final eir comments and responses eir comments and responses ... tulare county association of...

2014 RTP/SCS PEIR Appendix B – Response to Comments

TCAG

FINAL EIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), as the lead agency, has reviewed the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for Tulare County and has prepared written responses to the written comments received. The DEIR was circulated for a 48-day public review period that began March 28, 2014 and concluded on May 14, 2014. The comment letters included herein were submitted by public agencies, private organizations, and private citizens. No verbal comments on the EIR were received at the two Workshops/Public Hearings. Each written comment that TCAG received on the Draft EIR is included in this section. Responses to these comments have been prepared to address the environmental concerns raised by the commenters and to indicate where and how the EIR addresses pertinent environmental issues. In addition, TCAG received verbal public hearing comments on Draft 2014 RTP/SCS, as well as written comments specifically on the Draft 2014 RTP/SCS. These comments and responses to them are included as Appendix I of the Final 2014 RTP/SCS. These comments and responses are hereby incorporated by reference into the Final EIR. The Final EIR volume and this Comments and Responses document collectively comprise the Final EIR for the 2014 RTP/SCS. Any changes made to the text of the Draft EIR correcting information, data or intent, other than minor typographical corrections or minor working changes, are noted in the Final EIR as changes from the Draft EIR. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially, and each issue within a comment letter, if more than one, has a number assigned to it. Each comment letter is reproduced in its entirety with the issues of concern numbered in the right margin. References to the responses to comments identify first the letter number, and second, the numbered comment. As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), TCAG has provided written responses to comments on all environmental issues raised in the Draft EIR comments. Comments related to the merits of the proposed project or other non-environmental issues are noted, but consistent with Section 15088(a), responses are not provided. Although not required by CEQA, responses to some of these non-environmental issue comments may be included in Appendix I of the Final 2014 RTP/SCS. In addition to the information referenced in the Draft EIR, information from the following sources was used to prepare several of the responses contained within the Response to Comments document (Appendix B). All documents can be reviewed on the TCAG website at www.tularecog.org/DocumentCenter.

San Joaquin Valley GHG Quantification Technical Methodology (February, 2014) http://www.tularecog.org/DocumentCenter/View/397

B-1


TCAG

Richard W. Corey (Executive Director, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA). Letter to Ted Smalley (Executive Director, Tulare County Association of Governments, Visalia, CA). March 10, 2014.

Auto Operating Cost Parameters Worksheet, TCAG Transportation Demand Forecasting

Model (April, 2013)

Technical Summary for the Tulare County Association of Governments Traffic Model to Meet the Requirements of SB 375 (April, 2013) http://www.tularecog.org/DocumentCenter/View/359

B-2


TCAG

2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Commenters on the Draft EIR include public agencies and private entities (refer to Table B-1).

Table B-1 Commenters on the Draft EIR

Letter No.

Commenter Agency/Organization Date of Letter

1 Craig K. Breon Tulare County Citizens for Responsible Growth

May 14, 2014

2 Adam Livingston Southern Sierra Partnership May 13, 2014

3 Daniel O’Connell American Farmland Trust May 13, 2014

4 Nick Cammarota, Rex Hime and Robert Keenan

California Building Industry Association / California Business Properties Association / BIA Tulare/Kings Counties

May 14, 2014

5 Vincent P. Mammano U.S. Department of Transportation May 19, 2014

6 Richard Lyon and Robert Keenan California Building Industry Association / BIA Tulare/Kings Counties

May 1, 2014

7 Diana Gomez and Mark A. McLoughlin California High Speed Rail Authority May 2, 2014

8 Len Marino Central Valley Flood Protection Board May 12, 2014

9 Ashley Werner Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability

May 14, 2014

10 Lorena Mendibles California Department of Transportation May 13, 2014

11 Jessica Willis San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

May 19, 2014

12 Scott Morgan Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

May 13, 2014

B-3

Tulare County Citizens For Responsible Growth ��

� �� Wednesday, May 14, 2014 J. Steven Worthley Chair, Board of Directors Ted Smalley Executive Director Tulare County Association of Governments 210 N. Church Street, Suite B Visalia, CA 93291 Re: Tulare CAG 2014 RTP/SCS Policy Recommendations and DEIR Comments Dear Mr.Smalley and Board Members, The following are comments by the Tulare County Citizens for Responsible Growth (TCCRG) on the Tulare County Association of Government’s (TCAG) 2014 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) and the accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR or EIR) supporting the RTP/SCS. Tulare County Citizens for Responsible Growth (TCCRG) is a diverse group of local residents united by concerns about the direction of future growth in Tulare County. Reflecting the expressed values and wishes of our county’s residents, we are working to ensure that future growth in Tulare County protects our local economy, communities, and natural resources. We support directing growth into our existing communities and protecting our agricultural land and open space for future generations. TCCRG wants to thank the TCAG Board and staff for the work they have put into this somewhat new RTP/SCS process. However, the RTP/SCS and the DEIR do not at this point meet the legal requirements of either SB 375 or CEQA, as partially explained below. Therefore, we urge TCAG to revise and recirculate the document, reflecting both the legal changes that are needed and providing an RTP/SCS that better reflects the priorities your constituents and community organizations have expressed during the RTP/SCS process. Achieving Target Reductions Table SCS-4 contained in the Draft RTP/SCS appears to show that adoption of the Preferred Project would achieve the GHG emission reduction targets assigned the San Joaquin Valley counties as the result of SB 375. (RTP, page

Letter 1

1.1

1.2

B-4

2

SCS-10) It is curious, however, that all scenarios, including Trend and No Project, also meet the mandated targets. This requires better explanation in order for the public to evaluate the actual performance of the RTP/SCS. Such expectations are backed by language from SB 375, which added Section 14522.2(a) to the Government Code, reading:

“A metropolitan planning organization shall disseminate the methodology, results, and key assumptions of whichever travel demand models it uses in a way that would be useable and understandable to the public.”

We are particularly concerned in that it has been discovered that Kern County, at least, has claimed to achieve SB 375 GHG reduction targets largely through “assumptions” that are wholly beyond the control of Kern COG and Kern local jurisdictions. We fear that TCAG has relied on similar assumptions. The Kern County Draft RTP/SCS claims to have reached and gone beyond the targets for GHG reductions set by the ARB, citing a reduction of 14.1% by 2020 and 16.6% by 2035. These reductions are broken down into component elements in Table 4-7 of the Draft RTP, entitled “HOW THE PLAN REDUCES PER CAPITA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN 2040.” (Kern COG 1014 Draft RTP, page 4-48, see http://www.kerncog.org/regional-transportation-plan) From this table, it appears that approximately 80% of the claimed GHG reductions come from two assumptions (as compared to active strategies): first, that gas prices will rise by two-thirds by 2040, and second, that a future (or past) recession/recessions will lead to a further reduction in GHGs. Please provide a table similar to that provided by Kern COG’s Draft RTP showing the component elements relied upon by TCAG to meet their SB 375 targets. Please discuss the underlying assumptions used by TCAG in modeling performance results associated with VMT and GHG reductions as contained in Table SCS-4. (RTP, page SCS-10) Is TCAG relying on assumptions similar to Kern County in calculating their future performance relative to VMT and GHG reductions? If the answer to that question is “yes,” please show what the VMT and GHG reductions would be if such assumptions were eliminated and only active TCAG and local jurisdiction programs were relied upon to achieve SB 375 targets.

The question of whether TCAG has met the mandated targets given it by the Air Resources Board (ARB or CARB) under SB 375 is crucial not only for determining compliance with SB 375 but also from a CEQA point of view. Not meeting the targets would show noncompliance with the underlying goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. Further, it would be an indication that overall impacts on GHGs are not as depicted in documents provided to the public and that GHGs are more likely to increase than as written, perhaps requiring

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

B-5

3

consideration of another alternative that does meet the targets or additional mitigation measures. This potential reliance on assumptions of factors purely external to the RTP/SCS raises grave concerns. SB 375 amended Section 65080 of the Government Code, calling for “action-oriented” plans to conform to the law. In the findings incorporated into SB 375, the law states:

“...It will be necessary to achieve significant additional greenhouse gas reductions from changed land use patterns and improved transportation. Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32. “ [SB 375, Section 1(c)]

Nowhere in the text of SB 375 does the Legislature endorse or even consider reliance on assumptions purely external to an RTP/SCS to reach GHG reduction targets. An interpretation of SB 375 that condones such assumptions renders the law nearly meaningless. SB 375 grants certain CEQA advantages to select projects in accordance with an approved SCS or APS.1 In addition, future state funding may flow to regions with approved SCSs that meet SB 375 targets. It would be contrary to California’s stated goals if Tulare could take advantage of this law to receive these benefits while not truly reaching the intended targets. If TCAG has used assumptions in a manner similar to Kern COG, we request that a variety of economic factors be considered when arriving at such assumptions. As to gas price increases, the following factors should be considered: • What is the base year used for pricing (i.e. the 2005 base year established by SB 375 or some other year)? • What dollar values were assumed? 2005 or 2014 dollar values would reduce over time due to inflation, likely reducing the impact of gas price increases on VMT. What rate of inflation was assumed over time? • Were forecasted changes in wages over time factored into this equation? • Were the impacts of increased fuel efficiency on the response of drivers to gas price increases included? By 2040, most vehicles will be considerably more fuel efficient, likely reducing the impact of gas price increases on consumers. Absent an explanation of whether such additional factors were considered or not, an accurate forecast of gas price increases on the gas consumption patterns of typical drivers seems impossible.

1.6

1.7

1.8

B-6

4

The concern regarding the assumption of a recession(s) follows the same path. Factors needing an explanation to the public would include when such a recession is assumed to occur, how long it is assumed to last, and how deep its impact would be on the local economy. If TCAG has a letter from CARB approving the modeling methodology used for the RTP/SCS, please provide the public with a copy of that letter in the next iteration of the EIR. Not only would this help the public to understand whether TCAG has complied with the “useable and understandable” standard of SB 375, but this would also help the public judge whether TCAG methodologies in analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA are accurate. The Question of Authority While we acknowledge that TCAG has no direct authority over local land use decisions, we dispute the claim—made throughout the EIR—that this fact means that TCAG has little authority to condition road projects listed in the RTP. In fact, TCAG has significant authority over RTP projects—it has the authority and responsibility to determine which transportation projects it will include in the RTP/SCS, which projects it will fund, and (by virtue of preparing an SCS), which projects will be eligible for certain CEQA exemptions and other streamlined permitting requirements authorized under SB 375. We believe that TCAG should use that authority to condition RTP projects so as to truly achieve the SB 375 targets and reduce or eliminate a multitude of “significant, unavoidable” impacts (e.g. land conversion and greenhouse GHG emissions, see below). As noted by Judge Timothy Taylor in the initial case challenging a post-SB 375 RTP/SCS (Cleveland Nat’l Forest Foundation et al v. San Diego Ass’n of Governments, San Diego County Case No. 2011-00101593):

“Second [reason for overturning the EIR], SANDAG's response has been to "kick the can down the road" and defer to "local jurisdictions." [Citations omitted]… This perverts the regional planning function of SANDAG, ignores the purse string control SANDAG has over TransNet funds, and more importantly conflicts with Govt. Code section 65080(b)(2)(B) quoted above.” (Page 12)

Tulare County’s Measure R is quite similar to San Diego’s TransNet funds, giving TCAG significant influence over which projects get funded. This in turn, makes a large impact on the availability of State and Federal funds, as local funds are often used as matching funds. Please provide a table or simple explanation of those funding streams that the TCAG Board has control over, as compared to funding streams that it does not (e.g. State or Federal funds specifically earmarked for a given local project).

1.9

1.10

1.11

1.12

B-7

5

What percentage, roughly, of the total funds distributed under the RTP does the COG control? Can TCAG cite to any State or Federal laws or regulations that would prevent TCAG from imposing mitigation requirements to reduce listed impacts at the programmatic level over all or most RTP projects? Is it the TCAG’s position that policies contained in the RTP Policy Element, for example, are merely advisory, or do they have authority over the RTP projects? This refusal to accept authority taints numerous sections of the DEIR, from air quality to biological resources to greenhouse gases and others. TCAG should revise the EIR to clearly distinguish what authority it has to fund and/or enforce mitigation measures for RTP projects in each of the areas of environmental impact. As a result, many of the mitigation measures currently listed with phrases such as “should” or “encourage” and deferred to later, unenforceable determinations could be changed to mandated mitigation measures that would substantially reduce or eliminate a range of listed impacts. Impacts to Farmlands and Natural Lands (While this segment of our comments refers primarily to farmland, many of the same concepts apply to grazing lands, forests, and other natural lands and should be read accordingly.) Again, while acknowledging that TCAG has no direct authority over local land use decisions, it does have the authority to consider programmatic mitigation measures that would reduce this otherwise significant, unavoidable impact. In fact, TCAG’s lack of authority over local land use decisions makes it all the more important to exercise authority—both legal and financial—where it does have it. First, TCAG should take direct responsibility for projects under its authority—RTP projects. We appreciate the fact that this DEIR, as compared to several other RTP DEIRs in the region, did break out the impacts to agricultural lands likely to be caused by transportation projects, as compared to those of local land use entities. The conclusion—up to 3,166 acres of productive land could be lost as the result of these RTP projects. The DEIR finds, appropriately, that this is a Significant Impact. (DEIR, page 4.10-12) However, the DEIR does not then go on to adequate consider and commit to feasible mitigation measures. CEQA requires that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” CEQA requires that agencies “mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.” (Pub. Res. Code §21002.1(b)) CEQA requires that “the EIR must propose and describe mitigation measures that will minimize the significant

1.13

1.14

1.15

1.16

1.17

1.18

B-8

6

environmental effects that the EIR has identified.” (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Bd. Of Supervisors, 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 360 (2001)) The California Department of Conservation suggests the use of agricultural conservation easements as mitigation for farmland loss. See http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/cfcp/Pages/Index.aspx. The DEIR must evaluate the feasibility of a programmatic mitigation measure requiring a minimum of 1:1 mitigation for projects in the RTP with impacts to farmland and natural lands. As regional examples, we provide the following, from the Caltrans District 6 environmental documents website. References are typically to Mitigated Negative Declarations (MND). Dates refer to the date of the document. (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d6/) • Freeman Gulch Four-Lane Project, Sept 2007, Kern County: Impact to 413-422 acres of habitat for a 16.4-mile long widening from two to four lanes. Mitigation included. (MND Summary, page ix) • San Luis Obispo and Kern Counties Route 46 4-Lane Widening Project, April 2005: Widening from two to four lanes over 39.3 miles of roadway. 108 acres of farmland impacted. (MND Summary, page xiii) 414.9 acres of wildlife habitat permanently impacted (also some temporarily impacted). (MND, page 49) Project mitigated for wildlife habitat but not farmland. • Wasco Four-Lane Project, Kern County, Oct 2006: 5.22 mile segment of State route 46 (MND Summary vii). 26.31 acres of kit fox habitat lost (and 7 acres temporarily), (MND, page114) 32.7 acres of Prime Farmland lost, but farmland other than Prime is not mentioned. (MND, page 35) Mitigated for habitat but not for farmland. • Inyokern Four-Lane Project, Kern County, Jan 2008: Conversion of two-lane highway to four-lane, divided expressway over 15.5 miles of roadway. Conversion of 480-520 acres of habitat. (MND summary, page vi) Mitigation for habitat loss. (MND, page 70) • State Route 41 Passing Lanes Project, Madera County, March 2011 29.4 acres of impact to grazing land for 1.4 and 1.2 mile passing lanes (MND summary pages iii and iv). • Road 80 Widening Project, Tulare County, Oct 2006 Widening/improvement of a 16-mile segment of road. 54.1 acres of impact to farmland, mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. (MND, page 27)

1.18

1.19

B-9

7

• Tulare Expessway, Tulare County, Sept 2012 Draft EIR Approximately 320 acres of farmland to be converted in acquiring a four-lane right of way over 9.3 miles. (EIR summary, page ix) No proposed mitigation. It appears that CalTrans generally finds project impacts to farmland to be less than significant, though cumulatively the numbers for just these listed projects add into the hundreds. Please explain how CalTrans typically considers cumulative impacts to land conversion? It would appear that TCAG may be the better organization to consider cumulative impacts from the RTP projects. We are including as Attachment A and B the comment letters from the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club and TCCRG on the Tulare Expressway (now called the Lindsay to Exeter Expressway). We believe these comment letters point to fundamental problems with the way Caltrans analyzes impacts from the conversion of farmland. Initially, the DEIR for the Tulare Expressway determined that impacts to approximately 320 acres of farmland were less than significant. When this determination was shown to be based on incorrect analysis, as a result of the above coments, CalTrans changed the determination from “Less than Significant” to “Significant” yet still refused to consider the feasibility of off-site, compensatory mitigation through conservation easements. (See Tulare Expressway recirculated EIR/EA, http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d6/) It should also be noted that CalTrans does often mitigate for the loss of rare wildlife habitats. This is the result of consultation with State or Federal wildlife agencies. We would conclude, then, that CalTrans mitigates when forced to but rarely under its own authority as a CEQA Lead Agency, further justifying the TCAG’s imposing mitigation requirements on them. Thus, in order to reduce the impacts to agricultural lands and natural lands from RTP projects, TCAG should adopt a mitigation measure requiring 1:1 acreage mitigation, at a minimum, for conversion of these lands due to RTP projects. Once a proper determination is made that the loss of farmland associated with this project is “Significant and Unavoidable,” TCAG must adopt any feasible mitigation measure that would avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for that loss where they have the authority to do so. [CEQA Guidelines, Sec. 15370] Of particular importance in the context of the loss of agricultural land is the CEQA language regarding compensation, “(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.” It is this language that mandates that TCAG consider off-site farmland preservation as a potentially feasible mitigation measure under CEQA. This mitigation is feasible, based on the following factors:

1.19

1.20

1.21

1.22

1.23

1.24

B-10

8

• Local Precedent: The Caltrans expansion of Highway 80 through portions of Tulare County (see above) provides a local example of how such mitigation can be accomplished. It is unfortunate that this example was the only one we could find for farmland mitigation from a transportation project in Tulare County. Please cite any other transportation projects that have mitigated for the conversion of agricultural or natural lands. • Regional Precedent: Many regional jurisdictions have adopted programs or ordinances requiring farmland preservation or a mitigation fee to mitigate for farmland loss. These include the cities of Davis, Stockton, Brentwood, Tracy, Lathrop, and Manteca as well the counties of Yolo and San Joaquin. • Financial Feasibility: Estimates of easement value for agricultural land in this region range from $4,000 per acre (personal communication with Chris Moi, Director of Land Transactions for Sequoia Riverlands Trust) to $8,000 per acre (based on previous mitigation agreements between the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club and project developers in Kern County). As an example, the Kern-Kaweah Chapter has previously estimated the cost to mitigate for the loss of 320 acres farmland associated with the Tulare Expressway project in Tulare County. (see Attachment A, page 5) That estimate shows a total cost of $1.28 million to $2.56 million, or 1.5%-3% added to the estimated cost of the two alternatives considered by CalTrans. Given that the Tulare Expressway Alternative 2 is $2.1 million more than Alternative 1 and was not rejected as financially infeasible, it would appear that Caltrans can afford the additional mitigation cost. Each Caltrans District has EEMP funds specifically set aside for the mitigation of farmland loss, and these funds can be matched by the Department of Conservation. Prices for easements over grazing land and most other natural lands would cost even less than farmland easements. • Technical Feasibility: The Sequoia Riverlands Trust (SRT) is the most logical entity to hold conservation easements or receive mitigation fees associated with RTP projects. Based in Tulare County, SRT holds a number of comparable easements on local farmland—including in Tulare County—and has the capacity to monitor and manage such easements or funds (management funds are typically included in the cost of facilitating the easements). • Willing Sellers: According to Sopac Mulholland, Executive Director of the Sequoia Riverlands Trust, there are adequate willing sellers in the region to accommodate significant mitigation. (Personal communication, February 2014) While the EIR asserts that such mitigation should be considered in the future on a project-by-project basis, mitigation of this type is better done at the programmatic level. First, as the above discussion of local CalTrans projects notes, CalTrans rarely mitigates for impacts to farmland at the project level and appears not to have determined that cumulative impacts are significant. Second, a programmatic-level decision would streamline the CEQA process for future

