Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (Non-Combustion Gases)
Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) include black carbon (soot), methane (CH4), and fluorinated gases (F-gases, including hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs]). They are powerful climate forcers and harmful air pollutants that have an outsized impact on climate change 420 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, F4.9. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
223
in the near term, compared to longer-lived GHGs, such as CO2. According to the IPCC’s Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, in the near-term (i.e., 10- to 20-year time scale) the warming influence of all SLCPs combined will be at least as large as that of CO2.
421 The United Nations Environment Programme’s Global
Methane Assessment422 advises that achieving the least-cost pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C requires global methane emission reductions of 40–45 percent by 2030 alongside substantial simultaneous reductions of all climate forcers, including CO2 and SLCPs. Action to reduce these powerful emissions sources today will provide immediate benefits—both to human health locally and to reduce warming globally—as the effects of our policies to transition to low carbon energy systems and achieve carbon neutrality further unfold.
In 2017, the Board approved the comprehensive Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (Strategy).423 This strategy explained how the state would meet the following SB 1383-established targets:
• 40 percent reduction in total methane emissions424 (including a separate 40 percent reduction in dairy and livestock emissions)
• 40 percent reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gas emissions • 50 percent reduction in anthropogenic black carbon emissions • 50 percent reduction of organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2020, and 75 percent by 2025, including recovery of at least 20 percent of edible food for human consumption
The state is expected to achieve roughly half of the SB 1383 targeted emissions reductions by 2030 through strategies currently in place (See Figure 4-11). As directed by the Legislature under SB 1383, state agencies focused on voluntary, incentive-based mechanisms to reduce SLCP emissions in the early years of implementation to overcome technical and market barriers. Under this “carrot-then-stick” strategy, incentives are replaced with requirements as the solutions become increasingly feasible and costeffective. To meet legislated targets, more aggressive action is needed. 421 IPCC. 2021. Climate Change 2021:The Physical Science Basis. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/. 422 United Nations. Global Methane Assessment. Summary for Policymakers. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/35917/GMA_ES.pdf. 423 CARB. 2017. Short-Lived Climate Pollution Reduction Strategy. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/final SLCP strategy.pdf. 424 All SB 1383 emissions reductions are mandated to be realized by 2030 and are relative to 2013 levels.
225
Methane
Human sources of methane emissions are estimated to be responsible for up to 25 percent of current warming.428 Fortunately, methane’s short atmospheric lifetime of ~12 years429 means that emissions reductions will rapidly reduce concentrations in the atmosphere, slowing the pace of temperature rise in this decade. Further, a substantial portion of the targeted reductions can be achieved at low cost and will provide significant human health benefits. For example, the UN’s Global Methane Assessment (2021)430 found that over half of the available targeted measures have mitigation costs below $21/MTCO2e, and that each million metric tons of methane reduced would prevent 1,430 premature deaths annually due to ozone pollution caused by methane.
Following the Twenty Sixth Conference of Parties (COP26) (the United Nations Convention on Climate Change in 2021), over 110 nations have signed onto the Global Methane Pledge (Pledge)431 to limit methane emissions by 30 percent relative to 2020 levels. The Pledge covers countries that emit nearly half of all methane and make up 70 percent of global GDP. The UN’s Global Methane Assessment432 shows that humancaused methane emissions can be reduced by up to 45 percent this decade, which would avoid nearly 0.3°C of global warming by 2045.
As shown in Figure 4-12, the three largest sources of California’s methane emissions are the dairy and livestock industry, landfills, and oil and gas systems. 428 IPCC. 2021. Climate Change 2021:The Physical Science Basis. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/. 429 In contrast, the lifetime of CO2 is hundreds of years. The IPCC Third Assessment Report concluded that no single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes. According to IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the majority of an increase in CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere within decades to a few centuries, while the remaining 20 percent may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.
430 United Nations. 2021. Global Methane Assessment.
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/35917/GMA_ES.pdf. 431 Global Methane Pledge. https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/. 432 United Nations Environment Programme. 2021. Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessmentbenefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions?msclkid=00661370c85811eca078eb8fdbd603d1.
227
for reducing methane emissions from waste once it is placed in a landfill. Non-combustion methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are the third largest source of methane emissions in California. Almost three-quarters of the methane emissions from this sector come from leaks and venting from fossil gas transmission and distribution pipelines and equipment.
Hydrofluorocarbons
HFCs are synthetic GHGs that are powerful climate forcers. They are used mainly as refrigerants or heat transfer fluids in refrigeration, space conditioning, and heat pump equipment. Refrigerants are ubiquitous and are used everywhere from supermarkets, convenience stores, cold storage warehouses and wineries, to vending machines and residential and motor vehicle air-conditioners. Additionally, HFCs are also used as foamblowing agents, solvents, aerosol-propellants, and fire suppressants. While HFCs remain in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than CO2, the relative global warming potential (GWP) values of HFCs can be hundreds to thousands of times greater than CO2. The mix of HFCs currently in use in California, weighted by usage (tonnage), have an average 100-year GWP of 1,700.434 The average atmospheric lifetime of the mix of HFCs in use is 15 years.435 Given the short average lifetimes, rapid reductions in HFC emissions can translate into near-term reductions in climate change effects.
As the global temperatures increase, the demand for cooling and refrigerants will continue to grow, as will the use of electric heat pumps to replace conventional fossil gas heating options. Unless addressed, continued use of high-GWP HFCs will perpetuate a feedback loop, where the cooling agents themselves cause additional warming.
In 2016, representatives from 197 nations signed the Kigali Amendment, which amended the existing Montreal Protocol (to reduce ozone-depleting substance production and consumption) to include a global phasedown in the production and consumption of HFCs beginning in 2019.436 As of September 2022, 137 nations have either accepted, approved, or ratified the Kigali Amendment. On September 21, 2022, the U.S. Senate approved ratification of the Kigali Amendment, and it is expected that the United States 434 CARB. 2020. Initial Statement of Reasons: Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Amendments to the Prohibitions on Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons in Stationary Refrigeration, Chillers, AerosolsPropellants, and Foam End-Uses Regulation. October 20. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hfc2020/isor.pdf? ga=2.164659835.59246031
8.1646664679-912670513.1542398285. 435 Zhongming, Z., et al. 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer: A UNEP Synthesis Report.
436 United Nations Treaty Collection. Chapter XXVII, Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg no=XXVII2-f&chapter=27&clang= en. 228
will soon join the 137 nations that have already ratified.437 In the United States, Congress enacted the federal American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act in December 2020.438 The AIM Act authorizes the U.S. EPA to address HFCs in several ways, including a national HFC phasedown that nearly mirrors the schedule of the global phasedown under the Kigali amendment.439
Nearly 90 percent of HFC emissions in California come from their use as refrigerants in the commercial, industrial, residential, and transportation sectors. The timescales over which the HFC emissions occur vary, depending on the type of application. Thus, strategies to reduce HFC emissions must be tailored by equipment type. CARB has several measures in place to tackle HFC emissions from the various sources shown in Figure 4-13 below. This includes the Refrigerant Management Program440 that tracks and manages emissions from large commercial, industrial, and cold storage refrigeration facilities in the state. CARB has adopted regulations to reduce HFC emissions from consumer product aerosol propellants, semiconductor manufacturing, and small cans of automotive refrigerant.441
In 2018, California adopted HFC prohibitions via regulation and legislation for several sectors, including stationary refrigeration and foam end uses to backstop the partially vacated federal Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program.442 Most recently, in 2020, CARB adopted additional measures that place GWP limits on refrigerants used in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, which are the largest sources of HFC emissions, and are commonly used in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.
Additionally, CARB adopted a unique pilot program requiring the use of reclaimed refrigerant: the Refrigerant Recovery, Reclaim, and Reuse (R4) Program. The newly adopted HFC rules for the refrigeration and air conditioning sectors are the first of their kind in the nation.
437 U.S. Ratification of the Kigali Amendment - United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/u-s-ratification-of-the-kigali-amendment/. 438 42 U.S.C § 7675, Pub. L. 116-260, § 103. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 03/documents/aim act section 103 of h.r. 133 consolidated appropriations act 2021.pdf. 439 42 U.S.C § 7675, Pub. L. 116-260, § 103. 440 Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 17, §§ 95380, et seq. 441 Contained in various sections, commencing with Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 13, §§ 1900 et seq. 442 Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 17, §§ 95371, et seq.; California Cooling Act, Senate Bill 1013 (Lara, Stats. of 2018, Ch. 375, Health & Saf. Code § 39764).
232
a mix of dairy projects in which half are dairy digesters and half are alternative manure management projects, then it is estimated that at least 420 additional projects will be necessary. Additional emissions reductions beyond this level will likely be necessary to ensure that the overall state methane emissions reduction targets are met.
Despite the considerable methane emissions mitigation potential of enteric strategies like feed additives, little progress has been made, as few products with proven mitigation potential have become commercially available, and unlike manure management strategies, there is a lack of financial incentives for their adoption.
Market conditions favoring farm consolidation and improved production efficiencies have driven reductions in the California and U.S. dairy population over the past decade. 449 These efficiency gains have allowed California to maintain production levels despite the decreasing population. If demand for dairy and beef products remains steady or increases, continued improvements in production efficiency and adoption of effective manure management and enteric mitigation strategies will be important to support dairy and livestock methane emission reductions.
Strategies for Achieving Success
• Install state of the art anaerobic digesters that maximize air and water quality protection, maximize biomethane capture, and direct biomethane to sectors that are hard to decarbonize or as a feedstock for energy.
• Increase alternative manure management projects, including but not limited to conversion to “solid,” “dry,” or “scrape” manure management; installation of a compost-bedded pack barn; an increase in the time animals spend on pasture; and implementation of solid-liquid separation technology into flush manure management systems.
• Implement enteric fermentation strategies that are cost-effective, scientifically proven, safe for animal and human health, and acceptable to consumers, and that do not impact animal productivity. Provide financial incentives for these strategies as needed.
• Accelerate demand for dairy and livestock product substitutes such as plant-based or cell-cultured dairy and livestock products to achieve reductions in animal populations.
• In consideration of pace of deployment of methane mitigation strategies and the scale of complimentary incentives, consider regulation development to ensure that the 2030 target is achieved, assuming the conditions outlined in SB 1383 are met. 449 MacDonald, James M., Jonathan Law, and Roberto Mosheim. 2020. Consolidation in U.S. Dairy Farming. ERR-274. July. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/98901/err-274.pdf. 233
Landfill Methane
Achieving the 75 percent organic waste disposal reduction target450 of SB 1383, and maintaining that level of disposal in subsequent years, would bring annual landfill emissions in 2030 to just below the 2013 baseline. Annual methane emissions will be higher through 2030 than originally anticipated by the SLCP Strategy because the state did not achieve the anticipated reductions in organic waste disposal of 50 percent below 2014 levels by 2020. SB 1383 prohibited the organic disposal regulations from taking effect until 2022,451 and, as a result, emissions have continued to increase.
Due to the multidecadal time frame required to break down landfilled organic material, the emissions reductions from diverting organic material in one year are realized over the course of several decades. For example, one year of waste diversion in 2030 is expected to avoid 8 MMTCO2e of landfill emissions, cumulatively, over the lifetime of that waste’s decomposition.452 Near-term diversion efforts are critical to avoid locking in future landfill methane emissions.
CalRecycle’s 2020 report, Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Waste Reduction Goals,453 estimated that 8 million short tons of composting and anerobic digestion capacity will be needed to manage organic wastes, above the existing and new capacity expected to be available by 2025. The 2019 report, Co‐Digestion Capacity in California,454 from the State Water Resources Control Board estimated that at least 2.4 million tons of digester capacity is available at urban wastewater treatment plants if sufficient incentives or funding for collection, receiving, and processing operations are provided to enable utilization of this capacity. The CPUC approved a decision in February 2022 implementing the biomethane procurement program, which will require investor-owned utilities by 2025 to procure 17.6 billion cubic feet (BCF) of biomethane produced from organic wastes to support the landfill disposal reduction and SLCP target and reduce fossil gas reliance for 450 The target is from 2014 levels by 2025.
Public Resources Code, § 42652.5. CalRecycle approved the SLCP: Organic Waste Reductions regulations (https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/) in 2020 and began implementing them in January 2022. These regulations are designed to achieve the 2025 disposal reduction and edible food recovery targets. 452 The life cycle emissions reduction is based on anticipated diversion of 27 million short tons of organic waste from CalRecycle (2020) Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Waste Reduction Goals (https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1693). Under CalRecycle’s SLCP regulations, an alternative to landfill disposal must achieve a life cycle GHG reduction of 0.3 MTCO2e per short ton of waste diverted.
453 CalRecycle. 2020. Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Waste Reduction Goals. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1693. 454 State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Co‐Digestion Capacity in California. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/climate/docs/co digestion/final co digestion ca pacity in california report only.pdf.
234
residential and commercial customers.455 Additionally, the organic waste stream includes more than one million tons of edible food that could be recovered before it enters the waste stream through food rescue programs that combat hunger in communities throughout California.
While reducing organic waste disposal is the most effective means of achieving reductions in waste sector methane, strategies to reduce emissions from waste already in place in landfills also will play a role in achieving near-term reductions. As Figure 4-16 shows, the total degradable carbon (a measure of the amount of waste with potential to generate methane) that is accumulated from waste deposited in previous years is over 20 times greater than the amount added each year. This illustrates that even if we were able to entirely phase out landfilling of organic waste today, the existing waste in place at landfills would continue to generate methane for decades into the future.
Through a combination of improvements in operational practices, use of lower permeability covers, advanced landfill gas collection systems, and increased monitoring to detect and repair leaks, it is estimated that a direct emission reduction of 10 percent is achievable across the state’s landfills by 2030. Technologies to utilize landfill gas efficiently can contribute further emission reductions in the energy sector.
Figure 4-16: Degradable carbon deposited in landfills
Strategies for Achieving Success
• Maximize existing infrastructure and expand it to reduce landfill disposal, with strategies including composting, anaerobic digestion, co-digestion at wastewater treatment plants, and other non-combustion conversion technologies. 455 CPUC. 2022. Decision 22-02-025.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019 Degradable Carbon
Million Short Tons
Annual Degradable Carbon Deposited
Total Degradable Carbon Deposited
235
• Expand markets for products made from organic waste, including through recognition of the co-benefits of compost, biochar, and other products.456 • Recover edible food to combat food insecurity.
• Invest in the infrastructure needed to support growth in organic recycling capacity. • Utilize existing digesters at wastewater treatment facilities to rapidly expand food waste digestion capacity.
• Direct biomethane captured from landfills and organic waste digesters to sectors that are hard to decarbonize.
• Implement improved technologies and best management practices at composting and digestion operations.
• Reduce emissions from landfills through improvements in operational practices, lower permeability covers, advanced collection systems, and technologies to utilize landfill gas.
• Leverage advances in remote sensing capabilities to quickly pinpoint large methane sources and mitigate leaks, improve understanding of the factors that lead to better capture efficiency, and explore new technologies and practices that can reliably improve methane control at landfills.
Upstream Oil and Gas Methane Reduction
For oil and gas production, processing, and storage, California is currently on track to achieve a 41 percent reduction in methane emissions by 2025 relative to 2013. The additional reductions needed to meet the 2030 target may be achieved by implementing additional regulatory requirements to further reduce intentional venting of fossil gas from equipment. If necessary, additional reductions from transmission and distribution facilities may be achieved by requiring the utilities to increase inspection and repair activities or further reduce emissions from pipeline blowdowns by implementing methods such as using portable compressors, using plugs to isolate sections of pipelines, flaring vented gas, routing gas to fuel gas systems, and installing static seals on compressor rods.
Advances in methane detection technologies (e.g., satellites equipped to detect large methane sources) may also help to identify and mitigate methane emissions quickly across the oil and gas sector.
As California transitions away from fossil fuels, in-state oil and gas production will likely decline. This could result in an increase over time in the number of long-term idle and orphan wells (idle wells lacking a financially solvent, responsible owner) in the state. While California has regulations aimed at helping ensure operators manage their idle wells, 456 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, F4.4. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
236
there could likely be an increase in California’s orphan well population. Plugging all orphan wells, of which there are currently over 5,000, could take decades due to the limited resources California has for orphan well plugging. The benefits from plugging wells include methane emission reductions and job creation; employment gains from well plugging and site remediation activities could help temporarily offset job losses from the oil and gas industry. The California Council on Science and Technology’s 2018 report on orphan wells, Orphan Wells in California: An Initial Assessment of the State’s Potential Liabilities to Plug and Decommission Orphan Oil and Gas Wells,457 found that the potential cost to the state of plugging current orphan wells could be approximately $500 million, and the cost of plugging all active and idle wells could total over $9.1 billion.
As oil and gas production in California declines due to reduced demand for fossil fuels, additional funding will likely be needed to cover the costs of plugging wells that have no viable operator.
Strategies for Achieving Success
• Mitigate emissions from leaks by regular leak detection and repair (LDAR) surveys at all facilities.
• Replace high emitting equipment with zero emission alternatives wherever feasible.458
• Have CARB and CalGEM lead a Task Force to identify and address methane leaks from oil infrastructure near communities.
• Pursuant to SB 1137, develop leak detection and repair plans for facilities in health protection zones, implement emission detection system standards, and provide public access to emissions data.
• Minimize emissions from equipment that must vent fossil gas by design (e.g., fossil gas powered compressors).
• Install vapor collection systems on high emitting equipment. • Phase out venting and routine flaring of associated gas (gas produced as a by-product during oil production).
• Continuous ambient monitoring at fossil gas underground storage facilities to quickly detect large methane sources.
• Reduce pipeline and compressor blowdown emissions.
457 The California Council on Science and Technology. 2018. Orphan Wells in California: An Initial Assessment of the State’s Potential Liabilities to Plug and Decommission Orphan Oil and Gas Wells. https://ccst.us/wp-content/uploads/CCST-Orphan-Wells-in-California-An-Initial-Assessment.pdf. 458 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, P5. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
237
• Leverage advances in remote sensing capabilities to quickly pinpoint large methane sources and mitigate leaks.459
Hydrofluorocarbons
In California, all the HFC measures currently in place will help achieve more than 70 percent of the reductions needed to achieve the 2030 HFC goal and provide very significant emissions reductions by 2045 and beyond. However, new targeted measures will be needed to maintain the pace of reductions, as demand for technologies that currently predominantly use high-GWP refrigerants is anticipated to grow. Despite decarbonization efforts, high-GWP HFCs are expected to be among the last remaining persistent GHG emission sources, as shown in Figure 4-17.460 Figure 4-17: Hydrofluorocarbon emissions in 2022, 2030, and 2045 in the Scoping Plan Scenario
HFC emissions from new and existing sources should be addressed in tandem with building decarbonization efforts to maximize reductions.461 As buildings are electrified in an effort to decarbonize them, the use of heat pumps for space conditioning, water heaters, and clothes dryers is expected to increase significantly. Heat pumps, while using 459 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, CC17. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 460 Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. 2020. Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/e3 cn final report oct2020 0.pdf. 461 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, NF26. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
0 5
10 15
20 25
2022 2030 2045
GHG Emissions (MMT CO2e)
238
electricity, not fossil gas, currently rely predominantly on high-GWP refrigerants. Very lowor no-GWP technologies and solutions are either available or emerging for various heat pump technologies, and likely to develop further as international efforts to mitigate HFCs continue. However, most of these technologies are still nascent in the United States. In addition, some of the alternatives cannot be used until California building codes are updated, which is currently expected at the earliest in mid-2024 for some technologies based on the recently adopted provisions in AB 209462 requiring the California Building Standards Commission to adopt the latest safety standards for refrigerant containing equipment into California’s building codes. The current updates to the building codes will allow the use of many refrigerants with lower GWPs than HFCs currently in use. However, additional building code updates are needed to expand the choices of ultra-low-GWP alternatives, and that will need to happen in the next few years. The adoption of low-GWP refrigerants must occur in parallel with building decarbonization efforts; without such efforts, the vast GHG benefits of the latter will be partially offset, and the proportion of HFC emissions from buildings will continue to grow.
Leaks from existing air conditioning and refrigeration equipment are a major source of statewide and global HFC emissions. Once installed, refrigeration and air conditioning equipment can stay in place for decades, while leaking refrigerants into the atmosphere.
This makes it very important that new installed equipment use refrigerants with a GWP as low as possible. The refrigerants inside existing equipment are sometimes collectively referred to as the installed base or banks of potential HFC emissions. If released spontaneously, the existing HFC banks would equal 60 percent of all annual statewide GHG emissions in California, as illustrated in Figure 4-18.463 The sales prohibitions on newly produced refrigerants set forth in SB 1206 (2022) and the national/international HFC phasedown will help in reducing HFC emissions from existing equipment by restricting the supply of and increasing the value of existing high-GWP HFCs, thus enabling a circular economy. In the 2022–2023 state budget, CARB received $45 million in incentive funding for climate-friendly refrigerant technologies; this funding will be critical in shifting the market toward the best available refrigerant technologies in various sectors.
462 AB 209: Energy and climate change.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB209. 463 CARB. 2021. 2022 Scoping Plan Update – Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Workshop Presentation.
September 8. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 09/carb presentation sp slcp september2021 1.pdf.
239
Figure 4-18: Potential emissions from refrigerants in existing equipment Strategies for Achieving Success
• Expand the use of very low- or no-GWP technologies in all HFC end-use sectors, including emerging sectors, like heat pumps for applications other than space conditioning, to maximize the benefits of building decarbonization.464 • Convert large HFC emitters such as existing refrigeration systems to the lowest practical GWP technologies.465
• Prioritize small-scale and independent grocers serving priority populations in addressing existing “banks” of high-GWP refrigerants.466 • Improve recovery, reclamation, and reuse of refrigerants by limiting sales of new or virgin high-GWP refrigerants and requiring the use of reclaimed refrigerants where appropriate.467
• Assist low-income and disadvantaged communities in obtaining low-GWP space conditioning units to protect vulnerable communities from heat stress and wildfire smoke.468
464 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, NF26. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 465 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, NF22. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 466 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, JT5 and JT6. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 467 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, JT1. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 468 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, NF28, JT5, and JT6. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
0 100
200
300
400
500
2019 Annual HFC
Emissions
Installed Base
("Banks") of HFC
Potential Emissions
2019 Annual GHG
Emissions (all sources)
GHG Emissions (MMT CO2e)
240
• Accelerate technology transitions in California and the U.S. overall by collaborating with international partners committed to taking action on HFCs under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol; this includes addressing barriers to adoption of very low- or no-GWP refrigerant technologies such as high upfront costs, shortage of trained technicians, and lag in updating safety standards and building codes.
Anthropogenic Black Carbon
Significant progress has been made since 2013 to reduce anthropogenic black carbon emissions, primarily from decreased combustion of distillate fuels in the agricultural sector, as well as improvements to provide cleaner, on-road combustion technologies.
Under current strategies, anthropogenic black carbon from transportation is expected to be reduced by over 60 percent in 2030. Continued reductions in combustion emissions across all sectors from both the state’s climate and air quality programs will also help reduce anthropogenic black carbon emissions going forward.
Strategies for Achieving Success
• Reduce fuel combustion commensurate with state’s climate and air quality programs, particularly from reductions in transportation emissions and agricultural equipment emissions.469
• Invest in residential woodsmoke reduction.
In addition to SLCP emissions, some remaining non-combustion emissions are anticipated to persist in the coming decades, as shown in Figure 4-19. These include CO2 from industrial processes such as cement manufacturing, oil and gas extraction, and geothermal electric power; N2O from wastewater treatment, fertilizers, and livestock manure applied to agricultural soils; and other industrial, non-HFC GHG emissions. 469 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, F1A and Appendix A (Table Summary of Direct Emission Reduction Strategies). “Emissions reductions from energy consumed by California’s agricultural sector, including post-harvest processing, use of tractors and other farm equipment, and water import and irrigation.” finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
242
multi-benefit and mitigation measures can also support tribal and local traditional lifeways.
Unhealthy lands have the opposite effect—they release more GHGs than they store and are more vulnerable to future climate change impacts.
Climate change impacts have become more apparent in recent years and are having significant effects on communities throughout the state. One of these impacts is the much more frequent occurrence of unusually large, high-severity wildfires, which are being driven by climate change and by a recent history of fire-exclusion and land management practices that have resulted in forests with high levels of biomass. These recent large and high-severity wildfires have resulted in a significant amount of burned acreage and emissions in California (Figure 4-20).471
Figure 4-20: Acreage of burned wildland vegetation area These wildfires deviate from the lower-severity fires that previously occurred at frequent intervals, around which California’s forests evolved. As climate change accelerates, these large, uncharacteristic wildfires are likely to become more common and impact more of our landscapes. Climate change is also expected to have other significant effects on our lands, including more extreme droughts, floods, extreme heat, and the spread of invasive aquatic and terrestrial species, pests, diseases, and parasites. These impacts can lead 471 CARB. 2022. Wildfire Emission Estimates for 2021.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/Wildfire%20Emission%20Estimates%202000 -2021.pdf.
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 3.5
4 4.5
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021 Burn Area (Million Acres)
243
to negative feedback loops on human and ecological health; for example, increasing the spread of invasive species can lead to increases in pesticide use, if not managed through regulation or mitigation, which can pose risks to human health and the environment.
California’s approach to climate action in the NWL sector is not solely focused on maximizing carbon stocks but instead on supporting carbon management that holistically fosters ecosystem health, resilience, provision of overall climate function, and other co-benefits.
Natural systems operate on a longer timescale than the energy and industrial sectors, and benefits from climate action on our lands can take decades to accrue. Scaling climate smart land management in California requires taking action now and playing the “long game” by establishing and maintaining consistent, patient approaches and programs.
Landscapes
For the first time, this Scoping Plan includes modeling for the NWL sector. The focus of the initial modeling is limited to seven land types that align with the those in the NWL Climate Smart Strategy.472 Work will continue to incorporate more landscapes and management practices into the modeling over time. The initial landscapes included in the modeling for this Scoping Plan are:
• Forests
• Shrublands and Chapparal
• Grasslands
• Croplands
• Wetlands
• Developed Lands
• Sparsely Vegetated Lands
Each of these land types are a key component to the state’s approach to increasing climate action in the NWL sector, as called for in Executive Order N-82-20 and AB 1757.
473 The Executive Order directs CARB to update the target for this sector in support of carbon neutrality by 2045 as part of this Scoping Plan, and to take into consideration the NWL Climate Smart Strategy. AB 1757 calls for the development of an 472 CNRA. 2022. Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy. Appendix B. https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/CNRA-Website/Files/Initiatives/Expanding-Nature-BasedSolutions/Appendix-B 04132022 ada.pdf. 473 AB 1757 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Climate Goal: Natural and Working Lands. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill id=202120220AB1757. 244
ambitious range of targets for the NWL sector to be integrated into the Scoping Plan and other state policies. It directs CARB and CNRA to work closely together to update the NWL Climate Smart Strategy, and establish an expert advisory committee to inform and advise on NWL modeling, targets, and implementation strategies.474 Additionally, in 2021, the governor signed SB 27475 (Skinner, Chapter 237, Statutes of 2021) into law. It directed CARB to establish CO2 removal targets for 2030 and beyond and take into consideration the NWL Climate Smart Strategy. The governor’s Executive Order, AB 1757, and SB 27 go beyond previous direction from the Legislature and past administrations. These directives emphasize the importance of quantifying land-based carbon both statewide,476 and in programs and policies,477 setting targets478 for NWL to support the state’s climate objectives, and advancing land management actions479 that support the health and resiliency of these lands.
