Planning Capacity - California Climate and Energy Collaborative

Barrier 1: Planning Capacity

Barrier Statement

Too much local capacity (staff time/resources) and technical expertise is needed to develop/ track/ update greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and climate action plans (CAPs), which takes away from implementation.

How this barrier is experienced across the state

There are many reasons a local government may engage in a climate action plan (CAP).

Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation – 2023 Annual Planning Survey Report

CAPs serve as a roadmap that informs funding plans and budgets, and sets priorities for constrained resources. They can be used as a mitigation measure for a jurisdiction’s General Plan EIR. The process to develop CAPs can engage communities and build public support for climate action and climate investments. Participants noted that they desire to make CAP processes community-driven and more equitable, but lack of capacity and funding limits community engagement.

In the last two decades, roughly half of the local governments in California have conducted and are working to implement climate action plans, including an analysis of local GHG sources and a plan for feasible emission reduction strategies to meet local targets. The process of developing a CAP is often cumbersome, resource intensive, and time-consuming, many CAPs are currently out of date and do not represent the immediate needs of local jurisdictions.

Most local governments conducting GHG inventories are doing so in-house, many with consultants or with help from regional agencies. Most would prefer not to have to conduct an inventory or prepare CAPs, but repeatedly shared that it is an important step in the political process to pave the way for substantive local action and investments.

Participants shared that completing GHG inventories represent a particularly challenging part of the CAP process.

Filterable Database

How communities are experiencing this barrier

View the details on what communities have shared with SLECC from across the state.

Key challenge discussed in - Los Angeles, Inland Deserts, San Diego

Many small or rural jurisdictions operate with extremely limited staff—sometimes only one or two people, or even just a part-time planner—yet they are responsible for reviewing CEQA documents, updating multiple required plan elements (housing, climate, safety), and managing complex grant applications. Without dedicated grant writers, climate specialists, or adequate planning staff, these jurisdictions struggle to develop and meaningfully integrate Climate Action Plans (CAPs) and related requirements. Existing statewide resources, such as the 500-page General Plan Guidelines, are often written for larger cities and are not user-friendly for small jurisdictions. Clearer examples, tools, and regionally relevant templates are needed to help local governments embed climate resilience, equity, and adaptation into all elements of their general plans—not just a separate “climate” chapter.

Key challenge discussed in - Los Angeles

Local climate planning and implementation remain slow: While some cities are developing climate and green jobs plans, participants noted that many local climate action or adaptation plans are not implemented. Progress is hampered by siloed departmental approaches, lack of staff capacity, and limited awareness of available technologies and incentives. Until city departments and partners fully understand and coordinate their roles in meeting statewide climate goals, local uptake will continue to lag.

Key challenge discussed in - San Diego

Regional agencies (e.g., SANDAG) once provided consolidated GHG inventories for cities, but those programs are no longer funded, leaving jurisdictions scrambling for replacements

Key challenge discussed in - San Diego

Difficulty maintaining ordinances and rules: Local agencies struggle to keep rules, ordinances, and CAP updates current; this falls to the bottom of staff workloads and creates inefficiencies

Key challenge discussed in - San Diego

Fragmentation of responsibilities: Local governments hear about state-level regulatory decisions (e.g., CPUC) after the fact, leaving them without capacity to adapt requirements into local CAPs. This creates duplicative work, with local CAPs forced to replicate or reinterpret requirements rather than align efficiently. Overlapping reviews between state, regional, and local agencies increase the burden on small staff teams.

Key challenge discussed in - Inland Deserts

Currently, most local jurisdictions develop Climate Action Plans (CAPs) separately from their General Plans, resulting in fragmented or inconsistent implementation across planning elements like circulation, housing, open space, and conservation. This siloed approach limits the ability of local governments to translate climate targets into actionable land-use and design decisions. It also leads to inefficiencies, as jurisdictions must maintain multiple overlapping documents without shared metrics or data systems.

Local Solution Opportunities

SLECC stakeholders have brainstormed the following solution opportunities that can be taken by local leaders. Existing examples of progress or pathways to make further progress are highlighted if known.

