HomeMy WebLinkAbout052108 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104
ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
MAY 27, 2008 - 6:00 PM
Next in Order:
Resolution: 2008 -24
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute: Commissioner Harter
Roll Call: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. If
you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon
colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission
Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission
Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three minute time
limit for individual speakers.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members
of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Director's Hearino Summary Reoort
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Receive and File Director's Hearing Summary Report
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of April 2, 2008
2.2 Approve the Minutes of April 16, 2008
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Caoital Improvement Plan Consistency Review
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Finding of Consistency with General Plan
4 Presentation to Discuss Strategies and Elements for Creating a Sustainabilitv Program and
Green Building Standards
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Discuss, Receive and File
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 6:00 P.M. City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ITEM NO. 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
DATE: May 21, 2008
SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Summary Report
Planning Director's Agenda items for April 2008
r r 4 '
'
~k ~~ u
~, , r . ~
.
R
; ~E. .~
April 3, 2008 PA08-0010 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to Reverend Myung APPROVED
allow for a church to operate in an Hur
existing office building located at
41823 Enterprise Circle North,
Suite 100
April 3, 2008 PA07-0315 A Devebpment Plan with Tamara Fenner, CONTINUED
Conditional Use Permit for the RHL Group OFF-CALENDAR
demolition and reconstruction of a
gas station with a new 2,945
square foot convenience store,
canopy and gas pumps, located at
40635 Winchester Road
April 3, 2008 PA07-0302 A Conditional Use Permit and Otto and Nancy APPROVED
PA07-0303 Certificate of Historic Appropriate- Baron
ness for the operation of a for-
profd museum within the historic
Arviso House, located at 28673
Pu'ol Street
Attachment:
Action Agenda -Blue Page 2
_,r
ATTACHMENT NO.1
ACTION AGENDA
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 3, 2008 1:30 p.m.
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Steve Brown, Principal Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a
white "RequesYto Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
Item No. 1
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Project Planner.
ACTION:
Item No. 2
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
Location:
Environmental Action:
` Project Planner:
ACTION:
1:30 p.m.
PA08-0010 ,
Minor Conditional Use Permit
Shepherd Christian Church
Reverend Myung Hur
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for a church to operate in an
existing office building
41823 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 100 .
CEQA Section 15301, Class 1 ExiBting Facilities
Dana Schuma, Associate Planner
APPROVED
PA07-0315
Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit
Chevron DP and CUP
Tamara Fenner, RHL Group
A Deveopment Plan with Conditional Use Permit for the demolition
and reconstruction of a gas station with a new 2,945 square foot
convenience store, canopy and gas pumps
40635 Winchester Road
CEQA Section 15332; Class 21 In-Fill Development
Betsy Lowrey, Junior Planner
CONTINUED OFF-CALENDAR
Item No. 3
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Project Planner:
ACTION:
PA07-0302 and PA07-0303
Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Historic Appropriateness
Baron for Profit Museum and Historic Appropriateness
Otto and Nancy Baron
Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of HistoricAppropriatenessfor
the operation of afor-profd museum within the historic Arviso House
28673 Pujol Street
CEQA Section 15332; Class 21 In-Fill Development
Betsy Lowrey, Junior Planner
APPROVED
ITEM NO. 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 2, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on
Wednesday, April 2, 2008, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Carey led the audience in the Flag salute
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio
Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments at this time.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of March 5, 2008
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aaaroval.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2 Planning Application No. PA07-0087 and PA08-0027, a Minor Conditional Use Permit and. a
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. submitted by Zack Abou, for Zarka Cigar
Lounge to author¢e a Tyae-42 (on-sale beer and wine) ABC license for consumation on the
aremises, located at 21280 Jefferson Avenue
Assistant Planner Le Comte provided a PowerPoint Presentation, highlighting the following:
• Background Summary
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
• Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
• Parking Requirement
For Commissioner Harter, Assistant Planner LeComte noted that if the proposed project were
open to the public versus a private members only lounge, a Finding of Public Convenience or
Necessity would be required.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
The below-mentioned individuals spoke highly of the proposed project and would look forvvard
to moving this project forward.
• Mr. Zack Abou, applicant
• Mr. Paul Phillips, Murrieta
• Mr. Chuck Losito, Vista
•' Mr. Jack Morehouse, Temecula
• Mr. David Phares, Temecula
• Mr. Steve Porter, Murrieta
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner
Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceation of
Commissioner Harter who voted No.
By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Junior Planner Jones briefly highlighted on the following:
• Background Summary
• Analysis
Deputy Director of Public Works York advised that the Murrieta Creek Trail .improvement is
intended to be used as a maintenance road which will be a multi-use shared trail.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner
Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aaaroval.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
No comments at this time.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that she is in the process of coordinating a field trip to
San Diego to visit sustainable development, and queried if the Commission would be interested
in attending, noting that the date would be uncertain at this time.
Commissioners Guerriero and Chiniaeff advised that they would be interested in attending the
field trip to San Diego.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:40 pm, Chairman Telesio formally adjourned to Aaril 16. 2008 at 6:00 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
John Telesio
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION _ _
APRIL 16, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission cohvened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on
Wednesday, April 16, 2008, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio
Absent: 'None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Larry Borcherding, Temecula, relayed his concern with new homes being built behind his
home, and the obstruction of his view from his backyard.
For Mr. Borcherding, Assistant City Manager Johnson advised that staff would contact him to
address his concerns.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Director s Hearing Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve The Director's Hearing Case Update for March
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aoaroval.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2
adoat the Ordinance. Emery PaPD
By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Senior Planner Papp highlighted on the following:
• Project Description
• Background
• Analysis
• General Plan
• Environmental Determination
With respect to 8.36.230 Exception in the proposed Ordinance, under Public, Senior Planner
Papp noted that this would apply to CIP projects; however, there would be exceptions that could
be made in the event there was a threat to safety or removing a tree to widen a roadway
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that Director of Public Works Hughes was involved in the
proposed Ordinance and was comfortable with the language, but noted that it would not be a
problem to add clarifying language. '
Having many years of experience with oak trees, Commissioner Chiniaeff queried if staff was
referencing large circumference trees or large diameter trees.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Senior Planner Papp noted that the proposed Ordinance
references large circumference trees measured at 4-feet above the ground.
With respect to solar easements, Senior Planner Papp noted that the proposed Ordinance
would address when it wouk be appropriate to alter a heritage tree which would include
maintenance and/or pruning.
For the Planning Commission, Senior Papp noted that the Planning Commission is being asked
to approve the proposed Ordinance which is accompanied by the policy, but that the policy
would not be referenced in the proposed Ordinance but would not be Dart of the proposed
Ordinance; noted that for clarity purposes, an Arborist should review the definitions with respect
to "Drip Lines".
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that if the intention would be to preserve Oak Trees, he would
encourage staff to work with an Arborist with respect to implementing a Heritage Tree
Ordinance.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the proposed Ordinance and policy manual would be
two separate documents.
After much discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission for staff to address
the following issues and further clarify the following:
• Proposed Ordinance: 8.36.230 Exceptions
• Proposed Ordinance: 8.36.500 Definitions
• Proposed Ordinance: 8.36.200 Mitigation Considerations
• Proposed Ordinance: 8.36.310 Heritage Tree Preservation and Protection Plan
• Proposed Ordinance: 8.36.410 Enforcement Remedies for Violation
• Proposed Ordinance: 8.36.420 Collection of Penalties
• Poticy Manual: 2.4 Trenching and Protection Zones
• Policy Manual: 3.2 C Protecting Fencing
• Policy Manual: 4.0 Defintions
• That inventory of all oak trees throughout the City be assessed
• That a cert~ed Arborist be involved in the process of the proposed Ordinance
• That all trees should be identified and treated differently (per species)
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue staff recommendation to 45 days to allow
staff an opportunity to define and clarify the above mentioned issues. Commissioner Harter
seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aaaroval.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
With respect to Ynez Road and Tierra Vista, Deputy Director of Public Works York advised that
the developer has been conditioned to install sidewalks.
Chairperson Telesio reiterated his concern with merchandise (obstructions) in the walkway
areas in front of stores and would request that Code Enforcement explore these types of
scenarios at the various stores in the area. Mr. Telesio also remarked on the aesthetics of the
new building at Margarita Road and Pauba Road (Paloma), noting that the back side facing
Margarita Road displays the exposed air conditioning units which results in.an eye-sore to the
community.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director. of Planning advised that staff is currently working on an Ordinance that will address
foreclosures, noting that a workshop will be held which will include staff, property management.
companies, and residents of Temecula.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:10 pm, Chairman Telesio formally adjourned to May 7. 2008 at 6:00 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
John Telesio
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
ITEM NO. 3
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA ..
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: May 21, 2008
PREPARED BY: Stephen Brown, Principal Planner
PROJECT SUMMARY: Planning Application- Number LR08-0033 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) -General Plan Consistency
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
Cities commonly use Capital Improvement Programs to provide long term budgeting for capital
projects. Many of these capital projects can require funding over multiple years. Section 65403
(c) of State Planning and Zoning Law requires that the Planning Commission review and
provide comments to the City Council concerning the conformity of the proposed Capital
Improvement Program with the adopted General Plan. The role of the Planning Commission is
to review the proposed projects and determine 'rf the projects are consistent with the City
General Plan. While the timing may be of interest to the Commission, and the Council is
interested in the Commission's thoughts, the primary issue for the Planning Commission is
whether or not the proposed projects are consistent with the General Plan.
The projects within the Capital Improvement Program are divided into four general categories.
These categories are: Circulation, Infrastructure, Parks and Recreation, and Redevelopment.
In considering the consistency of the Capital Improvement Program with the General Plan, staff
has reviewed the Goals and Policies, as well as the various exhibits and figures. The General
Plan consistency discussion in this staff report will focus on the four categories of CIP projects.
CIRCULATION PROJECTS
The 2009-2013 CIP document contains 24 circulation projects, three of which are maintenance
projects and are not listed below far Commission consideration.
• Abbott Corporation Roadway Improvements
• Auxiliary Lanes on Interstate 15
• Butterfield Stage Road Extension Beltway Project
• Citywide Adaptive Light Synchronization system
• Closed Circuit Television Installation on Temecula Parkway and Pechanga Parkway
• Flashing Beacons
• French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15Over-Crossing/Interchange Improvements
• French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15Over-Crossing/Interchange Improvements-Phase I
• Interstate 15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange
• Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement)
• Meadows Parkway Bike Lane
• Medians and Parkways-Citywide
• Murrieta Creek Bridge and Ovedand Drive Extension to Diaz Road
• Nicolas Valley-Assessment District
.-
• Pechanga Parkway-DuaF Right Turn Lanes from Temecula-Parkway'..
_ - ~^A~.
• Pechanga Parkway Improvements-Phase II ~"'
• Temecula Creek Crossing for Access to Temecula Parkway
• Temecula Parkway Re-Striping of Eight Lanes From Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway
• Traffic Signal Installation-Citywide
• Traffic Signal Interconnect Equipment Installation
• Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek
• Winchester RoadtHighway 79 North Corridor Beautification
Staff has reviewed the proposed projects and believes that these infrastructure projects are
consistent with the provisions of the Circulation Elemerit policies listed below. A review of the
General Plan did not identify any goals or policies that provided contrary policy direction or that
indicated an inconsistency between the Circulation Projects and the adopted General Plan.
Circulation Element
Policy 1.1 Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and
implementation of the City's roadway system, including appropriate road width and median
transitions when a roadway classification changes.
Policy 2.3 Actively pursue improvements to current freeway interchanges within ..the City
and construction of new overpasses as required to achieve performance standards.
Growth ManagemenUPublic Facilities Element
Policy 2.2 Ensure that phasing of public facilities and services occurs in such a way that
new development is adequately supported as fl develops.
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
The 2009-2013 CIP document contains 25 infrastructure projects. Seven of the projects
represent minor enhancements and repairs while 18 of the projects are for new major
community infrastructure. The most notable projects are as follows:
• Alternative Fueling Station
• Bike Lane Improvements -Citywide
• Civic Center
• Fire Station 73 Living Quarters Upgrade
• Fire Station Roripaugh Ranch Site
• History Museum Expansion
• Integrated Facility Alarm System-Citywide
• Murrieta Creek Improvements
• Murrieta Creek Muni-Purpose Trail
• Old Town Gymnasium
• Open Space Acquisition Program
• Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Over Santa Gertrudis Creek to Chaparral High School and
City Trail System
• Santa Gurturdis Creek PedestriaNBicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect
• Santiago Detention Basin
• Teen/Young Adult Center
• Temecula City Entry Monumentation
• Temecula Community Center Expansion
• Temecula Park and-Ride
Staff has reviewed the General Plan and believes that they are consistent with provisions of the
Circulation, Open Space/Conservation, and Growth Management/Public Facilities Elements of
the adopted General Plan. The specific examples demonstrating consistency are listed below.
A review of the General Plan did not identify any goals or policies that provided contrary policy
direction or that indicated an inconsistency between the Infrastructure Projects and the adopted
General Plan.
Circulation Element
Policy 3.3 Provide a comprehensive system of Class land /or Class II bicycle lanes to meet
the needs of cyclists traveling to and from work and other destinations within the City.
Policy 5.6 Encourage the provision of facilities that support carpooling and public
transportation within the City.
Open Space/Conservation Element
Policy 32 Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and organizations to preserve
and enhance significant biological resources.
Policy 5,1 Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, ttie Santa Margarita
River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and landforms and historic landscape features through
the development review process.
Policy 8.1 Provide a Citywide recreation system that connects to the County's regional trail
system which provides for bicycling, equestrian, hiking, and jogging trails with appropriate
support facilities.
Policy 8.5 Develop trails and sidewalks suitable for multiple uses, including for the
physically disabled and for personal transportation alternatives.
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
Policy 2.2 Ensure that phasing of public facilities and services occurs in such a way that
new development is adequately supported as d develops.
Policy 3.4 Coordinate with the County of Riverside to locate and phase new sheriff facilities
and fire stations to ensure that adequate service levels are maintained.
Policy 5.5 Encourage provision of cultural facilities within the community, including
museums, theaters, arts center, a performing arts center, special exhibitions, an outdoor
amphitheater, and public art.
Policy 5:7 Provide library facilities and services for educational, cultural, and recreational
purposes.
Community Design Element
Policy 2.8 Encourage the use of public art at key intersections, and in public gathering
areas to enhance the appearance and character in the community.
Policy 5.2 Retain critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space areas
on the west and south edges of the City.
Policy 6.4 Promote use of public art in public spaces, specifically open space areas and
entry points throughout the City.
PARK AND RECREATION PROJECTS
The 2009-2013 CIP document contains 20 park, trail, and community facility projects. Eleven of
the 20 projects involve minor repairs or improvements to existing park facilities. The other park
and recreation improvement projects are as follows:
• Children's Museum Parking lot Renovation
• Dog Park Areas-Various City Parks
• Roller Hockey Rink
• Ronald Reagan Sports Park Channel Sitt Removal and Desitting Pond
• Roripaugh Ranch Open Space Trail
• Santiago/Ynez Park Site Design
• Vail Lake Ranch Park Site D
• Veteran's Memorial Pavers-Phase III
• Ynez Road and Overland Landscaping
Staff has reviewed the General Plan and believes that these Parks and Recreation projects are
consistent with provisions of the Circulation, Open SpacelConservation and Community Design
Elements of the adopted General Plan. The specific examples demonstrating consistency are
listed below. A review of the General Plan did not identify any goals or policies that provided
contrary policy direction or that indicated an inconsistency between the Parks and Recreation
Projects and the adopted General Plan.
Open SpacelConservation Element
Policy 1.2 Pursue the joint use of public lands available and suitable for recreation
purposes, including lands under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District,
Southern Calrfornia Edison, water districts, school districts, and other public agencies.
Policy 1.7 Consider the establishment of special use parks for seniors, pets, etc.
Policy 8.1 Provide a Citywide recreation system that connects to the County's regional trail
system which provides for bicycling, equestrian, hiking, and jogging trails with appropriate
support facilities.
Policy 8.5 Develop trails and sidewalks suitable for muRiple uses, including for the
physically disabled and for personal transportation alternatives.
Community Design Element
Policy 2.8 Encourage the use of public art at key intersections, and in public gathering
areas to enhance the appearance and character of the community.
Policy 6.4 Promote use of public art in public spaces, specifically open space areas and
entry point throughout the City.
Furthermore, all trail projects are consistent with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan which
further refines the trail objectives of the General Plan. A review of the General Plan did not
identify any goals or policies that provided contrary policy direction or that indicated an
inconsistency with the adopted General Plan.
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The redevelopment portion of the 2009-2013 CIP focuses primarily on affordable housing
projects, the continuation of a residential rehabilitation program and Infrastructure improvements
in Old Town.
Staff has reviewed the General Plan and believes that these Redevelopment projects are
consistent with provisions of the Housing, Growth ManagemenUPublic Facilities, and Economic
Development Elements of the adopted General Plan. The spec'~c examples demonstrating
consistency are listed below. A review of the General Plan did not identify any goals or policies
that provided contrary policy direction or that indicated an inconsistency between the
Redevelopment projects and the adopted General Plan.
Housing Element
Policy 1.2 Encourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in
terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work
in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types.
Policy 1.6 Encourage the development of compatible mixed-use projects that promote and
enhance the village concept, facilitate the efficient use of public facilities, and support aRernative
transit options.
Policy 2.1 Promote a variety of housing opportunities that accommodate the needs of all
income levels of the population, and provide opportunities to meet the City's fair share of Low
and Moderate Income housing.
Policy 2.2 Support innovative public, private and non profit efforts in the development of
affordable housing, particularly for special needs groups.
Policy 4.2 Develop rehabilitation programs that are directed at preserving the integrity of the
existing housing stock.
Open Space/Conservation Element
Policy 6.3 Preserve and reuse historical buildings in accordance with the Old Town Specific
Plan.
Economic Development Element
Policy 6.3 Continue to expand Old Town's role in local tourism and improve it
attractiveness, accessibility, and economic vitality, as well as it's interaction v~ith other local
attractions.
Community Design Element
Policy 7.1 Encourage public spaces and plazas wfthin commercial developments that can
accommodate cultural and social events and functions as community gathering areas.
Policy 7.7 Develop a civic center site that will create a community focal point and facilitate
community functions.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Commission review the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program
and make a determination that the projects included in the CIP are consistent with the adopted
City General Plan.
ATTACHMENT
2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program
CAPITALIMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
STAFF REPORT -PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: May 21, 2008
PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner
PROJECT Planning Application Number LR08-0007 - Sustainability Program;
SUMMARY: Planning Commission presentation to discuss strategies and
elements for creating a sustainability program and' green building
standards for the City of Temecula "
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
During the -last year, staff has attended conferences, workshops, and meetings in order to
understand the efforts taken by organizations, Cities .and the State to implement "green"
programs to reduce their green house gas emissions that affect global warming. As a result,
staff is ready to move forward with developing a plan that includes measurable goals and
policies, implementation programs, and a process for measuring the success of the City towards
becoming a sustainable City.
