The Ever-Changing Effects of Climate Change on Land Planning

1. The Ever-Changing Effects of Climate Change on Land Planning 2019 California AEP State Conference March 24, 2019

2. THE PANEL Moderator Tim Paone, Partner, Cox, Castle & Nicholson Tim is a land use attorney whose practice emphasizes CEQA, the Coastal Act, development agreements, and the local planning process. Carrie Tai, AICP, Manager of Master Planning, Port of Long Beach Carrie oversees the long-range planning efforts for the Port of Long Beach. She formerly was the Zoning Administrator and Current Planning Officer for the City of Long Beach. JoAnn Hadfield, Principal, PlaceWorks JoAnn serves as team leader for the environmental review of a diverse array of development and policy planning projects for both public and private clients.  Tony Petros, Principal, LSA Associates, Inc. Tony manages the transportation function of LSA in California. His expertise includes Regional Transportation Planning, Impact Analysis, and Parking Analysis.

3. Friends of Yours?

5. Carrie Tai, AICP Manager of Master Planning, Port of Long Beach

6. Climate Change What is Climate Change? Change in climate persisting over a sustained period of time (30 years) (WMO) What causes climate change? Human-produced greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon dioxide Specific causes: Fossil fuel consumption, deforestation Examples of climate change: temperature increase, changing rainfall and storm patterns, drought, extreme weather (heat, cold, etc), seasonal shifts. Consequences of climate change: ice shelf melting, sea level rise, flooding, severe insect decline, consequences on various species (endangered status, extinction)…

7. History of Climate Change • U.S Environmental Protection Agency publication in 1978 on coal warned of changes to global atmosphere from prolonged use of fossil fuels. • RafePomerance, a lobbyist, first brought global warming to Washington D.C.’s attention in 1979. • Researchers and scientists tried repeatedly for decades to raise public awareness • Kyoto Protocol – Signed, not ratified by US • 2015 Paris Climate Agreement – US to withdrawal November 2020.

8. California Climate Change laws… AB 32 (2006) – California Global Warming Solutions Act required Greenhouse Gas reduction to 1990 levels by 2020 SB 97 (2007) – Changed Appendix G in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to include GHG analysis SB 375 (2008) – Required a Sustainable Communities Strategy to specify how communities would plan to meet GHG reductions goals SB 743 (2013) – Required transportation analyses to include Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which promotes infill development AB 691 (2013) – Stewards of public tidelands adopted plans for Sea Level Rise AB 2516 (2014) – Led to the creation of a sea level rise database California Building Code (2014) – The “Green Code” required new construction elements (windows, energy-efficient fixtures and appliances, alternative sources of energy, electric vehicle charging) Stay up to date: https://www.climatechange.ca.gov/state/legislation.html

9. JoAnn Hadfield Principal, Environmental Services

10. CEQA’s EVOLUTION CLIMATE CHANGE & RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING

11. DOES CEQA PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT? Avoid or reduce environmental damage?

12. CEQA’S EVOLUTION CEQA to the Test Are we now turning the focus to real environmental resources? CBIA v. BAAQMD decision – impacts to focus on project’s impact ON the environment (not the environment’s impacts on the project.)

13. CEQA’S EVOLUTION Recent CEQA Reform ..........Driven by Climate Change

14. CEQA’S EVOLUTION • SB 743 – Environmental quality; transit oriented infill projects, and……….. CEQA streamlining for Kings Arena in Sacramento • SB 743 is NOT traffic legislation – it is the progression of ongoing CLIMATE CHANGE related legislation • AB32 – Global Warming Act – required California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (approximately 15 percent) • SB 97 – Requires CEQA to address GHG • SB 375 – focuses on GHG reduction through regional land use planning to reduce VMT

15. CEQA’S EVOLUTION • SB 743 – Objective: • It is the intent of the legislature to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (SB 743, Section 1(b)(2)).