Blue carbon (also known as carbon captured and held in coastal vegetation and soils, such as seagrasses, seaweeds, and wetlands)—is also important to consider as we look at long-term climate goals. While this landscape is not currently covered by IPCC inventory guidelines or included in California’s NWL Inventory, the United States was the first nation to include blue carbon in its national GHG emissions inventory. California’s Ocean Protection Council and San Francisco Estuary Institute are partnering to create a new coastal wetlands, beaches, and watersheds inventory. CARB staff will utilize information from this effort and assess other available data to evaluate how this landscape may be integrated into our efforts in the future as more data become available.480
474 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N20. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 475 SB 27 Carbon sequestration: state goals: natural and working lands: registry of projects. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill id=202120220SB27. 476 SB 859 Public resources: greenhouse gas emissions and biomass (SB 859, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 368, Statutes of 2016).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=201520160SB859. 477 SB 1386. Resource conservation: working and natural lands. (SB 1386, Chapter 545, Statutes of 2016). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=201520160SB1386. 478 CARB. 2017. 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. Board Resolution 17-46. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/res/2017/res17-46.pdf. 479 Executive Department. State of California. EO B-52-18. https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/5.10.18-Forest-EO.pdf. 480 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N2. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
245
Trends of Carbon on Landscapes
CARB currently tracks the carbon stock changes though the Inventory of Ecosystem Carbon in California’s Lands481 (NWL Inventory), which is summarized in Chapter 1. The NWL Inventory is a key tool for tracking changes in carbon stocks across the state, and it will serve as the inventory of record for this sector, tracking sector-wide progress toward the target. The NWL Inventory provides a retrospective snapshot of the status of California’s lands, and captures the gains or losses of carbon stocks that occur over time.
In addition to tracking carbon stock changes, the NWL Inventory is an important tool for understanding the impacts of our efforts to increase climate action in this sector (such as those identified in this Scoping Plan and the NWL Climate Smart Strategy) on NWL carbon stocks. The inventory is also used as the foundation for Scoping Plan scenario modeling and target setting.
CARB’s inventory shows that carbon stocks decreased in NWL lands from 2001 to 2011, releasing more carbon than they were storing, and then increased slightly from 2012 to 2014.482 These trends highlight the interannual and interdecadal variability of lands and their ability to be both a source and a sink of carbon, and the importance of looking at NWL data and trends over multiyear and multidecadal time periods, as opposed to looking only at annual changes. This movement is part of the Earth’s carbon cycle, where carbon transfers between the land, ocean, and atmosphere. As part of the carbon cycle, over decades or centuries, fire and plant respiration and decomposition move carbon from the land to the atmosphere, while plant growth and other processes move carbon from the atmosphere to the land. Emissions from fossil-fuel combustion are contributing to putting this cycle out of balance.
Additionally, some historic land management practices that have resulted in the loss of carbon from the soil are also contributing to the atmospheric rise of CO2 while simultaneously exacerbating the imbalance of the water cycle, which is influenced by and linked to the carbon cycle. These emissions are also contributing to a feedback loop for California’s lands: as CO2 emissions accumulate in the atmosphere—and California experiences more warming, extreme heat events, and droughts—the risk and intensity of carbon losses also increases, which in turn transfers more carbon from the land to the atmosphere. And because forests and shrublands comprise approximately 85 percent of the carbon stocks in California, management strategies and disturbances in forest and 481 CARB. An Inventory of Ecosystem Carbon in California’s Natural & Working Lands. 2018 Edition. nwl inventory.pdf (ca.gov). Accessed 3/2/2022. 482 These trends are consistent estimates in the most recent AB 1504 reporting period. 246
shrubland carbon play an important role in determining whether California’s lands are providing either net carbon sequestration or net emissions on an annual basis.
The gains and losses of carbon on our lands will fluctuate in the future; what is important is to restore carbon in places where it has been lost and reduce large carbon losses on our NWL through active, attentive, and adaptive management. For additional details on the nexus between NWL and GHGs, see pages 5–6 of the NWL Climate Smart Strategy.
Goals and Accelerating Nature-Based Solutions
The state’s climate mitigation targets are traditionally identified by individual years, (i.e., tons of GHG emissions in 2020 or 2030). However, because NWL processes fluctuate year to year and because it can sometimes take decades for climate action to fully impact carbon in NWL, it is important to consider the statewide, long-term trends of carbon stock change when identifying how this sector contributes to California’s pathway to achieving carbon neutrality. Tracking carbon stock change over a multi-decadal period is the best way to assess the full direct impact climate action has on carbon storage. Such an approach filters out fluctuations from year-to-year weather variations and multi-year natural climate cycles, such as El Niño patterns.
Current data sources and methods allow us to track only certain carbon stocks that exist on NWL. For target tracking to be successful, each carbon pool must be inventoried using a methodology that can detect changes due to management and climate change. Certain carbon pools lack the scientific data and methodologies necessary for target-setting and tracking. For example, soils in forests, shrublands, and grasslands are not included in the Scoping Plan carbon stock target because, currently, there is no way to track statewide soil carbon through time in a way that would capture the effects of increased climate action and climate change.
When considering how NWL contribute to the state’s goal of carbon neutrality, all lands’ carbon stock gains and losses must be considered, and the Scoping Plan target is set in these terms. It is not sufficient to aggregate climate benefits only within areas where projects, management, or climate action occur. Much of the state does not receive active or quantifiable management, but these areas still contribute to the state’s overall carbon stock change and GHG emissions. To incorporate the entire carbon balance toward true carbon neutrality, the Scoping Plan target is set in terms of carbon stock change across the entire state. This incorporates all lands that both receive and do not receive active management, and includes the end result of all sequestration, emissions, and other changes to carbon on the landscape.
However, carbon stock change is not equivalent to emissions. Currently, the data and emission quantification science is not sufficient to enable inventories to comprehensively track all NWL emissions in a way that would enable us to set an NWL target in terms of
248
Additional climate smart management practices and additional landscapes, such as those included in the Climate Smart Strategy and discussed below in Additional Management Strategies, have the potential to increase carbon stocks and reduce GHG emissions from NWL beyond the levels modeled for this Scoping Plan.
The purpose of the NWL target and the above estimated outcomes is to provide a numerical guide that can support the state’s efforts to accelerate both near-term and longterm climate action on California’s lands, prioritizing durable solutions that deliver multiple outcomes. Taking these actions over the coming decades will reduce the potential carbon losses from NWL, reduce GHG emissions from some landscape types (such as croplands and Delta wetlands), and support sequestration of GHGs from NWL between 2025 and 2045. These actions will also deliver significant benefits to Californians beyond advancing our climate goals, such as reducing wildfire emissions and their associated health impacts, increasing habitat for biodiversity, reducing urban heat island effects, reducing harmful pesticide exposure, expanding economic opportunities, and others. Additional information on several economic and health outcomes from the Scoping Plan Scenario is included in Chapters 2 and 3.
Statewide planning and target setting for the NWL sector will only create meaningful change if followed by effective on-the-ground implementation. State government cannot accomplish this implementation alone. Effective large scale climate action is dependent on partnerships among tribal, federal, state, regional, and local partners, and across governmental, private, nonprofit, and commercial sectors. The NWL sector of the Scoping Plan sets a carbon target with climate action recommendations that can be used to achieve the quantified carbon, health, and economic outcomes. Implementation of these actions must be led by local or regional partnerships that plan and execute projects appropriate to the specific conditions. The technical expertise and local knowledge of land managers and stewards in all sectors must be elevated to ensure relevant, efficient, and effective climate action.
Implementation of climate action should contribute to state targets, maximize local benefits, and alleviate environmental injustices and other social inequities. On-the-ground action is largely executed and managed by local and regional actors, but state government agencies must support communities across the state in implementing naturebased climate solutions that address statewide objectives, such as the Scoping Plan carbon target. This includes providing resources and developing frameworks, while greatly increasing capacity and technical assistance to assist and empower local partners. Examples of how this can be done are the Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program within the forestry sector, the UC Cooperative Extension in the agricultural and forestry sectors—as well as the work of the state’s 10 regional Conservancies. These programs provide strong examples to emulate as they facilitate statewide coordination, and information and resource transfer from the state to the regional and local levels. The Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program provides funding for local and regional groups 249
to build their organizational capacity to plan and implement wildfire and forest management projects that are informed by their own local expertise. The UC Cooperative Extension is an example of how the state provides technical assistance to local landowners and community organizations, helping them apply the latest science-based management strategies to their lands. California’s regional Conservancies play a pivotal role in implementing regional conservation, restoration, and land management efforts through activities such as grant funding, science generation, and planning assistance.
The state also has identified the need to incorporate and elevate traditional indigenous knowledge into climate action on the regional and local scales. Accomplishing this requires close partnerships with tribes for mutual knowledge and resource sharing, while protecting culturally sensitive knowledge and resources. As Tribes are sovereign nations with specialized cultural knowledge and experience in managing lands, climate action on these lands that contribute to the State of California’s climate targets can only be accomplished with the full participation and under the leadership of the Tribes that govern those lands.
Strategies for Achieving Success: Crosscutting Items for all NWL • Implement AB 1757 and SB 27.
• Implement the Climate Smart Strategy.
• Accelerate the pace and scale of climate smart action, consistent with the management levels identified above, as part of a collective effort between federal, state, private, nonprofit, and individual land managers. • Prioritize and practice equity, including through meaningful community engagement and prioritizing implementation of nature-based solutions that benefit the communities most vulnerable to climate change.483
• Advance multi-benefit, collaborative, landscape-level approaches that engage communities and landowners, and incorporate adaptive managements. • Consult and partner with California Native American tribes to increase co-management and tribal management authority; restore, protect, and enhance natural cultural resources, traditional foods, and cultural landscapes; respect tribal sovereignty; and support tribes’ implementation of tribal expertise and Traditional Ecological Knowledge and cultural easements.484
483 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N8. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 484 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N1, N6, N16, N17, N18. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
250
• Leverage existing innovative financial and market mechanisms, and explore new ones, between the public, private, and philanthropic sectors to secure funding of climate smart land management.
• In partnership with communities, tribes, and the private sector, expand and develop new infrastructure for manufacturing and processing of climate smart agricultural and biomass products.
• Leverage and support technical assistance providers: such as the UC Cooperative Extension and California’s 98 Resource Conservation Districts, that have track records of providing technical assistance to local landowners and implementing agriculture, forestry, natural resource management, and restoration projects across the state.
• Establish and expand mechanisms that ensure NWL are protected from land conversion and parcelization (e.g., conservation easements or Williamson Act), in line with the strategies outlined in CNRA’s Pathways to 30x30 California.485,486 Pair land conservation projects with management plans that increase carbon sequestration, where feasible.
• Increase opportunities for private and philanthropic investments in nature-based climate solutions, utilizing existing voluntary and compliance carbon markets, existing state and local programs, and the California Carbon Sequestration and Climate Resiliency Project Registry established pursuant to SB 27. • Expand monitoring and tracking of management actions and outcomes consistent with the tracking and monitoring recommendations of the Climate Smart Strategy.
Forests, Shrublands, and Chaparral
At roughly 29 million acres, forests cover 27 percent of California. Shrublands and chaparral cover 31 percent of the state; roughly 33 million acres. Both types are distinct, with their own ecological dynamics and management strategies, and are modeled within a single model that is calibrated to treat them uniquely.
Together, forests, shrublands, and chaparral support a high biodiversity of plants and animals, in addition to high levels of carbon stocks. They provide important air and water quality benefits to all Californians, as well as recreational opportunities and, for forests, harvested wood products for the state. These landscapes are fire-adapted, and historical tribal management of these lands has fostered ecosystem health and resilience. Over the past century, these lands have been impacted severely by fire exclusion, including 485 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N5, N26, N27. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 486 CNRA. 2022. Pathways to 30x30 California. https://www.californianature.ca.gov/pages/30x30.
252
useful purpose such as harvested wood products, bioenergy, and engineered carbon removal. Managing for a diverse and resilient forest landscape also can help forests recover more quickly so that when climate change and wildfire impacts occur, forests will be less affected and can continue to thrive and sequester carbon. Additional details on the climate benefit potential of forests and shrublands/chapparal can be found in Section 2 of the NWL Climate Smart Strategy.
Strategies for Achieving Success
• Accelerate the pace and scale of climate smart forest management to at least
2.3 million acres annually by 2025, in line with the climate smart management strategies identified in this Scoping Plan, the NWL Climate Smart Strategy, and the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan.489
• Establish and expand mechanisms that ensure forests, shrublands, and grasslands are protected from land conversion and that support ongoing, rather than one-time, management actions.
• In collaboration with state and local agencies, accelerate the deployment of longterm carbon storage from waste woody biomass residues resulting from climate smart management, including storage in durable wood products, underground reservoirs, soil amendments, and other mediums.
• Expand infrastructure to facilitate processing of biomass resulting from climate smart management.
• Expand permit streamlining in collaboration with state and local agencies to accelerate implementation of climate smart forest management while protecting natural resources.
Grasslands
Grasslands cover 9 percent of California, roughly 10 million acres, and are found throughout the state in various landscapes, with concentrations in the foothills surrounding the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. In addition to carbon storage (primarily in the soil), grasslands provide open space, wild habitat, grazing land, and important water filtration and recharge benefits. The protection of grasslands provides an opportunity to reduce sprawl and complement VMT reduction strategies. As grasslands are susceptible to invasive species, climate smart strategies can increase grassland 489 Forest Management Task Force. 2021. California’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan:
Recommendations of the Governor’s Forest Management Task Force. https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/ps4p2vck/californiawildfireandforestresilienceactionplan.pdf.
254
• Increase adoption of compost production on farms and application of compost in appropriate grassland settings for improved vegetation and carbon storage, and to deliver waste diversion goals through nature-based solutions.
Croplands
Croplands cover 9 percent of the state, roughly 9.5 million acres. This land is some of the most productive agricultural land in the world, and enables California to be a global leader in agriculture. Aside from developed lands, croplands are the most intensively managed landscapes in the state, and are closely tied to society through the food they produce and the constant, direct contact that people have with croplands through the course of management. In addition to food security, croplands provide considerable carbon storage in the soil and, in perennial croplands, in aboveground biomass. Climate smart practices can improve public health; for example, by reducing synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use.
They also help to maintain or increase the climate resilience of cropland productivity through improved soil conditions and increased pollinator habitat.
There is also significant potential to transform this sector to increase soil carbon storage, reduce GHG emissions (Figure 4-23), and reduce pesticide exposure and health impacts.
Moving to an agricultural system that improves soil health and water holding capacity reduces over-application of nitrogen, reduces the use of pesticides and fumigants, and increases biodiversity and pollinator habitat, supporting California’s pathway to carbon neutrality while simultaneously improving the lives of those who live and work in the agricultural community. Croplands are intricately tied to people, communities, and their health, and through climate smart practices and cropland conservation, these lands have the potential to contribute more to society than just food.490 The implementation of climate smart agricultural practices and diversified organic agriculture can help California achieve social and environmental benefits, like improving water use efficiency, increasing pollinator habitat, and reducing synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use.491 Additional details on the climate benefit potential of croplands can be found in Section 2 of the NWL Climate Smart Strategy.
490 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations In-part (N3, N4, N22), N5, N21. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 491 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N11. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
256
• Utilize the recommendations included in CDFA’s Farmer and Rancher-Led Climate Change Solutions493 report to accelerate deployment of healthy soils practices, organic farming, and climate smart agriculture practices. • Establish or expand financial mechanisms that support ongoing deployment of healthy soils practices and organic agriculture.494
• Support strategies that achieve co-benefits of safer, more sustainable pest management practices and the health and preservation of ecosystems, such as implementing the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR’s) Sustainable Pest Management Work Group recommendations.495 • Conduct research on the intersection of pesticides, soil health, GHGs, and pest resiliency via a multi-agency effort with DPR, CDFA, and CARB.496 • Conduct outreach and education to develop and facilitate the increased adoption of safer, more sustainable pest management practices and tools; reduce the use of harmful pesticides; promote healthy soils; improve water and air quality; and reduce public health impacts.
• In collaboration with state and local agencies, accelerate the deployment of alternatives to agricultural burning that increase long-term carbon storage from waste agricultural biomass, including storage in durable wood products, underground reservoirs, soil amendments, and other mediums. • Work across state agencies to reduce regulatory and permitting barriers around some healthy soils practices (e.g., composting), where appropriate. • Utilize innovative agriculture energy use and carbon monitoring and planning tools to reduce on-farm GHG emissions from energy and fertilizer application or to increase carbon storage, as well as to promote on-farm energy production opportunities.
493 California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2021. Farmer and Rancher Led Climate Change Solutions. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/climate/docs/cdfa farmer and rancherled climate solutions meetings summary.pdf. 494 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N5, N7. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 495 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations N3, N4, N5, N7, N22. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 496 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N11. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
258
• Identify and prioritize wetland restoration efforts around climate vulnerable communities.
• Leverage other funding and institutions to support wetland restoration projects, including land trusts, local funding (e.g., San Francisco Measure AA), federal funding, and private and philanthropic funding to support wetlands restoration projects.
• Work across state agencies to reduce regulatory and permitting barriers around wetland restoration projects, where appropriate.
Developed Lands
Developed lands cover 6 percent of the state (roughly 6.8 million acres) and include urban, suburban, and rural areas, as well as transportation and supporting infrastructure throughout California. This area encapsulates the land on which the vast majority of Californians reside and call home. The vegetation within cities and communities, and along infrastructure, are all part of developed lands. This vegetation provides numerous benefits to surrounding areas, including carbon storage, air and water filtration, reduced urban heat island effect, and access to nature, aesthetics, and mental health, among others. These areas are susceptible to climate change as well, and climate smart strategies to protect and expand the urban forests, landscaping, green spaces, parks, and associated vegetation can increase their climate resilience and the benefits Californians derive from them. These strategies also have a significant opportunity to benefit disadvantaged communities, who may not have equitable access to these practices or the benefits they provide. Additional details on the climate and equity benefit potential of developed lands can be found in Section 2 and the Introduction of the NWL Climate Smart Strategy.
Urban forests have a significant potential to sequester carbon (Figure 4-25). They are vastly different from wildland forests, as they require investments to maintain and irrigate.
This results in the need for a significant increase in investment to increase urban forest carbon. As urban forests become denser and management difficulty increases, the carbon stock returns on investment diminish, making it expensive to maximize carbon in urban forests. Water availability and irrigation efficiency are also an important consideration for increasing urban forest cover. As water becomes scarcer, the prioritization of irrigating trees over lawns or gardens may be required to achieve increases in urban forest carbon.
261
protected from land conversion, prioritizing those areas most vulnerable to climate change and loss.
Additional Management Strategies
Additional nature-based climate solutions beyond those management strategies modeled for this Scoping Plan are available for implementation, but either cannot currently be modeled and/or affect carbon and the landscape in ways that cannot currently be tracked.
Nevertheless, it is important to take action even where these technical gaps exist. Some of these actions, such as cultural burning and indigenous farming practices, have been used on large scales for decades or even centuries, while others are relatively new concepts. The state nevertheless recommends implementing the additional solutions listed here to achieve potential additional climate benefits, as well as other co-benefits.
These additional solutions were drawn from the NWL Climate Smart Strategy and stakeholder, tribal government, and interagency feedback.499 Considerations
Although these practices are recommended, because of the lack of in-depth modeling and analysis available, several considerations must be addressed when implementing them. These considerations also apply to the management strategies included in the Scoping Plan Scenario.
• Future climate change impacts are uncertain: The negative impact that climate change can have on the ability of these practices to maintain expected climate benefits is uncertain and may significantly change in the future. Climate change is expected to further diminish the already constricting growing conditions in California, with increasing droughts, more extreme weather events, and expanding disturbances from fire, insects, and disease. It is estimated that suitable habitat for many native plant and animal species could shift, creating novel ecosystems without historical precedent. Close monitoring of all practices, including no management, across our NWL will be critical to understand if and how future climate change affects outcomes and how to adapt management to meet the needs of the system under climate change.500
499 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N24. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 500 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N15. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
262
• Local conditions: Not every practice is applicable, feasible, or even desirable in every location across California. Implementation of these practices should account for local conditions and needs that may affect the appropriateness of that practice. • Long-term carbon storage: The ability to sequester additional carbon into NWL is only beneficial to the climate if that carbon stays out of the atmosphere. Many of the additional practices listed here may require continual incentives or interventions to ensure permanence of carbon storage in the soil and biomass. For example, in croplands, it is difficult to estimate how much of the carbon stored by no-tillage can be released by a single subsequent tillage, but a return to conventional tillage would usually be expected to erase most gains.501,502 • Scaling actions: There are uncertainties on how these practices may impact both the environment and communities when significantly expanded. For this reason, it is best to take a cautious and measured approach to ramping up actions to a larger scale.
• Infrastructure and operational needs: Scaling up the implementation of some of these practices demands transformational change in the supporting infrastructure and operational frameworks. For example, increasing forest management to the degree included in the Scoping Plan Scenario will require significant changes to wood-processing infrastructure, workforce capacity, permitting processes, technical assistance, and other operational constraints. The increased application of compost to croplands, and potentially to rangelands, will require a significant increase in organic waste and dairy manure collection to increase compost supply, in line with SB 1383. This will also require additional compost production facilities as well as compost/organic waste transportation and application methods. • Co-benefits: Many co-benefits from these practices exist beyond the climate benefits. These co-benefits include improved public and worker health; improved microbial, insect, and wildlife habitat; enhanced biodiversity; greater labor demand in the nature-based economy; and improved climate resilience. • Labor and Economics: Many of these practices require additional labor, and an evaluation of how many more jobs are needed to carry out many of these practices 501 Muñoz-Romero, V., R. J. Lopez-Bellido, P. Fernandez-Garcia, R. Redondo, S. Murillo, and L. LopezBellido. 2017. “Effects of tillage, crop rotation and N application rate on labile and recalcitrant soil carbon in a Mediterranean Vertisol.” Soil Tillage Res. 169, 118–123. 502 Mitchell, J. P., A. Shrestha, W. R. Horwath, R. J. Southard, N. Madden, J. Veenstra, and D. S. Munk. 2015. “Tillage and cover cropping affect crop yields and soil carbon in the San Joaquin Valley.” California.
Agron. J. 107, 588–596.
263
is currently unknown. There will also be the need to explore the costs and economic benefits of implementing these additional practices. • Retreatments: All of these practices have limits on how long they can enhance carbon sequestration. Many of these practices need to be periodically repeated, followed by complementary practices, or maintained through time. This increases costs and requires diligence and long-term stewardship.
Additional NWL Actions and Strategies
Below is a set of additional actions that should be taken on California’s natural and working lands. Again, these practices were not modeled for this Scoping Plan, and all of the considerations listed above should be taken into account before implementing the following actions.
• Conservation of all NWL types (in line with the NWL Climate Smart Strategy and CNRA’s Pathways to 30x30 California) is critical to ensuring continued carbon sequestration and provision of co-benefits from these lands for all Californians.503 • Reforestation following disturbance, using appropriate species, is an impactful practice that can help prevent conversion away from forestland and establish new trees to sequester carbon. The number of acres that may need reforestation following high severity wildfires is estimated to continue to increase into the future. • Restoration of shrublands, chaparral, riparian zones, and oak woodlands across California includes a variety of practices to alter their structure and return endemic species to the areas. These unique habitats provide multiple co-benefits to the state, such as clean water, reduced wildfire risk, and biodiverse habitats for flora and fauna.
• Conservation and restoration of wetlands, beyond the Delta wetlands included in the NWL modeling, can protect these unique habitats and the climate benefits they provide. These wetland types can include but are not limited to coastal wetlands, mountain meadows, vernal pool complexes, alkali sinks and meadows, and floodplains.
• Conservation and restoration of seagrasses and seaweeds provide a number of benefits, including carbon storage and sequestration, habitat provision for many culturally and commercially important species of fishes and invertebrates, shoreline protection, and tourism opportunities.504
503 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N26, N27. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov). 504 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations, N2. finalejacrecs.pdf (arb.ca.gov).
264
• Prescribed herbivory utilizes various livestock to consume vegetation to reduce fuel loads across an area. This fuel management practice can be used in forests, grasslands, and shrublands as an effective alternative to herbicide use, and should be considered wherever local conditions allow.
• Urban and community greening efforts such as green schoolyards, urban farms, rain gardens, community gardens, community composting, and many more provide numerous health benefits to communities.
• Additional Healthy Soils Program practices on annual croplands such as conservation cover and crop rotation, biomass planting for borders, wind barriers, riparian areas, and improved nutrient management can improve soil health, water retention, and increase carbon stocks.
• Healthy Soils Program practices on perennial croplands and rangelands, such as compost application and alley cropping/cover cropping to improve soil health, water retention, erosion control, and biomass growth.505 • Stacking of these Healthy Soils Program practices, where appropriate, in perennial and annual systems, can synergistically improve soil health and provide multiple benefits.
• Mulching adds high carbon materials to croplands or fallowed lands to reduce competing vegetation and retain moisture. This practice can support other benefits such as reduced water use and reduced synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use, as well as provide a use for suitable forest and agricultural waste biomass. • Reductions in the use of synthetic fertilizers in cropland management, generally supported by the implementation of new management tools or technologies, can lead to reductions in GHG emissions from the production and application of fertilizers. This benefit is in addition to the co-benefits of reduced chemical runoff into waterways and reduced exposure of human populations to their harmful effects.
505 Various types of organic amendments are being researched for application to particular landscape types. For example, compost application to rangelands is a relatively new practice that has been shown to improve soil health and increase carbon sequestration in the short term, though the science on the long-term impacts of this practice is still developing and the supply of available compost may be limiting. 265
Chapter 5: Challenge Accepted
This chapter provides an overview of the next steps and partnerships that will be needed to successfully implement this Scoping Plan. The path forward is not dependent on one agency, one state, or even one country. It will take action on a global level to address the threat climate change poses. But, the work begins at home.506 The state can lead by engaging Californians and demonstrating how action at the state, regional, and local levels of government, as well as action at community and individual levels, can contribute to addressing the challenge before us. We must build partnerships with academic institutions, private industry, and others to support and accelerate the transition to carbon neutrality. Ultimately, the success of this Scoping Plan will be measured by our ability to implement the actions modeled in the Scoping Plan Scenario at all levels of government and society. This will depend on a mix of legislative action, regulatory program development, incentives, institutional support, workforce and business development, education and outreach, community engagement, and research and development and deployment. Optimizing this mix will help to ensure that clean energy and other climate mitigation strategies are clear, winning alternatives in the marketplace and in communities—to promote equity, drive innovation, and encourage consumer adoption.
Bold institutional action will catalyze continued research and push private investment to create jobs and bring innovative ideas to reality.
State-level Action
Achieving the targets described in this Scoping Plan will require continued commitment to and successful implementation of existing policies and programs and identification of new policy tools and technical solutions to go further, faster. California’s Legislature and state agencies will continue to collaborate to achieve the state’s climate, clean air, equity, and broader economic and environmental protection goals. It will be necessary to maintain and strengthen this collaborative effort, and to draw upon the assistance of the federal government, regional and local governments, tribes, communities, academic institutions, and the private sector to achieve the state’s near-term and longer-term emission reduction goals and a more equitable future for all Californians. 506 This “polycentric” approach to climate challenges, engaging many levels of government, was articulated in leading papers by Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom. See, for example, Ostrom, E. 2014. “A Polycentric Approach to Coping with Climate Change.” Annals of Economics and Finance 15-1, 97–134. 266
Regulations and Programmatic Development
Meeting the AB 32 2020 GHG emissions reduction target several years earlier than mandated demonstrated that developing mitigation strategies through a public process, where all stakeholders have a voice, leads to effective actions that address climate change and yields a series of additional economic and environmental co-benefits to the state. Following adoption of this Scoping Plan, state agencies will continue to update and implement new and existing programs to align with the outcomes in the plan. Community, tribal, and stakeholder engagement will be a critical part of this work. Several state agencies, including CARB, the CEC, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), the CPUC, and others will need to be part of various subsequent rulemaking processes. Each of these agencies’ leadership and technical staff will engage with the public through public meetings, written and oral comment, and other methods of engagement. This work will be informed by evaluations of the health, air quality, environmental, equity, and economic benefits and impacts of regulations, including an assessment of the societal cost of carbon, as required under AB 197.
