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/sb1000-letter-santa-ana.pdf.
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, supra note 2 at 6.
Page 4 of 14
LU-2.9
Establish and maintain public open space
and recreation requirements for new
residential and nonresidential uses to
provide sufficient open space and recreational opportunities for Santa Ana residents and visitors.
The City should prioritize EJ areas in this Policy.
LU-3.2
Facilitate community engagement and dialogue in policy decisions and outcomes affecting land use and development, with
supplemental opportunities for proposed
planning activities within environmental
justice area boundaries.
The City should commit to minimum requirements for how it will engage
EJ communities. The City should incorporate the suggestions already
provided for how it can facilitate this engagement. At minimum, the City
should commit to addressing the problems of engagement it is already aware of including problems of technology access, language barriers, insufficient notice before meetings, and more.
LU-3.8
Avoid the development of sensitive
receptors in close proximity to land uses
that pose a hazard to human health and
safety, due to the quantity, concentration,
or physical or chemical characteristics of the hazardous materials that they utilize, or
the hazardous waste that they generate or
emit.
MPNA reiterates the California Department of Justice's comments on this
Policy.4 The City should designate appropriate distances between industrial
land uses and sensitive receptors. This and other Policies should define
"close proximity" and standards for determining when a buffer zone should be established. The California Air Resources Board recommends
implementing at minimum a distance of 1,000 ft. between industrial uses
and sensitive receptors.5
LU-3.9
Improve the health of residents, students,
and workers by limiting the operation of
noxious, hazardous, dangerous, and
polluting uses that are in close proximity to sensitive receptors, with priority given
to discontinuing such uses within
environmental justice area boundaries.
MPNA reiterates the California Department of Justice's comments on this
Policy.6 The City should designate appropriate distances between industrial
land uses and sensitive receptors. This and other Policies should define
"close proximity" and standards for determining when a buffer zone should be established. The California Air Resources Board recommends
implementing at minimum a distance of 1,000 ft between industrial uses
and sensitive receptors. The City should include a plan for how it will limit
these hazardous, dangerous, and polluting uses including when the uses
will be discontinued. The City should also prioritize discontinuing such uses adjacent to EJ areas.
4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, supra note 2 at 6.
5 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY & CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, AIR QUALITY AND LAND USE HANDBOOK: A COMMUNITY HEALTH PERSPECTIVE 3–7 (Apr. 2005), https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, supra note 2 at 6.
Page 5 of 14
LU-3.11
Promote landscaping and other buffers to
separate existing sensitive uses from rail
lines, heavy industrial facilities, and other
emissions sources. As feasible, apply more substantial buffers within environmental justice area boundaries.
MPNA reiterates the California Department of Justice's comments on this
Policy.7 The City should designate appropriate distances between industrial
land uses and sensitive receptors. This and other Policies should define
"close proximity" and standards for determining when a buffer zone should be established. The California Air Resources Board recommends implementing at minimum a distance of 1,000 ft between industrial uses
and sensitive receptors.
LU-3.12
Require new sensitive land uses proposed
in areas with high levels of localized air
pollution to achieve good indoor air
quality through landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures.
The City should describe the conditions and thresholds that would trigger
the implementation of the described measures.
OS-1.2
Support a comprehensive and integrated
network of parks, open space, and
recreational facilities that maintains and provides a variety of active and passive
recreational opportunities that meets the
needs of all Santa Ana residents,
regardless of age, ability, or income.
The City should incorporate into this Policy a plan for how it will support
this network, including how the needs of Santa Ana residents will be identified. This Policy should prioritize EJ areas.
OS-1.12
Consider unique neighborhood needs in
the development of open spaces and
programs.
The City should describe how it will determine these needs and should also
prioritize the needs of EJ communities for the development of open spaces
and programs.
OS-1.13
Encourage new development to provide
indoor recreation space when located in
areas with high levels of localized air pollution or if site is adjacent to freeways
or heavy industrial uses.
The City should define "high levels of localized air pollution." Rather than
just encourage the development, the City should commit, when feasible, to
providing these spaces located in areas of high localized air pollution.
7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, supra note 2 at 6.
Page 6 of 14
OS-2.2
Encourage residents, neighborhood
groups, businesses, schools, organizations,
and public agencies to partner in the
creation and maintenance of safe and well maintained publicly-owned park and recreation facilities.
This Policy should say "Encourage and facilitate partnerships between
residents, neighborhood groups, businesses, schools, organizations, and
public agencies to create and maintain safe and well maintained publicly-
owned park and recreation facilities."