At tonight's Planning Commission meeting, staff will discuss initiatives, agreements, action
plans and green building programs that result in reducing green house gas emissions and
protecting valuable natural resources. Additionally, staff will discuss the existing City efforts, as
well as future actions that promote sustainability concepts, including adopting a green building
policy for municipally owned and operated buildings, adopting voluntary green building
standards for single family residential homes, and updating the City's Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
ANALYSIS
The following is a discussion of various efforts to reduce green house gas emissions
U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement (CPAI
The Climate Protection Agreement was initiated in 2005 ahd modeled after the goals of the
Kyoto Protocol to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions through leadership and action by
American Cities. Since it was initiated, 852 mayors from 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico, representing 80,077,642 citizens, have signed the agreement. Under the
agreement, participating Cities commit to the following three actions:
Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through
actions ranging from anti-sprawl land use policies to urban forest restoration projects to
public information campaigns.
2. Urge their State governments, and the Federal government, to enact policies ahd
programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for
the United States in the Kyoto Protocol - 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012.
3. Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation,
which would establish a national emission trading system.
United Nations Green Cities Declaration
In 2005 a declaration was crafted to achieve sustainable local development. The declaration
commits cities to a 21-point action plan , to achieve sustainable development in seven
categories: energy, waste, design, environment, transportation, health, and water. Like the
Mayors' CPA the declaration requires that Cities adopt a GHG reduction plan to lower emissions
25 percent by 2030, along with a system to measure their progress. The declaration has
support by some of the most environmentally proactive Cities within Calffomia.
Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Initiative
Also modeled after the Mayors' CPA, the Cool Counties Program commits County governments
to measure local emissions, develop an action-plan to reduce regional carbon dioxide emission
80 percent below current levels by 2050, and lobby the Federal govemment to pass
comprehensive global warming legislation. In 2007, Alameda County was the first to sign the
initiative; subsequently, all Cities within Alameda County have since adopted carbon reduction
programs or sustainability plans, and currently they are in the process to join the Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign.
Intemational Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEII
Since 1990, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives has worked with an
international consortium of local, regional, and national governments to design and implement
sustainable development and climate change programs.
Cities for Climate Protection (CCP)
The Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCP) provides a framework for Cities to implement
climate changes policy similar to the Mayors' CPA and the UN Green Cities Declaration. Wdh
assistance from the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), a
framework for calculating GHG emissions, identifying reduction targets, identifying strategies to
reduce GHG emissions and identifying methods to monitor success is used to develop a
Climate Action Plan (CAP), which is tailored to the needs of individual Cities.
Global Warming Solutions Act
The Global Warming -Solutions Act of 2006, otherwise known as AB 32, outlines a
comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce green house gas emission 40 1990 levels by 2020
and to eighty percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The program is lead by the Air Resource
Board, but involves various agencies and forums, under the direction of the Climate Action
Team, to create a Scoping Plan which will contain the main strategies California will use to
reduce the greenhouse gases (GHG) that cause climate change. The Scoping Plan, when
completed, will have a range of GHG reduction strategies, which can include direct regulations,
aftematide compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions,
and market-based mechanisms such as a an GHG emission cap-and-trade system in order to
meet the target Green House Gas emission reduction. The Scoping Plan is being put together
through the efforts of various stakeholder working groups. The draft Scoping Plan will be
released for public review and comment in June, 2008 followed by more workshops in July,
2008. The Scoping Plan will go to the Air Resource Board for adoption in November, 2008.
Staff is following the efforts of two of the working groups created by the Climate Action Team-
the Local Govemment Protocols forum and the Land Use Subcommittee of the Climate Action
Team forum. These two forums are developing the methods by which local governments can
quantify green house gas emissions from municipal operations and land use decisions.
The Local Government Protocols forum is working with the Climate Action Registry and the
Local Govemments for Sustainability (ICLEI) to develop protocols for local governments to use
to establish a baseline GHG inventory, and to develop methods to quantify GHG emission
reductions.
The Land Use Subcommittee of the Climate Action Team (LUSCAT) is tasked with coordinating
climate change mitigation and adoption efforts that are crucial to meeting the State's GHG
emissions reduction goals related to local govemment operations and land use activities.
Spec~cally, the LUSCAT will undertake the following activities:
Coordinate State agency activities related to the 2006 Climate Action Team Report and
smart growth strategies.
2. Develop State agency land use and local government strategies for 2008 Climate Action
Team Report and 2009 Air Resource Board Scoping Plan.
3. Provide a centralized location for stakeholder input regardirit~ the State's local
government and land use climate change activities.
Green Vallev Initiative
The Green Valley Initiative originated in the Inland Empire to transform Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties into a region that integrates people and business with natural resources to
create jobs, greater opportunities and higher quality of I'rfe. The Green Valley Initiative envisions
the Inland Empire as the center of green technologies with balanced economic and community
development.
In addition to the above initiatives and efforts to reduce green house gas emission, local
jurisdictions are adopting and implementing green building standards that reduce environmental
impacts buildings have on the environment. The following green building programs have been
created by non-profd organizations and are the more commonly known programs that are
available to jurisdictions to easiy adopt and implement.
"Green" Building Programs
California Green Builder
The Cal"rfornia Green Builder Program is a voluntary program which sets forth a uhiform set of
design and construction standards that developers and builders could use to meet standards
that would qualify their production homes as a "green" home. The program focuses on single
family residential production homes and addresses energy efficiency, water efficiency,
advanced ventilation systems, wood conservation, and construction waste diversion. The
program also includes a range of incentives for builders in exchange for constructing -green
homes.
The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Planning Directors Technical
Advisory Committee has formed a subcommittee to develop, review and recommend a green
building program for western Riverside County jurisdictions; City staff participates on this
committee.
The committee recommended endorsing the California Green Builder Program in concept, as
the first step for Cities introducing green development concepts into their development process.
The Committee continues wdh -their discussions regarding green building concepts for
municipalities, and for new and existing commercial buildings, as well as debating whether
incentives should be provided to encourage the construction of green buildings.
Build It Green -Green Point Rated
The Green Point Rated Program was developed based on the Alameda County New Home
Construction Green Building Guidelines to provide local governments, builders and
homeowners with a tool to assess how "green" a home is. The program includes different
checklists for evaluating new construction of single-family residential homes, new construction
of multi-family residential homes, and for the remodel of residential homes. A home can be
considered green 'rf ft fulfills the prerequisites, earns at least 50 points, and meets the minimum
points per category: Energy (30), Water (9), Indoor Air Quality (5), and Materials/Resources (8).
United States Green Building Council - LEEDn`'
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) ratings system was developed by
the United States Green Building Council. The national rating system assesses how green a
building is based on its performance in five categories: Sustainable Site Development, Water
Savings, Energy Efficiency, Materials and Resources Selection, and Indoor Environmental
Quality. Different rating systems are used depending on the type of project: New Construction,
Core and Shell, Commercial Interiors, Schools, Healthcare Facilfties, Homes, Existing Buildings
and a new pilot program for Neighborhoods. The LEED rating system has historically been
known for its high performance standards for commercial buildings, but recently has
incorporated rating systems for homes and neighborhood developments.
Related to the above green building programs is the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(WELSO), and when updated and implemented, it will automatically give builders points towards
achieving a "green" building, regardless of the green program that is used. The update of the
City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance is explained in the following section.
Water Efficient l.andscace Ordinance
The City of Temecula's water efficient landscape ordinance has been in effect since 1994 in
response to the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 1992. Since 1994, the population in
the Temecula valley has steadiy grown and the demand for fresh water has dramatically
increased as well. In recent months, the State has cut southern California's importation of water
from the Sacramento Delta by approximately 30 percent. Additionally, the western United
States is experiencing an eight-year drought, and affects of global warming leave uncertainty
with respect to climatic change in the region. In addition to the growing environmental concerns
impacting fresh water resources, AB 2717 amended the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act
of 1992 and required the State update their Model Ordinance by January 1, 2009. The statute
also requires Cities to adopt the State's Model Ordinance or an equally effective ordinance by
July 1, 2010.
Staff is proposing amendments to the City's water efficient landscape ordinance consistent with
the County's recently adopted ordinance and the State's Model Ordinance. Staff will be bringing
forward a recommendation to adopt the proposed amendments at the June 18, 2008 Planning
Commission and July 22, 2008 City Council meetings.
Initiatives Taken By Other Cities
The following is a short list of Cities that have adopted action. plans to reduce green house gas
emissions. For additional Cities that have taken action, please see the Green Government
attachment.
• City of Alameda -Climate Protection in Alameda
• City of Albany -Climate Action Program
• City of Arcata -Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
• City of Berkeley -Draft Climate Action Plan
• City of Chula Vista - CO2 Reduction Plan
• City of Davis -Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
• City of Los Angeles -Green LA Plan
• City of Sacramento - Sustainability Implementation Plan
• City of San Diego -Climate Protection Action Plan
• City and County of San Francisco -Climate Action Plan
• City of Santa Barbara -Sustainable Santa Barbara
• City of Santa Cruz -Turning the Tide on Global Warming
• City of Santa Monica -Sustainable City Plan
• City of Sebastopol -Sustainable Sebastopol
• City of Stockton -Stockton Goes Green.
• City of West Hollywood -10 Things You Can Do to Combat Global Warming
Existing City Efforts
The City of Temecula has been implementing a number of programs, which promote
sustainability concepts. These include the following:
• Water Eificient Landscape Ordinance
• Member of the Clean Cities Coalition
• Water Quality Management Plans
• Household Hazardous Waste Collection Events
• Household Recycling
• Green waste Recycling
• Transportation PlanninglTransft Center
• 1-15 Interregional Partnership -Bus Rapid Transit and Smart Growth Concept
Map
• WRCOG Transft Oriented Development Demonstration Project
• Park and Ride Lots
• Bikeways and Mufti-Trails Master Plan
• Open Space Preservation
In addition to the above mentioned programs currently implemented by the City, staff would like
to expand the City's sustainability efforts by developing a Sustainability Plan. The Plan would
establish measurable goals and implementation strategies to reduce green house gas
emissions as well as reducing other environmental impacts that result from future development.
However, prior to the completion of a Sustainability Plan, early action measure can be taken by
the City to improve the quality of life for its residents, such as the adoption of a green building
program including a policy for municipally owned buildings, and the adoption of more stringent
water efficient landscape standards. Staff is seeking input from the Planning Commission and
would like to bring forward recommendations to the Planning Commission and then City Council
over the next two months.
ATTACHMENTS
Green Government Institute: A Local Revolution
March 2008 Legislative Overview
Matrix of Green Building Program Correlations
American Planning Association: Policy Guide on Planning and Climate Change
GREEN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE - A LOCAL REVOLUTION
A Local Revolution:
California's Cities and Counties Combat Global Warming
by TYfstan Yolpe
From the beaches of Santa Barbara to the hilly chaparral of
Sonoma County, Califrnnia's local governments have stewardship
of a wide [ange of unique and diverse etosys[ems. Fach region
depends on the continued riabgity of these natural resources, and
global warming poses a subriantial and direct threat to com-
munities across the state. Governor Schwarunegger and state
legislators pioneered the Global Warming Solutions Ac[ (Assem-
bly B71-32) in 2006 to mandate a reductlon in statewide carbon
emissions. Since then, a burgeoning number of cities end counties
have designed and implemented innovative policies to significano-
ly cut lost emissions and build suriainaNe communities.
Researchers at Green Technology tradted concrete efforts dties
and muntks have mnderteken to cap local greenhouse gas emis-
sions inthree legislative categories:
1) agreements and declarations that commit a city to a numerical
reduction of arbon dioxide over film
2) stmctured programs that provide cities with a standardized
framework for combating global warming
3) action plain that address the specific needs of a city or county.
In combination, these initiatives and programs provde an e(fec-
tiverubric (or judging the degree to which a local municipality B
workittg to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Agreements and Declarations:
A Profusion d Reduaion Targets
In the Brst tatcgory, two major Icgislativc agreements ctrtergcd Duct
the last several years to curb emissions at the local level. Forsvnost,
signatories to the US. Conference of Mayors Qinn[c Protation
Agreement (CPA) commit to reduce local carbon din:;de emis-
sions 7 percent below 19901evets by 2(112 To meet this target,
cities muv executean array ofactions,from promoting eRtlent
public trantportation to adopting emironmentagy pmferabie
purchasing (EPP) practices. Of the G00 cities that have signed this
agreement across the country, a remarkable 141 are in California.
The United Nations Green Cities Declaration commits cities to a
holistic 2l-point action plan to achieve sustainable local develop-
ment in seven categories: energy, waste, design, emironntent,
transportation, health, end water. Much like the Mayors CPA,
the UN dedaraGon stipulates that cities adopt a greenhouse gas
reduction plan to lower emissions 25 percent by 2030, along with
a system for meawring progress. While the agreement hugar-
neredconsiderable international support, only 13 cities nt Cali-
fornia arc members. However, with support from environmental
leaders like Bettreley, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Sacramento, San
Francisco, and San Jose, the decaration provides a solid frame-
work for uniform action. Together, the Mayors CPA and the UN
declaration are important indicators of concrete action by cities
to reduce emissions Over time.
Timothy Burroughs, Climate Action Coordinator for the City of
Berkeley, desalted these initiatives as "manifestations o(local
government leading the way on a global issue. The policies are
symbolic of the need for local community government action jbe-
tsusej very little has happened at the kdecal level." In the absence
o(a national mandate,'cities are uniquely capable of addressing
the main wurces oCrarbon dioxide emissions through local land
use policies, energy efficiency standards, recycling programs, and
w onf Furthermore, local initiatives can cause a paradigm shik
N community outlook. 9n Berkeley, them is more community
action and citizen engagement in climate diange than tlicre was
even two or three years ago.'Ihat's partly from the tool actions of
titles; explains Burroughs.'7he dty government U a very Wsible
entity, and when it takes a strong leadership role, there tends to
be ramifications on how the community Wews a certain iswe;
Conscqucntly, widespread participation among Californian cities
nt those dimatc initiatives may remold convontional household
wixdom around solutions to global warming.
At the county Icvel, the Cool Counties Climate Stabilization
Initiative represents a more regional appmaeh to greenhouse
gas reduction. Modeled after the U.S. Mayors CPA, the Cool
Counties program commits manly governments to measture lo-
cal emissions, develop an action plan to reduce regional carbon
dioxide emissions BO percent below current level by 2050, and
lobby the federal government to pass comprehensive global
warminglegislalion.Atameda County first signed the national
initiative N July 2007, and Contra Costa, Los Mgeles, San Mateo,
Santa Claza, and Yolo counties subsequently joined.'Ihis regional
approach has a catalytic and mumagy reinforcing effect on local
governments. In Alameda County, (or example, all the cities have
adopted carbon reduction programs or sustainability plans and
are in the process of joining the Cities For Climate protection
Gmpaign.
Structured Programs: ~
the Benefit of a Standardized Framework
'Ihe second ptegory of legislation focuses primarily on local
involvement with the International Council for Local Environ-
mental Initiatives (ICLEI). Since 1990, ICLEI has worked with
an international consortium of local, national, and regional
governments to design and implement effective sustainable
development and dlmate change programs. With more than 700
members woddwide, tCLEI's Local Governments for Sustain-
abilitydraws upon the experience and technical knowledge of
the International Council to, aaording to the group's website.
"build capacity, share knowledge, and support local government
in the implementation of sustainable development at the local
level.' City membership in this organi>ation seu a baseline com-
mitment to sustainability.
"Ihe Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Campaign provides
an effective framework for cities [o implement climate change
policy. After a local government passes a resolution to reduce
emissions -such as the Mayors CPA or the UN Green Cit-
ies Declaration -end derides to join the CPP. ICLEI uses a
simple yet robust methodology to standardize the calculation of
greenhouse gas emissions, establish reduction targets, formu-
late strategies to meet these goals, and monitor performance.
lhisframework assisu cities in the development of a pragmatic
Local Action Man to meet the specific needs of oath municipal-
ity, while ensuring that every CPP member adopts a uniformly
effective and hoBstic strategy to reduce emissions.
Marln County's partnership with ICLEI demonstrates the ef-
fectiveness ofthe CCP program. Since 2002, the county has
taken a number of concrete steps to reduce regioml emissions,
from calalating thelr carbon footprint to the development of
a robust beat action plea According to Dawn Weisz, sustain-
abilityplanner for Mario County, a county foundation provided
ICLE[ with a grant to help cities inventory their greenhouse gas
emissions. Thus,'Whenever a city is ready, ICLE[ can step in
to help with sokware tools end technical support; she says. As
a result, [he cities of Fairfax, Mill Valley, Novato. San AnuJmo,
and $ausalko have all signed on ro the CPP program, with San
Rafael expected to join within the yeas
Assistance from ICI.Ef allows Mario County to continue pio-
neering regional climate change solutions. °Marin's Commu-
nity Choice Aggregation project makes local governments the
primary power purchasers, which will shift 100 percent of our
enerev to renewable sources within eight vearsf noted Weisz.
"'[he county is also working together with cities in a group that
just formed called the Energy Emit Network to swap strategies,
ordinances, and ideas to help cities move along'
Action Plans:
A ek:nd of Pragmatism and kleaBsm
With 26 member cities in Giifornia, the CPP Campaign has
produced a number of Climate Action Plans (CAPS). While
these plans are custom tailored to the unique needs of each city,
a brie(ovetview of puns in Alameda, Berkeley, Los Angeles.
San Fmnciuo, and San lose underscores common trends. Each
CAP opens with an explicit recognition that climate change will
dramatically affect the regional ecosystem of the local govern-
ment, thus undermining public health and economic stability.
The baseline calculation of carbon dioxide emissions highlights
a commonality: fuel consumption in the transportation sector is
usually the largest source of emissions, followed by energy use
in residential and commercial building sectors.
Climate Action Plans provide a useful method Cor outlining
detailed solutions to city-specific problems. With large residen-
tial and commeroial developments, the,City of Alameda needed
m develop several measures to offset commuter transportation
emissions.'Ihcir CAPSUggests that homeowners and businesses
contribute to a generel fund to extend public transportation to
a variety of nodes throughout the city. In return, the contribu-
tors would receive an'eco-pass allowing dram to ride public
transit at no additional cost With similar characteristics, neuby
Berkeley also incorporated the °eco-pass' program into the final
drak of its 2009 Climate Action Plan, and hopes to explore the
possibility o[ providing some sort of free bus transportation to
all city residents. .
Although the details vary among cacti city, the broad goals and
solutions to transportation and energy use problems are similar
In the transportations sector. CAPS establish a basic goal of
reducing personal automobile trips by providing accessible and
simple public transportation systems. In Alameda, Los Angeles,
and San Francisco, this translates into bicycle and'car-share
programs combined with light-rail expansion. Also, the conver-
sion of city car Beets to alternative fuels is a ubiquitous goal
among the CAPS reviewed.
With the ability to mandate strict codes and standards, city gov-
ernmen[shave considerable influence over energy consumption
in the building sector. CAPS emphasirx the reduction of emis-
sions from heating, cooling, and lighting in residential and com-
mercial buildings. Most cities have adopted athree-pert plan to
encourage rerewable energy sources, reduce energy consump-
tion and mandate green building standards on new constru~-
tion. With so much attention devoted to building standards in
city CAps, this report examines the most robust and respected
protocols: the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEEDI system developed by the US. Green Building Council. ,
This basic rexarch clearly demonstrates the presence o(leader-
ahip and pragmatic legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions
among Calitomia's does and counties.'[he myriad otagreements,
programs, and climate action plans does pose one potential prob-
lem: Businesses that operate at the state and national level may
find it difficult to navigate the various environmental standards
adopted by tlrrse local entit-"ies. However, the diffusion of uniform
standards and practices through programs like the Gtes from
Climate Protection, and the emergence of regional coordination
through the Cool Counties initiative and other county Gmmate
Action Plans should allay such fears.
