Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2009-02-09 #FAGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 9, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: David Carmany, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: OVERVIEW OF "CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN" AND "SB 375" SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Receive and File Staff Report. Instruct Staff to forward to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information. BACKGROUND: Summary of Potential Impacts to City — SB 375: At this time there are no direct impacts to the City as a result of the adoption of the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan or SB 375. The most immediate impact upon the City is the necessity to consider greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation measures during the course of the preparation and approval of environmental review documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with the provisions of SB 97. A list of Acronyms is provided as Attachment A. At the January 28 Environmental Quality Control Board meeting staff presented a report regarding "Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments and Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gas Emissions." In accordance with the requirements of SB 97, the rulemaking process by the Resources Agency must be completed by January 1, 2010 to amend the CEQA regulations and guidelines regarding GHG emissions. During the interim time period, while there are no adopted CEQA Guidelines or state - adopted thresholds of significance, the City will continue to prepare CEQA documents that evaluate greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with several protocols that are being used throughout the State until the final regulations and significance thresholds have been adopted. Under the provisions of SB 375 the following timeline summarizes the major actions and time frames that will involve significant City participation in the effort to develop the implementation programs necessary to comply with SB 375: Agenda Item F Page 2 SB 375 Planning Process Overview — SCAG Region `Tlmeframe . , CA R O P R/Reso u rces `A erc Actions SCAG Plannirfg.Actidns City/County Planning Actions.;. 10 -01 -09 to California Air Resources Board Southern California Association of Orange County Council of 06 -30 -10 (GARB) develops Regional Governments (SCAG) and South Governments ( OCCOG) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Coast Air Quality Management Orange County Transportation Reduction Target. District (SCAQMD) provide technical Authority (OCTA) can provide data, data and other input to CARB. input and recommendations SCAG holds workshops throughout regarding regional targets to SCAG. the region to disseminate and gather City should attend SCAG and other agency workshops within the information regarding appropriate region; participate in development regional GHG reduction target. of regional GHG Reduction Target. Before June 30, 2010, SCAG Assist in submitting a sub - regional submits regional Reduction target to CARB. Reduction target to SCAG by OCCOG/OCTA. 06 -30 -10 Release Draft Regional GHG Reduction Target. 06 -30 -10 to SCAG submits comments on Draft Cities, OCCOG and OCTA should prepare comments to SCAG and 09 -30 -10 Reduction Target to CARB. CARB on Draft Reduction Target. 09 -30 -10 CARB adopts Final Regional Publication of Regional Reduction OCCOG and OCTA can begin to GHG Reduction Target. target triggers preparation of the prepare the SCS and/or APS to Sustainable Community Strategy provide to SCAG. (SCS) as part of the next Regional City should be closely involved in this process, as the SCS /APS could Transportation Plan (RTP), due in have the most potential to impact 2012 for SCAG. Alternative Housing Element and General Plan Planning Strategy (APS) may also land use designations. be prepared. Page 3 SB 375 Planning Process Overview — SCAG Region (Continued) Timeframe CARB /OPR ou /Resrces . A gene " Actions SCAG Planning Actiidns ., ..,::. .City /County, Planning Actions . , . 09 -30 -10 New RTP and Housing Element City should participate in development of the new RTP. (Continued) Update cycle begins. RHNA and Housing Element e ro cess. 10 -10 to 09 -11 SCAG hosts at least 16 workshops OCCOG /OCTA can prepare and to develop the SCS as part of the submit Draft SCS to SCAG. RTP. An APS may also be prepared. City should participate in this process with OCCOG/OCTA. SCAG conducts at least 3 City should participate in applicable workshops re: RTP /SCS /APS for each county of greater than 500,000 SCAG workshops on RTP /SCS /APS. population. AB 375 only requires publication of draft RTP with SCS at least 55 days before adoption of the first post 09- 30-10 RTP. Next SCAG RTP due May 2012, so Draft RTP /SCS due for release March 2012. SCAG plans to release draft for review by November 2011, but could be released later. November SCAG circulates Draft SCS /APS OCCOG /OCTA should coordinate 2011 prepared in accordance with adopted closely with SCAG to make sure SCAG Guidelines. Statutory due time schedule is met for preparation date is March 2012. 1 of RTP /SCS /APS. Page 4 SB 375 Planning Process Overview — SCAG Region (Continued) Timeframe CARB /OPR/Resources ,'A enc y Actions : SCAG Planning Actions. City /County. Planning Actions . January - April, SCAG holds at least 3 public OCCOG/OCTA and City 2012 hearings on Draft SCS /APS. SCAG participates in information meetings and provides comments at public also plans to hold 6 -12 informational hearings as appropriate. meetings during this action. April 2012 SCAG adopts SCS and RTP and submits SCS to CARB for approval or disapproval. SCAG adopts APS if needed (only if RTP /SCS document does not predicate achievement to Regional Reduction Target). Statutory due date for adoption of SCS /APS is May 2012. June 2012 CARB reviews and adopts or If CARB disapproves SCS, then No stakeholder process currently rejects RTP /SCS submitted by SCAG revises or submits the APS. specified in statute for providing SCAG within 60 days of No process specified in statute for input regarding revision process. submission by SCAG. revisions to SCS or development of APS. September 30, CARB may adopt updated 2014 Regional GHG Reduction Target. Page 5 Overview of State Actions regarding Climate Change: In recent years, California has taken center stage in national and international efforts to fight global warming. In 2001, the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) was established to track and report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2002, legislation was adopted to limit GHG emissions from new vehicles sold in the state (AB 1493) and to establish a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), with the goal of increasing the share of renewable energy sources in the electricity procured in the state (SB 1078). In 2006 GHG limits were established on electricity imported from out of state (SB 1368). These regulations and programs form the cornerstone for more comprehensive economy -wide measures to reduce GHG emissions. In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S -3 -05, setting a goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. A multi- agency Climate Action Team was launched to show how the state could comply with those targets. State Climate Policy and Impacts on Local Government: Local governments have recently found themselves in the midst of the state's climate policy debates. In 2007, the Attorney General began filing comments on climate - related issues in the environmental reviews conducted by local jurisdictions, and sued San Bernardino County for failing to consider GHG emissions in its proposed general plan update. The case was settled and San Bernardino County agreed to develop a GHG emission reduction plan. Concerns over this case contributed to the passage of SB 97 in 2007, requiring the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Resources Agency to develop guidelines for local governments and others to follow to account for GHG emissions when conducting analysis of plans and projects under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AB 32 - The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: The 2020 goal established by Executive Order S -3 -05 was codified into law through the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which placed responsibility for developing an emission reduction plan with the California Air Resources Board (CARE). The bill is considered to be a sweeping bill addressing climate change and specifically global warming resulting from the release of GHG emissions into the atmosphere due to human activities. Page 6 Overview of Climate Change Scoping Plan: On December 11, 2008 the CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan ( Scoping Plan), which outlines how the state will meet the 2020 GHG emission target. According to this Scoping Plan, California will need to reduce GHG emission by 169 million metric tons (or roughly 30 %) below a projected "business as usual" scenario by 2020. About two - thirds of these reductions would come from five programs: ❑ GHG emissions standards for passenger vehicles; ❑ Energy efficiency programs; ❑ A more aggressive RPS; ❑ A low- carbon standard for transportation fuels; and ❑ Measures to reduce emissions of gases with high global warming potential (e.g., refrigerants). The plan also recommends that California join with other western states to form a market for carbon emissions ( "cap and trade "), which could achieve approximately 20 percent of the targeted GHG emission reductions.' The Environmental Quality Control Board received a report at their January 28 Meeting regarding the "Design Recommendations for the WCI Regional Cap -and Trade Program." The members of the Western Climate Initiative are Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, Full documentation, including the language of AB 32, the Scoping Plan, all appendices, technical tools, and other information and resources can be found at http: / /www.arb.ca.goy /cc /scopingplan/ document /scopingplandocument.htm. The Scoping Plan states that it will remain a plan, even after adoption by CARB. Once CARB adopts the Scoping Plan, the State has 2 years (until 2012) to then develop and adopt regulations to implement the Scoping Plan measures. The measures included in the Scoping Plan are a mixture of existing laws, regulations, policies, and programs; measures which strengthen and expand existing policies and programs; discrete actions (targeted actions already in place under AB 32); and measures which will require new rulemaking. Emission Reduction Targets: The emission reduction measures include specific actions, regulations, and targets for the various specific sectors that contribute to GHG emissions. In December 2007, the CARB approved emission limits (based on 1990 levels) of '"Climate Policy at the Local Level: A Survey of California's Cities and Counties," Public Policy Institute of California, November 2008. Page 7 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) which equates to a reduction of approximately 169 MMTCO2E. In order to meet this target, CARB, through the adopted Scoping Plan, has identified measures by sector that will slightly exceed the identified emission reduction, as set forth below: Emission Reductions by Sector Recommended Emission Reduction Measures CA Light -Duty Vehicle GHG Standards Energy Efficiency Measures Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020) Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regional Transportation — Related GHG Targets* Vehicle Efficiency Measures Goods Movement Million Solar Roofs Medium Heavy Duty Vehicles High Speed Rail Industrial Measures (for sources under the Cap- and —Trade Program) Additional Reductions Necessary to Achieve Reductions through the Cap- and -Trade Program High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures Sustainable Forests Industrial Measures (not included under the Cap- and —Trade Program) Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) Total Reductions Counted Toward 2020 Target Reductions Counted Toward 2020 Target (MMTCO2E) 31.7 26.3 20.3 15.0 5.0 4.5 3.7 2.1 1.4 1.0 0,3 34.4 20.2 5.0 1.1 1.0 174 * The emission reductions associated with the Regional