1.25

1.26

1.27

1.28

1.29

1.30

B-11

9

RTP projects. Third, a programmatic-level program of mitigation would be easier to implement than project-by-project mitigations. For example, such a program could take advantage of concepts already considered in the State’s Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP) program. (See https://rampcalifornia.water.ca.gov/) It should be noted that a mitigation requirement such as is proposed here would only affect a small portion of the overall RTP project list. Projects in previously urbanized areas would generally not be affected. Most of the smaller cities do not build road projects of any significant size. Most of the affected projects would either have CalTrans or Tulare County as the Lead Agency, thus making the requirement applicable primarily to entities large enough to handle the planning required. Any mitigation requirement should include the following parameters: • Mitigation should only be employed when it is shown that avoidance of land conversion cannot be accomplished without fundamentally compromising project objectives. • Mitigation lands should be of at least equal quality as farmland (i.e., if 63 acres of prime farmlands are being converted, then the preserved lands should include at least 63 acres of prime farmland). • Mitigation lands should be located in Tulare County. While we are aware that the problem of farmland conversion is a regional one, there are several reasons to require mitigation land to be local. If mitigation lands are far flung, it will be very hard to monitor and enforce the mitigation condition. A local land trust working with local land is much more accountable to the local public good than is one hundreds of miles away. In addition, preservation of local farmland helps to protect our area’s very important agricultural economy and helps makes it possible for local consumers to buy fresher, locally grown products. Finally, the aesthetic value of farmland is something that we should treasure locally. • Mitigation agreements should specify that their length be “in perpetuity.” Next—and again considering that TCAG cannot directly control local land uses—the EIR should nonetheless consider using the TCAG’s purse strings to influence local land use decisions, thus further mitigating impacts to land conversion. In the EIR, TCAG should evaluate the inclusion of a programmatic mitigation measure to address the growth-inducing impacts of transportation projects in the RTP. The language we propose is: “RTP projects that are found, in accordance with CEQA, to induce growth or remove a substantial barrier to growth will not receive funding until the applicable local jurisdiction(s) has adopted land conservation/mitigation policies in line with those recommended in the RTP/SCS

1.30

1.31

1.32

1.33

B-12

10

EIR.” This would, most likely, have to apply only to those projects over which TCAG has full or partial purse string control, as compared to projects solely funded with specifically earmarked State or Federal funding. This concept is not unfamiliar. In the Bay Area, MTC created a program requiring local jurisdictions to create Transportation Oriented Development plans in order to qualify for certain funding streams. Finally, even the listed, advisory mitigation measures in the DEIR could be more proactive on the part of TCAG and thus be an enforceable commitment under CEQA rather than a mere hopeful statement. A mitigation measure should be added to say that TCAG will proactively prepare a presentation on the values of farmland regionally, impacts to farmland from local land use decisions, and programs/policies/ordinances to prevent the conversion of farmland and to mitigate for the loss of farmland that is converted. TCAG should then commit to asking for time on the agendas of each local jurisdiction to make this presentation and request that the local jurisdiction engage in a process to create its own farmland/natural lands conservation and mitigation policy. Examples of such presentations have already been prepared by organizations such as the American Farmland Trust. (See http://www.farmland.org/resources/default.asp) Greenhouse Gas Emissions The DEIR’s discussion of greenhouse gas emissions suffers from many of the same flaws related above as to land conversion. The main problems are that TCAG does not acknowledge its authority to condition RTP projects and funding in a manner that more forcefully deals with environmental impacts as well as the problem of providing mitigation measures that are vague and unenforceable. It should be noted that even GHG reductions currently attributed to land use changes in the RTP/SCS are unenforceable by TCAG—all the more reason to search for alternatives or mitigation measures that are within the TCAG’s purview. TCAG should consider a mitigation measure that uses TCAG’s funding authority to condition project funding on a local jurisdiction’s commitment to create and adopt a Climate Action Plan (perhaps at or before the time of their next General Plan Update). The COG should then offer to help fund the creation of these plans. A measurable standard for this proposed Climate Action Plan mitigation could be derived from the GHG reduction goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. By calibrating those reduction goals with their timelines, TCAG could lay out a pathway for GHG reductions that the local Climate Action Plans would have to meet in order to receive funding. TCAG should also identify other sources for funding and implementation of Climate Action Plans.

1.33

1.34

1.35

1.36

B-13

11

In addition, the EIR should consider a mitigation measure that represents a more active commitment to engage local jurisdictions on ways to reduce VMT. As with farmland, a commitment to request time before the governing bodies in each community to lay out a series of recommended actions to reduce VMT locally. These actions should include parking management options, which have been shown to reduce VMT and thus GHG emissions. Without such a measurable and enforceable commitment to mitigate for the impacts of GHG increases, the DEIR fails to fulfill one of the most basic requirements of CEQA. Vague and unenforceable statements of encouragement and cooperation will not suffice. Yokohl Ranch—Cumulative Impact Analysis We are pleased to see that the development of Yokohl is not included in the preferred SCS scenario. We have and still do maintain that development of Yokohl Valley in the manner intended by Yokohl Ranch LLC would be profoundly deleterious to the County. However, we must also deal with the fact that Yokohl is a reasonable foreseeable future project and thus should have been included in the DEIR analysis in some manner. The absence of any such analysis constitutes a legal flaw in the document as currently drafted. It would probably have been best to consider Yokohl development as part of the “Trend” scenario, which would likely have produced a sharper contrast between the Trend scenario and the Preferred Project as contained in the DEIR. At a minimum, Yokohl should have been considered as part of the cumulative impact analysis of the DEIR. That analysis should include discussion of impact topics such as air quality and conversion of land in addition to GHG emissions. The RTP/SCS and the DEIR provide no analysis regarding the impacts of possible future development of Yokohl Ranch on VMT or GHG emissions (DEIR, page 3-4), and thus no analysis on the County’s ability to achieve the SB 375 targets were Yokohl to be built as currently proposed. The DEIR states that Yokohl has not been included in the analysis because it has not been approved and may not be approved in its current proposed form. (DEIR, page 3-4) This is not the legal standard under CEQA for what projects should be considered in a cumulative impact analysis. The CEQA Guidelines specifically cite “probable future projects” as requiring consideration in a cumulative impact analysis. (14 Cal Code Regs Section 15093) This is especially true when the impacts are considered significant, as they are here, and when the cumulative project generates impacts that are “related” to the project under primary consideration. (14 Cal Code Regs Section 15355 (b); see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal App 3d 692, 721) The probable impacts of the Yokohl Ranch development – substantial harm to air quality, increased traffic and GHG

1.37

1.38

1.39

B-14

12

emissions and the conversion of more than 10,000 acres of open space and agricultural land – are exactly the types of impacts focused on in this DEIR. That development of Yokohl Ranch is reasonably foreseeable (i.e. a probably future project) should be an inevitable conclusion from the following facts, many of which are taken from Yokohl Ranch LLC’s own website: • In 2004 the County signed an MOU with Yokohl Ranch, LLC stating the relationship under which planning for Yokohl Ranch would proceed. • Yokohl Ranch is well on its way to producing the detailed public documents needed for County and agency approvals,

“The plan for Yokohl Ranch is currently being reviewed by Tulare County. This review is part of a detailed and lengthy six-step process conducted by the County in accordance with the Tulare County General Plan, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as numerous other County, regional, state and federal ordinances, regulations and procedures.” (http://www.yokohlranch.com/the-process/ceqa-and-entitlement/)

The website then goes on to say that the project is in Step 4 of this 6 step process, having already submitted their application, conducted an Initial Study under CEQA, and released a Notice of Preparation for the EIR for the project. They are now in the midst of detailed environmental review and could produce a Draft EIR sometime in 2014 (personal communications with RMA staff, December 2013). • Yokohl Ranch has prepared a Fiscal Impact Analysis for the project, implying that they have a definite sense of the size of the project, the taxes it will generate, and the service costs it will require. • Yokohl has a detailed plan for what their “Town Center” will contain, including a community recreation center, small lake, retail shops and restaurants, a corner grocery store, a boutique hotel, medical office/clinic space, schools, and a civic plaza. (http://www.yokohlranch.com/the-plan/amenities-facilities-and-services/?show=town-center) • Yokohl has a transportation plan and the list of transportation upgrades necessitated by the project is also extensive and detailed, including “SR 198 widening (from Yokohl Drive to SR 245/Spruce), SR 198/Yokohl Drive intersection signalization, Yokohl Drive upgrade, widen, and re-alignment, Horse Creek access road construction, East Myer Drive improvements, Oak Flats access road construction, Road 244 connections linking Yokohl Ranch to Lindsay, [and] Various roadway intersection upgrades throughout the County” (http://www.yokohlranch.com/key-issues/transportation/)

1.39

1.40

1.41

1.42

1.43

1.44

B-15

13

• Yokohl Ranch has detailed air quality plans and is making commitments based on a level of specificity contained in those plans, stating “The VERA [Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement] was unanimously approved by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Board in May 2010 and commits Yokohl Ranch to voluntarily invest up to $10,000,000 to reduce net criteria pollutant emission impacts (those which create smog) to zero impact levels.” (http://www.yokohlranch.com/key-issues/air-quality/) From these facts, it seems clear that the developers of Yokohl Ranch and the County could provide TCAG with adequate information to provide the public with a “programmatic” level review of the potential impacts of the development of Yokohl Ranch on GHG emissions in the County and thus potential interference with the County’s meeting the GHG reduction goals assigned to it as part of implementing SB 375. These would include an estimate of VMT and a corresponding estimate of GHG emissions, taking into consideration those expected mitigations measures that Yokohl development would provide. We are attaching a document containing just the sort of analysis that should have been done in this situation. (Attachment C, Yokohl Ranch Result Report) Authored by Calthorpe Associates in 2013 using their Rapidfire model, this analysis compares a “Market Demand” scenario similar to the Preferred Project against a scenario including development of Yokohl Ranch as currently proposed. This analysis depicts the potential impacts of Yokohl Ranch as dramatic, including an additional 2.9 billion miles traveled between now and 2050. This document could form the basis of analysis of Yokohl Ranch in a revised EIR for this project. Certainly, it shows that adequate information is available upon which to base such an analysis. Tulare County would, in fact, have more detailed and up to date documents to provide TCAG for such an analysis. To conclude, there is adequate information to provide a programmatic-level analysis of Yokohl development as part of a cumulative impact analysis or perhaps as part of the “Trend” scenario. Given that adequate information is available, it should not take TCAG an exorbitant amount of time to complete such an analysis. We request that you do so and maintain that not doing so is a violation of CEQA and does a disservice to public dialogue on these issues. Impacts Related to CEQA Streamlining Section 4.10 of the DEIR, regarding Land Use, explains to an extent the CEQA streamlining provided to certain projects in jurisdictions with an approved Sustainable Community Strategy or Alternate Planning Strategy (APS). (DEIR, page 4.10-4) However, the DEIR does not make clear how the CEQA streamlining might lead to increased environmental impacts. The most concerning category of CEQA streamlining applicable here is for residential and mixed residential projects. The DEIR states,

1.45

1.46

1.47

1.48

1.49

B-16

14

“Environmental documents for these projects are not required to discuss growth inducing impacts, reduced density alternatives, or any project specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips on global warming or the regional transportation network.” (DEIR, page 1.0.16)

If a project qualifies for this partial exemption, is it the TCAG’s interpretation that therefore no mitigation measures for impacts related to GHG emissions or the regional transportation network would be required? Would the proposed Yokohl Ranch development qualify for such an exemption, or under what conditions might it qualify? Would that project then be exempt from discussing a reduced density alternative for the site? If Yokohl Ranch can qualify for this exemption, what would be the likely increased environmental impacts stemming from such an exemption? Next, please describe how other projects approved under the County’s “New Town” provisions from its General Plan might qualify for these exemptions. This seems a difficult question to answer, as determining whether a New Town project would fit the requirements for the exemption is unclear. However, it is important for the public to understand the magnitude of County-level development that could qualify for these exemptions, since those would lead to lesser environmental review and thus arguable greater impacts regionally. Please estimate the percentage of forecasted growth that might qualify for this partial exemption. Please then discuss the potential for this exemption to lead to increased GHG emissions and significant impacts on the regional transportation network. Proposed Cordova Hills Policy TCAG should adopt a policy to deal with large projects that are outside the parameters of the preferred SCS scenario. An example of this comes from Sacramento County and is known as the Cordova Hills project. The project as proposed covers 2,700 acres and allows for 8,000 housing units, additional commercial development, and has reserved land for a possible future university. The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors approved the project in early 2013 despite the fact that it was not contemplated or accounted for in SACOG’s approved SCS and was outside the region’s urban growth boundary. The Sacramento News and Review, in an article dated February 7, 2013, quoted Mike McKeever, the CEO of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as saying, “In 2035, we’re on the knife’s edge of meeting the [SB 375] target” “And a development that is as much above the regional average in [vehicle miles traveled] and greenhouse-gas emissions as this project would be raises the possibility that … the region would not meet that target.”

1.49

1.50

1.51

1.52

1.53

B-17

15

Given Yokohl Ranch is a planned community very similar in nature, though larger, than Cordova Hills, TCAG should adopt a policy, as part of the RTP/SCS, as to how such an development outside the scope of the preferred SCS scenario would be dealt with. It should be noted that more such developments could come up under the County’s General Plan, especially the “New Town” provisions of that General Plan. First, TCAG would need to adopt a threshold for such projects, perhaps most logically based on projected VMT to be generated. This would trigger a review of the project by TCAG. Then, at a minimum, TCAG should require that the project proponents identify whether the project as proposed might jeopardize Tulare County’s ability to meet the SB 375 targets for GHG emission reductions, as well as potential mitigation measures to ensure that such a result does not occur. TCAG would not control the land use decision. However, by adopting such a policy, large projects outside the current scope of the Preferred Scenario of the SCS would be required to consider compliance with the TCAG policy. We remain open to other approaches to this concern—a concern TCAG and its many jurisdictions should share. Conclusion While TCCRG appreciates the efforts made to date to incorporate SB 375 into TCAG’s planning process, the RTP/SCS as proposed appears to violate both the letter and the spirit of SB 375. In addition, the DEIR is inadequate in its analysis of the proposed project, alternatives, and mitigation measures. We respectfully request that in order to comply with SB 375 and CEQA that the RTP/SCS be revised and recirculated for additional public comment. Sincerely,

Craig K. Breon, Esq. On behalf of the Tulare County Citizens for Responsible Growth

1.54

1.55

1.56

B-18


TCAG

Response 1.1 See responses to subsequent comments addressing legal adequacy of the Draft EIR relative to Senate Bill 375 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification, there is no evidence presented in the comment letter or elsewhere in the administrative record indicating that “significant new information” has been added to the EIR requiring recirculation Response 1.2 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: The development of the scenarios began after the GHG reduction targets were established in February of 2011. There was no way to know if any or all of the scenarios would meet the targets until the modeling was substantially completed. Given the uniqueness of each region the experience of other MPOs in scenario development is not relevant to expectations of meeting targets. Response 1.3 The commenter provides information regarding the Kern County RTP/SCS greenhouse gas emissions analysis. See response to Comment 1.4 below. Response 1.4 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: In consultation with the Kern County Council of Governments (KCOG), TCAG learned that Table 4-7 of the Kern County Draft RTP/SCS was included by the KCCOG in the interest of transparency in the planning process. The table was intended to provide an indication of how the transportation and air emission model responds to various assumptions and strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. In developing this table, KCCOG changed one single model input variable (e.g., fuel price, economic activity, land use changes) at a time to see if and to what extent the model output changed. This type of analysis provides some sense of the model sensitivity to the SCS strategies. However, KCCOG noted in conversations with TCAG regarding this issue that the text in the RTP/SCS is misleading as it appears to attribute GHG reductions to individual assumptions and strategies in the SCS. Current models do not have the level of sophistication to accurately quantify the impacts of individual strategies. Numerous strategies are reflected cumulatively in this SCS, not all of which are modeled at one time. To avoid further confusion, KCCOG has removed Table 4-7 from the Final 2014 RTP/SCS. However, for a complete listing of proposed VMT and GHG reduction strategies, see Table 4-8 referenced in the KCCOG 2014 RTP/SCS. TCAG did not rely on the same approach KCCOG used in the Draft 2014 RTP/SCS; and thus, will not provide a similar table.

B-19


TCAG

Response 1.5 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: The focus of the GHG analysis in the TCAG RTP/SCS was in comparison of the growth scenarios. Development characteristics, such as differences in density and diversity of land uses, were what varied in the transportation model inputs. Transportation model outputs, such as VMT, then informed the regional air emissions model (EMFAC 2011) and off model analysis to develop the comparative scenario GHG emissions. Response 1.6 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: As discussed in the 2014 RTP/SCS and Draft EIR (e.g., p. 4.8-12), TCAG would meet the ARB mandated GHG reduction requirements through implementation of the Blueprint scenario. Response 1.7 See response to Comment 1.6. Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: The TCAG transportation model includes assumptions with regard to vehicle availability and operating costs. This includes data such as fuel prices and household incomes. These assumptions were incorporated when the model was developed by the consultant team in 2012. They have not been adjusted since, even when the model was last validated in April of 2013. The model has been used as a tool to study the interaction of transportation, housing and land use projects and policies as described in the RTP/SCS. Response 1.8 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: All of the San Joaquin Valley MPO transportation models have an auto operating cost projection as an input. In the case of Tulare County, since toll and parking costs are not significant factors, fuel cost is the main factor considered. While auto operating cost is a variable across time, it is static with respect to scenario comparisons. Response 1.9 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: As explained in the RTP/SCS, the effects of the recession are reflected in the demographic forecast which is the basis for the housing and jobs growth control totals of the land use scenarios. The scenarios then become inputs to the transportation model.

B-20


TCAG

Response 1.10 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: In accordance with SB 375, the technical methodology for the TCAG RTP/SCS was approved by CARB. The methods were also included with the draft RTP/SCS as Appendix N. Response 1.11 CEQA provides that an EIR can include feasible mitigation measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency. The appropriate CEQA finding in such instances is that such mitigation measures have been or “can and should be” adopted. (Public Resources Code §21081(a) (2); CEQA Guidelines §15092(a)(2).) TCAG has no authority to approve or implement individual second-tier transportation network improvement projects in the RTP. Individual transportation projects in the RTP will be implemented by Caltrans, local transit agencies, and local governments. Because these agencies routinely implement the types of mitigation measures assigned to them during project design, CEQA review, and/or project construction, these mitigation measures are feasible and effective. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that transportation agencies will actually implement them. Most of the transportation projects in the RTP are funded in whole part with state and federal funds. (TCAG, please provide details.) TCAG has no authority to impose conditions on these state and federal pass-through funds. Regarding lack of discretion to condition projects funded with Measure R funds, see response to comment 1.12. Lastly, the trial court language cited by the comment is not relevant to the TCAG EIR. Trial court decisions are not citable as precedent. Further, the trial court decision has been vacated on appeal and is not binding as between the parties. Response 1.12 Regarding Measure R, TCAG has no authority to condition projects using Measure R funds to require mitigation. Decisions on allocation of Measure R funds are made by a separate legal entity, the Tulare County Transportation Authority (Authority). (Measure R Ordinance, Ordinance 2006-01.) The Measure R Ordinance does not give the Authority any discretion to condition projects in the Measure R Expenditure Plan to require environmental mitigation. Similarly, the Measure R Expenditure Plan (Amendment 3, 2013) and its implementing guidelines provide no such authority. Further, Measure R funds are used to leverage state and federal transportation investments, and as mentioned in response to comment 1.11, ,TCAG has no authority to condition federal and state pass-through funds for projects also using Measure R funds. Response 1.13 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required.