Incentive Programs
As described in Chapter 1, incentive programs are one of the most important tools the state has in advancing our low carbon future, especially for climate vulnerable communities. The programs ensure clean technology and energy are accessible and are critical to closing ongoing opportunity gaps. These programs also leverage private-sector investment and build sustainable, growing markets for clean and efficient technologies, and they are particularly necessary to support GHG emission reduction strategies for priority sectors, sources, and technologies. Clean technologies are often already the best and lowest cost option over their lifetimes but incentive funding is critical to ensure that they are broadly available, especially in climate vulnerable communities. Incentives also build on California’s long track record of driving innovative technology developments, and creating new industries, with targeted investment. The Inflation Reduction Act also provides a new source of funding and tax incentives that must be leveraged to help achieve the state’s climate goals.
Many state funding programs are designed to achieve multiple objectives simultaneously:
reduce emissions from GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants; manage natural and working lands for carbon sequestration; and address health and opportunity gaps in disadvantaged communities. California’s incentive programs focused on jumpstarting the transition to a zero emission transportation future are a good example of this “stacked” approach. The state is investing billions of dollars through programs such as the On-Road Heavy-Duty Voucher Incentive Program and Clean Cars 4 All in order to replace the light- and heavy-duty vehicles most responsible for the state’s GHG emissions and poor air quality, all while bolstering the nascent ZEV market. Further strategies aid in developing new technologies, in ramping up access for all, and in shifting to cleaner 267
modes of transport; for instance, by supporting investments in walkable, bikeable communities and transit, as well as in vehicles. This funding strategy is, of course, paired with the regulatory approach described above.
Local Action
Local action by cities can support and amplify efforts to reduce GHGs. For example, the City of Oakland requires all new construction to be all-electric and is currently working on electrifying existing buildings.507 In addition, starting in 2023, the City of Sacramento will require all new buildings under three stories to be all-electric, and it extends the mandate to all new construction by 2026 with some limited exemptions. The City of Sacramento also requires levels of EV charging infrastructure in new construction starting in 2023, higher than the minimum state requirements, and provides parking incentives for zeroemission carsharing and EV charging.508 Local governments asserting this type of leadership are critical partners in supporting state-level measures to contain the growth of GHG emissions associated with the transportation system and the built environment.
California must accommodate population and economic growth in a far more sustainable and equitable manner than in the past. Good climate policy can and should create affordable and pleasant places to live, with effective transport and clean air for all—a future in which local governments and communities are central partners. Local governments have the primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit how and where land is developed to accommodate population growth, economic growth, and the changing needs of their jurisdictions. They also make critical decisions on how and when to deploy transportation infrastructure, and can choose to support transit, walking, bicycling, and neighborhoods that do not force people into cars. Local governments also have the option to adopt building ordinances that exceed statewide building code requirements, and play a critical role in facilitating the rollout of ZEV infrastructure. As a result, local government decisions play a critical role in supporting state-level measures to contain the growth of GHG emissions associated with the transportation system and the built environment—the two largest GHG emissions sectors over which local governments have authority.
Local governments are also frequently the source of innovative and practical climate solutions that can be replicated in other areas. Their efforts to reduce GHG emissions within their jurisdictions are vital to achieving the state’s near-term air quality and longterm climate goals. Local governments must continue to take action that affirmatively 507 City of Oakland. Building Electrification. https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/building-electrification. 508 City of Sacramento. Electrification of New Construction. http://www.cityofsacramento.org/SacElectrificationOrdinance. 268
builds the projects and expend the funds needed to further the state’s collective path toward equitable emissions reductions. As such, aligning local jurisdiction action with state-level priorities to tackle climate change and the outcomes called for in this Scoping Plan is critical to achieving the statutory targets for 2030 and 2045. Local governments can implement climate strategies that can effectively engage residents by addressing local conditions and issues that also deliver local economic benefits.
Local Climate Action Planning and Permitting
California encourages local jurisdictions to take ambitious, coordinated climate action at the community scale; action that is consistent with and supportive of the state’s climate goals.509 As discussed in more detail in Appendix D (Local Actions), local jurisdictions can do much to enable statewide priorities, such as taking local action to help the state develop the housing, transport systems, and other tools we all need. Indeed, state tools— such as the Cap-and-Trade Program or zero-emission vehicle programs—do not substitute for these local efforts. Multiple legal tools are open to local jurisdictions to support this approach, including development of a climate action plan (CAP), sustainability plan, or inclusion of a plan for reduction of GHG emissions and climate actions within a jurisdiction’s general plan. Any of these can help to align zoning, permitting, and other local tools with climate action.
Once adopted, the GHG emissions reductions plans detailed in CAPs can provide local governments with a valuable tool for coordinated climate planning in their community.
When a local CAP complies with CEQA requirements, individual projects that comply with the CAP are allowed to streamline the project-specific GHG analysis.510,511 Effectively, local governments that adopt a CEQA-compliant CAP enable project developers to use this streamlined approach. This saves time and resources and provides more consistent expectations for how GHG reduction measures are applied across projects in the jurisdiction. While the state encourages local governments to follow this approach, we acknowledge not all jurisdictions have the resources to develop a CAP that meets the CEQA requirements.
In addition to being required for a local CAP to comply with CEQA, local GHG reduction targets have long been recommended as part of the process of developing a climate 509 This plan provides more detailed guidance and tools to local governments in Appendix D (Local Actions).
510 Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 15183.5. 511 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. n.d. “General Plan Guidelines - Chapter 8 Climate Change.”
269
action plan.512 One challenge local jurisdictions have faced is how to evaluate and adopt quantitative, locally appropriate goals that align with statewide goals. An effective response to this challenge is to focus on goals that can help implement overall state priorities—enabling the key transformations California needs.
There are many ways that local governments can make key contributions to this transformation, depending on the characteristics of their jurisdiction and community. For example, some jurisdictions will inherently have more land capacity to remove and store carbon, whether through natural and working lands or by other means. Other jurisdictions will be host to GHG-emitting facilities that serve necessary functions and will take time to transition to clean technology (e.g., municipal wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and energy generation and transmission facilities). It is important to recognize that we will need to build new energy production and distribution infrastructure, and repurpose existing ones, for clean technology and energy before we are able to phase down existing fossil sources. There also will be a need to handle the significant amount of biomass resulting from sustainable forest management for catastrophic wildfire prevention, agricultural waste, and landfill diversion.
Regional efforts can support change too: energy and transportation systems that serve Californians do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries, and some local decisions can have ramifications for other communities. For instance, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) can help to integrate local efforts by planning consistent with the Scoping Plan and Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure, including by removing polluting roadway capacity expansions from project pipelines and instead focusing on climatefriendly solutions. These varied capabilities and needs should be taken into account in setting targets for local climate plans. For instance, although net zero targets can often be valuable and achievable, and mitigation is important, targets should be considered in the larger context of these goals. This all means any GHG targets on a local scale should take into consideration the actions and outcomes included in this Scoping Plan.
Jurisdictions considering “net zero” targets should carefully consider the implications such targets may have on emissions in neighboring communities and the ability of the state to meet our collective targets.
Jurisdictions without formal CAPs also have important opportunities within this context.
These jurisdictions can still take actions that effectively translate key state plans, goals, and targets, including those articulated in this Scoping Plan for local action. For instance, state ZEV targets can advance local efforts to promote broad and equitable access to charging and fueling. Similarly, local jurisdictions can enable reduced dependence on 512 Climate Smart Communities. 2014. Climate Action Planning Guide. https://cdrpc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/CAP-Guide MAR-2014 FINAL.pdf. 270
single-occupancy vehicles by supporting dense infill housing and transit, among other actions. Such actions can be reflected in particular project plans, in general plans, or through other local policies. Regional partnerships among these jurisdictions can also help tap resources and provide for more effective overall action.
Unlocking CEQA Mitigation for Local Success
The California Environmental Quality Act also provides important tools for lead agencies to support the achievement of the state’s GHG and VMT reduction goals. Although many climate-friendly local government actions already fall into categories that may not require a full CEQA analysis, thanks to streamlining or other tools, and although certain product types (such as affordable infill housing) are generally clearly consistent with state climate goals, CEQA analyses may still sometimes be required. CEQA can be a powerful and useful tool to engage the public, identify additional opportunities to support climate efforts, and localize change. It is important that lead agencies look for ways to use CEQA to support these core purposes, ensuring that these processes do not become sources of delay but instead unlock more opportunities. The uncertainty analysis in Chapter 2 evaluates how project implementation delays can lead to missed state climate targets and continued dependence on fossil energy. Mitigation measures applied in the communities affected by projects subject to CEQA have the added benefit of improving health, social, and economic resiliency as climate impacts worsen.
Appendix D (Local Actions) explores the role of local government action and CEQA in detail. As discussed there, an important CEQA-related tool is mitigation—which can be used to further drive local action consistent with state climate goals. When a lead agency determines that a proposed project would result in potentially significant GHG impacts due to its GHG emissions or a conflict with state climate goals, the lead agency must impose feasible mitigation measures to minimize the impact. Appendix D (Local Actions) provides suggestions for prioritizing the various types of mitigation, starting with on-site GHG-reducing design features513 and mitigation measures, such as methods to reduce VMT and support building decarbonization, access to shared mobility services or transit, and EV charging. After exhausting all the on-site GHG mitigation measures, CARB recommends prioritizing local, off-site GHG mitigation measures, including both direct investment and voluntary GHG reduction or sequestration projects, in the neighborhoods impacted by the project. This could include, for example, development of a neighborhood green space, investment in street trees, or expansion of transit services. Implementing GHG mitigation measures in the project’s vicinity would allow the project proponent and the lead agency to work directly with the affected community to identify and prioritize the 513 Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(c)(2) and (3). 271
mitigation measures that meet their needs while minimizing multiple environmental and societal impacts.
Once all potential on-site and local off-site GHG mitigation measures have been incorporated to the extent feasible, Appendix D (Local Actions) provides further suggestions for prioritizing other mitigation types, including non-local off-site mitigation, and voluntary offsets issued by a recognized and reputable voluntary carbon registry (as listed on CARB’s website514) may be appropriate. Additional in-state mitigation also may be available in the upcoming SB 27515 (Skinner, Chapter 237, Statues of 2021) registry, which will serve as a database of projects in the state that drive climate action on natural and working lands. Lead agencies should use substantial evidence to demonstrate that the project proponent explored and prioritized investments in feasible, local mitigation prior to moving mitigation to a geography located farther away from the project.
Communities and Environmental Justice
As noted in Board Resolution 20-33,516 it is incumbent on CARB to function as an agent of responsible social change, especially when it is clear that environmental injustices continue to persist for low-income communities, tribes, and communities of color.
State law defines environmental justice as the fair treatment of all people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.517 Government Alliance for Race and Equity (GARE)518 defines racial equity as when race can no longer be used to predict life outcomes and outcomes for all groups are improved.
For this Scoping Plan to be successful, it must address environmental justice and advance racial equity. Implementation of the plan needs to address the needs of those communities that are disproportionately burdened by climate impacts and continue to face significant health and opportunity gaps. Now, we need to ensure our actions allow these communities to not only have a seat at the table, but also inform and shape the policies 514 CARB. 2022. Offset Project Registries. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offsetprogram/offset-project-registries. 515 SB 27. Carbon sequestration: state goals: natural and working lands: registry of projects. (SB 27, Skinner, Chapter 237, Statutes of 2021).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202120220SB27. 516 CARB. 2020. Resolution 20-33: A Commitment to Racial Equity and Social Justice. October 22. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/res/2020/res20-33.pdf. 517 Gov. Code, § 65040.12, subd. (e). 518 Local and Regional Government Alliance on Race and Equity. 2015. Advancing Racial Equity and Transforming Government: A Resource Guide to Put Ideas into Action. Page 9. https://racialequityalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/GARE-Resource Guide.pdf. 272
to ensure their communities thrive. With this Scoping Plan, the state also adds a new tool to identify which communities will be the least resilient in the face of selected climate impacts and will see disproportionate economic impacts as a result. As described in Chapter 3, the CVM will enable the state to target programs and policies to build resiliency in the specific regions that will feel climate impacts more acutely due to existing health and opportunity disparities leading to disproportionate economic impacts. This tool will be critical in the state’s efforts to address climate impacts while accounting for environmental injustices and racial inequities. CARB will incorporate the CVM into its work as it moves forward and will share this new tool with other agencies to align our efforts. The goal is to keep expanding the CVM to incorporate additional climate impacts to better identify disproportionate economic impacts as community level data becomes available.
AB 617 is another important tool for both Air Districts and CARB to bring resources to communities that have long been disproportionately burdened by poor air quality. While AB 617 does not require local agencies to participate in the Community Air Protection Program, several AB 617 communities are finding ways to bring local land use agencies to the table to respond to community priorities. We look forward to more opportunities to foster relationships with local authorities and continued collaboration between state and air district programs.
In alignment with AB 32, and to ensure environmental justice and racial equity were integrated into this Scoping Plan, CARB reconvened the AB 32 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJ Advisory Committee) to advise CARB on the development of this Scoping Plan. Since reconvening in May 2021, the EJ Advisory Committee has engaged in the following activities:
• In October 2021, the EJ Advisory Committee sent a letter to the governor requesting a timeline extension for the Scoping Plan process. In response to the EJ Advisory Committee’s letter, CARB modified this Scoping Plan process519 and committed to an active engagement with the EJ Advisory Committee following the approval of this Scoping Plan. The EJ Advisory Committee also presented to the CARB Board520 at its October 2021 Board meeting, reiterating its request for a timeline extension, as well as sharing additional concerns about process. 519 Randolph, L. M. 2021. LMR October 19 response to Environmental Justice Advisory Committee Letter. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 10/LMR%20October%2019%20response%20to%20EJAC%20Letter%20Final.pdf. 520 Argüello, M. D., K. Hamilton, S. Taylor, and P. Torres. 2021. EJ Advisory Committee Co-Chair Informational Presentation to CARB Board. October 28.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/books/2021/102821/21-11-4pres.pdf. 273
• In December 2021, the EJ Advisory Committee shared its responses to Scenario Input Questions,521 as well as a narrative document outlining their concerns522 around the process, the need for evaluation, and the need for a tribal representative. In response to the EJ Advisory Committee Scenario Input Questions, CARB incorporated the EJ Advisory Committee responses into the Scenario Assumptions document,523 and modeled results from PATHWAYS.524 In response to the EJ Advisory Committee’s concerns, CARB worked diligently to appoint a tribal representative525 in February 2022, and to outline additional opportunities for the EJ Advisory Committee to engage in the Scoping Plan process.526
• In March 2022, the EJ Advisory Committee presented at the joint EJ Advisory Committee / CARB Board meeting527 and walked through their preliminary draft recommendations to inform this Scoping Plan. In April, the EJ Advisory Committee shared its revised preliminary draft recommendations528 to inform this Scoping Plan.
• In September 2022, the EJ Advisory Committee presented at the joint EJ Advisory Committee / CARB Board meeting529 and engaged in discussion about priority items as they relate to incorporating environmental justice into the Scoping Plan.
By the end of September, the EJ Advisory Committee shared its final 521 EJ Advisory Committee. 2021. EJ Advisory Committee Final Responses to CARB Scenario Inputs.
December 2. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 12/EJAC%20Final%20Responses%20to%20CARB%20Scenario%20Inputs 12 2 21.pdf. 522 EJ Advisory Committee. 2021. EJ Advisory Committee Responses to Scenario Input Questions.
EJ Advisory Committee narrative document regarding scenario input recommendations. December 1. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
12/EJAC%20Narrative%20Document%20re%20Scenario%20Input%20Recommendations%2012 1 202
1.pdf. 523 CARB. 2021. PATHWAYS Scenario Modeling. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 12/Revised 2022SP ScenarioAssumptions 15Dec.pdf. 524 E3. 2022. CARB Draft Scoping Plan AB32 Source Emissions Initial Modeling Results. March 15. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/SP22-Model-Results-E3-ppt.pdf. 525 CARB. AB32 EJ Advisory Committee Meeting, February 28, 2022 CARB Update. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/CARB%20EJAC022822presentation.pdf. 526 Fletcher, C. 2021. CARB Response to EJ Advisory Committee Narrative. CARB. December 15. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/CARB%20response%20to%20EJAC%20Narrative.pdf. 527 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022. EJ Advisory Committee Presentation: Preliminary Draft Recommendations. March 10.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/books/2022/031022/ejacpres.pdf. 528 AB 32 EJ Advisory Committee. Draft Recommendations. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/books/2022/031022/ejacrecsrevised.pdf. 529 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022. EJAC Presentation. September 1. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/books/2022/090122/ejacpres.pdf 274
recommendations530 to inform this Scoping Plan. To the extent possible, CARB has incorporated and cited these recommendations through this Scoping Plan.
In addition to the activities listed above, Central Valley EJ Advisory Committee members hosted a successful community engagement workshop531 in San Joaquin Valley in February 2022 with over 100 attendees. Members of EJ Advisory Committee hosted a statewide community engagement workshop532 in June 2022 with more than 165 attendees. Throughout the EJ Advisory Committee’s process, members of the Committee continued to work with their communities to ground truth their recommendations to inform the development of the Scoping Plan. The EJ Advisory Committee worked hard to ensure the voices of those communities most burdened by climate impacts were reflected in the plan. The EJ Advisory Committee will continue to play an ongoing role in the implementation of this Scoping Plan to ensure environmental justice and racial equity are prioritized in our effort to address the climate challenge before us.
To the extent possible, the EJ Advisory Committee’s recommendations were integrated throughout the plan. This plan directly cites instances where there is alignment between the plan and the EJ Advisory Committee recommendations. This approach seeks to ensure there is more transparency and identify consensus that exists, as well as relevant ways equity and environmental justice are addressed in this plan and in the planning for future related implementation activities. CARB is dedicated to its efforts to ensure this plan does not leave communities behind.
As this Scoping Plan moves into the implementation phase, there will be a need to better understand how to address EJ Advisory Committee recommendations on the following topics:
• Actions under the jurisdiction of other agencies: there are certain EJ Advisory Committee recommendations that are outside of CARB’s jurisdiction. As the EJ Advisory Committee continues to convene, it would be helpful to understand the 530 EJ Advisory Committee. 2022. EJAC 2022 Scoping Plan Recommendations. September 30. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/books/2022/090122/finalejacrecs.pdf 531 San Joaquin Valley Climate Justice & the Scoping Plan. 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
07/SJV%20Climate%20Justice%20%26%20the%20Scoping%20Plan%20Workshop%20Report%20out%20%2 6%20Recommendations 5.2022.pdf
532 EJAC. 2022. EJAC/Community Engagement Synthesis Report ’22. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/EJAC-CommunityEngagement-SynthesisReport-2022- English%26Spanish.pdf.
275
role that CARB can play as it relates to the EJ Advisory Committee’s recommendations for actions outside CARB’s jurisdiction and coordinates with sister agencies.
• Actions that require legislative direction: there are certain EJ Advisory Committee recommendations that would require legislative action. As the EJ Advisory Committee continues to convene, it will be helpful to understand how CARB can work with the EJ Advisory Committee to share these recommendations with the appropriate members of the Legislature.
• Actions directly tied to implementation activities: This Scoping Plan is not an implementation document; it is a plan to chart a course to continue to reduce GHG emissions and achieve carbon neutrality. Once the Scoping Plan is approved, there will be follow-up action at CARB, as well as at other agencies. In these followup efforts, there will be a role for ongoing EJ Advisory Committee engagement. • Actions to implement recent legislation, such as SB 905.
CARB proposes to continue to work with the EJ Advisory Committee to better understand how to move forward on EJ Advisory Committee recommendations that fall into the topics listed above and any other recommendations that were not included in this plan. It is also important to note that there are numerous recommendations where CARB shares the goals of the EJ Advisory Committee and can assist in implementation steps. Examples include the following:
• CARB shares the goal of prioritizing non-fossil energy generation and supports non-fossil projects and opportunities to locate behind-the-meter clean resources in communities of concern in programs such as the Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housing program.
• CARB will engage with agencies and academic institutions to further workforce development.
• Many other recommendations related to financial support for various energy projects, such as microgrids, are within the purview of the CPUC or local publicly owned utilities. Similarly, utility scale projects are within the jurisdiction of other agencies. However, CARB supports strategies identified in the recommendations such as offshore wind to reduce the reliance on fossil fuel generation. • CARB is supportive of rooftop solar, although it is not within CARB’s jurisdiction to determine how incentives for those projects are structured. • CARB is supportive of strong energy decarbonization goals, recognizing that increased reliance on electrification in transportation and other sectors will create significant demand for electricity, and therefore ensuring reliability of a decarbonized grid is a critical need for the state.
• In the transportation sector, CARB is supportive of the EJ Advisory Committee’s recommendations to maintain aggressive zero emission vehicle goals consistent 276
with its statutory mandate to ensure regulations are technologically feasible and in alignment with Governor Newsom’s ZEV Executive Order (EO N-79-20). CARB looks forward to continued engagement on rulemakings that will implement these goals.
• As noted elsewhere in this plan, CARB is supportive of the Caltrans California Transportation Plan 2050 and the California Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure.
• CARB is supportive of additional public support for transit. CARB is supportive of locating EV charging in low-income communities and communities of color. • CARB is supportive of prioritizing funding incentives for transit and heavy- and medium-duty vehicles, although CARB does believe there is an important role for incentives that support adoption of light-duty vehicles for the time being. CARB will also be opening a rulemaking on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to ensure it continues to support clean fuels that will displace petroleum fuels and will consider the EJ Advisory Committee recommendations on this program. • In the industrial sector, in addition to the strategies discussed more fully in this Scoping Plan, CARB continues to work with the Legislature, local agencies, and air districts to support, implement, and enforce effective reductions in emissions of GHGs and air pollutants in stationary sources. The air districts have the authority to directly issue permits addressing a facility’s criteria pollutant and toxics emissions levels. These levels are set after careful permit review, under district regulation and statute. However, AB 617 directs and authorizes CARB to take several actions to improve data reporting from facilities, air quality monitoring, and pollution reduction planning for communities affected by a high cumulative exposure burden. CARB will continue to implement AB 617 and look for ways to strengthen the Community Air Protection Program.
• Considerations around the phaseout of oil and gas extraction and refining, and the role of carbon capture are discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 2.
As CARB continues to engage with the EJ Advisory Committee—in addition to the EJ Advisory recommendations that have been integrated throughout this plan—below are the following commitments that CARB is making to ensure that environmental justice is integrated in this plan and its implementation:
• Building decarbonization is a pillar of this Scoping Plan and CARB commits to working closely with state and local agencies to implement the EJ Advisory Committee recommendations that call for prioritization for residents in low-income communities and communities of color in this transition. • CARB commits to sharing the EJ Advisory Committee’s recommendations with the CEC, CPUC, and other agencies administering funds to support building 277
decarbonization, and to work closely with those agencies as they engage in public processes to further building decarbonization.
• CARB has committed to review the Cap-and-Trade program and determine what potential legislative or regulatory amendments could be necessary to ensure the program continues to deliver GHG reductions needed to achieve the statutory climate goals. In that process, CARB will consider the recommendations of the EJ Advisory Committee533 and Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee,534 as well as others.
Critically, the EJ Advisory Committee makes numerous recommendations centered around tracking progress of the various strategies in this Scoping Plan. Currently, progress is tracked and reported in numerous ways, including the annual GHG inventory and reports to the Legislature. Part of the ongoing work of implementation, however, will include consideration of ways to provide more data and information to the public, such as rates of deployment of clean energy and technology as described in Chapter 1. CARB will also continue to collaborate with CDPH and OEHHA on health metrics to track cumulative benefits of air pollution and climate programs, especially in low-income communities and communities of color.
As noted earlier in this document, the EJ Advisory Committee will continue to play a vital role in the Scoping Plan and its implementation to ensure environmental justice and racial equity are prioritized in our effort to address the climate challenge before us. This includes ongoing EJ Advisory Committee engagement to advise CARB on the development of the Scoping Plan and any other pertinent matters in implementing AB 32. The ongoing EJ Advisory Committee will help to ensure integration of environmental justice in implementation efforts as it relates to AB 32, and also help CARB as we work toward a future where race is no longer a predictor for life outcomes.
Academic Institutions and the Private Sector
Academic institutions produce and present the latest science on both the impacts of, and actions to reduce, climate change damages. They are also leading the way by 533 California Legislative Information. Bill Text – AB 32. Air pollution: greenhouse gases: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. (AB 32, Nuñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200520060AB32. 534 California Legislative Information. Bill Text – AB 398. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
market-based compliance mechanisms: fire prevention fees: sales and use tax manufacturing exemption. (AB 398). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=201720180AB398. 278
establishing their own climate goals and GHG emissions reductions targets.535,536, 537 They are incubators for innovation and knowledge in clean energy and technology and play an important role in adding to the wealth of robust information to inform policies and programs. Academic institutions have the ability to fill knowledge gaps and push us toward new frontiers. As we move forward, we will continue to see these institutions as partners and resources that can help CARB look for ways to accelerate and introduce actions to reduce GHG emissions and remove and store carbon.
As such, it will be important to maintain and enhance relationships with academic institutions, including community colleges. Community colleges are more likely to have a large proportion of first generation students or students that come from low-income communities or communities of color. The perspective of this diverse student body will be critical to inform discussions on climate change damages and mitigation efforts. This student body is also a future workforce, and courses to teach the skills for a sustainable economy are a chance to close historical opportunity gaps. Importantly, many of the students at community colleges are local residents and community members. This engagement provides another way to invest in communities across our state. The Foundation for California Community Colleges is already leading the way through innovate programs such as their Good Jobs Challenge - California Resilient Careers in Forestry.
538 These types of programs could be replicated across other sectors. CARB will evaluate how to leverage the requirements in AB 680 on workforce development in the California Climate Investments programs with the work at the Foundation for California Community Colleges.
As noted in Chapter 1, public and private partnerships will be important as we move forward in the great energy transition. But the private sector is also important in the context of research and development and deployment. Many of these companies have the resources and expertise to build and produce the clean technology and energy we will need. It was through the efforts of several private companies (Bell, Exxon, Telecom 535 University of California. Our Commitment. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/initiative/carbonneutrality-initiative/our-commitment. 536 California State University. Energy, Sustainability, & Transportation. https://www.calstate.edu/csusystem/doing-business-with-the-csu/capital-planning-design-construction/operationscenter/Pages/energy-sustainability.aspx. 537 California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. Climate Action and Sustainability. https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/College-Finance-and-FacilitiesPlanning/Facilities-Planning/Climate-Action-andSustainability?msclkid=4a72350ec4f511ecaf292c6b14ac9a4f. 538 Foundation for California Community Colleges. 2022. Good Jobs Challenge. Developing Resilient Careers in Forestry for Californians. https://foundationccc.org/What-We-Do/WorkforceDevelopment/Good-Jobs-Challenge. 279
Australia) that the photovoltaic solar panels in use today were developed.539 Similarly, it was companies such as General Electric and Texas Instruments that contributed to the development of hydrogen fuel cells.540 This Scoping Plan includes the known and emerging clean technologies and fuels available today. The private sector spirit of invention, improvement, and innovation must continue to deliver new tools in the fight against climate change.
Individuals
This Scoping Plan not only projects ambitious availability of clean technology and energy, but also includes aggressive assumptions about consumer adoption of ZEVs, heat pumps, and other energy efficiency practices, among others. When it comes to climate change mitigation, the sum of the parts matters. Only when we add up the impacts of the choices we make do we understand the true impact on GHG emissions. Today, many Californians have opportunities to choose between driving a car, taking a bus, biking, or walking. Many can choose to install a heat pump or buy an electric cooktop. Together, we can increase these opportunities and pick the future we want. We can start or transform businesses that create clean jobs, innovate new technologies, or introduce new systems. We can engage with fellow workers to support durable paths for labor in a clean economy. And we can choose to engage with our community, tribes, and our governments to advocate for change, call out challenges, and propose solutions. Our choices will help determine California’s climate future. Down one path is a future of climate impacts that will continue to worsen and further increase disparities across communities.