"Community strategies to curb emissions arc more effective when
implemented a[ a regional scale; says Timothy Burroughs of the
City of Berkeley "So we view climate dtange as a regional effort:
there are some factors that Berkeley can control, but we depend
on our neighbors for help as well I'm always geWngcalls from
dries in the area with questions on agiven policy, tike the Resi-
dential Energy Conservation lhdinance, or the Energy finandng
Distrito. Likewise,) Zook to other tides in the county for informa-
tion on what the}~re doing to promote residential recycling, for
example, or composting. We all have lessons that can be shared
throughout the county. lherc is definitely a sense ofcamaraderie
among cities in Alameda County and beyond"
As more dries sign on to the U.S. Mayors CPA and develop
Climate Action Plans, collaboration among officials on policy
implementation and strong regional leadership from counties will
be esxntial. nth top-down support from AB-32 and bottom-up
solutions from cities and counties, the state of California Is poised
to effectively combat global warming. O
Notes:
Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this briefing. This
is an ongoing project. If your city or county has taken legislative
action (or is in the substamive process of doing so), and is not yet
included in the report, please contact Trirtan Vdpe, Research
Assodatc (tvolpc~green-technologyorg), to haveyour efforts
included.
For more ioformatfon on each on the organizations men-
tioned In the report and article, follow these links:
The U.S. Corderence of Mayors CBmate Center
www.usmavoa.wa/dimateoratection/ooreemenF.hkn
The United Nations Green Cifies
The htterrtatiortol Couna'I for local Envirorarrenfol htifialives pC1.ElJ
vflnv.icki.oro
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design QEED)
program devekrped by the US. Green Building Counal
www.usab~p/LEED
furg Covny of Washington hosts the Cool Counties websik
hub. You can visit than online ah
www.kina^ou^N.oov/exec%ookaunlies
GREEN - ` -
GOVERNMENT
The Green Governmerd Ins61uM is a project d Green Tedtttdogy.
Copyright ®2008, Green Technology. AU righh reserved
Green Technology j 236 W. Mountain St., Suite 210 l Pasadeno, CA 91103
www.green•lechnologyorg
Prided on recycled paper
0
N 0
N 0
N
q N N N
° ~ a n' a
O
d N
d N
V
A ~ d _ d
C ~ of Y ~A
N N ~
h N
Y
~ p ' _
O _
O N O
O O u
W
L y
u
D ~ ~
p ~ 0 0
'r Y N N 0 N
E
M,[ N
O N
O N
O
~ N
O
q ;
E ° N U~ N N
> E E E E
V< d A v u
L V
J V
J U
J N
~ N
~1 U
J
Y J
C y ~ W
G U O~ O
C ~ u a~{ v ~ ° ~'
r r > ` ` >
u
c _
a~
m c `u
` w
~ -
j~ x x x x x x
W ?
; E
C m0
O ~
wW~
To u
y
y yE
~ x x
~ M v
U U d
M
C °' o
o
~ Y
U m
x
x
x
W C m ~ A
~ z ~ V
N (7 O
y ~+
~
N _
gCUi o
A C V ~ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
d
~
C q
~E
m v
jN
~ o
~
c
m o
V ~ d
d E
.o f~ x x x x x x x is x x x x x x
C 'nuP~
u 3 °a
m a
'
~ E
~. Sa
~Y Q
H
°
~
u
>
0 v
E
O
E c
` c
u
E 3 u a E w° d c o v o u > v
j;
S q
a i
u a
o
E
E >.
q m
> 3
m x
q '$ q
u c
g 3
c Y
i L° - c c U
. J U a ¢ m O w ° x ~ Z O a a in 7 v a Q U ~ w
t
O ~ u ~ ~ q
....
p„}= O t ~- t ~ t t ~ t t o
O
A
A
.A
q
A
q
A
A
q
q
q
A
A
q ~
` ~
~` ~
` ~
~`~ E E E E E -E E E E E E E E E ~ °
C
C S
A A q A q A A q A
' q A q
' q q
m Y'
'
° G
°
° C
°
a a a a a a a a a 3 a a a m u u v u
a
0
.~
c
t
u
c
3
3
m
0
0
N
t
f
9
q
A
O
O
N N
T d
D
N ~
-
YI O
T
0 N
3
N O
U
~ a
a '^
n
c
N O
C
o N
E
S2 c ° c
W N O
E s o a
~ A
C ~
O A
C
v _
B
y~
L ~ d J
> N > VI
X x x X %
X X
X X
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
U
U
~
O
2-
Y+
>,
~q'
9
U
c
O
E
O
~
O
f
v
C
O
v
C
p
~
y ayk~
L
6
O
E
V
K
C
A
a
4
VI ~[
L
U
r
9
3
9
Y
Q
~
$
~
J
o
>
Q
=,
>
y
N
f0
Y
q
$
10
N
a
~
V
O
y
V
V
V
v
=
V U
m
N
E
N
=
O
u
P
.C.
p
v
Y
J
L
V
rn
C
J N
N
O.
¢
pNo
J V
m
"
r
N
~ Y
6
v
.o.
CO
E
C
o
N
6
~~- t ~ i
- i- f 1- •
- h }
W
U v
N
V p
J
V1
U p
V
N
U i
N
U u
N
V V
N
V q
Y
U N
N
V u
N
U
+ }
O
Y +
U
V ~
_
V fN
Vi
U ~"
Y
W ~"
O
U t
W
Y }n
W
Y y
O
U t
W
V t
~
V t
N
d fN
Yi
V t
O
W
~
c
O
U 4
c
O
- V A
c
O
V ~
c
O
U 4
c
O
V 'A
c
O
V W
c
O
U
c
O
V W
c
O
V A
c
O
U n
E
'~
T
N
a•
C
Y ' C
Q
bb
J C
Q
pN
J C
Q
N
J G
Q
N
J C
Q
N
J C
Q
N
J C
Q
oN
J C
Q
N
J C
Q
N
J C
Q
N
J C
Q
N
J C
Q
N
J C
Q
N
J C
Q
N
J
O
pT
O
O
C
U
d
C
d
Ol
3
3
3
b
O
O
N
e
D
d
A
6
Q
a
D
N N
q
c Ny
G ON
G
Ot
~ D
`
a a
J c c
x x x x
x x x x x x x
x x x x
x -x x x x x x x x x x x x ~x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
N
9 ~
1
O
p
n
V
q
CC
~
U
y
m
°
O
6'
N
_p
;
C
K
9
O
E
LL
VI
~
C
f
q
N
u
q
f
~
]3.
o
Y
N
3
w
O
~
m
q
t
LL
~
N
}'
J
°
~
p
£
q
D
Z
O
E
°
Q
C
V)
,q.
(L
C
N
S
N
J
UI
w
(O
C
LL
p
~_
3 N
V
y
~
«o
E
E
£
T
q
C
£
W
~
tE'1
~
~V
d
A
C
IA
n
,0,.
Nq
V
u
r
J
O
Y
~
3
V
~
O
Z
u
~
N
-
Q
q
'd'i
q
N
O
U
~ a- r a~ + ~- +
u ~ v u u v u
o. o
Q N C C T T T
C
w
J C
a
w
J Q
C
¢
N
J O~
C
a
N
pp
J P
C
a
w
J W
C
a
N
J O~
C
¢
N
J o
c
q
£ 0
c
~
q
£ o
c
O
£ O
c
q
£ O
c
_
O
£ o
~
q
£ e
c
'c
q
E O
c
z
q
£ O
a
c
Y'
£ O
o
c
O
£
o
c
O
£ ~
~
c
O
£ ~
c
O
£ ~
c
O
£
n
q
Z
a
q
Z q
>
q
Z O
~
O W
c
O
0
a
0
c
L
Y
C
U
pt
3
3
3
O
O
N
L
£
v
q
w
q
a
o.
~'
O O N
H ti N
O O O
p N N N
~
N T
n
N T
a
N T
a
N
T
D j > ~
N d u Y
n
O O
Ol O
01 O
01
N N N
E
g o
a o
~ ;
g
~ ~ ~ o
N O Ill O
N m .y N
C C C C
_O O _O O
y
l
N
N y
~
N y_
~
N
E E E E
u o u u
u u u
> > > >
~ V ~ ~
u u v
Y Y r Y
x x x x
X % X X
% X
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x' x x x x x x x x
Y
$
~
<
S
<
2
r
m
m
a
J
a
=
a
of
J
o
O
3
m
a
J
c
a
c
In
E
=
u
v
v
K
,
U
c
E
~
N
°
U
w
~
a
K
4
2'
c
O
a
~c
VI
m
a
~
Y
B
>
~
V
m
~
O
ti
O
m
-°
n
E
m
I fp
J
o
V
~qq
VI
t
~
u
m
A
IA
'°.
>
O
~
~
qq
N
o
u
IA
°
g
3
N
Q
T
m
Q
~
0
u
OI
O
O
u
Ol
4
O
u
OI
~
O
u
O
O
u
Ol
LN
O
u
Q
q
O
O
3
~
j
LL'
O
°_
~
j
OC
o
L
O
E
W
Y
VI
,q
C
.d
E
A
Y
Vl O
G
E
O
t
u
f0
C
VI O
C
a
O
i
u
(O
C
UI O
C
v
O
i
u
f0
C
N O
C
E
A
t
u
l0
C
VI O
C
E
O
~
`u
m.
C
IA
O
P
u
O
C
VI
O
O
u
0
C
41
O
Q
_u
0
C
N
O
Ol
u
0
C
In
O
O
u
0
C
In
O
Q
u
O
C
fn
O
P
y
O
C
N
O
N
t~
C
w
LL
L
N
c
7
O'
m
n
C
10
N
'a
O
p~
J
C
N
N
a
O
'"
J
C
IA
Q
0
T
O~
O
O
C
Ly
W
C
d
O~
3
3
3
0
N
E
a
°.!
0
v
N O
.-1 N
O O
N N
D ~
u~ x
d d
u d
_
O O
a T
N '1
O O
~ a
.
o d'`
vi O
N N
C C
O O
V1 N
N N
E E
d d
p
G
d y
u
~ N
6 N N O.
C Y Y C
x x x x
x x x
x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
0
u
N
O
w
D
O
J
A
m
L
44
L
L
a
d
P
c
~
m
d
~
a
-
=
~
o
d
£
q
d
f
T
V
O
q
O
o.
~.
U
0
~
U
K
2
m
O
ut
N
O
q
V
q
N
N
f
W
ut C
q
LL
IA
c
O
ut
~
a
m
rq
A
ut
-
n
E
~
C
u
~
u
a
Z
~,
a
p
J
r
l7
p
J
=
C
rn
O
f
O
~
q
c
O
i
_
p'
a
O
a
d
~
•°,
A
w
~
q
U
a
a
m
A
>
c
7
m
a
.°,
O.
~
a
A
ut
q
u
V
m
O
b
a
O
a
J
C
IA
t
O
~1
q
L
C
N
.-.
O
u
q
f
C
VI
~-
O
d
q
£
C
N
t
O
L'
q
E
C
V1
t
p
V
q
f
C
UI
~-
O
d
q
g
C
Vq!
+
O
d
q
S
C
VI
.-
O
u
q
f
C
U1
.-
O
d
q
S
C
U1
+
O
M
q
f
L
1%
.-
O
yd
q
E
C
In <
A
a
y
q
m
q
L
N
a-
~
_a
U
.~
C
N
.-
~
a
U
3
C
1A
t
~
a
U
B
C
VI
+
A
a
V
.R
C
VI
•
N
q
U
B
C
1A
r
~
a
U
a
C
IA
.
A
1s
V
S
C
N.
+
~
q
U
q
C
V1
t
W'
a
V
.R
C
Ua1
.-
9
q
U
a
C
N
N
~
U
a
C
1%,
N
~
U
irR
C
N
O
L
!~
VI
0
a
0
0
u
d
c
d
d
3
3
t
O
N
g
0
d
q
O
2
d
0
N
a
N
d
V
O
O
N
O
d
a
0
O
N
C
O
E
u
'
u ~
~ u
a
~
p'
N u
y c
x
x x x x a x x x x
x x x x x x x z x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
k
A
s
7 N
0
C Y
Y d A
O) q 9 ~ O N
O y~ O N
E N E Y 6' O A Q ~ ~ O A
O .~ ~ A ,O N C ~ N
Y L ~ A C q 0 0 O m Y
~ i U .C C a C L ~ A C O ~
> u = ° ° f L
~ a a
c v1 v1 1
n 3 ~ > 1n 1
- v 3-
E E E E E E E E E > ; ~
~ v ~ ~ t
L^ C C c C C C C C C !~ L~ C C C O O
0 4 N V V 0 O V V
1
/i 1 I l 0
1 V
1 I I VI H F > 7 > T >
~+ *- .~, ~
_ -y o0
env $~ww" ionn Em
u Y= U' N v O V
~~a
~ m dt=7 ~ ~a?'
O C
:;
d
U' T
wUaa ~a
o
o
N V L~ ~
O a 0
VI ~= m
9 ~ VFW
C
L~ W _.
C
V L C~ O
~
g3~~ °~v~
W
0
i.
0
0
c
s
u
c
u
rn
3
3
3
W
N
L
i
v
0
i
MARCH 2008 LEGISLATIVE OVERVIEW
March 2008 Legislative overview
AB~ 1065
Requires the Energy Commission to adopt standards to reduce energy consumption
from of(site sources of new residential and new non-residential buildings. Compared to
the 2003 standards, the new standards would result in a 20% reduction by 2015, a 50%
reduction by 2020, and an 80°,6 reduction by 2030.
AB 2030
Requires the Energy Commission to adopt standards so that new residential buildings by
2020 and new nonresidential building by 2030 are net zero energy.
AB 1065
Requires the Eriergy Commission to adopt standards to reduce energy consumption
from offsite sources of new residential and new non-residential buildings. Compared to
the 2003 standards, the new standards would result in a 20% reduction by 2015, a 50%
reduction by 2020, and an 80°k reduction by 2030.
AB 2655
An intent biA relating to the Air Resources Board developing a program to protect indoor
air quality.
AB 2916
An intent bill to require all buildings owned or leased by the state to compty with the
LEED gold standard.
SB 1258
Requires the Department of Water Resources by 1!112011 to adopt standards on the
use of graywater if its use irnolves the protection of the public health.
SB 1473
Establishes rules regarding the adoption of green building standards by state agencies,
.inducting that the standards do not cause an unreasonable cost or impact on the price of
affordable housing. Creates a new developer fee ($4 per $100,000 in valuation) to fund
the development of green building standards.
AB 1892
Prohibits restrictions, except for public health and safety, on the installation of solar
systems at common interest developments.
AB 2180
Establishes deadlines on the governmental approval or denial of an application to install
solar energy systems.
AB 2269
Allows electricity generated by a solar energy system on the consumer's premises to be
sold to the local publicly owned utility. Speafies that a solar energy system located on
the same premises as the end user does not-have to be owned by the end user.
AB 2768
Allows ratepayers to install solar energy systems to choose between receiving a flat rate
ortime-variant pricing.
AB 2830
Makes covenants and restrictions that prohibit or restrict the installation or use of a wind
energy system void and unenforceable, except that common interest developments~may
impose reasonable restrictions. Establishes timelines on the approval of applications to
install wind energy systems.
AB 2863
An intent bill regarding along-term financing program for solar projects in common
interest developments.
SB 1493
Trees vs. Solar. Amends existing law to state that trees planted prior the installation of a
solar collector on another property do not have to be removed if the trees do, or will with
growth, cast a shadow on the solar collector.
AB 1920
Requires utilities to compensate customers who generate more electricity than used.
Requires the ratemaking authority to establish the net surplus customer-generator
compensation rate by 7!1!09.
SB t447 '
An intent bill to allow city governments to install solar panels in one location and use that
coAected energy to offset the energy costs of their other facllities.
AB 2678
Requires the Energy Commission to develop requirements for time of sale energy
effiaency audits for residential and commerclal buildings.
AB 2479
Creates penalties for licensed and rwn-licensed confractors who fail to comply with
specked bu7ding energy efficiency standards.
AB 2723
Allows money from an approved 2006 statewide bond to be used, upon appropriation by
the legislature, as grants to local. governments for the development of dual water piping
systems to allow for the delivery of potable and recycled water for landscaping purposes
to commeraal, industrial, and residential buildings.
AB 2003
Places a bond measure on the ballot to expand the development and use of clean
energy and energy conservation and efficiency projects.
SB 1278
Awards up to 3 grants annually to private developers for projects complying with the
California Green Builder Program.
SB 1670
Places a bond measure on the ballot to implement programs to reduce the energy
purchased by state entities for state-owned and leased buAdings, for retrocommissioning
and recommissioning state buildings, and to assist schools in financing energy efficiency
measures.
~iB 2224
Creates a program to create a standard'¢ed curriculum and training program for
installers of solar energy systems eligble for ratepayer incentives.
AB 2855
Creates new partnership academies to train students in the emerging environmentalty
sound technologies, including design and construction.
MATRIX OF GREEN SUILOING PROGRAM CORRELATIONS
m
C7
d
v@
K
O
O
m
2=
Z
m
g
~~ gg~
$
~
~ ly F
1
g& 1~
i~
s~
~ ~~
>tg
~g ~€
~ 8
~
3 i
gx !fig
i €
~c~ ~
~
~~ $
k
3
3 g~gE
RJ 84 ~ggg !~~{3g
ul$ 1$~8
~ 3
~~ s
~S
8
N
~arg~
~
€
a
~$
~
$
1
a~g ~~
is
a ~ ~
g $
,} 1qy _
$
~
q g9: ~
€ a
3 ~~ ~ ~F$~ ~'~
3 3 ~
~~`
b cY 6.x. ~ b
!
3p
~
oq y3gh~ nu}
-dO~L
~Ei
$~
~
~~(yQj a
CNp EJ
~LL L~~b
~$3~
~Ig
N
4
}Q
}j~
M6~~ s
}} ppo
~` ~g 1~
CX ~pAL i Y..
NI
b
g
~ O
GGGG
fi~fi~~~~
$~_~CE ~
ggp
5g'~ bE
~~s
€n
~
w
a c° i
~~~e a
~'s E~~ ~
<
666 U_
_~~
~ ~
8 g
U &'S I
~ ~~ 1~
~
~.~
E~
P ~~~ 33
~ $
~
AS 9a
~
~
~ tR g$g$ $$QQgg
503 ~
~~
3 3s
C $p. ~{~¢¢yay l
g$e
'm~A ~i~A!$8
~
~ •$$
~q~g ~
~
~~ N
~E~~g~
~a
~ ~ !~
~ ~!~
°
~~ ~E ~
~
~ g.§ ~ 7 ~OF~n ~~ ~'$ F ~°$1~~
$
$$$yyS gg
808 ~g
~~ a
g
28ESlga5
~8T8 ~$
'~$ ~~c
~.~~ ~
UEi ~''g$~$ge..pE~P3
~X~BCS~ yS 5$
6:9
3 9
tSi r~ E U~g~~G4 ~~w
tL3 c483!~~
g ~ISb
R S
~
rx ~
} ~
~
82~
65~~
~-'~.~
`-
~
~
E
L$~
~
E9 II
Sim I
g$. ~, d ~~
€$ $ 98:
~~g ;Lys .- SsF EQ }$
j(
a. 6
~ =~
~ ~
E €~ 5
~
~
$~
8c
~gy gaEF
Ea n~S
np
IIg8
~
R I
~ it
$ 3.