OS-2.5
Expand urban agriculture opportunities in private development and public spaces, including home gardens, community
gardens, and urban farms.
The City should prioritize EJ areas in this Policy.
S-2.1
Consult and collaborate with federal, state,
and regional agencies to identify and
regulate the disposal and storage of
hazardous materials, prevent the illegal
transportation and disposal of hazardous waste, and facilitate the cleanup of
contaminated sites.
The City should prioritize EJ areas in this Policy.
S-2.2
Collaborate with appropriate agencies to
identify and inventory all users and handlers of hazardous materials to
proactively mitigate potential impacts.
The City should prioritize EJ areas in this Policy.
S-2.3
Coordinate with the County of Orange, the
California Department of Transportation,
and other relevant parties to enforce state
and local laws regulating the storage and
transport of hazardous materials within the City of Santa Ana, and limit truck routes
through the City to arterials streets away
from natural habitats and sensitive land
uses.
The City should prioritize EJ areas in this Policy.
Page 7 of 14
S-2.4
Determine the presence of hazardous
materials and/or waste contamination prior
to approval of new uses and require that
appropriate measures be taken to protect the health and safety of site users and the community.
The City should prioritize EJ areas in this Policy.
S-2.6
Partner and collaborate with property owners, businesses, and community groups to develop strategies to protect and
minimize risks from existing hazardous
material sites to existing nearby sensitive
uses, with priority given to uses within
environmental justice area boundaries.
The City should be specific in its plans for collaborating with these groups. The plans should elaborate on which property owners, businesses, and community groups will be included in this partnership. The plans should
require more beyond developing strategies to minimize risks. The City
should be required to implement feasible strategies to minimize these risks.
Additionally, school districts should be explicitly included in the list of
"property owners, businesses, and community groups."
Page 8 of 14
Environmental Justice Draft Policies and Implementation Actions
Implementation Action ID Implementation Action
Comments and Concerns
Community Element Action 1.1 (A)
Establish an Ad Hoc Committee of community stakeholders to guide
preparation of an ongoing EJ Community
Engagement Program.
The Action should be written such that EJ communities should be able to decide how best to perform outreach to EJ communities.
Community Element
Action 1.2
(B)
Plan for and conduct a Community Survey
every three years related to community health, air quality concerns, parks, and community service needs, with focused outreach to Environmental Justice priority
areas.
The Community Surveys should be performed yearly to ensure that the actions the City takes represent the issues which are concerning EJ communities the most. Furthermore, the surveys should be expanded to
include other concerns that EJ communities have raised in the past, such
as water quality and lead contamination, in addition to the "community
health" listed in the Action.
Land Use Element
Action 3.15
(D)
Explore tools for communication with residents and sensitive receptors when new
industrial uses are proposed in their areas.
The Action should implement the tools that it explores, not merely
explore tools. The City should prioritize EJ communities in this Action.
Community Element
Action 1.4 (E)
Coordinate with community residents,
property owners, and other stakeholders to
identify vacant and potentially
underutilized properties and strategize how such properties could be repurposed into
public parks or commercial recreation
facilities.
The Action should identify what “underutilized” would mean. Finally, if
there are vacant and potentially underutilized properties available, the City should prioritize public facilities and the needs of EJ communities.
Land Use Element
Action 3.14
(F)
Update City Sunshine Ordinance,
incorporating best practices for outreach in
Environmental Justice areas in Santa Ana.
The City should commit to working with EJ communities to update the
provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance.
Community Element Action 3.3
(G)
Engage with Orange County Health Care
Agency and other stakeholders to monitor key health indicators to measure success
and outcome of General Plan policies and
implementation plan.
This Action should be changed to ensure that the information gathered is communicated to EJ communities. The Action should be changed to
include ". . . implementation plan, and reevaluate if necessary."
Page 9 of 14
Community Element
Action 1.6
(H)
To ensure residents of environmental
justice area boundaries have access to
recreational, cultural, and health and
wellness programs, establish accessibility corridors that provide attractive, comfortable, and safe pedestrian and bike
access to public recreational facilities in
the Parks Master Plan (an implementation
action of the Open Space Element). Identify public realm improvements needed to create these accessibility
corridors. Prioritize investments for
accessibility corridors in the city's capital
investment program; include investments
for accessibility corridors when investments are made in new parks and
recreation facilities within environmental
justice area boundaries.