Down the other is a future that avoids the worst impacts of climate change, improves air quality—especially for the most burdened communities—and fosters new economic and job opportunities to support a sustainable economy.
Importantly, we must acknowledge that historical decisions have resulted in health and opportunity gaps for residents in low-income communities and communities of color. Not everyone has the resources or access to make these choices—to buy a ZEV, install a heat pump, or use public transit to get to work. It is here that government can help.
Government, at multiple levels, can fund programs and structure policies to provide consumers with more choice and to support them in adopting cleaner technology options.
Whether through affordable energy rates or assistance in purchasing zero emission vehicles and appliances, we can use the transition to a carbon neutral economy as an opportunity to close some of these persisting opportunity gaps. By acting now, we can 539 Californiasolarcenter.org. Passive Solar History. http://californiasolarcenter.org/old-pages-withinbound-links/history-pv/. 540 Fuel Cell Store. History of Fuel Cells. https://www.fuelcellstore.com/blog-section/history-of-fuelcells?msclkid=04a19450c50211ec8d20f2afff4039fe. 280
change our planet’s fate and build a more resilient, healthier, and equitable future for all Californians.
Attachment M
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
1 APPENDIX D
LOCAL ACTIONS
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
3 1. Local Government Actions are Crucial for Supporting Attainment of the State’s Climate Goals
Local government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within their jurisdiction are critical to achieving the State’s long-term climate goals, and can also provide important cobenefits, such as improved air quality, local economic benefits, healthier and more sustainable communities, and improved quality of life. Indeed, a substantial portion of California’s GHG reduction potential comes from activities over which local governments have authority or influence.
1 Since the enactment of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Nuñez and Pavley, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), many local jurisdictions have sought to identify their role in implementing State-level decarbonization efforts. With increasing severity and occurrence of droughts, wildfires, extreme heat, and other conditions, the need for action is urgent.
Local governments have responsibility and authority over the built environment, transportation networks, and provision of local services. For example, local governments have primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit how and where land is developed to accommodate population and employment growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions. They make decisions on how and when to deploy transportation infrastructure and can promote residential and commercial development that supports transit, bicycling, and walking. Local governments have the authority to adopt building ordinances that exceed statewide building code requirements and facilitate the implementation of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) infrastructure.
Many jurisdictions have demonstrated bold climate leadership, yet meeting the challenge of climate change requires bolder actions from local governments across the state. For example, the City of Oakland requires all new construction to be all-electric and is currently working on electrifying existing buildings.2 Starting in 2023, the City of Sacramento will require all new buildings under three stories to be all-electric. By 2026 the city will extend this requirement to all new construction, regardless of height, with some limited exemptions. The City of Sacramento also provides parking incentives for zero-emission carsharing and electric vehicle (EV) charging and will require higher than minimum State-required levels of EV charging infrastructure in new construction starting in 2023.3 This type of leadership by local governments is critical to implementing State-level measures to address GHG emissions associated with transportation and the built environment. 1 Wheeler, S. M., Jones, C. M., & Kammen, D. M. 2018. Carbon Footprint Planning: Quantifying Local and State Mitigation Opportunities for 700 California Cities. Urban Planning, 3(2), 35-51. Available at:
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/1218. 2 City of Oakland. Building Electrification. Available at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/building-electrification . 3 City of Sacramento. Electrification of New Construction. Available at:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/SacElectrificationOrdinance.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
4 This appendix includes recommendations intended to build momentum for local government actions that align with the State’s climate goals, with a focus on local GHG reduction strategies (commonly referred to as climate action planning) and approval of new land use development projects, including through environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This appendix is not regulatory but is instead intended to provide clarification on specific topics requested by planners, CEQA practitioners, and community groups in response to challenges local jurisdictions face when implementing GHG reduction strategies or approving much-needed housing projects. It is not exhaustive and does not include everything local governments can implement to support the State’s climate goals. It focuses primarily on climate action plans (CAPs) and local authority over new residential development. It does not address other land use types (e.g., industrial) or air permitting.
Recommendations in this appendix are meant to be used in combination with other planning and CEQA guidance documents including Chapter 8 of the General Plan Guidelines published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR),4 the State CEQA Guidelines,5
OPR’s CEQA Technical Advisories,6 as well as guidance from local air districts and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA).7 The following sections discuss the implications for sustainable development on equity and environmental justice as part of a strategy to combat climate change and provide recommendations to local governments for:
· Developing local CAPs and strategies consistent with the State’s GHG emission reduction goals;
· Incorporating State-level GHG priorities into their processes for approving land use plans and individual projects;
· Implementing CEQA mitigation, as needed, to reduce GHG emissions associated with new land use development projects; and
· Leveraging opportunities for regional collaboration.
1.1 Centering Equity in Local Government Action is Key to Addressing the Climate Crisis
Local government action to reduce GHG emissions is not only essential for meeting the State’s climate goals; it can build better places for everyone in ways that begin to address the 4 OPR. General Plan Guidelines - Chapter 8 Climate Change. Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/planning/generalplan/guidelines.html. 5 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.
6 OPR. Technical Advisories. Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/technical-advisories.html. 7 CAPCOA. 2021. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers. Available at: https://caleemod.com/handbook/index.html.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
5 entrenched inequities experienced by the most overburdened Californians (e.g., Black, Indigenous, People of Color [BIPOC] and low-income communities). Local policies that make it easier for people to afford homes in places with good access to jobs, services, open space, and education, as well as a variety of transportation options that reduce the need to drive, advance equity and reduce GHG emissions.
Ensuring that vulnerable communities benefit from efforts to reduce GHG emissions is crucial to the State’s climate strategy. For example, Senate Bill (SB) 32 (Pavley, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016) recognized that efforts to meet the State’s climate goals must be done in an equitable manner by directing CARB to achieve more stringent GHG emission reductions in a way that benefits disadvantaged communities, who often bear the burden of climate impacts.
AB 32 also directs that CARB “ensure that the greenhouse gas emission reduction rules, regulations, programs, mechanisms, and incentives under its jurisdiction, where applicable and to the extent feasible, direct public and private investment toward the most disadvantaged communities in California and provide an opportunity for small businesses, schools, affordable housing associations, and other community institutions to participate in and benefit from statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”8 To address the State goals for housing affordability, social equity, and climate simultaneously, local government institutions are well-positioned to take on a portfolio of integrated strategies such that housing policies are designed to address climate goals and climate policies are designed to meet the State’s housing needs. In many cases, land use strategies that support more compact development in infill areas, particularly those already displaying efficient resident travel patterns, have the greatest potential to reduce emissions while also reducing combined housing and transportation costs for Californians and infrastructure costs for local governments due to avoided new roads, public schools, and other sprawl supporting infrastructure. Infill housing development alleviates pressure to develop on the urban periphery, preserving natural and working lands and areas often at risk of wildfire.
The issues that shape where development goes are complex, but the location and type of new housing that is developed matters for climate, health, and equity. Accelerating housing production to meet the extraordinary need for more homes can help reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG emissions and advance health and equity objectives when new housing is developed in types and locations that align with these goals, and particularly when accompanied by complementary policies and investments to create sustainable communities and prevent displacement of existing residents. See Appendix E, Sustainable and Equitable Communities, for strategies to foster sustainable development.
Fostering transportation-efficient, resource-rich, accessible, and inclusive communities is a key strategy for climate, equity, health, and affordability. Climate-smart locations include neighborhoods, commercial corridors, town centers, downtowns, and other areas where 8 Health & Saf. Code, § 38565.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
6 residents have access to a broad range of mobility options in addition to private automobiles (such as transit, walking, and biking), as well as where residents have access to housing, jobs, and other key destinations. Such communities make it possible for residents to live, work, and recreate without dependence on a personal car. For trips where driving is required, car trips can be relatively short and public infrastructure should support the use of zero-emission vehicles. The predominant historical land use development paradigm that centers on mobility (how far you can go in a given amount of time) over accessibility (how many key destinations, including jobs, housing, and other services, you can reach in that time) has not resulted in equitable outcomes for BIPOC and low-income households, and, in fact, has exacerbated barriers to access and upward economic progress. Increasing housing opportunities in transportation-efficient locations is a necessary paradigm shift and is part of the State’s GHG emission reduction strategy.
However, ensuring that the households that would benefit most from living in more accessible areas are not displaced by new investments requires that State, regional, and local governments proactively anticipate and avoid potential unintended equity and social consequences, including gentrification and displacement of historically underserved and disadvantaged communities. The most recent wave of displacement stems from a variety of factors and policies: exclusionary zoning, job growth and reinvestment, changing housing preferences among higher-income households, local policies and local opposition to new housing development proposals, lack of funding for new affordable housing, increased costs of building new housing, and a dearth of policies to preserve existing affordable housing and protect tenants.
9 These variables interact to drive up housing prices and rents for all households—particularly low-income and BIPOC households—increasing displacement pressures in established neighborhoods and forcing people to live in car-dependent neighborhoods away from community support systems and economic opportunities and increase households’ combined housing and transportation costs.10 Policies to facilitate both market rate and subsidized affordable housing production in infill neighborhoods should, over time, stabilize housing costs, minimize displacement, and create new housing opportunities in transportation-efficient locations.
Communities and local jurisdictions have a range of tools and strategies that they can utilize to proactively avoid displacement while facilitating much-needed new infill housing development.
The State encourages local jurisdictions and communities to cooperatively develop strategic anti-displacement and neighborhood stabilization plans. Some California jurisdictions have developed these strategic plans (e.g., the City of Oakland’s Roadmap to Promote Housing 9 See resources posted at the Urban Displacement Project: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/about/what-aregentrification-and-displacement/. 10 Ewing, R., & Hamidi, S. 2017. Costs of Sprawl. Taylor & Francis.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
7 Equity11 and the City of San Jose’s Citywide Anti-Displacement Strategy12). Jurisdictions and communities that have not implemented localized anti-displacement strategies can review lessons from other jurisdictions and refer to a 2021 literature review funded by CARB that examines the real-world effectiveness of various strategies to curb displacement.13 In addition to documenting the efficacy of different strategies, the literature review also examines the potential of each strategy to prevent displacement, the type of regional housing market where the strategy is most effective, the most appropriate scale to implement different strategies, and the timeframe for preventing displacement.
The Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) recently established Prohousing Designation Program also recognizes local jurisdictions that take actions to accelerate housing production while promoting holistic land use planning that reflects the State’s climate goals and helps to reduce VMT.14 Local governments that earn the prohousing designation are effective at simultaneously promoting multiple objectives, including: increasing housing supply, affirmatively furthering fair housing, preserving existing affordable housing, and supporting VMT reduction. Communities that earn the prohousing designation can receive additional points or preference in the scoring of competitive State housing, community development, and infrastructure funding programs.
2. The Role of Local Climate Action Planning in Supporting the State’s Climate Goals
Local governments across the state have developed different types of plans to tackle climate change, including CAPs, sustainability plans, or GHG reduction plans incorporated into a general plan.15 While CAPs have become an important avenue for climate action at the local level, 47 percent of California cities and counties have no known CAP. 16 Many jurisdictions find
that performing or hiring consultants to perform a GHG inventory and developing a CAP is 11 City of Oakland. 2015. A Roadmap Toward Equity: Housing Solutions for Oakland, California. Available at:
https://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/pl-report-oak-housing-070715.pdf. 12 City of San Jose. 2019. Community Strategy to End Displacement. Available at:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/housing/resource-library/housing-policy-plansand-reports/citywide-anti-displacement-strategy. 13 Karen Chapple & Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. 2021. White Paper on Anti-Displacement Strategy Effectiveness. CARB Research Contract Number 19RD018. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/singleproject.php?row_id=68795. 14 Department of Housing and Community Development. 2022. Prohousing Designation Program. Available at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/prohousing-designation-program. 15 CARB’s Climate Action Portal Map compiles information about local GHG reduction plans and strategies throughout the state. Available at: https://webmaps.arb.ca.gov/capmap/. 16 Boswell et al. 2019. 2019 Report on the State of Climate Action Plans in California. CARB Research Contract Number 17RD033. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/17RD033.pdf.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
8 costly and time-consuming, regardless of their desire to take action on climate.17 This section seeks to identify the most effective GHG reduction actions at the local level and other barriers to local climate action to help ensure that local climate efforts align with the State’s climate goals.
For purposes of this appendix, a CAP that has been adopted through the CEQA review process and meets the criteria specified in CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b) for a “plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions” will be referred to as a “CEQA-qualified CAP.” These CEQA-qualified CAPs allow eligible projects to streamline their determination of significance for GHG emissions. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b), CEQAqualified plans must:
(A) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; (B)Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;
(C)Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; (D)Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level;
(E)Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; (F) Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
Once adopted, CEQA-qualified CAPs provide local governments with a valuable tool for 1) coordinated climate planning in their community and 2) streamlining the CEQA GHG analysis for projects consistent with a CEQA-qualified CAP. When jurisdictions have a CEQA-qualified CAP, an individual project that complies with the strategies and actions within a CEQAqualified CAP can tier and streamline its project-specific CEQA GHG analysis to make a determination “that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative [GHG] effect is not cumulatively considerable” (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4 (b)(3) and 15183.5).18, 19 Guidance for preparing a CEQA-qualified CAP and using it to tier and streamline CEQA GHG 17 Deborah Salon, Sinott Murphy & Gian-Claudia Sciara. 2014. Local climate action: motives, enabling factors and barriers. Carbon Management, 5:1,67-79, DOI 10.4155/cmt.13.81. Available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4155/cmt.13.81. 18 The guidelines implementing CEQA (or “CEQA Guidelines”) were amended in 2009 to include criteria for the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines acknowledge the use of plans to reduce GHG emissions in a cumulative impacts analysis. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)). 19 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15183.5.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
9 analysis for future projects can be found in Section 15183.5(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as Chapter 8 of OPR’s General Plan Guidelines.20 Typically, this tiering and streamlining evaluates whether the proposed project would demonstrate consistency with 1) the adopted plans, as well as the growth and land use assumptions that underlie the CEQA-qualified CAP, and 2) all applicable GHG reduction measures identified in the CAP. This includes determining whether the growth associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the CAP’s projects and whether the project’s GHG reduction measures were identified to help meet the CAP target.
To assist with using a CEQA-qualified CAP for future CEQA streamlining, some jurisdictions have prepared CAP compliance checklists that future projects may use to identify and document the CAP measures that are applicable to the proposed project and how the project is consistent with the CAP measures.21 The CAP compliance checklists are then included as part of the proposed project’s CEQA analysis documenting the project’s consistency with the CEQA-qualified CAP. The use of the CEQA-qualified CAP also provides greater clarity in the environmental analysis and more consistent expectations for how GHG reduction measures are applied across projects in the jurisdiction.
Because CEQA-qualified CAPs are voluntary and not subject to any legislative criteria nor requirements, the CEQA Guidelines provide that a plan should include the measures or a group of measures that would collectively achieve the plan’s emissions reduction target (Section 15183.5(b)(1)(D)). As the CEQA Guidelines are silent on what measures or groups of measures a CEQA-qualified CAP should contain, this appendix identifies three priority areas that address the State’s largest sources of emissions that local governments have authority or influence over. Local jurisdictions should focus on these three priority areas when preparing a CEQA-qualified CAP:
1. Transportation electrification
2. VMT reduction
3. Building decarbonization
By prioritizing climate action in these three priority areas, local governments can address the largest sources of GHGs within their jurisdiction. Local governments that prepare CEQA20 OPR. General Plan Guidelines - Chapter 8 Climate Change. Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/planning/generalplan/guidelines.html. 21 Examples of CEQA-qualified CAPs include San Francisco’s GHG compliance checklists for private development and municipal projects. These checklists are available at:
https://sfplanning.org/permit/environmental-consultant-pools-guidelines-and-resources.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
10 qualified CAPs that include strategies in these areas are contributing to alignment between local climate action and the State’s climate goals.
The State encourages local governments to follow this approach and adopt a CEQA-qualified CAP addressing the three priority areas. However, as not all jurisdictions have sufficient resources (e.g., political capital, staffing, funding) to do so, jurisdictions that wish to take meaningful climate action (such as preparing a non-CEQA-qualified CAP or as individual measures) aligned with the State’s climate goals in the absence of a CEQA-qualified CAP should also look to the three priority areas when developing local climate plans, measures, policies, and actions.
To assist local jurisdictions with developing local climate plans, measures, policies, and actions aligned with the State’s climate goals, Table 1 presents a non-exhaustive list of impactful GHG reduction strategies that can be implemented by local governments. The strategies in Table 1 are not applicable to all local jurisdictions, nor are they the only strategies that local governments can adopt, but they represent the core strategies that most jurisdictions in California can implement to reduce GHG emissions regardless of whether they have developed a CEQA-qualified CAP. Reaching the outcomes of these priority GHG reduction strategies requires a locally appropriate, comprehensive adoption of policies in support of these objectives. When developing local climate plans, measures, policies, and actions, local jurisdictions should incorporate the recommendations described in Table 1 to the extent appropriate to ensure alignment with State climate goals.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
13 2.1 Setting Local GHG Targets
Historically, local climate action planning by California cities and counties has primarily focused on adopting supportive measures, such as replacing incandescent traffic lights with LED traffic lights, for reaching the State GHG emission reduction targets mandated by law. Initially, targets were based on consistency with meeting AB 32’s 2020 GHG reduction target. More recently, local jurisdictions have looked to consistency with the longer-term targets in following the adoption of SB 32 and issuance of various executive orders (e.g., EO B-30-15 and EO B55-18) to look beyond 2020 (e.g., 2030, 2045, 2050, etc.), when setting longer-term targets. In September 2022, Governor Newsom signed AB 1279 (Muratsuchi and Garcia, Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022), which codifies a statewide target to achieve carbon neutrality by no later than 2045. The State’s climate strategy and the role of local governments continue to evolve as climate goals become more refined and ambitious, and as we advance our understanding of GHG emission sources. To be consistent with science-based statewide targets, local GHG reduction targets should evolve as well. In addition to being required for a local CAP to comply with CEQA, local targets have long been recommended as part of the process of developing, monitoring, and updating a CAP regardless of whether it is CEQA-qualified. 28 The agency preparing a local GHG reduction target is responsible for determining the precise method for doing so. This appendix is not intended to limit or to provide an exhaustive list of options for setting a local GHG reduction target. Any target should be supported by substantial evidence and meet the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Ultimately, a jurisdiction’s GHG reduction efforts and target(s) should help to better inform decision-makers and the public about the sources of GHG emissions under a jurisdiction’s control (also known as a GHG emissions “inventory”) that would be affected by a proposed project and provide a basis for identifying ways to avoid or reduce potentially significant GHG emission impacts. It can be challenging to localize and sub-allocate an individual jurisdiction’s share of the GHG reductions needed to curb a global crisis. Developing a localized GHG reduction target requires an adequate local GHG inventory from which to calculate a target, which most jurisdictions have not developed. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update suggested some non-binding options for setting GHG reduction targets.
29 In recognition of different sources of, and opportunities to reduce, GHG emissions, this appendix recognizes the complexities involved in local GHG target-setting and, as a result, does not recommend a specific GHG target or target-setting method for local governments. However, the appendix presents some considerations for various target-setting approaches below.
28 Climate Smart Communities. 2014. Climate Action Planning Guide. Available at: https://cdrpc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/CAP-Guide_MAR-2014_FINAL.pdf. 29 In the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB recommended per capita, plan-level GHG targets of 6 MTCO2e per capita in 2030 and 2 MTCO2e per capita in 2050. Because the State is now pursuing carbon neutrality no later than 2045, CARB recommends that jurisdictions focus on developing locally appropriate, plan-level targets that align with the trajectory to carbon neutrality instead of focusing on a per capita 2050 target.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
14 GHG reduction targets should typically be estimated for specific years aligned with the State’s long-term climate targets established through existing laws or policy guidance. Various target years that are often, but not always, used in climate action planning include 2020 (for AB 32, SB 375, and EO S-3-05 consistency), 2030 (for SB 32 and EO B-30-15 consistency), 2035 (for SB 375 consistency), 2045 (for EO B-55-18 consistency, and there is now a statutory 2045 target in AB 1279), and 2050 (for EO S-3-05 and EO B-30-15 consistency),30 as well as horizon years of local planning documents, such as general plans.
When establishing GHG reduction targets, jurisdictions should consider their respective share of the statewide reductions necessary to achieve the State’s long-term climate target for each target year, and how they can best support those overall goals. Jurisdictions should also evaluate their specific inventory profile when establishing targets consistent with the State’s long-term climate targets and should tailor their specific inventory profile to ensure the sectors included in the State’s targets align with those included in the local jurisdiction’s inventory and target, recognizing each region’s distinctive sources and profile. For example, as the State’s long-term climate targets address all emissions sectors within the state, a jurisdiction without an airport or port should “factor out" and remove these sectors from the State’s long-term climate target when establishing local reduction targets. In essence, local governments should focus on sources and actions within their control, and set targets that support overall state goals.
Generally, a city or county that periodically examines their long-term GHG reduction trajectory is in a better position to determine whether GHG emission levels contemplated in their CAP are sustainable. This type of long-term approach benefits from interim reduction targets rather than a single target. Local governments that choose to adopt a single target year or opt to use a different method (e.g., project-by-project analysis, adopted significance thresholds, specific regional emissions targets, other State-related climate programs, etc.) should explain why their approach reflects sensible long-range planning horizons and should provide substantial evidence to support a conclusion that GHG emissions would decline along a trajectory consistent with the State’s climate goals.
One approach to setting targets is to align local GHG-reducing strategies and actions with the respective State policies that will deliver GHG emission reductions, if successfully implemented and supported at the local level.31 The CAP target-setting process should 30 AB 32 calls for California to reduce GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020; SB 375 requires CARB to develop and set regional targets, indexed to years 2020 and 2035, for emission reductions from passenger vehicles; EO S-3-05 established a statewide interim target to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; SB 32 requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030; EO B-55-18 and AB 1279 call for carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; and EO B-30-15 established a statewide interim GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
31 OPR. General Plan Guidelines - Chapter 8 Climate Change. Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/planning/generalplan/guidelines.html.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
15 account for projected GHG emission reductions from State policies, programs, and strategies implemented over time. However, when using statewide data, local governments should avoid double-counting GHG emission reductions that are achieved through State-level efforts and should ensure that their target focuses on GHG emission reductions within the scope of the CAP. Local jurisdictions should refer to Table 2-2 in Chapter 2 of the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, which summarizes the key State actions (as well as supportive statutes, executive orders, and outcomes) under the Scoping Plan Scenario and identifies approaches to help guide setting targets that align with the State’s GHG-reducing strategies. 32 A number of these key State actions are directly relevant to the priority strategies described in this appendix and should be accounted for in local target-setting, including zero-emission lightduty vehicles (relevant to transportation electrification); smart growth/VMT reduction (relevant to vehicle miles traveled reduction); and new and existing residential and commercial buildings (relevant to building decarbonization). Table 2 summarizes these actions with milestones and benchmarks.33 Local jurisdictions should consider these recommendations as a starting point when contextualizing the State’s climate goals, GHG emissions inventory sectors, and actions for a CAP target-setting process to help align local targets with the State’s climate goals. 32 The Proposed Scenario is the Scoping Plan alternative that most closely aligns with existing statute and Executive Orders and assumes carbon neutrality by 2045 the deployment a broad portfolio of existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies. 33 The information in this table should be viewed as a general reference and may serve multiple uses, including providing resources that act as an aid to local governments when developing localized GHG targets for CAPs.
The applicability of data, actions, and recommendations may vary across regions and should not be viewed or interpreted as official guidance, as thresholds of significance, or as dictating requirements for GHG target-setting processes. This is not considered an exhaustive list and does not represent the complete list of data resources and tools available. Not every recommendation provided will be relevant to, or appropriate for, a given area or plan.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
18 California’s overall state goal of achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045 can also inform GHG reduction targets at individual community levels, and some communities or regions may be able to reach neutrality themselves. However, it is important to design targets in ways that support overall state goals, recognizing that each region has distinctive sources and systems.
For instance, energy and transportation systems that serve Californians do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries, and some decisions can have ramifications for other communities (e.g., by inadvertently exporting emissions from a jurisdiction with a net-zero target to another jurisdiction with less stringent or no target). Jurisdictions considering a net-zero target should carefully consider the implications it may have on emissions in neighboring communities and beyond. Jurisdictions should also avoid creating targets that are impossible to meet as a basis to determine significance. For example, a net-zero target may imply that the GHG emissions of any project that are not reduced or offset to zero would be considered potentially significant.
This may lead to undue burdens and frustrate project approval processes, which may be particularly problematic for residential development in climate-smart, infill areas. In addition, some jurisdictions have more land capacity to remove and store carbon, while others host GHG-emitting facilities that serve necessary functions and will take time to transition to new technology (e.g., municipal wastewater treatment plants, landfills, energy generation facilities).
In those cases, jurisdictions that work together on a regional framework to rapidly decarbonize together may have better success in maximizing both emission reductions and other cobenefits. Ultimately, a net-zero target that makes it more difficult to achieve statewide goals by prohibiting or complicating projects that are needed to support the State’s climate goals, like infill development or solar arrays, is not consistent with the State’s goals. The scale of GHG reductions needed across all communities will be substantial. Local governments have the discretion to adopt targets that apply to their jurisdictions and may utilize the streamlining functions afforded in CEQA35 so long as those targets are supported by substantial evidence.
3. The Role of Land Use Plans and Development Projects in Supporting the State’s Climate Goals
3.1 Housing Demand and GHG Efficiency
Local governments are responsible for adopting and updating land use plans and related implementing ordinances, such as zoning and other development codes, as well as evaluating and making decisions regarding a development project’s impact on the environment. The adoption of, or update to, local plans, as well as local discretionary approvals for new development, are subject to environmental review under CEQA, which requires public agencies, including local governments, to evaluate and disclose potential environmental effects from their discretionary decisions and actions and implement feasible mitigation. This environmental review process must address whether GHG emissions from a proposed project, 35 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15183.5.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
19 as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change. As part of this review, lead agencies must consider whether a proposed project or plan would be consistent with, and supportive of, the State’s climate goals.36 Section 15064.4(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that lead agencies should evaluate whether a proposed project would “[c]onflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.” Moreover, CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d) requires a discussion “of any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans…regional transportation plans …[and]…plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,” among others.
However, the discretionary processes through which local jurisdictions permit land use development projects vary widely across California and are sometimes not uniformly applied within the same jurisdiction.
37 O’Neill et al. (2022) found that restrictive local zoning and development approval processes are the chief regulatory contributors to California’s housing crisis. Local governments have a clear opportunity to eliminate these barriers by reforming their local laws to facilitate dense development in infill areas, particularly those in highresource and/or low-VMT communities. Local jurisdictions can also choose to adopt ministerial entitlement processes38 for housing instead of imposing discretionary review processes (some jurisdictions currently even impose multiple layers of discretionary review) that provide project opponents opportunities to slow or stop projects, sometimes without advancing legitimate environmental goals.
The literature review conducted by O’Neill et al. (2022) does not find a consensus among CEQA experts on the impact of litigation (or the threat thereof) on new housing construction.
The report finds that litigation rates among entitled housing projects in the jurisdictions studied were low (less than three percent overall). Of the relatively small percentage of projects that were litigated, approximately two-thirds were challenged based on claimed deficiencies in their GHG or VMT analysis. (Note, however, that this statistic in itself is not particularly revealing, since attorneys frequently include in their lawsuits a range of claims regarding various CEQA resource areas to maximize chances of prevailing.) Thus, among other bases for CEQA challenges, CEQA GHG impact analyses and mitigation measures can to be sources of 36 See, e.g., Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 497, 519 (holding that CEQA requires planning agencies to ensure their CEQA GHG analysis stays in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes).