Transportation Related GHG Target represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target which will be established by the process set forth in SB 375. See following discussion regarding SB 375. Regional Transportation - Related GHG Targets: The "Regional Transportation - Related GHG Targets" reduction measure may have direct impacts upon various land and transportation planning activities of local governments. There is additional discussion regarding this issue provided below in the discussion regarding SB 375. As indicated above, the Scoping Plan includes a reduction target of 5 MMTCO2E for Regional Transportation - Related GHG Targets which represents an estimate of the emission reductions that may be achieved through Page 8 implementation of SB 375. However, it is only considered an estimate of what may be achieved through local land use changes and does not necessarily reflect the emissions reduction target that CARB may establish pursuant to implementation of SB 375, which goes into effect on January 1, 2009. An emissions target established pursuant to SB 375 may be higher or lower. In addition to identifying the measures that will be more mandatory in nature, as discussed above, the Scoping Plan includes a number of recommended measures that are not considered requirements, although they are highly encouraged. These include actions that may be carried out for local government operations as well as additional measures for green building programs, and recycling and waste and water actions. Although specific reductions are not proposed for local government operations, the CARB acknowledges that local governments are essential partners in achieving California's GHG emission reduction goals and encourages cities and counties to develop a collaborative and comprehensive approach to reducing GHG emissions and address climate change within their own communities. In order to encourage the efforts of local governments to reduce GHG emissions, the Institute of Local Government (ILG) is developing a program to recognize local governments that take progressive action to reduce GHG emissions and achieve certain performance standards. SB 375: KEY DATES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 375 Date Activity January 1, 2009 The CARB adopts the Scoping Plan, which includes the total reduction of carbon in million metric tons from transportation planning. CARB adopted the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008. January 31, 2009 CARB appoints the Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) to recommend factors to be considered, and methodologies to be used for setting reduction targets. September 30, 2009 RTAC must report its recommendations to the CARB June 30, 2010 The CARB must provide draft reduction targets to the SCAG region to review. September 30, 2010 The CARB must provide SCAG with a GHG emissions reduction target. Page 9 October 1, 2010 Beginning this date, SCAG will begin the process to update the RTP will begin an 8 year planning cycle that includes the SCS -APS and alignment for the RHNA process. December 31, 2010 Transportation sales tax authorities, OCTA in Orange County, need not change allocations approved by voters for categories of projects in a sales tax measure approved by voters prior to this date. December 31, 2011 Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Projects programmed before this date are exempt from the requirement to be consistent with the SCS. SB 375 represents a "program" for the automobile and light truck sector and provides a means for achieving the AB 32 goals for cars and light trucks by targeting a reduction in "vehicle miles traveled" (VMT). SB 375 provides more certainty for local governments by framing how AB 32's reduction goal from transportation planning for cars and light trucks will be established. SB 375 is not about: ❑ green building programs; ❑ energy efficiency programs: ❑ municipal operations; ❑ waste management; ❑ water; or ❑ technology. Setting SB 375 Regional GHG Emission Targets: As discussed in the AB 32 discussion above, SB 375 requires CARB to establish regional targets for GHG emission through the recommendations of a Regional Targets Advisory Council (RTAC). CARB establishes the targets for each region in accordance with the following: ❑ CARB must take other factors into account before setting target. Before setting a reduction target for GHGs from cars and light trucks, CARB must first consider the likely reductions that will result from actions to improve fuel efficiency of the statewide fleet and regulations relating to carbon content of fuels (low carbon fuels). It should be noted that President Obama on January 26 instructed EPA to review its previous determination to deny the petition of California to establish more stringent requirements than those established in the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), in accordance with provisions of the CAA. Page 10 ❑ _Targets are set regionally, not locally: SB 375 assures that the target to reduce GHGs from cars and light trucks will be regional, not on an agency —by- agency basis. ❑ Committee to advise CARB: The RATC, which includes representatives from the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, metropolitan planning agencies (MPO), which in this area is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), developers, planning organizations, and other stakeholder groups, will advise the Board on how to set and enforce regional targets. ❑ Exchange of technical information: Before setting the targets for each region, CARB is required to exchange technical information with the MPO for the region and with the affected air district. The MPO may recommend a target for the region. SB 375 requires CARB to establish the regional targets by September 30, 2010, with draft targets being released to the regional planning agencies by June 30, 2010. The regional target may be expressed in gross tons, tons per capita, tons per household, or in any other metric deemed appropriate by CARB. The RATC is tasked to make its report to CARB on the applicable regional target by September 30, 2009. Once the regional target is set, it is updated every 8 years, which is consistent with the new regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) cycle and two RTP planning cycles in the SCAG region. Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS): Once the GHG emission targets are established then the local metropolitan planning organization, SCAG, in the LA- Orange County region, will prepare a "Sustainable Communities Strategy" (SCS). The SCS will, among other things, set forth a forecasted land use and transportation system development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, is intended to reduce the GHG emissions for automobiles and light trucks from a resulting decrease in overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT). SCAG would use the SCS for the land use pattern underlying the regional transportation plan. Like the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), SB 375 requires the growth pattern in the SCS to be based on the "most recent planning assumptions considering local general plans and other factors ". It also requires that the SCS be consistent with the federal regulations that require a realistic growth development pattern. Of all of the requirements of SB 375 regarding the SCS, the one that has generated the most concern to date is the requirement that the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) include a development pattern, which, if implemented, would achieve the GHG emission targets if there is a feasible way to do so. It is important to emphasize that this development pattern must comply with federal law, which requires that any development pattern be based upon "current planning assumptions" that include the information in local general plans Page 11 and sphere of influence boundaries. If a certain type of development pattern is unlikely to emerge from local decision - making, it will be difficult for SCAG to say that it reflects current planning assumptions. In addition the SCS will not directly affect the local land use decisions. The SCS does not in any way supersede a local general plan, local specific plan, or local zoning. SB 375 does not require that a local general plan, local specific plan, or local zoning be consistent with the SCS (The CEQA changes made by the bill require residential projects to be consistent with the SCS in order to take advantage of streamlined CEQA processing). Alternative Planning Strategy (APS): If the SCS does not meet the GHG emission reduction target, SCAG must then document the impediments and show how the GHG target could be met with an alternate planning strategy (APS). The GHG reductions attributed to the Regional Transportation — Related GHG Targets are important to local jurisdictions at the level of the SCS. Impacts to each local jurisdiction will be different depending on the degree of variation between a city's General Plan and the land uses proposed in the SCS to meet the GHG emission reductions. Although SB 375 does not require consistency between the local jurisdictions's General Plan and the SCS, it is encouraged and inconsistency will affect a local jurisdictions ability to receive federal and State transportation funds (Emphasis added). The APS, or SCS, if determined by CARB to be consistent with its approved plan, would allow a specific project to qualify for the CEQA streamlining provisions of SB 375 and add a new focus for the regional transportation planning and housing allocation process: reductions in GHG emissions. What SB 375 Means for Transportation Fundin SB 375 requires the RTP to be internally consistent much like the internal consistency requirement of a city's general plan. This means that the "action element" and the "financial element" of the RTP must be consistent with the SCS, since the SCS is part of the RTP. This consistency requirement does not apply to an APS, since the APS is not part of an RTP. This means that the decisions about the allocation of transportation funds must be consistent with the SCS, its land use plan, and its transportation policies. Again, the RTP land use plan must be based on the most recent planning assumptions, which are taken from local city and county general plans. SB 375 "Trailer Bill" Legislation: It should be noted that the SCAG Regional Council Staff Report re: Update on SB 375 (Steinberg) Legislation, November 6, 2008 discusses several additional Page 12 issues of concern regarding SB 375. Of most importance are the concerns regarding the discussed SB 375 "Trailer Bill Legislation." These issues are: O Exemption for voter - approved Proposition 1 B Transportation Projects; O Expand CEQA streamlining to other projects that would be considered consistent with a Sustainable Communities Strategy; 0 Eliminate schedule conflicts with required adoption schedules for Housing Element updates and Regional Transportation Plans; and O Mitigation for impacts to the State Highway System. SB 375 and California Coastal Act : The City Council has requested information regarding the potential conflicts between the provisions of SB 375 and the California Coastal Act. Staff has contacted representatives of the Coastal Commission to determine if the Coastal Commission has prepared any specific analysis of the interplay between the provisions of SB 375 and the Coastal Act. The Commission staff have not provided any information to be able to be included as part of this Staff Report. The City Council will be provided an additional status report on this concern when information is received from the Coastal Commission. Staff is providing as Attachment E a copy of a Coastal Commission comment letter regarding the "Draft LUSCAT Submission to CARB Scoping Plan," dated May 21, 2008. This letter provides the best overview of the position of the Coastal Commission regarding the issue of climate change in relation to the drafting of the AB Scoping Plan that staff has been able to locate. The comment letter discusses the interplay of the AB 32 Scoping Plan and the Coastal Act goals and policies and provides some general guidance as to how the Commission may consider the issues to be determined in preparing an SCS and any required amendments to adopted Local Coastal Plans by jurisdictions within the Coastal Zone. Review and Comment Activities by Orange County Council of Governments: The Orange County Council of Governments ( OCCOG) and the OCCOG Technical Advisory Committee ( OCCOG - TAC) have been carefully monitoring the efforts of the State in developing the Scoping Plan and most recently have provided comment letters to SCAG regarding policy and technical review concerns regarding both the Scoping Plan and SB 375. City staff participates regularly in the OCCOG Technical Advisory Committee ( OCCOG - TAC) meetings and will continue to provide updates to the City Council, Planning Commission, and Environmental Quality Control Board regarding the SB 375 implementation process. Page 13 Additional Information Documents Provided: Provided as Attachments B through D are the following documents regarding SB 375 for the information of the City Council and other interested parties: O "Technical Overview of SB 375 (v 1.1)," League of California Cities, dated September 19, 2008 (Previously provided to City Council on January 26, not included with this City Council Agenda Packet); O "Adoption of ARB "Climate Change Scoping Plan "," Richards Watson Gershon, dated December 24, 2008; and O "CEHD Special Meeting — 2012 RTP & SB 375," presentation by Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director, Southern California Association of Governments, dated January 8, 2009; City staff has a complied a library of additional documents and reports regarding AB 32 and SB 375 that have been produced by CARB, SCAG, OCCOG and many other agencies and firms that are available for review by interested parties at the Department of Development Services. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No direct fiscal impacts at this time. Minimal Additional indirect costs due to increased analysis in environmental review documents regarding greenhouse gas emissions and applicable mitigation measures. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Staff Report. Instruct Staff to forward to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information. SUBMITTED BV NOTED AND APPROVED: AWheittenberg David Carma y, City Manager Director of Development Servi s Attachments: (5) A. Acronyms B. "Technical Overview of SB 375 (v 1.1)," League of California Cities, dated September 19, 2008 (Previously provided to City Council on January 26, not included with this City Council Agenda Packet) C. "Adoption of ARB "Climate Change Scoping Plan "," Richards Watson Gershon, dated December 24, 2008 D. "CEHD Special Meeting — 2012 RTP & SB 375," presentation by Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director, Southern California Association of Governments, dated January 8, 2009 E. Letter to California Energy Commission re: "Draft LUSCAT Submission to CARB Scoping Plan," Susan M. Hansch, Chief Deputy Director, California Coastal Commission, May 21, 2008 ATTACHMENT A ACRONYMS AB Assembly Bill APS Alternative Planning Strategy ARB Air Resources Board CA California CAA Federal Clean Air Act CARB California Air Resources Board CCAR California Climate Action Registry CEHD Community, Economic and Human Development CEQA California Environmental Quality Act EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency GHG greenhouse gas ILG Institute of Local Government MMTCO2E million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization OCCOG Orange County Council of Governments OCCOG - TAC OCCOG Technical Advisory Committee OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OPR Governor's Office of Planning and Research RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment RPS renewable portfolio standard RTAC Regional Targets Advisory Committee RTP Regional Transportation Plan SB Senate Bill SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCS Sustainable Community Strategy VMT vehicle miles traveled WCI Western Climate Initiative ATTACHMENT B "TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF SB 375 (V 1.1y' LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 (PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 26, NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET) ATTACHMENT C "ADOPTION OF ARB "CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN'," RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON, DATED DECEMBER 24, 2008 11b,,►li RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON VIM ATTORNEYS AT LAW —A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 355 South Grand Avenue, 4oth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071 -3101 Telephone 213.626.8484 Facsimile 213.626.0078 RICHARD RICHARDS (1916 -1988) December 24 , 2008 GLENN R. WATSON (RETIRED) VIA U.S. MAIL HARRY L GERSHON (1922 -2007) STEVEN L DORSEY MY. Lee Whittenberg WILLIAM L STRAUSZ BILLY D. DUNSMORE EYSON B MITCHELL E. ABBOTT Director of Development Services GREGORY W. STEPANICICH L BROWNS QUINN M. BARROW QUINN City l of Seal Beach ty CAROLW. LYNCH GREGORY M. KUNERT 211 - 8th Street THOMAS M. LIMBO EH. Seal Beach, California 90740 -6305 STEVEN KAUFMANN • KEVIN G. ENNIS ROBIN D. HARRIS MICHAEL SE WIENER Re: Adoption of A" "Climate Change Scoping Plan" STEVEN R. ORR B. TIM EN KIM SASKIA T. ASAMURA KAYSER O. SLIME Dear Lee: PETER M. THORSON JAMES L MARKMAN CRAIG A. STEELE t L_ f s rl T. PETER IERCE T RENCE RPBOGA I am writing to inform you that on December 11, 2008, the California Air Resources USA BOND JANET E. COLESON Board ( "ARB ") approved the "Climate Change Scoping Plan." ARB is the agency ROM XAN GNGRAYS N charged with implementing Assembly Bill 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act of ROY A. CLARKE WILLIAM P. CURLEY III 2006," and the scoping plan is a major step in implementing the Act. Although the MICHAEL F. OSHIBA REGINA R DANNER PAULA plan is general in nature it is an indication of the new obligations that will be GUTIERRQ BAEZA Y TERESA HO -DRANO BRUCE W. GALLOWAY imposed upon local governments to address climate change. DIANA K. CHUANG PATRICK K. BOBKO BILLY D. DUNSMORE EYSON B Background - AB 32 - DEBORAH'R.HAKMAN ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE TELEPHONE 714.990.0901 RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mr. Lee Whittenberg December 24, 2008 Page 2 ❑ January 2011: Adoption of regulations setting mandatory GHG emissions and market mechanisms, including regulations affecting local governments ❑ January 2012:' Regulations take effect ❑ 2020: Goal for achieving 1990 emissions levels The scoping plan, then, is one of the many preliminary steps toward implementing statewide and localized limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The Scoping plan does not include many specific details. Nonetheless, it indicates areas where local governments will need to focus their attention in reducing municipal GHG emissions. Scoping Plan - Areas of Focus The Scoping Plan provides a view of forthcoming voluntary and mandatory measures for GHG reduction on a macroscopic scale. Under the Plan, there are five key areas in which ARB will focus its regulations: Cap and trade program: Develop a regional market system for bung_ and selling pollution "credits" with six other western states and 3 Canadian provinces. This may also be the precursor for a national program. ❑ Energy efficiency programs: Expand existing efficiency programs and building/appliance standards, including promoting the widespread use of solar water heaters and implementing green building laws. ❑ Renewable resources: Expand to 33% the percentage of electricity generated with the "Renewables Portfolio Standard," which includes wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, and biogas. 1 The drafters of AB 32 were concerned that a hard start date for mandated reductions could discourage climate change initiatives prior to that date. Consequently, AB 32 requires that ARB develop quantification methods to ensure that "early adopter" agencies receive credit for pre -2012 reductions when GHG reductions become mandatory. Health & Safety Code §§ 38561(f), 38562(b)(3). Local agencies interested in establishing green programs should therefore not feel constrained by the 2012 start date. RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mr. Lee Whittenberg December 24, 2008 Page 3 ❑ Transportation- Related GHG Targets: Set regional goals for transportation emission reductions, and establish policies and incentives to achieve targets. ❑ Existing Policies: Continue to implement existing laws and policies, such as clean car standards, goods movement measures, and low carbon fuel standards. ❑ Fees: Establish targeted fees to fund long -term commitments to AB 32 administration, such as a public goods charge on water use and fees on high global warming potential gases. Focusing on these five areas, ARB has prepared a long list of emissions reduction measures, and estimated the quantity of greenhouse gases that each measure would remove from anticipated emissions in 2020. These range from ship electrification at ports, to a million solar roofs program, to high -speed rail. Most relevant here, ARB recommends a GHG reduction goal for local governments of 15% below current emission levels by 2020. Accomplishing this goal would be roughly equivalent to California's goal of returning to 1990 GHG emission levels by 2020. Local Government Actions The Scoping Plan identifies five specific areas of future action and focus for climate action by local governments. The upcoming ARB regulations will likely require local governments to implement programs in the following areas (many of which overlap): ❑ Community Energy. Local governments will reduce the amount of energy used by public buildings, equipment and infrastructure; address the carbon content produced by municipal utilities; and reduce energy use across the jurisdiction through new building codes and conservation programs. ❑ Community Waste and Recycling. Local governments will enhance recycling and reduce waste in municipal buildings; make adjustments to waste collection systems; and promote waste reduction and recycling to businesses and residents. ❑ Community Water and Wastewater Systems. Local governments will reduce water use in municipal operations; upgrade and retrofit pump RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mr. Lee Whittenberg December 24, 2008 Page 4 systems to reduce energy usage in water, wastewater, and irrigation systems; and implement community -wide conservation and reclamation programs. ❑ Community Transportation. Local governments will reduce transportation impacts by utilizing more carbon- efficient vehicles; drafting transportation plans that encourage low- carbon travel such as carpooling, biking, and walking; and partnering with regional planning agencies. ❑ Community Design. Finally, local governments can affect climate change on a broader level by influencing the siting and design of new residential and commercial developments so as to minimize greenhouse gases associated with energy, water, waste, and vehicle travel. The scoping plan expressly states that local government will have to account for environmental impacts in such decisions. SB 97 already requires that climate change will be a part of the analysis in CEQA documents. While that statute provides for a guidance document on greenhouse gas emissions and CEQA to be issued by the Office of Planning and Research, that guidance is not due until 2010. Currently, ARB is preparing a separate document discussing possible levels below which a project's GHG - --- ------ - - - - -- emissions -can be deemed to have- "no--significant- impact' ; .at- least-for global — -- -- warming purposes. ARB has set February 2009 as the goal for adopting these thresholds. The Plan does not yet set forth any quantified objectives *for these actions. ARB, along with several other agencies, will be developing measurement and tracking protocols in the coming months, and methods of reconciling local accounting with regional emissions targets. ARB recommends incorporating some of these measures directly into general plans, in addition to utilizing regional "blueprint plans," discussed below. It remains to be seen whether ARB will expressly require a new separate "climate change" element, similar to the housing element cities and counties must now prepare and regularly update. Depending upon how the mandate is structured, this could constitute a