B-21


TCAG

Response 1.14 TCAG’s EIR has identified potentially feasible mitigation measures where necessary to reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. While TCAG cannot mandate that sponsoring agencies for transportation and land use projects implement the mitigation measures, ongoing interagency consultation during project specific environmental review process would ensure that adopted mitigation contained in the Final EIR findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is considered and implemented where applicable. The sponsoring agencies for individual projects implemented in accordance with the 2014 RTP/SCS would be the lead agency under CEQA for those projects and as such would retain authority to apply specific mitigation measures on a project level. For additional explanations of TCAG’s lack of authority to mandate mitigation for second-tier projects, please see response to comments 1.11 and 1.12. Also, please note that TCAG has been proactive in facilitating biological mitigation for Measure R transportation projects by funding a mitigation banking program for Measure R projects. (See Amendment No, 9 to the Measure R Strategic Work Plan, December 9, 2013.) Response 1.15 Text introducing mitigation measures for each potentially significant impact have been revised. The language now states that “for transportation projects under their jurisdiction transportation project sponsor agencies can and should implement the mitigation measures developed for the 2014 RTP/SCS where applicable for transportation projects that could result in potentially significant and adverse impacts. Cities and counties in the TCAG region can and should implement these measures, where relevant to land use projects implementing the 2014 RTP/SCS”. The comment alleges that TCAG as refused to accept mitigation authority. However, as explained in responses to comments 1.11, 1.12, and 1.14, there is no authority to “accept.” TCAG has not been given the authority by federal or state law to condition project funding or mandate second-tier project mitigation by transportation or land use project sponsors. Also, please note that TCAG has been proactive in facilitating biological mitigation for Measure R transportation projects by funding a mitigation banking program for Measure R projects. (See Amendment No, 9 to the Measure R Strategic Work Plan, December 9, 2013.) Response 1.16 Refer to responses to Comments 1.14 and 1.15. The Draft EIR on fact does identify programmatic mitigation for agricultural land and sensitive habitat impacts to be applied to second tier transportation and land use projects (Mitigation Measures LU-5(d) and BO-2, respectively). Response 1.17 Mitigation measures to address potentially significant and adverse impacts to agricultural lands are addressed in Section 4.10.2. Mitigation measures are provided and designated LU 5(a)-(c). An additional mitigation measure – LU 5(d) was added to further address potentially adverse impacts to agricultural land in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. The measure states that “Prior to approval of 2014 RTP/SCS projects that may adversely impact prime

B-22


TCAG

farmland, the project sponsor shall, when the following mitigation measures are feasible, require that a farmland conservation easement, a farmland deed restriction, or other farmland conservation mechanism be granted in perpetuity to the municipality in which the project is proposed, or an authorized agent thereof. The easement shall provide conservation acreage at a minimum ratio of 1:1 for direct impacts. The conservation area shall be located within the county where the project is proposed in reasonable proximity to the project area”. Response 1.18 See response to Comment 1.17 above. TCAG will comply with requirement PRC Section 21002.1(b)) when it adopts CEQA findings for the 2014 RTP/SCS Final EIR. Response 1.19 See response to Comment 1.17 above. Programmatic mitigation calling for agricultural conservation easements has been added as Mitigation Measure LU-5(d). Response 1.20 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: The issue of how the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) considers cumulative impacts to land conversion is not directly related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The Caltrans comment letter on the 2014 RTP/SCS and Draft EIR (Letter 10) and responses are provided below. Response 1.21 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: Refer to responses to Comments 1.17 and 1.20. Response 1.22 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: If Caltrans is a sponsoring agency for any projects included in the 2014 RTP/SCS, they would be subject to mitigation requirements as stipulated in the responses to Comments 1.14 and 1.15 above. Response 1.23 See response to Comment 1.17 above. Response 1.24 TCAG has determined that Mitigation Measure LU-5(d) is a potentially feasible mitigation measure that reduces agricultural land impacts to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, the list

B-23


TCAG

of reasons supporting feasibility does not change the Draft EIR conclusions. See response to Comment 1.17 above regarding farmland preservation. Response 1.25 It is beyond the scope of this EIR to list other transportation projects that have mitigated for impacts related to agricultural conversion. Refer to response to Comment 1.17 and 1.24. Response 1.26

Refer to response to Comment 1.17 and 1.24.

Response 1.27 It is beyond the scope of TCAG’s authority to comment on Caltrans’ funding agreements and matters related to conservation easements associated with the Tulare Expressway or other projects. Refer to response to Comment 1.17 and 1.24. Response 1.28 Refer to response to Comment 1.24. Response 1.29 Refer to response to Comment 1.24. Response 1.30 The EIR prepared for the 2014 RTP/SCS is a programmatic evaluation of potential impacts, and as noted, provides programmatic mitigation measures, where needed, to reduce, avoid or minimize potentially significant and adverse impacts. Also, see responses to comments 1.14 through 1.17. Response 1.31 The language contained in Mitigation Measure LU-5(d) addresses the intent of the comment by providing programmatic mitigation for agricultural land impacts. Response 1.32 Refer to response to Comment 1.11. Response 1.33 Impacts related to growth inducement are discussed in Section 5.0, Long-Term Effects, of the 2014 RTP/SCS Draft and Final EIR. No adverse impacts related to growth inducement were identified; thus, no mitigation is required. Refer to response to Comment 1.11.

B-24


TCAG

Response 1.34 See response to Comment 1.31 above. Beyond the added mitigation measure LU-5(d), no further mitigation is included in the Final EIR. Please note that the comment presents no substantial evidence that the proposed mitigation language would be effective in reducing agricultural land conversion impacts to less than significant levels. Response 1.35 Because the EIR did not identify significant GHG impacts during operations of transportation and land use projects, mitigation measures for these GHG impacts are not required. Regarding TCAG’s inability to condition transportation projects, see responses to Comment 1.11 and 1.12 above. Regarding TCAG’s inability to require mitigation for land use projects, the following response is provided. SB 375 specifically provides that nothing in SB 375 supersedes the land use authority of cities and counties (Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(K)). Local governments are responsible for mitigated the impacts of land use projects implementing the SCS, and TCAG has no concurrent mitigation authority. Response 1.36 Because the EIR did not identify significant GHG impacts during operations of transportation and land use projects, mitigation measures for these GHG impacts are not required. Regarding TCAG’s inability to condition transportation projects to require GHG mitigation, see responses to Comment 1.11 and 1.12 above. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the EIR, the SCS sets forth a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, is intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks to achieve the regional GHG reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). SB 375 specifically states that local governments retain their autonomy to plan local General Plan policies and land uses. The 2014 RTP/SCS provides a regional policy foundation that local governments may build upon, if they so choose. Response 1.37 Because the EIR did not identify significant GHG impacts during operations of transportation and land use projects, and did not identify significant VMT impacts, mitigation measures for these impacts are not required. Regarding TCAG’s inability to condition transportation projects to require mitigation, see responses to Comment 1.11 and 1.12 above. SB 375 specifically states that local governments retain their autonomy to plan local General Plan policies and land uses. The 2014 RTP/SCS provides a regional policy foundation that local governments may build upon, if they so choose. See the response to Comment 1.11 and 1.14 above regarding mitigation enforcement authority. Response 1.38 In response to this comment, the Draft EIR text related to Yokohl Ranch on pages 3-3 and 3-4 has been deleted, and revised text related to Yokohl Ranch as a probable future project has been

B-25


TCAG

added to Section 4. It remains speculative to determine whether the Yokohl Ranch project as proposed would be approved, approved with modifications, or denied. However, since an application has been filed and the project is undergoing CEQA review, it can be considered a “probable future project” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), even though details about the project and its potential environmental impacts are uncertain. If developed, Yokohl Ranch would contribute to the significant cumulative effects identified in the 2014 RTP/SCS EIR, even though the specific Yokohl Ranch project was not included in the summary of projections that form the cumulative scenario for the EIR. This EIR describes significant programmatic and cumulative impacts from transportation facilities and land use projects, and mitigation measures, for the following resources areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions (off-road construction vehicles only); hydrology/water quality, land use and noise. The 2014 RTP/SCS population and housing projections are based on 2010 census data, Department of Finance forecasts and a Valleywide demographic forecast prepared by the Planning Center (see Draft 2014 RTP/SCS, Chapter 2, pages SCS-2 and SCS-33). These projections were based on detailed assumptions on factors such as birth rates, death rates, and migration that are not project-specific. Thus population and housing growth associated with Yokohl Ranch would already be included in the 2014 RTP/SCS population and housing projections.

Lastly, the commenter initially observes that “it probably would have been best” to include Yokohl Ranch in the Trend scenario. Yokohl Ranch is not in the current Tulare County General Plan nor were the potential effects programmatically evaluated in the Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update EIR (see Master Response #11). For similar reasons, and because the project is speculative and not sufficiently certain to allow meaningful review Yokohl Ranch was not included by TCAG in the RTP/SCS alternatives evaluated in this EIR. Response 1.39 See response to Comment 1.38. Response 1.40 See response to Comment 1.38. Although Yokohl Ranch is considered a “probable future project” only for purposes or CEQA analysis, it is far from an “inevitable conclusion” because it is speculative whether the project would be approved, approved but modified, or denied. Information on the applicant’s website may not be accurate, and in any event does not constitute substantial evidence that the project would be approved as described on the web site, or that its impacts as described in a County EIR would be similar to those described on the website. Response 1.41 See response to Comment 1.38. A Draft EIR for Yokohl was not available at the time the this Final EIR was prepared, and there is no public schedule for preparing the Yokohl Draft EIR or Final EIR, or considering project approval.

B-26


TCAG

Response 1.42 See response to comment 1.38. Response 1.43 See response to comment 1.38. Response 1.44 See response to comment 1.38. Response 1.45 See response to comment 1.38. Response 1.46 See response to comment 1.38. Response 1.47 See response to Comment 1.38 above. The hypothetical analysis of Yokohl Ranch project-specific impacts is based on speculative assumptions, and more suited for a project-level environmental analysis of Yokohl Ranch as a separate project. As allowed by the CEQA Guidelines (section 15130), the 2014 RTP/SCS EIR uses the projections approach, and is guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness. Response 1.48 See response to Comment 1.38 above. Response 1.49 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: TCAG’s interpretation of CEQA streamlining legislation is not relevant to the impacts of the 2014 RTP/SCS. Projects within the 2014 RTP/SCS would be evaluated on a project-specific basis for streamlining opportunities and partial exemptions under CEQA. Impacts related to implementation of the 2014 RTP/SCS, including the SCS, are described programmatically throughout the EIR. Mitigation requirements for land use and transportation projects implemented in accordance with the 2014 RTP/SCS would be imposed at the discretion of the sponsoring agency.

B-27


TCAG

Response 1.50 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: Tulare County rather than TCAG would be the lead agency for development in the Yokohl Ranch area, and would therefore be responsible for making decisions regarding compliance with CEQA. Response 1.51 The development of projects under the New Town provisions would likely be under the jurisdiction of Tulare County. As the MPO, TCAG would not sponsor such projects; and thus, comment on CEQA streamlining and related activities that may occur subsequent to this provision would not be appropriate. Refer to response to Comment 1.49. Response 1.52 The 2014 RTP/SCS EIR is intended to provide a programmatic evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of transportation projects and the SCS. It is unknown which projects, if any, would qualify for CEQA streamlining. However, full buildout of the RTP and SCS have been included in the regional VMT and GHG calculations. Significant adverse impacts related to traffic and GHG were not identified. Response 1.53 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, TCAG provides the following response: The commenter’s suggestion for adding a policy to the 2014 RTP/SCS will be considered by the TCAG Board when considering whether to approve the 2014 RTP/SCS. Response 1.54 See response to Comment 1.53. Response 1.55 See response to Comment 1.53. Response 1.56 See responses to Comments 1.1 through 1.55 regarding points addressed under this comment. No further response is required.

B-28

May 13, 2014

J. Steven Worthley Chair, Board of Governors Ted Smalley Executive Director Elizabeth Wright Senior Regional Planner Tulare County Association of Governments 210 N. Church St., Suite B Visalia, CA 93291

RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for 2014 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy

Dear Messrs. Worthley and Smalley and Ms. Wright,

I am writing on behalf of the Southern Sierra Partnership (SSP), a coalition of business and conservation groups working to protect land, livelihoods and communities in our region, to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). SSP’s member organizations—Audubon California, Sequoia Riverlands Trust, the Sierra Business Council, Tejon Ranch Conservancy, and The Nature Conservancy—are grateful for the opportunity to comment.

SSP serves a 7 million acre region stretching from the Southern San Joaquin Valley to the peaks of the Sierra and Tehachapi Ranges, and including much of Tulare County. This area contains habitat crucial to preserving biodiversity in a changing climate,1 as well as farmland that contributes nearly $38 billion to the economy every year.2 It is also home to a diverse and rapidly growing human population, many of whom come to Tulare County for its rural character

��1 Southern Sierra Partnership. 2010. Framework for Cooperative Conservation and Climate Adaptation for the Southern Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountains. Retrieved from http://www.southernsierrapartnership.org/ssp-framework.html.2 Livingston, A. 2013. Paths to Prosperity for the Southern Sierra and Southern San Joaquin Valley: Capitalizing on the Economic Benefits of Land Conservation and Compact Growth. Retrieved from http://www.southernsierrapartnership.org/ssp-economic-study.html.

Letter 2

2.1

B-29

2�

and quality of life. They enjoy these benefits due in part to a long legacy of conservation, including not only the designation of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, but also the innovative Rural Valley Lands Plan (RLVP), which was one of the first of its kind when passed in 1975.

But in recent years, the Southern San Joaquin Valley has been characterized by low density growth and disinvestment in existing communities—a pattern that is converting essential habitat and farmland into subdivisions,3 worsening widespread poverty4 and exacerbating some of the worst air quality in the nation.5 The SCS process, which was intended to reduce per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through “changed land use patterns and improved transportation,”6 provides an excellent opportunity for Tulare County to distinguish itself from this trend and reaffirm its commitment to conservation. In order to take full advantage of this opportunity, we respectfully request that the Tulare County Association of Governments (Tulare CAG) do the following:

1) Disclose the total acreage of farmland, grazing land, habitat and other open space that would be consumed by the RTP/SCS, both inside and outside urban spheres of influence (SOIs);

2) Modify the development pattern assumed in the RTP/SCS to reduce the amount of land conversion to the greatest extent possible without conflicting with existing land use plans; and

3) Include an explicit mitigation requirement in the SCS, such that full mitigation is required for any project that benefits from funding or streamlined permitting requirements by virtue of being consistent with the SCS.

I. Tulare CAG Should Disclose the Total Acreage that Would Be Lost to Development, Not Just the Amount Outside SOIs.

Thanks in part to the RVLP and similar policies, Tulare County remains the second most productive farming county in both California and the United States. As emphasized at the

��3 American Farmland Trust. 2013. Saving Farmland, Growing Cities: A Framework for Implementing Effective Farmland Conservation Policies in the San Joaquin Valley. Retrieved from http://www.farmland.org/documents/FINALSJVREPORTPDF1-14-13.pdf. For more on impacts to habitat, see SSP (2010). 4 Between 2007 and 2011, individuals below poverty in Tulare County averaged 23.8% of the population, compared to 14.3% of the population nationwide. Headwaters Economics. 2012. Economic Profile System—Human Dimensions Toolkit: Socioeconomic Profiles. Downloaded from http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt and run in Microsoft Excel. 5 American Lung Association. 2014. State of the Air. Retrieved from http://www.stateoftheair.org.6 SB 375, § 1(c). California Statutes, 2008.

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

B-30

3�

beginning of the Draft RTP/SCS, its “economic base is primarily focused on agriculture, from crop production to process[ing] and shipping.”7

But the plan reflected in the Draft RTP/SCS would result in the loss of at least 3,166 acres of important farmland, and at least 451 acres of critical habitat area.8 It is unclear from the Draft EIR whether this represents the total amount of farmland and habitat lost, or just the amount outside SOIs. It is also unclear if the total includes conversion caused by land use changes assumed by the RTP/SCS, or just conversion directly attributable to specific transportation projects. In order to fully understand the impact of the plan on Tulare County’s natural resources—including farmland and rangeland that produce over $6.2 billion a year in crop receipts alone—we respectfully request that Tulare CAG disclose the total acreage of important farmland, grazing land, habitat and other open space that would be converted under the Draft RTP/SCS and each Alternative, due to transportation projects and assumed land use changes, both inside and outside SOIs.

II. Given the Economic Impact of Land Conversion, Tulare CAG Should Adopt an RTP/SCS that Minimizes Unnecessary Greenfield Development.

Whether or not they cover land inside SOIs, the land conversion totals reported in the EIR include nearly five square miles of agricultural land—an area approximately twice the size of Exeter. A single acre of farmland or rangeland can bring in thousands of dollars every year, so the loss of five square miles would have significant impact. Counting jobs and other economic activity from agriculture, for example, an average acre of grapes in Tulare County put more than $30,000 into the economy in 2012.9 If this productivity is typical of the at least 3,166 acres of important farmland that will be consumed by the RTP, Tulare County stands to lose more than $94 million a year in economic activity, a loss that includes not only crop receipts, but also livelihoods.

Beyond the loss of jobs and revenue associated with some of the most productive farmland and rangeland on the planet, greenfield development on this scale would have adverse fiscal impacts, including higher infrastructure costs and lower property tax revenue per developed acre than a more compact pattern of growth. Numerous studies have found that it is more expensive per capita to provide roads, sewer service and other basic infrastructure for low density greenfield ��7 Draft RTP/SCS p. 1-1. 8 Draft EIR pp. 4.10-12 and 6-3. 9 For value of average harvested acre of grapes ($15,876), see Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer. 2012. Tulare County Agricultural Crop & Livestock Report. Retrieved from http://agcomm.co.tulare.ca.us/default/assets/File/2012%20Final%20Report.pdf.��Formultiplier of 1.89 to account for agricultural value chain in the San Joaquin Valley, see University of California Agricultural Issues Center. 2009. The Measure of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://aic.ucdavis.edu/publications/moca/moca09/moca09.pdf.

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

B-31

4�

development than for infill.10 Low density greenfield development also generates less tax revenue per acre for local governments than dense, multiuse development in existing communities.11 By directing more growth into existing communities, we could lower the long-term cost of new infrastructure, help raise the revenue needed to pay for it, and maximize the long-term contribution that development and agriculture both make to Tulare County’s economy.We respectfully request that Tulare CAG adopt an SCS that prioritizes infill and minimizes unnecessary greenfield development to the greatest extent possible given existing land use plans.

III. Tulare CAG Can and Should Exercise Its Authority to Require Mitigation for Projects that Benefit from Consistency with the SCS.

If future generations are to benefit from the natural resources that power Tulare County’s economy and support its quality of life, transportation projects funded by Tulare CAG, as well as projects that benefit from streamlined permitting requirements due to consistency with the SCS, must be required to provide full mitigation.12 We recognize that Tulare CAG does not have land use planning authority,13 but it has both the authority and responsibility to determine the regional transportation projects it will include in the RTP/SCS, the projects it will fund, and (by virtue of preparing an SCS) the projects that will be eligible for CEQA exemptions and other streamlined permitting requirements.14 Tulare CAG can and should exercise this authority by explicitly stating in the SCS that projects consistent with the SCS will adhere to the mitigation hierarchy ��10 See United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Sustainable Communities, Smart Growth Program. 2012. Smart Growth and Economic Success: Benefits for Real Estate Developers, Investors, Businesses, and Local Governments. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/economic_success.pdf. See also Ewing, R. 1994. Characteristics, Causes and Effects of Sprawl: A Literature Review. In Marzluff, J.M., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., Alberti, M., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., Simon, U., and ZumBrunnen, C. (Eds.), Urban Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction between Humans and Nature.2008. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. 11 Studies of six San Joaquin Valley communities, including Visalia, found that major low density developments generate significantly lower property tax revenue per acre than the average downtown property. See Infill Builders Association, Local Government Commission and Urban Three, LLC. 2013. Valuing Downtowns: Upward Not Outward is a Smart Revenue Strategy for Local Governments. Retrieved from http://www.lgc.org/wordpress/docs/events/growing_your_local_economy/ssjvc2013_Report_Valuing_Downtowns_V8-September.pdf.12 This includes but is not limited to mitigation mandated by CEQA (and, for projects that involve action by federal agencies, NEPA). 13 Cal. Government Code § 65080. 14 See, e.g., Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 21155 and 21155.1 (requirements for designation as a “sustainable communities project” exempt from CEQA, including consistency with an SCS that ARB has accepted would meet GHG reduction targets); 21155.2 (process for “sustainable communities environmental assessment” and streamlined CEQA review for certain transit priority projects); and 21159.28 (circumstances under which projects consistent with SCS can avoid CEQA review of GHG emissions and regional transportation network impacts).

2.9

2.10

B-32

5�

(avoid, minimize, mitigate on-site, then compensate), and that where impacts cannot be minimized, compensatory offsets will address the specific conservation functions and values that will be lost. We respectfully request that the text of the SCS be modified accordingly.