37 O’Neill et al. 2022. “Final Report: Examining Entitlement in California to Inform Policy and Process: Advancing Social Equity in Housing Development Patterns.” Available at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3956250. 38 CEQA environmental review requirements only apply to discretionary project approvals; ministerial approvals are not subject to CEQA review. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15002(i).) California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
20 litigation and delay for projects, especially for housing projects in high-resource areas.39 While the State has long been clear that urban infill projects, particularly in high-resource and lowVMT areas, would be generally supportive of the State’s climate and regional air quality goals, such claims can persist. Although CEQA litigation can present additional complexity for housing development, restrictive local zoning and development approval processes are clearly the primary hurdles for housing development in California. Local jurisdictions have clear discretion to remove these barriers.
California continues to experience a severe housing shortage. The State must plan for more than 2.5 million residential units over the next eight years, and no less than one million of those residential units must be affordable to lower-income households.40 This represents more than double the housing planned for during the last eight years.41 The housing crisis and the climate crisis must be confronted simultaneously, and it is possible to address the housing crisis in a manner that supports the State’s climate and regional air quality goals.42 The following section includes recommendations to make doing so easier.
3.2 Evaluating Plan-Level and Project-Level Alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG Analyses
CEQA requires lead agencies to analyze the potential GHG-related impacts from their proposed projects.43 As part of these analyses, agencies consider the extent to which their projects are consistent with the State’s climate goals and requirements.44 Land use plans (e.g., general plans, specific plans, area plans) and development projects have long operational lifespans, potentially locking in GHG emissions for decades. Some agencies have improperly attempted to use compliance with statewide regulatory programs to determine that their projects’ GHG impacts are mitigated or are otherwise consistent with the Scoping Plan. While CARB has developed programs such as the State vehicle emissions standards (e.g., Advanced Clean Cars), the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and the Cap-and-Trade program to reduce sector-wide GHG emissions, these programs were not designed to directly mitigate individual land use development project emissions from a CEQA perspective. Therefore, claimed consistency with these programs should not be used to conclude that motor vehicle 39 O’Neill et al. 2022. Final Report: Examining Entitlement in California to Inform Policy and Process: Advancing Social Equity in Housing Development Patterns. CARB Research Contract 19STC005. Available at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3956250. 40 California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2022. Statewide Housing Plan. Available at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/statewide-housing-plan.pdf. 41 Ibid.
42 Elkind, E. N., Galante, C., Decker, N., Chapple, K., Martin, A., & Hanson, M. 2017. Right Type, Right Place:
Assessing the Environmental and Economic Impacts of Infill Residential Development through 2030. Available at:
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/right-type-right-place/. 43 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.4.
44 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.4(b)(3).
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
21 emissions from a land use development project are fully mitigated or that such projects are definitively consistent with the Scoping Plan—particularly where the project at issue is not itself directly regulated by these programs.
45 This section outlines three distinct approaches that lead agencies may consider for evaluating alignment of proposed plans and residential and mixed-use46 development projects with the State’s climate goals and, therefore, may have a less-than-significant impact on GHG emissions. These approaches are recommendations only and are not requirements. They do not supplant lead agencies’ discretion to develop their own evidence-based approaches for determining whether a project would have a potentially significant impact on GHG emissions.47 The recommendations outlined in this section apply only to residential and mixed-use development project types. California currently faces both a housing crisis and a climate crisis, which necessitates prioritizing recommendations for residential projects to address the housing crisis in a manner that simultaneously supports the State’s GHG and regional air quality goals.
CARB plans to continue to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.
3.2.1 Project Attributes for Residential and Mixed-Use Projects to Qualitatively Determine Consistency with the Scoping Plan Absent consistency with an adequate, geographically specific GHG reduction plan such as a CEQA-qualified CAP, as described in Section 2, the first approach the State recommends for determining whether a proposed residential or mixed-use residential development would align with the State’s climate goals is to examine whether the project includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing.
Consistent with the Priority Strategies shown in Table 1, empirical research shows that the following project attributes result in reduced GHG emissions from residential and mixed-use development. Residential and mixed-use projects that have all of the key project attributes in Table 3 should accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals.
45 CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4(b)(3) allows compliance with “regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions” as an approach for the determination of significance for GHG emissions. 46 Mixed use residential is defined as development including both residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use per Cal. Gov. Code., tit. 7, § 65589.5(h)(2)(B)). 47 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.4.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
24 that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes are consistent with the State’s climate goals.
This qualitative approach to determining the significance of GHG impacts is only intended for residential and mixed-use development projects. CARB will continue to explore this qualitative approach for evaluating the significance of GHG impacts for other types of land uses and encourages CEQA practitioners and lead agencies to do the same. The following two sections describe additional approaches lead agencies may employ in CEQA analyses.
3.2.2 Net-Zero Threshold of Significance
Absent consistency with an adequate, geographically specific GHG reduction plan, as described in Section 2 or consistency with the project attributes approach identified in Table 3 for residential and mixed-use development project types, lead agencies can make a significance determination, consistent with Section 4 below, based on whether the project would result in net-zero GHG emissions. (Note that lead agencies can also use other valid significance thresholds, as described in subsection 3.2.3 below.) Although achieving net-zero GHG emissions may be an appropriate overall objective, it should be noted this approach may not be feasible or appropriate for every project. Furthermore, in determining a project’s net GHG impacts, agencies should carefully consider how to view the GHG emissions implications of changes to existing land uses at the project site, particularly where such uses may simply relocate to another location. Lead agencies should consider whether there is substantial evidence that the GHG emissions generated by existing uses of the project site will cease to exist as a direct result of the proposed project and will not merely occur at a different location after the proposed project is developed. If substantial evidence demonstrates that emissions from existing sources currently operating or generating emissions at the project site would continue elsewhere, lead agencies should account for those emissions when calculating the net change in emissions associated with the proposed project.
However, there are recent examples of land use development projects in California that have demonstrated that it is feasible to design projects of nearly any scale that achieve net-zero GHG emissions. Several projects have received certification from the Governor under AB 900, the Jobs and Economic Improvement through Environmental Leadership Act (Buchanan, Chapter 354, Statutes of 2011) and a similar program authorized under SB 7 (Atkins, Chapter 19, Statutes of 2021), demonstrating an ability to design economically viable projects that create jobs while contributing net-zero GHG emissions.59 These projects have included mixeduse housing and commercial developments, large-scale residential projects, sports arenas, a medical center, and business campuses.
As discussed in Section 3.2.1, “Project Attributes for Residential Projects to Qualitatively Determine Consistency with the Scoping Plan,” development in infill and transit-oriented areas 59 OPR. 2021. Judicial Streamlining. Available at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/judicial-streamlining/.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
25 helps to reduce or avoid increasing GHG emissions. Although, while land use development patterns in California have become, in general, more compact than in the past, new lowdensity, auto-oriented development is still being planned for and built. 60 Despite this continuing
challenge, several large and mixed-use projects within California have ultimately committed to achieving net-zero GHG emissions. For example, as part of the Downtown West Mixed Use Plan,
61 the applicant, Google LLC, ultimately committed to achieving net-zero GHG emissions for an approximately 80-acre mixed-use property, including almost 6,000 residential units, as well as retail, office, and other land uses, located in downtown San Jose, California. This commitment will be achieved through a combination of on-site measures and the purchase and retirement of carbon offset credits from CARB-approved registries in the voluntary market.
Similarly, the Oakland Athletics, the applicant for the Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District Project located in Oakland, California, also committed its development to result in no net increase of GHG emissions through a combination of on-site and local mitigation measures and the purchase and retirement of carbon offset credits from CARB-approved registries in the voluntary market.
62 Design and local reduction measures63 were employed by the developers to reduce 54 percent of total non-residential emissions, while 49 percent of operational emissions were reduced via carbon offset credits from the voluntary market.
Even California’s largest, most sprawl-intensive housing developments have ultimately committed to achieving net-zero GHG emissions, even if only after intense legal battles. For example, under the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan,64 the applicant, Newhall Land and Farming Company, ultimately committed to achieving net-zero GHG emissions for an almost 12,000-acre plan area in the Santa Clarita Valley. This commitment will be achieved through a combination of on-site and local mitigation measures and the purchase and retirement of carbon offset credits from the voluntary market. Similarly, as a result of a recent settlement agreement, Tejon Ranch Company, the developer for the Centennial Specific Plan located in northern Los 60 CARB. 2022. Draft 2022 Progress Report California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. P. 22-25. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 07/2022_SB_150_Main_Report_Draft_ADA.pdf.
61 OPR. 2022. Judicial Streamlining: Archived Applications. Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/judicialstreamlining/archive.html. 62 Ibid.
63 Local reduction measures include measures to reduce VMT and trips (including reduced parking and transportation network surcharges), installing EV chargers at 10 percent of onsite parking spaces, electrification (i.e., prohibition of non-electric energy, such as natural gas) of 50 percent of residential units, and either converting an existing jet-fueled peaker plant to battery storage or installing 1,013 EV charging stations in the community.
64 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan: Final EIS/EIR Documents. Available at:
(https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/documents/ContextDocs.aspx?cat=NewhallRanchFinal).
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
26 Angeles County,65 also committed its development to result in no net increase of GHG emissions.66 Mitigation measures employed by these developers include the prohibition of natural gas in residential and commercial properties; the requirement of on-site solar photovoltaic energy systems on residential and commercial properties; the installation of almost 30,000 EV chargers within and outside the plan area; funding incentives for the purchase of 10,500 passenger EVs and electric school buses and trucks; and procuring and retiring carbon offset credits from the voluntary market.
Although the projects in San Jose and Oakland may not meet all of the key project attributes for qualitatively determining project consistency with statewide GHG goals, as shown in Table 3, and the Newhall and Tejon Ranch projects do not necessarily represent the type of development that California most needs to simultaneously tackle the housing and climate crises, they do demonstrate the feasibility of a net-zero approach for other large and complex residential development projects.
3.2.3 Recommended Thresholds of Significance
Lead agencies may also analyze the GHG impact of proposed projects by employing a threshold of significance recommended by the applicable air district67 or other lead agencies. 68 As stated in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(b), “a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.“ However, thresholds for analyzing a project’s GHG emissions can become outdated if they are not aligned with the State’s most recent GHG reduction goals. 69 To be defensible, CEQA significance thresholds must be supported by substantial evidence.70 Mitigating GHG emissions below an applicable GHG threshold of significance is one way lead agencies may demonstrate that a project’s GHG emissions would have a less-than-significant impact on the environment. For lead agencies that pursue this approach, CAPCOA, which 65 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. 2019. Specific Plan No. 02-232 / Centennial Specific Plan. Available at: https://planning.lacounty.gov/case/view/specific_plan_no_02_232_centennial_specific_plan. 66 Tejon Ranch. 2021. Settlement Agreement Reached in Centennial lawsuit. Available at:
https://tejonranch.com/settlement-agreement-reached-in-centennial-lawsuit/. 67 CARB research indicates that less than 20 percent of California’s population is located in an area with CEQA GHG thresholds of significance addressing SB 32 reduction goals adopted by an air district (Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District). 68 As with all CEQA significance thresholds, GHG significance thresholds must be supported by substantial evidence. Some lead agencies, such as the City of San Luis Obispo and County of Santa Barbara, have adopted CEQA GHG thresholds of significance due to the absence of a local air district-adopted threshold or because a local CEQA-qualified CAP used to tier and streamline its project-specific CEQA GHG analysis (per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4 (b)(3) and 15183.5) may not be available or applicable. 69 CEQA GHG analyses (including significance determinations) “must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15064.4(b)) 70 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.7(b).
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
27 provides a forum for the sharing of knowledge, experience, and information between air districts throughout the state, has developed tools and guidance for CEQA practitioners, such as the California Emissions Estimator Model71 (CalEEMod) and guidance for developing and quantifying project-level GHG mitigation measures.72
4. Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to CEQA If a lead agency determines that a proposed project’s GHG emissions would result in a significant impact and a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change, the lead agency must impose feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project’s GHG impact to a less-than-significant level.73 According to the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures must be feasible, roughly proportional, not inappropriately deferred, capable of being monitored or reported, fully enforceable, and based on substantial evidence. They must also have a nexus to a legitimate governmental interest.
74 Any GHG offsets used as CEQA mitigation must not be
otherwise required (e.g., by regulation or by existing permitted CEQA projects). 75 Lead
agencies should present substantial evidence to document that a given mitigation measure would actually serve to mitigate the proposed project’s GHG emissions. 76 CAPCOA has developed tools and guidance for CEQA practitioners for developing and quantifying project-level GHG mitigation measures. These include CAPCOA’s Handbook,77 which it published in 2021 along with the mitigation module in CalEEMod.78 As the severe impacts of climate change become better understood and the State’s climate goals become more stringent over time, local, off-site CEQA GHG mitigation measures will become increasingly necessary. However, several factors often hinder the adoption of local, off-site GHG mitigation under CEQA, including confusion about CEQA’s requirements for GHG mitigation, a focus on carbon offset credits and lack of awareness of local GHG mitigation 71 CAPCOA. 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model. Available at: www.caleemod.com. 72 CAPCOA. 2021. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers. Available at: https://caleemod.com/handbook/index.html. 73 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(c).
74 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(a)(4)(A).
75 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(c)(3)).
76 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(c)).
77 CAPCOA. 2021. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions. Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers. Available at: https://caleemod.com/handbook/index.html. 78 CAPCOA. 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model. Available at: www.caleemod.com.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
28 opportunities, and a perception of high costs (e.g., mitigation costs for project sponsors, administrative costs for lead and responsible agencies).
This section seeks to assist in overcoming barriers to GHG mitigation under CEQA and reduce the use of statements of overriding considerations by lead agencies by establishing a hierarchy of mitigation opportunities that reflect the State’s priorities for mitigation. In doing so, this section encourages project applicants and local governments to use local and non-local off-site GHG mitigation approaches (including carbon offset credits) consistent with CEQA’s requirements. This section also seeks to clarify how CEQA’s mitigation requirements apply to GHG mitigation (including carbon offset credits).
While this section identifies ways to overcome some common barriers to local CEQA GHG mitigation, other barriers may take longer to remove and may even require legislative or other State-level action. Through appropriate application of local GHG mitigation under CEQA, lead agencies have an opportunity to benefit their communities while addressing the climate crisis.
Local, off-site mitigation measures implemented in the communities in which project impacts occur have the added potential co-benefit of reducing emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants, which will improve health and social and economic resiliency to climaterelated impacts. Verification of local mitigation can also be more straightforward than verification of mitigation that is outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of the lead agency.
4.1 GHG Mitigation Hierarchy
CEQA requires lead agencies to impose all feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or reduce GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level prior to certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or mitigated negative declaration. CEQA does not require mitigation measures that are infeasible for specific legal, economic, technological, or other reasons. If there are not sufficient mitigation measures that the lead agency determines are feasible for avoiding GHGs or reducing GHGs to a less-than-significant level, before approving a project, the lead agency must adopt all measures that are feasible and adopt a statement of overriding considerations (or significance “override”) that explains why additional mitigation is infeasible. 79 The statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
A wide array of CEQA GHG mitigation that can help avoid the need to adopt statements of overriding considerations is discussed in Section 4.1.2 below. The hierarchy outlined below may provide a helpful reference for lead agencies and project sponsors on how to approach mitigation in a way that maximizes benefits to communities surrounding projects, with a particular emphasis on benefitting historically underserved and disadvantaged communities. 79 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15093(b).
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
29 The State recommends prioritizing CEQA GHG mitigation according to a geographic hierarchy as follows:
1. On-site design measures;
2. Off-site GHG mitigation:
a. Funding or implementing local, off-site GHG reduction projects (within the communities or neighborhoods in the vicinity of the project); b. Funding or implementing non-local, off-site GHG reduction projects;
3. Purchasing and retiring carbon offset credits:
a. That originate in the same air basin as the project; b. That originate elsewhere in California;
c. That originate outside of California.
This geographical hierarchy is consistent with SB 7, in which the Legislature mandated a similar hierarchy for land use development projects seeking to be designated as “environmental leadership development projects” and granted certain streamlining provisions.
Under this hierarchy, the community in which the project is located is prioritized to receive the environmental and economic co-benefits of the mitigation, especially the reductions in emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants that accompany many GHG reduction measures. Similar prioritization was included in the Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District Project, which required that a minimum of 50 percent of the GHG emission reductions from non-residential land uses result from local, direct measures, and stipulated that no more than 50 percent of reductions may result from offset credits. 80 The following sections discuss each level of mitigation in the suggested hierarchy of mitigation.
4.1.1 On-site GHG Mitigation
Lead agencies should prioritize on-site design features within the project site that minimize GHG emissions. On-site GHG mitigation includes the implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, including but not limited to energy efficiency measures, installation of renewable energy electricity generation, all-electric building design, EV charging connections, and features that reduce VMT, such as a transportation demand management plan or the provision of shared mobility options (such as facilitating carpooling, providing active transportation and transit vouchers, and implementing telecommuting and alternate work schedules). Chapter 3 of CAPCOA’s 2021 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, 81 includes
80 Bonta, Chapter 959, Statutes of 2018. California Environmental Quality Act: Oakland Sports and Mixed-Use Project. Available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB734&version=20170AB73492CHP. 81 CAPCOA. 2021. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers. Available at: https://caleemod.com/handbook/index.html.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
30 many on-site GHG reduction measures for a variety of project and plan types for lead agencies to consider. Many on-site GHG mitigation measures also result in a reduction in emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants in the air basin in which the project is located, as well as emissions of toxic air contaminants on or near the project site, consistent with legislative direction from SB 32 to “achieve the state’s more stringent greenhouse gas emission reductions in a manner that benefits the state’s most disadvantaged communities.”
4.1.2 Off-site GHG Mitigation
If implementation of all feasible on-site GHG reduction measures is insufficient to reduce a project’s impact to a less-than-significant level, the State recommends that the lead agency next explore options to fund or implement local, off-site direct GHG reduction strategies.
Funding or implementing GHG mitigation measures in the project’s vicinity may allow the project proponent and the lead agency to work directly with the impacted community to identify and prioritize the mitigation measures that meet its needs while minimizing multiple environmental and societal impacts. Direct, local investments help build relationships for future mutually beneficial development and mitigation opportunities in that community and may also provide a multitude of other co-benefits to the neighborhood’s residents. To help remove barriers to employing these types of mitigation, lead agencies may wish to consider developing a local mitigation bank82 that enables project applicants to fund such projects in exchange for being credited with the resulting GHG reductions in their CEQA analyses. The lead agency should also provide substantial evidence to show that the mitigation would actually serve to mitigate the proposed project’s GHG emissions (i.e., a project cannot take credit for unrelated off-site measures that would occur independently of the proposed project). Examples of local investments and their co-benefits include:
· Local urban forestry programs that increase the number of trees and other plants in urban areas can sequester carbon, reduce air pollution and ambient temperatures, help manage stormwater and improve water quality, provide shade to reduce energy demand for cooling buildings (and the associated cost and GHG emissions of that energy), improve aesthetics, foster mental health, and encourage physical activity of residents and employees, among many other benefits.
· Local building retrofit programs targeting existing residential and commercial buildings in the project’s vicinity can fund installation of cool roofs, solar panels, solar or heat pump water heaters, smart meters, and energy efficient lighting and appliances; replacement of fossil fuel-powered appliances with electric models; installation of energy efficient windows, insulation, and other building envelope measures; and 82 As discussed in Section 5, below, the Regional GHG Collaborative Group along the Central Coast are working to educate and provide avenues for offset projects to help meet current and future local GHG reduction targets and CEQA GHG reduction needs.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
31 implementation of water conservation measures. These investments can improve comfort, reduce utility bills, and help manage the demand for electricity while reducing GHG emissions.
· Off-site EV chargers can increase access to EV charging throughout a community.
Some examples could include EV chargers in multi-unit dwellings in disadvantaged or low-income areas, public locations (schools, libraries, city centers), workplaces, key destinations (e.g., parks, recreation areas, sports arenas). · Public transit subsidies can increase access to transit and to daily activities served by transit and can encourage less reliance on driving and increased reliance on other modes of transportation (e.g., transit and active transportation), which provides air quality and cost savings co-benefits to residents.
Like many on-site GHG mitigation measures, implementation of most local, off-site GHG reduction strategies also results in reductions of toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants and their precursors in the same air basin in which the project is located. The State recommends that lead agencies prioritize GHG mitigation that also increases a community’s social and economic resilience to adverse impacts exacerbated by climate change. Applying a local lens to GHG mitigation and allowing for community-led decision-making helps prioritize the mitigation measures that address community-identified needs and can also fill gaps in the existing local approach to climate action.
If a project needs further GHG reductions after adoption of all feasible local, off-site mitigation options, applicants should next consider non-local, off-site mitigation. There has been concern that GHG emission reductions from off-site GHG mitigation measures (including carbon offset credits) may double count GHG emission reductions from California’s Cap-and-Trade program.
However, off-site mitigation measures, such as EV charging or building efficiency retrofits, are viable options for mitigation under CEQA and would not be double counted, provided they are not otherwise required by law or regulation and would not have happened but for the mitigation requirements of the project. If the mitigation would have been implemented or required through another statute, regulation, existing local program, or requirement other than the project it is mitigating, then the project being mitigated may not also claim credit for the reductions.
4.1.3 Conditions Applicable to Carbon Offset Credits
If implementation of all feasible on-site GHG reduction measures and all feasible off-site GHG reduction measures are insufficient to reduce a project’s impact to a less-thansignificant level, then the lead agency or project applicant should consider purchasing and retiring carbon offset credits. The State recommends that carbon offset credits retired as CEQA mitigation be registered with a recognized and reputable carbon registry on the voluntary market. For example, while CARB does not review or authorize voluntary-market offset registries or protocols for use as CEQA mitigation, CARB notes that the registries California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
32 approved by CARB for the Cap-and-Trade Program also serve as voluntary market credit registries, with voluntary market offsets available for CEQA mitigation purposes. 83 In addition, starting in 2023, the California Carbon Sequestration and Climate Resiliency Project Registry84 will be maintained by the California Natural Resources Agency for the purposes of identifying and listing projects in the state that drive climate action on the state’s natural and working lands. The Registry is seeking funding from State agencies and private entities and may provide additional carbon offset credits. Note that compliance offsets for the Cap-and-Trade Program (a state market-based carbon program unaffiliated with CEQA) cannot be used for any purpose other than Cap-and-Trade compliance by covered entities and therefore cannot be purchased for use as CEQA mitigation. 85 As with other types of offsite mitigation, the State recommends pursuing carbon offset credits that are as close to the project site as possible in the following order of priority: (1) carbon offset credits that originate in the same air basin as the project, (2) carbon offset credits that originate elsewhere in California, (3) carbon offset credits that originate outside of California.
4.2 Clarifying CEQA’s Requirements for GHG Mitigation
Over the years, agencies and courts have provided direction and guidance regarding GHG mitigation. Given the variety of potential projects and mitigation scenarios, some uncertainty and misconceptions persist. For example, when lead agencies consider off-site GHG mitigation (including carbon offset credits), they may sometimes conflate the requirements for compliance-grade offsets in California’s Cap-and-Trade regulation with the requirements for GHG mitigation measures under CEQA. The Cap-and-Trade regulation requires that compliance offsets used in the Cap-and-Trade Program meet certain regulatory criteria, including that they be real, additional, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable. In general, the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program restricts compliance offsets from being used for any purpose other than Cap-and-Trade compliance, including being used as mitigation under CEQA.
When designing GHG mitigation measures (whether local, off-site mitigation or carbon offset credits), the State recommends that lead agencies focus on applying the requirements specified in the CEQA statute, Guidelines, and case law – e.g., not otherwise required (see CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(c)(3)); enforceable (see CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(2)); supported by substantial evidence; etc. – rather than strictly importing all of the regulatory requirements used for compliance offsets within California’s Cap-and-Trade 83 CARB. 2022. Offset Project Registries. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/complianceoffset-program/offset-project-registries. 84 Skinner, Chapter 237, Statutes of 2021. Carbon sequestration: state goals: natural and working lands: registry of projects. Available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB27. 85 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Chapter 3, §§ 15000 et seq.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
33 program. It may be appropriate for lead agencies to require CEQA mitigation that helps localities meet targets or commitments set in local planning documents, including CAPs, lacking sufficient funding and are not otherwise explicitly required by regulation. Lead agencies should use substantial evidence to document that a specific off-site mitigation measure is not otherwise required and would not have occurred at that time but for the requirement to mitigate a project’s GHG impacts. Examples of off-site GHG mitigation that would not have occurred but for the requirement to mitigate a project’s GHG impacts and could therefore be not otherwise required are included in Section 4.1.2, Off-site GHG Mitigation.
5. Importance of Regional Collaboration
While local jurisdictions have considerable authority to act individually, it is important to consider the many benefits of regional collaboration. Transportation, land use, housing, climate, and energy issues are often interconnected. Local governments can benefit from collaborating with neighboring jurisdictions and regional agencies as they seek to reduce GHG emissions from these sectors. For example, CAPs that consider regional travel patterns, job and housing availability, and regional opportunities to mitigate GHG emissions can be more effective. In collaboration with other regional entities, local jurisdictions can leverage investments, data, best practices, and opportunities for GHG emission reductions in an equitable manner.
Regional collaboration and partnership across levels of government can bring together community leaders, agencies, academia, industry, community-based organizations, and other stakeholders from multiple jurisdictions within a region to share expertise, information, lessons learned, and strategies to promote mutually defined goals. Regional collaboration may include leveraging existing collaboratives and partnerships or establishing new ones. There are many excellent examples of regional collaboration in California that support the intersection of transportation, housing, and land use in tackling climate change. Local jurisdictions can leverage the work of these collaboratives and build on existing efforts to support equitable implementation of priority strategies and GHG mitigation. Examples of existing regional collaboratives include Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs), Regional Energy Networks (RENs), Regional Climate Collaboratives, Regional Housing Collaboratives, and Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaboratives. The Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program (ICARP)86 offers funding, case studies, and tools for forming regional climate coordination entities.
Regional collaboration has tremendous potential to address barriers and expand opportunities for successful local GHG mitigation. It can help increase local opportunities for feasible GHG mitigation under CEQA that also benefit the communities impacted by the development. It can 86 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2022. Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program (ICARP). Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/climate/icarp/.
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
34 help overcome barriers, such as project and administrative costs. It can help increase awareness of local mitigation opportunities for project applicants and lead agencies, improve connections with existing programs that offer mitigation opportunities, and identify sites for offsite mitigation opportunities, all in an effort to support a local voluntary mitigation market. And it can help site owners aggregate smaller mitigation projects to potentially reduce costs, increase the efficiency of mitigation projects, and leverage expertise on mitigation strategies and quantification methodologies.
Regional collaboration can also lend support to lead agencies and air districts as they seek opportunities for local GHG mitigation. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, County of Santa Barbara, County of Ventura, City of Santa Barbara, City of San Luis Obispo, and Community Environmental Council formed a tactical Regional GHG Collaborative Group to understand and identify opportunities for local carbon sequestration and GHG reduction projects.
Developing a local voluntary mitigation market will help a city or region capture mitigation dollars and provide local benefits that are not realized by the purchase of distant, out-of-state carbon offset credits, while providing greater transparency and enforceability. Keeping GHG mitigation dollars within communities or regions can also be a strategy to address community needs and inequities from historic and ongoing underinvestment in vulnerable and disadvantaged communities.
Creating, sustaining, and expanding regional collaboratives takes time, resources, and expertise that are not always available to local jurisdictions. There may be a role for the State to ensure that all regions have access to mitigation opportunities. One potential avenue to accomplish this would be through the creation of a statewide GHG mitigation bank designed for CEQA mitigation purposes.