The City should prioritize EJ areas in this Action, including pollution and
safety issues at recreational facilities.
Community Element
Action 3.1
(K)
Evaluate options to support existing and
potential community health care facilities in environmental justice focus areas
through a variety of mechanisms such as
reduced permit fees, reduced impact fees,
and tax incentives.
The Action should be changed to be "Evaluate and, where feasible
promote and implement, options to . . . . " Additionally, this Action
should apply to all EJ areas, not just those in "focus areas."
Community Element Action 3.2
(L)
Ensure that new or redeveloped health care
facilities include pedestrian-friendly site
amenities. In areas where mobile clinics
are stationed, ensure the location is safe
and accessible for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users.
This Action should be changed to "Ensure that new or redeveloped health
care facilities include pedestrian friendly site amenities. In areas where mobile clinics are stationed, ensure the location is safe, healthy, and
accessible for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users."
Page 10 of 14
Community Element Action 3.4 (M)
Coordinate with the County Health Care
Agency to identify the root causes of
health disparities and inequities in Santa
Ana, with additional detail for residents living within environmental justice area boundaries. Identify potential
programmatic changes and resources to
better address the root causes.
The Action should be changed to "Identify, and where feasible implement, potential programmatic . . . . "
Community Element
Action 3.7
(P)
Collaborate with health care providers,
health and wellness advocates, and other
public health stakeholders to identify ways to improve the provision of and access to health and wellness services throughout
the City; Include a discussion on areas
within environmental justice area
boundaries underserved by affordable
health and wellness services.
The Action should prioritize providing services identified as priorities by
EJ communities. Furthermore, the Action does not explain the timeline
involved in these provisions, and by stating that this project is both
ongoing and scheduled to begin in 2022, it is unclear what actions are ongoing and what actions will be taken in 2022.
Conservation Element Action 1.1
(Q)
Review existing and monitor the
development of new air monitoring and emissions reduction plans prepared by the
South Coast Air Quality Management
District. Gather and evaluate measures and
strategies in such plans for their
applicability and feasibility for Santa Ana.
The Action should be changed to state ". . . for Santa Ana, and implement
them where feasible."
Conservation Element
Action 1.2 (R)
Coordinate with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District and local
stakeholders to pursue a Priority
Community designation for eligible environmental justice areas of the city. If
such designation is not awarded, seek grant
funds for activities such as local air quality
monitoring.
The Action should be changed to state ". . . of the city, particularly where industrial uses are within 1000 feet of schools. If such designation . . . ."
Page 11 of 14
Conservation Element Action 1.3
(S)
Collaborate with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District and local
stakeholders in environmental justice area
experiencing local air pollutions issues to outline objectives and strategies for monitoring air pollution in advance of the
establishment of a community emissions
reduction and/or air monitoring plan.
The Action should be changed to prioritize implementation of air pollution monitoring strategies.
Conservation Element
Action 1.5
(U)
Monitor the South Coast Air Quality Management District permitting and inspection process to identify businesses in
Santa Ana with potential hazardous
materials or by-products, with a special
focus on environmental justice
communities. Serve as a liaison for residents to identify potential emission
violations.
The Action should prioritize EJ communities by addressing incompatible
land uses.
Conservation Element
Action 1.6 (V)
Coordinate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to monitor
existing air measurements and recommend
new air measurements and locations.
The Action should prioritize EJ areas.
Conservation Element
Action 1.9 (X)
Evaluate and implement strategies to
reduce truck idling found or reported in
areas with sensitive receptors, with a priority placed on environmental justice
areas.
The Action should be changed to ". . . environmental justice areas and schools."
Conservation Element
1.13
(BB)
Augment existing programs to improve public awareness of State, regional and
local agencies and resources to assist with
air quality and other environmental quality
concerns.
The Action should prioritize EJ areas.
Page 12 of 14
Conservation Element
Action 1.14
(CC)
Coordinate with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District to explore
ways to initiate data collection efforts for a
community emissions reduction and/or community air monitoring plan, including the identification of information needed
(new or updated), potential data sources
and the resources needed, and strategies to
engage residents and collect information.
The Action should be changed to " . . . to explore ways to initiate, and
where feasible initiate, data collection . . . ." The Action should prioritize
EJ communities.
Conservation Element
Action 1.16
(EE)
Identify opportunities to expand regular attendance of City staff and decision-makers at meetings for neighborhoods
within environmental justice area
boundaries, so that residents and
businesses can more easily communicate
their unique issues and needs. Include a translator(s) at these meetings so that all
residents can engage.