~~ b ~
E 'S g~
$ ti3~$
y p ~(
Se Stl
9
y~
"'j ~i
~l@, N
~V ~
Y
~
a~~ "
~
1- yY
d nN y
o IS
E
$ w
~
^~
~i P
~~ g~~~
$ ~
o
~S
gg~5 ~ ii
~pag
~~{$y
U~~V 5 ~ s
¢ q{{
~2 1$
~p ~ ~ C
3 ~6Y~
~
~ a
e ~S ~ ~ erd„
e
~ !
g
~
d
e ~ u9 - ~ b 3R
$$
: 3
3 0 p~ I
~ g I~
6G- ~E ~~ $ ~ t~tl ~
cS~c4 s° ~~ ~ '~iV 1~
~"
¢~qt~
3~
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
POLICY GUIDE ON PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE
1
American Planning Association
POLICY GUIDE ON PLANNING &
CLIMATE CHANGE
Distribution Draft -April 9, 2008
Policy Guide on Planning and Climate Change
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Y.0 Introduction 3
].1 The Role of Planning 4
1.2 General Scientific Findings 5
1.3 Cope Principles 6
L4 Poticy Guide Overview 7
1.5 Climate Change Policy Findings 8
2.0 Planning to Reduce Climate Change I I
2.1 Emission Reduction Goals & Planning 11
2.2 Regions and Communities 17
2.3 Natural Assets & Open Space 23
2.4 Agricultural Activities 24
2.5 Transportation System 25
2.6 Water & Energy Systems 30
2.7 Research, Educafion & Communications 33
3.0 Mitigating Climate Change 34
3.l Greenhouse Gas Emissions 34
3.2 band Use 36
33 Vehicles 36
3.4 Renewable Energy 39
3.5 Green Buildings 40
4.0 Adapting to Climate Change 42
4.1 Prepazing for Climate Change Impacts 42
4.2 Responding to Climate Change Impacts 44
5.0 Sonrces 46
6.0 Definition of Key Terms tba
7.0 Appendix A -Implementing Policies in Planning Practice tba
2
American Planning Association
Policy Guide on Planning and Climate Change
REVIEW DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
Today, planners have the opportunity and obligation to address the historic challengeof global
climate change. The planning profession and the process of planning are uniquely suited to help
communities make the changes needed to rise to this challenge and achieve the outcomes needed
to create communities of lasting value. This Climate Change Policy Guide recommends a policy
framework to assist communities in dealing with climate change and its implications. Success
will require new policies and a bold new approach to planning.
The earth is getting warmer and it will continue to do so as far into the future as we can see. The
only question is how warm, how fast and how severe the impacts from this climate change.
Climatologists reporting for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) see global warming caused by human activities and express growing fears that warming.
will accelerate in the coming years: Although there have been cold periods alternating with hot
periods throughout history, as well as year-to-year fluctuations, these fluctuations occun•ed over
many centuries. However, the rate of change has never been as rapid as it has been in the past
few years. "The five wannest years since the late 1880's according to NASA scientists, are
2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006."(NASA 2006) On January 9, 2007, NOAA reported that
2006 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous U.S. with a temperature of 55 degrees
above the 20a' Century mean and 0.07 degrees F warmer than 1998, the previously warmest year
on record.
In the last three years, a variety of new conditions and certain extreme experiences have brought
the issue of climate change into the forefront for planners, lawmakers and the public:
1. The earth's temperature may have reached a tipping point. The issue now becomes a
question of how quickly the climate will change and subsequently how significant the
impacts will be;
2. The hurricane season of 2005, specifically Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, were more severe
due to warmer ocean temperatures;
3. Evidence of ocean ice packs melting at alarming rates;
4. Evidence of sea rise due to the rapid melting of the ice fields over land in places such as
Greenland, South America and Antarctica;
5. Changes in seasonal climate affecting the growing season;
G. Extended drought and resultant bnrsh and forest fires;
7. Increased frequency of flooding and strong storms;
8. Evidence from the United Nations IPCC that the earth is warming and
human beings are responsible for this because of increased carbon-based
energy systems and the resulting increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Although scientists believe that the effects of human induced global warming cannot be
eliminated because of the volume of greenhouse gases already emitted into the atmosphere, the
risks of dangerous impacts on ecosystems and human health can be mitigated through two major
strategies: I) reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere and 2)
sequester greater amounts of carbon in biomass or by injecting carbon emissions into the ground.
The built environment is a primary contributor to climate change and GHG emissions. This
makes planning central to any policy solution. Planners must play a key role in changing
development patterns, transportation systems, and regulations in ways that reduce greenhouse
gases emissions. This policy guide provides planners, engaged citizens and elected officials with
strategies to slow the pace of climate change and adapt to its impacts.
1.1 The Role of Planners
A dramatic new response to climate change is required. Business as usual or small, mazginal
reforms will not suffice. The nation and our communities must commit to a thorough,
comprehensive new approach to physical, social and economic planning. Planners must promote
a major shift in the public policies that drive development decisions, growth and infrastructure
investment.
Until recently, most planners have not been directly involved in climate change policy. This has
been an area that was largely left to scientists. Although some planners were concerned with
climate change issues in the 1980's and 90's, most did not focus on this as an area of interest and
practice and were not pushed to do so by elected officials. Physical-change has been so gradual
that the global warming crisis was not taken seriously by many and was considered primarily a
debatable political issue by policymakers.
For the last decade, planners have focused on smart growth and sustainability and have not
always seen them as directly connected to climate change. The American Planning Association
ratified policy guides on both topics. Innovation in these areas have been important, however the
recent rapid physical changes and the emerging policies and politics have tnade it essential for
planners to respond to climate change issues now. For example, the majority of states now have
special commissions, strategic plans on climate change and new legislation which planners will
be called upon to implement. States like California and its Action Team stress the importance of
planning strategies in implementing new climate policies. Planners will increasingly be required
to respond to new climate-related emissions targets.
Planning can play an important role in changing societal actions that can slow the pace of climate
change, mitigate the changes that do occur and allow adaptation to the ultimate effects of climate
change. Change that planners bring to the table will be more fundamental than making sure
everyone drives a hybrid or uses biofuels. The planner's role will be extremely important
because it will deal with such basic issues as community design and increasing development
density. We all recognize that plauning for and implementing this type of change requires
significant time. As such, there is an urgent need for the adoption ofthese policies, in order to
provide guidance for professional planners, engaged citizens and elected offcials.
Four ideas form a framework for this guide. First, planners' responses to climate change need to
be based on the best possible science. Because climate change is bringing about previously
4
unrecorded conditions, projections based on new scientific modeling are the best way to
anticipate and respond. Planners have to have access to vital data, information and resources to
help them interpret these unprecedented changes.
Second, current science indicates that the specific impacts of climate change are highly regional
and even local in nature. Therefore, climate change policies cannot be based on cone-size-fits-
al! approach. Planners must be aware of what the future holds for their particular geographic
region and formulate their strategies accordingly.
Third, planners need to understand that adapting to climate change is just as important as
mitigating it. Planners can certainly have a significant effect on climate change mitigation
through encouraging higher density development patterns, reduction of vehicle miles traveled
(VM'I), use of green building techniques, and similar measures. However, due to the extent of
climate change that is projected under even the most aggressive mitigation scenarios, planners
will still need to address rising sea levels, greater drought conditions and new flooding
circumstances in adaptation planning efforts.
Finally, planners need to communicate about climate change in different ways than they do for
shorter-term plamring issues. Policies that we develop now must have a timeframe that will span
generations. Given how hard it is to keep people engaged over even the short-term, planners will
need new communication tools to explain climate change issues and maintain the focus on long-
term adaptation and mitigation responses.
This policy guide seeks to strengthen connections between traditional planning and the emerging
field of community and regional climate change planning. Planning is vital because of its
comprehensive approach to the built environment, but traditional approaches are not enough to
mitigate climate change. Anew type of planning and public policy has to be developed.
Through these policies planners can mitigate the effects of climate change and adapt to existing
conditions caused by warming of the earth.
1.2 General Scientific Findings
Finding 1: The scientific consensus is that warming of the earth largely results from a buildup
of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations ur the atmosphere and human
activities, including fossil fuel burning for industrial processes and transportation, changes in
development, and deforestation is the principal cause. People are creating this change by
burning nature's vast stores of coal, oil and natural gas. Global GHG emissions created by
human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970
and 2004.
Finding 2: Warmer winters with related earlier snow melts will create higher sea levels. The
impacts of rising sea levels will be flooding in lowland areas and submersion of coastal beaches.
In addition, submersion will allow saltwater intrusion into groundwater and freshwater estuaries,
as well as upstream from where rivers now empty into oceans. In the arid West, reduced snow
pack will result in the loss of scarce water supplies. The loss of habitat caused by these changes
will affect many species of plants and animals. Because of increased urbanization and the speed
with which climate changes are expected to occur, many, if not most, species will be adversely
affected and threatened.
Finding 3: Empirical evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural
systems are already being affected by regional climate changes. This is particularly evident in
temperature increases.
Finding 4: Advances in scientific analysis show that discernible human influences extend
beyond avera~e temperature to other aspects of climate such as: (1) sea level rise during the last
half of the 20 century- (2) changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical storm tracks and
temperature patterns. (3) increased extreme temperatures both hot and cold. (4) increased risk of
heat waves, area affected by drought since 1970's and frequency of heavy precipitation events.
Finding 5: There is much evidence that even with current climate change mitigation policies
and related sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over
the next few decades.
Finding 6: Human induced warming and sea level rise will continue for centuries due to the
time scales associated with climate processes and how they respond to changes. Even if GHG
concentrations were to be stabilized the response will be slow.
Finding 7: Human induced warming is likely to create impacts that are abrupt or irreversible,
such as the elimination of certain animal species.
Finding 8: The ability of populations to adapt to the effects of climate change is intimately
connected to social and economic development but is unevenly distributed across and within
societies.
Finding 9: A wide variety of policies and instruments are available to governments to create the
incentives for taking action to mitigate climate change. Their applicability depends on national
circumstances and regional context.
Finding 10: Neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can eliminate all climate change impacts;
however, they can complement each other and together can significantly reduce the risks of
climate change.
Finding Il: Many of the impacts of climate change can be reduced, delayed or avoided by
implementation of mitigation strategies. Mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to
three decades will have a large hnpact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels.
1.3 Core Principles
The following are core principles which have been developed based on the abovementioned
findings and which serve as the foundation of the policies herein. The Core Principles of
planning for climate change are:
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) primarily through the reduction of fossil fuel
use. This is critical to slowing the pace of climate change. As one of the largest
contributors to this problem, the United States must adopt an overall goal or target for
GHG reduction. The policies and actions included in each of the following policy guide
sections are intended to help reach that goal.
• Coordinate the actions of units of govemment -Because it is both a global and local
issue, climate change policy must be coordinated among all levels of government.
Patterns of behavior, development and policy must change.
• Promote interdisciplinary action among professional areas of expertise and among the
public, private and non-profit sectors.
• Choose strategies that are economical as determined through a comprehensive assessment .
of community energy resources and use.
• Establish abalancedapproach- Recognize that action on climate change must include a
mix of education (providing more complete information so decision,makers make fetter
choices), incentives (whether through funding or other means) and regulation (at fedbnl,
state and local levels).
• Assist people and places that need it -Recognize that special assistance maybe needed
for the people and places that are most impacted by the effects of climate change, but
least able to change on their own. Consider issues of social justice, environmental equity
or special attention to critical sites.
1.4 Policy Guide Overview
The policy recommendations of the guide are divided into 3 sections. Section 2 presents policies
which recommend ways to use Planning to Reduce Climate Change. Included in this section
are policies dealing with planning practice, as well as raising awareness and education. These
policies promote planning outcomes that reduce vehicle miles traveled and lead to lower GHG
emissions, such as mixed use development, high density development near transit, infill and
redevelopment to utilize existing utilities and services. Section 2 presents planning policies
related to various transportation modes and systems that can be used to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. It also presents policies on mitigating climate change in all sizes of communities,
agricultural and rural areas.
Section 3 provides policies on Reducing Climate Change. This section urcludes policies That
address standards, regulations and incentives to lower VMT and the production of greenhouse
gases. To address the planning challenge of global warming, planners will need to reconsider
and in some cases revise or add to the many standards and regulations used in planning practice.
For example, specific regulatory revisions or additions may be needed to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions related to transportation, building energy use, electricity generation, industry, landfills,
and agriculture. Similar regulatory changes may also be needed to adapt to the effects of a
changed climate, for example to protect against floods, to conserve water in the face of drought,
and to reduce the risk or reality of environmental injustice related to climate change.
Section 4 presents policies on Adapting to Climate Change. These policies address the idea
that no matter what we do today and in the near future in terms of mitigation, some level of
climate change is already oceurring and will continue and we need to adapt our lifestyle and
communities to prepare for the impacts. Policies include planning communities to avoid
development in hazardous areas like flood plains or fire prone dry areas.
.:..
Adaptation and mitigation aze two sides of the same coin. We must address both activities which
exacerbate climate change as well as make plans to respond to the changes that are occurring and
will continue into the future.
1.5 Climate Change Policy Findings
Finding I: Land use patterns play a significant role in reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
and thus in reducing energy consumption and its associated greenhouse gas emissions. VMT can
be reduced by promoting strategies such as compact development in close proximity to existing
development, high density land uses arranged to encourage pedestrians, bicycle use and transit
use by promoting higher densities, transit oriented and development of mixed use and clustering
of uses.
"When viewed in total, the evidence on land use and driving shows that compact developmen
will reduce the need to drive between 20 and 40 percent, as compared with development on the
outer suburban edge with isolated homes, workplaces, and other destinations. It is realistic to
assume a 30 percent cut in VMT with compact development Making reasonable assumptions
about growth rates, the market share of compact development and the relationship between COz
reduction and VMT reduction, smart growth could, by itself, reduce total transportation related
COz emissions from current trends by 7 to 10 percent as of 2050."
Finding 2: Parking and transportation policies can be employed to discourage private auto use
and therefore reduce VMT and its associated COz emissions.
Current policies encourage auto use, and particularly individual auto use, through indirect
subsidies. The cost to drivers is virtually the same whether they occupy road space at peak traffic
hours or at off hours. The road use fees chazged to trackers are far below the actual cost of their
wear and tear on the road system. Parking fees are paid, at least in part, by employers, merchants
and public agencies. Congestion-based pricing for road use has been shown to reduce traffic and
related COz emissions. Eliminating freeJsubsidized parking has been shown to result in an
increase in carpooling and use of public transportation .
Finding 3: Local programs that encourage the preservation of historic buildings and their
adaptive reuse result in energy conservation These buildings are typically closers to population
centers and adaptive reuse generally involves lower impacts on natural resources(e.g. tree cutting
for lumber), than new construction In addition the maintenance, restoration and adaptive reuse
of existing urban areas (including their buildings, infrastructure and other assets) also reduces
energy use and VMT.
Finding 4: Use of"green" building standards such as the LEED Rating System and similar
systems result in energy conservation compared to conventional codes.
About 75% of the electricity used in the country goes toward heating, cooling, and lighting
buildings. Since over 70% of electrical energy is generated by conventional electrical power
sources such as coal- and gas-fined generation plants, reducing the amount of power consumed
by buildings is as important to addressing climate change as reduction of auto emissions.
Research indicates that sufficient energy falls on the roof and south face of buildings to satisfy
the power demands of those buildings.
Finding 5: Providing a range of housing opportunities within a commnunity decreases commuting
and its associated greenhouse gas emissions. It also reduces the need for private vehicle nips
associated with job commutes.
Finding 6: Communities can encourage the production and use of energy generated from
renewable resources by changing land use, building and site design standards.
Finding 7: Changing the source of fuel used for electrical power generation from fossil fuels to
renewable energy will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While renewables must be
pursued and made economically available, technologies to cleanse emissions from traditional
sources should be expanded. Coal generation of electricity produces the bulk of greenhouse
gases. Steps should be taken to reduce the generation of greenhouse gas emissions from coal
fired power plants.
Finding 8: Communities can be made more resilient and defensible to the effects of climate
change through land use policies that encourage development in areas away from hazards such as
wildfires, land erosion and floods. This is also true in aeeas that have an appropriate level and
mix of resources to allow sustainable lifestyles.
Finding 9: Protecting and enhancing green spaces in and near communities provides
opportunities to protect and enhance carbon sirilcs in soils, vegetation, and streambeds to mitigate
a watrning climate. Greenspace protection programs should not only be sensitive to natural
ecological proc8sses and habitat needs, but should also include a fair calculation of fair
greenhouse gas mitigation. For example, native old-growth forests outperfonn landscaped lawns,
farms and gardens.
Finding 10: Promoting water conservation, and the use of nearby water sources reduces the
amount of energy necessary to transport it, and therefore lowers greenhouse gas emissions.
Finding 11: Land use and urban design that retain natural areas and assets and incorporate
indigenous plants of others that are appropriate to the community's climate reduce energy and
water consumption.
Finding IZ: Growing food for local consumption lowers transportation costs thereby lowering
the use offossil-based fuels.
Finding 13: Centralized facilities equipped with communications technologies such as
videoconferencingatlow community residents artd businesses to conduct business and share
information in ways that minimize travel thereby reducing VMT.
Finding 14: Planning and development policies to address climate change tray have a different
focus in major metropolitan areas, micropolitan azeas and rural communities. Policies may also
vary in response to the ecosystem in which a comtnunity is located (such as coastal areas, river
floodplain, desert or hillside). While all of these places can play a role in addressing climate
change, the specific role may vary
Finding I5: Planning is a tool that can assist decision-makers including regional agencies and
collaborations; individual local governments; neighborhood or other small area organizations;
individual property owners; and state and federal regulatory and funding agencies to make better
decisions and positively impact climate change.
Finding 16: Nationally, the transportation sector is responsible for 33 percent of COz emissions,
and if current trends continue, those emissions are projected to increase rapidly. The
transportation sector's COz emissions are a function of vehicle fuel efficiency, fuel carbon
content, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Significantly reducing emissions in the future
requires improvements in all three areas.
Finding 17: Federal and state laws and regulations addressing vehicle fuel efficiency and fuel
carbon content aze critically important in helping to meet riational climate change goals in the
transportation sector. However, these laws and regulations can only succeed if VMT is reduced
significantly at the same time.
Current policy proposals to improve vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce fuel carbon content in the
transportation sector would leave passenger vehicle COZ emissions well above 1990 levels in
2030, significantly off-course for meeting 2050 targets. This is due, in large part, to the fact that
VM1' is projected to wntinue growing over time. Therefore, it is important to develop planning
strategies to reduce travel demand, and shift travel demand to transportation modes that have the
lowest carbon output.
