Preserving the Golden Egg

James Davenport – Program Director

National Association of Counties

jdavenport@naco.org

American Planning Association Conference Los Angeles, CA April 16, 2012

mailto:jdavenport@naco.org

Co-Sponsored by the APA County Planning Division

Mission

Strengthen relationships among county planners, county elected officials, and other county personnel by facilitating the sharing of technical information, encouraging continuing professional development of its members, and researching county planning issues, establishing partnership with other entities.

Co-Sponsored by

• National Association of County Planners • Digital Coast Partnership

– American Planning Association

– National Association of Counties

– Coastal States Organization

Coastal Zone Management Act

• Passed in 1972

• NOAA – Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM)

• National Coastal Zone Management Program and National Estuarine Research Reserve System

Coastal Zone Management Act

• 34 Coastal Program

• Objective - "preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone."

Objective of Workshop

• Learn how coastal zone management serves multiple objectives including economic development. Now in its 40th year, the Coastal Zone Management Act, by creating a more secure environment for public and private investment, has protected the nation’s coastal treasures.

• Hear how the act and resultant planning efforts has enhanced both resilience in the face of coastal hazards and prospects for economic development.

Speakers

• Michelle Jesperson, Federal Programs Manager, California Coastal Commission

• Joseph A. Scorcio, AICP, Deputy Utilities Manager , Pierce County, WA

• James C. Schwab, AICP, Manager, APA Hazards Planning Research Center and Co-Editor, Zoning Practice

Preserving the Golden Egg

. . . Through Coastal Zone Management

James C. Schwab, AICP

Manager, APA Hazards Planning Research Center

APA National Planning Conference

Los Angeles, April 16, 2012

APA’s Digital Coast Needs Assessment Survey

What Do APA Members Want?

• APA conducted Digital Coast needs assessment survey on Zoomerang (Nov./Dec. 2010)

• 686 full responses from planners serving coastal communities

• Results posted in APA web-based report last fall: http://www.planning.org/research/digitalcoast/index.htm

http://www.planning.org/research/digitalcoast/index.htmhttp://www.planning.org/research/digitalcoast/index.htm

Overview

• Who Responded

• Geospatial Capability

• Big Issues for Planners

• What Planners Need

• Communication

Who Responded

Who Responded (cont)

Who Responded (cont)

Geospatial Capability: Use Proficiency

(% of Respondents)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expert Advanced Intermediate Introductory Not Familiar

Geospatial Capability: Capacity % Respondents Agree/Strongly Agree their Organization:

Top 10 Issues for Planners: Ranked by % Respondents Citing High or

Very High Priority

1. Land Use Planning/Growth Management (86%) 2. Conservation (72%)

3. Economic Development (71%)

4. Flooding/Inundation/Storm Surge (68%)

5. Ground Transportation (67%)

6. Infrastructure/Utilities Development (67%)

7. Sustainability (63%)

8. Recreation & Tourism (61%)

9. Public Access (61%)

10.Hazard Management (60%)

What Planners Need: Data Top Five in each Category Ranked by % Respondents

What Planners Need: Tools Top Five Ranked by % Respondents Citing High or Very High

Importance

1. Impervious Surface Analysis Tool (69%)

2. Coastal County Snapshots (62%)

3. Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) (55%)

4. Nonpoint-Source Pollution & Erosion Comparison Tool (55%)

5. Landscape Fragmentation Tool (54%)

Communication: Challenges % Respondents Citing Primary Challenges Communicating

with Decision-Makers about Planning

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Competition between diverse community interestsand values

Lack of immediacy or urgency connected with theissue

Fear of intruding on property rights

Low political priority/lack of concern

Scientific or technical complexity of the issue

Planning department is not involved in the issue

Other

Do not have challenges communicating withdecision-makers

Communication: Useful Media % Respondents Citing Useful Media when Communicating

with Decision-Makers about Planning

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Maps (printed)

Slide shows (e.g. Power Point)

Mapping tools (electronic)

E-mail

Memos and reports

Visualization tools (CanVis, Coastal Flood…

Local news media (newspapers, radio, TV, etc.)

Time-series data in graphic format

Videos

Government TV

Social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn,…

Other

Not Applicable

So What Does APA Offer through Digital Coast? • Participation in vetting, suggesting, and disseminating

news about Digital Coast tools based on member feedback

• Educational content for planners

• Sessions and Technology Showcase, e.g.

• Tuesdays at APA

• Involvement in regional projects

• Pacific Islands

• Great Lakes

• Gulf of Mexico

• “Spawn of Digital Coast”

• Coastal Management Fellowship

One last thing . . .