significant new administrative burden for local governments. To provide guidance on how to inventory and report GHG emissions from local government buildings, facilities, vehicles, wastewater and potable water treatment facilities, in September ARB adopted a "Local Government Operations Protocol." RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mr. Lee Whittenberg December 24, 2008 Page 5 This document, which is quite technical in nature, is available online at http: / /tinyurl.coml7gopro. The scoping plan proposes that using this Protocol, local governments will calculate a "baseline" year to measure existing GHG emissions, and then track and compare emissions levels against that baseline on an annual basis. ARB is also in the process of developing protocols for community -wide emissions. The Blueprint Process The other significant aspect of ARB's plan for local governments is the.discussion of a regional "blueprint" planning model. Senate Bill 375, signed by the Governor on September 30, provides for the establishment of large- scale. land use and transportation growth plans by regional councils of government. The rationale behind the.bill is that a piecemeal approach to climate change is unlikely to be as effective as a regional blueprint. The blueprint concept is significant because local governments are already struggling with the appropriate method of addressing climate change in EIRs and other environmental documents. The scoping plan proposes the inclusion of specific provisions in CEQA to recognize projects that are consistent with general plans in -- - - - -- - - ---- cotiformance--with regional- blueprints— L--ocal- governments- would-not -- necessarily -be- required to follow the regional blueprints. Nevertheless, a local government that approved a project consistent with a regional blueprint would be able to make CEQA findings that the project would not have a significant environmental impact, and projects confirming to blueprints would undergo a streamlined environmental review process. Enforcement One other significant question for local governments, left largely unanswered by the scoping plan, is how the new climate change regulations will be enforced. AB 32 provided that ARB would "adopt regulations to verify and enforce any voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions that are authorized by the state board for use to comply with greenhouse gas emission limits." Health & Safety Code § 38571. While it remains to be seen exactly what regulations ARB will adopt based upon its current scoping plan, it is possible that ARB will be thrust into the new capacity of mandating particular land use policies. If ARB assumes this new role, then there will be inevitable conflicts of authority as disagreements arise over how to best address climate change in local jurisdictions. RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mr. Lee Whittenberg December 24, 2008 Page 6 The scoping plan recognizes that enforcement will be a "critical component" of ARB's regulatory programs, and provides that ARB will work closely with local air districts for implementing and enforcing pollutant regulations. For local governments, the Plan contemplates the creation of "administrative structures" for monitoring, prosecution, and penalty setting, but there are no specific details yet. The enforcement program will presumably be a significant part of the regulations ARB drafts over the next two years. Conclusion ARB's scoping plan is just a preliminary step in the process, but signals a general direction for state and for local governments in the implementation of AB 32. The price of compliance with many of the measures may be significant, although the plan also asserts that the benefits to the state's economy, including healthcare savings from reduced illnesses, will outweigh the costs. It remains to be seen how the mandates and enforcement mechanisms developed over the next few years will affect local governments. The adopted scoping plan is available online at http: / /tinyurl.comiscopingplan. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the scoping plan, or about green programs for your community. Very truly yours, rl � , Quinn M. Barrow City Attorney City of Seal Beach cc: David Carmany, City Manager S7296- 0001 \1107712v l .doc ATTACHMENT D "CEHD SPECIAL MEETING - SB 375," PRESENTATION IKHRATA, EXECUTIVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA i OF GOVERNMENTS, DATED 2009 • 2012 RTP & BY HASAN DIRECTOR, 1SSOCIATION JANUARY 8, CEHD Special Meeting 2012 RTP & SB 375 Hasan lkhrata. Executive Director Southern California Association of Governments January 8, 2009 Purpose of Special Meeting ❑ Share information relative to SIB 375 and the 2012 RTP process ❑ Seek your feedback ❑ Review efforts to date and highlight next steps K SB.375 Background ❑ CA Senate Bill signed by Governor 9/08 11 Effective date 1/09 ❑ SB 375 intends to implement AB 32' (only a small portion) 3 *California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 Purpose of SB 375 OAchieve specified GHG emission reduction target* El Integrate transportation, land use & housing planning * VMT from auto & light trucks 4 Purpose of SB 375 (conyt.) [:]Achieve specified GHG emission reduction target � by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from passenger vehicles (auto &light trucks) � through land use and related policies I Purpose of SB 375 (conytj El Integrate transportation, land use & housing planning � RTP � SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) � Growth Forecasts v/ Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) California GHG Inventory Forecast. 2D2O 1 1 11 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 2002 - +� i 2004 >- ;average 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1>y Ht�' u r `1 x 1 1 1 1 • 1 � X3`3' c ��. '�'`rr�'•k�i� r��H��' r �F'.3Y' s � ci� :�: � 3E`� w$F' � Y�"t � 1 s 1 1 11 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 2002 - +� i 2004 >- ;average 1 1 , 1 , , 1 1 1 1 , 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 , , 1 , , , iffivli ft 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1>y Ht�' u r `1 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 , , 1 1 1 1 , 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 , , 1 , , , iffivli ft 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Million. tonnes CO2 equivalent ❑ Transportation m Electric Power ® Commercial & residential U1 Industrial 19 Recycling & Waste ® High G'WP ❑ Agriculture ® Forestry California AB 32 Adopted Green House Gas Reduction Estimates by Measures Industrial Measures (Not Covered by Cap & Trade), 0.6% Sustainable Forests,____ 2.9% High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures, 11.6% Additional Reductions from Capped Sectors, 19.8% Industrial Measures (Cap & Trade), 0.2% Million Solar Roofs, 1.20) Renewables Portfolio Standard, 12.2% Recycling & Waste, 0.6% CA Light -Duty Vehicle GHG Standards, 18.2% Regional Transportation - Related GHG Targets, 2.9% High Speed Rail, 0.6% Goods Movement, 2.1 % Low Carbon Fuel Standards, 8.6% _ Medium /Heavy Duty Vehicles, 0.8% Vehicle Efficiency Measures, 2.6% Energy Efficiency, 15.1 % E:1 What SB 375 is NOT about: ❑ Anything not involving VMT associated with light & medium duty vehicles, e.g., green buildings energy efficiency municipal operations waste management water v/ technology 0 SB 375 Requirements ❑ Set GHG emission, reduction targets for passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035 (with 8 -year target update cycle) ❑ Develop an SCS, and include in RTP ❑ Develop an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), if necessary, to meet GHG emission reduction targets I SB 375 Requirements (con-wt.) [I Consistency with SCS � transportation projects that are NOT grandfathered � RHNA 11 SB 375 Requirements (conyt.) [I. Requires RHNA to be consistent with SCS ❑ At minimum at city level ❑ Housing Element consistent with RHNA ❑ Current zoning to accommodate RHNA housing units ❑ If not, SB 375 requires rezoning to accommodate the difference within three years 12 Potential for Local Land Use Change Housing Need Allocation =33 units R C Zoning Capacity =30 units 13 Potential for Local Land Use Change Housing Need Allocation =33 units L� Zoning Capacity =30 units Proposed housing in SCS = 23 units (Change to Mixed Use ?) Proposed Housing in SCS = 10 units 14 Additional Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions ❑ Pricing ❑ Other transportation demand management (TDM), including telecommuting, work at home, carpools /vanpools, park &ride ❑ Additional investments facilitating the use of transit and non - motorized modes 15 Other Provisions of SB 375 ❑ CEQA review exemptions /limited review 1:1 Guidelines for travel demand models used for RTP ❑ Specified public outreach and hearings ❑ Changes to housing element law 16 Components of an SCS ❑ Identify within the region general location of uses, densities & building intensities; areas. sufficient to house all projected population, including all economic segments of population; � areas sufficient to house an eight -year projection of regional housing need; and a transportation network to service the transportation needs of the region 17 Components of an SCS (con-ft.) ❑ Gather and consider the best practically available scientific information regarding resource areas & farmland in the region state housing goals im Components of an SCS (conyt.) ❑ Set forth a forecasted development pattern when integrated with transportation network & transportation measures /policies, reduces GHG emissions from autos & light trucks to achieve specified GHG target; and ❑ Allow the RTP to comply with federal transportation conformity requirements (Clean Air Act Sec 176) 19 � / � � \ \� }� } \� \����\ � «� / � / - � � }�� /,� � � � \ /� . \<� . ? � /�K ^� d� : ��=� /���� \��: ......d �� ��� / \ \? �� \�� � / . � \� � \ -= © »� & _ \� �� ( y%� \. « �� � � y�� / Samp a Area::Rivers de Downtown Metro Iink : n One -half Mile ;Buffer, xr,.i ayti . g,; � 1 r t � R w ;, ��`� 1 +i � Y �`5 *�f i u. ,�A 'r �� �'''� '� �� °� ' i � ai 'T' • '�}; : S� ti.' (� 'C� ; l,ii' � 't£`A^ -> i � i i �. �t� p ��r, ��� j�v# is �( W��" ^' +r. �� `��J��' ^aS r'I.d.�i" � .} '�''S'1� �7 <.�v 1 t.��r j}Q���'�, �• �� �� "g, f i X `• t" ^$ i!. r { 5.. .1 ti p �, � . e rz, i a3r P Paa fti y� rY i� �}.r 4 i t r>kx. f; {,Y n., a s' r iy ^� ✓ ((�7 d e p 1 „�? .5.: ;� A �i J�''u zlft t- t' v''in !fir :•. `^ } �,i lU . tM#ynYFti .M�� a�'' f �� ` *� ;;a`. � ita' ?� .p "�", `�`. i!��i�' r. ,. .:i r '� �. .�j, s "���.. q,. � ,w f., -.�?'� ✓1�i!�iP r 4'l'4j "; n w"k„Rq� � Ar �1 nr. .71 � � .ep�, `i :. +s t � i "'a +a h. • i �,; '� �: *< '�� c't C_ �,�� "�:'k �'3` :i } � 1 a '?d�, vx r c ��r.. �,� L =,� �. �:.m bYr l t.� 5a?'. �I �, , ✓.. .. �.' i � i� r�;l: � � f �,, r H� �, �..,�r♦�r � � x'�:.h. � �; A � 5�. ,`�:c, �. �M'�w, y�r� rt �`� x" �'� 7 _ `�`• � � �.�tf }'0 "��. .,«E alt 4 " � "�E :J.id �,,�: ". ty..�� t. j�,�+; � � �, ".% ^r�� �r.�'7:�� F 1 ri..� ryt«i{.�r,'E � '.. ax. �Y�.y .vl. `- '.+1."Kr�,.,.f - -r ;_�.��.7. .vw ,�ot, f, �,,,'i��t�,Q. k"h';? �£1�s4+�rkkXSAj -t.,b' j. f I P a rn et Jok,-,Sit ti I .,Are fton a n: ro H a Ai e Buffer , "if Oo Ie 31 Ji , wr Sample Area :.Sah",Bernardi- no-;Meitrolink Station t Half Mile Buffer Pi,, oi.77 ��a. .} ...A ., i., y � �;� 1 � e;� � t' t. A t i{' r:. '_�.:• F ;,��p t i� �.T � '+ .l Y<e,'�c'�{ t +r�;',� _; .�• � f �' ,t wV�V ti. i � ^� � ��?" :Y�k ! ,��F n i R`i"r' �� i t, ' .- F.., ,. i y:.l. 1 x ri+f," : 1. p A1� � .i'1, tir 4 {. i „ti 'F�7 1 '� s., � "� �e,,• � t „ ,4. ,� 3 ♦�. a.:.>fi •� n� ,� a n 1.!:0�< :. t'r'",a �� � 7,.�}rr "� t4 �-!�= �t i'J d,i'?s,Mk , j e�!'? ,� .'i _{,. .a �. rj 10 �.a� r „� 7 � i t��t,i 41r � i }:'.. � 'r. '1 t,,, i � Vj,. i�!� ;1�. -• �I � 2 ,.��" tf �''"" 7 t� � ,y d gbej�k1no! t".`R'"W� " lAy�i] }- >k '13 r r4 4p Ii✓" �Yr � i r ta. � tat � P (�r j smv�+. r .x �p t� < �.i t � di �- s+'!rt t d� ' l i t� ! b ! "j'r • # <� ,: i F + ( t � � i � i q (.�� ,�.1 `1 ,w a( � I �i � � � r t . t'< idr � t >� ; �, +`� t 1 i t� } h fii k i r ?�'� i,a � �r i �r•.w. {�7 '.. 'S f r; P� a: iet ... r a x•«» .Q' �La ,� c`!q 3 AAA i J y g q. r � x ,� , rt *c S.rw , nrt ', ill t� ryra et R� � °4�G � 't7j� ¢ tai �� +�t„l pay r t r xa L�3a �} �♦ fr,r ,a�t+'t� � vS� �..