Findings 18: Economic strategies that reduce GHG emissions such as a nationwide and
economy-wide cap and trade system for carbon emissions are needed to protnote reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions in an amount necessary to slow climate change.
Finding 19: Currently there are few communities regulating development in a way that accounts
for or reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Finding 20: There is a need for new standards, regulations, and technologies that can help
reduce GHG and prepare communities to adapt to the effects of climate change. Revision of
many existing standards and regulations should be undertaken to reduce emissions and better
prepare communities to adapt to climate change.
Finding 21: Clearer definitions of the concepts and issues of climate change aze needed to
facilitate more effective public discussions of climate change and establish a greater willingness
among the public and elected officials to make changes needed to mitigate clunate change and
prepare communities for adaptation.
10
Finding 22: Sea level is rising and the long-term impact of this phenotnenon requires a systemic
change in thinking. Traditional strategies that have been used and worked in the past such as
shore protection and hazdening, levees and sea gates will probably be inadequate. New options
including natural retreat, shoreline nourishment and land elevation should be incorporated. The
highest priority for new regulatory or technological initiatives should be placed on those areas in
which the most immediate and substantial risk exists and in which the impacts can be
significantly reduced or avoided.
Finding 23: Drought and wildfire areas are intensifying and threatening more populations. This
is due to a combination of the growth of new development into wilderness areas and changing
rainfall patterns initiated by climate change.
Finding 24: Climate change and its impact on arable land will reduce the amount of land
available for agriculture production or future development of any kind.
Finding 25: Planning for climate change should include anticipating the new opportunities and
problems that may arise from moving to alternative energy sources and making other societal
changes recommended to slow climate change.
Finding 26: Climate models are an important planning tool that can help communities anticipate
and respond td changes. For example, models that predict changing paths for ocean currents will
impact different areas in different ways. Planning based on these models can allow the
appropriate response at the appropriate location.
2. Planning to Reduce Climate Change
The essential ingredients of a successful planning process are vital to successfully addressing
climate change. First, there must be agreement on the vision or goal that is the desired result of
planning and implementation. Second, there must be a collaborative. approach that includes all
levels of government, the diverse interests that will be affected by climate change and the various
professional disciplines that can contribute to solutions. Third, the action plan must include a
balance among educational efforts, creation of incentives and regulatory tools. Finally, the
people and places that are most impacted but least able to address change on their own must
receive special attention to provide social justice and appropriate action for critical sites.
Planners use this approach in a wide range of settings and are well suited to play leadership roles
in preparing for and acting on the effects of climate change. Planning is an essential part of
climate change solutions, but planning policy and practice must lead change in communities and
development patterns to reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts.
2.1 Emission Reduction Goals & Plans
General Policy til: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support the adoption of greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that limit
increases in global average temperature to 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels.
11'
Specific Policy #1.1: Emissions Reduction Goals
Planners support emission reduction goals and policies at federal, state, and local levels that will
result in reducing greenhouse gas emissions at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, with
appropriate near-term goals to reach that tazget and minimize cumulative emissions, such as
reductions of 25-40% of 1990 levels by 2020.
Reasons to support
Emission reductions at this level, in conjunctionwith similar actions worldwide, have a 50%
chance of stabilizing global average temperatures at 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels. ~
• The United Nations and European Union have both adopted the goal. of stabilizing global
temperature ai no more than 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels. (By cotnparison,
`best estimates' based on the continuation of current trends indicate an increase of 1.8°C
to 4°C by 2100.)
• Failure to reduce emissions to this level increases the likelihood of catastrophic impacts
of climate change such as: melting ice sheets and rising sea levels, widespread land and
marine species extinction, intensified natural disasters, and threatened water drinking
supplies.
• Global reduction of emissions to levels stabilizing temperatures at 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-
industrial levels can be achieved using existing technology and technology anticipated to.
be available in coming decades.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to this level is estimated to reduce global GDP
growth no more that 0.12% per year.
• Near-term action is particularly important given the cutulative nature of greenhouse gas
emissions (reductions in the near ternt result in a lower eventual atmospheric
concentration than the same reductions delayed several decades into the future).
• Continuing scientific research suggests that smaller increases in temperature may exceed
critical ecosystem thresholds, resulting in more dramatic short-term effects than
previously projected. The prospect of such abrupt ecosystem changes makes it even
more important to stabilize global temperatures at or below these goals.
Specific Policy #1.2: National Action on Climate Change
Planners support strong leadership by the federal government in establishing policies, programs,
national standards, and funding prioritization that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and prepare
communities to adapt to climate change.
Reasons to support:
The Federal government can provide funding, produce research and establish baseline regulation
and policy on many topics related to climate change, such as motor vehicle fuel efficiency
standards and energy policy. Also, action at the federai level can establish larger and more
predictable markets for cap-and-trade emissions reduction systems than can state or regional
actions. Providing for such action at the federal level will result in a consistent approach
nationwide and greater potential for successfully achieving emission reduction goals.
~ Sources: IPCC, Union of Concerned Scientists.
12
Specifc Policy #1.3: State, Regional and Local Action on Climate Change
Planners support action by state, regional and local governments to set greenhouse gas emission
goals, develop and implement plans to address climate change, and include climate impacts in
plans and development reviews.
Reasons to support:
Regardless of federal policy on climate change, there is a need to act at the state, regional and
local level. Impacts of climate change will be felt in different ways indifferent parts of the U.S.,
so state or regional plans are necessary to provide the appropriate guidance for specific areas and
communities. In addition, decisions about development patterns and infrastructure investments
will have an important impact on the nation's ability to reach greenhouse gas emission goals.
These decisions are usually the responsibility of local governments so they should play an active
role in planning for, and taking action on climate change.
Specific Policy #1.4: Planning to address uncertainty
Planners support policies requiring climate change plans that provide a framework for decision-
makingand actions and which prepare communities to mitigate and adapt to climate change, but
which are flexible enough to address the continuing uncertainties of pace and degree. These
plans should include a longer planning horion, multiple scenarios, and indicators and triggers to
guide action.
Reasons to support:
Planning to address climate change is particularly subject to uncertainties: there may be a long
time horizon before impacts are felt, there is uncertainty about the changes occurring in the
global systems, and there arc many unknowns about the costs and benefits of local action.
However, this is also an issue where action must begin now. So the planning processes for
climate change mitigation and adaptation must build consensus on direction and on ways to
respond to future uncertainties while taking action in the short run based orrthe best available
assessments.
A three-step planning approach enables states, regions and communities to address climate
change and build agreement about actions at three different levels of impact. First, seek to avoid
the impacts of climate change on communities by locating development outside areas with the
highest potential for climate change-related risk (such as areas that will be inundated by sea level
rise). Second, mitigate the potential effects of climate change by planning for and taking action
to reduce greenhouse gas emission in the state, region or community. Third, include policies and
actions that enablc the community to adapt to climate change effects that have a high probability
of occurring.
Suggested techniques for planning include: the use of a longer planning time horizon, such as
100 to 500 years; the use of scenarios to evaluate alternative outcomes; and the use of indicators
and `triggers' that will enable the community to react to actual experience and refine the plan's
direction over time, and periodic monitoring and evaluation to ensure that changing scenarios are
addressed.
13
Specific Policy #1.5 Reporting Greenhouse Gas Impacts at All Levels of Planning
All regional, urban and neighborhood plans should seek to quantify and report estimated
greenhouse gas emissions, and compare this to the community and regional averages. Where
emissions cannot be precisely quantified, plans should discuss the impacts of recommendations
on greenhouse gas emissions on a qualitative basis. Climate planning elements should be
incorporated in comprehensive plans and considered in environmental and other development
review processes.
Reasons to support:
Understanding the impacts of plan recommendations-and development proposals on greenhouse
gas emissions is an essential first step. Allowing planners, elected officials and the public to
judge the impact of a plan on emissions will help them evaluate the extent to which it contributes
to greenhouse gas reduction goals and the tong term consequences of climate change.
SpeciTtc Policy #1.6: O.S. International Leadership on Climate Change
Planners support U.S. leadership in international efforts to create the next international
framework for achieving appropriate greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
Reasons to support:
The Kyoto Protocol, which established an international framework for addressing climate change,
was adopted in 1997 and went into effect in 2005. It will expire in 2012. Before its expiration, a
new international framework will be needed that incorporates more recent scientific findings and
the experienced gained through implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Since the United States
is and will remain one of the world's top greenhouse gas emitters, it should participate in
creating and implementing this new framework. U.S. involvement also brings extensive
scientific expertise and other resources to this effort. U.S. leadership is vital to bringing
emerging economies, especially China and India, into an international climate change regime.
An Inclusive and Interdisciplinary Approach
General Policy #2: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support programs to address climate change that involve all levels of government
and that rely on interdisciplinary collaboration and coordination.
Specific Policy #2.1: Federal Support for Intergovernmental Climate Change Planning
Establish new federal assistance programs for planning for climate change and expand eligible
activities under existing federal community development, transportation and energy programs to
promote the integration of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions into local and regional
planning.
Reasons to support:
Among the best ways to address climate change at the local and regional level is by adapting and
improving planning, policy priorities and capital funding that already direct public and private
investment and development. Changing planning to address climate change will require in new
analysis and implementation techniques that many communities have not undertaken or used in
the past. Federal funding; such as a `climate change planning grant' administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, or the Department of Housing and
14
Urban Development, could provide needed resources to help communities adopt plans and
policies changes to address the issue. In addition to direct funding of local and regional
comprehensive planning, these resources could also fund pilot programs and research into best
ptxctices. Expanding existing grant, research and pilot programs to include new discretionary
funding and policies that support investments to address climate change would further enhance
the ability of local communities to confront climate impacts in plarming and development.
Specific Policy #2.2: Regional Coordination
Encourage coordinatiou and collaboration in multi jurisdictional planning initiatives to address
climate change and its implications at a regional level, including adopting new requirements and
structures for collective action on climate-related planning and projects.
Reasons to support:
Action to address climate change involves decisions at all levels, including choices made by
individual local jurisdictions. However, collaborations among jurisdictions can make it easier for
each community to act because research, programs and facilities can be shared. Regional
coordination will be necessary in order to meet aggressive targets for reduction of GHG
emissions. Reaching these targets will not be possible based on the actions of individual
jurisdictions or communities. In addition, action that affects regional investments or assets will
be more effective if it is the result of regional initiatives and partnerships. Regional visioning
programs and blueprint plans create excellent opportunities to build action agreements to address
climate change and to set goals in conjunction with coordinated planning for regional
development and infrastructure investment.
Specific Policy #2.3: Intergovernmental Transportation Planning
Develop unproved systems for integrating transportation planning at the federal, state, regional
and local levels to ensure a consistent approach towards developing transportation systems that
reduce vehicle miles traveled by ensuring transportation choice. This will likely include shifting
funding into transit, promoting enhancements and "complete streets", ensuring the
interconnection oflocal, regional attd national transportation systems and discouraging single
occupancy vehicles as the primary source to transportation. Project funding should be linked to
GHG reduction metrics and performance standards.
Reasons to support:
The successful fmtctioning of a transportation system has deep and long-term consequences for
the quality of both the built and natural environments and the people wlto inhabit them.
Transportation represents a significant area of concern for professional planners as one of the
largest and fastest growing sources of GHG emissions, and should be a major focus of interest in
policy options to improve planning processes so they address climate change.
Specific Policy #2.4: Federal Surface Transportation Authorization
Support new authorization of the federal surface transportation programs with increased priority
for funding public transit and integrated regional and metropolitan planning as a means to reduce
the greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. The federal program needs to
explicitly incorporate climate change and shift priorities toward programs that encourage
reinvestment in existing infraswcture and communities, supports public transportation and
transit oriented development, and improves and empowers metropolitan planning.
15
Reasons to support:
The reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program presents an opportunity to
direct federal funding decisions and priorities to help address climate change. The
reauthorization should establish goals for reduction oftransportation-related greenhouse gas
emissions. Coordination of transportation networks with comprehensive planning and urban
design is critical to this efToR, and should be a top priority in the way funding is allocated.
Funding for public transit and for alternatives (such as walking and biking) that reduce the need
for automobile travel within metropolitan areas should receive high priority. Restructuring of the
program is needed so metropolitan areas can set their own investment priorities and allocate
funds across all transporiaGon modes. In these ways, the nation's investments in transportation
can make a positive and significant impact on its efforts to address climate charige.
Specific Policy #2.5: Multi-Disciplinary. Approach
Establish opportunities for collaboration among design professionals, scientists, social scientists,
economists and other key professions to develop and carry out plans that reduce generation of
greenhouse gas.
Reasons to support:
Effective action to address climate change will rely on expertise, analysis and recommendations
from many different disciplines. Climate Change cannot be solved by a single discipline or by
actions affecting only one azea of expertise. Since planners often are responsible for programs
that engage stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, they are particularly well-positioned for
leadership in convening and conducting the interdisciplinary processes needed to address various
aspects of climate change.
Specific Policy #2.6: Climate-Related Performance and Location Efficiency Standards for
Federal Infrastructure and Community Assistance
Establish evaluation criteria and requirements for new and existing federal and state grant, loan,
and tax credit programs supporting infrastructure investment and community development that
take into account performance standards and measures of efficiency supporting key climate
goals, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to the impacts of climate
change.
Reasons to Support:
Federal funding is one of the single most important catalysts for and determinants of key
infrastructure investments and development decisions. Federal policy should recognize this role
and incorporate climate-related criteria into decisions about the allocation of federal assistance.
1n addition, infrastructure and community development programs should explicitly expand
eligibility to cover climate and energy efficiency activities- As noted elsewhere in this guide,
available funding for such programs should be increased. These necessary increases in funding
should be linked to specific standards of performance and carbon-reducing outcomes.
Balance Among Interests and Impacts
General Policy #3: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support actions to address climate change that strike an appropriate balance
16
between stakeholder costs and the benefits they receive from climate change mitigation or
adaptation.
Specific Policy #3.1: Stakeholder Interests
Engage affected stakeholder groups in initiatives to create and impleme~rt climate change plans
and incorporate public participation into climate planning_
Reasons to support:
Success in addressing climate change will require many groups to change their current behaviors,
business practices and investment decisions. These stakeholders should be part of the processes
that create climate change goals; plans and implementation measures. An inclusive process
allows diverse concerns to be considered and increases the potential that these stakeholders will
support the plans and actions that result.
Climate change plans should reflect the adage that one should think globally and act locally. As
with many environmental issues small incremental impacts may have broad cumulative impacts.
Local initiatives and participation encourage a greater sense of ownership and consequently
greater buy in to responsibility. The work of planners should encourage personal responsibility
in the daily actions of local communities and the individuals who live in them.
Specific Policy #3.2: Action Toolkit
Use the full complement of planning and implementation toots -including educational efforts,
incentive programs and regulatory measures - to address climate change in ways that are
appropriate and successful in diverse local settings.
Reasons to support:
Every community, large or small, has a role to play in addressing climate change. Individual
households, businesses and organizations can each contribute to success. Successful clirnate
change plans should be tailored to include the mix of tools and techniques that are most
appropriate to a cotnmunity's location, characteristics, institutional structure and culture. This
mix of tools is most likely to be implemented and is thus most likely to be effective in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
Specific Policy #3.3: Equity Assistance and Environmental Justice
Support standards and regulation to reduce the impacts of climate change on those least able to
manage the impacts.
Reasons to support:
Like other environmental justice issues, climate change is likely to hit populations hardest who
are least able to adapt, such as low-income communities in flood prone areas or families who
cannot afford adequate home insurance or higher energy prices if GHG mitigation measures
substantially raise those prices. Action to address climate change should seek to reduce impacts
on these communities, both of climate change itself and of the programs to address it.
2.2 Regions and Communities
Creation of Sastainable. Creep Communities
17
General Policy #4: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and
Divisions, and planners support green communities -places that are sustainable, resilient
and neutral in their contribution to climate change.
Specific Policy #4.1: Communities with Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Create (whether new or existing) neighborhoods, communities and regions that enable the nation
and the world to reach global carbon reduction targets. Restructure policies and public
incentives to encowage investment and development decisions that support GHG emission
reduction goals.
Reasons to support:
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. requires different pattens of development
and community design than those that have been common in the past 50 years. Action to address
climate change begins with neighborhood planning that alters these patterns, giving residents the
ability to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. Similazly, area plans and plans for major
developments should reduces greenhouse gas etissions from the activities that occur within their
area and as a result of travel to and from destinations within the area covered by the plan.
Neighborhood and area plans that are `carbon-neutral' or achieve other greenhouse gas emission
goals form the building blocks for communities and regions that can achieve their overall climate
change goals.
Specific Policy #4.2: Land Use and Transportation
Integrate spatial planning and transportation planning so that the development patterns support
mobility choices and reduced trip lengths to meet basic needs thereby allowing the transportation
facilities to help achieve community climate change goals.
Reasons to support:
A community's ability to achieve climate change goals will depend on whether its residents can
make choices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since trip choices and lengths -whether to
travel in asingle-occupancy auto or take transit, whether to walk or drive to local shopping and
restaurant areas, how long a route is required from home to work - all affect transportation-
related greenhouse gas emission,. it is important that residents be able to choose trips that lower
these impacts. By closely integrating the planning for land uses and all forms of transportation,
communities can make these choices more realistic and desirable for their residents.
Specific Policy #4.3: Sustainability
Build communities (whether new or existing) that are sustainable, resilient. and regenerative.
Incorporate new standards and regulations that promote sustainable practices and measwe both
performance and outcomes.
Reasons to support:
Addressing climate change requires a dramatic departure from `business as usual' for community
design and development. While traditional measures of success aze still important (such as
adding jobs, building new subdivisions or increasing the tax base), reducing greenhouse gas
emissions requires that communities consi8er additional criteria for success.
18
Sustainable communities manage their resources to meet today's needs while retaining resources
for future generations to use. They help address climate change because they use resources like
energy and water more efficiently, and thus reduce greenhouse gas generation from carbon-based
fuel consumption.
Resilient communities respond to changes in the environment, the economy, technology and
other areas in a way that continues their appeal as places to live and work. They help address
climate change because they accommodate future residents in existing places, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions because they decrease the pressure to expand urban areas outward and
use carbon-based resources to pave new areas, build new structures and extend vehicle trip
lengths.
Regenerative communities are designed so they do not just minimize damage to the natural
environment, but actually restore the natural systems of the community and the connedtions of
people to community. This evolving design approach helps address climate change because it
restores natural `green infrasuvcture' instead of relying on engineered systems that require
higher energy and carbon inputs. By strengthening the connections between people, a particular
community and its unique natural setting, these communities nay help build the political will
and civic engagement that are essential to modify lifestyles and expectations enough to have an
impact on climate change trends.
Development Patterns that Reduce Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
General Policy #5: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support development patterns in new development and redevelopment that
minimize the emission of greenhouse gas from transportation and travel.