Your chance for the Digital Coast limelight:

APA is developing “In Action” examples of members’ use of Digital Coast tools for the Digital Coast website

Contact us if your use of these tools may make a good “In Action” case study

digitalcoast@planning.org

mailto:digitalcoast@planning.org

APA Digital Coast Contact Information

• Jim Schwab, AICP; Manager, APA Hazards Planning Research Center

jschwab@planning.org

312-786-6364

Chicago office: 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200

Chicago IL 60601

• Web: http://www.planning.org/research/digitalcoast/project/index.htm

mailto:jschwab@planning.orghttp://www.planning.org/research/digitalcoast/project/index.htmhttp://www.planning.org/research/digitalcoast/project/index.htm

Preserving the Golden Egg ……..Through Coastal Zone Management

Sewer Utility

APA National Conference Los Angeles, California

April 16, 2012

Where in the world is Pierce County, WA?

Transformation of the Chambers Creek Properties

The 940-acre Properties include 650 acres of former gravel mines, 2 miles of Puget Sound shoreline and a 3-mile long forested ravine and

creek surrounding a regional wastewater treatment plant.

In 1994, a Master Site Plan was jointly prepared by the Public Works & Utilities and Park & Recreation Departments for planning the future of the Chambers Creek Properties. The highly acclaimed Master Site Plan was adopted in 1997 and updated in 2007.

Conceived as a multiple use public project, the Master Site Plan is based on achieving a balance of government services, public access and revenue generation built on a corporate mantra of “reusing, recycling and reclaiming our resources”.

Green architecture, certified sanctuary landscaping, reclaimed water and biosolids-amended soils are integral elements of the Plan.

The Golden Egg - Chambers Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant

$400 Million Asset plus $300 Million Expansion • 160,000 customers • Water quality protection • Economic development key • Serves urban growth area • Capacity & land to expand

WWTP Expansion Logistics – Doubling a small city in 5 years

Text goes here

The Egg Carton - Coastal Zone Management Outcomes and Hopes •Knowing where the water is today •Determining where it will be – how high/how soon •Protecting the shoreline and upland development •Protecting habitat and aquatic species •Enhancing and restoring diminished habitat areas •All the other “good things” The Challenge •Balancing goals within physical and fiscal realities

The Four Horseman Ride Again

Climate Change

Regulation & Permitting

Water-Fish-Habitat

mega-genda”

Earthquakes,

Seiches & Tsunamis

Sea Level Changes – 1 ¼ inches per decade

Sea Level Changes – 1 foot lost already

Sea Level Changes – Visible changes

Sea Level Changes – Visible changes

Sea Level Changes – Visible changes

Storm Surge – Just last week!

Storm Surge – Serious consequences

Storm Surge – Serious consequences

Tidal Influence –Delayed infiltration

Tidal Influence –Delayed infiltration

Habitat Protection, Restoration & Infrastructure

Habitat Protection, Restoration & Infrastructure

Habitat Protection, Restoration & Infrastructure

Contact: Joseph Scorcio, AICP Deputy Utility Manager Pierce County Public Works & Utilities (253) 798-4050 joseph.scorcio@co.pierce.wa.us

A representative of APA’s County Planning Division and the National Association of County Planners

Questions?

APA 2012 National Planning Conference

Session Title: Preserving the Golden Egg

Session Function Code: S583

Michelle Jesperson

Key Learning Objectives

How CZMA is applied California

California Coastal Act provides strong regulatory

framework to build resiliency into coastal

development

Three project examples illustrating planning and

policy tools used to address sea level rise

California Coastal Zone

• Coastal Miles (Mainland): 1, 271

• 2010 Coastal Population: 27.8

million; +25 million by 2050

• 76 coastal jurisdictions (15 counties,

61 cities)

• Coastal Economy: 83% of State’s

total $1.9 B GDP

Source: 2010 Population Data for Coastal Zone Counties and Coastal

Economy GDP from the National Ocean Economics Program Image by California Coastal Commission

CZMA = Federal + State

California’s Management Program:

Advances the national

interest in the coastal zone

Receives federal funding

Conducts Federal

Consistency Review

Photo: Highway 1 along the Big Sur Coast Credit: Coastal Commission staff

CA’s Coastal Management Program

THE

MCATEER-

PETRIS ACT

PUBLIC RESOURCES

CODE

DIVISION 21

STATE COASTAL

CONSERVANCY

PUBLIC RESOURCES

CODE

DIVISION 20

CALIFORNIA

COASTAL ACT

PUBLIC RESOURCES

CODE

DIVISION 20

CALIFORNIA

COASTAL ACT

PUBLIC RESOURCES

CODE

DIVISION 20

CALIFORNIA

COASTAL ACT

PUBLIC RESOURCES

CODE

DIVISION 20

CALIFORNIA

COASTAL ACT

http://scc.ca.gov/

The California Coastal Act mandates the Coastal

Commission to:

“Protect, conserve, restore, and enhance”

the state’s coastal resources.