� ;{ .t t yt, �,{ r t 4 Ft �izj ' �>i � �j, i x atz� i yr" �,ff_Ftil 1�I irtr'� >ad f s3 } �- •�� 1, I X IN n�, .l' r,'� �� 0.�_. fuv� a� _ �F-I I r � v1 } (j A4ees' rt !, ;.{ ''r^ ei ..ti1`;`�! j,% t.4 .N � rr r �? 7~ w k +, t.♦: 4 r�+,• ,.} } a < 7 w '. ;+ tY '�rI ^ Y1 �,. 'i�� � ,� .J r�� t�� �.� . ' `��;2on$ Tole a!1„� t �.o-yk i . � { ' ✓' `�'trt; , t ,� „ ", li's`1�;. : P� i � i �{tt s , �,..pynY .... .� 1� �l.F .w �. �Y`� LL_4�. • ��. �.,�%�5��� 7' ».:t4 5 +. t.;�;.` � `i:,1, }. ati�C, MMI Y �d �'' �aA. rW144 i � •'I- }� �'1�1 �>Y .:+ tT vV+H�+.t[1l�rL'�.+C %i �� i II. �v$^; i�,•� !j WE 2 nd � n -d V � � _ t ��� � �� �;i� � �� yy���� fit' ��� �; � � � � •, ��� syY� PA Emvnn x •tt µ �S � r ik� �}f j��aa SS'l: T �j, � � jf� .` 1 . rl � ' �` Nr� } ..Fi { oc;�,,� "<'N y'c.fc. M'iri I /✓ f ��}, 1 } .:.++ 1.,a' F ^.� �A f t T ��.__Yl � /� �F r "r• tp�� �i a Sa nlo Ib Area: �` " :, n own -'e tU'r' n "; Buffer ' H a, M i I 1.11!— ell v it tm bj m im Sample'.'�Area:,, Planned Vermont Exposition, Rail S #aaio.' n, -Half- MileBuffer. I - N4 J; �1 14A ON t t-4 �MFI� Lm I San Diego i Plan -Carmuter Rai Ran- LkjM'Rmg Ran - subway Baseune-camd"Rap 11111111 Basdine - Ughl Reif - ExIsUng - Ommuer Rol • 4--Edding-AmUsk Bdd[.C- UgMRad ExIsUng - Subway Kern .V tVTA qRIZ NA AC . ... ....... IMP A 26 1. Identify Existing Land Use Information Residential..,:C Heaving Unit per Am 0 I sit�- F. -. ens 6.-,-.. 2■ Location':.af" Q S -`s legend ;IV Mcoc- TUWSwm Mrw.e� Olkepk WOW Residential..,:C Heaving Unit per Am 0 I sit�- F. -. ens 6.-,-.. 2■ gT4 NUA k $ - 5t, NUA k $ - .. , Y F ' MEE ........... 28 J-6; .. , Y F ' MEE ........... 28 Residential Density:(2005), 2, 3 & 6. Identify Short- and Long -Term Housing Development Areas and Consider State Housing Goals ❑ Identify areas sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments over the RTP planning timeframe ❑ Identify areas sufficient to house an 8 -year projection of the regional housing need ❑ Ensure consistency with state housing goals 31 Source ,SLAG ,2008 RTP Vermont/Beverly \ -"� Wilshire/Western .; WilshireNermont '`�• �, Wilshire /Normandie . _ Westlake/MacArthur P Legend Planned Exposition Line Planned Stations 1/2 Mile Buffer Highway Rapid Bus 0 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.1 2. Source: SLAG 2008 RTP =EIR .:•..`nE_!;:.I•:r_:;" '' .•.n':•T,' ",•' �';rn!;:;!It•I.r: '.; I'''Ii1 "•:ti °= , "-, 1' 1, i . m X:.r•.!:.-.P: .•:: r' :1•,r:_= _ - _ :._I; r.:.i:::•�_y ••nTR•... -.: •: I�i•'�,•v• .. - .1,.: -; i.;.. •' i t ., -rF 1. f�;.; ., "_.. •. .: ,. }: , .. . . • irj • rl:. l;" rtx' .. ^.'". ; : :.;:r:I'••411.11'li' {' ip,.- ..:'.IIY.l,g.-1 ?111;!:,1,'!:6 "I" ',I . .,ylijil 111 y�...r1:,4:ai•13 ''t k&: j% ,.iir: 1111,. r;, lirl•. '.•.I.r....ir..rl.i•I,•li :l•1:: ,lip j;� r • • r , x = ' z • .. " _:.:.. . - ': 'J•..,..;;: • •:°: I:{,,,-_ rli :rrrl;..y�;l��;�.�r.,.:.,.;:1;: _:',•.• "; : M7 1ii,I :;I liI,1,,i1�I;y1;ll �•, :. i.:.; -, i I.. i• v. :: '- ! = :.:;,.".:,-:o: - ,:. -- .:: s^'- ...1":.'�y,s"i• ••1:..:, i,;i...... ': -C:,' _I .s �i7 N^r4,,: -. ;- ,'....,Fli aiil:4 liv:.. " '• +"•'• M ..q. .. .- :. .. .. , . .,.:,.L. -= .._. ..... ..I.. 4•I , _ N' ; : :..'•.'•::C4 +d9.,•,:l.,l'.': :, •.: ,;- „•i.y'.:,:.. �,••.,. •: ••„' _ .1 .. ._ . . _.- .....i Fr. Pa _III r ...':'� ....: " ............... I dl. ,,,, n' , i.l , '!..lal.li ".,; •'•.., •IaxI1,P,... ,' ...n x. a .,,,, i.. a.. ,.. , .. wx ,. ue ..aaa a.lae l.. ,, ,, .4r.r ... 1... .. r ,,,. .. .: ... .. ...: .. .. , �,I ••I: �, I: e:.' +•rl. �i. V r.. .1. ,n. ., .l r .. LS , 1 I , .J y..l.l . .. .. ... .. ....r...L.. .. , „ .,._1 .i::l. I, h, .i,P•,• .i. Ir,il j:,:I•;L:;:,;:M�::.::�:.:. ...a.xx:.,.1,Ll,t•1. ... .. „� ,-n 4 .'1NM�... I.... I, . r ., . .... ..:..... r. ,..,.. ..,_: ,..,.,..^^I,,,,,:•,,.,,..,,.,. ,,.,,,I L, ... 4•:��:: ..,..... *, ., ... .. .: l ..,,��*lydl'�I:.. , . „ ,:: ,.,.v ,e . ,.I .. r , , , .. ,..II., .. . ...... ......... ..................!•, 111 , .. ., •,1•r.• ,. 1.:�. i� ��,.n "? ,- :,•,,.'•:,•„i.:.: ,;...u..,t :.m..- r.�..- n -•sw•� •.:.- .....: ••.]1r. e; ,;i'X" °' ?;_; I .,!.:P '� r'il r.. u;.,, •i: ": ,.; , u, 4.... n:, l .,..y- ,F,N.r- I..,.I.nv:.,l1..;. .. ':'::i•,ay:l ..... ,., _ - , ^.I r... .. - 4:,,..,.,,. .._._ :.. n_ ._ :•.: x.41.1..... ... - .... .. ..:... .: - - - 1 ,,;....... ., 7)rf ... .. '' •.l1 :.... .. ...... ,rr,.,- •..a'.... .,,. >.,..., _.. _, _ ,., l,.u.r...,x. ...r...i :....., 1•d. ,.:L I "�'Y4F'. ".,,,..:..,, L.;,u`.A:�p•'l• iu I :. ;ah +' •r,Y!i.r.•;• „: :, .•... •. _. ... .... ............L... .. ,, .... . _ •. ... , •..,I..�r ::.r...:.....:... .......... r,......I 1,•11.114!. •.I.....: !•• .x., .� ,. Ill.l:!.i.. Ixad.!.. r...l: �:�i�': .......... .. .. ..rr.., ,....:.!..; r.. I... : ....a::.,...,. :..,wr_x, ,.I. , .4 .I -.. ,....: ...IFi.. "': ^I:II:.:.l,xir.. :: -:li': •..r;; ;:..,......III 1 i..IJ.r .., :..;:.:r!'':li:i41• ^i1,..i,..Y: .....:.... .. .. P .. ..... •.. •. .:..,..,••,._ :.ynL.l,.. r... 1. . .. .. - .. ...r... ..I..,..r...r....- ......., .: }:.....:•', 1 ..,':I .. . ,..0 e . i .. .,., ...ul. .., ... r_ ..... _r _ ..... . , ...._.... m .a a n ,....., d x n n.. , ..... .... .�.. ; - - '.Ix'L.p,••i•11Mx, nx., .. !.Ire. ::, •,I:•I•II"1...111.1r. , .:":.,,,, n. r. '.I'•.r •. r;;.D.rll,;!r. r. �.. _ ,, ...:.4 ' 4.1.'+"• al4 •...r.!. x„a, xlltll;,rlll, : .. .. :a:I *.!.4:ii:: :1:.'; r..!"-, .r'41:!:•..�•; 1 1.., 4• :..y :.. !;:,; n .,.:,,'. „'d.,x'•,._a1i'''S;'1!. :t',r!r: .. !.. .. .....:: • I,•"•: -,4r:; ..x...: 'r .. ":: 4.N :..; ....a i -. .... _N :.I, ,. . _ . , - - - - ...1, . .. _ I•,;._.. ..i. , - .I. ..1 v , .. ... d 1 ..'F.i.!51,, ,., . -... _ - ,:1':., .,. ru a'•a;: 4,;••,:e. �.. i.: 'Y�i;,, :.a :,, t,'•. 'r.d'... , .. •• ,,.':.. _: a'r ,•.i':,.,r....; a.l:,. - -,l -, ...,r - .. - _ _ :I::_: 4:. _ V. r._. 1 ' .. .:. ... .. .... ..:..... .:'"_L..,...._- .. _ .i . .. .. .-.. .m . rF"-ry - ..a..., -• :'i::. ,9r: ' ,....... .... .. ..., ...'a ... •.,.:.....+.x ..:._ r:_ , .. .r..•.•: .! ::_.. .,...... .. n.. .. +.:,I., ,.. +'r:�� "•: L ?::.:: .,: •11'::x:11.1. •:�:, II':4 „'„'.. .. ......... ..: ....:..... .. .. .. ;._ r.:• .::v. ,. ! .,-.. ,- ,., .. i••il il•:,41•,:r', I,,;..; ji; r.,, -,; "'`,•'- - Lil; ^F;11•III;I•:IP1�11�•� .I! ..!la,l. ✓.-,�. r• r. . -- - 4'. .r... .r.!L, I L....,,....1.. ix•.T ..., .r.,.... ,. ._., . , .. 1..: ,_ .. •.� •..,. .. ... ... '''" ,:" . ": •.i14.I1. '4'�'': u�ll1, 111.1,11'1::.x,11. IIr�r.r:.i.':x .. li:•. - ::• :,I,,.,; ..., .. , a.. ..yr, .x . xe1 .. ... ..r::.. . ! 1 _ -, 4 , •!^ •. , :1x..1..,^ . x. ..,.. I. ipQ •- I.:'':': 'P .a.. r h',� .., 1 .,... . v , ... x...:. .. , ....I.. ...) ,. I ... I I .1 . .... l... •; ......, ...: , +::• .•: +41:x11 :.I.. ,,.!' r.I .1 ... ^: +': - , :'•,t . 4L Irr .. ,. ;, , .,: :. •ii l 'I''.1. J' + "i •.5 , , „ •!. •.... a• I.. _,r i. .a rr.: •4..: n.::r• , .: ...,.., , , . _..;.i1'--:--,.: .I .1; . .... l e ,. .r. D, ., I, x.1.5. +,. .•v, + .',:I •.. ..I. a 16x9. - ".:ir..: "' .. .....I •nr. h •..L.. ,..I1. Lr.. nlll ., ILr,.l6im.. .. ..arlr.i.,,r..r...l,. ., :4. N. 1n.., i, , .,._!, , . ,.::., .: -.: y:.r....,... I•I.:.I...I.r InPl:l;•1194.,,. 1, II•.r, •.a.NP!" a' S,i14. 71..,11.1:1:jl;irj, I I. r I .. l . .:.,',...a..;l.. _: ,. ., :, .. .. 4. ,. ,,..,., ,. 1 .1 . I ... ..... I.I_..,,r.. `_ "t ;!' - :J I.. -•il . , (.. I r .1.. �..1 .. ...r ';..I,1:.. II'rr.:li.. ;I:: :I .: �rv.a. •r.• rv!• .,.I r. .. - `d� -, iy •.:•::•:... D;,. W.Lr 11 I • '.1 !.... L I x,.. - •. ,, •;; P,n!.- :; -! .: ''•:. e_: •,r...0 -. •.... '..; :n!,. ,..:.1 • „•;..,,,...r•.,�••"1!.,. .....:r'. :.,,X" •.q! I , .1�i1 ,I1 ll:;.•:. ,.: :. .: _ Ilr 41 ••1.,!f;l .......... : .. ...... -..- •.. „• -: !,- r -4'Y': : ' . , : ':..-•.'Y _ : • •.::;, - . I.,., r. r ., :;Lr iii. r.. - - :I I. r; :.: •:ri•:'i l ... _ •: -x :.:. :.;r..!• .rr.. .. - :x_:ji r.:•,rmi i - .. .. _ ._ _ _ - - . „ r .... >. .. . .. C .... , ... .. .., .. .....r.. , ..- :. r::..: ::!n,•.. .61,..1:':. - a,:1:. °i:::'. ..... 1... , ,.. -. I h., ,. .,, .. .:. •..`.. •• 1 .::::: ri:.; •X'....L.",.,: ^L,.•. ..I':I:i ^li'e•. i.ri': •ii•::: ^,;^+'-•:I .1 ... .'!,...i,..0. I".j.: ._.,...:.,- .:,. , ... oa .... _.. .. •. .. .. .. .., a.....1 ._ 1• _ _ Fro ^a ... x_ .. .. , ... .., ... , , _ _ ... .._" .c. -... ,... r x'r..a ... 4 x , r . •' ' r,.=.. x ! . i.ai�r,'.: ,.;; i, ii: `; .•,i:4:1� "'•': ... I. -- , .. r.. ,_. ,.., i... , .. ..... .. ... .. .. .. •rill.:!F: .:i ,;..:.aall.. Ix:, :,`- :: - .''il''I,. e.ar 12:,., .I.. ..I.I .a nn. , ..a. .., .. Il...n ....a. 1.. ,. ... !,'1n I. , ... .. .... •• ... . rn..,,, ,....VV.r r. ,,.,.::.... a.xr a.l..:. I r I n .x14 i:1a• .rx�� ......:''. �.:, I r .I I .. a,I... �;••II,I......... 1. .... •4.I� r. ,.. I.,.. .. .. ,... •. .••:a4.a ..1. .... ... ..1. •,. I,. .I I.II I. x.14• a ,,,...'i .: :�r. •en:r::•,•: �' ?ii.,: ,,, -r.P.r r wr11; l.Cill ':R: {!:: " "� •.!r':. u.I• •,,...° ... !! 7 I_, ._..1a1 11..1;•....... +''�. ,I t.64. r..•:.. .._.,. ..,.,x.11.,. 1.,. I _ ::.�..,;.. .I 1 .1„ •..•,., fI .,II LI,. ...; ,� y .,, ..,.,.: r ....,....a x 11..a_.a:x. m.... _ .. __ .al!, .l .h.. �':": .:• •.. •: •.�:<: a•Y:mnr,Y::.;..::...a .. ': h)!` •^ !... ,,1.. ".,;:....., - .;4i..v. 4 .....fl •a.l'il5laa •. :' !hl +..:��• ,. .r •IIII ,..,.. •II!Ilh•..,�.5�a,, In , .,.:. .._.. ._... I,i'r ! !,,,.. ".;,;::rl : :.; 11,..1.,,. +� r.r i': .:, 1 • :r1 Y... 1 ...,1!:�,...^�. i:J .. ;. ,;Ari...: !'!:I:•'.,.,!,. II. I ... • .; :..1. :.. I; '.',. •, ..; ll ••_: :_ .. x:11.11:1• ... .! .111.1..1.I,.I.r.I. �1 !Ir,. 1••'.....•...:..i .......... •:'lr: •. •dr41.d ,,.,1. :r; •rr. ,!in: r•S!Hi!,.,li;::i••:.. ......x :.. ,:1 •:, I, , I.,Ir94i1,,.r,...' :- I.::r.,;.."_.:' 7^ 5 11', r. r! I::...•.. = x I -w .. Ir�•a.L.. •.....: ^'I •l-. ::'i' "'f- ,..,1:L'!I'.i - -". - ;..:li;.,4 4 ":I;.,,.1. 1... - .. •::I�:L4-.:: 'i +• ... ::.,•. •�'1'I'.I.r �! . .;.:.:rl... Ptl;,. ... li..„L1: •.Il _ _ _ .x .. :_�, '''•,I:i V'n :4: ^4._ . fir. -. .. ... ... max. _.. _ $ _......r. :. .., .. ,.._ - i:`:� -.i.: .. , .. ._ , .:. rrr. x rr.., ... ... ._ ,. .I . r _ .1... ...r .. ... !'' _ , •,,...: •r.• .! :. ::. :, ,.: :'' ...•.. 41 : ....... ..... _.. ...... .,••., .. _ :...- .. ... .. ^I.xl., , - .I a .. .. ....: -. _, ,..... I •. • . I. r ..rlr..,,..,.,. Pr::r;.., •..:•: ... ...L..._ . i,.,. _. _n.uH lal r6 r._..r_ .� .. - .. ,... .. - .i.... x.; ..P.:..: "�:i'.. :I.'"i:.: •,i:,r .. .:.il-,Il. .I P.I ., ::; .i l +• "• .- I': "�.': ! , - I ..I.MI" l.;.-:..; .. .., I, :::'- :., .. ... ,. 1,2 I •'r I , . .ry . ...!, . ... •: .. :.. . : .,, ., .1 :t iP: Cl:xi•r ',i j.....;,r:.rr, i r...i... -::': •y,, . ,l a.,..!Y% l l..l . ' �V I :• !,;.',. ,. I.,. .. .... .. ... ..1 ..,...;•..� .,. ".., .• 1, IIII .. y , .r. ..,. ......:.: . .,,.. ;::r'ISi �VPotentialsyDeel 4 � opmein ?tt �?�olici�esrY, lF7i3r WINN It i�rtur 1 9 q - r {> °a�.Yre.eVel{O p.� ,nt Yrl } e i Plan�for onal additi housi ng and fobs near transit r w 4 s r PIa ,•s fora `changfngrde n nd in flousingrtypes x 1 Protect;stable`: residential communities ~' • Ensur Ubt&l ot e w � , �. open space andy preservation of habitat 1PINit 54� g iii` n �A a, v 'kt 4 5 i sa -4,,.- i cJP > f �r'r ar.a }R•y - �� J.9�K1.r 1f ,.t.ttiRi`v' —'-' 2035 Baseline 2035 Draft:P0licy> _ (1,000) Household Empl 'y`ment Household Eri�ployment M 03' 133:101 132 LA 4,003 5;041 `4,087 5',091' 4R 1,118 1 M2 �1,134 1,992 RV _ 1,183 1;414;x; 1,142 1,386 �rim� , S B 973 1, 255° 914 1, 220; VN 330 463' 3$ 41 466rE � T Region 7,710 10,287 7,710 10,287 { C ?'i lP g T�d � ➢ ;=" k fi+s4,'r r C+ „.a �'l+i' I ',y.k4 ? r¢ , {.IJ �s�k l I `Z i"Syz 77,` - t�rc..�Ik �� K�: � .� ., .�� "'"� 1 �k° ..:.,1 ��„1..� x •�!�'f,u R�� {� s';ir ( 1 ,. y t �: � ., -'['t` s� +::'9. + Tr c 'i� Lt � .' Il +F f•r , 4 i � ✓+ �' 1� r ,ti ..7 `'' +y i j ta r►f.` ➢ 4 d r� rir 7 '�'f,. e spa �".e q>t a�•.`� .t+.t r! h( °,y'n'+N��"t -� y'�Ca��.. "" �'',�,k�Yrf ?� "Ii.. `�'X,}y%� k( # +��. �,� .�m� 5 �'�.yi,� &� � � ` a t ?..�> � :W'' =trf' a� Ma s � a� S •,xt',�,�.'`��.Lf. iiMara�at >�h- s�'t�7. ;Ills a �.1p �`� _ -Source: urce: SCAG- �tf�,.� 2.rt 0� 08q Draft RTP v ri fm itsti 20,0,8 Rraft P`olicv `GrowthForecast Compared with Baseline urow th f o re cas n "2035 Source CAG 2008 Draft RTP /PEIR 2020 Baseline 2020 Draft�Policy . Household Employment .Household f Employment IM 82 .� 106 8 1 �103 LA 3,666 4 ;755. , 3,689 ± 4,778 OR G 1,088 1;897 , 1,089 11872. a {RV 913. ;1,042 :�_ 913 , 1,035 SB, 787966�� 765� `981 :VN . 303 , ,. 417 303 Region fi.840 9,183 , 6,840 9,183 Source: SCAG 2008 Draft RTP 1 1 K ��,�x i s i .