Specific Policy #5.1: Mixed Use Development
Plan for development patterns that mix land uses so jobs, services, schools, shopping and other
destinations are near residents' homes and neighborhoods. Adopt specific incentives and
requirements that promote mixed-use development, including removing bamets to mixed use
project financing. Federal and state housing, transportation and infrastmcture programs should
incorporate specific standards for mixed-use development
Reasons to support:
Mixed-use development reduces climate change impacts in several ways. By locating diverse
uses close to one another, it reduces the volume of daily vehicle trips, as well the need for private
vehicles and parking facilities. Reducing travel distances reduces greenhouse gas emissions,
even if the trips are taken in gasoline-powered vehicles. Shorter distances also make alternative.
travel modes - such as biking or walking -more feasible and likely, further reducing the
emission of greenhouse gases.
Specific Policy #5.2: Development Centers with Higher Density
Plan for local and regional development with higher density mixed-use development centers near
transit stops and stations, and in other key locations such as historic town squares. Regulatory
and other incentives should be adopted to encourage higher density development, particularly
near transit. Development reviews policies and processes should acknowledge the GHG emission
l9
reduction impacts of higher density development and the negative climate impacts of sprawling,
low density projects.
Reasons to support:
Pollution generated from transportation constitutes a major portion of GHG emissions worldwide.
Development patterns that reduce the number and length of trips insingle-occupant motor
vehicles will reduce these emissions. Higher intensity centers accomplish this objective in
several ways. Higher intensity development itself means that more desired destinations are close
by, making walking or biking feasible choices, and making it easier to take care of several tasks
in a single trip. Town centers, historic or newly-created, illustrate these advantages. If these
higher intensity centers are located near transit stops and stations, then more people will be able
to use transit for more trips.
Specific Policy #5.3: Transit Ready Locations
Use comprehensive planning efforts and policy incentives to create and encourage `transit-ready'
development patterns in major metropolitan regions (or parts of metropolitan regions) that do not
yet have public transit. Change federal transit investment review criteria to better acknowledge
climate impacts, economic development impacts, and supportive comprehensive planning.
Reasons to support:
It is very difficult to justify transit in areas that have already developed at very low densities. At
the same tune, many growing communities are not served by transit, so they are reluctant to plan
for a development pattern that may never be served or have mazket support. `Transit-ready'
development patterns create centers with more intense, mixed use development compared to
their sunounding development pattern. Before public transportation (bus, BRT, or fixed rail) is
available, these areas can give residents the ability to reduce VMT by allowing each vehicle trip
to serve multiple purposes, or by making trips on foot or by bicycle easier. If or when the
community or region decides to invest in public transportation, those facilities will serve a
development pattern that has already been designed to support public transportation.
Specific Policy #5.4: Jobs-Housing Proximity
Plan for jobs and appropriately priced housing located close to one other so people at all income
levels can live near their places of work. Adopt policies that incentivizernixed-income
development near job centers and recognize the positive fiscal impacts on households in transit-
accessible, high density locations.
Reasons to support:
In many places, the cost of housing prevents people from living in the community where they
work. These workers must find more affordable housing in locations that are distant from their
jobs and may ke accessible only by automobile. This development-pattern results in increased
vehicle miles traveled and increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Specific Policy #5.5: Location of Public Facilities
Ensure that schools and public facilities are centrally located in communities and are accessible
by walking, biking or transit; these facilities should be jointly located whenever feasible. GHG
20
emission impacts, particularly through potential for VMT reduction, should be considered in all
location and investnent decisions for public facilities.
Reasons to support:
Schools and other public facilities aze major trip generators, and planners have great influence
over their siting. Planners should seek to locate schools in areas with good transit, pedestrian and
bicycle connections to their attendance areas, helping to make Safe Routes to School programs
feasible and reducnrg the emissions from dedicated school transportation and parents driving
children to school. Similarly, public facilities with significant customer traffic should be located
where there is good transit, pedestrian or bike access. Co-location of public facilities, and
location near town centers, further helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the
number and length of trips needed to use public services.
Specific Policy #5.6: Compact, Higher Density Communities
Support community design and public investment decisions that create compact development
patterns and higher densities that reduce vehicle mites traveled within a community. Policies
should also prioritize the rnodemization of infrastructure supporting such development.
Reasons to support:
More compact communities make it easier for people and goods to move within a community by
walking, bicycling or utilizing mass transportation instead of using an automobile. With average
residential densities of 10 to 12 units per acre, compact development can support public transit
systems, further reducing travel by private automobile. Conversely, by minimizing sprawling
development (lots between 1 and 5 acres) on the edges of.urban areas, a region can reduce
-greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and retain natural areas that provide carbon sinks..
Specific Policy #5.7: Compact Regions
Use planning policies regarding infrastructure investments, extension of urban services and
utilities and preservation of natural or agricultural azeas to create compact regional development
patterns that reduce vehicle miles traveled within the region.
Reasons to support:
Compact development patterns, paticulazly when inclose proximity to existing development,
encourage the use of alternative transportation modes by reducing the distance between uses.
Compact regions can support lower levels of motor vehicle use and resource consumption than
lower density, sprawling development. Policy tools that can support compact regional
development include establishment of urban growth boundaries, decisions to invest infrastructure
funds inalready-developed areas, policies regarding extension of urban services, and initiatives
that create greenbelts around urban development.
Specific Policy #5.8: In£11 Development and Redevelopment
Promote infill development, redevelopment of existing neighborhoods, preservation of historic
structures and the adaptive reuse of buildings within the currently-developed azeas of
communities and regions. Create new incentives and policies that promote infill investment
Prioritize infill development instate and federal housing, transportation and infrastructure
21
programs. Tax credits and other incentives and assistance should tazget the reuse and rehab of
vacant properties.
Reasons to support:
Existing neighborhoods and communities are an important asset in efforts to address climate
change. Public and private sector investments have created infrastructure and amenities to serve
homes and businesses in these areas. Reinvestment in these sites allows a community (or a
region) to accommodate new residents and businesses within its existing fabric. Such
reinvestment maximizes the use of existing infrastructure, encourages the preservation and
continued use of historic buildings and supports existing businesses and services. It reduces the
need for new roads and infrastructure, and can encourage walking, biking and use of transit. It
preserves open space and greenfields, thus reducing sprawl and retaining azeas that serve as
carbon sinks.
Specific Policy #5:9: Brownfields
Advocate the reuse of remediated brownfield sites to reduce distances between destinations and
relieve pressures for greenfield development. Expand and improve current state and federal
brownfields programs to further encourage development, continue addressing liability issues,
increase project funding, and improve coordination with comprehensive plam~ing.
Reasons to support:
Open, undeveloped land provides valuable resources and ecosystem services such as the local
provision of food and fiber, carbon sequestration, habitat, and flood protection. The use of
remediated brownfield sites returns land to productive use and increases the supply of land
necessary to meet the demands of growing populations. This, in tum, reduces the demands on
undeveloped open lands. Brownfield sites are typically within developed areas connected to
existing infrastructure networks, reducing demands on communities to provide new
infrastructure and reducing the need for travel outside of the community to equivalent greenfield
sites. It helps address climate change because It reduces vehicle miles traveled and retains land
for vegetation that can serve as a carbon sink.
Land Use Patterns that Support Green Business
General Policy #6: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support planning efforts that incorporate and promote new technologies-and
sustainable businesses to further economic growth.
Specific Policy #6.1: Technology and Communications
Support technology and business practices that enable people to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
from home to work. These include the use of home offices and technology such as wireless
communications and videoconferencing.
Reasous to support:
Evolving communications and computer technology allow people to work together without being
in the same physical location. These changes allow effective collaboration with fewer vehicle
miles traveled, andthus lower greenhouse gas emissions. They provide for more efficient use of
space (i.e. building materials, parking, roads) when home offices are combined with "hot
22
desking" (one desk shared by many people at the main office). They also can provide social and
economic benefits by offering more flexibility to accommodate full-time parents, the
handicapped, and part-time workers.
Changes to development patterns that support these trends include increased flexibility for home
office uses, the potential for satellite offices within residential neighborhoods with wireless
communication to main office when some collaboration is desirable, and business support
centers in neighborhood commercial areas.
Specific Policy #6.2: Green-Collar Jobs
Use comprehensive planning and shift economic development and working training programs to
support local jobs in sustainable businesses.
Reasons to support:
Businesses in `green' industries (or businesses that use `green' approaches to traditional
industries) will become increasingly important to greenhouse gas reduction and to sustainable
economies. As companies and individuals seek to reduce their `carbon footprints', they will look
for more sustainable materials, technologies and services. Support for the businesses that are
using green practices will make it possible for local climate change goals to be met. These
businesses can also form the foundation for `green' economic growth that can reduce reliance on
fossil-fuel-based economies.
2.3 Natural Assets and Open Spaces
General Policy #7: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support actions that enable natural assets and green spaces to contribute to the
health of communities and regions, and to reduce their regions' overall contributions to
climate change.
Specific Policy #7.1: Natural Asset Protection
Protect important natural assets and areas of communities and regions to tnaintain their roles as
`carbon sinks'. Federal and state programs should help communities identify and map these
assets.
Reasons to support:
Throughout much of the 2t)`h century, urban development relied on engincering methods and
construction to modify the natural environments sutmunding growing communities. The need to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions adds another reason to support a different approach to natural
assets -one in which they provide valuable benefts to the community and the world.
Nature preserves and other areas that remaia in a natural state -such as grasslands, wetlands or
forest-serve as carbon sinks, trapping cazbon from the atmosphere. Disturbance of these areas
releases carbon into the atmosphere; protecting them prevents this release and additional
plantings in these areas may trap additional carbon and reduce its levels in the atmosphere..
These naluml areas may become the basis for a community's receipt of `carbon credits' if the
carbon trading system recotnmended in this policy guide is established.
23
Specific Policy #7.2: Green Infrastructure
Create, protect and manage systems of green infrastructure (i.e., urban forests, parks and open
spaces, natural drainage systems) in regions and communities. Fully fund programs that support
the development, identification, and maintenance of green infrastructure. Support new research
and training for design professionals on the development, incorporation and preservation of
green infrastructure.
w'
Reasons to support:
When a community uses and enhances its natural environmental assets as an integral part of its
infrastructure, that community also reduces its impact on climate change and increases its ability
to adapt to changes that may occur. For example, shade from the urban forest reduces the need
for air conditioning in the summer, thus reducing electrical demand and the greenhouse gas
emissions caused by electrical generation and transmission. Preservation of urban forests found
in floodplain or other low-lying areas also enables a community to adapt should future changes
in global climate increase the intensity'of flooding or raise sea levels. Programs to plan new trees
in urban arras, and other green systems provide similar opportunities.
These systems should form an important part of the infrastructure framework upon which a
region's climate change planning is based. Since many green inftastmclure systems extend
beyond the boundaries of individual communities, they should be addressed at a watershed or
other appropriate regional level. Smaller cities and towns should take this approach with natural
systems that provide their green infrastmcture as well.
2.4 Agricultural Activities
Modem industrial agriculture is responsible for approximately 25 percent of the world's CO2
emissions, 60% of the methane, and 80% of the nitrous oxide. Modem industrial agriculture uses
6-10 times more energy than alternative sustainable technologies to produce the same amount of
cereal or vegetable.
General Policy #8: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture; food
production and transport
Specific Policy #8.1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Agricultural Practices.
Establish educational programs and incentives to promote agricultural cultivation and livestock
management practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Local, state and federal standards
and regulations should be reformed to support agricultural practices that reduce emissions and
curtail practices that increase GHG emissions.
Reasons to support:
Today's agricultural practices contribute to climate change in several ways: through fossil fuel
combustion by farm machinery and vehicles; through the use of nitrogen fertilizers; through the
release of carbon stored in plants and soils; and through methane gas production in livestock and
other operations. County and rural area plans that include agricultural preservation can include
policies that promote sustainable agriculture. Development incentives (such as density bonuses
24
for clustered development) can be increased for agricultural properties that meet greenhouse gas
reduction targets. Plan implementation can include education and training programs.
Specific Policy #8.2: Methane Emissions from Landfills
Support policies that result in the design, retrofitting, operation, and management of landfills
(both existing and closed) so that methane emissions are controlled and, where feasible, used for
energy production.
Reasons to support:
Methane is the second most common GHG, after CO2. Methane is produced in landfills as the
result of the anaerobic decomposition of waste. Landfills are a major contributor of methane
emissions, accounting for approximately 34% of all methane emission in the U.S. Methane is
readily usable for the production of energy since it is a major component (95%) of natural gas.
Land use planning and public facility siting policies should locate and design landfills so they
provide energy resources and minimize methane emissions.
Specific Policy #8.3: Local Food Production
Include the local production of food and energy among the uses addressed in comprehensive
plans and local regulations. Reform federal agricultural policy to shift resources and funding
priorities toward support of locally produced food distribution and access. Remove regulatory
barriers to the distribution, consumption and purchase of locally produced food.
Reasons to support:
Local food production can reduce "food miles" -the distance that food must travel -and
consequently greenhouse gas emissions. Food in a grocery store typically travels 1,000 miles or
more while the typical food in a farmers market travels 1/10th of that distance. Planning for land
used for community farming can help protect and ensure the retention of these properties for
local food and commodity production. The result will help minimize VMT by limiting food
transport and avoiding regional imports of consumer goods that can be produced locally.
Specific Policy #8.4: Agricultural Lands
Establish strategies to promote redevelopment and compact new development that will minimize
the conversion of farmland and woodland for urban use. Fully fund programs to help farmers
incorporate envirotunental protection practices. Increase funding for open space preservation
initiatives.
Reasons to support:
Reducing our conversion of agricultural and woodlands to an urban use is important not only for
food production, but the vegetation not destroyed is important to convert carbon dioxide to
oxygen.
2.5 Transportation Systems
General Policy #9: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support the planning and development of interregional transportation systems
that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
25
Specific Policy #9.1: Airport Planning and Air /Rail Network Planning
Support development of transit access to airports and long-distance rail networks to increase
national connectivity,and reduce vehicle use for freight and tong-distance passenger trips.
Reasons to support:
Congestion and energy consumption can be reduced through a more integrated multimodal
intercity transit system. Enhanced intercity rai I service will take both passenger vehicles and
heavy-duty trucks off the highway. Planning airports so that they connect with a variety of
transit options including rail and bus hetworks will create alternatives to short-haul flights as
well as reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from airports.
Specific Policy #9.2: High Speed Rail Planning
Evaluate the use of high speed rail to connect urban areas within 500 miles of each other, and
create programs to foster implementation. Fully fund intercity rail and encourage the design,
development and funding of regional rail initiatives. Establish a new national rail corridor
initiative.
Reasons to support:
Mobility between major urban azeas is vital to American society. Americans travel a total of 1.3
Uillion person-miles of long distance trips a year or about 2.6 billion long-distance2. nips, or 7.2
million trips per day. Currently3 almost 90 percent of these long-distance trips are by personal
vehicle. High speed rail offers an alternative that reduces vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse
gas emissions.
Existing railroad routes provide an attractive, practical location for high speed rail service that
meets present and furore mobility demands4, in anenvironmentally-sustainable manner.
Planning should begin on the next generation of truly high-speed trains to serve U.S. travelers.
Specific Policy #9.3: Goods Movement and Freight Systems Planning
Support integrated multi-modal goods movement networks that minimize financial and
environmental costs by making choices about operational methods and transportation modes that
minimize greethouse gas emissions.
Reasons to support:
The U.S. is part of a vibrant global economy, with goods sourced, produced, and marketed
around the globe. Goods movement is a complex issue and is comprised of several discrete but
inter-related wmponents. While it affects every community differently, every community faces
some measure of each of these components: '
• port, inter-modal and transfer facilities
• long-haul movements
• short-haul and local market movements
• transformation and value-added facilities
'-Over 50 miles one way.
a Per the National Housclrold Travcl Survey Findings, survey from 2001-2002, released 2006, "Long Distance
Transportation Patterns: Mode Choice", Tables I and 4.
~ Federal Railroad Administration Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program (NGHSR)
26
• end user distribution services, and
• support facilities such as weigh stations, inspection facilities and staging areas.
At each step in the process, choices about operational methods and transportation mode will
affect the amount of greenhouse gas emission associated with the transport of a particulaz
shipment. Local comprehensive and metropolitan transportation plans should support goods
movement and operations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Transportation within Regians
General Policy #10: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support the planning and development of multi-modal regional and local
transportation systems that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles
traveled.
SpeciSe Policy #10.1: Coordination with Land Use Planning
Incorporate planning for transit, bicycle and pedestrian networks within local and regional
comprehensive planning. Encourage development patterns that support transit and multi-modal
transportation networks. Restructure state and federal funding to incentivize projects that.
demonstrate coordination and provide demonstrable impacts on reducing GHG emissions
through supportive land use-transportation decisions.
Reasons to support:
Transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities give people the ability to choose non-automobile travel
modes for their trips and thus reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from cars. In areas
where transit, pedestrian and bicycle networks have not yet been defined, identification of
potential future networks through land use and comprehensive planuing projects can help
preserve the opportunity to create these travel options in the future. Plamiing for such facilities
establishes the policy basis to require their extension during the review of new developmeut as
provided by Specific Policy 10.2 below.
Specific Policy #10.2: Transportation Facility Siting and Commanity Design
Use community design and development review processes to secure rights-of--way and require
provision of facilities needed to provide highly-connoted street, transit, bicycle and pedestrian
networks in neighborhoods, communities and regions.
Reasons to support:
If transit, bicycle and pedestrian routes are not available from a resident's neighborhood to a
desired destination, travel to that destination will involve a car. Routes for these alternative
transportation modes should be located and provided for tluough the planning and subdivision
processes in the same way as roadways are. Highly-connected street patterns facilitate travel by
all modes, but are especially beneficial for walking and biking, since they eliminate the need to
walk or bike on a busy arterial or collector street.
Specific Policy #10.3: Transportation Investment Priorities
Give higher priority to funding for transportation infrastructure, programs and services that will
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.'Perfonnance standards should be incorporated into
27
infrastmcture assistance programs. Performance standards for climate and related metrics, such
as reduced growth in VMT, should be incorporated in federal and state transportation and
infrastructure programs. This should include investigating ways to reduce the amount of freight
hauled by truck.
Reasons to support:
Most communities do not have enough funding to build the transportation infrastructure they
need. Their processes for establishing funding priorities consider a variety of factors, such as
project traffic volumes, connectivity to other facilities, safety enhancement and local support.
Investments that support an appropriate land use pattern and alternative transportation modes
will help the community reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. These factors should be
considered when transportation funding priorities are being set. This policy would apply to
capital investments and also to investment in programs and services (such as transportation
demand management or operation of a joint parking district) that enable residents to reduce
vehicles miles traveled.
Specific Policy #10.4: Invest in Transit
Transportation programs and policies should support substantially increased investment in
transit, including commuter rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, and bus service. Transit has
demonstrated significant GHG reduction capacity. Investment should support both the
development of new systems and the expansion/maintenance of existing systems.
Reasons to support:
Rail transit reduces greenhouse gas emissions because it reduces the vehicle miles traveled by
auto. Providing transportation choice on a local and regional level allows growing metropolitan
regions to shape their growth around transit stops, maximizing open space and multimodal
connections to activity hubs. Congestion, an impediment to the flow of people and goods, is
reduced via rail transit. BRT systems reduce emissions and can be less expensive to develop and
implement in many cases than traditional rail transit. Local bus service fills network gaps by
serving less densely populated neighborhoods, providing not only access to local destinations but
connections to the larger transportation network. In smaller communities, local bus service is the
only practical way to provide transit services throughout the community. In rural areas, local bus
service provides low-cost transit to people with limited mobility options.
