Need for Policy Level Approach*
General plans are vital to the successful growth of communities. Through policies and implementation strategies, general plans lay the foundation for local governments to build upon. The idea of a comprehensive plan that defines a community's vision for future development is not new to California. "Master Plans" were first codified in 1927 (Fulton & Shigley 2005), and in 1937 California became one of the first U.S. States to mandate master plans for cities and counties. Overtime, the state required local municipalities to develop specific sections, or elements, as well as specific plans for specific geographic areas. In 1984, the state revised the planning statutes so that some of the existing elements were consolidated into the seven required elements of a community "general plan": Land use, Housing, Open space, Safety, Circulation, Conservation, and Noise.
While general planning may not be an ideal mechanism to manage changing conditions, for example nearly 2/3 of general plans in California are out of date (Detwiler 2006), it is an appropriate mechanism for establishing long-term response goals and for setting direction for community development.
Importance of the General Plan for California Climate Protection
As research is increasingly showing, climate change will have a long-term impact, (directly and indirectly) on the economic, political, and social well-being of California. For example, in a study utilizing climate models, 11 climate scientists from five institutions found that human-induced global warming has and will continue reducing the snow pack in the western mountains, which serves as our natural water storage bank (Kerr 2007). The great uncertainties around the impacts of climate change, make response management exceedingly challenging.
In light of this and other scientific assessments, it would make sense for local governments to actively plan for climate change. The California State Legislature has already recognized this imperative through enactment of the landmark AB 32, which established the first statewide effort to reduce and cap greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of California's economy. Although the translation of AB 32 into local municipal policies has not even begun, and it is unclear what direction this will take, it is clearly in local governments' best interest to start actively planning and preparing for what may be a mandated cap on all local governments' operations.
As noted in a recent
technical advisory on CEQA and Climate Change put out by the Office of Planning and Research, "adopting of general plan policies and certification of general plan EIRs that analyze broad jurisdiction wide impacts of GHG emissions can be part of an effective strategy for addressing cumulative impacts and for streamlining later project-specific CEQA reviews."
As climate change becomes increasingly evident and state regulations authorize local governments with responding to climate change, climate planning is moving to the forefront of concerns for local governments (City of Seattle 2008). Because of the timeframe and scope of climate change, climate protection strategies require a firm long-term policy level commitment. Embedding climate protection strategies into municipal policies through general plans will be a critical piece of local responses. Given the mandate that general plans should address, this "long-term perspective" on the "conditions and needs in the future," the General Plan is the natural foundation for local government climate planning.
Obstacles for Climate Protection Policies
Despite the heightened urgency and enthusiasm in actively addressing climate change, many communities, including some of the 728 cities that have signed onto the Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, are finding it to be a challenge to develop and translate GHG reduction strategies into effective policies and programs (Roosevelt 2007). This is no surprise since such planning requires significant resources, such as allocating funds to hire staff or consultants with appropriate background and technical knowledge to efficiently develop and implement climate protection policies and strategies. For example, in its effort to be a climate leader, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome has come under fire for the costs of maintaining his climate staff (Vega 2008). Not all local governments have the political will and the financial resources needed to develop their own programs and policies, yet to achieve climate reduction goals statewide, every community will have to integrate climate planning into their general plans at some point. Yet, general planning is already an underfunded activity in California. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research's (OPR) identified 304 cities and 39 counties in California that have not revised and updated their general plan within the last ten years (OPR 2006) A likely reason for delaying the update process is the high costs for an average California city. OPR research found that updating a general plan can cost on average about $333,139 (including CEQA $96,277 and public participation $39,643) (OPR 2003a). Given that California does not provide significant financial support for the revisions of general plans, most cities and counties must allocate general funds to finance the general plan update (Detwiler 2006). Given the underfunded state of general planning, integrating climate protection into the general plan is unlikely to occur without significant facilitation or support.
*This article paper excerpted from Scheuer, K. , Lim, E., Summerville J., and Dandridge, C, 2008. "Greening Communities: Integrating Climate Protection Policies into Local Governments' General Plans through Online Collaboration" prepared for 2008 ACEEE summer Study.
References
Climate Policy Toolkit
Comments