Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monterey County presents draft Environmental Justice element; commissioners press for clearer outreach and an implementation plan
Summary
Staff presented a draft Environmental Justice element required by California SB 1000 and invited feedback during a March 11–May 11 public review. Commissioners and residents pressed for plain‑language outreach, measurable implementation actions and better coverage of rural communities such as Big Sur.
County planning staff presented a draft Environmental Justice (EJ) element to the Monterey County Planning Commission on March 11, saying the document responds to California Senate Bill 1000’s requirement that jurisdictions address disproportionate environmental burdens in disadvantaged communities. Edgar Sanchez, project planner, said the draft identifies 11 disadvantaged communities in unincorporated Monterey County and outlines goals in seven topic areas including pollution reduction, access to services, housing quality and preparedness for climate‑related hazards.
Why it matters: the EJ element becomes part of the county general plan and will guide future land‑use decisions, grant applications and outreach in low‑resource areas. The draft will be available for public comment March 11–May 11, 2026, and staff said an implementation/action plan — with timelines, department assignments and metrics — is under development and planned for a summer workshop.
Commissioners praised outreach methods but pressed staff for clearer, lower‑barrier materials to reach residents who did not see the survey or pop‑up events. "This is not accessible; it reads like a document for professionals," Commissioner Shaw said, urging a concise plain‑language summary and simple tools such as a short survey or translated flyers. Commissioner Deal urged staff to revisit how the county’s use of census‑based screening can miss loosely defined rural communities, saying "Big Sur and other rural places may not 'fit the state box' but still face infrastructure and evacuation risks." Sanchez acknowledged the tension and said staff used state screening tools supplemented by local engagement and an advisory committee but will seek broader outreach and to clarify the element’s link to community plans.
Members of the public raised specific local concerns during the EJ item. Karen Cameron, a Salinas/Selena's resident, asked that the plan better address pesticide exposure, water quality and flood risk in agricultural communities and noted that some residents had difficulty finding the materials online. Sanchez and the secretary said staff would produce a clear cover memo and outreach plan that explains what was done and how residents can still participate during the review period.
Staff emphasized that the draft focuses on policy goals and that the forthcoming implementation plan will translate those goals into actions, assign departments, identify funding opportunities and set performance metrics. "One of the policies called for an implementation plan that will identify specific actions, responsible departments, timelines and funding opportunities," Sanchez said. Staff expects to return with a more developed implementation plan and a workshop this summer, and for the Board of Supervisors to consider formal adoption later in the year.
What’s next: the Planning Commission received the status update and provided direction on outreach and priorities; the public review period runs through May 11, 2026. Staff will refine outreach materials, continue targeted engagement in disadvantaged communities and prepare an implementation action plan to bring back to the commission for more detailed review before a fall adoption hearing.
Ending: the commission closed the EJ discussion to take a short recess and moved on to the annual progress report and long‑range work program.