Specific Policy #10.5 Local Street Network & Design
Support Local street network connectivity and complete streets designed to accommodate all
users and multiple transportation modes through wntext sensitive solutions. Adopt compete
streets policies at the federal, state and regional levels. Support continuing training and research
in new techniques for transportation design professionals.
Reasons to support:
Local street networks with easy connections to a variety of uses enable transportation choice and
increased mobility. Street design that includes right-of--way for existing or future fixed guideway
transit, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and street wall environments, bicycle lanes, and safe
crossings encourages the reduced use of automobiles for short and long trips, -and increases
28
multimodaf traffic capacity. By reducing the number and length of automobile trips, greenhouse
gas emissions are also reduced.
Specific Policy #10.6: Multi-Modal Transportation Corridor Improvements
Develop major transportation corridors for multi-modal operation to minimize transportation-
related greenhouse gas emissions associated with travel in the corridor.
Reasons to support:
Historically transportation routes have served a single navel mode, and improvements over time
generally replaced one mode with anodter instead of creating multi-[nodal conidors (as, for
example, when trails for travel by horseback were replaced with train tracks, which were then
replaced with interstate highways). Planning. and construction ofmulti-modal transportafion
corridors create alternatives for travelers, allowing them more efficient use of their time and
money resources and providing travel choices that have lower greenhouse gas emissions. For the
region, multi-modal design builds in flexibility. Pricing and other tools can be used to encourage
people to switch to modes that reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Over time,
technological advances may lead to new, `greener' navel choices. A multi-modal corridor
design will be most able to take advantage of these changes while continuing to serve established
navel routes.
Specific Policy #10.7: Transition between Transportation Modes
Support coordination and seamless transitions between transportation modes to increase the use
of modes with lower emissions for the movement of people and freight.
Reasons to support:
Transferring between modes of transport is costly. For commuters, cormections between buses,
trains or airplanes can. be disrupted by network congestion, weather or equipment failure.
Frequently, schedules of different modes are not coordinated. In other cases, physical distance
between routes and stops make transfers impossible. If someone is not confident about simple
things, like knowing when a bus wilt arrive at the stop near her home and whether she'll make
the connection to the rail system, she may simply forego a mode choice that wilt emit lower
levels of greenhouse gases. The use of bus circulators and shuttles can provide greater transit
options, "door-to-door" mobility, and low-cost options to decrease automobile dependence.
to the realm of goods movement, transferring goods from one mode to another is time
consuming and labor intensive, thus costly. Seamless inter-modality for freight means bringing a
range of appropriate modes directly to transfer points, so that goods do not have to be transferred
more than once. Efficient goods movement also involves providing adequate and appropriately
located and equipped staging facilities for trucks near major facilities such as ports. ('foods
movement is a 24-hour activity and moving goods during off-peak hours provides considerable
energy savings, but many facilities, especially at the retail end of the chain, are poorly equipped
for 24-hour operation. By reducing congestion at transfer points, smooth goods transfer also
reduces greenhouse gas etissions from idling motor vehicles.
29
Transportation System & Demand Management
,General Policy #11: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support the management of transportation demand and systems to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled.
Specific Policy #11.1: Transportation Demand Management
Create and implement local and regional Transportation Demand Management Strategies that
result in more efficient use of transportation resources and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Reasons to support:
Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies focus on changing travel behavior -kip
rates, trip length, travel mode, time-of-day, etc. - to reduce the number of vehicle kips and
increase mobiliry options. Most TDM projects and programs reduce emissions through kip or
V MT reductions or by shifting trips from peak periods to less congested periods. TDM strategies
can achieve public goals such as reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality, and decreased
reliance onnon-renewable energy consumption, in addition to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
Specific Policy #11.2: Transportation Systems Management Strategies
Create and implement local and regional Transportation Systems Management strategies that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use and operation of transportation systems.
Reasons to support:
Transportation system management (TSM) improves vehicle flow on the roadway system by
focusing on changing the operation of the transportation system Tools to reduce traffic
congestion include HOV lanes, synchronized signals, incident management, variable message
signs, and other forms of intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In addition, some strategies
focus directly on encouraging changes in driving behavior through educational information,
incentives, or restrictions on driving speeds, operating patterns, and idling. TSM techniques can
help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by discouraging driving during peak periods, when
congestion and slow traffic speeds reduce fuel efficiency and increase emissions.
2.6 Water and Energy Systems
General Policy #12: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission related to the distribution and
use of water.
Specific Policy #12.1: Community Locations and Water Availability
Direct development that comiects to and sustains available water supply capacity. Water
availability and quality should be considered in development reviews, planning decisions, and
infrastructure investments.
Reasons to support:
Communities that are developed in areas without adequate water supplies must transport water to
meet their needs, requiring the use of energy to build infrastructure and to deliver water to the
30
community. Failure to take into account availability of adequate water supplies to serve new
development results in overburdening limited supplies in many localities and in expending large
quantities of energy to transport water from other locations. Transporting water over long
distances requires systems of pmnps, pipelines and canals, operated by electricity, currently
provided mostly by greenhouse gas generating power plants. Greenhousegas emissiots from
water treatment, supply and distribution can be reduced by locating development and
redevelopment in areas where water is available nearby.
Specific Policy #12.2: Water Conservation
Support planning and design that reduces water consumption per capita and support
implementation of water conservation practices. State and federal efforts must support improved
water planning and watershed-level decision making.
Reasons to support:
More efficient use of limited water supplies helps address climate change because it reduces
energy consumption in the operation of the water system. It can reduce the need for extensions
of these systems to bring water from more distant sources, further reducing greenhouse gas
emissions related to construction and energy consumption in distribution.
General Policy #13: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission related to the production and
use of energy in the built environment.
Specific Policy #13.1: Energy Sources to Reduce Climate Change
Encourage and prioritize in policy, regulation and investment decisions the use of energy sources
that contribute less greenhouse gas through their production, distribufion and consumption; and
discourage less efficient energy sources.
Reasons to support:
While coal is currently the cheapest energy sow~ce available for large-scale electricity generation,
it also is the most damaging in its climate impacts. New coal-fired plants in particulaz, but also
other power plants relying on non-renewable energy sources, will overwhelm any reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions mandated by the various domestic and international programs to
reduce global warming-
Bio-fuels, often touted as an alterative to petroleum fuels, also are highly destructive to the
environment, taking large land areas out of food production, consuming lazge quantities of water
and using large amounts of energy in the production process. Investment in the development of
renewable energy and more efficient energy sources would reduce climate change impacts,
minimize reliance on large energy-producing facilities, and drive new areas of economic
development.
Changes in energy generation technology over time may mean that the energy source with the
lowest level of greenhouse gas emission may change. Planning for energy supply and
consumption should evaluate greenhouse gas emissions of alternative sources, and should
support those sources that lower greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy delivered.
31
Specific Policy #13.2: Local Energy Generation from Renewable Sources
Support initiatives that generate energy from local renewable sources as a part of economic
development efforts.
Reasons to support:
Electricity generation is responsible for 32% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Local generation
of energy meets community needs without the costs -and greenhouse gas emissions -related to
long-distance transmission. In addition, the use of renewable sources reduces greenhouse gas
emissions from carbon-based Cuel sources. Not only does this approach help address climate
change, it can form the basis for riew economic opportunity as well.
Specific Policy #13.3: Facilitating Renewable Energy Sources
Plan for and establish strategies to facilitate the use of energy sources that generate lower levels
of greenhouse gas emissions. Establish incentives, including expanded.tax credits, for research
and implementation of renewable energy generation, distribution, and deployment. Support
minimum Renewable Portfolio Standards for utility companies-
Reasons to support:
Fossil-fuel based energy sources and long-distance transmission of energy are significant
contributors to climate change. Planning and development of communities must include efforts
to reduce the need for these energy sources and systems. In the past, land use planning in many
communities included delineation of transmission line routes, but it did not identify sites where
energy could be generated locally. Since rapid development of large-scale renewable energy
systems on such sites can help reduce U.S. dependence oncarbon-based energy sources,
planning for cities and regions should include identification of sites for local energy generation.
Some sites are of particular value for wind or geothermal energy. Other sites may also be
desirable for alternative energy projects because of their unique characteristics (for example,
sites that have ample sunshine, few other development constraints, and proximity to transmission
facilities). By including energy production sixes in comprehensive planning processes, their
impacts on the environment and adjacent uses can be evaluated and those sites that have
particular value can be planned and zoned for these uses.
Specific Policy #13.4: Design for Solar Energy
Support urban design strategies that maximize use of altemative energy sources and passive solar
architecture in buildings- Maintain and extend tax credits for the use of solar energy in design
and construction practices.
Reasons to support:
Site planning and building design have a significant effect on the amount of energy needed to
heat, cool and light buildings to meet the needs of their occupants. Site and building design
techniques can reduce energy consumption on-site, thus reducing demand for energy generated
elsewhere and its related greenhouse gas emissions. Planning and design should encourage the
use of passive solar energy and other on-site alternatives.
32
Specific Policy #13.5: Funding for Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Fully fund federal energy efficiency and conservation block grants to communities.
Reasons to support:
Even though energy conservation and the use of renewable energy may save money in the long
term, higher up-front costs often prevent their use. The federal Energy Bill would provide
resources to localities (through block grants) that could be used to reduce or offset these initial
costs. This funding can play an important role in reducing reliance on fossil-fuel based energy
and the greenhouse gas emissions from these energy sources.
2.7 Research, Education and Communications
General Policy #14: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support continuing research and education to understand the causes of climate
change and to develop strategies to reduce climate change and to mitigate and adapt to its
impacts.
Specific Policy #14.1: Education for the Community and for Decision-Makers
Include education about climate change in community outreach efforts undertaken for long-range
plam~ing programs. Explicitly recognize and discuss climate impact and considerations in public
review and participation process related to comprehensive plans and regional plans.
Reasons to support:
Success in addressing climate change requires different choices in the way communities are
planned, developed and maintained. Yet many public and private sector decision-makers are not
informed about the current status of climate change research and the potential communities have
to affect this global issue. Members of the general public may have even less information about
what their daily choices mean for the future of the planet. Most planning processes include
public involvement, interaction and education.. Whenever appropriate, information about climate
change and strategies for mitigation and adaptation should be incorporated into these public
outreach campaigns. The effort to create a community climate change action plan will clearly
include this educational component. Other planning efforts where these issues should be
incorporated include the creation or update of local or regional, comprehensive and general
plans; planning for regional transportation improvements and other capital improvement
programming; and plans to address air quality issues. Climate change may also be an
appropriate part of public education and outreach for the review of master plaimed projects,
changes to form-based zoning, updates to building codes and other efforts.
Specific Policy #14.2: Communities and Climate Change
Support research that improves the ability of communities to reduce their carbon footprint by
quantifying their impacts on climate change and the effect of their actions to address this issue.
Support the research and development of new modeling and scenario planning techniques that
incorporate climate change measurement.
33
Reasons to support:
Global research on climate change is rapidly inoreasing scientific knowledge about this issue and
making more specific connections between climate change and human activities. As this
research builds the knowledge base, it is important that people gain information about the ways
they affect climate change. Continuing research is needed so communities, neighborhoods and
individual residents or businesses. can take action in ways that will help to mitigate or adapt to
climate change.
Specific Policy #14.3: Carbon Sequestration
Support continued research into biological and g~logical cazbon sequestration technologies.
Reasons to support:
Global warming can potentially be mitigated through technologies to sequester carbon -that is,
to keep it out of atmospheric circulation for long periods of time. However, the benefits and best
practices for various sequestration methods are.not yet clear. Some sequestration methods would
rely on vegetation to sequester carbon. These approaches could lead to community preservation
of wetlands, grasslands and forests as `carbon sinks' and potential beneficiaries of future carbon
credit systems. Additional research is needed to determine the exact technical feasibility, costs,
and benefits of these strategies and the best way for communities to contribute to carbon
sequestration.
Specific Policy #14.4: Effects on the Local Communities and Conditions
Support research to better understand the effects of global warming on regions, communities and
local agriculture and open spaces. Expand and fund state and federal programs that supply vital
data related to climate change and its impacts to local and regional planning agencies. Require
new reporting and measurement of climate impacts in planning and development processes and
reviews.
Reasons to support:
Changes in climate due to global warming ultimately will be local in their effects. Changes can
occur in the availability of arable land, length of the growing season, amounts of rainfall,
temperature changes, levels of disruptive weather, and ecological balance, just to name a few. In
addition to research about the implications of climate change for communities and urban areas in
general, research is needed that will enable specific places to develop appropriate plans for
action to mitigate and adapt to climate change. This research will help regions and communities
plan for future urban development locations and patterns, identify and protect natural assets, and
develop strategies to support local agriculture as it deals with changing climate.
3. Actions to Reduce Climate Change
3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
General Policy #15: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support economic strategics that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
34
Specific Policy #15.1: Cap and Trade System
Implement a nationwide and economy-wide cap and trade system for carbon emissions that
reduces greenhouse gas emissions to the amount necessary to achieve an 80% reduction below
2000 levels by 2050. Provide funding for local, regional, and metropolitan platming agencies
from cap and trade auction and allocation revenues to fund planning reforms that demonstrably
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Any cap-and-trade bill passed in the U.S. Congress should
return a minimum of 5% of allowance revenue to states, regions, and localities to invest in
development, infrastmcture and transportation measures that reduce emissions. Revenue should
be allocated based on performance in achieving reductions roper-capita emissions.
Reason to support:
Cap and trade systems combine the force of regulation with the power of the private mazket to
achieve public policy goats in acost-effective manner. The United States is welt-positioned to
implement such a system, given its own successful efforts to reduce acid rain, and given the
lessons it can Team from Europe's implementation of a carbon cap and trade system. Allocating
revenues from a cap and trade system to fund local transportation and land use planning efforts
that reduce greenhouse gas emissions is an effective means to build in lasting mitigation of
climate change. This provides an opportunity to return a portion of this revenue to invest in local
strategies to reduce VMT and emissions from buildings, such as those described elsewhere in
this guide. Some of the bills currently being considered would return 1% of allowances to states
to invest in transit. This proportion should be expanded, along with the types of eligible projects.
Specific Poticy #15.2: Carbon Pricing
In the absence of a comprehensive cap and trade system, federal legislation should establish a
carbon tax for the purpose of achieving at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
below 1990 levels by 2050. Set aside funds generated from such action to support local, regional,
or state efforts related to planning that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Reason to support:
Pricing carbon would reduce distortions in existing spending patterns. Research also indicates
that the use of funds from a carbon tax (or the auction phase of a cap and trade system) to
support low-carbon technologies, in transportation for example, substantially lowers the overall
cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Specific Policy #153: Regulation of Products
Use regulation to reduce the use of products with high energy use or production of greenhouse
gases, including fluorocarbons, when viable alternatives exist.
Reason to support:
Many energy-inefficient or high-carbon products, such as incandescent light bulbs, will continue
to be used indefinitely unless they are banned or tightly regulated. In such cases voluntary action
or market mechanisms by themselves are insufficient to bring about change, and regulation is
needed. Many fluoroca~fions, including CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs, are potent greenhouse gas
chemicals many times stronger than CO2. (CFCs are also responsible for depletion of the ozone
layer.) Substitutes to most fluorocarbons (used primarily as coolants) are available.
35
3.2 Land Use
General Policy #16: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support the elimination of barriers, the reform of zoning and development
standards, and the creation of incentives to lower energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Specific Policy #16.1: Zoning and Development Standards Reform
Implement significant changes in zoning and development standards. New policies and
regulations should be developed that promote mixed use development, transit-oriented design,
and greater development intensity to create communities with land use patterns with reduced
energy consumption, fewer vehicle miles traveled and reduced greenhouse gases. New zoning
and development standards should incorporate climate change impacts and implications in
required environmental reviews and decision-making. Climate change should be incorporated
into comprehensive planning that meets new emission goals and Targets.
Reason to support: Zoning and other development standards should be made more flexible to
allow for the creation of developments, neighborhoods, and communities that allow for more
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use, thereby lowering. transportation energy consumption Changes
need to be made from traditional zoning laws that are based on separating land uses and creating
single-use communities. If designed improperly, standards such as parking requirements,
building height limits and building setbacks may impede development that reduces sprawl and
facilitates transit use.
Specific Policy # 16.2: Developer Incentives
Create developer incentives, including tax credits and regulatory reforms, to encourage
development that reduces energy consumption and lowers greenhouse gas emissions. Encourage
demonstration projects with evaluation mechanisms.
Reason to support: Development incentives give developers a direct benefit for some
concession on their parts. New regulations and standards should be paired with developer
incentives. This is among the most effective, fiscally neutral strategies that can be used. Specific
development incentives can include, among others, density bonuses, one-stop permitting,
. expedited zoning relief procedures and permitting, fee reductions and waivers, and reduced
parking requirements.
3:3 Motor Vehicles
General Policy #17: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support improving standards for new vehicles to lower fuel use, use cleaner fuels,
and lower greenhonse gas emissions.
Specific.Policy #17.1: Increase CAFE Standards
Establish stronger Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards than included in
recently enacted federal energy legislation.
36
Reason to support: Increasing fuel economy is one of the fastest, cleanest and lowest cost
options for immediate reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and oil dependence. The National
Academy of Sciences found that improved fuel economy benefits the nation's economy and
trade, reduces dependence on oil (much of which comes from instable regions and decreases our
national security), and reduces carbon dioxide emissions. CAFE standards were increased for the
first time since the 1970s when Congress passed the 2007 Energy Biil. Several states have urged
even stronger regulation. APA supported the recent increase and encourages Congress to further
strengthen fuel efficiency standards.
Specific Policy #17.2: Promote Clean Fuel Technology and Standards
Establish -ow carbon fuel standards for autos, light trucks, heavy trucks, rail, air, bus, water, and
off-road transportation modes and encourage research into clean fuel options and system-wide
implementation.
Reason to support: Today, planning focuses significant attention on reducing single-occupancy
vehicle use, and increasing the use ofnon-auto transportation, including rail, air, bus, and water.
However, since fuel-efficiency standards are sometimes weaker, sporadically enforced, or non-
existent for these modes, clean fuel standarcts for all transportation modes are vital to a
comprehensive transportation solution. Federal policy should actively promote new research
into the development of cleaner fuels and the ability to make new fuels readily available to
consumers.
Specific Policy 17.3: Federal Action on Vehicle Emissions
Pass federal legislation setting standards for greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles at levels
consistent with nationwide and economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Reasons to support:
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles is one of the largest steps the U.S. can take to
reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. The transportation sector accounts for about 28% of
gross U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Standazds for greenhouse gas emissions are more closely
linked to global warming, and therefore are preferred to fuel economy standards, which are only
indirectly linked to greenhouse gas emissions. (Source: EPA)
Specific Policy 17.4: Enabling State Action on Vehicle Emissions
Absent federal action on vehicle emissions, support the State of California's request to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to implement vehicle emission standards that would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and thereby encourage other states to do the same.
