Comment Log Display

- 

 
July 28, 2008
PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER REGARDING THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD'S DRAFT
SCOPING PLAN AS IT PERTAINS TO THE LAND USE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SECTOR. 

The American Planning Association California Chapter (APACA) is
pleased to comment on the “Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan”
relating to the land use and local government sector.

APACA, representing more than 6,000 local, state and regional
planners working throughout California, appreciates the enormous
task ahead of the state in developing strategies that will reduce
GHG emissions.  We have the following specific comments on the
draft.

1.	LAND USE SECTOR SHARE OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS:  APACA was
surprised to see that the scoping plan only gives local
government/land use measures a 2 percent share of the needed GHG
reduction. APACA has already published a list of various
strategies that local planners can use now to reduce GHG measures,
which is available on our website at www.calapa.org.  And, as the
Scoping Plan draft accurately points out, many local and regional
agencies have already developed additional strategies that they
are implementing now.  APACA believes that local governments
aligned with regional GHG reduction targets will be able to reduce
GHGs beyond 2 percent – we are capable of doing much better than
that. The Scoping Plan should count on additional reductions in
GHG emissions from land use and transportation projects to meet AB
32’s 2020 emissions reduction targets. Furthermore, we believe the
local government/land use sector will make an even larger
contribution to achieving the ambitious 2050 targets established
in Executive Order S-3-05.

2.	LOCAL STRATEGIES: APACA agrees with the Scoping Plan
recommendations that local governments make changes in their
jurisdiction with regard to energy, waste and recycling, water and
wastewater systems, community transportation and sustainable
planning and community design to reduce GHG emissions.  We would
add microgeneration of power, community-based reduction/offset
programs, agrigultural preservation and forest protection
policies, and programs for retrofitting existing communities, all
of which are important strategies to which local government can
contribute.  We recommend that these changes be made through
appropriate legislation and funding, rather than the Scoping
Plan’s current approach of “encouraging” these changes.

3.	FLEXIBILITY:  Of critical importance is that any
recommendations to respond to climate change be flexible, with a
menu of possible options, to ensure the wide variety of local
conditions can be accommodated in meeting the AB 32 carbon
reduction goals and regional targets.

4.	STATE ASSISTANCE WITH GHG MEASURING AND REPORTING:  It is
imperative that the state assist in developing measurement and
tracking protocols, progress indicators, planning tools, funding
and best practices to assist local governments in planning for,
quantifying and reporting greenhouse gas emissions reductions.  

5.	REGIONAL TARGETS, PLANNING AND COORDINATION:  APACA also
supports setting regional targets, aligning regional
transportation and housing element planning, and coordinating
local and regional planning efforts to achieve maximum reductions.
 Additionally, COGs/MPOs/RTPAs should be required to reduce VMTs by
a substantial amount in their RTP and the state must restrict the
use of state funds for sprawl-inducing regional road projects when
funding the RTIPs. 

6.	CEQA GUIDELINES:  CEQA is an attractive tool because it is a
common process implemented every day by jurisdictions throughout
the state on many projects.  However, it is not a very efficient
or effective substitute for policy and related funding strategies
that might accomplish actual and meaningful emissions reductions. 
APACA suggests that, as part of the Guidelines revisions now
underway pursuant to SB 97, the Resources Agency and OPR consult
with CARB and California Energy Commission to provide acceptable
methodologies for climate change analysis, significance
thresholds, and mitigation measures.  The Guidelines should
recognize that CEQA climate change analysis consists of two parts:
 impacts of the project on GHG emissions, and impacts of climate
change on the project (e.g., increased flooding, reduced water
supply).  The Guidelines revision, or an accompanying technical
paper, should identify “best practices” for the following topics:
•	Methods for quantifying GHG emissions, and projects for which
qualitative analysis is sufficient.
•	Defining baseline conditions and significance thresholds (we
don’t believe that a statewide threshold of significance adopted
by regulation as opposed to statute will be of much assistance as
each region has widely differing conditions and such a regulation
will not protect against a fair argument challenge).
•	Acceptable mitigation measures for energy conservation and
micogeneration, alternative energy sources, trip reduction and
other topics.
•	Criteria for streamlining project-level climate change analysis,
e.g., through tiering, finding a project “within the scope” of a
carbon reduction program, or use of CEQA’s “partial exemption”
provisions in S. 21083.3.

7.	SCOPE OF CEQA:  Once the local and regional GHG emission
reduction strategies and planning are in place, project CEQA
documents should be authorized to rely on plan-level GHG reduction
strategies.  In addition:
•	The Legislature should require CEQA climate change analysis only
for large projects, and exempt small and infill projects from this
requirement.  For instance, limiting the requirement for climate
change analysis to projects of statewide, regional, or area wide
significance should be used as a starting point for the
definition.  Smaller projects would be required to meet the
provisions of whatever overall plan or ordinances govern them,
such as stricter building codes, water savings, etc.  
•	General plans, general plan updates, regional transportation
plans, and specific plans should also be included in the
definition of projects requiring climate change analysis.  
•	CEQA documents for projects that qualify for LEED or LEED-ND
certification, or equivalent certification, if developed by the
State, should not be required to include a climate change
analysis.  
•	CEQA documents prepared for local general plans that are
consistent with regional climate change strategies should focus on
local implementation measures and incorporate by reference the
regional climate change CEQA analysis.  
•	Project-level CEQA documents need not provide additional
project-level climate change analysis or mitigation if the project
is within the scope of applicable regional and local plans that
include climate change strategies and that have certified program
EIRs; is consistent with applicable regional and local climate
change strategies included in the regional or local plans for
which an EIR was certified; and incorporates applicable
project-level mitigation measures from the certified regional and
local plan EIRs.

8.	VMT REDUCTION FEASIBILITY:  The state must radically change
course on transportation financing.  California has to
substantially increase commitment to transit funding, requiring
some mandatory local funding level for transit to be provided in
the RTPs and RTIPs as well as bicycle facility funding, if the VMT
reductions are to be realized.

9.	LOCAL FUNDING:  APACA believes that the state will also need to
provide a grant or other funding program to support local
government planning efforts for general plans and climate action
plans, including regular GHG inventories to measure progress and
quantification of carbon reduction from municipal programs to aid
in prioritizing actions.  It took very little grant money per
jurisdiction from the BAAQMD, for example, to entice nearly every
Bay Area city to start preparing a CAP or general plan update with
GHG strategies.  Strategies should also be developed to continue
efforts to “unfiscalize” land use.

10.	INFILL REWARDS:  Part of these strategies should include
targeted incentives to make infill development substantially
easier to build than low density greenfield development, including
streamlined CEQA requirements and fee mechanisms that reflect the
true GHG emission costs of such projects.

APACA appreciates this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
 
Pete Parkinson, AICP
APACA Vice President, Policy and Legislation

cc:	Governor
	Office of Planning and Research