In addition to the substantive issues discussed above, the Public Participation Plan lists a “Sierra Los Tules Land Trust” as a member of the Environmental Advisory Committee.15 We believe this is intended to refer to Sequoia Riverlands Trust.16

We look forward to your responses on these points, and appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

Adam Livingston Coordinator, Southern Sierra Partnership

��15 Draft RTP/SCS p. I-2. 16 This organization was founded as Sierra Los Tulares Land Trust in 2000, but changed its name to Sequoia Riverlands Trust in 2003.

2.10

2.11

B-33


TCAG

Response 2.1 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 2.2 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 2.3 The EIR sufficiently discloses acreages of farmland, grazing land, and habitat that would be converted by the RTP/SCS, both within and outside SOIs. As discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, in the Draft EIR, approximately 3,166 acres of farmland would be adversely affected by 2014 RTP/SCS implementation. As discussed in Section 6.0, Alternatives, approximately 451 acres of critical habitat area would be affected by the proposed project. Response 2.4 As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the 2014 RTP/SCS is based on the Blueprint scenario which consists of an intensified land use distribution approach that concentrates the forecasted population and employment growth in urban areas. The intent is to concentrate development within existing urbanized areas, which would minimize impacts to agricultural lands compared to a more dispersed land use pattern. The EIR includes Alternative 3, Blueprint Plus, which further reduces land conversion in suburban and rural areas, consistent with the commenter’s suggestion. Response 2.5 Refer to response to Comments 1.11 and 1.35 regarding TCAG’s lack of authority to mandate mitigation for second-tier transportation or land use projects. Mitigation Measure LU-5(d) has been added to Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, which states that prior to approval of 2014 RTP/SCS projects that may adversely impact prime farmland, the project sponsor shall, when feasible, require that a farmland conservation easement, a farmland deed restriction, or other farmland conservation mechanism be granted in perpetuity to the municipality in which the project is proposed. Additional detail is provided in the mitigation language. Response 2.6 See response to Comment 2.3 above. As discussed in the Draft EIR, a total of 3,166 acres of farmland within existing spheres of influence would be affected by the 2014 RTP/SCS. A total of 6,412 acres of important farmland could be affected both within and outside existing spheres of influence by 2014 RTP/SCS implementation. Important farmland includes Prime Farmland, Statewide Importance Farmland, Unique Importance Farmland and Grazing Lands. Alternative 2 – Trend, would impact up to 11,615 acres of farmland while Alternative 3 – Blueprint Plus, would impact approximately 6,092 acres of farmland. The land use forecast for the no project

B-34


TCAG

scenario is based on that for the trend scenario, which is the nearest to a business-as-usual future that was analyzed. It is important to note that the data reported are estimates and that mitigation measures are provided in the EIR to reduce impacts to Prime Farmland to the degree feasible. The EIR concludes that impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels due to the potential conversion to non-agricultural use. Impacts from individual projects will be addressed on a case-by-case basis; however, because impacts to Prime Farmland cannot be assumed to be less than significant, agricultural impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. These findings remain consistent regardless of whether farmlands are located within or outside existing spheres of influence. Response 2.7 See responses to Comment 2.3 and 2.6 above. Response 2.8 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Refer to response to Comment 2.5 Response 2.9 Please see response to Comment 2.4. Response 2.10 Refer to Responses 1.11, 1.35 and 2.5. The commenter’s suggestion for modifying the text of the SCS will be considered by the TCAG Board when considering whether to approve the 2014 RTP/SCS. TCAG is not a lead agency for implement second-tier transportation or land use projects; thus, TCAG does not have the authority to determine which projects are eligible for CEQA exemptions and other streamlined permitting requirements. The EIR prepared for the 2014 RTP/SCS provides programmatic mitigation measures for significant associated with RTP/SCS implementation. Response 2.11 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, the following response is provided.TCAG was aware of this change. Sequoia Riverlands Trust has been an active participant in the Environmental Advisory Committee as the successor organization.

B-35

California Office Box 73856 Davis, CA 95617

530-231-5259

May 14, 2014

J. Steven Worthley Chair, Board of Governors Ted Smalley Executive Director Elizabeth Wright Senior Regional Planner Tulare County Association of Governments 210 N. Church St., Suite B Visalia, CA 93291

RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for 2014 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy

Dear Messrs. Worthley and Smalley and Ms. Wright,

The San Joaquin Valley of California is the most productive agricultural region in the world. Six of our nation’s top agricultural producing counties are located in the region, and among these, Tulare County ranks #2 in producing $5 billion worth of agricultural goods annually. In addition to this production output, the processing, distribution and marketing of these goods has been estimated at an additional three times as much economic revenue.

Given the Valley’s unique economic productivity, natural resource wealth and agricultural capacity, American Farmland Trust is vested in the long-term viability of the region’s producers and conservation of its farmland and resources. In 2013, we released our most recent research and policy analysis with Saving Farmland, Growing Cities: A Framework for Implementing Effective Farmland Conservation Policies in the San Joaquin Valley. In the report, we proposed six key objectives linked together within a framework to realize farmland conservation in the region:

� Avoid development of high quality farmland � Minimize farmland loss with more efficient development � Ensure stability of the urban edge � Minimize rural residential development

Letter 3

3.1

B-36

� Mitigate the loss of farmland with conservation easements � Encourage a favorable agricultural business climate

For each of these objectives, AFT went on to identify specific, measureable outcomes by which to evaluate success.

In a rural agricultural region like the San Joaquin Valley, farmland conservation will be an important component in realizing SB 375’s land use and transportation objectives. Foremost among policies to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions would be to develop more efficiently by using less land to accommodate higher residential densities on a per acre basis.Infill development and downtown revitalization, in turn, have substantial co-benefit outcomes, particularly for diversifying economic activity, public health and conserving natural resources including the prime farmland around most Valley cities.

American Farmland Trust recognizes the SB 375’s Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) process as a current and ongoing opportunity to improve public transportation investments to achieve long term economic development, improved community health outcomes and better land use policies to conserve prime farmland and natural resources. In Tulare County’s inaugural SCS, we are commenting on and requesting improvements in accounting for land conversion, the implementation of a farmland mitigation program, and the initiation of a comprehensive conservation framework for the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) member agencies and regional stakeholder groups.

I. Land Conversion

Our recent report, Saving Farmland, Growing Cities, found that between 1990 and 2008, more than 161,000 acres of land were converted to urban uses in the San Joaquin Valley. Of that, nearly 100,000 acres were highly productive farmland. Of the total acreage converted, 78% was agricultural land and 61% was high quality farmland. Put another way, three quarters of all the land urbanized in the Valley was agricultural land and of that, nearly four out of five acres were the most fertile soils with the most secure water supplies. In Tulare County, where 47% of the total area is high quality farmland, 65% of all land developed was on prime farmland.

The currently Tulare County RTP/SCS draft substantively continues the previous pattern of inefficient development and needless consumption of prime farmland. The draft RTP/SCS identifies the loss of at least 3,166 acres of important farmland though it is unclear from the draft EIR whether this represents the total amount of farmland and habitat lost or just the amount outside city spheres of influence. Also, it is critically important to account for the total land use changes (specifically the conversion of agricultural and natural resources) assumed by the RTP/SCS, not solely those directly attributed to specific transportation projects.

Therefore, in order to fully understand the impact of the plan on Tulare County’s agricultural and natural resources, we request that TCAG disclose the total acreage of important farmland, grazing land, habitat and other open space that would be converted under the Draft RTP/SCS and each Alternative, due to transportation projects and assumed land use changes, both inside and outside urbanizing spheres of influence.

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

B-37

II. Farmland Mitigation

Tulare County has established precedents for mitigating for the conversion of prime farmland. These should be utilized to fully incorporate this practice into transportation projects identified in the county’s RTP/SCS.

The one most pertinent farmland mitigation precedents to the Tulare RTP/SCS occurred with the Road 80 widening between Visalia and Dinuba. In October of 2008, the County of Tulare’s Resource Management Agency worked with Sequoia Riverlands Trust (under Warrant #2428799) “to establish agricultural conservation easement(s) for mitigation of farmland loss on the Road 80 project.” One year later, the county’s expenditure of mitigation funds resulted in the first agricultural conservation easements being completed on prime farmland on two farms in the county. This example can be comprehensively applied to the transportation projects in the Tulare RTP/SCS, and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act for the conversion of farmland.

Broadly reasoned, transportation projects identified and funded in the RTP/SCS, as well as projects that benefit from streamlined CEQA requirements due to consistency with the SCS, must be required to provide full mitigation, as mandated by CEQA and NEPA. While recognizing that TCAG does not have land use planning authority, it has the authority and responsibility to determine which regional transportation projects it will include in the RTP/SCS, which projects it will fund, and (by virtue of preparing an SCS), which projects will be eligible for CEQA exemptions and other streamlined permitting requirements. TCAG can and should exercise this authority by explicitly stating in the SCS that projects consistent with the SCS will adhere to the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, then compensate), and that where impacts cannot be minimized, offsets – such as conservation easements acquisitions - will address the conservation values that are impacted.

There are examples of how the TCAG could prioritize this policy approach. Recently, in Tulare County, a large-scale CalTrans project (similar in many ways to the precedent-setting Road 80 project) has been projected to consume farmland and mitigation for this conversion is being discussed. The project—known as Tulare Expressway—would realign and widen 9.3 miles of State Route 65 between Lindsay and Exeter resulting in the loss of approximately 320 acres of farmland. The cost for the project—without mitigating the farmland impact—is estimated at $94.5 million to $97 million. Based on previous litigation agreements in Kern County as well as one farm appraisal near the project site, an estimate for acquiring conservation easement on 320 acres of local farmland was between $1.28 million and $2.56 million, or 1.5%-3% added to the estimated cost of the project. Each Caltrans District has EEMP funds specifically set aside for the mitigation of farmland loss, and these funds can be matched by the Department of Conservation.

In addition, the necessary infrastructures are in place to realize farmland and natural resources conservation practices in Tulare County. Regional land trusts, like Sequoia Riverlands Trust, actively partner with funders, government agencies, scientists, farmers and developers to provide

3.6

3.7

3.8

B-38

mitigation services for the conversion of farmland. The funds generated by mitigation programs can be utilized by land trusts and related organizations to purchase development rights and place conservation easements on prime farmland and other impacted resources.

Since the projected loss of valuable farmland, ranchland and open space is significant in TCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan, and that this Plan does not effectively minimize or mitigate that loss, we urge TCAG to also include a commitment to create a county-wide framework for preservation of farmland, ranchland and open space that aims to protect farmland, ranchland and natural resources.

III. Conservation Framework

American Farmland Trust proposes a Model Farmland and Habitat Conservation Policy to be included Tulare County RTP/SCS process. Such a policy could act as a framework to direct mitigation funds as well as serve as a catalyst to begin a county-wide discussion on where conservation and development will be planned in the future. We suggest this or a related policy as a means to encourage land use practice and general plan alignment with SB 375’s objectives:

� Map and quantify agricultural and other open lands with natural resource values,including but not limited to farmland, grazing land, riparian corridors, aquifer recharge areas, rare and important vegetation, critical wildlife habitat and corridors, vernal pools and other wetlands, and carbon sequestration capacity. Incorporate these resource maps and quantified resource data into transportation planning and large-scale development proposals as a baseline for decision making.

� Determine projected conversion of identified and mapped resources by urban and rural development (acres in each category) as reflected in existing land use plans and policies.

� Establish goals and quantify benefits for avoiding conversion of these resources (acres in each category) based on increasing development efficiencies (measured by people, jobs and economic outcomes per acre), and identify policies for mitigating conversion that cannot be avoided.

� Quantify the GHG reduction that would be achieved by meeting the SCS goals for reducing land conversion (over and above those associated with reduction in vehicle miles traveled) as well as the co-benefits of achieving those goals, including but not limited to water and energy conservation, public service cost containment, and increases in agricultural output and ecosystem services.

� Assess and develop the ability of current local government policies to meet the SCS land conservation goals and, if necessary, propose policy changes and funding incentives necessary to achieve them.

� Establish a system of benchmarks that local governments can use to track their progress in meeting the SCS goals for avoiding and mitigating the conversion of open lands.

Finally, recent research prepared for the California Energy Commission by UC Davis has found that farmland conservation practice has even greater outcomes for greenhouse gas emissions than previously recognized. In Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in California Agriculture (2012), Dr. Jackson and other scientists found, “that greenhouse gas emissions from

3.9

3.10

3.11

B-39

urban land can be more than 70 times greater per unit area than cropland, and that policies that preserve agricultural land will also help achieve the mitigation targets set by California’s recent suite of climate policies, namely AB 32 and SB 375.”

American Farmland Trust urges you to seize this opportunity not only to comply with SB 375, but to improve the quality of life, conserve the natural and agricultural resources, and improve the economy in Tulare County by improved conservation practice and land use policies for the RTP/SCS.

Sincerely,

Daniel O’Connell San Joaquin Valley Program Manager American Farmland Trust

3.11

B-40

Saving Farmland,Growing Cities

A Framework for Implementing Effective Farmland Conservation Policies in the San Joaquin Valley

B-41

American Farmland Trust is a nonprofit organization established in 1980 to conserve the nation’s agricultural resources.Its planners, policy experts and agricultural specialists work cooperatively with the farm community and government decision-makers to encourage better planning and land use policies – the kind that will minimize the loss of farmland and help maintainthe economic viability of agriculture. For almost two decades, AFT has had a continuous presence in the San Joaquin Valley,which, because of its unique productivity and growth pressures, is our highest priority in California.

Saving Farmland, Growing Cities is the latest in a series of AFT updates on what is happening to Valley farmland as its cities grow. It outlines a new framework for land use policy choices that affect farmland and agriculture. It identifies six key challenges that must be addressed to conserve farmland and for each proposes specific, measurable outcomes by which to evaluate success. These performance measures provide a meaningful way to compare policy alternatives and to choose those that can minimize – if not entirely avoid – farmland loss while promoting sustainable community growth.

All land data are from the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). In this data, “other land”may include everything from farmland has been fallowed for several years (possibly in anticipation of itsdevelopment) to large-lot rural residences, confined animal operations and irrigation canals. Only recently has FMMP begun to differentiate them. Thus, it is possible that the data underestimate the amount of agricultural land that has been urbanized.

This report was written by Serena Unger, AFT Senior Planner and Policy Consultant, and Edward Thompson, Jr., AFT CaliforniaDirector. The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of our colleague Daniel O’Connell, AFT San Joaquin Valley FieldRepresentative; Molly Penberth, director of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program at the California Department ofConservation; Nate Roth at the Information Center for the Environment at UC Davis; Dave Davis for superb editing and design of the report; planners and officials from the San Joaquin Valley who reviewed data and drafts; and the financial support ofAFT’s members and special donors to our San Joaquin Valley campaign. Report printed by Capital Graphics, Inc., Sacramento, CA.

C A L I F O R N I A O F F I C EBox 73856 ■ Davis, CA 95617farmland.org/california

B-42

Saving Farmland,Growing Cities

A Framework for ImplementingEffective Farmland Conservation Policies in the San Joaquin Valley

January 2013 ■ Authors Serena Unger • Edward Thompson, Jr. ■ Editing+Design Dave Davis

B-43

What’s Inside

Executive Summary: New Strategies for Conserving Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction: Planning for Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

An Overview of Agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

■ Objectives and Performance Measures

Framework for Tracking Farmland Conservation Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1 Avoid Development of Best Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 Minimize Farmland Loss with More Efficient Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3 Ensure Stability at the Urban Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4 Avoid Rural Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5 Mitigate Farmland Loss by Giving Landowners an Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19to Protect their Property with Conservation Easements

6 Encourage a Favorable Agricultural Business Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Conclusion: Tracking Progress to Make Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

■ Appendices

1 Summary Statistics for Farmland Conservation Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . 24

2 Land Planned and Needed for Urban Development in the Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

B-44

1Saving Farmland, Growing Cities

Agriculture is the economic mainstay of the SanJoaquin Valley. No sector of the Valley’s economy hasa greater stake in how and where communities grow

than agriculture. Every acre of farmland needlessly sacrificedfor urban development weakens its foundation. But becausemost cities in the Valley are surrounded by farmland, and will have to grow to accommodate the region’s burgeoning population, conserving this resource is a challenge.

American Farmland Trust has actively promoted farmlandconservation in the San Joaquin Valley for nearly twodecades. This report is the latest in a series of AFT updates on what is happening to Valley farmland as its cities grow.It outlines a new framework for land use policy choices that affect farmland and agriculture.

It also identifies six key challenges that must be addressed to conserve farmland and for each proposes specific,

measurable outcomes by which to evaluate success. Theseperformance measures provide a meaningful way to comparepolicy alternatives and to choose those that can minimize –if not entirely avoid – farmland loss while promoting sustainable community growth.

The six objectives that address key farmland conservationchallenges are:

1 Avoid development of high quality farmland.

2 Minimize farmland loss with more efficient development.

3 Ensure stability at the urban edge.

4 Minimize rural residential development.

5 Mitigate the loss of farmland with conservation easements.

6 Encourage a favorable agricultural business climate.

Using the latest available data and information, the reportevaluates the performance of the Valley as a whole and eachof its eight counties in meeting these challenges. Though itdoes not evaluate each individual city and county govern-ment, it gives examples of how the performance of selectedlocal jurisdictions compares to the intentions of their land useplans and policies as they address farmland conservation.

Finally, the report makes recommendations for improving theperformance of local governments in conserving farmland.All of the analysis and recommendations in the report areoffered,not to criticize local government,but to equip planners,decision makers and their constituents with the informationthey need to succeed in conserving the irreplaceable farmlandof the San Joaquin Valley as its cities continue to grow.

Executive Summary: New Strategies for Conserving Farmland

B-45

Saving Farmland, Growing Cities2

The San Joaquin Valley is beginning to plan for growthin a new and different way. During the past few years,there has been unprecedented regional cooperation

on the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint and Smart Valley Places,which will shape future urban development. More recently,Sustainable Community Strategies are starting to address climate and a “greenprint”aims to increase the benefits theregion derives from its rural areas.

All of these efforts recognize that the kind of positive changescommunities want – more economic opportunity, greatermobility with less traffic, lower household and governmentcosts, and a cleaner environment and abundant open space– are more likely to occur if the way we plan for growth also changes. Rather than promoting development for itsown sake, as we have done in the past, the new direction in planning emphasizes greater efficiency, quality and“sustainability” in how communities grow.

No sector of the Valley’s economy has a greater stake in how– and where – communities grow than agriculture. Land isthe foundation of farming and ranching, and every acre ofagricultural land converted to urban use is an acre that willnever again sustain food production. It is also an acre thatwill no longer yield benefits of nature such as wildlife habitat,groundwater recharge or the beauty of a peach orchard infull bloom.

Though it may seem like there is plenty of farmland in the San Joaquin Valley, it is, in fact, a finite resource. Anddemands on that land continue to grow, not only for urbandevelopment but, just as importantly, to feed a growing population, provide renewable energy, and safeguard theenvironment.Conserving this irreplaceable resource – saving farmland while growing our cities – is an imperativefor truly sustainable planning in the years to come.

■ American Farmland Trustin the San Joaquin Valley

American Farmland Trust (AFT) is a nonprofit organizationestablished in 1980 to conserve the nation’s agricultural land and water resources. Its planners, policy experts andagricultural specialists work cooperatively with the farmcommunities and government decision-makers to encour-age better planning and land use policies – the kind thatwill minimize the loss of farmland and help maintain theeconomic viability of agriculture.

For almost two decades, AFT has had a continuous presencein the San Joaquin Valley, which, because of its unique productivity and growth pressures, is our highest priority in California.

In 1995, AFT published Alternatives for Future Urban Growthin California’s Central Valley: The Bottom Line for Agricultureand Taxpayers, which first called attention to the economicconsequences of urban sprawl in the region. It led in 1998 to the Fresno Growth Alternatives Alliance that produced A Landscape of Choice, a primer on compact, efficientgrowth, and to the Agricultural Task Force for the CentralValley, which concluded “traditional methods of planningand growth management . . .will lead to significant loss

Introduction: Planning for Sustainability

Fresno

Tulare

Kern

Merced

Stanislaus

San Joaquin

Kings

Madera

B-46

of farmland in the nation’s richest agricultural region.” AFTthereafter served on the Land Use, Housing and Agriculturecommittee of the California Partnership for the San JoaquinValley (2004), which recommended a regional planningprocess that became the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint, and onthe Regional Advisory Committee for the Blueprint itself (2005).