6. Conclusion
Local governments are essential partners in California’s efforts to reduce GHGs. Their unique expertise and respective authorities allow them to shape growth and development patterns within their jurisdiction, and as a result, local actions remain critical for reducing GHG emissions from the built environment and transportation. Indeed, the Scoping Plan proposes transformative reductions in GHG emissions from the building and transportation sectors.
These critical emission reductions rely on significant electrification of the state’s vehicle fleet and building stock, but also require a significant shift in the transportation choices for Californians favoring active mobility, shorter trips, and robust public transit rather than sprawl and automobile dependence. Local governments have a critical role to play in this transition through their land use policies, transportation investments, and partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions, community organizations, business and labor groups, and the State.
Local leadership and regional collaboration are paving the way for reducing emissions in these sectors, and this appendix seeks to inform jurisdictions about opportunities to promote transportation electrification, VMT reduction, and building decarbonization through:
California Air Resources Board
2022 Scoping Plan November 2022
35 · Developing local CAPs and strategies consistent with the framework described in Section 2: “The Role of Local Climate Action Planning in Supporting the State’s Climate Goals;”
· Localizing State-level GHG priorities when approving individual land use plans and projects as described in Section 3: “The Role of Land Use Development Projects in Supporting the State’s Climate Goals;”
· Implementing mitigation to reduce GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects, consistent with Section 4: “Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to CEQA;” and
· Leveraging regional collaboration to enhance the effectiveness of local climate action and overcome barriers to CEQA GHG mitigation as highlighted in section 5:
“Importance of Regional Collaboration.”
California must accommodate population and economic growth in a far more sustainable and equitable manner than in the past. California’s climate trajectory relies on local efforts that align with and help implement the State’s priorities. The recommendations provided in this appendix are non-binding and should not be interpreted as a directive to local governments, but rather as evidence-based analytical tools to assist local governments with their role as essential partners in achieving California’s climate goals.
Attachment N
1 This page is intentionally blank
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Legislative and Policy Background ........................................................................................................5
2. DUC Database .......................................................................................................................................6
3. DUC Census Data: a moving target.......................................................................................................7
4. Methodology.........................................................................................................................................8
5. DUC Database Update ........................................................................................................................10 Appendix A – 2015 DUC Database Development Guidelines.....................................................................25 5 1. L e g i s l a t i v e a n d P o l i c y B a c k g r o u n d According to the legislative findings in Senate Bill 244, Wolk (“SB 244”) hundreds of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (“DUCs”) exist in California, and more than 200 of these communities exist within the San Joaquin Valley. Additionally, the Legislature found that DUCs lack access to basic infrastructure, including, but not limited to streets, sidewalks, storm drainage, clean drinking water, and adequate sewer service.
Under SB 244, the Legislature found that cities, counties, special districts, and LAFCos need to invest in these communities and begin to address the complex legal, financial, and political barriers that contribute to regional inequity and infrastructure deficits within DUCs. Water Code section 79505.5(a) defines a “disadvantaged community” as a community with an annual median household income (“MHI”) that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income.
In addition, Government Code section 56033.5 defines a “DUC” as an inhabited territory (meaning territory within which there reside 12 or more registered voters), or as determined by LAFCo policy, that constitutes all or a portion of a “disadvantaged community” as defined by section 79505.5 of the Water Code.
Under SB 244, effective January 1, 2012, LAFCos are required to identify DUCs as part of the following procedures:
• Municipal Service Review determinations;
• Sphere of Influence determinations; and
• Proposed annexations (greater than 10 acres) to cities.
On January 9, 2013, the Commission exercised its authority under Government Code section 56375(g) to refine the definition of a DUC by adding the following characteristics:
• Have at least 15 dwelling units; and
• A density not less than one unit per acre.
The reader is advised that LAFCo’s DUC database relies on U.S. Census data to approximate the statewide and DUC median household income. LAFCo consulted with County of Fresno Clerk/Registrar of Voters Department to determine whether each potential DUC location consists more than 12 register voters.1It is Commission policy that SB 244 is intended to ensure that cities, special districts, and LAFCos do not purposefully proscribe a DUC from future annexations and that DUCs are included in the scope of municipal service review and sphere of influence updates.
The 2020 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Database updates and supersedes any and all previous DUC analyses performed by Fresno LAFCo. 1 Number of register voters within DUC locations, as of December 14, 2019. 6 2. D U C D a t a b a s e
LAFCo’s DUC policy determined that there may be a deficiency in Census data to accurately assess median household income levels in unincorporated communities. As a result, this database considers various sources of information in order to identify potential DUCs during the MSR update process, SOI update process, or when annexations greater than 10 acres are proposed to a city.
The foundation for the DUC database is the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (“ACS”) five-year reports which provide Census Tract, Block Group, and/or Census Designated Place (“CDP”) information to obtain population estimates, economic composition, and demographic data. The Census Tract and Block Group are geographical units used by the U.S.
Census Bureau to sample data from a fraction of all households within the designated geographic unit.
From 2012 to current date, LAFCo staff has employed two different ACS datasets to identify potential DUC locations during the preparation of routine MSR and SOI updates.2 In an effort to provide a centralized index that characterizes each potential DUC, LAFCo has obtained the most recent ACS five-year estimates for years 2012 through 2016 in order to update the DUCs’ median household income estimates.
In addition, other data resources consulted include:
• California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) Disadvantaged Communities mapping tool,
3 • County of Fresno parcel information,
• Fresno LAFCo’s Municipal Service Reviews (2012 – present), • Site investigations; and,
• Information sources including materials supplied by government agencies and other interested parties.
2 ACS five-year estimates for years 2006 to 2010 and ACS five-year estimates for years 2011 to 2014. 3 Disadvantaged Communities as defined per Public Resource Code §75005(g). 7 3. D U C C e n s u s D a t a : a m o v i n g t a r g e t The basis for a community’s “disadvantage” is a comparison of its MHI with the Statewide MHI.
A change of any of these MHI datasets over time could alter a given community’s disadvantaged status. For example, the following bullet points summarize the change of disadvantaged MHI threshold levels compared to the Statewide MHI levels for the given 10-year period between 2006 through 2016:
• U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey o California’s statewide MHI was $63,783.
o The threshold for a DUC is an MHI less than $51,026.
• U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey o California’s statewide MHI was $61,489.
o The threshold for a DUC is an MHI less than $49,191.
• U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey o California's statewide MHI was $60,883.
o The threshold for a DUC is an MHI less than $48,706.
Given the fluidity of the datasets, the DUC database “casts a broad net” and uses the 2012 to 2016 ACS datasets to inventory potential DUC locations in Fresno County. The DUC database should therefore be considered as a point of beginning for subsequent actions by LAFCo and other public agencies, rather than a conclusive determination. LAFCo staff will continue to monitor the DUC database and recommend updates to the Commission on an as-needed basis. 8 4. M e t h o d o l o g y
The data analysis methodology for this DUC database update follows the 2015 DUC mapping methodology is described in Appendix A.
The DUC mapping data consists of information gathered and automated in a GIS-compatible format, which provided flexibility in spatial and data analysis, data management, maintenance activities, and facilitated sharing information with local agencies and the public. The process below is involved in the characterization and mapping of the DUCs. These steps are summarized as follows:
1. LAFCo staff examines U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) five-year reports for the State to determine the statewide average MHI.
2. Based on the statewide average MHI, LAFCo examines Census Block Group data for locations in Fresno County that are unincorporated (those that are not within a city’s limits) that meet the DUC MHI threshold as defined by Water Code section 79505.5(a).
Pursuant to LAFCo policy this MHI data may be augmented by other information sources.
3. The Census units that may present a DUC MHI threshold are then evaluated in light of the following DUC Policy indicators:
a. The number of dwelling are estimated by aerial photographs and/or site visits of at least 15 dwelling units;
b. Dwelling units per acre are estimated to select in favor of areas presenting a density not less than one unit per acre; and
c. Registered voter data from the County Elections Department to select in favor of inhabited areas.
4. Based on aerial photography and parcel patterns that meet steps 2 and 3(a)(b), LAFCo staff used GIS to create polygons that delineate potential DUC locations. An acreage estimate is calculated for the entire delineated DUC polygon. The total acreage and the estimated a number of dwelling units are used to calculate the DUC density. The potential DUC boundaries generally follow parcel lines; however, in certain conditions a DUC’s boundaries are drawn to follow the visible concentration of dwelling units which may differ from parcel lines.
5. LAFCo staff assesses community conditions and summarizes each potential DUC location.
DUCs are characterized by the nearest street intersection, community name, estimated number of residential parcels, estimated dwelling units, and their location relative to a known Census Tract or Block Group number. Most important, the service providers for water, sewer, and fire protection are listed for each DUC. The listed Census units (Tract and Block Group numbers) assist to monitor and obtain additional data for future proposals or research.
9 6. To determine the DUC’s inhabited status, LAFCo staff consulted with the Fresno County Elections Department to request a register voter count for each of the potential DUC locations. LAFCo staff note that the number of register voters may fluctuate throughout any given period and the inhabited status for a potential DUC can be more accurately assessed and determined at the time an application or proposal is submitted to LAFCo.
Mapping DUC locations is a complex process because the delineation of the DUC boundaries may differ from the conventional local agency boundaries, statewide to local MHI ratios may change over a given timeframe that can result in a change to a community’s disadvantaged status, and/or the number of register voters can fluctuate during election years.
Nevertheless, the objective of the DUC Mapping Program is to develop a uniform hierarchical catalog of all the locations that satisfied or may have the potential to meet Fresno LAFCo’s DUC definition. This DUC database is envisioned to centralize, capture, maintain, and generate more information through LAFCo’s MSR Program beneficial to the various local agencies and the public. 10 5. D U C Da t a b a s e U p d a t e
DUCs identified in the DUC database update are the results of staff efforts to identify these communities pursuant to LAFCo Policy.
4 It is staff’s observation that additional DUCs may be identified as part of the Commission's ongoing SOI updates and MSR Program, and as new Census MHI datasets for California become available to the public.
Each identified DUC is described with the following characteristics:
• DUC database identification number
• Community name (based on nearest street intersection, historic cartographic place names, or subdivision tract name when available)
• U.S. Census geographic unit (tract and block group number) • Estimated MHI level per ACS five-year reports for years 2012 through 2016 • Geographic location and
• Number of Register Voters
• Service providers (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, or storm drainage) As of December 2019, Fresno LAFCo estimates that there are 34 known DUC locations within the County of Fresno. Because DUCs are geographically smaller than the average size of a Census Designated Place (“CDP”), Census Tract, and block group boundaries, LAFCo notes that limited information is available to accurately identify a population figure within any given DUC location.
The American Community Survey five-year estimate reports indicate that California’s statewide MHI was $63,783 between 2012 and 2016.5 Therefore, the threshold for a potential DUC location is an MHI threshold less than $51,026. Any future application near or contiguous to a listed DUC will warrant additional analysis in compliance with State law and Fresno LAFCo’s DUC Policy.
1. Northwest Olive and Marty Avenues (Skaal Knolls Homes): The DUC consists of approximately 29 parcels located within US Census Tract 38.07-Block Group 2. The ACS fiveyear estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 38.07-Block Group 2 had an MHI of $26,667 between 2012 and 2016. LAFCo estimates that there are 28 dwelling units, and the DUC area encompasses approximately 14 acres. Based on number of dwelling units per acreage, LAFCo estimates that there are two dwelling units per acre.
• The DUC is located within the Fresno SOI at the northwest corner of Olive Avenue and Marty Avenue.
• Register Voters: 48
• Service Providers:
Water and sewer: City of Fresno
Fire protection: North Central Fire Protection District
4 Fresno LAFCo, Commission Policies, Standards, and Procedures Manual, Section 106 - LAFCo Disadvantaged Communities Policy.
5 American Community Survey five-year reports, 2012-2016. 11 Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (system planned but not constructed)
2. Southeast Olive and Valentine Avenues: The DUC consists of approximately 34 parcels located within US Census Tract 38.07-Block Group 3. The US Census ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 38.07-Block Group 3 had an MHI of $35,179 between 2012 and 2016. This location was identified as a DUC in the 2015 City of Fresno MSR. LAFCo estimates that there are 37 dwelling units, and the DUC boundary encompasses approximately 27 acres. Based on number of dwelling units per acreage, LAFCo estimates the density to exceed one dwelling unit per acre.
• The DUC is located within the Fresno SOI at the southeast corner of Olive Avenue and Valentine Avenue.
• Register Voters: 64
• Service Providers
Water and sewer: City of Fresno
Fire protection: North Central Fire Protection District Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (system planned but not constructed)
3. Southeast Clinton and Marty Avenues (Thomasville Estates): The DUC consists of 28 parcels located within Census Tract 38.07-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 38.07-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $25,849 between from 2012 to 2016.
This location was identified as a DUC in the 2015 City of Fresno MSR. LAFCo estimates that there are 51 dwelling units, and the DUC area encompasses approximately 16 acres. Based on number of dwelling units per acreage, LAFCo estimates that there are three dwelling units per acre.
• The DUC is located within the Fresno SOI at the southeast corner of Clinton Avenue and Marty Avenue. The consists of single-family residential units and a mobile home park. • Register Voters: 62
• Service Providers
Water and sewer: City of Fresno
Fire protection: North Central Fire Protection District Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
4. Shields Avenue and Cedar Avenue: This DUC encompasses the eastside of the “Mayfair” community. The DUC consists of approximately 1,030 parcels located within a DUC area that encompasses 533 acres. Portions of the DUC are located within Census Tract 32.01-Block Group 1, Tract 32.01-Block 2, Tract 32.02-Block Group 2, and Tract 52.02-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 32.01-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $41,618; Tract 32.01-Block 2 had an MHI of $33,713; Tract 32.02-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $24,155; and Tract 52.02-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $29,545 between 2012 and 2016.
LAFCo estimates that there are approximate 965 dwelling units in an area that encompasses 12 approximately 498 acres. LAFCo estimates that the density is approximately two dwelling units per acre within this DUC.
• The DUC is enclosed by Shields Avenue to the north, Winery Avenue to the east, Clinton Avenue to the south, and extends across SR 168 over to Cedar Avenue in the west. The DUC also includes an area south of Cambridge Avenue, west of Maple Avenue, north of University Avenue, and east of SR 168.
• Register Voters: 1,881
• Service Providers
Water and sewer: City of Fresno
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
5. East McKinley and North First Avenue: This DUC encompasses the westside of the “Mayfair” community. The DUC area encompasses 490 acres and it consists of approximately 1,235 unincorporated parcels. Portions of the DUC are located within Census Tract 32.02-Block Group 1, Census Tract 33.01-Block Group 1, Tract 33.02–Block Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 32.02-Block Group 1 had and MHI of $24,155; Census Tract 33.01-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $29,531; Tract 33.02-Block 1 had an MHI of $21,034; Tract 33.02-Block Group 2 had an MHI of $45,231; Tract 33.02-Block Group 3 had an MHI of $32,969; and Tract 33.02-Block Group 4 had an MHI of $48,161 between 2012 and 2016. LAFCo estimates there are approximately 1,200 dwelling units within an area that encompasses 490 acres. LAFCo estimates that the density is approximately three dwelling units per acre within this DUC. • The DUC is enclosed by the Fresno city limits. The DUC is bounded by Princeton Avenue to the north, Cedar Avenue to the east, McKinley Avenue to the south, and First Avenue to the west.
• Register Voters: 2,130
• Service Providers
Water and sewer: City of Fresno
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
6. Ashlan and Maroa Avenue: According the County assessor parcel page, this tract map is known as the “Forkner Giffen, Fig Garden Subdivision.” The DUC consists of approximately 60 residential properties within a DUC area that encompasses 34 acres. The DUC is located within Census Tract 49.01-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 49.01-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $28,816 between 2012 and 2016. LAFCo estimates that the density is approximately two dwelling units per acre within this DUC. • The DUC is located at the southwest corner of Ashlan Avenue and Maroa Avenue. • Register Voters: 106
• Service Providers
Water and sewer: City of Fresno
Fire protection: North Central Fire Protection District 13 Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
7. Northeast Jensen and Valentine (Berans No. 2): The DUC is also known as “West Park” and it consists of approximately 110 properties located within Census Tract 19.00-Block Group 2.
The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 19.00-Block Group 2 had an MHI of $41,923 between 2012 and 2016. LAFCo estimates that there are 129 dwelling units located in an area that encompasses approximately 80 acres. There are at least two dwelling units per acre within this DUC.
• The DUC is located outside the Fresno SOI at the northeast corner of Jensen Avenue and Valentine Avenue.
• Register Voters: 163
• Service Providers
Water: County Service Area No.39 B
Sewer: Private septic tanks
Fire protection: North Central Fire Protection District Storm drainage: in the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District but no planned facilities
8. East Dinuba and Leonard Avenues (Khan Tract): This DUC consists of approximately 120 parcels, also identified within Census Tract 70.03-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 70.03-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $43,583 between 2012 and 2016. The DUC encompasses approximately 56 acres, and LAFCo estimates that there are approximately 131 dwelling units within this DUC. LAFCo estimates that the density is approximately two dwelling units per acre within this DUC. • The DUC is located within Selma’s SOI south of East Dinuba Avenue and east of Leonard Avenue.
• Register Voters: 178
• Service Providers
Water: Private well
Sewer: Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler County Sanitation District (via “out-of-District boundary customers”)
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: No service provider
9. Northeast Cherry and Central (Atkins Tract): This DUC is also known as “Daleville” and it consists of 42 properties located within Census Tract 18.00-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicated that Census Tract 18.00-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $38,973 between 2012 and 2016. The DUC is located within the Fresno SOI at the northeast corner of Cherry Avenue and Central Avenue. LAFCo estimates that there are 42 dwelling units located in an area that encompasses approximately 26 acres. There are at least two dwelling units per acre within this DUC.
• Register Voters: 68
• Service Providers
Water: City of Fresno
14 Sewer: Private septic tanks
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
10. Southeast Britten and Cherry (Central CA Colony): This DUC is also known as “Britten” and it consists of approximately 22 properties located within Census Tract 18.00-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicated that Census Tract 18.00-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $38,973 between 2012 and 2016. LAFCo estimates that there are 25 dwelling units located in an area that encompasses approximately 21 acres. There are at least two dwelling units per acre within this DUC.
• The DUC is located outside the Fresno SOI at the southeast corner of Britten Avenue and Cherry Avenue.
• Register Voters: 48
• Service Provider
Water and sewer: Private
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: in the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District but no planned facilities
11. Tranquillity: the unincorporated community of Tranquillity is a CDP located within Census Tract 82.00-Block Group 2. The five-year ACS estimates indicate that Census Tract 82.00- Block Group 2 had a MHI of $31,250 between years 2012 through 2016. For that same period, Census Tract 82.00-block group 2 showed an estimated population of 736 residents and 216 households. The DUC boundary encompasses approximately 181 acres. Based on dwelling unit estimates, there is at least one dwelling unit per acre within this DUC. • Tranquillity is located 10 miles southeast of the City of Mendota near the junction of South James Road and Colorado Road.
• Register Voters: 229
• Service Providers
Tranquillity Public Utility District provides street lighting, storm drainage, sewer collection and treatment, and parks services.
Water: Tranquillity Irrigation District
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District
12. Monmouth: The community of Monmouth contains agricultural land uses, agriculture warehousing, and approximately 36 rural residential parcels. This DUC is located with Census Tract 73.00-Block Group 1. According to the ACS five-year estimates, Census Tract 73.00- Block Group 1 had a MHI of $34,313 between years 2012 through 2016. The DUC boundary encompasses approximately 21 acres. Based on dwelling unit estimates, this DUC presents at least two dwelling units per acre.
• Monmouth is located at the northwest corner of South Chestnut and East Nebraska Avenue.
• Register Voters: 38
• Service Providers
15 Water and sewer: Private
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: No service provider
13. Southwest Jefferson and Chestnut Avenues (Washington Irrigated Colony): This DUC is also known as “Shady Lakes Mobile Home Park” and it is located on one parcel. This DUC consists of a 62 mobile homes and five detached single family homes located within Census Tract
17.00-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 17.00- Block Group 1 had an MHI of $37,257 between 2012 and 2016. The DUC boundary encompasses approximately 12 acres, of a 27-acre sized county parcel.
According to California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), the mobile home park consists of multiple parcels that are served by a private wastewater system. The wastewater system in Shady Lakes Mobile Home Park is privately-owned active sludge treatment system that discharges effluent into two disposal ponds and a pastureland south of the park. Within the Park, stormwater management consists of a drainage gutter system that diverts stormwater into a basin west of the park that is managed by Fresno Irrigation District.
Based on dwelling unit estimates, there is at least four dwelling unit per acre within this DUC. • The DUC is located outside but within a mile of the Fresno SOI. The DUC is located along Chestnut Avenue, between Jefferson Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. • Register Voters: 43
• Service Providers
Water: Shady Lakes Mobile Home Park Water System
Sewer: Private Wastewater System
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: Private drainage gutter system
14. Southeast Central and Maple Avenues: This DUC is also known as “Flamingo Mobile Home Lodge.” The DUC consists of one large property which hosts 75-lot mobile home park located within Census Tract 15.00-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 15.00-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $29,167 between 2012 and 2016. The DUC boundary encompasses approximately 35 acres. Based on dwelling unit estimates, there is at least two dwelling units per acre within this DUC.
• The DUC is located outside the Fresno SOI at the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Maple Avenue.
• Register Voters: 69
• Service Providers
Water and sewer: Malaga County Water District
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: in the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District 16 15. Malaga: The community of Malaga is a CDP located within Census Tract 15.00-Block Group 2.
The DUC consists of approximately 220 properties. The ACS five-year estimate indicated that Census Tract 15.00-Block Group 2 had an MHI of $41,656 between 2012 and 2016. The DUC boundary encompasses approximately 95 acres, and LAFCo estimates there are approximately 241 dwelling units within this DUC. Based on dwelling unit estimates, there is at least two dwelling units per acre within this DUC.
• The community of Malaga is located at the southeast corner of the Muscat Avenue and Chestnut Avenue.
• Register Voters: 495
• Service Providers
Potable water, sewer, and solid waste: Malaga County Water District Public street lights and landscaping services: County Service Area No. 33 Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
16. Del Rey: the community of Del Rey is a CDP located within Census Tract 69.00-Block Group 1.
The community of Del Rey has a population of 1,457 people, and a housing stock of 379 units.
The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 69.00-Block Group 1 reported an average MHI of $25,809 for years 2012 through 2016.
• Del Rey is located near the South Del Rey Avenue at East Jefferson Avenue intersection. • Register Voters: 384
• Service Providers
Del Rey Community Service District provides potable water, sewer, storm drainage, and solid waste services.
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District
17. Calwa: The community of Calwa is a CDP that consists of approximately 385 properties located within Census Tract 12.01- Block Group 1, Tract 12.01-Block Group 2, and Tract 12.01- Block Group 4. The ACS five-year estimate reports show Census Tract 12.01-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $26,406; Tract 12.01-Block Group 2 had an MHI of $21,324; and Tract 12.01- Block Group 4 had and MHI of $48,162 between 2012 and 2016. LAFCo estimates that there are approximate 385 dwelling units in an area that encompasses approximately 179 acres.
LAFCo estimates that the density is approximately two dwelling units per acre within this DUC.
• The community of Calwa is located within the Fresno SOI near the southeast corner of Church Avenue and Orange Avenue.
• Register Voters: 520
• Service Providers
Water and sewer: City of Fresno
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District 17 18. North Church and East Orange (Villa View Tract): The DUC is located north of Calwa and it consists of 22 properties located within Census Tract 12.01- Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicated that Census Tract 12.01-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $26,406 between 2012 and 2016. LAFCo estimates that there are approximate 23 dwelling units in an area that encompasses approximately 10 acres. LAFCo estimates that the density is approximately two dwelling units per acre within this DUC. • The DUC is located within the Fresno SOI, east of Orange Avenue and north of Belgravia Avenue. The nearest major intersection to the DUC is Church Avenue at Orange Avenue. • Register Voters: 23
• Service Providers
Water and sewer: City of Fresno
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
19. East Kings Canyon and South Minnewawa (Sunnyside part 1): The DUC is also known as the “Sunnyside” community that consists of several neighborhood. This narrative provides a twopart summary for an area that consists of approximately 900 parcels that encompass approximately 660-acres. LAFCo identified this DUC in its 2015 City of Fresno Municipal Service Review. Currently, LAFCo estimates that this DUC area has a density of at least one dwelling unit per acre.
The southeast section of the DUC consists of approximately 260 parcels that lie within Census Tract 30.03-Block Group 1 and Tract 30.03-Block Group 2. The ACS five-year estimate reports show Census Tract 30.03-Block Group 1 (west of Minnewawa and north of Kings Canyon) had an MHI of $19,478, while Tract 30.03-Block Group 2 (east of Minnewawa and north of Kings Canyon) had an MHI of $27,540 between 2012 and 2016.
• This DUC is located north of Kings Canyon Avenue and along both sides of Minnewawa Avenue.
• Register Voters: 1,714
• Service Providers:
Water and sewer: City of Fresno
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District South of Olive Avenue and east of Peach Avenue (Sunnyside part 2): This DUC section of the Sunnyside community consists of approximately 639 properties located within four Census Tracts. Portions of the DUC are located within Census Tract 29.03-Block Group 2, Census Tract 29.04-Block Group 1, Tract 29.04-Block 2, Tract 29.05-Block Group 2, and Tract 30.01- Block Group 2.
The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 29.03-Block Group 2 had an MHI of $20,737; Census Tract 29.04-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $34,000; Tract 29.04-Block 18 2 had an MHI of $46,618; Tract 29.05-Block Group 2 had an MHI of $27,396; and Tract 30.01- Block Group 2 had an MHI of $36,094 between 2012 and 2016. • The DUC is bounded by Olive Avenue to the north, Minnewawa Avenue to the east, Belmont Avenue to the south, and Peach Avenue to the west. The area also includes areas south of Belmont Avenue, west of Bush Avenue, north of McKenzie Avenue, and east of Winery Avenue. A minor portion of the DUC is located north of SR 180, west of Helm Avenue, south of Tyler Avenue, and east of Willow Avenue. • Service Providers
Water and sewer: City of Fresno
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
20. Biola: The community of Biola is a Census Designated Place (“CDP”) located at the southeast intersection of Shaw Avenue and Howard Avenue. Biola is located within Census Tract 41.00- Block Group 2. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 41.00-block group 2 had an MHI of $33,393 between from 2012 to 2016. LAFCo estimates that there are 324 parcels within Biola and approximately 324 dwelling units. The DUC boundary encompasses approximately 157 acres. Based on number of dwelling units per acreage, LAFCo estimates that there are 2 dwelling units per acre. • Biola is located near the Southeast corner of Shaw and Howard Avenues. The area is enclosed by West Shaw Avenue to the north, Seventh Avenue to the east, Ashlan Avenue to the South and Howard Avenue to the west.
• Register Voters: 415
• Service Providers
Biola Community Service District provides the community potable water, sewer, storm drainage, solid waste, and street lighting services. County Service Area No. 35, only maintains a subdivision section within Biola.
Fire protection: North Central Fire Protection District
21. Caruthers: The community of Caruthers is a CDP located in Census Tract 75.00-Block Group
5. According to the ACS five-year estimates, Caruthers has a population of 3,128 people and a housing stock of 812 units. During the ACS five-year estimates 2012 through 2016, Census Tract-75.00-Block Group 5 reported an MHI of $51,023.
• Caruthers is located southeast of the intersection of West Mountain View Avenue in Fresno County.
• Register Voters: 502
• Service Providers
Caruthers Community Service District provides potable water, sewer, street lights, and storm drainage services.
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District
22. Raisin City: Raisin City is a CDP located within Census Tract-76.00 Block Group 3. The ACS five-year estimates indicate that Census Tract-76.00 block group 3 had a MHI of $32,556 19 between years 2012 through 2016. The community of Raisin City has an estimated population of 234 people and a housing stock of 80 units.