16. CEQA’S EVOLUTION • The SB 743 MANDATE (September 2013) applied to transportation impacts of projects WITHIN ½ MILE OF TRANSIT PRIORITY AREAS: • The Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, ….. for certification and adoptions proposed revisions to the guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 21083 establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impact of project within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of GHG emission, development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. • …. The office shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to vehicle miles traveled…… • The Office of Planning and Research may adopt guidelines establishing alternative metrics to the level of service metrics for transportation impacts outside transit priority areas • By the January 20, 2016 technical advisory, OPR had decided to make the VMT requirement apply STATEWIDE

17. CEQA’S EVOLUTION • SB 743 is unique CEQA change – it changes the paradigm from evaluating and mitigating impacts, to playing an active role in land use planning. Prior to SB 743, CEQA providing streamlining incentives. SB 743 also penalizes projects that don’t meet State’s planning objectives. • The VMT mandate for TPA areas served as an INCENTIVE to reduce GHG emissions by encouraging infill development. It would eliminate compliance to LOS standards that were difficult or impossible and expensive to comply with in urban areas. SB 743 also provided other streamlining for infill areas (CEQA exemption for land uses consistent with a Specific Plan and EIR within TPA) • Application of a VMT metric in suburban and rural areas creates a DISINCENTIVE to develop in these areas. And can be expected to have substantial land use planning consequence.

18. CEQA’S EVOLUTION • HOW WILL THIS AFFECT GENERAL PLANS – LONG-TERM LAND PLANNING? • CEQA is now a driving force in planning: • General Plans evaluated for compliance with VMT threshold • Except in urban areas, OPR recommended thresholds nearly impossible to achieve • Limited, feasible mitigation to reduce VMT – 2-3% likely maximum reduction in rural areas • General Plan EIRs subject to legal challenge (based on thresholds, etc.) • Statement of Overrides for significant transportation impacts limits subsequent tiering from GPEIR

19. CEQA’S EVOLUTION • THE THRESHOLD DEBATE • Limited Options to Reduce VMT • Potential Mitigation: • Transit passes • Travel demand management (carpooling, etc.) • Adding transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure • Reduce parking availability, charge for parking • Most projects in suburban or rural areas are unlikely to achieve more than 2-3% reduction • VMT exchange or offset program likely to be more effective

20. CEQA’S EVOLUTION THE THRESHOLD DEBATE Three PlaceWorks General Plan Update Examples • Impossible to achieve 15% reduction. • Approach? Customizing VMT reduction threshold and mitigation. • Significant overrides. • Even though nominal land use changes compared to existing plan – significant VMT reduction not possible. • Anticipate adopting ‘no increase to baseline’ VMT threshold. • Likely to adopt No Net Increase (0%) • Almost entire City within Transit Priority Area or High Quality Transit Corridor • Likely adopt 15% reduction compared to REGION Vast Rural and Urban County in Southern California Mid-size Inland Empire City along Metrolink line 3. Very Urban OC City

21. CEQA’S EVOLUTION HOW WILL THIS AFFECT LAND USE? PROJECT LEVEL

22. CEQA’S EVOLUTION • HOW WILL THIS AFFECT INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS? • Urban projects – CEQA will be streamlined • Rural/suburban development - • VMT will result in projects requiring EIRs • Implementation of VMT feasible mitigation will be costly – VMT offset fees likely • Not have typical CEQA mitigation available to mitigate for agency LOS standards (and likely subject to more fees) • Less desirable location to live – increased congestion, increasing commute times, reduced parking availability (at work destination)

23. CEQA’S EVOLUTION • CEQA’s role evolving to: • Be more meaningful and focused to address actual environmental resources? • Expanding beyond the original intent into the realm of land planning?

24. CEQA’S EVOLUTION • Is Climate Change responsible for CEQA’s role evolving to: • Be more meaningful and focused to address actual environmental resources? • Expanding beyond the original intent into the realm of land planning?