In the meantime, we worked with the Great Valley Center toestablish local farmland trusts and negotiated the first agri-cultural conservation easements in the Valley. In 2006, weupdated Alternatives for Future Urban Growth in an onlinepublication, The Future Is Now, and in 2010 inauguratedGroundswell San Joaquin Valley, a network of organizationspromoting efficient growth in the region (groundswellsjv.org).AFT’s most recent initiative is the San Joaquin Valley Greenprint,inaugurated by the Regional Policy Council on our recom-mendation.

■ A Framework for Farmland Conservation Planning and Policy

As a guide to sustainable planning, this American FarmlandTrust report outlines a new framework for formulating andevaluating land use policy choices that affect farmland andagriculture. It poses six key challenges that must be addressedto effectively conserve farmland and for each identifies specific, measurable outcomes by which to evaluate success.

These performance measures provide a meaningful way tocompare policy alternatives and choose those that can mini-mize farmland loss while promoting sustainable communitygrowth. To illustrate how local jurisdictions can apply these

performance measures, the report highlights those measuresfor which data are readily available for the period from 1990through 2008.

The data will also enable counties to determine where theystand among their neighbors and how they stack up againstthe region as a whole. We recognize, of course, that the per-formance of counties as a whole is a result of the collectiveactions of individual cities and county governments them-selves. Though AFT did not have the resources to collect datafor each of the dozens of local jurisdictions in the Valley, weencourage them to take the initiative and do so on their own.

This framework of challenges and performance measures isthe result of decades of experience that American FarmlandTrust has in working with cities and counties across thecountry. We are eager to discuss our findings and recom-mendations with local planners and officials in the Valley,and offer our assistance to help them integrate farmlandconservation into their ongoing planning and land use policy initiatives.

At the same time, we urge the agricultural community andother constituencies that have a stake in how communitiesgrow – which is to say nearly everyone – to use this reportto engage local officials in their own discussions of how togrow cities while conserving farmland.

Experience teaches that the most successful farmland conservation efforts in the United States are the result ofgenuine local initiative and good faith collaboration amongprivate and public leaders.

3Saving Farmland, Growing CitiesB-47


■ A Major Economic SectorThe San Joaquin Valley is an irreplaceable agriculturalresource with a Mediterranean climate in which fruit,vegetable and nut crops flourish. Many of the nation’s topproducing agricultural counties are located in the Valley,with Fresno,Tulare and Kern in the top three statewide.

The region’s farmers take advantage of this climate, as well as fertile soils, developed water supplies and their own ingenuity and hard work, to produce more than $30 billionworth of agricultural products annually (Figure A).

The overall impact of this production on the Valley’s economyis estimated to be three times as large due to all of the goodsand services farmers and ranchers purchase, and the valueadded by processing, distribution and marketing.

■ The Land BaseWhile the San Joaquin Valley has 10.6 million acres of agri-cultural land, only about half is highly productive irrigatedfarmland and only 27% of the total is prime farmland (Table B). But these statistics do not account for conditionssuch as problematic water supplies, soil salinization or environmental sensitivity that could jeopardize the long-term economic viability of some farmland.

Figure A. Annual Value of Agricultural Production and Rank within California

Source: California Agricultural Commissioners Crop Reports, 2011Numbers on bars represent county rank within California.

An Overview of Agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley

$7 billion

$6 billion

$5 billion

$4 billion

$3 billion

$2 billion

$1 billion

Six of the nation’s top 10 agricultural counties are located in the Valley, and the region’s farmersproduce more than $30 billion worth of agricultural products annually.

FresnoTulare

Kern

Merced

Stanislaus

San Joaquin

Kings

Madera

1 2 3 5 6 7 9 12

B-48

Source: California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2008


An analysis completed for AFT by the Information Center forthe Environment at UC Davis found that as much as 44% ofthe region’s 5.3 million acres of irrigated cropland has one ormore of these limitations. It also shows that most of theland that does not have such limitations is directly in thepath of the Valley’s growing cities.

Between 1990 and 2008, the acreage of high-quality (prime,unique and statewide important) farmland declined by443,000 acres. Much of this decrease was due to land beingtaken out of irrigated production, often temporarily, because ofwater shortages and other causes. But, nearly 100,000 acres– 8.5 square miles a year – were converted permanently tourban uses.

At this rate, the Valley will lose an additional 500,000 acres ofland to development by 2050 and more than 300,000 acresof it will have been highly productive irrigated cropland.

In addition to the urbanization of farmland, additionalacreage is being converted to rural residential uses. Typicallyranging from 2 to 20 acres,“ranchettes”may look like theyremain in agriculture – a small orchard or a horse or two on pasture – but most of them are no longer producingcommercial crops or livestock. And it is unlikely that theyever will because the land has been priced out of the reachof those who farm for a living.

In the San Joaquin Valley today, “ranchettes”occupy 146,000acres, compared with 475,000 acres of urban land.

Thus, it appears that for every three acres developed forurban use at least one additional acre of farmland has been permanently removed from commercial agriculture to accommodate rural lifestyles.

Figure C. Future Loss of Farmland to Urban Development, 2010-2050

Table B. Existing Agricultural Land, San Joaquin Valley

* “High Quality Farmland” (HQF) is Prime, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique and Irrigated Farmland.Source: California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2008

Acres 2008 1990-2008High Quality Farmland * 5,228,902 (443,085)Farmland of Local Importance 491,199 163,290Grazing Land 4,875,106 30,839Agricultural Land Total 10,595,207 (248,956)

If status quo development patterns continue, more than 300,000 acres of high qualityfarmland will be permanently lost by 2050.

Current Urban Land

Other Open Land Lost

Farmland Lost

1,000,000

1,100,000

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000urbanized land

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

B-49

Saving Farmland, Growing Cities

■ Population Growth and Its ImplicationsBehind the loss of farmland in the San Joaquin Valley is population growth. In 1990, the Valley’s population was 2.7 million. It is now almost 4 million people and is expectedto increase by another 89% within the next 40 years – proportionately two-and-a-half times the growth rate of the state as a whole.

According to the Demographic Unit of the CaliforniaDepartment of Finance, , the population of every county inthe Valley will grow by at least two-thirds. Kern, Madera and Tulare counties will grow by the largest percentage,while the greatest increase in the number of residents willbe in San Joaquin, Fresno and Kern counties.

The implications of this growth for planning and developmentare tremendous. Unless cities grow much more efficiently –consuming less land for every new resident and their eco-nomic activities – the toll on the region’s farmland and agriculture will be significant.

The good news is that cities can choose to grow in ways thatminimize farmland loss. Demographic trends should help.As the Urban Land Institute has noted, an expected increasein the numbers of seniors and young families will create ademand for houses on smaller lots (Nelson, 2011). There isno need to sacrifice more farmland than necessary toaccommodate the growth in Valley’s population and economy.

But to minimize farmland loss while growing the economycounties and cities will have to do a better job of, first, recog-nizing what it takes to conserve farmland and, second,adopting and implementing policies that will actually makeit happen. This report establishes a context and providesinformation that will help them succeed.

6

To minimize farmland loss while growing the economy counties and cities will have

to do a better job of recognizing what it takes to conserve farmland, and adopting

and implementing policies that will actually make it happen. This report establishes

a context and provides information that will help them succeed.

Table D. San Joaquin Valley Population Projections, 2010-2050

Source: California Department of Finance, Report 84 E-4, E-5 and Interim Population Projections, 2010-2050, 2012

Population Projected Increase % Change■ COUNTY 2010 2050 2010-2050 2010-2050San Joaquin 685,306 1,288,854 603,548 88%Stanislaus 514,453 863,254 348,801 68%Merced 255,793 506,666 250,873 98%Madera 150,865 314,546 163,681 108%Fresno 930,450 1,535,761 605,311 65%Tulare 442,179 884,646 442,467 100%Kings 152,982 281,866 128,884 84%Kern 839,631 1,823,277 983,646 117%

■ REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE TOTALSSan Joaquin Valley 3,971,659 7,498,870 3,527,211 89%California 37,253,956 51,013,984 13,760,028 37%

There are almost 4 million people living in the Valley now, and that number isexpected to increase by 89% within the next 40 years – two-and-a-half times the rate of California’s population growth statewide.

B-50


Framework for Tracking Farmland Conservation Performance

AFT’s experience with farmland conservation inCalifornia and throughout the U.S.has led us to theconclusion that there are six basic challenges that

local communities must address to successfully maintain an adequate land base for agricultural production.

These six challenges define the objectives that communitiesshould strive to achieve and these objectives, in turn, are the framework for our analysis of the region’s existing farmland conservation efforts. For each objective except one (agricultural economic viability), we propose specific performance measures for evaluating how successfully communities are addressing the challenge.

Some of the performance measures require more researchthan AFT was able to do. For example, we did not attempt to obtain data for every individual city within each county.So this report concentrates on how counties as a whole are doing at conserving San Joaquin Valley farmland (seeAppendix 1). Further analysis is necessary to determine how each city and the counties themselves are contributingto the countywide results and the overall performance of the San Joaquin Valley.

A useful way to consider the results of our analysis is to compare them with the intentions expressed in the land useplans and policies of cities, counties, LAFCOs and councils ofgovernment. Many of these official documents incorporatefarmland conservation as a goal, but often there is a gapbetween the goal and the decisions local governments make that determine their actual performance.

Examples that compare specific local plans with the per-formance measures can be found throughout this report.We encourage local officials and citizens to make their owncomparisons.

Ultimately, our purpose is not to be critical, but to encouragea dialogue about improvements in land use planning andpolicy across jurisdictions and agencies that will protect theincomparable agricultural resources of the region.

We invite the counties and cities to adopt these objectivesand set corresponding goals in their general plans. We alsoencourage them to track our suggested performance measureson an ongoing basis to help guide future land use decisions.

B-51

8 Saving Farmland, Growing Cities

1 Avoid development of the best farmlandby guiding development away from it.

! Percentage of land developed that is “high qualityfarmland”(prime, unique or statewide important farmland), compared to percent of total land in thecounty that is “high quality farmland.”

! Amount of each classification of farmland that would be converted under the general plan and alternatives.

2 Minimize farmland loss with more efficient urban development.

! Overall number of people accommodated per acre of new development in general plans and any subsidiary plans.

! Amount and proportion of land zoned for low densityrather than higher density residential development.

! Density of residential subdivisions actually built compared with what was planned.

! Floor-to-area ratios of commercial and institutionaldevelopment and number of jobs and dollars of eco-nomic activity generated per acre of such development.

3 Ensure stability at the urban edge.

! Years of future development that could be accommodatedwithin spheres of influence and within city limits com-pared with reasonable 20-year general plan needs.

! Portion of undeveloped land within planned growth area that is “high quality farmland.”

! Number of general plan amendments, city annexations,and sphere of influence boundary changes that willcause loss of agricultural land.

! Percentage of development occurring in unincorporatedareas (both within and outside spheres of influence).

4 Minimize rural residential development.

! Number of rural residential lots permitted in agriculturalareas and percentage of jurisdiction’s population housedon these lots.

! Total acreage of rural residential lots permitted and percentage this represents of all land to be developed for residential use.

! Acreage and percentage of large-scale energy development on high quality agricultural lands.

5 Mitigate the loss of farmland with conservation easements.

! Cumulative acreage of farmland permanently protectedby easements as compared with farmland developed.

! Adequacy of conservation easement funding as measuredby the number of landowners able to sell conservationeasements in any given year compare with the numberwho desire to sell easements (2 to 5 transactions peryear target).

! Percentage of increase in land values due to entitlementof farmland for development devoted to mitigation feesor conservation easement purchases.

! Amount of money invested in the agricultural economythrough conservation easement purchases.

6 Encourage a favorable agricultural business climate.

! Increase economic impact of agricultural and related sectors through value-added enterprises.

! Include in general plan an agricultural element that establishes goals and policies addressing key opportunities and challenges facing agriculture.

! Adopt economic development policies that prioritize and support the agricultural economy.

! Local regulations do not place an unnecessary burden on agricultural production and related activities.

! Provide adequate housing and services for the agricultural workforce.

! Ensure that irrigation water supplies are sufficient to support ongoing agricultural production.

■ Objectives and Performance Measures for High Quality Farmland Conservation

B-52


■ How Is the Valley Doing?Between 1990 and 2008, more than 161,000 acres of land were converted to urban usesin the San Joaquin Valley. Of that, nearly 100,000 acres were high quality farmland(prime, unique, and statewide important farmland).

Of the total acreage converted, 78% was agricultural land and 61% was high qualityfarmland (Figure 1.1). Put another way, three quarters of all the land urbanized in theValley was agricultural land and of that, nearly four out of five acres were the most fertile, well-watered farmland in the region.

Moreover, high quality farmland is being disproportionally developed compared to howmuch area it covers in the region. High quality farmland comprises about 39% of thetotal area of the Valley’s eight counties (Table 1.2). Yet, 61% of all land converted tourban uses has been farmland of this high quality.The “conversion index”shows this rela-tionship. The index of 1.57 for the Valley as a whole indicates that high quality farmlandis being consumed at a rate 57% greater than its proportion of all land in the region.

A similar comparison is given for each county in the region, with Stanislaus scoring lowest(i.e., highest conversion index), and Madera highest in terms of how much developmenthas been concentrated on the best farmland (Table 1.2).

The reason for the disproportionate development of high quality land in the region seemsfairly straightforward. Most development in the San Joaquin Valley occurs immediatelyaround the Valley’s cities and almost all the cities are located in the midst of the highest

Where possible, we should avoid development of high quality farmland that produces the most food at

the lowest cost and with the least environmental impact. The alternative is to guide development toward

less productive land or, better still, land that is not suitable for agriculture. This performance measure

tracks how much high quality farmland is being developed in comparison with available alternatives.

1. Avoid Development of Best Farmland

Figure 1.1. Land Converted to Urban Uses, San Joaquin Valley, 1990-2008

“Other” land may include everything from farmland has been fallowed for several years to large-lot rural residences, confinedanimal operations and irrigation canals.Only recently has FMMP begun to differentiate them.Thus, it is possible that the dataunderestimate the amount of agricultural land that has been urbanized.Source: California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2008

61%

12%5%

27%Other Land

Grazing Land

High QualityFarmland

Farmland of Local Importance

Three-quarters of all the land urbanized in the Valley was agricultural land,and of that, 4 out of 5 acres were the most fertile, well-watered farmland.

B-53

Table 1.3. Projected Urbanization of San Joaquin Valley Farmland – Status Quo

Total Land Urbanized, 1990-2008 161,801• Percentage of New Urbanized Land That Was High Quality Farmland (HQF) 61%• Compare to Percentage of Undeveloped Land That Was HQF in 2008 39%

Farmland Conversion Index 1.57Projected Urbanization of All Land, 2008-2050, at Marginal Efficiency 501,658

• As Percentage of Existing Urban Land 89%Projected Urbanization of HQF, 2008-2050, at Marginal Efficiency 304,645


Table 1.2. High Quality Farmland as a Percentage of LandUrbanized and All Land, 1990-2008

quality farmland, which generally follows the Highway 99corridor (map at conservation.ca.gov/dirp/fmmp/products/Pages/FMMP-MapProducts.aspx). This poses a real challengefor farmland conservation. As Table 1.3 shows, if Valley com-munities continue to develop land at the same intensity –consuming an acre of land for every 6.4 people, as explainedbelow – the region will lose another 300,000 acres of highquality farmland by 2050. This underscores the importance ofthe next objective: encouraging more efficient development.

■ Plans v. PerformanceThe general plans of most counties in the San Joaquin Valleycall for avoiding development of the best farmland. But highquality farmland is still being disproportionately developedin every county. For example, the Stanislaus County GeneralPlan declares that,“While all agricultural land in the Countycannot be preserved, it is possible to protect our most pro-ductive agricultural areas through a combination of agricul-tural zoning and policies that clearly direct growth to lessproductive areas”(Agricultural Element, 1994). Yet, inStanislaus County, 87% of all the land developed between1990 and 2008 was high quality farmland. For comparison,only 41% of the county’s undeveloped territory is comprisedof high quality farmland, an indication that the intention ofthe county’s plan is not being fulfilled.

■ RecommendationAll local jurisdictions should understand where high qualityland is located in relation to their city limits, spheres of influence and other areas where they intend to expand.They should choose options for directing growth away fromthis land and, where possible, modify their plans and policiesto achieve this objective to the maximum extent possible.

(a) HQF is High Quality Farmland (Prime, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique and Irrigated Farmland)(b) This comparison indicates the extent to which high quality farmland is being developed disproportionately to its share of total land in the county or region.(c) If ratio is greater than 1.0, farmland is being consumed at a rate greater than its proportion in the county.Source: California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2008

Source: California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2008;California Department of Finance, Demographic Unit, 2010

% of Urbanized % of County ConversionLand on HQF a That Is HQF b Index c

San Joaquin 77% 68% 1.13Stanislaus 87% 41% 2.11Merced 67% 43% 1.55Madera 47% 42% 1.12Fresno 63% 53% 1.20Tulare 65% 47% 1.38Kings 97% 65% 1.49Kern 38% 19% 2.07San Joaquin Valley 61% 39% 1.57

B-54


In places like the San Joaquin Valley, where most

cities are surrounded by farmland, it is critical that

new development occur on vacant or repurposed

land within existing cities and, if more farmland

has to be sacrificed, that development use it as

efficiently as possible, consuming less land for every

new resident, job and dollar of economic growth.

(An apt comparison is to “yield per acre,” which is

how farmers measure the success of their crops.)

This performance measure tracks the historic (1990)

and current (2008) population per acre (average

efficiency) and the recent trend, i.e., how many new

residents were accommodated for each additional

acre of farmland developed between these dates

(marginal efficiency). A comparison of these

measures shows whether development is getting

more or less efficient.

2. Minimize Farmland Loss with More Efficient Urban Development

The fact that most of the San Joaquin Valley's cities are locatedin the midst of high quality farmland places a premium onthe efficiency with which land is developed. Inefficientdevelopment – the consumption of excessive amounts ofland for each person – causes more farmland loss than isnecessary for attractive, economically vibrant communities.

Development that spreads out over the land also leads tomore traffic, energy consumption and air pollution, whileincreasing the cost of providing basic public services likewater and sewer, police and fire protection. Thus, efficiency of development is the key challenge for communities in theValley that want to preserve farmland and improve theireconomies and quality of life.

■ How Is the Valley Doing?Urban development in the San Joaquin Valley is not veryefficient. The current average efficiency is only 6.0 people per urbanized acre (Table 2.1). This an improvement overthe efficiency of 5.8 people per acre that existed in the Valley

in 1990, due to the fact that, as the urban footprint in theValley grew by 47% from 1990 to 2008, the “marginal efficiency”(also called “marginal population density”) of new development was 6.4 people per acre.

Figure 2.2 shows both current average efficiency and themarginal efficiency of development in all eight counties in the region.

Nevertheless, the Valley’s growth has been less efficient thanin any region of California other than the remote mountainsand deserts, and is roughly one-third to one-half as efficientas in the urban areas on the coast (Paving Paradise: A NewPerspective on California Farmland Conversion, AFT, 2007).

Compared to other important agricultural areas that also face significant growth pressures, most of the Valley’s countieshave significantly lower marginal efficiencies.

For example,Ventura County, which ranks 8th in agriculturalproduction in the state,had a marginal efficiency of 8.9 people

“People per acre” seems to be easier to visualize than the more often used “people per square mile.” An acre is about thesize of a football field. So, to visualize how spread out six people per acre is, think of two 3-person teams playing on all thatreal estate. All of this report’s people-per-acre statistics count not just residential areas (which comprise only 40% of urbanland uses in the Valley), but also all commercial, industrial and public land uses that support the population.

B-55

Table 2.1. Urban Growth and Efficiency Trends – San Joaquin Valley, 1990-2008% Change

1990 2008 1990-2008Total Urban and Built-up Land (FMMP) 383,546 565,360 47%Total Population 2,742,000 3,885,963 42%Urban Population * 2,209,170 3,369,601 53%People Per Urbanized Acre (Average Efficiency) 5.8 6.0 3%


per acre from 1990-2008. Riverside County, ranking 14th inagricultural production, had a marginal efficiency of 8.7 in the same period. In the Central Valley, Sacramento County,which ranks 25th in the state for agricultural production,had a marginal efficiency of 8.7 people per acre.