Local Solution

Partnership with regional agencies and promotion of regional collaboration – Conducting regional inventories, or providing regional CEQA guidelines can increase economies of scale, lowers costs, and increases both standardization and collaboration opportunities.

Regional data collection and aggregation can support local government’s individual efforts.

Existing Examples of Progress:

1. Past support from SANDAG in preparing GHG inventories was cited as reducing burdens on local staff. Loss of this support has worsened planning capacity issues. 2. AMBAG provided an example wherein regional staff can provide technical expertise to cities.

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Central Coast, San Diego, Statewide

Local Solution

Leverage regional technical assistance networks to strengthen local planning capacity. Councils of Governments (COGs), Regional Energy Networks (RENs), and county planning collaboratives can serve as shared planning hubs, helping small jurisdictions interpret and apply state guidance, conduct vulnerability assessments, and pool technical expertise.

Existing Examples of Progress:

Regional technical assist model you can piggyback on: The REN-led “Energized Communities” program is built precisely because cities “don’t have staff bandwidth to do any of the work.” Use its scaffolding for CAP/inventory tasks (not just project delivery).

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Los Angeles, Inland Deserts

Local Solution

Process streamlining ideas already on the table: Participants suggest creating shared dashboards and repositories — including grant portals, data portals, and repositories of prior applications — to reduce duplication and make information more accessible.

Existing Examples of Progress:

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Los Angeles

State Solution Opportunities

SLECC stakeholders have brainstormed the following solution opportunities that can be taken by state leaders. Existing examples of progress or pathways to make further progress are highlighted if known.

State Solution

Invest in regional and local staffing support by funding shared regional positions and providing dedicated grants or resources that enable small jurisdictions to develop Climate Action Plans (CAPs), maintain core climate staff, engage with state agencies, and implement high-impact, emission-reducing measures.

Existing Examples of Progress:

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): San Diego, Statewide

State Solution

Provide ongoing technical assistance and support – The state should support training, technical support, and templates for smaller jurisdictions to reduce reliance on consultants for GHG inventories

Existing Examples of Progress:

1. To further support climate action planning, CARB has collected anecdotal information on challenges when gathering GHG inventories and has initiated research contracts aimed at developing tools, best practices, and capacity building. This includes a contract with Dr. Boswell at Cal Poly to: Gather representative sample from recent CAPs with inventories to develop questions that would be helpful in identifying the challenge, and interview local jurisdictions. Evaluate identified tools that can be helpful to jurisdictions when creating CAPs and/or inventories, to better recommend to jurisdictions which tools will benefit them. 2. California is actively engaging with providers of local GHG inventory tools, serving on expert advisory committees for the UC Berkeley/StopWaste GHG inventory tool and collaborating with Sidewalk Labs.

Further Progress Pathways

A recently formed Technical Advisory Group through CARB and the Governor's Office for Land Use and Climate Innovation supporting local CAPs. The Climate Action Planning Technical Advisory Group, formed during the update of the General Plan Guidelines for LCI, has reviewed CAP literature, inventory development, and integration with general plans. They aim to provide guidance on CAP creation vs. updates, clarify their mission, and outline state priorities to help cities take effective action.

Region(s): San Diego, Statewide

State Solution

Provide technical assistance and/or additional guidance on key mitigation measures

Existing Examples of Progress:

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Statewide

Solution Spotlight

Monterey Bay Maximizes Regional Capacity in Award Winning Natural and Working Lands Climate Mitigation and Resiliency Study

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) and Ascent for winning this year’s Resilience and Sustainability Merit Award for the Monterey Bay Natural and Working Lands Climate Mitigation and Resiliency Study.

The Monterey Bay Natural and Working Lands Climate Mitigation and Resiliency Study is the first comprehensive carbon sequestration analysis at a regional scale. Its innovative approach combines GIS modeling with extensive stakeholder engagement, creating a uniquely collaborative and data-driven framework. A comprehensive list of strategies and actions were identified to support carbon sequestration efforts that are scientifically sound and practically viable, making them implementable within the context of the Monterey Bay Area and its local agencies.

The Monterey Bay Natural and Working Lands Climate Mitigation and Resiliency Study analyzes carbon sequestration potential across Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties, offering strategies to enhance carbon storage, climate resilience, and sustainable land management in urban, forest, and agricultural areas through stakeholder collaboration and innovative GIS modeling.