25. Tony Petros Principal, LSA

26. Good policy is the considered course of action by which a supposed public benefit is accomplished, which otherwise would not be accomplished, by the best use of the resources available. David Allen Green, Financial Times

27. The Purpose of CEQA Disclose to the public the significant environmental effects of a proposed discretionary project, through the preparation of an Initial Study (IS), Negative Declaration (ND), or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Source: (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 - 21178,Title 14 CCR, Section 753, and Chapter 3, Sections 15000 - 15387) Senate Bill 743 Section 1. (a) (2) …New methodologies under the California Environmental Quality Act are needed for evaluating transportation impacts that are better able to promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. Source: Senate Bill 743

28. California’s Path Forward Source: California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan – arb.ca.gov

29. Statewide VMT Source: California Department of Transportation - HPMS Data Library http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hpms/datalibrary.php

30. Historical Trend for Daily Miles Traveled Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission

31. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Not Albert Einstein

32. Carrie Tai, AICP Manager of Master Planning, Port of Long Beach

33. Long Beach, California Coastal city with a shipping port – ~500,000 population Downstream of Los Angeles basin Flat terrain, drained by a regional flood control network South facing shoreline with breakwaters Regulated by the Coastal Act, Local Coastal Program, and Port Master Plan Waterfront uses: Residential, commercial, industrial, shipping port, power generation, oil field, recreational and open space

34. City Sea Level Rise (2100)

35. Homes for Rising Sea Levels FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) = 9 feet New or substantially remodeled areas must be clear of BFE Local elevation = +1 foot Changing property owner mentality Flood-resistive building design Siting non-habitable space in flood-prone areas Graphic Credit: FEMA.gov

36. Storm Protection (2018) versus Public Access Photo Credit: Thomas Cordova, Long Beach Post

37. Coastal Commission Policies Sea Level Rise Guidance document (2018) – evolving science and methodology Residential Adaptation Policy Guidance (2018 draft) Managed retreat (property or community scale) Community-scale adaptation Limiting shoreline barriers Prioritization of types of barriers Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Inclusion of weatherizing techniques (solar panels, wind energy, where compatible with community character, coastal views and protection of biological resources) If shoreline moves closer to land, how does current development affect public access in the future?

38. Coastal Commission Review Example: Coastal Development Permit review of a replacement beach concession stand Shoreline has grown in past decades (due to marina and shoreline fill to the west) Coastal Commission review of sea-Level rise analysis and methodology Special conditions imposed, regarding maintenance, limit ability to expand, prohibit shoreline protective structure, or require to removal of the building

39. Extreme Temperatures Vulnerability Assessment Disadvantaged communities exposed to extreme heat Inland communities lack coastal cooling effect Require planning and proper allocation of resources Certain climate change effects have environmental justice implications

40. City of Long Beach Actions General Plan Update, to balance AB32 and SB375, and Statewide housing policy, aims to: Increase housing opportunities Promotes mixed-use development – decrease vehicle miles and promote comingling of land uses Aims to establish multi-modal transportation options – decrease vehicle miles Increases open space Includes a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan as a mitigating feature to offset the impacts of growth Includes “mitigating” and “adaptation” measures.

41. Port of Long Beach(The Green Port) Economic engine for the City and region Critical gateway for goods and services Railroad lines, roadways, utilities At the mouth of the LA “River” (a.k.a. flood control channel) Oil field, which also produces natural gas for the City

42. Port of Long Beach(The Green Port) Major industrial port is the source of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions Regulation of emissions from freight trucks, rail, port yard equipment, and ships In 2006, committed to being the greenest port in the nation. Community Grants program – linking the impacts of the Port to the at-large community to make funding available for Citywide programs Photo Credit: Gilbert Estrada

43. Port Sea Level Rise Assessment Sea Level Rise / Inundation Mapping Assessment of vulnerabilities Strategies to protect facilities Prioritization of investments into critical infrastructure

44. Hurricane Marie (2014) • 10’ to 15’ swell • Wind • Direction of storm approach • Damaged over 4,000 feet of breakwater Photo Credit: US Army Corps of Engineers

45. Truck Rates Port of Long Beach Actions Automation Appointment System Cold Ironing Clean Trucks Program Electrification

46. Climate Resiliency Plan Actions

47. A Few Pending Climate Change Bills This is just a partial list… stay tuned!

48. CLOSING COMMENTS Tim Paone Partner, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP

49. Tip of the Iceberg, Circa 2019