Implementation Planning

Many other plans are used across a community and region to ensure our communities, economies, and environment are thriving – plans with key roles in investment decisions or a specific and detailed topical or area focus – that should be consistent with LHMPs, LCPs, general plans, and adaptation plans. These plans, for the purpose of this section, fall under the broad category of implementation plans, which can turn high-level policy into specific actions and stepwise roadmaps. Examples are shown in the graphic and listed below. This list, while likely not exhaustive, can be used to identify alignment opportunities, implementation mechanisms for specific adaptation strategies, and plans necessary for enforcing strategies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital and Infrastructure Plans

Capital Improvement Plans

Public Works Plans (Local Coastal Programs)

COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Plans that are more effective for carrying strategy and policy into action often have the following characteristics, alongside specific and detailed strategies and actions: Describes monitoring programs and criteria Processes for ongoing maintenance Prioritizes areas for upgrades Include actions that mitigate negative impacts of implementation Includes specific mechanisms for each strategy or action Identifies zoning modifications and restrictions Identifies other fiscal and regulatory incentives

Maintenance Plans

Adaptation Implementation/Action Plans

Shoreline Adaptation Implementation Plans (Bay Area)

Transportation Plans

Active Transportation Plans (Bike or Pedestrian Plans)

Regional Transportation Plans

Sustainable Communities Plans

Community Transportation Plans

Caltrans District Corridor Plans

Long Range Transportation Plans

Hazard-Specific Plans

Flood Protection Plans

Stormwater Management Plans

Natural Resource Management Plans

Green Infrastructure Plans

Debris Management Plans

Emergency Operations Plans

Evacuation Plans

Maritime Response Plans

Economic Plans

CLASSIFYING STRATEGIES TO IDENTIFY IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS The California Adaptation Planning Guide uses the term “strategy” generally to refer to a policy, program, project, measure, or action meant to increase resilience (APG Phase 3.3). Categorizing adaptation strategies during the planning process according to the following categories can be helpful for identifying implementation mechanisms and plans. Operational/internal; Programmatic/external; Plans, regulations, permitting, and policy development; Բ Capital improvement/infrastructure projects; Education, outreach, and coordination; Funding and financing: incentives or disincentives budget approaches funding/financing sources Capacity building

Community Economic Development Plans

Workforce Development Plans

Organizational Strategic Business Plans

Waterfront Revitalization Plans

Watershed Plans

Watershed Master Plans

Integrated Regional Water Management Plans

Sediment Management Plans

Groundwater Sustainability Management Plans

Area Plans

Beach/Shoreline Strategy or Management Plans

Maritime Improvement Plans

Specific Plans

Precise Plans

Neighborhood or Community Plans

Urban Design Standards and Guidelines

California Adaptation Planning Guide, Phase 4

General Plan Guidelines, Chapters 4 & 8

Critical Infrastructure at Risk: Sea Level Rise Planning Guidance for California’s Coastal Zone

The Adaptation Roadmap, Chapter 6

CASE STUDY The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments of (C/CAG), a joint powers authority, developed a Green Infrastructure Design Guide to advance sustainable stormwater management through the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C/CAG integrated climate resilience throughout the “one-stop-shop” guide, which covers green infrastructure and low impact development design and construction guidance, implementation strategies, operation and maintenance information, and technical specifications for agencies, developers, and design professionals. The Guide is interactive and regularly updated, and complements the C.3 Regulated Projects Guide, which provides technical guidance for navigating regional water quality regulations and stormwater permits.

• When budgeting and prioritizing funding for infrastructure adaptation projects, evaluate the costs and benefits of strategies over the entire life cycle of at-risk infrastructure, as opposed to 20- or 30-year increments, when performing alternatives analyses. This analysis should assess both market and non-market values, such as ecosystem services that may be impacted, and environmental justice considerations. This analysis can inform the mitigation action details in an LHMP, the next update to a capital improvement plan, and subsequent implementation plans. (For more infrastructure resilience guidance, reference Critical Infrastructure at Risk.)

• Consider creating or supporting a multi-jurisdictional entity, climate collaborative, joint powers authority or agreement (JPA), climate resilience district, or other independent special-purpose mechanism with the authority to coordinate, finance, and implement flood protection, sea level rise, and other climate resilience projects. These types of mechanisms can streamline planning, coordination, and implementation of multiple local and regional plans, finance regional infrastructure and natural resource projects, jointly purchase equipment, pursue grants, and start new programs.

  • Public agencies can form a JPA to implement sea level rise solutions and other adaptation strategies, providing they meet the requirements of the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Gov. Code, §§ 6500-6599.3).

  • SB 852 (2022) (Gov. Code, §§ 62300 – 62312) gives communities and regions the authority to establish local “climate resilience districts” (CRDs), which can span jurisdictional lines and focus resources on local climate resilience risks and solutions. Cities, counties, and special districts can create CRDs to raise revenue, and plan and implement climate mitigation or adaptation projects. CRDs can also leverage a variety of local funding sources including private, local, state, and federal sources.

• Develop a monitoring and evaluation system to track social and economic impacts, monitor and adjust the effectiveness of climate resilience integration and plan alignment, and inform recovery frameworks and plans after hazard events and major disasters. Monitoring and evaluation activities are also critical for phased adaptation approaches that rely on specific thresholds, which would trigger subsequent decisions, planning, or actions.  

  • To ensure continued success and improvement, develop accessible, equitable, and transparent reporting mechanisms for community members to provide continuous feedback on plans, programs, and projects, even once the project has already been completed.

• Accessible and transparent community engagement should continue in all phases of projects for equitable results and continued alignment across the community. Continuing open communication and engagement between community members and local government entities and allowing community members to express their thoughts on the resulting project is important for monitoring whether solutions are effective.

 

• To minimize the time and financial costs of reanalyzing a series of projects related to a planning document where CEQA analysis is required, a jurisdiction can use a programmatic EIR for a local plan, such as an adaptation plan, hazard mitigation plan, or the general plan, which may allow them to tier their analysis of subsequent discretionary projects from the program EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15168.) By using this approach, a jurisdiction can limit the environmental review for a subsequent project, such as capital improvement or development projects that are within the scope of the plan and associated programmatic EIR, to those project-specific significant effects that the program EIR either did not examine fully or did not examine at all.

• Permitting coordination is useful to consider during the planning phase, as it may be necessary to update the LCP, general plan implementation documents, or other plans to modify permitting regulations and enable aligned regional permitting. The varied permitting requirements and processes of different agencies with shared jurisdiction over an area can lead to lengthy and costly project implementation. To mitigate this potential, consider starting or joining a local or regional group of agencies committed to streamlining, aligning, or even integrating permitting requirements and processes.

• Use land use regulations to implement general plan climate and hazard mitigation policies. Making changes to zoning and subdivision ordinances to align with sea level rise projections, climate data, and associated risks that impact coastal flooding, floodplain management, widlfire resilience, and other needs is crucial to the success of adaptation strategies under a changing climate.