• Raisin City located south of West Manning Avenue and along South Henderson Road in Fresno County.
• Register Voters: 76
• Service Providers
County Service Area 43 provides potable water and street lighting services Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: no service provider
23. Perrin Colony: This DUC consists of approximately 50 parcels each containing either a mobile home or single-family unit, or a combination single-family unit and a mobile home. Perrin Colony is situated within Census Tract-76.00-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimates indicate that Census Tract-76.00-Block Group 1 had a MHI of $42,278 between years 2012 through 2016. Perrin Colony is located outside the jurisdictional boundaries of County Service Area 43.
• Perrin Colony is situated north of Raisin City near the intersection of South Hayes Avenue and West Parlier Avenue
• Register Voters: 32
• Service Providers
Water and sewer: Private
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage: no service provider
24. East Dinuba and South Shaft: The DUC consists of approximately 65 dwelling units located within an area that encompasses approximately 49 acres. This DUC is identified within US Census Tract 70.03-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 70.03-Block Group 1 had a MHI of $43,583 between years 2012 through 2016. LAFCo estimates that the density is approximately one dwelling unit per acre within this DUC. • The DUC is located within the Selma SOI north of East Dinuba Avenue at the intersection with South Shaft Avenue.
• Register Voters: 82
• Service Providers
Water: Private well
Sewer: Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler County Sanitation District (via “out-of-District boundary customers”)
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage:
25. Carrillo Tract: The DUC consists of approximately 26 properties amounting to a total area of 28 acres. This DUC is located within Census Tract-76.00-Block Group 4. The ACS five-year estimate indicate that Census Tract-76.00-Block Group 4 had a MHI of $31,324 between years 2012 through 2016.
20 • The Carrillo Tract is situated east of State Route 41 and south of Manning Avenue at the southeast corner of East Springfield Avenue and South Cherry Avenue. • Register Voters: 30
• Service Providers
Water: Private well
Sewer: Private septic tanks
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage:
26. East Manning and McCall Avenues (Tract No. 1199): The DUC consists of approximately 16 parcels located within Census Tract 70.03-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 70.03-Block Group 1 had a MHI of $43,583 between years 2012 through 2016. LAFCo estimates that there are 17 dwelling units located within an area that encompasses approximately eight acres. LAFCo estimates that the density is approximately two dwelling units per acre within this DUC.
• The DUC is located within the Selma SOI, south of East Manning Avenue and west of McCall Avenue.
• Register Voters: 23
• Service Providers
Water: Private well
Sewer: Private septic tanks
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage:
27. McCall and Blaine Avenues (Dukes Villa Addition): The DUC consists of approximately 20 parcels located within the Census Tract 71.00-Block Group 3. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 71.00-Block Group 3 had an MHI of $43,583 between years 2012 through 2016. LAFCo estimates that there are 24 dwelling units located within an area that encompasses approximately 15 acres. LAFCo estimates that the density is approximately two dwelling units per acre within this DUC.
• The DUC is located within the Selma SOI near the city limits, at the intersection of McCall Avenue and Blaine Avenue.
• Register Voters: 23
• Service Providers
Water: Private well
Sewer: Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler County Sanitation District (via “out-of-District boundary customers”)
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage:
28. Newmark and East Annadale Avenues: The DUC consists of approximately 44 residential unincorporated parcels within an area the encompasses 30 acres. This DUC is situated within Census Tract 62.02-Block Group 1. Census Tract 62.02-Block Group 1 reported an MHI of 21 $48,125 during 2012 through 2016. LAFCo estimate that this DUC has a density of one unit per acre.
• The DUC is located within the Sanger’s SOI, east of the Sanger city limits. The DUC is located east of Newmark Avenue and north of East Annadale Avenue. Roads within the DUC area includes East Buck Avenue, South Lewis Lane, and South Madsen Avenue. • Register Voters: 75
• Service Providers
Water: Private well
Sewer: Private septic tanks
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage:
29. Laton: The community of Laton is a CDP located within Census Tract 74.00-Block Group 3.
The DUC consists of approximately 520 unincorporated parcels, located within an area that encompasses 196 acres. There are approximately 522 dwelling units within Laton. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 74.00-Block Group 3 had an MHI of $25,809 between years 2012 through 2016. LAFCo estimates that the density is approximately two dwelling units per acre within this DUC. • Laton is located near the intersection of South Fowler Avenue and Murphy Avenue. • Register Voters: 435
• Service Providers
Laton Community Service District provides water, sewer, storm drainage, solid waste, fire protection, and street lighting.
30. Riverdale: The community of Riverdale is a CDP located within Census Tract 77.00-Block Group 1 and 3. However, the ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that only Census Tract
77.00-Block Group 1 (western side of Riverdale) reported an average MHI level that meets the DUC threshold. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Tract 77.00-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $47,405 between years 2012 through 2016. LAFCo estimates that the density is approximately two dwelling units per acre within this DUC. • Riverdale is located near the intersection of South Marks Avenue and Mount Whitney Avenue.
• Register Voters: 562
• Service Providers
Water, sewer, storm drainage, solid waste, fire protection, and street lighting: Riverdale Public Utility District
31. South Academy and East Manning: The DUC consists of 16 unincorporated rural parcels consisting of approximately 21 to 24 dwelling units within an area that encompasses approximately of 20 acres. The DUC area is located within Census Tract 85.01-Block Group 1.
Between 2012 through 2016, this area of concern reported an MHI of $22,431. The census block group is geographically larger than the specific DUC area; however, available data 22 shows that census tract 85.01-block group 1 reported an approximate population of 1,258 people which is much greater than the DUC area.
• The DUC is located west of South Academy Avenue and south East Manning Avenue, immediately south of Parlier’s city limits and east of Parlier’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.
• Register Voters: 13
• Service Providers
Water: Private well
Sewer: Private septic tanks
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage:
32. Cantua Creek: Cantua Creek is a CDP located within Census Tract 82.00-Block Group 6. The five-year ACS estimates indicate that Census Tract 82.00-Block Group 6 had an MHI of $33,813 between years 2012 through 2016. LAFCO estimates that there are 73 parcels within this DUC, and the DUC encompasses approximately 25 acres. The density is approximately two dwelling units per acre within this DUC.
• Cantua Creek is located at Clarkson Avenue west of San Mateo Avenue in Fresno County. • Register Voters: 67
• Service Providers
County Service Area No. 32 provides water via contract with Westlands Water District, street lighting, solid waste, and wastewater services.
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage:
33. Camden: The community of Camden consist of one parcel that houses a 28-lot mobile home park. The DUC encompasses approximately 25 acres. This DUC is located within Census Tract
77.00-Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 77.00- block group 1 had an MHI of $47,405 between years 2012 through 2016. Within Camden, there is a mobile home park (28 units), a convenience store, and a gas station. LAFCo estimates that there is a minimum of one dwelling unit per acre within Camden. • Camden is located near the intersection of East Mount Whitney Avenue and State Route
41. • Register Voters: 18
• Service Providers
Water: Private well
Sewer: Private septic tanks
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage:
34. O’Neill Farms: O’Neill Farms consists of seven unincorporated parcels that house several multiple family complexes. For the purpose of mapping this community, LAFCo’s DUC boundary encompasses 37 acres and it only includes the residential clusters. LAFCo estimates 23 that there are approximately 42 dwelling units within this DUC area. O’Neill Farms lies within Fresno County’s Census Tract 78.02 Block Group 1. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 78.02-Block Group 1 had an MHI of $34,700 between years 2012 through 2016. The Westside Elementary School is located with this DUC. Based on dwelling units and DUC acreage, there is at least one dwelling unit per acre within this DUC. • This DUC is located at the intersection of W. Excelsior Avenue and S. Lake Avenue. • Register Voters: 12
• Service Providers
Water: County Service Area No. 49
Wastewater: Private septic tanks
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage:
35. El Porvenir: This community is also known as “Three Rocks” and it consists of 55 unincorporated rural residential parcels. For the purpose of mapping this community, LAFCo focused on the dwelling units, and omitted four undeveloped parcels and the CSA’s neighborhood park and wastewater treatment ponding areas. LAFCo estimates that this DUC encompasses 27 acres. El Porvenir lies within Fresno County’s Census Tract 83.02 Block Group 3. The ACS five-year estimate reports indicate that Census Tract 83.02-Block Group 3 had an MHI of $31,538 between years 2012 through 2016. Based on dwelling units and DUC acreage, there is at least one dwelling unit per acre within this DUC. • This DUC is located at the intersection of South Derrick Avenue (SR33) and West Clarkson Avenue.
• Register Voters: 50
• Service Providers
County Service Area No. 30 provides water via contract with Westlands Water District, street lighting, solid waste, wastewater services, and park & recreational services.
Fire protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage:
36. Lanare: The community of Lanare is located in Census Tract 77.00-Block Group 4. According to the ACS five-year estimates, Lanare has a population of 297 people and a housing stock of 72 units. During the ACS five-year estimates 2012 through 2016, the community of Lanare reported an MHI of $54,404.
In 2018, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (LCJA), a Fresno based local organization that works with DUCs, finalized an income level survey conducted within Lanare.
The survey consisted of mail in and door-to-door surveys conducted in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board’s 2014 Multiagency Guidelines for MHI Surveys. According to LCJA, there are 154 dwelling units in Lanare and between December 2017 through March 2018 the survey information showed that Lanare had an MHI of $30,000 during 2017.
24 LAFCO estimates that there are 113 parcels within this DUC, and the DUC encompasses approximately 123 acres. The density is approximately one dwelling unit per acre within this DUC.
• Lanare is located near the intersection of South Grantland Avenue and Mount Whitney Avenue.
• Register Voters: 124
• Service Providers
Water: Lanare Community Service District
Wastewater: Private septic tanks
Fire Protection: Fresno County Fire Protection District Storm drainage:
G:\LAFCO WORKING FILES\GIS Layers and Maps\00-LAFCo Maps\DUC Information\DUC Narrative\Final_DUC Narrative_02122020.docx 25 A p p e n d i x A – 2 0 1 5 D U C D a t a b a s e D e ve l o p m e n t G u i d e l i n e s
ATTACHMENT B
Fresno LAFCo
DUC Database Development Guidelines
Introduction
These guidelines will be used to develop and maintain the database necessary to implement Fresno LAFCo policy 106-01, to conduct reasonable demographic surveys and studies. The database will be augmented by site investigation, and other materials supplied by government agencies and other interested parties (collectively, the "Information Sources").
1. DUCs in Fresno County are initially identified by reviewing US Census information including census tract, block group, or block data to obtain population estimates, economic composition, and demographic information. Census tracts occasionally include both incorporated and unincorporated territories which do not necessarily coincide with city or municipal local agency boundaries. Though a census tract may encompass a large geographic area, the sample data reported therein provides a reasonable assessment of the economic composition among residents within the tract. The smallest geographic units which the US Census collects and tabulates decennial census data are the census block groups and blocks. Census block groups are statistical divisions of a census tract. Census block groups are generally defined between 600-3,000 people. A block group consists of clusters of blocks within the same census tract that have the same first digit of their census block number. Data collected from census block groups and blocks are generally more detailed for areas within a census tract, if available. Most block groups identified by US Census data were delineated by local participants in the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program.
2. The definition of a “disadvantaged community” (DAC) per GC §56033.5, WC §79505.5, and PRC §75005(g), is “a community with an annual Median Household Income (MHI) that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual MHI.” For example, the 2010 statewide MHI in California reported by the US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year report is $60,883; thus, a community with a household income less than 80% of the MHI ($48,706) would be a “disadvantaged community”.
3. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides DAC mapping software and downloadable shape file maps are available through the DWR website. DWR’s DAC mapping data is created using the ACS five-year period reports between years 2006-2010. The DWR maps identify DACs for different areas using census tracts or block group information. The shape file maps include pre calculated fields for census tracts and block groups that are identified as DAC (per PRC §75005 (g)) with a “Yes or No.”
4. Fresno LAFCo Policy 106 definition is more specific and includes two additional DUC indicators aside from the MHI margin:
a. the DUC will be inhabited territory (12 or more registered voters); and b. consist of at least 15 dwelling units at a density not less than one unit per acre.
In addition, LAFCo policy 106-05 established that a DUC up to 300 feet distant from a proposed annexation boundary “is sufficient to start the annexation proceedings for a DUC.” This policy also identified “Legacy Communities” which are DUCs within one mile of an existing or proposed sphere of influence.
ATTACHMENT B
5. The DAC mapping information available in geographic information systems (GIS) shape files will be employed to develop a “first cut” of maps to identify areas in the County that report a MHI less than 80 percent of the statewide annual MHI. The DAC GIS shape files will be layered with maps available on the County of Fresno’s GIS database. Fresno County’s shape file named “CY_FRESNO.CENSUS_BLKGRP” will be utilized to identify all census block groups in the County that meet the DAC threshold. The “CY_FRESNO_CITY_NAMES” shape file will be used to map incorporated and unincorporated community boundaries. The “CY_FRESNO.PARCEL_VW” GIS shape file will be employed to identify parcelization patterns that could be compared to aerial photography in identification process of a DUC, per Commission Policy 106.
6. The DAC maps present an initial assessment of the areas based on MHI data at the census tract and block group levels. Further review of land parcelization patterns and identification of DUCs will be focused near city limits and within Municipal Local Agencies with SOI boundaries.1 The data is selected to only identify DUCs near cities and Municipal Local Agencies that provide services related to sewer, municipal or industrial water, or fire protection. As such, each eligible Municipal Local Agency boundary was surveyed to identify and determine DUC locations that meet the 15 dwelling units at a density not less than one unit per acre.
G:\LAFCO WORKING FILES\FEBRUARY 11, 2015\DUC Att B.docx 1 Fresno LAFCo policy 107-04, “Municipal Local Agencies” include cities and special districts that provide municipal services.
From: Ruby Marquez
To: Clerk
Subject: Central Trucking Project
Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 8:13:17 AM
Attachments: Comment Letter Hirschfield OC.docx.pdf
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good morning,
Please see the attached letter from Superintendent Terry Hirschfield. Thank you. --
Ruby Marquez
Administrative Assistant
Orange Center School District
3530 S. Cherry Avenue
Fresno, CA 93706
P: 559-237-0437
E:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information only for use by the intended recipient. Unless you are the addressee or authorized to receive messages for the addressee, you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message, or any information contained in or attached to this message, to anyone.
Orange Center School District
3530 S. Cherry Ave • Fresno, California 93706 • (559)237-0437 • Fax (559)237-9380
Terry Hirschfield, Superintendent
August 11th, 2025
Fresno City Council
City Hall Council Chamber, 2nd Floor,
2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721
Sent via email [email protected]
Dear Fresno City Council,
My name is Terry Hirschfield, and I am the Superintendent/ Principal at Orange Center School District. I am writing to you to urge you to deny Annexation Application No.P21-05778, Pre-zone Application No. P21-05870, and Development Permit Application No. P23-00149 to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the students, teachers, and staff who attend and work at Orange Center Elementary, and of the residents who live on Cherry Ave, Daleville, and surrounding disadvantaged unincorporated communities. I oppose this project because I am concerned about the impacts to our air quality from the emissions of heavy-duty truck traffic, traffic safety concerns, especially for the families commuting to Orange Center School, and the longer-term implications of industrial development less than a mile away from an elementary school.
The proposed annexation, rezoning to heavy industrial, and development permit for Central Transport in South Central Fresno will exacerbate already poor environmental and health conditions in the community. Conditions in South Central Fresno are so critical that the community of South Central Fresno was selected as one of the first communities for the AB 617 Community Air Protection Program to develop a Community Emissions Reduction Program and the Community Air Monitoring Program. The community of South Central Fresno worked for at least a year to develop strategies to reduce emissions, including rerouting truck traffic from Cherry Ave. The community has also heavily engaged and pushed for the development and adoption of a South Central Specific Plan to provide safeguards to protect residents from further industrial development. At this point, the City should be working to address existing issues instead of considering more projects that will create a larger impact to residents.
In 2024, the City of Fresno conducted a Health Impact Assessment (HIA), which found that South Fresno residents were more likely to live closer to a major street, truck route, or freeway, Orange Center School District
3530 S. Cherry Ave • Fresno, California 93706 • (559)237-0437 • Fax (559)237-9380
Terry Hirschfield, Superintendent
and as a result, residents were more exposed to PM 2.5, ozone, and diesel particulate matter. The HIA found that South Central Fresno residents had a significantly higher risk of experiencing a pre-term birth and infant mortality. Emergency room visits or hospitalization due to asthma or cardiovascular issues were found to be more prevalent in South Central Fresno than in other areas of the City, specifically for residents living within 1000 feet of a highway or truck route.
Residents in South and Southwest Fresno have a 20-year shorter life expectancy than residents in other areas of Fresno.
My experience working near industrial operations has impacted me directly, as I can hear trucks rumbling by my office daily and at times even feel vibrations from trucks as they drive on Cherry Avenue.
Again, I urge you to please deny Annexation Application No.P21-05778, Pre-zone Application No. P21-05870, and Development Permit Application No. P23-00149 to protect the community of South Central Fresno from continued industrial growth in our backyards.
Respectfully,
Terry Hirschfield
Orange Center School District
Superintendent/ Principal
From: Emma De La Rosa
To: Clerk; Jerry Dyer
Cc: Moore, Brian@ARB; Olp, Kevin@ARB; Fletcher, Chanell@ARB; Reyes, Deldi@ARB; Robert Swanson; Ryan Hayashi; Seth Alston; Stephanie Ng
Subject: Written Comments for ID 25-1026
Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 8:28:58 AM
Attachments: Central Transport CL 8.13.pdf
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good morning Mayor Dyer and Fresno City Clerk,
Please accept the attachment as formal comment for ID 25-1026 of tomorrow's agenda. Please distribute copies to the Council. Thank you.
--
Respectfully,
Emma De La Rosa, MPP
Pronouns: She, Her, Hers, Ella
Land Use and Transportation Policy Manager
Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Cell:
Click here to register!
August 13, 2025
Sent Via Email To [email protected]
Fresno City Council
City Hall Council Chamber, 2nd Floor,
2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721
Dear Mayor Dyer and City Council Members:
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (“LCJA”) submits this letter in opposition to the annexation application No. P21-005778, prezone application P21-05870, and development permit No. P23-00149 (collectively the “Project”). LCJA works alongside residents from South Central Fresno, the South Fresno Community Alliance, other disadvantaged unincorporated communities south of the City’s borders, and disadvantaged communities within the City bearing the brunt of the City’s land use decisions of siting industrial development near residential communities. The Project will result in detrimental air, traffic, and noise impacts to residents in the community who have seen their neighborhoods slowly be consumed in the City’s industrial development as it extends south into the County.
As an initial matter, we join the thorough comments submitted by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger on August 13, 2025 (the “SMW Letter”). We agree that the mitigated negative declaration for the Project is wholly inadequate and inconsistent with the minimum standards set forth by the California Environmental Quality Act. This comment letter also builds on our comment submitted on June 18th, 2023 in response to the City’s Planning Commission hearing included below as Attachment A.
Additionally, we write separately to highlight non-compliance with California fair housing and anti-discrimination law, elevate policy and infrastructure recommendations from the South Central Fresno AB 617 Community Truck Reroute Study (Truck Reroute Study), and elevate resident concerns.
A. Approval Would Reinforce and Perpetuate Patterns of Discrimination In Violation Of The Duty To Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.
Cities in California have a mandatory duty to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”). (Gov. Code, § 8899.50.) This duty requires cities to “do more than simply refrain 1 from housing discrimination.” (Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193 at 220.) Rather, AFFH includes “a mandate to take the type of actions that undo historic patterns of segregation and other types of discrimination and afford access to opportunity that has long been denied.” (Id. at 288 quoting 80 Fed. Reg. 42274 (July 16, 2015).) As established by Government Code Section 8899.50, AFFH includes a requirement to take “meaningful actions” that “overcome patterns of segregation.” (Gov. Code §8899.50(a)(1).) The Project, as proposed, would perpetuate systemic racism and the disenfranchisement of low-income communities of color, where residents are already suffering the consequences of decades of environmental injustice and inequitable development practices. As described in prior comments regarding the Project, the project vicinity is an area where air pollution and associated health impacts are among the worst in the state. (See SMW letter (August 13, 2025); LCJA Letter (June 17, 2025) (Attachment A).) The proximity of the proposed project to vulnerable populations further exacerbates the seriousness of these concerns. Sensitive receptors in the area residences, as well as students and staff at Orange Center Elementary School would bear the greatest burden of the project’s negative impacts. As proposed, the project would not only intensify truck traffic that would worsen the environmental conditions in the area, but would plan for wider development of heavy industrial uses, locking in the City’s planning on a path that would only continue these discriminatory harms indefinitely. For these reasons, without incorporating mitigation measures to reduce the severity of these impacts, the Project would violate the City’s Fair Housing obligation by perpetuating harmful patterns of segregation.
B. Approval Would Constitute An Unlawful Land Use Practice, Violating The Fair Employment And Housing Act (“FEHA”).
FEHA prohibits discrimination in housing and land use practices. (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.) FEHA extends to all “public or private land use practices” including “actions authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law.” (Gov. Code § 12955(l).) The actual scope of FEHA is detailed expansively in its implementing regulations. As implemented, FEHA prohibits “any public or private land use practice that:... (2) has a discriminatory effect on members of a protected class.” (CCR tit. 2 § 12161(a).) Further, a practice is unlawful if it:
“[r]esults in the location of toxic, polluting, and/or hazardous land uses in a manner that…adversely impacts, or renders infeasible the enjoyment of residence, land ownership, tenancy, or any other land use benefit related to residential use, or in connection with housing opportunities of existing or proposed dwellings.” (CCR tit. 2, § 12161 subs. (b)(10).)
2 The City, as a public agency with land use authority over the project area, is subject to FEHA in its land use practices. A decision by the City to approve the proposed annexation, development, and zoning change would constitute a practice that would have an effect on existing residences in the project vicinity. First, the Project environmental review acknowledges the existence of residents in and around the project area and, as discussed in the SMW letter and our prior letter, there is additional housing in the area that was not acknowledged in the MND.
Next, if approved, the Project would result in the siting of a development which, during its operation and construction, would cause the emission of diesel particulate matter and other harmful air pollutants. Further, the proposed pre-zoning demonstrates that similarly polluting or even more acutely toxic heavy industrial land uses would be permitted in the area in the future.
Each of these polluting impacts would interfere with the quiet use and enjoyment of housing near the project.
Thus, approval of the Project would result in the location of polluting and otherwise hazardous land uses in a manner that would adversely impact the use and enjoyment of the area’s residents. This would directly violate FEHA.
C. Approval Would Violate State Law Prohibiting the Re-zoning of Residential Land to Less Intensive Uses.
The Housing Crisis Act, (SB 330 (2019), “the HCA”), was intended by the legislature to address the statewide shortage of affordable housing. The Act applies to “affected cities,” which comprise almost all cities in the state located within urban areas, including the city of Fresno and Fresno County.1
Under the HCA, affected cities and counties are prohibited from enacting a “development policy, standard, or condition” that would have the effect of “[c]hanging the general plan land use designation…or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use” within the existing general plan designation or zoning of land where housing is an allowable use. (Gov. Code § 66300, subd.(b)(1).) A “[d]evelopment policy, standard, or condition” is defined to include a “provision of, or amendment to, a general plan” or a “provision of, or amendment to, a zoning ordinance.” (Gov. Code § 66300, subd.(a)(5)(A)-(C).) “Reducing the intensity of use” is defined as including “reductions to…density” as well as “any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity.” (Gov. Code § 66300, subd.(b)(1).)
1 Department of Housing and Community Development Affected Cities - 2023 Update p.2, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/affected-cities.pdf (Under this classification the County is also “affected” for the purposes of the HCA.); Department of Housing and Community Development Affected Counties - 2023 Update p. 1, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/affected-counties.pdf. 3 Here, the proposed Project would involve the annexation of 80 acres into the city limits.
Also proposed is a pre-zoning for 50 acres of the 80 acre area, which would change the land’s designated uses from the existing County “Limited Agricultural” zoning to “Heavy Industrial.” If carried out, these actions would constitute either provisions of, or alternatively, amendments to the City’s General Plan and Land Use Code. Currently, the Limited Agricultural land use applied by the County permits single-family dwellings. (Fresno County Zoning Ordinance § 817.1) Under the proposed Heavy Industrial land use, residential uses would not be permitted. (City of Fresno Municipal Code Table 15-1302: Land Use Regulations – Employment Districts.) Thus, the effect of the pre-zoning and annexation of the 50 acres would be to change the zoning of the encompassed parcels such that the intensity of residential uses would be reduced to zero. Thus, the Project would individually and cumulatively reduce the residential development capacity of the parcels in violation of the HCA.
D. Approval Would Constitute Disparate Impact Discrimination Under State and Federal Civil Rights Law
Under state law, no person may be “unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of…any program or activity that is…funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state” on the basis of any protected characteristic. (Gov. Code, § 11135(a).) The characteristics protected by law include “race,” “color,” and “national origin.” (Gov. Code. § 11135(c).) A violation occurs when an entity which receives any state financial support carries out any activity that is discriminatory, regardless of whether the discriminatory activity is directly funded. (Comm. for Immigrant Rights v. County of Sonoma (2009) 644 F.
Supp. 2d 1177,1207.) Further, as under Federal antidiscrimination law, even facially neutral acts can amount to prohibited discrimination under Section 11135 when they result in a disparate impact on a protected class. (Darensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm'n (2009) 611 F. Supp. 2d 994, 1042, [“As under Title VI, a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination under section 11135 requires a plaintiff to show: (1) the occurrence of certain outwardly neutral practices; and (2) a significantly adverse or disproportionate impact on minorities produced by the defendant's facially neutral acts or practices.”].)
For the reasons stated above, the City’s failure to plan in a manner consistent with the duty to AFFH, and its failure to comply with the requirements of FEHA, is also a violation of the prohibition against discrimination established by Section 11135 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The enumerated shortcomings of the Project environmental review demonstrate that the City’s activities related to planning for community development deny residents access to the full range of benefits contemplated by CEQA. For instance, shortcomings in outreach and public engagement, and failures to accurately and sufficiently describe the project setting, the project itself, and the environmental impacts of both the proposed facility and the industrial land uses 4 fail to achieve both the public process and informed decisionmaking functions of CEQA.
Further, if approved the project would also demonstrate a decision by the City to plan for trucking, manufacturing, and other heavy industrial uses in close proximity to homes in schools in South Fresno. These failures would foreseeably result in harms disproportionately borne by residents of the Project vicinity, who are more predominantly Hispanic or Latino/a/e when compared to the City, County, and state on average.2
E. The City Must Consider Project Impacts to the Community And The Serious Concerns Of Nearby Residents.
As mentioned, the proposed Project site is located in a polluted and environmentally burdened disadvantaged unincorporated community. The site is directly next to residential properties to the north of the site and to the eastern side of Cherry Ave. Daleville, a disadvantaged unincorporated community, is also less than a mile south of the Project site.
Families have had generations of students attend Orange Center Elementary and are long-time residents of South Central Fresno. Residents report a deterioration of their community where little by little, the City of Fresno has continued to permit industrial development abutting residential properties. Close proximity to industrial operations has quickly pushed residents out of the area, leading to scattered and solitary residential dwellings on Cherry Ave. Industrial development permitted by the City has impacted the community’s ability to breathe, ability to travel safely throughout their neighborhood roads, and their ability to learn, work, and play.
Residents are seriously concerned about the traffic impacts that will result from the Project, including impacts on Cherry Ave. North Ave., and Central Ave. Reports from the community indicate heavy-duty truck congestion as trucks travel off State Route 41 and State Route 99, creating major traffic hazards. One resident reported driving next to heavy duty trucks on three sides, inhibiting their ability to see incoming traffic. Residents are also concerned about the safety of their families, as trucks and other vehicles speed through Cherry Ave. Project proponents claim traffic impacts will be addressed by only allowing truck egress and ingress points on the north side of Cherry to prevent truck traffic from passing by the school. However, there is no physical or operational requirement that would ensure this is the case, and Project proponents and City staff fail to consider the families living in the residential dwellings on the northern end of Cherry Ave.