• s n�� .� � v s4 ter ��„ J µ�y f oil 5 � . 1 40 0.0 -0.5 4.0 4.5 2008 RTP Scenarios in 2020 Estimated GHG Emission* Changes in 2020 from ZUUS RTP Baseline (Local Input) Land Use Scenario -2.26 MMTCO=E 2020 Envision 0.0% -0.5% 4.0% 4.5% -2.0% -2.5% -3.0% -3.5% Estimated VMT* Changes in 2020 from 2008 RTP Baseline (Local Input) Land Use Scenario Vehicles Only 2020 Draft Policy 2020 Envision 41 Quantify the GHG Emissions Reduction Benefits ❑ Transportation Demand (4 -step) Model ❑ 4D Model - - Density (households per acre); Diversity (jobs /housing ratio); Design (pedestrian environment factor); and Destination (regional transit accessibility). 42 8. Ensure the RTP complies with federal transportation conformity requirements* * Clean Air Act Sec 176 43 Roles &Responsibilities- SCAG ❑ Prepare and adopt an SCS as part of the RTP develop methodologies and technical tools to estimate GHG emissions adopt public participation plan conduct informational meetings and public hearings develop and adopt a framework to address intra - regional relationships for sub - regional SCS, if necessary develop overall guidelines & create public participation plans for sub - regional SCS, if necessary develop an APS, if necessary 44 Roles &Responsibilities SCA G :Implications for how we do our planning for SCAG ► First time we have to comply with both federal and state law with one process. It's called One Plan (the Regional Transportation Plan), Two Mandates (ozone requirements by the feds & GHG requirement by the state). ► Integrated planning process -- transportation, land use, housing needs, and resource land; and result in better public health. ► More aggressive outreach to communities. ► Consistent technical tools and methodologies to measure our efforts toward the target. 45 Roles &Responsibilities Sub - Regions 1:1 Collaborate with SCAG on regional SCS ❑ Option to propose sub - regional SCS work together with county transportation commissions develop sub - regional APS, if necessary 46 Roles &Responsibilities Sub - Regions :Implications for how we do our planning for Sub - regions ® Opportunities -for taking more ownership in regional planning process — Option to develop Sustainable Communities Strategy for its own sub - region 47 Roles &Responsibilities CTCS ❑ Ensure transportation projects (NOT grandfathered) to be consistent with SCS Collaborate on regional and /or sub - regional SCS SCAG Region County and Subregion Map w ' Tulare Inya ti...:!.: ; I,,.,!•; la`IrII::;:,.;;r;;(;�j�ii;::::i : _`- - — - - • - � _ ... - - - - - -• — •� -• -- - — - - - ` • - — - <,� ,gig •_+; •�:' y:., j' .��•n r f :.L: ?':4•�'�•''�.,"„�e,,r.4.ir�` ,s; -, ., - _ — — I •'• .' .1 �'Y{ ` � : . Jb kl4R•� 4 i.,' YI'' :,,, xY.i ' , =r• :'h"" � •• � .,y'y' - :.�Y...' . + "'�•'E' °A. pF,�'��}FB :i •`'�:Y('X �:Y':::,•.: i�ti; J:; e'+ '.; • +, J^,'i �'i.;, �. -� Aid „I... :�' Li h Aa^ _ > '5..: .+:.;•.'�,p'y N ••v,t .�,§!� R t" ..'i� VMaI'fl. I 1. ". •..s :... - '"r.:. 7rfi••.E � ,;.; }:»;; ...r A'rIP: p �..G�`•� :..2.,. ..;.,�.if%�'' �j'•+ }.....: 5.��,. ��,,. ytt •L,< ��' _ ;, +I; I:. + .. :%"' ..:box; .Z:' <'• I _`.'•'�`? _ ; . ,{'..•' t'. .tl «; .„ s "v t�vcr•'ly",.".;� ...,,.;' 1 -_�•_ .•,yt.: _� _ - `y'_ ••;.: • i. �• ".''•••1'. E':.:� i ;'�':, x � r, ,•:•s8w�;: AP r....•.:,,•. . * e t • - ' .:.eE �' V iI` ; ' fki I t " ,J,.: .ii%" �I, „' �41r.:'f•, �:.,' ',: _ r;!i e,�n �'�:I•6t•: : •;I +'1 i``a �'r. �. •�� }, 'E•3+ w. w.. :�;p1.,.,:;• ,nW 1� � i•.' j�: �'�'•'� .+ '• ���':: :�. ��,a •: n. ;,'' • •'r• "��",; •: �'�'��': �tM, ;3d.' : ;.r� •. •`�' W , II}!'ry�f��.,.I Ci : r . . ::�..�•....;...r_.Yr.�. ,L;1if..:.7P.'•mA 1 r:1..y =,,..: i:•r: Ji •:. .,...f��:^ �!;ri" •.. y .I•..t.:.,!�I:I!I:Ilil:•..p.:.1 ••.:.�.��r.• ..a'• .... .I . _, �.., •: ;c ,r1M .:a:a�{�,,_r•,.': •. '� A.:: { %�'!:� �'�s y / • t Jt L, ,�1%::;. .:.:. "�FN's•::• {�,�;..•i.il, i�.p,r „_f,�..i, Y;•,.y, :. •. , n..;,. ?'. _a: .�: •`i",:,••. . 'I ' =.Eh� aY ,M f�•. S''f^ �. .'.,JF r• ;�. xv;< •.:� /•'r ;L:� - - `t- , {:•.'s•.: .. _ . J ;:,:, -.. rH';. is r „'• _ :i: ••R.)r, ly'(' `: :'•,�'�.x :'!•;- :''Y'�':�� . i - - - ... ;,�:.:; +: :5,: t_Y,,tl +r:'s <` '..�ar 1}' ^r<s•• :, `s ? -a'tl L•. +'. 7 n:�• � _ ::;;:,i, 1: ,; t• >..5' =':'.i:':':;: .w� f �. -`': Gr,�: :: .' - ,Y:;. :':y; ;�,.::`;p.•w�:: aY . ,. ;�•.;, a .' • ...: • • ,� ^�. �- _. �:.. �,.: •>'�..:,y� �. »3+€JL7��.%.::�u•�•: •: s:. ,i".. %; ::�•�: .S . � �, 1'r' '��1.J:•.:d; ?�;•'.!::.a:!'i .n i•14•iiY 'n�a�::;'• y.:...:'.��, ' .. 'r•! 4s+"'. .:...;1•;,il ••.:: ;. •M '��j�'�;Y •'[•i '' d•,;. ��r`'i� Kern .;.�at•::��x"p!',, Iry„N, °tx f•,. :s::: +:.Y'•:Y: .�„�p'{ ���•,i. rie iynu: ••at.,.i +�f�'il�y!��Ii4i:���:;. J:'•s••, _ Santa ........ 'n�” Fi'` ° I, '':R`; •� ,rX k�y:"':'•::':� ?.. :, r.r, _. • $?`.: /,^vr•vi . "'�'_ .. , „.�.•..,: 1✓+T'F.s: r' '_•J•r: •. .;1.1' �. . °•*`' >` .I': ,: Y � i':r .11•. "iy,:' , ;.r :'.- . r . .i. '' 1:: ' - . i ..i. -�! . �Bm. =�: •:r::.::.: µM ; .�� ::��.K . rf ::.I•-,�..: � ay: y:m�a:i r jj1r a �.:,: °:�( _:% >•7:' i•s �I <asr':' `' .7 •':.S•]' " • "Ir.r 7:.; E F ^• x, ,,.: '�. . {E:,r ..: as ' t,•yr- , fia,�,:. �.•�r;. .;�:I I •;..+'� . �:'''�!. g4 rr' �::�� � u°;,' M,:.e tt(I �r•: ��i'�. !sir 444771”' .r 7 •r.,•. rr•..,,. r ?. ":. I f`:s rrq,r Barbara � ...,.. , r:,r:.,. •,.` "> rl iii, �1�,,.iu •� �rr•�>' . S'•.a'sn ,':. r a ":.. *•; •::::t' r•' I.. ':pia••. ,,.¢ Q '!.,,:�j:!n.i�,;.; •i, -� III.::,, IPV ',;, •. � 9,,,. "�•; ' _I; Ill 1. i il.,;l,rh�ic•i, � _. \/ �•�- ,allorth�Loe'Angeles County :f:,;�A• _ >',; >5, {`.: `�,•+•'•r �•: >< -+ ..•t;r'r_ a• t^ .,$-F:1�:.�:+4'� _ M . I m •a '•s^°a a,; '.� , p. -:., '. •.' �u L--- .... ni r .i 7�» �...� o; . Y:; t,;^,,•:•.:,._ r.•;; a' r':•r ��'?;'. ':.. " +.;�:•:`fh.:•5,;:9�i,.,µ•, :.., - A:,�c,'r„ .yfr!,, ''1�(r,:;i, ?..•:;t;�, :• • `f '4 „ x .,:. V4wE' .rrre ts !r • %44Y u;=::1Fx<Y,.4 o .. .^ ,: : .�+...`. .. f ,_ ':• wP ��� L•r1Y ^.YY. ;O�,.�: . S,.t • `r o l . y . ^ el '•Y V•e 4: e s COG- Ventura rd ^u „r ti a ': . :o, , . `e •x ^r:=C. :r\<E ',: r.�dE tI: .�: �ri' � e. �. !` � s .i.' :. .;.. •, '.f.•t.e.- � _o . .'=- �� ;a _Jb.• '�s -t : ;Y :p: % .:.c%�...'*_�� `"•JL'""4= e: .�; A- . , .: W�.. � r?•> .,k:.. , § •r!. i ...s.••1o.:. � . . � �•.:; .. . A• t �:' Coul.ofGovenmen �:•`..`ti •;:,.: ..• .r ;S,gyA.p A, - .s ;N:s^,;•€Bo'�sc.A� •l 'Ge'.'' r. e;° . d SGd- _ no_ , `sv,B`.ee_ r:rr:i1:: .m1.e 8r,.a , e,r: dn;ti'�tnpsR_0 r.a :__ } ,• �=' :..'� ::. r c • e7 , , 3 •sr .•L. r” " e; t.,..,:4. :.• '_ 3:- . .'_ ., '%5;•.`�:;� " . _•_ 4' ";� .�ti ` �„�' - - ". ,':`I.1:;: .. i. : :..::` ir•:=�r:.'S :';:% "..- :;.,°.� : rr' ; r _. .. � •:- i :, - f�:i. : <'i �` .��.r4 : # ,', :e•:, •�r`,� 4;tf ' � ''�: : �i„ %s� :a.•��k:f,<,;..y6.s.:_':.,,i, � , •:;•;;!• ;-.<:'.ft,�'•�• : , '',, � •� ;94 x•� ,} {.Y ,:ti�• . �X•„.:,.:, 4 d " t* •;:,•.I,yLi' . MClty :O�;• Y .: .,9,... ;J • r • :ii' _ s••'`s'� "•�15%''`•:rJ' ✓• ,��`s"` •.�v =�i ..:1� � : r,,.M''. �. ✓' .r . �. .,:..Y�..1 ., ..; ii; ,:: ' �' • +_.�: S, � ' ,� ;:.;t•`•i;,: •;yr." •A, ::.1 '. � hii�:;jC:;.F, �: E Ids 3 elBS .:•• f ., Y',�Pfn,,..:. • .:-r .: "l'> `�'- :. '•T '�'•�'.�:,;'.•• _. is ''f:.i:4:. .� , : ..:.uf��J,i...i.- i.::'I:js;:li�_Si'r: ;:. ' `:. ;: ,, ,n � . °4�.' -''� ". r::f'ir'cl"`•' •�•.. .. iN'• .'!°':::;.��;5;.:.!.�7i•. :;: r'- ,��.I�i;�4��:.:; . i":; jl::"`...:' i�r:::.......r,:.:.::::_t';.:!" i''::h:':::��� ".�j:i•,:: • = • • ,a: ; ES4�GV'CO�G y-<Sa�n�G�abriel.Valle <r_ ;'�'• x y+��� . M � fit' ••:'' :� _, � ��''! i + n - nvumr44u n.._ .�: ,,...::r3s e: •.. ea+• ,:.K /.....,. .. ,�. e. ''.�' :' p, - :y,.'..w M'. °'.E r}E'T&:.�..:�'tieFd1L1V.�%�'' •P°.".Zs' r'I ; . '/ /1. • •� tlrt ?/i4rrinilr /!'•" nfe:. : ».. F, .- v�dr _ T'•1_�<•.<pA e'J'e'+ .d: :3s Y ,aa:." ..._ a _ is 44a,a1nn C.plagYV \ux4�mMG..T'nm SCM: A,pwya„e,Vno rat 41141 Roles & Responsibilities CTCs :Implications for how we do our planning for Countv Transportation Commissions ®More emphasis on the role of transportation to support a Sustainable Communities Strategy except for the grandfathered projects. 50 Roles &Responsibilities Local Jurisdictions ❑ Input to SCAG on growth forecast as part of the integrated process ❑ Collaborate with respective sub - regions & CTCs on sub - regional SCS, if necessary ❑ Identify sufficient sites in Housing Element, and rezone certain sites if necessary, to accommodate the RHNA allocation for the local jurisdictions. 51 Roles &Responsibilities Local Jurisdictions (con-wo ❑ Ensure a sub - regional SCS or the regional SCS be supported by the existing general plan, or built upon with the envisioned changes in the general plan ❑ Conduct public hearing, declare that transit priority project is a sustainable communities project and is exempt from CEQA review ❑ Conduct streamlined CEQA review for transit priority project that does not qualify as SCS project ❑ May adopt traffic mitigation measures for transit priority projects 52 Roles &Responsibilities focal Jurisdictions :Implications for how we do our planning for Local Jurisdictions ► Rezone within 3 years to accommodate any additional housing needs ► How we plan for the source of sales tax revenues (boutique vs. big -box development). ► How we plan for a better public health. ► More partnership with developers throughout planning, design, and development process. P More public education (e.g., not in my backyard). 53 Roles &Responsibilities Air Resources Board (ARB) ❑ Formulate Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) ❑ Develop- regional GHG emission reduction targets ❑ Approve emission estimation methodologies ❑ Review SCS /APS, and accept or reject 54 Major Milestones ❑ 1/1/2009 - SB 375 becomes law ❑ 9/30/2010 - ARB issues final GHG targets ❑ 1/2012 - release draft RTP /SCS for public review ❑ 4/2012 — Regional Council adopts RTP /SCS, and APS if necessary 55 SCAG Efforts to Date ❑ Bill analysis ❑ Consideration of implementation options ❑ Information sharing ❑ Pursuing clean -up legislation ❑ Workshops ❑ 2012 RTP development 56 Pending Issues ❑ Funding ❑ GHG targets ❑ Sub - regional SCS, how many? ❑ Roles of transportation projects in SCS ❑ Impacts on transportation projects ❑ Conformity ❑ Oversight and participation ❑ Clean -up legislation 57 Workshop Comments ❑ RHNA concerns ❑ What Strategy will look like; will it account for v Steps already taken by local govts. /CTCs? Increases in non - motorized trips? ❑ Funding ❑ Technical Tools /Measurement ❑ Regional Targets ❑ RTAC W Next Steps ❑ Funding ❑ RH NA Schedule ❑ Statewide estimate / target ❑ Regional targets ❑ Sub - regional SCS ❑ Outreach 11 Methodology Refinement 59 Next Steps (cont.) - Funding ❑ SB 732 ❑ Stimulus bill El Blueprint Grants ❑ Other ., Next Steps (cont.) - RHNA Schedule 112016 112014 112012 / 2012 RTP /SCS 61 Next Steps (cont.) — Statewide Estimate ✓AB 32 Scoping Plan Testimony (12/11/08) ✓Maintain 5 MMT (Adopted by ARB Scoping Plan) El Baseline rationale ❑ RTP Credit 62 Next Steps (cont.) — Regional Targets [:1 RTAC representation ❑ SCAG-'s option to propose a target, by 6/2010* OScenario development /regional SCS *Requires Regional Council action 63 Next Steps (cont.) -Sub - Regional SCS ❑ Framework on Sub - regional SCS* 11 Guidelines on intra- regional coordination, etc.