The Action should be changed to "Identify and implement opportunities
to expand . . . ."
Conservation Element
Action 1.17
(FF)
Expand representation of residents from neighborhoods within environmental
justice area boundaries by extending
residents from such areas to become board,
commission, and task force members as
openings occur.
The City should consider expanding the number of positions to make
positions available immediately for residents of EJ communities so EJ
communities have representation on these boards, commissions, and task
forces.
Economic Prosperity
Element Action 3.5
(HH)
Continue to promote and market the
Recycling Market Development Zone. Develop an Incentive Program to
encourage non-polluting industry and
clean green technology companies to
locate to the City that reduce
environmental impacts and the carbon footprint. Encourage existing businesses to
invest in technology and best practice to
transition to sustainable business practices.
The Action should provide a definitive, aggressive timeline for the
implementation of the Incentive Program. The Action should prioritize
EJ areas.
Page 13 of 14
Land Use Element
Action 2.10
(II)
Evaluate public open space and park
requirements in the Zoning Code for
residential and non-residential uses.
Consider requirements and/or incentives to aggregate public open space areas required by two or more uses to form larger and
more usable areas and facilities.
The Action should prioritize EJ areas.
Land Use Element
Action 3.2
(JJ)
Update the Zoning Code development and operational standards for industrial zones to address incompatibility between
adjacent residential uses, including
minimum distance requirements to buffer
heavy industrial uses from sensitive
receptors.
MPNA reiterates the California Department of Justice's comments on this
Action.8
Land Use Element
Action 3.3 (KK)
Collaborate with residents and industry
stakeholders to create a program to
incentivize and amortization the removal of existing heavy industrial uses adjacent
to sensitive uses.
This action should be revised to say "amortize" rather than "amortization." The Action should prioritize EJ areas.
Land Use Element
Action 3.4 (LL)
Seek funding from South Coast Air
Quality Management District and other
regional sources for the installation of
high-efficiency air filtration systems in
buildings, homes, and schools located in areas with high levels of localized air
pollution, especially for those within
environmental justice area boundaries.
The Action should be changed to ". . . and other regional sources for air monitors, and the installation of . . . ."
Land Use Element
Action 3.5 (MM)
Explore economic development incentives
and grant funding to encourage existing or
draw new business investments in the industrial zones to incorporate more
environmentally sustainable practices.
The Action should prioritize EJ areas.
8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, supra note 2 at 6.
Page 14 of 14
Land Use Element
Action 3.6
(NN)
Establish and maintain a program to
eliminate lead-based paint hazards, with
priority given to residential buildings
located within environmental justice area boundaries.
The Action should be implemented on a more aggressive timeline.
Public Services Element Action 1.4
(PP)
Identify City fiscal and operational procedures and potential thresholds involved in the prioritization of general
funds for public programming, service, or
infrastructure improvements for residents
living within environmental justice area boundaries.
The Action is unclear as to what it is attempting to accomplish. The City should define "thresholds" and "operational procedures." The City should commit to allocating these funds to prioritize the needs of EJ
communities.
Safety Element Action
2.4
(QQ)
Work with community organizations and
regional partners to understand the
prevalence, sources, and implications of
lead contamination across Santa Ana's soil.
Collaborate with environmental justice stakeholders in proposing solutions to
remove hazardous lead soils in the city.
The Action should commit to implement solutions to outreach barriers
proposed by EJ communities during these outreach events.