Reasons to support:
Allowing states to develop and implement alternative greenhouse gas emission standards
encourages technological and regulatory innovation, and can reduce emissions and the impacts
associated with global warming. Similar innovation at the state level, in particular the adoption
of standards by states such as California that were stricter than federal standards, helped reduce
local air pollution in the past
Specific Policy # 17.5: Monitor Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation
37
Secure federal funding to develop reliable methods to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from
transportation to accurately monitor progress in meeting goals. Monitoring should include
.gasoline consumption, V MT and COZ emissions disaggregated to the county or regional level.
These efforts should result in new models for use in planning and related environmental or
development reviews and analysis. •
Reason to support: There is a need to be able to demonstrate, tangibly and separately from
other factors, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. Establishing baseline
conditions and identifying the possible impacts of proposed improvements provides critical input
to plan evaluation and the setting of priorities. There is a corresponding need to be able to
monitor progress over time; show the co-benefits with air quality and other similar initiatives;
and - potential-y -establish quantifiable benefits for use in cap and trade or similar programs.
General Policy #18: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support economic strategies that provide incentives to manufacturers and users of
vehicles to lower fael use, use cleaner fuels, and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Specific Policy #18.1: Economic Incentives for Fuel Efficient Vehicles
Enact a system of fees and rebates that encourages the purchase ormanufacture offuel-efficient
vehicles and discourages the purchase ormanufacture offuel-inefficient vehicles.
Reason to support: '
Fees and rebates that encourage the purchase offuel-efficient vehicles are more likely to be
effective than fuel taxes in modifying behavior. Fee and rebate systems can also be designed to
be revenue neutral, thus costing taxpayers little or nothing in the aggregate while conveying the
benefits of reduced impacts of climate change.
Specific Policy #18.2: Efficient Use of Existing Transportation Infrastructure
Promote low-cateon commute alternatives by ensuring that the cost of the daily commute by
individuals reflects the actual cost of the trip, including its environmental and greenhouse gas
impacts. Support the expansion of congestion pricing systems, particulazly for urban'
expressways. Use the funds generated from such a system to advance low-carbon transportation
technologies and to reform existing transportation taxes. Incorporate performance standazds and
GHG emission-related metrics into funding, budget and investment decisions.
Reason to support:
The transportation sector accounts for 28% of gross U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Actions that
prompt changes in behavior in the realm of transportation can have a commensurate impact on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Conges[ioa pricing allocates scarce infrastructure resources
more efficiently than the first-come, first-serve system that prevails today. Actions such as
mandatory pazking cash-out programs, funding for transit incentives, congestion pricing and
pazking pricing are particularly useful because they help reveal the total environmental
costs/benefits associated with particulaz modes of travel.
38
3.4 Renewable Energy
General Policy #19: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support policies that encourage the use of renewable energy.
Specific Policy #19.1: Policy to Support a Transition to Renewable Energy
Adopt state, regional, and national policies that accelerate the transition to renewable energy
sources.
Reason to support:
Greenhouse gas emissions from energy (including for transportation) amount to about 70% of
worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Policies such as feed-in tariffs (the minimum price a utility
must pay to an independent renewable energy producer), tradable green energy certificates
(proof that a unit of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy source to be sold
to entities that produce too much greenhouse gas), and renewable energy portfolio standards
(minimum annual amounts of electricity to be generated by renewable energy sources(, and
similar schemes have been shown to be effective in accelerating the transition to aloes-carbon
economy, though no single policy direction is appropriate for all situations. (Source: IPCC)
Specific Policy #19.2: Incentives for the Small-Scale Use of Renewable Energy Systems
Establish incentives to encourage installation of renewable energy systems by homeowners and
small business operators. ~
Reason to support:
Given the artificially tow price of coal and other fossil fuels, since environmental extematities
are not included, it is often notcost-effective for individual homeowners or small business
operators to install alternative energy systems. Such installation may also require up-front
investment that these individuals do not have. Incentives for installation of small-scale renewable
energy may include aper-watt rebate for newly installed electrical capacity, loans or grants for
installation, and net metering in which the property owner is paid for electricity fed back into the
grid.
Specific Policies #193: Integration of Solar Design into Codes
Revise building codes and architectural design guidelines to allow for, encourage, or require
integration of passive solar design, green roofs, active solar and other renewable energy sources.
Reason to Snpport:.~ many climates solar design and on-site solar systems have been shown to
be effective in lowering overall building energy use. Design standards might include southern '
orientation of structures, extensive southem fenestration for winter heating, shielding of
windows to prevent summer overheating, themral mass to retain heat and coolness, and design
for maximum natural summer ventilation, solar hot water heaters and photovoltaic electricity.
Specific Policy #19.4: Eliminate Regulatory Barriers to the Use of Renewable Energy
Systems
Examine existing zoning laws and development standards and revise or eliminate provisions that
act as a barcier to the use of renewable energy systems.
39
Reason to Support: Zoning and other development standards can act as a barrier to the use of
renewable energy systems. Examples include height restrictions that limit the use of wind
energy conversion systems and design requirements that limit the placement of solar energy
panels.
Specific Policy #19.5: Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency in Public Facilities
Construct and renovate public facilities to serve as demonstrations of green building practices
and include (wherepossible) renewable energy systems such as photovoltaic electricity or solar
hot water panels.
Reason to support:
Public facilities can be visible examples of the benefits of renewable energy systems and act as
models for the private sector to follow.
3.5 Green Building
General Policy #20: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support the development and application of green building standards that reduce
the carbon footprint of both new and existing buildings and developments.
Specific Policy #20.1: Green Building Standards
Support the continued development and application of green building standards. Develop and
promote the means and standards to reach a 50% reduction in building-related cazbon emissions
by 2010 and carbon neutral buildings by 2030. Incorporate green building and energy efficiency
standards for all public facilities.
Reason to support: A vaziety of organizations have developed green building standards. An
example is the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) green building rating
system of the U.S. Green Building Council. Such standards "raise the bar" on the energy
efficiency of new building construction and renovation. These standazds can be used as
guidance to set local standards for new construction or to specify the level of energy efficiency
desired in new public facilities, at the local, state, or federal level.
Specific Policy #20.2: State Adoption of Mandatory Building Energy Codes
Support and seek adoption and ensure enforcement of mandatory building energy codes for
commercial-and residential buildings in states that do not have them or do not actively enforce
them. As an alternative, set minimum standards for energy efficiency in new buildings and
ensure that all states are achieving them through adoption and enforcement of mandatory
building energy codes.
Reason to support: Eleven states do not have residential building energy codes; 14 states have
either no enforcement or voluntary enforcement. Alike number of states do not have
commercial building energy codes. This is a lost opportunity to set minimum expectations for
energy efficiency in new buildings.
40
Specific Policy #20.3: Minimum- Standards for Building Energy Codes
Support raising building energy code requirements to be at least as stringent as the most recent
International Energy Conservation Code (U.S. DOE), or the most recent ASHRAE 90.1 code
(American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers), or equivalent.
Federal and state housing and infrastructure programs should incorporate green building
standards and requirements.
Reasons to Support:
Building heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting account for a very large percentage of
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States (building contributions to GHG emissions are not
aggregated as such by the U.S. EPA but are estimated at up to 48% by architect Ed Mazria,
originator of the Atvhitecture 2030 Challenge).
Specific Policy #20.4:. Performance-based Code Alternatives
Support the addition of performance-based alternatives to energy codes and appropriate sections
of the building code.
Reasons to Support:
Innovation in building techniques and construction is essential to raising the bar for energy
efficiency standards. Unfortunately, prescriptive based building codes, which rely on tried-and-
true measures, can stymie innovation. If it can be shown through energy modeling that a building
using innovative techniques can achieve energy performance at least as good as an equivalent
building using the prescriptive based measures, then that design should be allowed.
Specific Policy #20.5: Ongoing Private Investment in Building Energy Efficiency
Support the adoption of standads requiring existing buildings larger than a certain site threshold to
periodically invest in arergy-efficiency improvements that have a short payback period.
Reasons to Support:
As building energy efficiency technology becomes more cost-effective, ensuring that it is
incorporated into existing buildings will benefit not only the building owner but also the larger
community through lower greenhouse gas emissions.
General Policy #21: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support the use of incentives and education to promote green building practices.
Specific Policy #21.1: Incentives and Education for Green Building
Support the creation of incentives, including appropriate tax credits, and education programs to
encourage homeowners and developers to invest inenergy-efficiency improvements.
Reasons to Support:
Many homeowners and developers want to improve the energy performance of their buildings,
and may be concerned about climate change. Education programs and incentives such as
expedited permit review and fee waivers can encourage early adoption
41
Specific Policy #21.2: Performance Rating Standard
Support the adoption of a national building energy performance rating system.
Reasons to Support:
Such a system would allow potential buyers and tenants to make informed choices about the
energy costs associated with buildings. It could be similar to gas mileage ratings for vehicles and
would improve market awareness of the energy performance of buildings.
4.0 Adapting To Climate Change
4.1 Preparing For Climate Change Impacts
General Policy #22: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support the development of plans, strategies, and standards to better anticipate
and prepare for the impacts of climate change.
Specific Policy #22.1: Incorporate Climate Change Adaptation into Disaster Planning
Develop a comprehensive approach to disaster planning that integrates the variety of climate
change scenarios and includes pre-disaster planning, post disaster redevelopment planning and
adaptation to climate change. Expand federal and state support for climate-related hazard
planning.
Reason to support:
Traditional disaster planning is often separated by hazard type and uses a short planning time
horizon. The cycle for most disaster planning has normally been: event - warning -response -
recovery -and back to event. It is only recently that pre-disaster planning has begun to enter the
process. Planners should become more engaged in disaster planning in a comprehensive way
and should include climate change adaptation in disaster mitigation plans.
Specific Policy#22.2: Climate Change Scenarios
Integrate climate change scenarios into local, state and federal planning efforts. Increase funding
for hazard mitigation planning that incorporates and addresses climate change-related scenarios
and potential impacts.
Reason to support:
Climate change adaptation scenarios should be incorporated into standard wmprehensive
planning practice. Creating a resilient community in the face of climate change represents a new
paradigm for land use planning.
Specific Policy#22.3: Building and Life Safety Codes
Update building and life safety codes to increase safety from the variety of disaster scenarios that
are likely to result from climate change.
Reason to support:
Building and life safety codes should be updated for increased safety from disasters. For
example, wind load standards and emergency exit designs for flooding should be re-evaluated.
42
Specific Policy# 22.4: Reducing Risk to Development in Risk-Prone Areas
Improve the ability to identify areas prone to greater risk from climate change and restrict
development in those areas. Increase support for mapping and data collection of high risk areas
and changes associated with climate change.
Reason to support:
Improvements in our predictive capabilities relative to the impact of climate changes on land use
should bemade. Areas prone to significant risk from climate change should not be developed to
minimize loss of human life and impacts to property. Place developmenrin low-risk, low hazard
areas. Restrict the development of buildings or infrastructure in flood prone areas and low-lying
coast areas. Manage development in the wban/wildland interface area to minimize the risk from
wildfire. Climate change is likely to bring increased risk of flooding to many areas, even those
in which overall precipitation levels are less (due to greater storm severity, changes in the timing
of precipitation, or changes in the proportion of precipitation that falls as rein versus snow).
Specific Policy #22.5: Coastal Zone Management Act Review
Reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act in light of increasing risks due to sea level rise
and increasingly strong humcanes and the need to improve planning for development in coastal
areas.
Reason to support:
The national coastal zone management program should be re-evaluated based on the new
understanding of climate change. With sea level rise and the potential for increasingly stronger
hurricanes, the impact on coastal zone communities could be severe.
Specific Policy #22.6: Federal Assistance to State and Local Adaptation Activities
Increase federal funding for technical assistance and critical planning data to state and local
govemments from federal agencies responsible for climate, weather, and hazard mitigation.
Reason to support:
Many federal agencies have developed significant expertise and information regarding future
climate change scenarios and potential measures to mitigate the effects of climate change. State
and local govemments are in need of these resowces as they develop responses.
Specific Policy #22.7: Diversification of Land Uses & Economies
Diversify land uses to reduce risks that weather related disasters will overly impact particular
land uses leaving communities without important services. Diversify and strengthen local
economies to better respond after disasters.
Reason to support:
In financial portfolio management we are often told to diversify to induce risk and optimize
returns. A parallel dictum could be applied to land use. Where possible, land. use should be
diversified and mixed. Planners should adopt policies that anticipate potential post-disaster
economic impacts and seek opportunities for self-reliance and economic resilience by developing
local resources. Disasters tend to cut links to outside resources. Surpluses and supplies are
needed to support the community until outside links are re-established. For basic needs there
should be a local option even if it not exercised in normal times.
43
Specific Policy #22.8: Water Shortages
Establish standards, regulations and incentivesto reduce water demand to be better prepared to
respond to lower water supplies.
Reason to support:
Even in areas where average annual precipitation does not decrease due to climate change, global
warming is expected to produce faster snow melt and changes in rainfall patterns that will disrupt
fresh water supplies. Rising sea levels will threaten fresh water supplies in coastal areas, where a
majority of the hmnan population lives.
Specific,Policy#22.9: Heat Island Effects
Design communities, neighborhoods and individual development projects using techniques that
reduce heat absorption throughout the community and region.
Reason 4o support:
Heat island effects traditionally take place in urban areas where natural ground cover has been
replaced with pavement, buildings, or other materials that tend to absorb and retain heat. While
the resulting warmer temperatures may be benign or even welcome during colder times of the
year, any such benefits are greatly outweighed by the negative impacts during hotter summer
months when heat island effects significantly contribute to increased human health risk and
increased use of air conditioning, resulting in greater energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
4.2 Responding to Climate Change Impacts
General Policy #23: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and
planners support policies that help communities better respond to the impacts of climate
change related. disasters.
Specific Policy #23.1: Reconstruction
Encourage local governments to develop post-disaster redevelopment plans that discourage the
reconstruction of buildings and infrastructure in hazard canes following climate related disasters.
Reason to support:
After major disasters, restricting rebuilding in hazard zones should be seriously. considered.
Abandoning intensive land uses in the hazard zone should be strongly considered with the
government looking at ways to mitigate the pain of relocation.
Specific Policy #23.2: Security aker Disasters
Develop strategies to maintain energy, water, and food security during and after climate related
disasters.
Reason to support:
A dependable source of energy is necessary to support essential services for surviving extreme
weather events. This could include distributed location of electricity generating facilities that
could operate independent of the utility grid. This pian would be integrated with emergency food
44
systems, medical services, police and fire protection, and infrastructure such as water, sewage
and street lighting systems.
Specific Policy #23.4: Risk Analysis & Planning Horizons
Develop scenarios to help [he general public and decisionanakers understand the potential risks
associated with climate change and to develop contingencies for catastrophic events. As with floodplain
management, expand the planning timeframe associated with disasters related to climate change
to 100 to 500 years.
Reason to support:
Conventional planning horizons should be extended. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)
assesses flood potential into the 100 year and 500 year probability areas. Other hazard maps
should also be extended-into the 100 to 500 year frame. While the FIRMs are probability maps
not time horizon maps, it is an easy shift to a time perspective for flooding and other hazards. As
with the FIRMs, the zones in these maps are not no-build zones but zones where the
development is constructed with conditions and potential risk factors.
Specific Policy #23.5: Action Strategy
When considering climate change impacts, first seek to avoid impacts altogether, then minimize
them, and finally, adapt to the unavoidable itnpacts as much as possible.
Reason to support:
The first decision choice on development in potential hazard areas should be avoidance. If
avoidance is not possible or other requirements dictate a need to develop, evaluation should then
move to minimization. This is akin to carbon footprints and the desire to minimize footprints.
From a disaster planning standpoint it is minimization of areas at risk. The final decision step is
mitigation to protect against the risk.
45
Policy Guide on Planning & Climate Change
Sources
AASHTO. Guidelinesjor [he Planning, Design and Operatton ofPedes[rian Facilities. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C., 2001
Abler, R. and Association of American Geographers, Global Change and Local Places Research Team,
Global Change and Local Places: Estimating, Understanding, and Reducing Greenhouse Cases.
Cambridge, UK; New York, Cambridge University Press. 21103.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, "Assessing the Energy Conservation benefits of Historic
Preservation: Methods and Examples," Washington, D.C., January 1979.
APA Policy Guide on Energy
APA Policy Guide on Planning jor Sustainability
APA Policy Guide ors Smart Growth
APA Advocate, The American Planning Association's Update ogLegislative and Policy Issues,
September 19, 2006
APA Advocate, The American Planning Association's Update on Legislative and Policy Issues, January
31, 2007
APA Advocate, The American Planning Association's Update on Legislative and Policy Issues, February
14,2007
California Clima[e Action Team, Climate Action Team Report, Executive Summary, March 2006
California Energy Commission, California's Wa[er-Energy Relationship, 2005
Energy Information Administmtion, "The International Energy Outlook 2006, " (IEO 2006)
Ewing, Reid, Keith Bartholomew, Steve Winkelman; "Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban
Development and Climate Change, "Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 2007
"Exclusive homes emerge unscathed asfve protection concept it tested, "San Diego Union Tribune, by
Lori Weisberg, Roger Showley and Emmet Pierce, October 2007.
Federal Railroad Administration Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program (NGHSR)
CCAP and CNT, "High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the US." January 2006.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis
Report, SummayjorPolicymakers.
"Introduc[ion to Existing National Framework and laws on Hazards and Disasters, "DMA, 2000,
Stafford Act.
Leadership in Energy and Enduonmental Design, LEED, Building Rating System
46
Mazria, Ed, Architecture 2030 Initiative
National Aeronautics and Space Administmtion; Web Article "2006 Was Earth's Filth Warmest Year.",
2007
National Geographic News, National Geographic.cmn News, "Global Warming is Rapidly Raising Sea
Levels, Studies Warn." John Roach, March 23, 2006
National Household Travel Survey Findings, 2001-2002, Released 2006, "Long Destance Transportation
Patterns: Mode Choice ", Tables 1 and 4.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAH News Online (Story 2772), "NOAA Reports
2006 Warmest Year on Record for U.S., General Warning Trend, EI Nino Contribute to Milder Winter
Temps.", 2007
Natural Resources Defense Council, "Energy Down the Drain. The Hidden Costs ojCalJjornia's Water
Supply ".
"Net Generation by Energy source by Type oJProducer." (2006) accessed 2007-04-26. Washington: U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Newman, P. acrd J.R. Renworthy, "Sustainability and Ctties: Overcoming Automobile Dependence,"
Washington, D.C., Island Press., 1999
"Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S, "Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2004.
Pearce, Fred, NewScientist Environment, "Instant Expert Climate Change.", Spetember 2006
PEW Center for Global Climate Change and PEW Center on the States; Climate Change 101,
Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change, Arlington Virginia and Washington D.C.,
2007
P. Mattg, Design /ntelligence, July 1, 2001.
Shoup, D.C. "The High Cost ojFree Parking," Washington, D.C., Planners Press; 2005
Supreme Court of the United States, Commonwealth ojMassachusetts, et. a1, vs. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, et.al. 2006-2007.
"The Evidence - 2004-OS, Alaska," The Epicenter for Global Warming in the Nation,"
AlaskaConservation Solutions, 2006.
Weitz, Jerry, "Jobs-Housing Balance„" American Planning Association, PAS Report #516
47