* - - ❑ Regional integration and analysis *Requires Regional Council action 64 Next Steps (cont.) - Outreach ❑ On -going presentations /participation on request ❑ Assemble an outreach team — Spring 2009 ❑ Meet with sub - regions /CTCs on SCS /APS options (1/09- 6/09) ❑ Meet with cities to identify SCS opportunity areas, input on growth forecast ❑ Informational materials including Q &A ❑ Involve P &P TAC ❑ Other, including stakeholder focus meetings 65 Next Steps (cont.) - Methodology Refinement ❑ Regional Methodology ❑ Potential Sub - regional methodology /guidance (1/09 -6/09) 11 Submission to ARB by 9/2009* *Requires Regional Council action X. The End 67 ATTACHMENT E LETTER TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION RE: "DRAFT LUSCAT SUBMISSION TO CARB SCOPING PLAN," SUSAN M. HANSCH, CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, MAY 21, 2008 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 VOICE (415) 904 -5200 l FAX (415) 904 -5400 TDD (415) 597 -5885 (a May 21, 2008 Panama Bartholomy California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS -31 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Draft LUSCAT Submission to CARB Scoping Plan Dear Mr. Bartholomy: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Land Use Subgroup of the Climate Action Team's ( LUSCAT) draft "Submission to CARB Scoping Plan on Local Government, Land Use and Transportation" (May-5,2008). California Coastal Commission staff strongly supports many of the goals and strategies identified in the draft Submission. The California Coastal Act includes numerous provisions that call for strategies identified in the'report, for example, concentration of development; minimization of energy use and vehicle miles traveled, encouragement of forms of transportation other than the automobile; and protection of agricultural lands and environimntally' sensitive habitat areas. The Coastal Act also establishes planning and regulatory procedures that can help achieve the goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S -3 -05. Coastal Commission staff acr-nrrHnoly renrleatc that the 'S and local governments' responsibilities and authorities with respect to land use, transportation, and planning. This comment letter first provides an overview of the Coastal Act as it relates to land use planning and global warming. It then provides comments regarding overarching themes in the LUSCAT Submission and concludes with comments about detailed provisions of the Submission. Overview of the Coastal Act As It Relates To Land Use Planning and Global Warming The Coastal Act is distinctive state legislation in that it establishes substantive requirements regarding land use planning and review of new development along California's coast (excluding the San Francisco Bay). It assigns to the Coastal Commission, a state agency, the responsibility to ensure compliance with the Act's requirements. The Coastal Act establishes two primary regulatory procedures for accomplishing this: the local coastal program (LCP) process and the coastal development permitting (CDP) process. The Coastal Act calls for all local governments with land located within the coastal zone to adopt LCPs. LCPs consist of land use plans, zoning ordinances and maps, and other implementing Panama Bartholomy Califomia Energy Commission May 21, 2008 Page 2 actions. The Commission must certify LCPs and LCP amendments for compliance with Coastal Act requirements before they become effective. Most jurisdictions along the coast now have fully certified LCPs, although significant stretches lack fully certified LCPs, especially in southern California. The Coastal Act calls for the Commission to periodically review how local governments are implementing certified LCPs, although that has happened only infrequently due to budgetary and staffing constraints. In addition, the Coastal Act establishes that new development within the coastal zone generally requires a CDP. Development is broadly defined to include, among other things, erecting or demolishing structures, grading, dredging, subdividing land, and other changes in the intensity of use of land. In areas that are not subject to fully certified LCPs, the Commission is generally responsible for reviewing proposed development for consistency with the "Chapter 3" policies of the Coastal Act (Public Resources Code sections 30200 - 30265.5).1 In areas with certified LCPs, the local government is responsible for reviewing CDP applications for consistency with LCP requirements. Local government decisions on certain categories of development, for example development located between the first public road and the sea, can be appealed to the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Act includes numerous substantive requirements that advance: the land 'use and ttansportation strategies discussed in the draft LUSCAT report.. For example, the Coastal Act generally requires new development to be located within or adjacent:to already developed areas and to minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled (Sections 30250(a) and 30253(4)): It also provides that the, configuration arid density of development should support -- .P- -- ansit_sermic�andnon -. automobile_ cimulation�Sectioxr3A242 ).�additionTthe --Coastal=-- -- -- -- - -- -: Act strictly limits development of agricultural lands; timberlands, wetlands, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (Sections 30233, 30240 - 30243). Finally; the Coastal Act places high - importance on ensuring that the shoreline and related recreational opportunities are accessible to everyone, regardless of income or where they live (Sections 30210 - 30224). The Coastal Act recognizes that strategies to concentrate development in existing urbanized areas and to minimize energy use and travel demands complement and are necessary to achieve the Act's goals regarding protection of open space, agriculture, natural habitat, and recreational resources. Coastal Commission staff believes that this principle is equally applicable to the LUSCAT Submittal. The Commission is engaged in a number of efforts to respond to global warming. With respect to major industrial and transportation infrastructure projects proposed in the coastal zone, the Commission now evaluates the greenhouse gas emissions associated with such projects and has required the development of mitigation plans to address the emissions of those projects that it has approved. The Commission also recently revised its application fee schedule to allow for fee reductions for projects that are certified as meeting the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) gold standard or equivalent. Commission staff is also working on materials to provide guidance to various potential audiences, including applicants, local governments, 1 All subsequent statutory citations are to the California Public Resources Code. Panama Bartholomy California Energy Commission May 21, 2008 Page 3 Commission staff, and the Commission itself regarding how to minimize the greenhouse gas emissions associated with new development in the coastal zone and to prepare for adaptations that will be required as a result of climate change. The Coastal Commission has a significant workload and serious staffing constraints that has limited the Commission's ability to participate fully with other agencies to address global warming. The Commission staff has established an internal Climate Change Task Force to combine staff skills to address global warming issues as workload permits. This internal Task Force has identified the need to provide training and analytical tools for the Commission and its staff to evaluate how best to address land use and transportation in order to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and to communicate that information to applicants and local governments. There is also an unmet need to provide staffing and resources for the Commission and local governments to work together to update LCPs in coordination with regional planning efforts so that they more effectively implement Coastal Act requirements in a manner that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. In light of the foregoing, Coastal Commission staff submits the following comments and recommendations regarding the draft LUSCAT Submittal. We start with comments regarding some of the overarching themes of the Submittal and conclude with a list of more specific comments and recommendations. General Comments Regarding the LUSCAT Submittal As indicated above, Coastal Commission staff requests that the LUSCAT Submittal be revised to include a statement regarding the Coastal Act, the role of the Coastal Commission and local governments in implementing the Coastal Act, and how they can be integrated into statewide and regional strategies to address global warming through land use planning and transportation decisions. At various points, including on the opening page, the Submittal characterizes the State as lacking direct land use authority. The Submittal should be revised to acknowledge Coastal Act requirements with respect to land use and transportation planning. Coastal Commission staff supports the provisions of the Submittal that encourage the appropriate siting and building of higher density, mixed -use, infill development in urbanized areas that is supportive of public transit, walking, and bicycling. The Coastal Act's provisions requiring concentration of development; facilitation of public transit and walkable communities; protection of agricultural lands, sensitive habitats, and water resources; and minimization of energy use and vehicle miles traveled call for the kinds of development patterns that the Submittal seeks to encourage. - This higher density transit- and pedestrian- oriented development can and should be done in the coastal zone in a way that also complies with Coastal Act requirements to protect public access to the coast, to provide adequate lower -cost visitor - serving and recreational opportunities, and to protect significant scenic resources. Coastal Commission staff recommends that LUSCAT consider establishing statewide standards regarding these principles that local governments should incorporate into their general plans and �,_ Panama Bartholomy California Energy Commission May 21, 2008 Page 4 zoning codes, including LCPs along the coast. The standards should allow flexibility for local governments to determine the most appropriate method for meeting the standards in light of local and regional characteristics. One of the challenges in the coastal zone and statewide is how to accomplish these goals in areas with existing suburban patterns of development that lack the density, the mix of uses, and the transportation infrastructure necessary to minimize automobile use and support walking, bicycling, and transit. LUSCAT should revise the Submittal to expressly call for the development of strategies to modify existing automobile- dependent communities, including provision of mixed uses, so that residents of those communities do not need to travel as much in order to have access to a reasonable range of goods and services. Coastal Commission staff supports incorporating evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions into land use and transportation planning by state, regional, and local agencies and supports establishing statewide and regional greenhouse gas emission targets. As a component of this, Commission staff recommends that the Submittal include a process for determining which areas of the State can most readily accommodate more development with lower energy and transportation demand and establish an implementation strategy for accomplishing those goals. We note that the Submittal already makes similar recommendations regarding planning .within the State's various regions. Coastal Commission staff generally supports the development of high -speed rail and the improvement of other existing passenger rail and public transit systems consistent with the -- Goasta�Act.