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 I STREET, SUITE 125 P.O. BOX 944255 SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550
Public: (916) 445-9555 Telephone: (916) 210-6461 E-Mail: Rica.Garcia@doj.ca.gov
October 16, 2020
Via E-mail
Verny Carvajal
Principal Planner City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 vcarvajal@santa-ana.org
RE: City of Santa Ana Draft General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Carvajal:
It is our understanding that the City of Santa Ana is currently drafting environmental justice policies for its General Plan pursuant to S enate Bill 1000 (“SB 1000”). We recognize the difficulties facing the City of Santa Ana and its communities during the current public health crisis caused by COVID-19. The California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Environmental
Justice would like to serve as a resource for the City of Santa Ana as it updates its General Plan during this difficult time. Therefore, we are writing to provide information on SB 1000, our initial feedback on the City’s plans for its General Plan Update, and resources for engaging with community members and developing environmental j ustice policies.1
I. Background on Environmental Justice and SB 1000
Low-income communities and communities of color often bear a disproportionate burden of pollution and associated health risks when compared to their more affluent neighbors. Similar to health risks that are connected t o pollution exposures, evidence shows that the risks associated
with COVID-19 are inequitably distributed among community m embers.2 Further, recent studies
1 The Attorney General submits these comments pursuant to his independent power and duty to protect the environment and natural resources of California. See Cal. Const., art. V, § 13; Gov. Code §§ 12511, 12600-12612; D’Amico v . Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1,
1415. 2 See e.g., “Younger blacks and Latinos are dying of COVID-19 at higher rates in California, Los Angeles Times (April 15, 2020), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-25/coronavirus-takes-a-larger-toll-on-younger-african-americans-and-latinos-in-california
October 16, 2020
Page 2
indicate that exposures to industrial pollution significantly increase the likelihood of suffering serious health consequences, including death, from the COVID-19 virus.3
Environmental justice can address some of the longstanding disparate impacts in a community, and is defined as “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adopting, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (Gov. Code, § 65040.12, subd. (e)(1).) California law further states that environmental justice includes, but is not limited to:
(1) the availability of a healthy environment for all people; (2) the deterrence, reduction, and elimination of pollution burdens for communities disproportionately experiencing the adverse effects of that pollution;
(3) governmental entities engaging and providing technical assistance to communities most
impacted by pollution to promote their meaningful participation i n all phases of the environmental and land use decision-making process; and (4) at a minimum, the meaningful consideration of recommendations from communities most impacted by pollution i nto environmental and land use decisions.
(Gov. Code, § 65040.12, subd. (e)(2).) In 2016, the California Legislature passed SB 1000 to incorporate environmental justice into t he local land use planning process. SB 1000 requires local governments to address
pollution and other hazards that disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color in their jurisdiction. The law intends to make environmental justice a real and vital part of the planning process by encouraging transparency and public engagement during all stages of a general plan update, requiring local governments to identify environmental justice issues in their communities, and ensuring that local governments adopt environmental
justice policies that address the specific needs of disadvantaged communities.
II. Legal Requirements of SB 1000
If a local government adopts or updates two or more elements of its general plan after
January 1, 2018, SB 1000 requires the local government to identify any “disadvantaged communities” within its planning area. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subds. (h)(1)-(2).) This identification must be done in the general plan itself. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(1).) SB 1000’s definition for “disadvantaged communities” includes two identification methods: (1) “an
3 Wu & Nethery, “Exposure to Air Pollution and COVID-19 Mortality in the United States,” Dept. of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.05.20054502v2.full.pdf; E&E News, “Study
Links Higher NO2 Levels to More Coronavirus Deaths,” (April 23, 2020),
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2020/04/23/stories/1062953127; “New Research Links Air Pollution to Higher Coronavirus Death Rates,” New York Times (April 7, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/climate/air-pollution-coronavirus-covid.html.
October 16, 2020
Page 3
area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code”; or (2) “an area that is low-income area that is
disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.” (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(4)(A).)
Under the first method for identifying disadvantaged communities, an area is a
disadvantaged community if it scores at or above 75 percent on CalEPA’s California
Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (“CalEnviroScreen”).4 The CalEnviroScreen tool and additional information regarding how it works are available on CalEPA’s website.5 Generally speaking, CalEnviroScreen identifies the communities in California that are burdened by multiple sources of pollution and most vulnerable to its effects,
taking into account the socioeconomic status and health conditions of people living in these
communities. Every census tract in California is ranked by combining the scores for 21 different indicators that relate to pollution burdens and population characteristics. The census tracts that score the highest are the most burdened and most vulnerable to pollution in California.
The second identification method requires a local government to first determine whether
low-income areas exist in its jurisdiction. SB 1000 defines a “low-income area” as (1) “an area with household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income,” or (2) an area with “household incomes at or below the threshold designated as low income by the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) list of state income limits adopted pursuant
to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.” (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(4)(c).) After
identifying low-income areas, a local government must then evaluate if these areas are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution that can lead to negative health impacts, pollution exposures, or environmental degradation. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(4)(a).) There are various data sets that can be used for the second part of this analysis, including CalEnviroScreen, that contain specific information about pollution sources.
