The Emergence of Environmental Justice in General Plans
Lessons from California’s Senate Bill 1000
Michelle E. Zuñiga (University of North Carolina, Charlotte) and Michael A. Méndez (University of California, Irvine)
“Before the passage of Senate Bill 1000, environmental justice (EJ) was rarely discussed. It just wasn’t on our radar. If it were not for the legislation, we may have not prioritized EJ in general plans. ”
Urban planning has an uneasy relationship with environmental justice. Poor planning decisions and discriminatory practices have historically heightened the burdens of environmental contamination in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, in comparison to white, wealthy populations (Bullard 1993; Méndez 2020). Since the 1980s, activists have garnered some regulatory and scholarly support for changes to policy and planning processes (Cole & Foster 2000), but urban planners have been slow to adopt an explicit EJ framework in land use policies (Bryant 2022). The planning profession, however, has the capacity to help ensure that future development does not repeat the unjust environmental outcomes of the past.
Adopted in 2016 and implemented in 2018, California Senate Bill (SB) 1000 calls for local jurisdictions with disadvantaged communities to include EJ considerations in their general land use plans. SB 1000 is intended to ensure transparency and community engagement in urban planning processes, mitigate the harm of living near environmental hazards, and facilitate equitable access to health-promoting amenities such as recreation, healthy and affordable food options, and safe and sanitary housing (California Governor’s Office of Planning & Research & the California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020; State of California Department of Justice 2022; Walker et al. 2010; Yu 2014; Méndez and Zuñiga, 2023).
Our research examines the following:
(1) How and to what extent have the jurisdictions with the highest cumulative environmental health impact scores (as designated by the state of California) incorporated EJ into their general land use plans?
(2) What challenges regarding EJ policy have arisen through the implementation of SB 1000, and how can they be addressed?
Interviews (33) with planners (public and private sectors), EJ community organization leaders, and the state Attorney General’s Office, as well as a document analysis of general land use plans, were conducted to assess the scope of coverage and the barriers experienced. This research and analysis took place between June 2020 to November 2022.
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Health Screening mapping tool was employed to identify 29 counties and 238 cities containing census tracts with the highest cumulative environmental health impact scores in the state, those in the top 25 percent.
Of those jurisdictions, we found that 33 cities and four counties had adopted EJ considerations in their general plans or were in the process of doing so.
In our paper, we provide an analysis of the emergence of EJ considerations in general plans. Results are mixed. They highlight positive outcomes in some jurisdictions, such as the development of EJ advisory committees and contextual analyses to educate public officials about environmental harm in the communities that they represent. However, many governments face significant challenges, including a lack of political support, limited discussions of environmental racism, ineffective community engagement, and few resources to implement and monitor measures.
Without support from elected officials and senior planning managers, progress toward EJ will be slow and uneven. Hence, the real work of EJ takes place in the implementation and enforcement of laws and policies. Environmental justice will not be fully realized without strong oversight and political leadership, and racial diversification of urban planning institutions (Méndez 2022a; Méndez and Zuñiga 2023; Solis 2020).
In California, the Attorney General’s office has had a key role in compelling reluctant jurisdictions to implement EJ considerations. Despite these challenges, our research shows that SB 1000 is providing some localities with a proactive instrument to redress local environmental hazards and ensure more equitable land-use policies. By offering their examples and corresponding recommendations, we hope to contribute to more equitable environmental and land use planning throughout the United States.
Recommendations
The results of this research invite planners to shift how EJ is viewed, assessed, and implemented. We offer policy recommendations for resources and tools needed for effective planning that supports EJ:
1. Support the development of an EJ advisory committee
Environmental justice advisory committees help ensure that residents are involved from the outset of the general planning process. These committees are typically made up of community leaders, public health workers, and residents from disadvantaged communities.
2. Provide more resources for jurisdictions to incorporate EJ in general plans
State and federal governments should provide additional resources and staff training to local governments whose communities are most burdened by environmental hazards, especially jurisdictions that are underresourced. One approach would be to provide funding opportunities for the hiring of consultants and community leaders.
3. Develop a hybrid approach, creating a stand-alone element & integrating considerations throughout the general plan
The benefits of creating a stand-alone element include clarity, the elevation of EJ concerns, and the opportunity to recognize large-scale and historical inequities. At the same time, integrating considerations in other parts of the plan shows EJ touches all aspects of the city’s vision for the future.
4. Link EJ considerations with public health, climate action, & disaster plans
Relatively few governments are substantively integrating their general plans with public health, disaster, and climate action plans to address EJ. Some cities across the United States are safeguarding these communities by creating departments focused specifically on mitigating the impacts of climate change through an equity lens (Parker 2021).
5. Develop new tools relating to the interaction of EJ & climate change
State and federal governments should develop geographic mapping tools that demonstrate the compounding impacts of factors such as climate change, air pollution, socio-demographics, and other relevant variables. A uniform platform that quantifies potential climate change and disaster vulnerabilities in EJ communities should be available as a free open-source mapping tool.
6. Establish a State Attorney General Office of EJ Enforcement
State Attorney Generals should create such offices to ensure environmental laws in low-income, communities of color are enforced. In California, the office has been instrumental in facilitating more robust community engagement and substantive EJ elements in general plans.
References
Bryant, Christian. 2022. “How City Planning Can Support Environmental Justice (In The Loop).” Newsy. Accessed on June, 6, 2022, https://www.newsy.com/stories/how-city-planning-can-support-environmental-justice/
Bullard, Robert D. 1993. “Anatomy of environmental racism and the environmental justice movement.” Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots 15: 15-39.
California Governor's Office of Planning & Research and the California Department of Housing & Community Development. 2020. Integration Concepts for General Plan Updates or Other Local Planning Activities. Accessed April 03, 2023. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/leap/docs/planning%20integration%20concepts_v4.pdf
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2018. “CalEnviroScreen 3.0.” Accessed June 2020, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30
Cole, Luke W., and Sheila R. Foster. 2001. From the ground up: Environmental racism and the rise of the environmental justice movement. Vol. 34. NYU Press.
Méndez, Michael. 2020. Climate change from the streets: How conflict and collaboration strengthen the environmental justice movement. Yale Univ. Press.
Méndez, Michael. 2022a. “The Reflective Practitioner in the Context of Racial and Environmental Justice.”, Planning Theory & Practice. Accessed on June 28, 2022, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14649357.2022.2082710
Méndez, Michael, and Michelle E. Zuñiga. 2023. "Understanding Challenges to Health Equity in Climate Action and Land Use Planning." American Journal of Public Health 113, no. 2: 177-178.
Parker, N. 2021. “U.S. Cities Hire Specialists to Counter Climate Change as Impacts Worsen.” REUTERS. Accessed on June 1, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-cities-hire-specialists-counter-climate-change-impacts-worsen-2021-06-01/
Solis, M. (2020). Conditions and Consequences of ELULU Improvement: Environmental Justice Lessons from San Francisco, CA. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X20929407
State of California Department of Justice Office of Attorney General. 2022. “SB 1000 Environmental Justice in Local Land Use Planning.” https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000
Walker, Renee E., Christopher R. Keane, and Jessica G. Burke. 2010. "Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature." Health & place 16, no. 5: 876-884.
Yu, Chia-Yuan. 2014. "Environmental supports for walking/biking and traffic safety: Income and ethnicity disparities." Preventive medicine 67: 12-16.
Michelle E. Zuñiga is an assistant professor of urban and community planning in the Department of Geography and Earth Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Michael A. Méndez is an assistant professor of environmental planning and policy in the Department of Urban Planning and Public Policy at the University of California, Irvine.