The California Coastal Act

Surf scene, San Diego Photo Credit: Nathan Rupert

Point Reyes National Seashore Photo Credit: unknown

Coastal Act = State + Local

Local Coastal Programs (LCPs)

Land Use Plan & Zoning Ordinance

Delegates permit authority to local government

Santa Monica Beach Photo Credit: Coastal Commission staff

California Coastal Trail, San Francisco Photo Credit: Coastal Commission staff

Coastal Act Policies- Development

New Development (Section 30253)

Minimize risks to life & property

Assure stability & structural integrity

Neither create nor contribute to erosion

Assure no protective devices needed for life of

structure

Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles

traveled

Coastal Act Policies- Development

Shoreline Protection Allowed (Section 30235) for:

Coastal dependent uses

Public beaches

Existing (pre-Coastal Act) structures

Mitigation

Required to offset:

Loss of beach and sand

Recreational opportunities

Coastal Act Policies- Resources

Protection of:

Public Access (30210)

Marine Resources (30230)

Biological productivity, water quality

Limitation on fill; oil spill prevention

Land Resources (30240, 30241)

Environmentally sensitive habitat areas

Prime agricultural land

Water-Oriented Recreational Uses (30220 - 30222, 30213 )

Coastal areas suited for recreation, facilities and accommodations

Scenic and visual qualities (30251)

Coastal Act Polices – Priority Uses

Recreational, visitor-serving facilities

Aquaculture

Commercial fishing and recreational boating facilities

Agriculture, including timberlands

Coastal-dependent industrial facilities

Oil and gas, refineries,

co-location of facilities

Port Master Plans

Planning for Resiliency

Coastal Commission

considers climate

change in:

Planning – Updating

Local Coastal

Programs

Regulatory actions –

Permits

Education activities

Beach flooding in Marina del Rey Photo Credit: A. McLendon

LCPs and Sea Level Rise

Use of best available scientific information for

coastal hazards

Coastal hazards analysis and tsunami wave run-up

must consider sea level rise

At a minimum, sea level rise scenarios shall assume:

16 inches (1.3 feet; 0.4 meters) by 2050

55 inches (4.6 feet; 1.4 meters) by 2100

Higher estimate for critical facilities recommended

Permits and Sea Level Rise

Setbacks assure safe

development for life of the

structure (75 – 100 Years)

Blufftop Development:

Stable bluff analysis

PLUS accelerated erosion

due to sea level rise

Coastal erosion rates will increase greatly with accelerated sea level rise

Photo: Pismo Beach, Credit: C Teufel

Permits and Sea Level Rise

Beach Level Development:

Erosion for 75 or 100 years

PLUS Sea level rise for 75

or 100 years

PLUS Seasonal Beach

Change

PLUS Water level from high

tide

PLUS Wave run-up from

100-year storm event

Huge waves in Pacifica, January 2012 Photo Credit: Bryan Flores

Example 1: Solana Beach LCP 2012

Issue:

Development on ocean bluffs

vulnerable to coastal erosion

Actions:

New development, redevelopment:

Waives right to future sea walls

Set back of 40 feet on bluff top

Considers sea level rise in siting and coastal hazard analysis

Solana Beach, CA

Photo courtesy of California Coastal Records Project, Copyright

© 2002 – 2010 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman

Establishes 20 year limit on shoreline protection

Homes destroyed by a disaster exempt from permit requirements only if meet all current LCP requirements

Increases wetland buffers to allow for wetland migration

http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=200407652&mode=big&lastmode=sequential&flags=0&year=2004

Example 2: Humboldt County LCP

update (Town of Samoa) 2011

Issue:

Low-lying peninsula located in

earthquake zone

Highly vulnerable to extreme

storms, sea level rise, and tsunamis

Actions:

Photo courtesy of the Coastal Records Project, copyrighted &

provided by Kenneth and Gabrielle Adelman

Development only allowed above tsunami wave run-up elevation

including 3 ft sea level rise

Deed restrictions on properties to disclose risk, no future sea wall

Critical infrastructure & facilities sited and design to withstand

4.5 ft sea level rise

http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=200901329&mode=big&lastmode=sequential&flags=0&year=2009

Example 3: Surfer’s Point

(City of Ventura) 2006

Issue:

Erosion undermining beach, bike

path

Failure of hard armoring

solutions

Actions:

Multi-party Stakeholder effort

Successful managed retreat

Revitalized community resource

Project Site

Example 3: Surfer’s Point cont’d

Looking west at the severe erosion

of the existing bike path and

parking lot. Photo credit: Gary Timm

Looking east at the severe erosion

of the existing bike path and

parking lot. Photo credit: Gary Timm

Conclusion

Partnership

Federal + State + Local

Coastal Act has and will continue to provide the planning and

policy framework needed to ensure resiliency in California

Opportunity in Updates to Local Coastal Programs

Local Governments already making progress

Acknowledgements

Contact Info:

Michelle.Jesperson@coastal.ca.gov

Thanks to sponsors who made this presentation

possible:

S583_James_DavenportS583_James_SchwabS583_Joseph_ScorcioS583_Michelle_Jesperson