If a local government identifies one or more disadvantaged communities in its planning area, its general plan must have either an “environmental justice element” or “related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements” (collectively, “EJ policies”) that address
eight different topics. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(1).) A general plan’s EJ policies must
“reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities” by doing at least the following:
(1) Reduce pollution exposure;
4 For a map of all disadvantaged communities in CalEnviroScreen, see CalEPA, Designation of
Disadvantaged Communities, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 5 CalEPA and Office of Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), CalEnviroScreen 3.0,
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30; CalEPA and OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Report (Jan. 2017), https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/ces3report.pdf.
(2) Improve air quality; (3) Promote facilities (SB 1000 defines “public facilities” as facilities that include “public
improvements, public services, and community amenities.” (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd.
(h)(4)(B)); (4) Promote food access; (5) Promote safe and sanitary homes; and (6) Promote physical activity.
(Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(1)(a).) SB 1000 also requires EJ policies that “promote public engagement in the public decisionmaking process” and “prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.” (Gov. Code, § 65302, subds. (h)(1)(b)-(c).)
October 16, 2020 Page 4
III. City of Santa Ana’s General Plan Update
A. Drafting Tailored EJ Policies
As described above, local governments that identify disadvantaged communities in their
jurisdiction must include EJ policies in their general plan that address specific issues. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(1).) SB 1000 requires these policies to be either incorporated into General Plans as a separate EJ element or integrated into other elements throughout the Plan. (Gov. Code § 65302, subd. (h)(1).) The City has chosen the latter alternative. We appreciate
the City’s efforts to address environmental justice in its General Plan through inclusion of EJ
policies. However, we are concerned that the EJ policies are not sufficient to reduce the unique and compounded health risks to EJ communities as required by SB 1000, nor do they adequately address the specific requirements of SB 1000.
The City’s EJ policies should match the pollution burdens and unique needs of the
disadvantaged communities in its jurisdiction. According to CalEnviroScreen, there are 17 census tracts in the City of Santa Ana that are designated as disadvantaged communities. For example, the highest ranking census tract in the City ranks worse than 97 percent of the rest of the state for pollution burden and worse than 67 percent for population vulnerability. This
census tract is in the 100th percentile for toxic releases, 99th percentile for cleanups, 98th
percentile for groundwater threats, 95th percentile for traffic pollution, and 95th percentile for hazardous waste. Not only are these communities exposed to more pollution, they are also some of the most vulnerable communities of color in the state. For example, in the worst ranking census tract under the CalEnviroScreen, 76 percent of the community identifies as Latinx and 10 percent identifies as Asian American. They are also relatively low-income with approximately
60 percent of the population with incomes less than to two times the federal poverty level. These communities are undeniably disadvantaged and continue to suffer from environmental racism.
To its credit, the City has conducted a detailed assessment of health risks in Santa Ana in
the Environmental Justice Background and Analysis (“EJ Background Report”) for the General
Plan Update. For example, the EJ Background report identifies communities in east and south
October 16, 2020
Page 5
Santa Ana, including the neighborhoods of Delhi, Cedar Evergreen, Cornerstone Village, Lyon St., Madison Park, and Memorial Park, that suffer from pollution exposure in the form of
groundwater threats. Thus, the City’s EJ policies should include specific commitments to address the top pollution burdens identified in CalEnviroScreen and in the EJ Background report, including pollution related to toxic releases, groundwater threats, and hazardous waste.
Further, although not identified in the CalEnviroScreen nor in the EJ Background report,
our Office understands that disadvantaged communities in Santa Ana ar e significantly impacted
by lead contamination.6 We commend the City for including two implementation actions in its most recent draft General aimed at addressing lead contamination. However, we recommend the City consider strengthening these measures and add additional measures to address lead contamination. Action 2.4 in the Safety Element states that the City will “[w]ork with
community organizations and regional partners to understand the prevalence, sources, and implications of lead contamination across Santa Ana's soil,” and to “[c]ollaborate with environmental justice stakeholders in proposing solutions to remove hazardous lead soils in the city.” Similarly, Action 3.6 in the Land Use Element states that the City will “[c]oordinate with the County of Orange Health Care Agency to establish and maintain a program to eliminate lead-
based paint hazards, with priority given to residential buildings located within environmental
justice area boundaries.” Because these measures lack specific information about how community organizations and stakeholders will b e identified, the timeline for implementation of these programs, and benchmarks that the City has set to ensure implementation, it is unclear how the community can be involved in the programs and track the effectiveness of these measures. In
addition, the City should consider additional measures focused on addressing lead contamination. As an example, the City of Richmond adopted a series of policies to address toxic and hazardous waste in their Community Health and Wellness Element that could provide a model for Santa Ana to use to address lead contamination. In particular, Policy HL-40 requires the City to ensure that contaminated sites are adequately remediated before allowing new
development and to develop a response plan to address existing contaminated sites in the City.