Another way to look at the efficiency of urban developmentover time is to compare the increase in population with theincrease in the size of the urban footprint over the sameperiod. Table 2.3 shows the “efficiency trend index”of eachcounty in the Valley.

This index is the ratio of the percentage population increaseto the percentage increase in the size of the urban footprintover the same period of time. If both increase in the sameproportion, the efficiency trend index is 1.0. An index greaterthan one indicates that efficiency is increasing, while anindex less than one means that development efficiency isdecreasing – that urban sprawl is getting worse.

Figure 2.2. Development Efficiency in San Joaquin Valley Counties

Sources: U.S. Census, 1990; California Department of Finance 2012; California Department of Conservation, 2008;Blueprint Report to San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council, March 20, 2009

* The urban population figures assume that the percentage of 2008 population remains at 2000 level.Sources: U.S. Census; California Department of Finance 2010; California Department of Conservation, 2008

peop

le pe

r acre

Average people per acre, 2008 Marginal people per acre,1990-2008

Development efficiency has not been improving fast enough to make a significant differencein the amount of farmland urbanized.

San Joaquin

Stanislaus

Merced

MaderaFresno

TulareKings

Kern

SJ Valley

People Per New Urbanized Acre, 1990-2008 (Marginal Efficiency) 6.4

10

5

B-56


■ Plans v. PerformanceMost jurisdictions in the San Joaquin Valley have general plangoals and policies that encourage urban infill and efficientdevelopment of farmland. However, the majority of countieshave an efficiency trend index hovering around 1.0, indicatingthey aren’t making much progress at actually increasingdevelopment efficiency. Instead, cities and counties continueto build outward on new land as their populations grow,instead of directing growth to existing communities.

Some counties did show improved efficiency. For example,Kings County has the Valley’s highest marginal efficiency of9.3 people per acres and has an efficiency trend index of 3.2 for the period 1990-2008. This was the result of an 82%increase in the urban population, but only a 26% gain inurban land.

A number of city, county and LAFCO policies, all aimed atmore compact growth and farmland conservation, seem toaccount for this. The land use element of the Kings CountyGeneral Plan, for one, states that “to prevent uncoordinated,sprawling growth and to delay costly expansion of districtfacilities, [the county will] encourage infilling of vacant orunderutilized parcels where water and sewer area availableby providing incentives such as reduction of developmentapplication fees of 25%”(Land Use Policy 1.8d).

Kings County is also known for the success of its LAFCO inreducing the size of city spheres of influence, which hastaken development pressure off of 11,000 acres of farmlandand effectively constrained the ability of cities to sprawl outward.

■ RecommendationAll local jurisdictions should determine the average efficiencyof existing development, the marginal efficiency of theirrecent development trend and of development that isplanned for the future (within the period of their generalplans). They should review this information and their currentplans with the intention of identifying opportunities to

increase development efficiency and thereby save farmland.At a minimum, they should strive to achieve the marginalefficiency called for by the Blueprint adopted by their county’sCouncil of Governments. They should modify their currentplans to incorporate the new goal as well as implementationmeasures that will actually help achieve it.

Table 2.3. Efficiency Trend Index – San Joaquin Valley, 1990-2008

One way to look at the efficiency of urban development over time is to compare population growth with theincrease in the size of the urban footprint over the same period. If the percentage increase in both populationand the urban footprint grow in the same proportion, the “efficiency trend” index is 1.0. If it is more than 1.0,that efficiency is increasing – development is more compact. If it’s less than 1.0, urban sprawl is getting worse.

Population Acre■ COUNTY Increase % Change Change % Change Status Quo Blueprint B+San Joaquin 192,174 45% 26,572 42% 1.1 2.4Stanislaus 146,099 46% 18,987 42% 1.1 1.7Merced 73,420 50% 16,050 75% 0.7 3.1Madera 48,881 97% 7,189 36% 2.7 2.1Fresno 238,058 41% 36,156 44% 0.9 2.7Tulare 138,723 59% 18,637 47% 1.2 1.7Kings 60,792 82% 6,555 26% 3.2 3.9Kern 262,285 52% 51,488 59% 0.9 2.3San Joaquin Valley 1,160,431 53% 181,814 47% 1.1 2.2

Sources: U.S. Census, 1990; California Department of Finance 2010; California Department of Conservation, 2008

URBAN POPULATION URBAN LAND EFFICIENCY1990-2008 1990-2008 TREND INDEX

B-57


Areas around cities designated for future development should not expand more than necessary toaccommodate reasonable future growth. Otherwise, it creates uncertainty that leads to land specula-tion and price inflation, and to disinvestment in farming operations. All of these weaken the economicviability of agriculture, increasing the likelihood that farmland will be lost. Boundaries that are toolarge also discourage cities from growing efficiently by creating a sense that there is no need to do so.This performance measure tracks the amount of developable land within city limits and spheres of influence, and compares this with the amount of land reasonably needed for future growth.

3. Ensure Stability at the Urban Edge

■ How Is the Valley Doing?The San Joaquin Valley currently has more than 900,000acres of land within its city limits and spheres of influence,the areas officially earmarked for future development.About 400,000 acres of this total are already developed,leaving 533,000 acres available for future growth – 195,000undeveloped acres within city limits and an additional338,000 undeveloped acres within the spheres of influence(Figure 3.1). Almost 70% of the undeveloped land con-tained in the spheres of influence is high quality farmland.(See Appendix 2 for details.)

The actual amount of undeveloped land within the city limitsand spheres of influence in the Valley is higher, closer to700,000 acres than 533,000. The larger figure includes thespheres of influence of several small cities in Kern Countythat are so large that only a tiny fraction of them could everbe developed. For this report, we eliminated them from ourcalculations because they would have exaggerated the

amount of farmland subject to the pressures created whenplausible development boundaries are established.

If the region continues to grow at the current marginal effi-ciency of 6.4 people per acre, the Valley will need an addi-tional 216,000 acres of land to accommodate the populationgrowth through 2035. The planned area within the existingcity limits, which is nearly 200,000 acres, is almost largeenough to accommodate all of this development (Figure3.1). However, if cities and counties grow at the higher marginal efficiency of the preferred Blueprint B+ Scenario,the Valley would need only 117,000 additional acres toaccommodate growth. Under this scenario, all future growthcould be accommodated within existing city limits. Thiswould result in a savings of 103,000 acres of land – most of it high quality farmland.

Another way to compare the size of the area designated fordevelopment with how much of that land will actually beneeded is to look at how many years worth of growth city

Figure 3.1. Acres of Land Needed toAccommodate Growth by 2035

Notes and Assumptions: The majority of population 2010 and 2035 projectionsare from 2011 Regional Transportation Plans which may overestimate projectedgrowth.Therefore, this analysis overestimates the amount of land needed forgrowth and underestimates the number of years of projected growth that thearea can accommodate.

Population increase based on base year of 2010 and projection year of 2035.

San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Scenario B+ Marginal Population Density = 16.

Four Kern County cities are excluded from this analysis since their spheres of influence are disproportionately large compared to all other cities in the San Joaquin Valley.

Sources: California Department of Conservation, 2008; California Department of Finance, 2012; San Joaquin Council of Governments, 2011; Stanislaus Council of Governments, 2012; Merced Council of Governments, 2011;Madera County Transportation Commission, 2011 Regional Transportation Plan; Kings County, 2035 General Plan; Kern Council of Governments, 2011.

Existing DevelopedLand in City

Land for FutureGrowth

CurrentlyPlanned

Acres

Status QuoGrowth

Scenario

Blueprint B+Growth

Scenario

neededneeded

plannedsphere

1,000,000900,000800,000700,000600,000500,000400,000

acres

plannedcity

Under the Blueprint B+ Scenario, only 117,000 moreacres would be needed to accommodate growth, and it could all be within existing city limits, not farmland.

B-58


limits and spheres can accommodate. Figure 3.2 shows theestimated number of years of projected population growththat designated development areas can accommodate undertwo different scenarios.

At status quo urban densities, land within existing city limitswill be sufficient to accommodate approximately 22 years of projected population growth, and land within existingspheres of influence will accommodate an additional 39 years –for a total of 61 years of population growth, or until 2073.

If cities grow at the higher Blueprint B+ densities, the landwithin these areas will accommodate the same populationgrowth for a total of 117 years, or until 2129.

The typical land use planning horizon for California cities is20 to 25 years. Beyond that, it is almost impossible to predictthe needs and demands of community growth. Yet, theareas designated for future growth by the cities in the SanJoaquin Valley exceed that planning benchmark by a factorof 2.5 to 6 times, depending on the assumption made abouthow efficiently cities will grow. This suggests that a compa-rable amount of farmland in the region has been needlesslysubjected to the uncertainty and destabilizing effects thatoccur when it is earmarked for growth.

■ Plans v. PerformanceThough cities propose their official boundaries, they must be approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCo) that exists in every California county. LAFCO’s mandate includes the preservation of agricultural and otheropen lands.

An example of how their performance often does not matchtheir policies is the Merced County LAFCO. It calls upon“Cities [to] adopt phasing policies in their General Plans

Figure 3.2. Years of Projected Growth Cities and Spheres of Influence Can Accommodate in the San Joaquin Valley

Notes and Assumptions: The majority of population 2010 and 2035 projections are from 2011 Regional Transportation Plans which may overestimate projected growth.Therefore, this analysis overestimates the amount of land needed for growth and underestimates the number of years of projected growth that the area can accommodate.

Population increase based on base year of 2010 and projection year of 2035.

San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Scenario B+ Marginal Population Density = 16.

Four Kern County cities are excluded from this analysis since their spheres of influence are disproportionately large compared to all other cities in the San Joaquin Valley.

Sources: California Department of Conservation, 2008; California Department of Finance, 2012; San Joaquin Council of Governments,2011; Stanislaus Council of Governments, 2012; Merced Council of Governments, 2011; Madera County Transportation Commission,2011 Regional Transportation Plan; Kings County, 2035 General Plan; Kern Council of Governments, 2011.

At status quo urban densities, land within existing city limits and spheres of influence willaccommodate 61 years of population growth, or until 2073. If cities grow at the higherBlueprint B+ densities, this land will accommodate that growth for 117 years, or until 2129.

Status QuoDensity

Blueprint B+ScenarioDensity

Within City Limits Within Spheres of Influence Outside City Limits

61 years total

117 years total43 2129

2073

2012 2080 2095 2110 2125 21402020 2035 2050 2065

22

B-59


which identify priorities for growth and annexation whichmeet the joint objectives of extending urban services in aneconomic and efficient manner and avoiding the prematureconversion of prime agricultural lands or other valuable open space resources” (Objective II.A. Policies 1 and 3).

According to AFT’s analysis, the spheres of influence thathave been approved by LAFCO can accommodate up to 78years of growth at today’s densities and 188 years of growthif the cities in Merced County implement the Blueprint B+scenario.

One possible effect of this is that , as Figure 3.3 shows,farmer participation in the Williamson Act, which requires a 10-year commitment of the land to agricultural use inexchange for tax benefits, is almost nonexistent around the major cities in Merced County. Is this a precursor to“premature conversion?” A similar pattern can be seen inevery San Joaquin Valley county.

■ RecommendationLAFCOs should review the size of spheres of influence incomparison to the legitimate development needs of citiesduring the period covered by their current general plans.They should, as the Kings County LAFCO has done, reducethe size of spheres that have more capacity than can realistically be used within that period.

In reviewing proposals for annexation and expansion ofspheres, LAFCOs should consider the efficiency of futuredevelopment and approve only those proposals that are at least as efficient as what is called for in the San JoaquinValley Blueprint.

Figure 3.3. Williamson Act Enrollment around Cities in Merced County, 2006

Sources: County of Merced, 2010 Williamson Act Land, for “Williamson Act enrollment,” www.co.merced.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=1624; California Departmentof Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2010, for “Developed Land;” and Merced County Association of Governments, February 2012,for “Spheres of Influence.”

Maps of Williamson Act enrollment in every California county is available at www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Pages/qh_maps.aspx

B-60


Rural residences on large lots are the least effi-

cient type of non-farm land use. A family living

on five acres, for example, occupies 20 times as

much land per person as a comparable family

living in a suburban home on a quarter-acre

lot. This type of development should be kept to

a minimum, not only because it wastes farm-

land but because it tends to create conflict

with nearby agricultural operations. This

performance measure tracks the amount of

rural residential land compared to the county’s

urban footprint and compares this figure to

the portion of the county’s population living

on rural residential land (an indication of

the efficiency of rural residential land use).

4. Minimize Rural Residential Development

Figure 4.1. Rural Residential Land and Population in the San Joaquin Valley

Note: This assumes that the rural residential footprint represents an average of 5 acres per parcel with one household per parcel and people per household countsprovided by the California Department of Finance estimates for each county. The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Programdefines rural residential “ranchettes” as parcels with 1 to 5 units per 10 acres.Sources: California Department of Finance 2010; California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2008

Rural residential acres as % of total developed acres

Rural residential population as % of total population

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Rural residential land amounts to one-quarter of the Valley’s developed areabut accommodates a much smaller percentage of its population.

San JoaquinCounty

StanislausCounty

MercedCounty

MaderaCounty

FresnoCounty

TulareCounty

KingsCounty

KernCounty

San JoaquinValley

x x x

x

x xx

x x

B-61


Urban development is shown in pink,rural residential development is red,and high quality farmland is green.

Source: California Department ofConservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2008

Figure 4.2. Rural Residential Development in Fresno and Madera Counties

■ How Is the Valley Doing?Rural residential development, sometimes known as“ranchettes,”are residences built on large lots (on parcels of 1.5 acres and up to 40 acres), generally located in ruralareas. Some agriculture may be taking place on them – a few fruit trees, perhaps some horses – but it is seldom for commercial purposes.

They provide an attractive rural lifestyle for some. But becausethey remove more land from agriculture per capita than anyother kind of development, they are of great concern to agri-culture in the Valley (Ranchettes: The Subtle Sprawl, AFT,2000). They also are a concern due to the presence of non-farming neighbors who often pose physical, economic andlegal risks and challenges for the commercial farmers thatare around them.

When located close to urban areas, rural residential develop-ment forecloses the possibility of expanding those areas inan efficient manner, leading to “leapfrog” growth patterns.

In 2008, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program(FMMP) inventoried 146,058 acres of rural residential land in the San Joaquin Valley. This amounts to a quarter of theregion’s developed land, even though it does not include“ranchettes” larger than 10 acres. Yet, this rural residentialfootprint accommodates only an estimated one percent ofthe region’s population – a disproportionately large amountof land to house such a small percentage of the county’s population. Figure 4.1 compares rural residential land ineach Valley county.

■ Plans v. PerformanceMost counties in the San Joaquin Valley discourage rural residential development in their general plans, but it remains

to be seen whether this goal will be achieved. For example,Fresno County’s 2000 plan “prohibit[s] designation of newareas for non-agricultural rural-residential development,while providing for the continued development of areasalready designated for such uses in a manner that minimizesenvironmental impacts and public infrastructure and servicecosts.” This represented a significant change from the previous policy of allowing “ranchettes”and was based on a recognition there was already a large inventory of vacantrural residential lots (Goal LU-E, Goals & Policy Document,at 249).Nonetheless, the area occupied by rural residences

in Fresno County increased 8% in just the two years from2006 to 2008, and the result is easily visible on the agricul-tural landscape (Figure 4.2).

■ RecommendationCounties should take inventory of existing parcels wherenon-farm rural residential development could occur andadopt policies that make such development more difficult on high quality farmland. They should also require buffersbetween new non-farm dwellings and agricultural operations.

B-62


The conversion of farmland to urban develop-

ment permanently removes it from agricultural

production. To mitigate this loss as well as to

discourage needless conversion, a comparable

amount of farmland should be permanently

preserved by purchasing conservation ease-

ments from agricultural producers who do

not want to develop their land. This will give

those agricultural landowners an opportunity

to recover equity from their property and

result in re-investment in the farm economy.

This performance measure tracks acreage of

farmland permanently preserved by easements

compared to acres of farmland that have been

developed.

Objective 5. Mitigate the Loss of Farmland by Giving Landowners anOpportunity to Protect their Property with Conservation Easements

■ How Is the Valley Doing?Conservation easements are a means of permanently pre-serving farmland under legal covenants voluntarily agreed to by landowners. Their purchase provides compensation tolandowners who want to recover equity from their propertywhile continue to farm it, something that would be impossi-ble if they were to sell the land for non-agricultural purposes.

Not only does this provide an innovative solution that recog-nizes private property rights, but it also provides an injectionof capital into the agricultural economy.

Funding for conservation easement acquisition can comefrom many sources, including government programs such as the California Farmland Conservancy Program and thefederal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program. But thesesources are shrinking as governments face deficits and revenue shortfalls.

An increasingly popular alternative is to require developerswho convert farmland to pay a fee to preserve a comparableamount of land, or to acquire the land itself for preservation.This can also satisfy the requirement that environmentalimpacts of development be offset or mitigated under theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act.

Compared to the amount of farmland that has been convertedto urban uses, the amount of land under conservation ease-ments in the San Joaquin Valley is relatively small.

Only 10,770 acres of farmland are held under easement,compared with 109,000 acres of farmland that have beendeveloped over the last two decades (Figure 5.1).

Though conservation easements are increasingly gainingacceptance in communities throughout the Valley, easementtransactions require a great deal of time and expertise.

There are only a few land trusts actively acquiring and managing farmland conservation easements in the Valleyand though cities and counties are qualified easement holders, they often find it difficult to dedicate staff andresources necessary to maintain an effective program.

■ Plans v. PerformanceMitigating the loss of farmland through conservation ease-ments is not a widely used policy tool in the San JoaquinValley. Only two Valley counties, Stanislaus and San Joaquin,have adopted mitigation programs and to date these programs have only been lightly implemented.

Local governments have been reluctant to charge developersadditional fees, fearing that it will constrain growth or cause it to go to neighboring jurisdictions. (The highest per acremitigation fee in the Valley,$9,500 charged by San JoaquinCounty, is only a fraction of the increase in the value of landwhen it is rezoned from agriculture to urban use,which is typically in six figures.)

B-63


The Building Industry Association actually sued StanislausCounty for adopting a farmland mitigation program, losingat the state Supreme Court, which ruled that such programsare legal. On the other hand, a number of municipal mitiga-tion programs in San Joaquin County resulted from litigationbrought by the Sierra Club under CEQA. Nonetheless, thereseems to be growing interest in farmland mitigation.

The new general plan being considered by Merced Countyincludes a goal of “protecting productive agricultural areas from conversion to non-agricultural uses by establishing and implementing an agricultural mitigation program in cooperation with the six cities in Merced County, with consistent standards for county and city governments, thatmatches acres converted with farmland acres preserved at a 1:1 ratio”(Policy AG-2.2).

■ RecommendationLocal governments should adopt farmland mitigation pro-grams aimed at preserving farmland while giving agriculturallandowners the opportunity to recover equity in their prop-erty without developing it. These should be coordinatedamong localities so as to create a level playing field and prevent developers from playing one jurisdiction against its neighbors. LAFCOs can help do this by adopting their own policy of requiring cities to mitigate farmland loss as a condition of annexation.

Figure 5.1. Farmland Permanently Protected and Developed in the San Joaquin Valley

Note: This does not include farmland under easement that are primarily for the purposes of habitat preservation.Sources: San Joaquin Council of Governments, 2012; Central Valley Farmland Trust, 2012; San Joaquin River Parkway and ConservationTrust, 2012; Sequoia Riverlands Trust, 2012; California Natural Resources Agency, 2012; California Department of Conservation, 2008

Farmland under Conservation Easements

Farmland Lost to Urban Development, 1990-2008

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

acres

Only 10,770 acres of farmland are held under conservation easement, compared with109,000 acres of farmland that have been developed over the last two decades.

San Joaquin

Stanislaus

Merced

MaderaFresno

TulareKings

Kern

xx

B-64


■ How is the Valley Doing?Creating favorable economic conditions for agricultural businesses, along with appropriate land use and land preser-vation policies, will help to keep farmers on the land anddecrease the amount of farmland converted for development.Just as importantly, it will contribute to the creation of localjobs in one of the strongest economic sectors in the SanJoaquin Valley.

The economic impact of agriculture extends far beyond on-farm output and employment. These include indirectimpacts on local sectors that critically support agriculture,ranging from trucking and wholesale trade, professionalservices such as veterinarians and accountants, and manu-facturing of fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals.There are also induced impacts as income earned in agricul-ture is spent on health care, retail, housing, restaurants andother consumer needs.