“A key takeaway of this study is that we need to foster regional collaboration in order to implement innovative solutions at the scale needed to protect and enhance the carbon sequestration potential of our natural and working lands.”

Community-Based Organization Partnerships to Bolster Local Climate Action Planning

The Cities of Alameda and Petaluma utilized community partners in the development and ongoing implementation of their climate action plans. In 2025, Alameda updated their Climate Action & Resilience Plan partnering with Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda. In 2024, Petaluma adopted their Blueprint for Climate Action organizing community leadership through the Climate Action Commission’s two different types of local leadership, city government and community members, and how they work together to achieve climate goals. Alameda and Petaluma partnered with community organizations to tap into diverse networks and experiences within their cities. The partners each city worked with include members representing other local and regional organizations, which allowed them to share a broad cross-section of the community and raise traditionally marginalized perspectives and experiences. Including these partners in implementation creates a framework to realize climate planning objectives equitably across the community.

This model showcases how city climate goals are achieved through community-focused implementation. It highlights how local community partnerships can guide city planning and implementation processes and how cities incorporate existing community efforts and frameworks. Partnering with community leaders allowed these cities to commit to bold climate action despite capacity constraints and competing priorities. This model demonstrates how to adopt a community partnership model that expands a city’s reach, leverages community knowledge, and aligns community efforts with city structures and climate goals.

Continued Efforts to Advance Greater State-Local Coordination

In 2022, CARB’s Sustainable Transportation and Communities Division approached CCEC to support engagement on its Local Actions Appendix of the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, which sets measures and targets for the State’s emission reduction goals. Following those discussions, CARB was interested in working with CCEC to conduct listening sessions designed to deepen the valuable collaboration between CARB and local government practitioners responsible for developing and implementing local climate action plans and strategies. The objective was to help inform CARB’s plans for potential future programs and services that can help local governments more successfully advance substantial emission reduction strategies within communities. Across three additional meetings, approximately 150 participants identified the most pressing barriers and needs facing local governments in implementing emission reduction measures and explored possible State-led support and solutions. The majority of attendees represented local government, many of which are primarily responsible for or actively working on local planning efforts within California communities.

Potential “fundamental principles” around State-local climate action coordination
At a SLECC meeting in 2024, Cory Downs from Chula Vista proposed the following principles to help advance state and local coordination on climate action.
– Local government actions are essential to meeting the State’s emission reduction targets and to protecting communities from the worst impacts of climate change.
– CA should not expect or require each local government to do a climate action plan, but we should support those that wish to do one.
– Local climate action plans are a way to conduct analysis that can garner equitable engagement, public and political support, and justify local funding and staff capacity to implement a custom set of beneficial emission reduction strategies to meet targets, which can serve as state pilots. Those that wish to adopt a CEQA-qualified CAP may need guidance.
– A key barrier local communities face is access to data for GHG inventories. Local governments cannot solve this problem individually, we need state leadership.

While resources like CARB’s Local Actions Appendix can be useful to guide the development of broader GHG mitigation efforts, participants would appreciate sustained, coordinated State leadership towards providing reliable, transparent, and affordable data and other assistance to accelerate implementation of local emission reduction actions. The Climate Action Planning Technical Advisory Group, formed during the update of the General Plan Guidelines for LCI, has reviewed CAP literature, inventory development, and integration with general plans. They aim to provide guidance on CAP creation vs. updates, clarify their mission, and outline state priorities to help cities take effective action.

Help us strengthen our knowledge base!

Help us to expand our database. Either share new ideas, best practices or general feedback via this form, or click on a particular item to share additional feedback, information, examples of progress on that particular item.

Feedback Form

Additional Resources

CARB’s Local Actions for Climate Change webpage
UC Berkeley: The Status of Local Climate Action in California
City Scale et al: State of Local Climate Planning
UCLA paper describes problems with 15/15 rule and data masking
Governor’s Office of Landuse and Climate Innovation’s Annual Planning Survey

Please share any additional resources you would like to include by emailing eecoordinator@civicwell.org.