This policy also requires the City to develop guidelines for convening an oversight committee with community representation to advise and oversee toxic site cleanup and remediation. Further, Action HW9.K requires the City adopt standards for the safe management of hazardous substances, including standards that require soil testing at development sites where
contamination is suspected. Finally, a particular resource available to the City in developing policies to address lead contamination is the impacted communities themselves. We recommend
6 S. Masri et al., Social and spatial distribution of soil lead concentrations in the City of Santa
Ana, California: Implications for health inequities, 743 SCI. OF THE TOTAL ENV’T (2020), available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140764 ; “Low-income and predominately
Latino neighborhoods in Santa Ana affected by toxic lead, report says,” L.A. Times (September
10, 2020), https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/story/2020-09-10/low-
income-and-predominately-latino-neighborhoods-in-santa-ana-affected-by-toxic-lead-report-says; “The hidden toxic threat in America’s backyards,” Think Progress (July 12, 2017), https://thinkprogress.org/the-hidden-toxic-threat-in-americas-backyards-aa580bbf61e1/
October 16, 2020
Page 6
that the City consult with disadvantaged communities in its jurisdiction to solicit ideas on how to address the pollution burdens related to lead contamination.7
Moreover, the General Plan contains several policies that attempt to address exposure to pollution as identified in the CalEnviroScreen, but many do not appear designed to affirmatively reduce the unique and compounded health risks and pollution burdens facing environmental justice communities as required by SB 1000. For instance, Policy CN-1.5 states that the City
should “[c]onsider potential impacts of stationary and non-stationary emission sources on
existing and proposed sensitive uses and opportunities to minimize health and safety risks” and “[a]pply special considerations and regulations on the siting of facilities that might significantly increase pollution near sensitive receptors within environmental justice area boundaries.” However, the Policy does not identify what types of regulations would be applied
to facilities and does not provide conditions or thresholds that would trigger when such regulations would be applied. There also appears to be nothing in the Policy requiring implementation of identified regulations to reduce pollution exposure, or defining the types of pollution and identifying the timeframe for implementing such regulations.
Further, several policies encourage the City to develop buffers between industrial uses
and sensitive receptors. This is a positive step, but it is of questionable efficacy because the policies do not go on to designate appropriate distances or standards for buffer zones. This concern is exemplified by Policy LU-3.8, which states that the City should “[a]void the development of sensitive receptors in close proximity to land uses that pose a hazard to human
health and safety, due to the quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics of the hazardous materials that they utilize, or the hazardous waste that they generate or emit.” Similarly, Policy LU-3.11 states that the City should “[p]romote landscaping and other buffers to separate existing sensitive uses from rail lines, heavy industrial facilities, and other emissions sources.” However, such policies do not identify what is considered “in close
proximity” or any standards for determining when a buffer should be established or even what an
appropriate buffer is. We recommend the City define these requirements more clearly and consider establishing affirmative requirements for separation between industrial uses and sensitive receptors in the City’s disadvantaged communities. CARB suggests that sensitive land uses be separated from industrial uses by at least 1,000 feet. Indeed, data from CARB
demonstrates that localized air pollution drops off by 80 percent about 1,000 feet away. Thus, the City should consider establishing at least 1,000 feet separation between industrial uses and sensitive receptors to adequately protect communities.
We also recommend the City consider additional enforceable policies that would
adequately reduce pollution burdens experienced by the identified environmental justice
communities. There are many examples of EJ policies from other local governments that the City can reference as it develops its own policies. OPR’s General Plan Guidelines includes a collection of example EJ policies from adopted general plans that address various environmental
