Since 2018, the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) has been working on Envision Contra Costa 2040, the program to update the County General Plan, Zoning Code, and Climate Action Plan. A requirement related to the General Plan update is compliance with SB 1000, the Planning for Healthy Communities Act of 2016. SB 1000 requires the County General Plan to address environmental justice (EJ) in Impacted Communities (referred to as “disadvantaged communities” in the statute). The latest version of CalEnviroScreen, the State’s tool for identifying Impacted Communities, identifies North Richmond, Montalvin Manor/Tara Hills/Bayview/Rollingwood, Rodeo, Crockett, Vine Hill, Pacheco, Clyde, and Bay Point as such.
The Sustainability Committee received reports on the draft General Plan EJ policy guidance at its September 29, 2020, April 26, 2021, and June 28, 2021, meetings. At each meeting the most recent draft of the EJ goals, policies, and actions (aka “GOPAs”) was reviewed. At the June 2021 meeting staff indicated that next steps in the overall General Plan update process included Planning Commission and Hazardous Materials Commission review of draft GOPAs for all General Plan elements. The Sustainability Committee instructed staff to bring the draft EJ GOPAs back for further review after input was received from those commissions. |
All draft General Plan GOPAs (except for the Housing Element GOPAs, which are being developed) were reviewed by the Planning Commission during a series of study sessions beginning in February and concluding in May 2022; the full set of draft GOPAs reviewed by the Planning Commission are available on the Envision Contra Costa 2040 website here: envisioncontracosta2040.org/documents. The Hazardous Materials Commission and its subcommittees reviewed select EJ GOPAs and GOPAs related to hazardous materials in April 2022. The revised draft EJ GOPAs, provided in redline format in Attachment A to show changes since the Committee’s last review in June 2021, address comments from the Planning Commission, Hazardous Materials Commission, and public, with additional refinements by DCD staff. Note that the numbering is nonsequential because the GOPAs are now presented in their actual positions in the draft elements. To ease review, the numbering from the June 2021 version of the EJ GOPAs is provided as parenthetical notes after each GOPA.
Also in April 2022, the Sustainability Commission reviewed the complete draft GOPAs related to sustainability, one of four themes the Board of Supervisors directed staff to weave into the updated General Plan along with EJ, community health, and economic development. After a presentation and question and answer period, the commissioners used Jamboard, an online interactive whiteboard, to provide comments on the sustainability GOPAs. Attachment B includes the sustainability GOPAs reviewed by the Sustainability Commission, organized by topic. Attachment C includes a summary of comments received from the commissioners, the actual Jamboard comments, and written public comments. Staff is in the process of reviewing these comments and will revise the sustainability GOPAs following Sustainability Committee input.
Discussion Items
Staff requests input and direction from the Sustainability Committee on the following topics:
- Siting of Sensitive Receptors Relative to Pollution Sources – Policy HS-P1.10/Actions HS-A1.4 and HS-A1.5: This topic was discussed in April and June 2021, and the Committee flagged it for continued discussion at a future meeting. The original policy guidance (previously numbered HS-P1.9 in the draft GOPAs reviewed by the Planning Commission) read:
Require new development to locate sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, playgrounds, sports fields, childcare centers, senior centers, and long-term health care facilities as far away as possible from significant pollution sources.
As originally worded, the policy could be interpreted as creating a “soft” exclusion zone for sensitive receptors around significant pollution sources. The Committee expressed concern that limiting opportunities to establish these uses could, “lock existing residents into a lower standard of living,” and indicated that the emphasis should be on reducing pollution, not deterring community investment and improvements.
The original policy language has been deleted and replaced with language developed largely through discussions.
- Revised policy HS-P1.10 requires new residential development to protect residents from air pollution by adhering to BAAQMD’s Planning Healthy Places guidance when warranted by local air pollution levels. The guidance includes strategies and practices for reducing emissions and exposure.
- New action HS-A1.4 creates an Air Pollution Overlay Zone around freeways wherein new construction must install enhanced ventilation and implement other strategies to protect people from polluted air. This action is modeled after the City of San Francisco’s Article 38, which requires enhanced ventilation for sensitive receptors on urban infill sites and within 500 feet of freeways.
- New action HS-A1.5 creates an Industrial-Residential Interface Overlay Zone where heavy industrial uses and sensitive receptors meet. This action requires heavy industrial uses within the zone to implement pollution reduction measures and mitigate air quality, noise, vibration, odor, light, visual, and safety impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Like the previous action, this action requires sensitive receptors to install enhanced ventilation and implement other strategies to protect people from health and quality of life impacts.
Question for Committee: Does this revised policy guidance adequately address concerns about siting sensitive receptors in proximity to significant pollution sources?
- Fire Hazards – Policy HS-P7.4/Action A7.4: This policy and accompanying action respond to CAL FIRE recommendations to require new development in fire hazard areas to meet or exceed State fire regulations. General Plan policy guidance normally does not restate or require compliance with adopted regulations because it’s understood that compliance is required (e.g., the policy guidance does not require compliance with the California Building Code). This policy and action therefore are relevant only if the County intends to adopt regulations that exceed State fire regulations. Staff notes that the State is currently updating those regulations to be more stringent.
Question for Committee: Should the County adhere to the State’s fire regulations, or adopt more rigorous local requirements?
- Oil and Gas Extraction – Policies COS-P14.1 and COS-P14.2/Action COS-A14.1: Existing General Plan policy related to oil and gas extraction encourage these activities and existing zoning regulations are relatively permissive. The draft sustainability GOPAs drastically increase regulation of these activities by:
- Requiring mitigation of impacts, particularly those related to public health and safety, surface and groundwater quality, subsidence, noise, aesthetics, air quality, habitat, and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Prohibiting new wells in sensitive ecological areas, within 100-year flood plains and areas subject to sea level rise, and within 3,200 feet of sensitive receptors.
- Amending the County Ordinance Code to require a land use permit for all new and expanded oil and gas wells (some wells currently may be approved administratively and without environmental review), establish performance standards, and include requirements for site reclamation.
Over the past two weeks DCD has received a petition signed by over 3,400 people and well over 100 individual requests to ban new oil and gas wells and phase out existing operations, similar to actions taken by Los Angeles County,[1] the City of Los Angeles,[2] and local jurisdictions (Antioch, Brentwood, and Alameda County). However, in October 2021 the California Court of Appeal struck down Measure Z, a 2016 voter initiative in Monterey County that would have amended that county’s General Plan to ban new oil and gas wells and fracking, stating that the local regulation he GOPAs were drafted under the presumption that the County lacks authority to enact an outright ban on oil and gas extraction. It would be appropriate to revisit this issue once the California Supreme Court rules on Measure Z, but that could occur after the new General Plan has been adopted.
Question for Committee: Should the draft GOPAs regulate or prohibit oil and gas extraction given the pending Supreme Court case and uncertainty regarding the County’s authority?
[1] On September 15, 2021, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ban all new oil and gas wells and designate all existing extraction activities as legal nonconforming uses, and instructed County staff to begin studying the process to phase out existing activities.
[2] The Los Angeles City Council took similar action on January 26, 2022.
[3] Justice Franklin Elia, on behalf of the Sixth Appellate District, wrote, “If a local regulation conflicts with a state law, the local regulation exceeds the local entity’s power...The fact that state law leaves room for some local regulation of oil drilling, such as zoning regulations identifying where oil drilling will be permitted in a locality, does not mean that the county has the authority to ban all new wells and all wastewater injection under Measure Z.”
|