Typically, the economic multiplier for agricultural productionis approximately 3.5, meaning for every one dollar of agricul-tural output, $3.50 is circulated throughout the local economy.In 2011, agricultural production in the San Joaquin Valleywas worth $30.2 billion alone, and generated an additional

$106 billion that made its way throughout the regionaleconomy (Figure 6.1).

■ What Local Government Can Do

Understanding what agriculture needs to prosper is the firststep local governments can take to inform the decisions theymake affecting farmland and agricultural businesses. Even inthe San Joaquin Valley, where agriculture is the mainstay ofthe economy, the population and its decision-makers areoverwhelmingly from urban areas. Thus, most people haveonly a general appreciation of what it takes to make a livingat producing food on a commercial scale.

To assure that decisions are based on a more sophisticatedunderstanding of their impact on agriculture, local govern-ments should proactively seek the input of agricultural producers and farm community leaders.

As we hope this report has convinced you, maintaining theland base for agriculture is essential for its prosperity. Everyacre of farmland converted to other land uses is an economicsacrifice for agriculture, one that can often be avoided ascommunities grow and seek to diversify the economy.

The ultimate purpose of farmland conservationis to maintain the land base that supports food

production as a commercial enterprise. The health ofthat enterprise must be an integral goal of farmlandconservation strategies. Since agriculture operates in a global market and is subject to federal and statelaws and regulations, there is a limit to what localgovernments can do to encourage a favorable business climate for agriculture. Nonetheless, localgovernment decisions about land use, housing,water and on-farm activities should be made with an explicit consideration of their impact on the costs, productivity and profitability of agriculture.This performance measure shows the overall impactof agricultural production, including multiplier effects through inter-industry supplier purchases(indirect impact) and consumption spending fromearnings in the industry (induced impact). Other key measures of success include local governmentactions that ensure a more hospitable business climate for agriculture and its related support industries.

6. Encourage a Favorable Agricultural Business Climate

B-65


Implementing and tracking the recommendations associatedwith the five objectives above is the foundation for ensuringagricultural lands remain economically productive. Yet thereare many other opportunities for local government to supportagricultural enterprise.

Local governments should adopt and implement economicdevelopment policies that promote enterprises such as pro-cessing, storage, manufacturing and transportation facilitiesthat add value to agricultural production, keeping dollars inthe community instead of sending them out of the Valley.These policies should also support both producers of, andmarkets for, locally grown food, the fastest-growing sector of the farm economy.

Agricultural businesses of all sizes also need a skilled workforcewith adequate training that can be provided by communitycolleges and vocational schools, as well as adequate housingand social services that local government can help provide.

Regulations are one of agriculture’s biggest challenges. Themultiplicity of regulations with which agriculture and farm-related businesses must comply is often a significant barrierto expanding and improving operations.

Local governments should avoid excessive regulation of agri-culture that drives up production costs and limits on-farmactivities such as farm stands and commercial kitchens thatcan add value to what growers produce and improve theirbottom line.

Reasonable tax policies, including continued participation in the Williamson Act, will also help relieve the economicpressure on farmers and ranchers.

A sufficient, dependable water supply is another area wherelocal government can help maintain a stable business climatefor agriculture. In addition to consuming farmland, urbandevelopment also diverts water from agricultural uses, oftenmaking it more costly and the supply less dependable.Insisting that new development be as efficient as possible in

its use of water will help maintain and adequate supply forboth urban communities and agriculture. Cities and countiescan also work with local irrigation districts to maintain agri-cultural water rights and, where necessary, facilitate thetransfer of water from areas of relative plenty to areas ofscarcity to maintain agricultural production.

Figure 6.1. Annual Economic Impact of Agriculture Sector, San Joaquin Valley

* “Overall Economic Impact” includes direct, indirect and induced economic impacts. A common multiplier for agricultural productionin California is 3.5.Source: San Joaquin Valley County Agricultural Commissioners Reports, 2011

Gross Agricultural Production Value Overall Economic Impact *

$100 billion

$120 billion

$80 billion

$60 billion

$40 billion

$20 billion

In 2011, agricultural production in the San Joaquin Valley was worth $30.2 billion, and generated an additional $106 billion that made its way throughout the regional economy.

$106 billion

$30.2 billion

B-66


Conclusion: Tracking Progress to Make Progress

If the current recession has a silver lining, it may be that it gives communities in the San Joaquin Valley time toprepare for the next wave of economic growth that is

sure to come – and with it intensified pressure on theregion’s agricultural land base.

As this report documents, the loss of Valley farmland hascontinued more or less unabated for the past two decades.Patterns of growth have not changed much during that time.The highest quality farmland is being disproportionatelyconverted to urban use. There has been only slight improve-ment in the efficiency of development, which is the absolutekey to conserving farmland.

The urban edge is in constant flux, affecting farmland anddestabilizing agriculture well beyond city limits. Still fartherafield, rural “ranchettes”continue to proliferate, consuming far more farmland per capita than any other land use.

Despite all this, the agricultural economy of the San JoaquinValley has continued to grow, a bright spot in the otherwisedismal economic picture. This is a tribute to the resilience offarmers and ranchers. But it has been possible only becausethere is still sufficient land to give producers the flexibility toadapt to changing conditions. And conditions are definitelychanging.

There is more pressure on irrigation water supplies than ever.The cost of production continues to increase, tracking theprice of fossil fuels and ever more sophisticated technology.Public concern about the environmental impact of agriculturehas led to the multiplication of regulations.

And while it may be too soon to conclude that the vagariesof weather are symptomatic of climate change, the consensusamong experts is that climate change is coming and that itwill pose new challenges for agriculture in the San JoaquinValley. One university study predicts that there may somedaybe 18% less viable farmland in the Valley because of shrinkingwater supplies and warmer winter nights that will preventfruit trees from setting buds.

The other huge challenge agriculture faces is a growing population. This is a two-edged sword. It means that therewill be more mouths to feed as well as more pressure todevelop farmland.

The population of the San Joaquin Valley, now roughly 4 million, is expected to more than double by 2050. At thesame time, if the Valley keeps developing an acre of land forevery 6.4 people, the amount of land available to producefood will shrink by at least 500,000 acres.

Another comparison puts this into sharper perspective: Todaythere are about 11 acres of high quality farmland in theValley for every acre of urbanized land. By mid-century, therewill be less than five – unless we do something different.

The land use plans and policies of communities throughoutthe San Joaquin Valley are well-intentioned in calling for theavoidance of high quality farmland, developing land moreefficiently, stabilizing the urban edge and preventing rural“ranchettes.”

Yet the record shows that, except in a few rare cases, notmuch actual progress has been made. One reason for this is almost certainly that few communities actually try tomeasure their progress or lack thereof. They adopt plans and policies, but don’t follow through to determine how well they are working. If we are going to save San JoaquinValley farmland, this must change.

This report can help bring about that change. But only ifplanners, officials and citizens in the Valley use it to begin to take the measure of how well their communities are conserving farmland. American Farmland Trust earnestlyencourages them to do so and pledges its expertise andexperience to helping them turn their good intentions into reality.

The record shows that not much actual progress has been made in fulfilling the intention of local plans to preserve

farmland. One reason for this is almost certainly that few communities actually try to measure their progress.

B-67


Appendix 1. Summary Statistics for Farmland Conservation Performance Measures■ OBJECTIVE San Joaquin Stanislaus Merced Madera Fresno Tulare Kings Kern Valleywide1. Avoid development of the best farmland

Percentage of all land converted to non-agricultural use:• High quality farmland 77% 87% 67% 47% 63% 65% 84% 38% 61%• Farmland of local importance 12% 7% 18% 9% 15% 2% -2% n/a 7%• Grazing land 2% 0% 11% 35% 2% 2% -11% 9% 5%• Other land (a) 10% 6% 4% 8% 20% 31% 16% 53% 27%Percentage of total county area that is high quality farmland 68% 41% 43% 42% 53% 47% 65% 19% 39%Conversion quality index (b) 1.13 2.11 1.55 1.12 1.20 1.38 1.49 2.07 1.57

2. Minimize farmland loss with more efficient developmentPeople per urbanized acre 1990 6.7 7.1 6.3 2.5 6.8 5.5 2.8 5.2 5.8 People per urbanized acre 2008 7.2 7.3 5.6 3.6 6.7 6.1 4.1 5.2 6.0 Marginal efficiency, people per acre developed 1990-2008 (c) 6.7 7.7 4.6 6.8 6.6 7.4 9.3 5.1 6.4 Efficiency trend index 1990-2008 (d) 2.4 1.1 0.7 2.8 1.0 1.1 3.4 1.0 1.1 Efficiency trend for Blueprint B+ scenario 2.4 1.8 3.1 2.1 2.7 1.7 3.9 2.3 2.2

3. Ensure stability at the urban edgeYears of growth accommodated by:• City limits at marginal efficiency 24 12 15 19 14 10 43 44 22• Spheres of influence at marginal efficiency 79 17 63 71 26 30 24 73 39• City limits at Blueprint B+ marginal efficiency 52 19 37 23 36 14 118 77 43• Spheres at Blueprint B+ marginal efficiency 78 27 150 86 66 46 66 127 74

4. Minimize rural residential developmentRural residential acreage as percentage of all developed land 14% 13% 12% 51% 26% 25% 11% 22% 24%Rural residential population as percentage of total population (e) 1.3% 1% 1% 10% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2%

5. Mitigate the loss of farmland with conservation easementsAcres of farmland developed, 1990-2008 23,694 13,701 7,217 3,912 22,189 12,507 6,159 19,766 109,145 Acres of farmland under conservation easement 4,328 307 3,953 646 173 108 203 1,043 10,761 Mitigation ratio 18% 2% 55% 17% 1% 1% 3% 5% 10%

6. Encourage a favorable agricultural business climateAnnual value of agricultural production (in billions, 2011) $2.1 $3.1 $3.3 $1.6 $6.9 $5.6 $2.2 $5.4 $30.2Total economic contribution of agriculture to county (f) $7.0 $10.7 $11.4 $5.5 $24.1 $19.7 $7.8 $18.8 $105.0

(a)“Other” land may include everything from farmland has been fallowed for several years (possibly in anticipation of its development) to large-lot rural residences (see below), confined animal operations and irrigation canals. Only recently has FMMP begun to differentiate them.Thus, it is possible that thedata underestimate the amount of agricultural land that has been urbanized. (b) This comparison indicates the extent to which high quality farmland is being developed disproportionately to its share of total land in the county or region. If ratio is greater than one, farmland is being consumed at a rate greaterthan its proportion in the county. (c) Marginal efficiency of development is measured by dividing the increase in the number of residents in urban areas during the period by the number of acres urbanized during the same period. It is a key indicator of whether more farmland than necessary is being con-verted to achieve economic growth. (d) Above 1.0 is a trend toward densification compared to historical development efficiency. This is a trend showing the direction the county is going toward density, not a measure of their baseline development efficiency/density.Under 1.0 is a trend toward less develop-ment efficiency, meaning they are trending toward lower density and potentially sprawl. (e) This assumes the rural residential footprint represents an average of 5 acres per parcel with one household per parcel and people per household counts provided by the California Department of Finance estimates foreach county. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program defines rural residential “ranchettes”as parcels with 1 to 5 units per 10 acres. (f) Includes direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.A common multiplier for agricultural production in California is 3.5,meaning for $1 of revenue at farm gate, $3.50 is generated throughout the local economy.

B-68


Appendix 2. Land Planned and Needed for Urban Development in the Valley

Sources: California Department of Conservation, 2008; California Department off Finance, 2012; San Joaquin Council of Governments, 2011; Stanislaus Council of Governments, 2012; Merced Council of Governments, 2011;Madera County Transportation Commission 2011 Regional Transportation Plan; Kings County 2035 General Plan; Kern Council of Governments, 2011.Notes and Assumptions: (a) The majority of 2010/2035 population projections are from 2011 Regional Transportation Plans which may overestimate projected growth.Therefore, this analysis overestimates amount of land needed forgrowth and underestimates the number of years of projected growth that area can accommodate. (b) Population increase based on 2010 base year and 2035 projection year. (c) Blueprint Scenario B+ marginal population density is 16.

Spheres of Influence■ Land Inventory Within City Limits (Outside City Limits) TotalHigh quality farmland 108,446 230,104 338,549

• Prime farmland 83,750 168,667 252,417• Farmland of statewide importance 23,252 49,354 72,606• Unique farmland 6,747 17,387 24,134

Farmland of local importance 22,840 22,657 45,496Grazing land 38,105 43,083 81,188Other land 33,133 50,291 83,425

• Confined animal feeding operations 3,251 5,936 9,188• Rural residential 6,617 22,482 29,099• Unclassified (vacant, semi-ag/commercial ag, nonag/natural veg) 28,569 27,106 55,675

Total all non-urban land 194,567 337,999 532,567Current developed area (urban and built-up) 329,681 69,545 399,226

High quality farmland as percentage of non-urbanized land in area 56% 68% 64%Total undeveloped land as percentage of existing developed land 59% 486% 133%Percentage of developed land in area compared to all developed land 83% 17% 100%Percentage of total high quality farmland within area 2.1% 4.4% 6.4%

■ Population AssumptionsCurrent population, 2010 2,860,301Current population density, 2010 (people per acre) 9Projected population, 2035 (a) 4,870,965Projected population increase, 2010-2035 (b) 2,010,664

■ Population that Area Could AccommodateAt current urban population density 1,688,059 2,932,466 4,620,525At marginal Blueprint B+ Scenario population density (c) 3,150,933 5,473,746 8,624,679

■ Land Needed to Accommodate 2035 Population GrowthProjected need for land at Status Quo population density (acres) 216,523

• Undeveloped land as percentage of land needed for 2035 population 90% 156% 246%• Years of projected growth that area can accommodate

Projected need for land at Blueprint B+ Scenario population density (acres) (c) 113,739• Undeveloped land as percentage of land needed for 2035 population 171% 297% 468%• Years of projected growth that area can accommodate 43 74 117

B-69

26 Saving Farmland, Growing Cities B-70

C A L I F O R N I A O F F I C EBox 73856 ■ Davis, CA 95617

farmland.org/california

B-72


TCAG

Response 3.1 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 3.2 See response to Comment 2.4. Response 3.3 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 3.4 See response to Comment 2.6. Response 3.5 See response to Comment 2.6. Response 3.6 Mitigation Measure LU-5(d) has been added to Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, which states that prior to approval of 2014 RTP/SCS projects that may adversely impact prime farmland, the project sponsor shall, when feasible, require that a farmland conservation easement, a farmland deed restriction, or other farmland conservation mechanism be granted in perpetuity to the municipality in which the project is proposed. Response 3.7 See response to Comment 2.10. Response 3.8 See the response to Comment 3.6. Details regarding the costs of conservation easements would be determined on a project-specific basis. Response 3.9 See responses to Comment 3.6 and 3.10. Response 3.10 See response to Comment 3.6. (TCAG) The commenter’s suggestion for adding a policy to the text of the SCS will be considered by the TCAG Board when considering whether to approve

B-73


TCAG

the 2014 RTP/SCS. The bullet points listed under the Model Farmland and Habitat Conservation Policy proposed by AFT appear to be generally consistent with the SCS process. TCAG invites AFT to partner in the discussion of these framework in the context of future updates to the RTP/SCS. Response 3.11 The 2014 RTP/SCS would achieve the GHG reduction goals mandated by CARB for Tulare County. However, it is understood that farmland conservation may have greater benefit to GHG reduction goals than similar areas of developed land. Response 3.12 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s suggestions for the 2014 RTP/SCS will be considered by the TCAG Board when considering whether to approve the 2014 RTP/SCS.

B-74

May 14, 2014

Ms. Cynthia Echavarria, Associate Regional Planner Tulare County Association of Governments 210 N. Church Street, Suite B Visalia, CA 93291 Via email: [email protected]

Re: Comments on the Tulare County Association of Government’s (“TCAG”) Draft Regional Transportation Plan (“RTP”) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (“SCS”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”)1

Dear Ms. Echavarria:

On behalf of the California Building Industry Association (“CBIA”), the Building Industry Association of Tulare/Kings Counties (“BIAT/K”) and the California Business Properties Association (“CBPA”), we are grateful for this opportunity to provide our initial comments regarding the DEIR.

Application of Mitigation Measures

The DEIR states that, whenever a mitigation measure refers to the “project sponsor,” TCAG is referring to the “lead agency, such as Caltrans, Tulare County, or the City of Visalia, in charge of approving a transportation or land development project in accordance with” the Draft RTP and SCS. (DEIR, p. ES-3.) However, TCAG has no jurisdiction or legal authority to require lead agencies to ensure adherence to the mitigation measures found in the DEIR, because such an approach would run afoul of the discretion afforded to lead agencies under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Rather, lead agencies are only required by law to consider any mitigation measures ultimately adopted by TCAG if those agencies decide to “tier” from TCAG’s final environmental impact report in preparing project-level environmental analysis under CEQA.

We respectfully request that you revise the DEIR to make clear that the mitigation measures set forth in the DEIR are only relevant in the event that a project tiers from TCAG’s program-level EIR.

��

� �� !��"#��

Letter 4

4.1

B-75

Ms. Cynthia Echavarria, Associate Regional Planner May 14, 2014 Page 2 of 4

Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts

It is our understanding that not all projects currently in the application pipeline have been incorporated into the SCS’s forecasted development pattern. As a result of this omission, the analysis of potential cumulative impacts in the DEIR is incomplete, inaccurate and misleading.

Specifically, CEQA requires a project’s incremental impact to be evaluated in conjunction with “closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §15355(b).) Here, however, TCAG appears to have excluded pipeline projects from the DEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis. Although the DEIR purports to be based on a “list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects” (DEIR, p. 1-4), the EIR does not appear to set forth the parameters of that list in any location, thereby calling into question the veracity of the analysis.

As provided in Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1128, a probable future project includes one where the “applicant has devoted significant time and financial resources to prepare for any regulatory review.” And, as further clarified in Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 870, a project undergoing environmental review should not be excluded from the list of probable future projects just because the project is subject to a “lengthy review process.”

In light of the CEQA requirements summarized above, we respectfully request that you revise the DEIR to set forth a full and complete list of all probable future projects, including pipeline projects, considered in the DEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis. That list should be organized on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, and disclose relevant identification information (e.g., project name; project applicant; location; land uses; density; intensity; etc.) for all such projects. To ensure the accuracy and completeness of the list, for purposes of establishing legally defensible environmental analysis, TCAG staff should coordinate with the planning staff of the local land use jurisdictions for a complete list of all known pipeline projects, and specifically those that have submitted a development application and commenced preparatory efforts for regulatory review.

Environmental Effects of Densification and Intensification

The DEIR fails to adequately address the environmental impacts attributable to the increased densification and intensification of land uses. For example, while not clearly disclosed in the DEIR, increased density and intensity often can tax existing public services and infrastructure, triggering the need to upsize water mains, sewer lines, etc. Such activities can result in significant environmental impacts. Similarly, the SCS’s forecasted development pattern appears to locate growth in areas where existing public parkland and recreational amenities could not readily accommodate additional demand. Although the DEIR punts on the analysis of this environmental issue, it cannot be ignored. (See DEIR, p. 4.13-3.) Rather, the DEIR needs to study the environmental effects that implementation of its forecasted development pattern would have on the local land use jurisdictions’ parks and recreational amenities, and other public services.

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

B-76


We respectfully request that you revise the DEIR, particularly the analysis of the Preferred Scenario and Blueprint Plus Scenario, to address the environmental impacts of densification and intensification.

Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change

The analysis presented in the DEIR is not substantiated by any technical appendices documenting the methodologies and assumptions utilized to compute the numeric data presented in the DEIR. For example, the calculations supporting the per capita CO2 emissions presented in Table 4.8-3 (Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emission Comparison: Passenger Vehicles) (DEIR, p. 4.8-16) are not available. The output data from the EMFAC2011 model are likewise not available. The disclosure of that information is particularly important because the analysis presented in the DEIR purports to have relied on “off model adjustments to capture reductions in VMT not reflected in the transportation modeling.” (DEIR, p. 4.8-13.)

We respectfully request that you provide the model input and output files for the air quality and GHG analyses to the reviewing public and local land use jurisdictions, and circulate electronic notices of the availability of those materials.