7 See e.g., Orange County Environmental Justice Letter to City of Santa Ana (July 13, 2020).
October 16, 2020
Page 7
justice challenges.8 As an example, to address groundwater contamination, Marin County implemented several policies designed to improve water quality, including a groundwater
monitoring program for unincorporated areas (Action WR-2.0) and a requirement that all County
facilities use the least toxic pest control methods (Action WR-2.n). Moreover, in a recently adopted general plan not included in OPR’s General Plan Guidelines the City of Placentia adopted strong EJ policies that could also serve as a model for the City.9 Placentia’s Environmental Justice Element provides nuanced discussions of specific disadvantaged communities in Placentia’s jurisdiction, identifies strong and unique EJ policies to address the
needs of these communities, and commits to prioritizing environmental justice-related program.10
Other policies intended to address the requirements of SB 1000 can also be strengthened to reduce the health risks experienced by the identified environmental justice communities. For
example, Policy HE-3.2 states that the City will “[c]ontinue to support the creation of healthy
neighborhoods by addressing public safety, improving the built environment, and maintaining building code standards.” However, the policy does not identify how such public safety issues will be identified and addressed. Similarly, Policy CM-1.2 does not seem like it fully ensures that community members will be adequately engaged. Policy CM-1.2 states that the City will “[e]ngage residents and community facility users to provide input for facility improvements and
programming.” This would be a laudable course of action, but the policy does not provide a method for engagement or a timeline for engagement, making it unenforceable.
In sum, we encourage the City to strengthen the City’s EJ policies and supplement with
new policies designed to reduce the risks already identified in the EJ Background report. We
recommend the City review resources prepared by OPR and the California Air Resources Board.11 We also encourage the City to consider identifying in some way all EJ policies in the General Plan, for example by color coding or copying them into an appendix. We believe such identification is a best practice for ensuring the City’s EJ policies are clear and accessible.
B. Timeline for Developing and Adopting the General Plan Update and Community Engagement Process
The City of Santa Ana released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and draft
General Plan Update in August 2020. The City subsequently released a second draft of the General Plan Update on September 28, 2020. The staff anticipates the hearing process for the General Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) to begin in October 2020, with
8 “Model Environmental Justice Policies for General Plans,” Office of Planning and Research (June 2020), https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20200624-Model_EJ_Policies_for_General_Plans.pdf. 9 “General Plan Update,” Placentia, https://www.placentia.org/166/General-Plan-Update.
10 Id. at 10-8 to 10-15, 10-32 to 10-49. 11 “General Plan Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 8,”Office of Planning and Research (June 2020),
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20200706-GPG_Chapter_4_EJ.pdf; CARB, Options for Cities to Mitigate Heavy-duty Vehicle Idling (May 5, 2016), https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/enf/arb_options_cities_mitigate_idling.pdf.
October 16, 2020
Page 8
adoption in late 2020. We understand and support the City’s desire to continue the important work of updating its General Plan during the pandemic, but we are concerned that the City’s goal
to adopt the General Plan update by the end of this year may be unrealistic, especially when in-person meetings may not be feasible or safe. One of the basic purposes of SB 1000 is to provide environmental justice communities with a meaningful opportunity to engage in government decisions that affect them. The City’s accelerated timeline does not appear to allow for this meaningful community engagement process to occur.
The City began its General Plan update process in 2016. However, it is our understanding that the City’s strategy for engagement with environmental justice communities began three months prior to the release of the draft General Plan Update and DEIR. While we applaud the City’s various initiatives to reach out to environmental justice communities, we are
concerned that the City has not allowed enough time or opportunity for community engagement since releasing the draft General Plan Update. These concerns are more pronounced because all of the City’s outreach to environmental justice communities has occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. There are several ways that the City can improve its strategy for engaging with community members. The City could prepare an online survey to determine the top
environmental justice-related priorities in the identified environmental justice communities. It
City could also partner with organizers from local environmental justice groups to identify the most effective ways to communicate with residents of disadvantaged communities that may lack access to the internet. Finally, the City might form an environmental justice advisory committee to evaluate the needs of environmental justice communities in Santa Ana and draft the City’s EJ
policies.
We recognize that robust community engagement will be difficult for the City to conduct when social distancing is still the norm. Thus, we urge the City to not rush through its General Plan Update before the City has opportunities to fully engage with the historically disadvantaged
communities in its jurisdiction.
IV. Conclusion
Thank you for considering our suggestions for strong community engagement and
environmental j ustice policies in the City’s General Plan Update. To supplement the resources
described above and the information the City collects from community members, we encourage the City to visit the Attorney General’s SB 1000 website to identify tools and data sources that may be relevant to the City’s specific needs and circumstances.12 Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions throughout the remainder of your planning process. We look forward to serving as a resource for the City as it continues its General Plan Update.
12 “SB 1000 -- Environmental Justice in L ocal Land Use Planning,” State of California Department of Justice, https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000.)
October 16, 2020
Page 9
Sincerely,
RICA V. GARCIA
Deputy Attorney General
RICA V. GARCIA
For XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General