The community is concerned mitigation will not realistically address the dangerous reality of truck traffic near a school and residences, due to the narrowness and the direction of 2 For example, the populations of Project vicinity census tracts 6019001800 and 6019001500 are over 66 percent and over 75 percent Hispanic, respectively, compared to a census tract population average of approximately 49 percent citywide, 53 percent countywide, and 38 percent statewide. Data from: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data.
5 traffic as one-way on Cherry Ave. For example, if trucks are idling, or trucks are waiting to enter the facility, trucks exiting the facility may not have enough space to turn left towards North Ave.
Widening Cherry Ave. also causes angst to residents as that would lead to trucks traveling much closer to residences and idling much closer to their front doors and windows. Idling is a regular issue for residents as they report truck idling causing traffic blind spots for drivers and pedestrians as they travel on the road and as they pull out from their driveways. Residents report idling occurring right in front of their homes increasing their exposure to emissions. Despite calling the authorities, residents report low to no enforcement on truck idling in their neighborhoods. Photos depicting examples of truck idling are shown under Attachment B.
Residents are also concerned about the impacts on their health. Residents report suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses and having at least one or more family members also suffering from respiratory issues.The lack of sidewalks on Cherry Ave. exacerbates the dusty conditions created by truck traffic as they veer off on Cherry Ave. picking up dust and other particulate matter breathed by residents. The City must consider how poor air quality caused by existing operations and exacerbated by the Project will impact residents living in substandard housing conditions along Cherry Ave. and Daleville. Residents, particularly those with swamp coolers or no air conditioning, will be forced to breathe contaminated air even in the comfort of their own home.
Students’ education is also impacted as a result of poor air quality. An educator from Orange Center Elementary shared frustration with having to limit students' physical education to instruction indoors on days with a high air quality index. Noise from the existing truck traffic also contributes to students learning as the traffic causes a distraction from instruction. Teachers and staff have also reported having to pause their conversations or instruction until truck noise is reduced.
F. The City Must Engage the Community of South Central Fresno and Adopt the Southcentral Fresno Specific Plan Before Continuing with Project Consideration.
Even though City staff and developers have been planning for the Project for the last four to five years, engagement with residents has been minimal, vague, unclear, and not transparent.
The proponents of the Project suggest their engagement has sufficed, however, residents disagree the few meetings and information provided is enough to ensure all affected residents will have the chance to learn about the project, share concerns, and express their position. Project meetings were mostly held virtually creating accessibility issues for residents who were unable to join online, or for residents who were unfamiliar with the zoom call option. Meetings were also poorly attended with no more than six residents attending the meetings held in February of 2021 and July 2021 in total. Moreover, noticing for the required meeting held in February of 2021 was only extended to property owners within 1000 ft from the project site. As a result, few residents 6 within the 1000 ft buffer actually received notice, while none of the families and staff from Orange Center Elementary were informed about the neighborhood meeting.
Project proponents met with the District 3 Project Review Committee (PRC) which was held in April 2021. During the PRC, committee members recommended denial of the project, raising concerns about the environmental impacts to the community and Orange Center Elementary, and directed further analysis of impacts be completed. Notably, the PRC also recommended the proponents to conduct more community engagement by noticing within 3,000 ft from the project instead of 1,000 ft. City staff and the Project proponents disregarded the PRC’s noticing recommendation.
Precision Engineering hosted a meeting on August 7th, 2025 at Orange Center Elementary, one week before the scheduled City Council public hearing for the Project. At least 30 residents, staff, parents, and families from Orange Center Elementary attended the meeting to express their opposition to the Project. Regrettably, Precision Engineering provided vague and unclear answers to residents' questions and concerns. For instance, they were unable to share how many truck trips the Project would produce. They failed to provide Spanish translation for the community meeting and failed to send a map of the Project site with the notice. The information was inaccessible and technical, and the facilitators discouraged group discussions and questions throughout the meeting. Residents were very vocal about their concerns related to air quality, truck traffic, and safety for their children, however, Precision Engineering did not take note of any of the resident comments.
Community engagement and participation for the Project and the future of South Central Fresno process is vital to ensure impacts associated with harmful land uses are considered, mitigated and enforced. Residents from South Fresno continue to advocate for the development and adoption of the South Central Specific Plan (SCSP) to prioritize the health and safety of residents living near existing industrial operations, and prevent harm from the City’s industrial and heavy industrial development in the future. The City has yet to continue the development of the SCSP since it was last discussed in November of 2024. The City must ensure the SCSP is developed alongside the community and adopted prior to the consideration and approval of any project, including Central Transport.
We urge the City Council to consider scheduling public hearings and any other meetings related to the project in the evening to facilitate community participation. This Council has historically requested hearings to be conducted in the evening for other City matters for the purpose of allowing community participation. We ask the City to do the same for the community of South Central.
7 G. The City Should Implement Measures from the Community Emissions Reduction Program.
We remind the City about its commitment to improve air quality and health outcomes in South Central via the implementation of the AB 617 Community Emission Reduction Program (CERP), which included a commitment to reduce emissions and pollution exposure from sensitive receptors such as Orange Center Elementary by implementing measure HD. 11: Heavy Duty Truck Rerouting. The City also commissioned the UC Merced Community and Labor Center to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to inform strategies in the South Central Fresno AB 617 Community Truck Reroute Study (Truck Reroute Study). The HIA found compelling evidence regarding poor health outcomes including increased risk of pretermed births, infant mortality, and increased visits to the emergency department for asthma and cardiovascular issues.3
The Truck Reroute Study identified multiple “treatment” strategies for Cherry Avenue including: new crosswalks on North Ave.and Cherry Ave., and Central Ave. and Cherry Ave.; one mile in length of sidewalks on Cherry Ave. between North Ave. and Central Ave.; and traffic calming measures on Cherry Ave. between North and Central Ave. Traffic calming measures recommended to reduce truck speeds or divert trucks altogether includes roadway narrowing, speed bumps and roundabouts. Notably, the proposed truck reroute map removes Cherry Ave as a designated truck route.4 Removing Cherry Ave. as a designated truck route is supported by the HIA which recommends allowing truck routes outside of a 1,000 foot buffer from areas where people live, work, and play.
Policy recommendations in the Truck Reroute Study and the HIA includes: transitioning to zero emission trucks, time-of-day restrictions, and enforcement. Requiring zero emission trucks for future industrial operations is vital to reducing health impacts caused by emissions.
Time-of-day restrictions are recommended to limit pollution exposure and traffic impacts near sensitive receptors, such as Orange Center Elementary. Specifically, the Truck Reroute Study recommends amending the truck ordinance of the City’s Municipal Code, Section 14-1303 to allow truck access only during non-school hours and ensure enforcement is achieved through patrolling and issuing of tickets for violations. Enforcement is particularly important to address truck egress and truck idling. Currently, residents report frequent truck idling on Cherry, North, and Central Ave exposing residents to emissions and the odor of oil and gas fumes from diesel trucks, and causing blind spots and blocking driveways. Lastly, truck focused signage on SR 41, 4South Central Fresno AB 617 Community Truck Reroute Study | Truck Routing and Implementation Strategies Report April 2024. Figure 4: Proposed Truck Routes & Truck Regulated Areas. 3Fresno Community Environmental Health Impact Assessment April 2024, University of California Merced. Pg.8. 8 SR 180, and SR 99 is recommended to inform truck drivers about existing truck routes, time-of-day restrictions, speed, and enforcement.
The HIA and the Truck Reroute Study were conducted to identify methods of reducing exposure to emissions for sensitive receptors and community residents in efforts to reduce the health impacts associated with exposure to significant air contaminants and pollution. Currently, the project's mitigated negative declaration does not include any of the recommendations identified in the HIA and the Truck Reroute Study. The City must ensure that strategies are implemented.
* * * * *
For the reasons stated above, approval of the Project as proposed would harm nearby communities and violate California law.
Sincerely,
Seth Alston
Staff Attorney
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
/s/
Panfilo Cerillo
South Central Resident
/s/
Patricia Garcia
South Central Resident
/s/
Sandra Arreola
South Central Resident
/s/
Jorge Arreola
South Central Resident
/s/
Rosa Maria Hernandez de Arreola
South Central Resident
9 CC:
Brian Moore
Office and Community Air Protection
[email protected]
Kevin Olp
Office of Community Air Protection
[email protected]
Deldi Reyes
Office of Community Air Protection
[email protected]
Chanelle Fletcher
Deputy Executive Officer of Equity, Communities and Environmental Justice [email protected]
Rob Swanson
Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice [email protected]
Ryan Hayashi
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
[email protected]
Stephanie Ng
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
[email protected]
10 Attachment A
11 June 17th, 2025
Fresno City Planning Commission
City Hall Council Chamber, 2nd Floor,
2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721
Sent via email [email protected]
Dear Planning Commission,
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (“LCJA”) submits this letter in opposition to the annexation application No. P21-005778, prezone application P21-05870, and development permit No. P23-00149, all three hereby referred to as “Project”. LCJA works alongside residents from South Central Fresno and other disadvantaged communities throughout the City bearing the brunt of the City’s land use decisions of siting industrial development near residential communities. Alongside residents of Southcentral, we have engaged extensively for more than five years in efforts to improve air quality, traffic concerns, and infrastructure development through the City’s land use planning processes including the development of the Southcentral Fresno Specific Plan. Residents of Southcentral Fresno are also part of the AB 617 Community Steering Committee working to address heavy truck traffic in their neighborhoods by identifying truck routes away from sensitive receptors such as Orange Central Elementary and places of worship. We strongly oppose this Project as approval of the Project will lead to an exacerbation of air quality impacts, traffic congestion and emissions from heavy truck traffic, and further strain on public infrastructure. Furthermore, we are concerned the Project description and Impact Analysis violates CEQA due to inconsistencies in the mitigated negative declaration.
We urge the Commission to deny or delay the Project until the Project has undergone a full environmental review.
1. The Project Description and Impact Analysis Violate CEQA The MND fails to meet the requirements of CEQA because it includes inconsistencies that make the project description unstable and render its conclusions of impact significance indefensible.
The project description is unstable and inaccurate
The MND for the proposed project includes contradictory descriptions of the expected heavy truck trips rate, rendering the project description unstable and inaccurate. An initial study is required to include a project description. An “accurate, stable and finite” project description is the “sine qua non” of an environmental review document. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 at 192.) A project description that meets these standards is necessary for evaluation of potential environmental impacts.
Here, inconsistencies within the environmental document mean that the included project description fails to meet the informational standard required under CEQA. The project description included in the environmental checklist form for the project states “[t]he Project includes a total of approximately 84 truck trips per day (42 entering and 42 exiting) and 120 passenger vehicle trips per day (60 entering and 60 exiting).” (MND Appendix G, p.3.) This data appears to be consistent with the analysis included in the discussion of hazards and hazardous materials impacts. (Appendix G, Checklist Item IX.) However, in the discussion of transportation impacts, the truck trips are projected to be "approximately 126 per day” and the passenger vehicle trips as “approximately 180 per day.” (Appendix G, Checklist Item XVI(a).) These figures are in line with the technical data included to support the environmental review. (Emily Bowen, Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum, November 13, 2024, p.2.) Thus, the vehicle trip estimates included in the project description vary substantially from figures included elsewhere in the document.
The project description includes unsupported estimates of vehicle trips that are inconsistent with the included technical analysis, such that the document provides two possible estimates of vehicle trips, with the upper estimate 1.5 times the lower estimate. Because of the ambiguity that results from these inconsistencies, the project description is unstable and inaccurate. Without a stable, accurate project description of the vehicle trips associated with the buildout of the trucking facility, the IS/MND fails as an informational document and is in violation of CEQA requirements. Where, as in this case, an environmental document “precludes informed decisionmaking and public participation, the goals of CEQA are thwarted and a prejudicial abuse of discretion has occurred.” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99 at 128.) Significance determinations are unsupported by the impact analysis As described above, the environmental document includes multiple estimates of projected project vehicle traffic. In addition to rendering the Project Description unstable and inaccurate, these inconsistencies undermine the conclusion of the environmental document that project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation implemented. A Mitigated Negative Declaration allows a lead agency to avoid the need to complete a full environmental impact report when the Initial Study prepared for the project “identifies potentially significant effects on the environment” but also identifies revisions to the project to “mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur” and “there is no substantial evidence…that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Pub.
Res. Code § 21080(c)(2).)
Here, the environmental document provides multiple estimates for the trip traffic that will result from the proposed project. The number of trips varies between sections of the Initial Study.
In addition, the discussion of potential air quality impacts does not specify what daily rate of trips is employed in the analysis of health impacts to support its conclusions. This is despite the fact that the Initial Study concludes that there would be a significant impact under Checklist Item III(c), due to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Appendix G, Checklist Item III.) The Initial Study states that implementation of MM AIR-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant level, but MM AIR-1 only pertains to construction emissions, not operational emissions. Because of the ambiguity surrounding the vehicle trips per day, it is possible that the operational emissions of the project are greater than what is reflected in the discussion of Item III(c). As a result, it is not certain that MM AIR-1 would actually mitigate the significant impact under Checklist Item III(c) to a less than significant impact. Therefore, the MND cannot be shown to meet the requirements of section 21080(c)(2).
Further, the Transportation section of the Initial Study references an Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual for the estimated daily truck trip rate. The ITE code used is 30, for an “intermodal truck terminal.” (Appendix G, Table 20.) The analysis does not specify why this code was selected as opposed to other possibly relevant ITE codes, like those for warehouses or parcel fulfillment centers. The discussion also fails to support the inclusion of the rate selected for ITE code 30 (1.97) as opposed to other possible rates included in ITE data sources. (See ITE Trip Generation Data Plots - Modal, 000s - Port and Terminal - Modal Data Plots 1, showing average rate 2.14 for ITE code 30, available at:
https://www.ite.org/tripgenappendices/.) This section also references that trip estimates were based on “information provided by the Project applicant,” without further specificity. (Appendix G, Checklist Item XVII(a).) Despite the ambiguities included in this section of the checklist as to the assumptions of truck traffic, the Initial Study finds that there would be no significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Because the assumptions underlying the analysis are ambiguous, it is not clear that the mitigation would be sufficient to reduce the effect of the project on the environment.
Other inconsistencies
In addition to the above inconsistencies, which result in substantial ambiguity about the assumptions that underlie the impact analysis and thus make it unclear whether the identified mitigation measures will actually achieve a reduction in the project’s effect on the environment, the environmental document also includes contradictory statements under Checklist Item X - Hydrology and Water Quality. For Checklist Item X(b), it describes the impact as less than significant with mitigation incorporated. However, the discussion of that item states the impact would just be less than significant, and does not describe any mitigation. For Checklist Item X(c), there is no impact indicated in the table at the start of the section. Lastly, the analysis should include an analysis of impacts on sensitive receptors including Orange Central Elementary, places of worship, and adjacent disadvantaged unincorporated community as directed to by the District 3 Project Review Committee in 2023.
2. Findings For Annexation Approval is Inaccurate
According to the Fresno Municipal Code, annexations shall not be approved unless all criteria as listed in Section 15-6104 are met. Staff finds that “No Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities are identified adjacent or within the vicinity of the proposed annexation boundary” for Section 15-6104 Annexation Criteria D1. The finding is inaccurate as the proposed annexation site is within the City of Fresno’s sphere of influence and is adjacent and contiguous to the disadvantaged unincorporated community (“DUC”) on Cherry Ave and E. Central Ave.
The DUC begins with a small cluster of homes directly adjacent to the Project site and in front of the Orange Central Elementary which are in close proximity to homes on E. Daleville Ave and E.
Central Ave2. See exhibit A. The DUC will be heavily impacted as Cherry Ave is used by truck traffic to enter the facilities. Before moving forward with the Project, staff should comply with Section 15-6104 of the City’s municipal code and partner with the community to determine support for annexation and coordinate terms for a potential annexation process.
Exhibit A
2 Addresses for small cluster of residential parcels include: 3081 S. Chery Ave, 3085 S. Cherry Ave., 3097 S. Cherry Ave. 3103 . Cherry Ave., 3121 S. Cherry Ave., and 3133 S. Cherry Ave. 1 Fresno City Municipal Code Section 15-6104
https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MUCOFR_CH15CIDECOINRE_PTVA DPE_ART61COPLPNIAN_S15-6104ANCR .
3. The City Must Engage the Community of Southcentral Fresno and Adopt the Southcentral Fresno Specific Plan Before Continuing with Project consideration.
The City of Fresno must ensure to communicate and collaborate with the community of Southcentral Fresno for the Project. The community of Southcentral Fresno was not informed about the consideration of the Project despite its introduction in 2021 and despite direction from the District 3 Project Review Committee to have better stakeholder engagement notice with a 3,000-foot radius buffer3. According to Exhibit J the last time the Project was discussed with the community was February 18th 2021, four years from now. The Staff report does not indicate if Staff followed through with the 3,000-foot radius buffer. We urge the Commission to delay consideration of the Project until notification with a 3,000-foot radius buffer for the Project has been completed and the community has had an opportunity to raise concerns and guide mitigation.
Since the introduction of the project the community of Southcentral Fresno and the AB 617 Community Steering Committee has worked on the development of the Southcentral Specific Plan (SCSP) and the Southcentral Truck Reroute Study. The City should delay the Project until the adoption of the SCSP to ensure future development reduces impacts on the environment and improves the quality of life for residents. Moreover, the Project should be delayed until the SCSP “Good Neighbor” policies and buffering requirements are established to ensure neighboring uses collaborate with residents and impacts are mitigated through buffering.
4. Adoption of the Project is inconsistent with the City’s duty to Affirmatively Further fair Fair Housing and the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
The impacts of industrialization and polluting land uses in Southcentral are extensively documented and known by the City of Fresno. It is very clear that the City’s land use decisions have detrimentally impacted the community leading to high cumulative pollution burden. In approving this Project, the City may violate their duty to affirmatively further fair housing which includes avoiding land use patterns which continue to negatively impact disadvantaged communities and communities of color. Given the Project’s location and likely significant adverse impacts in disproportionately pollution burden community of color, it is essential not only from a CEQA perspective that the City analyze and fully mitigate the Project’s impacts on housing, but it is also necessary in order for the City to comply with its duty to affirmatively furthering fair housing and not take any action that is materially inconsistent with that duty. Gov.
Code § 8899.50.
3 Fresno District 3 Project Review Committee Minutes, March 28th, 2023.
Moreover, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits any public or private land use practices, which include any single act or omission, that intentionally discriminate or that has a discriminatory effect without a legally sufficient justification. 2 C.C.R.§ 12161. A legally sufficient justification exists for a discriminatory effect resulting from a public agency’s land use practice only when there is no feasible alternative practice that would equally or better accomplish a substantial, legitimate non-discriminatory purpose, and other factors are met. 2 C.C.R. § 12062(b). Land use practices that may result in unlawful discriminatory effect under FEHA may include the siting of toxic, polluting or hazardous land uses in a manner that adversely impacts housing opportunities. 2 C.C.R. § 12161. In approving the Project, the City is at risk of violating the Fair Employment and Housing Act as its land use decisions continue to create disparate and discriminatory effects on protected classes.
We strongly urge the Commission to oppose or deny the Project until the Project has undergone a full environmental analysis and until the Southcentral Specific Plan has been adopted.
Respectfully,
Seth Alston
Staff Attorney
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Attachment B
12 13
14 From: Ruby Marquez
To: Clerk
Subject: Central Trucking Project
Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 8:52:57 AM
Attachments: Comment Letter Template.docx.pdf
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good morning,
Please see the attached letter. Thank you.
--
Ruby Marquez
Administrative Assistant
Orange Center School District
3530 S. Cherry Avenue
Fresno, CA 93706
P: 559-237-0437
E:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information only for use by the intended recipient. Unless you are the addressee or authorized to receive messages for the addressee, you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message, or any information contained in or attached to this message, to anyone.
August 11th, 2025
Fresno City Council
City Hall Council Chamber, 2nd Floor,
2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721
Sent via email [email protected]
Dear Fresno City Council,
My name is Ruby Marquez, and I proudly serve as an employee at Orange Center Elementary.
I’m writing to strongly urge you to reject Annexation Application No. P21-05778, Pre-zone Application No. P21-05870, and Development Permit Application No. P23-00149. These proposed actions pose serious risks to the health, safety, and overall wellbeing of our students, educators, staff, and the residents of Cherry Avenue, Daleville, and surrounding underserved, unincorporated neighborhoods.
I am deeply concerned about the environmental and public health consequences this industrial development would bring—particularly the increased air pollution from heavy-duty truck emissions, the potential rise in traffic hazards, and the broader implications of placing an industrial site so close—less than a mile—to an elementary school.
Approving this project would only worsen already severe conditions in South Central Fresno.
The area has long been recognized for its critical environmental burdens. In fact, South Central Fresno was designated under the AB 617 Community Air Protection Program due to its high pollution levels and resulting health disparities. Through this program, community members spent over a year developing a Community Emissions Reduction Program and advocating for initiatives like rerouting truck traffic away from Cherry Avenue. The community also pushed for the creation and adoption of a South Central Specific Plan to safeguard residents from further industrial encroachment. Instead of moving forward with more harmful projects, the City should be prioritizing these community-led efforts and focusing on addressing existing challenges.
The City’s own 2024 Health Impact Assessment (HIA) confirmed that South Fresno residents disproportionately live near high-traffic corridors such as truck routes, freeways, and major streets. This proximity results in higher exposure to pollutants like PM 2.5, ozone, and diesel particulate matter. The HIA also revealed significantly higher rates of preterm births, infant mortality, and emergency visits for asthma and cardiovascular problems in South Central Fresno—particularly among residents living within 1,000 feet of truck routes. Perhaps most alarming is the 20-year life expectancy gap between South/Southwest Fresno residents and those in other parts of the city.
As someone who lives near industrial activity, I can personally attest to the toll it takes on everyday life. These are not abstract concerns—they are lived realities for families like mine.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to deny Annexation Application No. P21-05778, Pre-zone Application No. P21-05870, and Development Permit Application No. P23-00149.
Protecting the people of South Central Fresno from additional industrial burden is not only a matter of environmental justice—it’s a moral obligation.
Sincerely,
Ruby Marquez
From: Maryann Espinoza
To: Clerk
Subject: Central Trucking Project
Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 9:01:40 AM
Attachments: August 11, 2025.pdf
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Please see the attached letter for the Central Trucking Project.
Mary Ann Espinoza
Administrative Registrar/Clerk
Orange Center Elementary School
3530 S. Cherry Ave.
Fresno, CA 93706
(559) 237-0437
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information only for use by the intended recipient. Unless you are the addressee or authorized to receive messages for the addressee, you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message, or any information contained in or attached to this message, to anyone.
August 11, 2025
Fresno City Council
City Hall Council Chamber, 2nd Floor
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Members of the Fresno City Council,
My name is Mary Ann Espinoza, and I am a staff member at Orange Center School Elementary.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Annexation Application No. P21-05778, Pre-zone Application No. P21-05870, and Development Permit Application No. P23-00149. I respectfully urge the Council to reject these applications to protect the health, safety, and well-being of Orange Center Elementary School’s students, staff, and surrounding communities—including families living along Cherry Avenue, Daleville, and neighboring disadvantaged unincorporated areas.
My opposition stems from serious concerns about increased air pollution from heavy-duty truck traffic, traffic safety—especially for those commuting to and from Orange Center Elementary—and the broader consequences of allowing industrial development less than a mile from an elementary school.
This proposed annexation and rezoning to heavy industrial use for Central Transport in South Central Fresno would worsen the already challenging environmental and public health conditions in the area. In fact, South Central Fresno’s urgent need for environmental safeguards led to its selection as one of the first communities under California’s AB 617 Community Air Protection Program. This program resulted in the development of a Community Emissions Reduction Plan and Community Air Monitoring efforts. Residents spent more than a year working on solutions, including strategies to reroute truck traffic off Cherry Avenue.
In addition, community members have actively supported and participated in the planning process for the South Central Specific Plan—designed to create long-term protections against harmful industrial encroachment. At this point, the City should be prioritizing efforts to alleviate existing burdens—not approve new projects that would only intensify them.
In 2024, the City’s own Health Impact Assessment (HIA) highlighted troubling disparities. South Fresno residents are disproportionately exposed to harmful pollutants like PM 2.5, ozone, and diesel particulate matter because they live closer to freeways and major truck routes. The HIA also revealed significantly higher risks of preterm births, infant mortality, asthma, and cardiovascular disease among residents—especially those living within 1,000 feet of truck routes or highways. Perhaps most alarmingly, people living in South and Southwest Fresno have, on average, a 20-year shorter life expectancy compared to residents in other parts of the city.
From my personal experience living near industrial activity, I have witnessed firsthand [insert your personal story or concerns here].
For all these reasons, I respectfully urge the Fresno City Council to reject Annexation Application No. P21-05778, Pre-zone Application No. P21-05870, and Development Permit Application No. P23-00149. It is vital that the City take meaningful steps to protect the South Central Fresno community from further harmful industrial expansion.
Sincerely,
Mary Ann Espinoza
August 11th, 2025
Fresno City Council
City Hall Council Chamber, 2nd Floor,
2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721
Sent via email [email protected]
Dear Fresno City Council,
My name is Katie Taylor and I have been a resident of South Central Fresno for several decades where I have raised my family. I am writing to you to urge you to deny Annexation Application No.P21-05778, Pre-zone Application No. P21-05870, and Development Permit Application No.
P23-00149.
I am asking that you prioritize the wellbeing of the community of citizens that live in South Fresno and help protect their physical and mental health and their safety. This community is made up of Fresno residents who live on or near the Avenues of Cherry, Daleville, Central, Orange, Britten and Cedar. I oppose this project because I am concerned about the impacts to our air quality from the emissions of heavy duty truck traffic, traffic safety concerns, and especially for the families commuting to Orange Center Elementary, and the longer term implications of industrial development less than a mile away from an elementary school. It is unsafe for our kids and they are too frightened to walk home and these heavy duty trucks make it extremely dangerous to drive your family car within our community without the risk of an accident and being forced off the road.
We are being overburdened in this area from all unhealthy impacts caused by heavy duty trucks and the operations of heavy industrial facilities. Where I live, there is a 4 way intersection where these heavy duty trucks run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I don't deserve more trucks running less than 20 feet from the front door of my home! This causes not only respiratory issues from the diesel fumes, it also causes impacts to my mental and physical health. There is an increase in my blood pressure and heart rate due to the constant noise, the loudness of the banging when big rigs constantly hit potholes, and the vibration of your home shaking. It all wears on your nerves and peace of mind. The city and county of Fresno continue to work together to promote and allow investors and developers to buy the land and rezone it in South Fresno to heavy industrial uses without any concern nor remorse of the negative impacts on the residents. And yet, it is a fact that this same City council will listen to the residents of north Fresno and their concerns of the truck traffic impacts caused by just one development of a Cosco warehouse on Herndon Ave.
This Council is willing to discuss their concerns of impacts and try to find solutions and create real mitigations to prevent harmful impacts on north Fresno residents, and yet the City refuses to complete a South Central Specific Plan and a Truck Reroute Study to protect south Fresno residents from harm in an already overburdened area of too many industrial facilities. I ask myself, why would my City’s leaders allow for this detrimental planning and unfortunately, the answer is the definition of structural and environmental racism. Residents of South Fresno continue to have to fight these patterned actions of detrimental land use decisions just for the basic rights to have a healthy community.
Again, I urge you to please deny Annexation Application No.P21-05778, Pre-zone Application No. P21-05870, and Development Permit Application No. P23-00149 to protect the community of South Central Fresno from continued industrial growth in our backyards.
Sincerely,
Katie Taylor