- m- or-expmdesisystems= should= he_designedxo= facilitate_-nom- automobile— - -___ dependent land use and transportation patterns. Communities under consideration for strategic station locations should be required to adopt land use plans and zoning- for highei density, mixed- use transit- and pedestrian- oriented development around the stations. The various state programs discussed in the report, including those that set.out housing infrastructure, and related requirements that affect those jurisdictions, also•should correspondingly be modified to support those development patterns. The Submittal emphasizes financial incentives and technical assistance as means to accomplish the Submittal's goals regarding land use and transportation patterns. The Submittal should also call out existing regulatory authority that can help achieve those goals. In addition, the Submittal could be strengthened by recommending that state agencies be directed to exercise their existing authority in a manner that will help accomplish the State's GHG emission reduction goals. Coastal Commission staff strongly supports providing increased financial and technical assistance to local governments to update general plans and zoning codes. This should include assistance to revise LCPs to address not only how to minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled, but also how to address the unique challenges that coastal jurisdictions will face as a result of sea level rise, increased storm surges and accelerated erosion. The State should also aggressively seek new sources of funding and technical assistance to support these efforts-, including from the federal government and private foundations. Panama Bartholomy California Energy Commission May 21, 2008 Page 5 Coastal Commission staff requests clarification of statements in the Submittal that recommend strategies should have a "net zero cost" through 2020. Commission staff supports the concept of reallocating or leveraging existing resources to help accomplish the Submittal's land use, transportation, and planning goals. Commission staff also supports taking into account the very significant benefits that can be expected from accomplishing the Submittal's goals when evaluating the short-term implementation costs versus the likely much higher long term costs of failing to respond in a timely fashion. That said, as the Submittal itself establishes through its numerous references, including the need for increased resources for research, planning, public transit and infrastructure improvements, and affordable housing, that it is unlikely that agencies and local governments will be able to adequately fund near -term efforts simply through reallocation of existing resources. We believe that one prong of the State's strategy to address this should include active pursuit of Federal funding and assistance to meet the coming challenges associated with climate change. Coastal Commission staff has reservations about some of the Submittal's statements regarding discretionary review. The Submittal indicates that discretionary review procedures can be used to delay or prevent the kinds of urban infill projects that the State must facilitate in order to address global warming. Although this can be true, public participation in governmental decisions is a well - established requirement of California law and is an important safeguard against destructive development decisions. That informed public participation has the potential to in fact engender the needed public support for adjusting land use and development decisions to better cope with GHG emission issues. - In addition, the Coastal Act, while encouraging higher density urban infill development, also requires protection of public access, scenic resources, and __ - - - -- visitor = seaming _uses�Strikmgzar�:appr-opriate =barn a �rigthes�va�io�is- conceFns does -no lend - - - - -- itself to developing set ministerial rules that do not involve public participation and the exercise of discretion and judgment. Detailed Comments Regarding the LUSCAT Submittal Pg 5: Since the intent is to address both climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, Commission staff suggests that end of the forth paragraph be expanded to include the notion that these activities and sectors are also key ingredients to implement needed adaptation strategies and that improving land use planning is necessary for the State to successfully adapt to climate change. Pg 8: Bullet 6 would be improved by also noting that assessing the vulnerability of all existing infrastructure, particularly to dynamics such as sea level rise and increasing storm surges, will also be key to designing adaptation strategies. Pg 8: As stated previously, Commission staff agrees that higher density urban infill should be encouraged. Bullet point 7, however, should be clarified to acknowledge that restrictive land use practices in rural areas are an important tool to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption and complement efforts to encourage more urban infill development. Furthermore, we believe that it should be noted that infill and adequate housing supplies should be promoted Panama Bartholomy California Energy Commission May 21, 2008 Page 6 in appropriate places that would not impact, for example, wetlands or displace necessary coastal - related and coastal- dependent uses along the coast. - - , Pg 8: Finally, at Bullet 3; Commission staff would suggest that expansion of transit systems and transit- oriented development be"added to the list of ways that GHG emission reductions can be realized from the transportation sector. Pg 9: We would recommend at Bullet 5 that the State could also investigate options for leveraging additional GHG emissions through potential changes or incentives to its contracting and procurement procedures as they relate to these issues. Pg 9: Commission staff believes that the following sentence in bullet point 6 is stated too broadly: "Housing development capacity of regional and local land use plans should not be limited for the purpose of reducing or limiting the growth in vehicle trips or vehicle miles traveled." Restricting housing development in rural and exurban areas is a necessary component of any statewide or regional strategy to limit growth. in vehicle trips or vehicle miles traveled. Pg 9: At Bullet 7 it should also be noted that, in the coastal zone, such efforts, including adaptation efforts, can be directly implemented through new, or modifications to existing, LCP policies and implementing ordinances. Pg 10: Commission staff recommends that LCPs be added to the list of plans that should be included for coordination in the development of guidance on how to address GHG emission Pg 11: Under "Reduce Barriers to Efficient Land Use Development," Commission staff agrees that barriers to reducing the negative impact of land use planning and development on climate goals should be reduced or eliminated. At the same time, these adjustments need to be made with safeguards to ensure that development will not occur in hazardous areas or in a manner that will harm important resources such as agricultural lands, wetlands, and other sensitive resources. Pg 11: Under "Measure Progress," we suggest that goals and objectives for both climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies should be set with an eye toward setting milestones for measuring progress. These could include a number of supporting actions, such as completion of Climate Action Plans, development of Blueprint Plans and implementing measures, and revisions of LCPs in the coastal zone. Pg 16: The middle paragraph refers to "burdensome discretionary review." The paragraph should also acknowledge that discretionary review processes can also help build public support for projects and can help inform project applicants and decisionmakers about how best to design projects to meet multiple, sometimes competing public policy objectives. Pg 18: - The summary regarding general plans should point out that general plan amendments linked to local coastal program require Coastal Commission approval. Panama Bartholomy California Energy Commission May 21, 2008 Page 7 Pg 22: The middle paragraph states that LUSCAT does not support mandatory local climate action plans. The Submittal, however, elsewhere calls for the adoption of greenhouse gas emission threshold levels and notes that CEQA now involves consideration of greenhouse gas emissions. Local climate action plans could serve as a framework evaluating and implementing greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. Pg 23: Commission staff agrees that there is a lack of funding for local and regional governments to engage in long range comprehensive planning efforts. The report should refer to LCPs as an additional category of planning documents that should be updated. In addition, relative to data provision and development, we recommend that the State continue to strive to make its GIS data more useful at the local level and to seek out partnership with federal agencies to improve the development and delivery of that information. Pg 31: The report should acknowledge the tension between efforts to encourage use of public transit and to- limit vehicle miles traveled and efforts to reduce congestion by expanding highway and roadway capacity. Commission staff believes that the State and regions should put primary emphasis on land use planning and infrastructure that change land use patterns and improve public transit, walking, and bicycling facilities so that a larger portion of Californians have realistic alternatives to automobile use. Furthermore, we suggest adding additional recommendations for Caltrans to seek out ways that it can re- enforce sound Blueprint Plans through its own programs, plans and projects, including through setting funding priorities, seeking federal grant assistance, and in the preparation of it own corridor management plans and route concept reports. Pg 37: Commission staff agrees that mitigation measures to address Level of Service standards can be applied in ways that encourage increased automobile use and that the State should encourage development of alternative standards and mitigation measures to address traffic congestion in ways that reduce traffic rather than accommodate increased traffic, including the enhancement of alternative modes. In terms of land availability for housing, Commission staff agrees that more land must be zoned for higher density, attached single family and multifamily housing, particularly in urban environments, but, as noted previously, these zones must be applied in appropriate areas without sacrificing needed protection of agricultural lands, water resources, sensitive habitats, and other valuable public resources. Pg 51 -52: Commission staff supports efforts to encourage location of schools in manner that minimizes transportation and energy demand and discourages sprawl of land use development patterns. Pg 59: Commission staff is concerned about having increased "mobility" as a goal. This suggests that more movement of people is a goal, which runs counter to the report's goal of minimizing vehicle miles traveled. The goal should instead be to increase "accessibility," which can be accomplished by locating jobs, housing, stores, etc. more closely together rather than by increasing the total amount of travel. Panama Bartholomy California Energy Commission May 29, 2008 Page 8 Pg 60: As part of these overall land use response recommendations, we believe that the Coastal Commission should be called out to encourage local governments along the coast to incorporate GHG emission mitigation and adaptation strategies into LCPs. Pg 62: Among the items mentioned for the State to investigate, Commission staff suggests adding analysis of opportunities for integrating appropriate mixed uses in suburban patterned areas so that the access needs of residents (VMT) are reduced by bringing key community goods and services in closer proximity to housing. Pg 63: We would recommend adding a section regarding regional housing allocations and having HCD align the distribution of their regional housing need allocations to support appropriate concentrations of housing development in areas identified for smart growth patterns through Blueprint Plans and other local land use plans. Pg 65: Commission staff supports evaluating new strategies to address parking supply in a manner that is supportive of non - automobile modes of transportation. It is important to do this in a way that does not have the effect of excluding lower- income people from accessing the shoreline or other significant recreational opportunities. Pg 69: Commission staff supports establishing greenhouse gas emission -based threshold for new development to encourage carbon reductions for higher emitting developments. Commission staff also recommends that the State develop incentives or requirements for those == entering: into: contracts= with -the? State t(y-implement strategies -for- minimizmgtheir- own- -- --- _ - - --- greenhouse gas emissions. Coastal Commission staff are interested in participating in the ongoing efforts to address climate change through land use and transportation planning. We are especially interested in working with other State agencies, regional planning agencies, and local governments in determining how to mesh Coastal Act planning and permitting procedures with other planning processes. Feel free to contact Christopher Pederson, Supervising Staff Counsel, (415) 904 -5225 or Susan Hansch, Chief Deputy Director (415) 904 -5244 if you wish to discuss the comments in this letter or future Coastal Commission staff participation in discussions regarding implementation of AB 32 and Executive Order S -3 -05. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. ANSCH Director \_