Land Use Planning Approaches

to the Climate Change Challenge

Kevin Haroff | Partner | SHB San Francisco | SHB Orange County

Potential Climate Change Impacts in the

Western United States

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth

Assessment Report (IPCC 2007).

• Severe, sustained droughts and snowpack reduction.

– Impacts to municipal and agricultural water supplies.

– Impacts to riverine and riparian habitats, forest lands.

• Extreme weather events.

– Higher intensity storm events and flooding.

– Heat waves disproportionately affecting select populations.

2

3

Western States Climate Action Plans

• Washington Climate Action Team Recommendations (2008).

• Oregon Global Warming Commission Report to Legislature (2009).

• Nevada Climate Change Advisory Committee Final Report (2008).

• California Climate Action Team Report (2009).

• Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission Report (2008).

• Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee Report (2007).

• Utah Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Change Report (2007).

• Colorado Blue Ribbon Climate Action Panel Report (2007).

• New Mexico Climate Change Advisory Group Action Plan (2006).

• Arizona Climate Change Initiative Action Plan (2006).

4

Potential GHG Reductions Through

Planning-Related Policies

5

Source: Carter and Culp, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

AZ CA MT NM WA

Total number of climate action

policies

35 39 48 64 58

Total million metric tons (mmt)

CO2 (and CO2e) avoided if

policies implemented

645 139 125 323 105

Total planning policies 11 8 10 19 13

% of total GHG reductions from

planning-related policies

19.9% 18.3% 10.2% 17.5% 24.7%

Green Building Codes and Standards

• Residential and commercial buildings account for

nearly half of all energy consumed in the United States.

• Commercial buildings account for largest portion of

peak energy demand in most regions.

• Residential energy use predicted to increase 27% by

2025.

• Green building codes incorporate requirements for

external shading, increased insulation, energy efficient

cooling, greater thermal mass, promotion of renewable,

distributed, and/or efficient energy systems.

6

7

Local Regulation of Land Use

• Based on government’s “police power” to protect public

health safety and welfare.

– Subject to applicable general law.

• Regional and local planning documents.

– General plan – long term plan for physical development of

community.

• Zoning ordinances.

– Restrictions on use (residential, industrial commercial).

• Other (development agreements).

8

Land Use and Transportation Strategies

• Households in compact areas use less primary energy

for space heating and cooling.

• Compact development reduces reliance on automobile

transportation by 20-40% compared with traditional

suburban development.

• Most state action plans combine land use and

transportation policies.

– Relative contribution of two strategies hard to separate.

– Need to balance against costs of alternative transportation

infrastructure (e.g., light rail).

9

California’s AB 375

• Air Resources Board (ARB) sets regional GHG

emission targets for emissions from cars and trucks by

2020 and 2035.

• Regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations

(MPOs) develop Sustainable Communities Strategies

(SCSs) to meet targets through housing and

transportation planning.

– Involves local government and transportation authorities.

– Links access to federal and state transportation funds to

successful implementation of strategies.

10

11

California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA)

• Requires review of significant environmental impacts

of discretionary acts by local agencies.

– Conditional use permits under local zoning ordinances.

– Also environmental review of projects and regulatory programs

at state level.

• Requires implementation of reasonable and feasible

mitigation measures in project permitting.

• SB375: CEQA exemptions for specific development

consistent with SCSs and near major transit.

12

Case Study:

Brown v. County of San Bernardino

• 2007 challenge of EIR supporting adoption of County

General Plan Update, related approvals.

– County position: available methodologies cannot show GHG

impacts to climate are significant.

– State position: inadequate analysis of impacts and failure to

mitigations to GHG impacts in EIR.

• Settlement.

– Adoption of GHG Emissions Reduction Plan.

– Consistency with AB 32 goals for emission reductions.

Challenge to Land Use Planning

Agencies: Mitigation and Adaptation

Strategy Mitigation Adaption

• Green Building and Energy Efficiency Y Y

• Alternative Energy (Distributed

Generation in Urban Areas Y Y

• Increase in Mass Transit and Transit-

Oriented Development Y N

• Wildland/Urban Interface

Management and Drought Planning N Y

13

Source: Carter and Culp, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

14

Adaptation to Climate Change

• Critical focus of land use planning.

• California Executive Order S-13-08.

– Initiate state-wide adaption strategy, focusing on most

vulnerable areas.

– Interim guidance to state agencies on how to plan for

sea level changes in designated coastal and flood

plain area.

– Other.

15

16

Mitigation v. Adaptation Tradeoffs

17

Source: 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy

California State Climate

Adaption Strategy

• Preliminary Recommendations.

– Climate Adaption Advisory Panel (CAAP) to assess risk and

propose responsive action.

– Focus on improved water management to achieve 20%

reduction in per capita water use by 2020.

– Requires consideration of project alternatives in that cannot be

adequately protected from flooding, wildfire, and erosion due to

climate change.

• Local Initiatives.

– SF Bay Conservation and Development Commission Proposed

Bay Plan Amendments

18

Conclusions

• General policy acceptance of land use planning and

related strategies to address climate change.

• Focus for mitigation:

– Energy efficiency.

– Compact development.

– Mass transit.

– Distributed energy sources.

– Water conservation.

• Focus for adaption – avoidance and preservation.

19

20

Kevin Haroff | Partner

SHB San Francisco

333 Bush Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104-2828

(415) 544-1900 main

(415) 544-1961 direct

(415) 336-6494 cell

(415) 391-0281 fax

kharoff@shb.com