As shown below, the “Percent Change from 2005” data presented in Table 4.8-3 (Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emission Comparison: Passenger Vehicles) (DEIR, p. 4.8-16) is not consistent with the Percent Change CO2 Emissions (Auto & Light Truck) from 2005) presented in Table SCS-4 (Draft RTP & SCS, p. SCS-10).

Per Capita GHG Reduction (Passenger Vehicles) From 2005

Scenario SCS Table SCS-4 Draft EIR Table 4.8-3

2020 Blueprint (with 2014 RTP & SCS)

17.3% 17.1%

2020 No Project (no build) 14.8% 14.7% 2035 Blueprint (with 2014 RTP & SCS)

19.6% 19.4%

2035 No Project (no build) 18.6% 18.8%

For purposes of evaluating future conformance and consistency with the Draft RTP and SCS, these referenced values need to be static and consistent.

We respectfully request that you address and eliminate the inconsistencies between SCS Table SCS-4 and DEIR Table 4.8-3.

Section 4.12, Transportation and Circulation

Tables 4.12-1 (Existing (2013) Daily VMT), 4.12-2 (Total VMT and CVMT), and 4.12-3 (Total PCVMT) (DEIR, pp. 4.12-3 and 4.12-11) need to clearly specify whether TCAG is only accounting for the VMT attributable to weekday trips or also is including weekend trips, as well.

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

B-77


We respectfully request that you revise the DEIR to plainly and clearly disclose the methodology used to calculate total VMT.

Section 6.0, Alternatives

The alternatives analysis provided in the DEIR is inconsistent with the Draft RTP and SCS in troubling and confusing ways. For example, the DEIR states that the Trend Scenario “would not meet the GHG emission reduction requirements of SB 375.” (DEIR, p. 6-8.) However, Table SCS-4 clearly states that all scenarios, including the Trend Scenario, achieve CARB’s reduction targets and specifically shows that the Trend Scenario – like the Preferred Scenario – exceeds CARB’s reduction targets. (Draft RTP & SCS, p. SCS-10.)

We respectfully request that you address and eliminate the inconsistencies between the Draft RTP and SCS and DEIR’s alternatives analysis.

Substantive Revision is Required

In light of the comments provided above, including the cursory description of the DEIR’s methodologies, the unavailability of technical documentation, and the truncated assessment of potential cumulative impacts, the DEIR has precluded informed public review and decision-making.

We respectfully request that you substantively revise the documents, as explained above.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIR and are grateful for your consideration of our comments. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me via email: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Nick Cammarota, General Counsel CBIA

Rex Hime, President & CEO CBPA

Robert Keenan, President & CEO BIAT/K

4.13

4.14

4.15

B-78


TCAG

Response 4.1 See response to 1.11, 1.14, 1.15, and 1.35. If the lead agency for a subsequent transportation or land use project elects to tier from the RTP/SCS EIR, then the mitigation measures set forth in the RTP/SCS EIR may be relevant. Response 4.2 Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the FEIR includes an analysis of both project-specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project, as required by CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of the cumulative effects of a project in combination with other probable future projects. Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines prescribes two methods for analyzing cumulative impacts: (1) use of a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; or (2) use of a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document. This document is a Program EIR that analyzes the effects of cumulative buildout of the 2014 RTP/SCS. The proposed 2014 RTP/SCS considers the probable future projects through the “projections” approach and includes a range of specific land use and transportation projects designed to meet the plan goals and current and projected future needs, and the Draft EIR analyzes the cumulative impacts of these projects. Therefore, the cumulative effects of all probable future circulation system improvements and land use projects in the region are included in the analysis of the proposed project’s impacts. The commenter does not identify any specific future “pipeline” projects that have been omitted from the EIR analysis. To address comments regarding the cumulative impact evaluation, a more detailed discussion regarding the approach to cumulative impacts is included in Section 4.0 of the Final EIR. Responses to comments specifically addressing Yokohl Ranch are provided to Comments 1.38 through 1.48 above. Response 4.3 See response to Comment 4.2. Response 4.4 See response to Comments 1.38 through 1.48 and 4.2. With respect to the 2014 RTP/SCS, the land use changes and transportation projects included in the plan comprise the probable future projects for cumulative impact analysis, as described in Section 3.4.2 of the Draft EIR. Further discussion of the cumulative effects analysis contained in the 2014 RTP/SCS EIR has been added to Section 4.0 of the Final EIR to describe TCAG’s approach to addressing this issue. Response 4.5 See response to Comments 1.38 through 1.48 and 4.2. The cumulative effects of all probable future circulation system improvements and land use projects in the region are included in the analysis of the proposed project’s impacts. The commenter does not identify any specific future

B-79


TCAG

“pipeline” projects that have been omitted from the EIR analysis. Also, please note that the cumulative impacts discussion for the2014 RTP/SCS EIR was expanded to include a discussion of cumulative effects related to projects that may occur outside Tulare County. Specifically, a discussion of regional transportation modeling had been added to identify methods used to account for vehicle trips with an origin or destination outside Tulare County. Identifying individual development projects currently in the planning process both within and outside Tulare County that could cause or contribute to cumulative effects associated with 2014 RTP/SCS implementation is beyond the scope of the analysis required in the EIR. Response 4.6 See response to Comments 4.4 and 4.5 above. Response 4.7 In response to this comment, revisions to Section 4.13 have been made in the Final EIR to further describe the impacts of land use changes on public services and utilities; as shown by these revisions, these impacts are less than significant. Response 4.8 In response to this comment, revisions to Section 4.13 have been made in the Final EIR to further describe the impacts of land use changes on recreation facilities; as shown by these revisions, these impacts are less than significant. Response 4.9 Please see responses to Comments 4.7 and 4.8. Response 4.10 The data referenced was provided to the Building Industry Association in response to the letter dated May 1, 2014. Modeling data and findings are also posted on the TCAG website for reference purposes. Response 4.11 The only request for the data during the Draft EIR comment period was made by the Building Industry Association. Because no other requests for the information were received and the data is available on the TCAG website, there is no evidence to indicate circulating electronic notices of availability is necessary or would be of value to members of the public, local land use jurisdictions or regulatory agencies.

B-80


TCAG

Response 4.12 The data presented in Table 4.8-3 of the Draft EIR and Table SCS-4 do not differ by more than 0.2%. The discrepancy was the result of differences in rounding. This has been corrected in the Final RTP/SCS and EIR– data in both tables are now identical. Response 4.13 See response to Comment 1.10. The modeling addresses only average weekday trips. Weekend trips are not considered in the modeling. Response 4.14 In the Final RTP/SCS and EIR, the inconsistency noted by the commenter has been resolved. The commenter points out no additional specific inconsistencies. Response 4.15 Refer to responses to Comments 4.1 through 4.14. Revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to the comments herein are not significant new information that would require recirculation of the EIR per Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

B-81

Letter 5

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

B-82

5.4

B-83


TCAG

Response 5.1 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 5.2 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. All comments on the Draft EIR have been thoroughly reviewed and addressed in the Response to Comments document. TCAG has been working closely with the San Joaquin Council of Governments on the Conformity Analysis to ensure all requirements are met. Response 5.3 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 5.4 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required.

B-85

May 1, 2014 Mr. Benjamin Kimball, Deputy Directory Ms. Cynthia Echavarria, Associate Regional Planning Tulare County Association of Governments 210 N. Church Street, Suite B Visalia, CA 93291 [email protected] Sent electronically w. hard copy to follow [email protected]

Re: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy – Comment Period Extension Request

Dear Mr. Kimball and Ms. Echavarria: On behalf of the California Building Industry Association and the Building Industry Association of Tulare/Kings Counties, we respectfully request a 30-day extension of the public review and comment period for the Tulare County Association of Governments’ (TCAG) Draft 2014 Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP & SCS) and related Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).1

We respectfully request that the comment period be extended from May 14, 2014 to June 13, 2014.

While both the Draft RTP & SCS and Draft EIR were made available for public review by TCAG in late March 2014, our review suggests that both documents are missing critical pieces of information necessary to undertake an informed and meaningful public review.

For example, Appendix E2 of the Draft RTP & SCS is missing the County Comparison SCS tables and the Reports by Individual Counties for SCS tables as well as other component parts of its appendices.3 Appendix E contains internal placeholders/slip-sheets for unavailable information that should otherwise appear in the body of the Technical Summary. Additionally, neither the TAZ data assumptions for the Draft RTP & SCS nor the forecast ADTs for years 2020, 2035 and 2040 are readily available.

1 SCH# 2012081070 2 Technical Summary for the [TCAG] Traffic Model to Meet the Requirements of SB 375. 3 Draft RTP & SCS, Appendix E, p. 43.

Letter 6

6.1

6.2

B-86

Also missing is the technical data supporting the air quality, greenhouse gas, and traffic data presented in the Draft EIR, leaving reviewers guessing as to the computation and methodological assumptions utilized in preparing the Draft EIR.

Further complicating meaningful public review is the absence of the GHG emission calculations used to demonstrate SB 375 compliance in Draft EIR4; the off-model adjustments to calculate VMT-- which are only vaguely described; 5 and, the EMFAC2011 input and output modeling files used for the GHG emission calculations which are not readily accessible.

Although reasonable efforts have been made by the public to secure access to these documents, the delay in receiving them has compromised the adequacy of the original parameters of the public review period.

In light of the significant import of the Draft RTP & SCS to the region, we believe it is of the utmost importance that adequate opportunities for informed public comment be provided. Please know that this request is being made in the spirit of ensuring that TCAG receive the most meaningful and insightful comments possible on its Draft RTP & SCS and related Draft EIR.

Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely, Richard Lyon Robert Keenan Senior Vice President President/ CEO California Building Industry Association Building Industry Association Tulare County

4 Section 4.8. 5 See Draft EIR, p. 4.8-13.

6.2

6.3

B-87


TCAG

Response 6.1 In the response letter from TCAG to the Building Industry Association dated May 7, 2014, it was indicated that the request for a 30-day extension of the 2014 RTP/SCS and Draft EIR review period would not be granted. The documents were circulated for the required public review periods. Response 6.2 An EIR’s objective is to provide the public and reviewing agencies with information in a way that can be easily reviewed and understood, and the EIR body should avoid including highly technical analysis and data. (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15147.)TCAG has worked extensively with agencies such as the San Joaquin Council of Governments, California Air Resources Board, Caltrans, municipalities within Tulare County as well as service provides such as airports and transit districts during development of the 2014 RTP/SCS to ensure the methodology and protocol used to perform the analyses is accurate and legally defensible. Thus, it is TCAG’s intention to eliminate or minimize the need for reviewers to verify the accuracy of the material, assumptions and findings. However, to ensure full disclosure of all material relevant to the analyses performed for the 2014 RTP/SCS, additional technical supporting information has been provided on TCAG’s web site and in this Final EIR. In addition, any interested party can request and receive background material, modeling input/output files and related data for review. Response 6.3 Refer to response to comment 4.11. The Building Industry Association was the only respondent questioning the availability of the data supporting computations within the 2014 RTP/SCS and EIR. A Public Records Act request for traffic data was received on April 8 and April 14, 2014. The information was assembled by TCAG via CD-ROM and sent to the requesting party on April 17 and 22, 2014. TCAG is unaware of additional efforts made by the public to secure access to that material; thus, there is no evidence that the adequacy of the public review period has not been compromised.

B-88

Letter 7

7.1

7.2

B-89


TCAG

Response 7.1 The commenter recommends no specific changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is required. Response 7.2 The commenter recommends no specific changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is required. Response 7.3 The commenter recommends no specific changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

B-91

Letter 8

8.1

B-92

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

B-93

8.5

B-94


TCAG

Response 8.1 It is understood that some projects identified in the 2014 RTP/SCS may be located adjacent to streams under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. TCAG’s approach to addressing potential impacts to these resources is provided in response to Comment 8.4 and 8.5 below. Response 8.2 It is understood the Central Valley Flood Protection Board enforces regulations that may pertain to streams located within Tulare County and affected by projects implemented per the 2014 RTP/SCS. Response 8.3 A permit would be obtained by the transportation or land use project sponsoring agency for work performed under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. Response 8.4 The 2014 RTP/SCS and EIR are program documents. While projects are identified in the 2014 RTP/SCS, none would be implemented without further, project-specific environmental review. Project specific environmental review would be performed as projects are advanced through the approval process. As described by the commenter and as discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, transportation and land development projects in accordance with the 2014 RTP/SCS would be required to comply with state and federal permitting requirements for vegetation removal within jurisdictional waterways. Individual projects would be required by project sponsors to provide sufficient drainage capacity. Response 8.5 The commenter states that projects which encroach on floodway channels can impede or reroute flood flows, and/or increase sediment accumulation. During project design and development review, individual transportation and land development projects would be required by project sponsors to avoid encroachment into the floodway or provide necessary drainage improvements. As described in Section 4.14, Less than Significant Environmental Factors, the 2014 RTP/SCS does not contain project actions that would significantly change the drainage pattern of an area or result in flooding associated with the alteration of a stream or river. The majority of projects would occur within existing rights-of-way. Thus, while the amount of impervious surface would increase, adjacent stormwater infrastructure would be designed to collect, convey and treat runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

B-95

A Tides Center Project

May 14, 2014 Cynthia Echavarría, Associate Regional Planner Tulare County Association of Governments 210 North Church Street, Suite B Visalia, CA 93291 Fax: (559) 733-6720

SENT VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL

Re: Comments on TCAG 2014 Draft Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

Dear Ms. Echavarría:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Tulare County Association of Government’s Draft 2014 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability has as its mission to work alongside the most impacted communities to advocate for sound policy and eradicate injustice to secure equal access to opportunity regardless of wealth, race, income, and place. Accordingly, these comments contain a particular focus on ensuring that the RTP adequately identifies and addresses the needs of all residents of Tulare County, including and especially, historically disadvantaged communities, in accordance with applicable law and in conformity with the goals embedded in SB 375.

The RTP/SCS presents an important opportunity to create a vision backed by land use and transportation policies and investment strategies to improve public health, economic opportunity, and sustainability in communities throughout the region. During workshops held by Leadership Counsel in the region’s disadvantaged communities, including El Rancho, Plainview, Tonyville, Tooleville, and Matheny Tract, residents highlighted in particular their desire for the RTP to address needs in their communities for dependable public transit, roadway improvements in and around their communities, and infrastructure to create safe conditions for walking, including sidewalks, road crossings, traffic-calming measures, and street lights.

The Draft RTP/SCS is a strong start, but it can, and should, go further to reduce reliance on vehicles, improve walkability, improve access to transit and improve the environment. Similarly, this RTP can more affirmatively reinforce TCAG’s commitment to disadvantaged communities so that their needs are met and their opportunities realized. We have set out suggested modifications below that would enhance this plan by promoting equitable treatment of all the residents of Tulare County taking into account the priorities expressed by residents through our outreach. We look forward to continued discussion and collaboration with TCAG and other stakeholders to create and implement a strong and meaningful RTP.

Letter 9

B-96

Cynthia Echavarria, Associate Regional Planner May 14, 2014 Page 2

2115 Kern Street, Suite 320, Fresno, California 93721 Telephone: (559) 369-2790

I. Include a Clear List of Priority Transportation Projects/Investments

Throughout the RTP documents there is clear language indicating that regional investments in expanding and improving transit access and active transportation are a priority. However, there is no comprehensive list of, nor adequate information regarding transportation projects slated for completion that would demonstrate that such investments will actually track with the RTP’s

stated priorities. Moreover the lack of a clear, consolidated list of projects makes it impossible to assess where projects will occur, what share of funding each transportation mode will receive and whether investments are being made in the places where they will have the greatest impact in advancing public health, environmental justice, and climate goals. The RTP should include a consolidated list of priority projects. This list should include both the location of the project, a project description, and an estimated cost.

II. Balance Expanding Road Capacity with the Stated Priority of Improving Transit and Increasing Active Transportation

While there is no list by which to accurately measure this, it appears that the RTP focuses primarily on increasing road capacity. While there are instances where increasing road capacity makes sense, the current focus in this area seems to run counter to the larger goals of lowering VMT, increasing transit use, and supporting active transportation. This RTP – through policies and commitments in the financial element – should increase investments that will support transit and active transportation.

III. Replace the term “Environmental Justice Communities” with “Disadvantaged Communities”

The RTP uses but does not define the term “Environmental Justice Communities”. In order to avoid ambiguity, the RTP must define “Environmental Justice Communities” or substitute the

term for another, clearly defined term. We recommend that the RTP replace the term “Environmental Justice Communities” with “Disadvantaged Communities”, which may be

defined in the RTP Glossary simply as “areas with either a median household income of 80% or less than State Median Household Income or that fall within the top 20% of disadvantaged communities as identified by CalEnviroScreen”.

IV. Identify the Specific Environmental Issues Facing Disadvantaged Communities

Government Code § 65080(b)(1) requires the inclusion in the RTP of a Policy Element which describes transportation issues and identifies and quantifies transportation needs throughout the region. While the Environmental Justice section of the Draft RTP Policy Element states generally that “TCAG seeks to assure that plan benefits and burdens are not inequitably distributed within the region” (2:2), the Policy Element includes no actual discussion of existing or potential inequities in transportation infrastructure or services in the County nor access to basic services. Residents of the region’s disadvantaged communities, including both

disadvantaged unincorporated communities and disadvantaged communities within Tulare’s

cities, face unique and heightened barriers to mobility in comparison to other areas of the

9.1

9.2

9.3

9.4

9.5

B-97



County. Without a description of the specific transportation issues facing disadvantaged communities – including barrios to using transit and active transportation - neighborhoods, and populations in Tulare County, the Policy Element and RTP are incomplete. Gov. Code § 65080(b)(1).

V. Include an Element Addressing Barriers to Mobility in Disadvantaged Communities

Government Code § 65080(c) permits transportation planning agencies to “include other factors

of local significance as an element of the [RTP], including, but not limited to, issues of mobility for specific sectors of the community”. In order to remedy the Draft RTP’s deficiencies with respect to disadvantaged communities, we recommend the addition of an element specifically identifying the disadvantaged communities (both incorporated and unincorporated) in the region, the particular barriers to mobility within those communities, and a plan to eliminate those barriers. Because research has demonstrated that low-income communities have a high propensity to utilize alternative transportation modes when these choices are available, increasing good transit access and pedestrian supporting infrastructure to low-income communities can have a significant impact on VMT reductions.

VI. Supplement the Policy Element to Expressly Prioritize the Achievement of a Multi-Modal Transportation Network and Investment in Disadvantaged Communities

The RTP must be “directed at achieving a coordinated and balanced multi-modal regional transportation system.” Gov. Code § 65080(a). The RTP further must be “action oriented and

pragmatic” as well as internally consistent. Id. at 65080(b). Therefore, the Plan must include specific and explicit goals, objectives, and policies that can realistically be expected to achieve such a transportation system. Failure to adopt objectives and policies specifically formulated to address transportation issues and goals identified in the RTP would result in an internally inconsistent and incomplete document that fails to comply with the requirements of Gov. Code § 65080(b).

Furthermore, TCAG, through the RTP, is required by federal and state law to plan for and implement transportation system improvements that will benefit all residents. 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d), et seq1; Cal. Gov. Code § 11135; E.O. 12898; 2010 RTP Guidelines, pp. 62-63. RTPs must consider how all residents, particularly low-income residents and communities of color, may be impacted by RTP land use. Id.

While the Draft RTP includes certain content supportive of the purposes of RTPs set forth under the law, it lacks sufficient specific and explicit goals, objectives and policies to ensure the achievement of the “coordinated and multi-modal regional transportation system” envisioned by

1 Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits both intentional and disparate impact (i.e. a neutral policy or practice that has a disparate impact) discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance, including assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 also prohibits actions that deny minority populations the benefits of transportation spending.

9.6

9.7

9.8

B-98



SB 375, internal consistency required by Government Code § 65080(b), and the environmental justice objectives set forth under applicable state and federal law.

The section below proposes revisions and additions to Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Draft RTP Policy Element intended to assist TCAG in the creation of a final RTP that fulfills the vision and legal requirements for RTPs. Proposed deletions to those Goals, Objectives, and Policies are indicated with strikethroughs, while proposed additions are underlined. As the Policy Element’s Goals and Objectives are not numbered, the comments identify the portion of the Policy Element to which specific proposals relate by including page numbers and the text of objectives to which policies addressed by the comments correspond.

A. Comprehensive Section

Objective (2:3): Support communities in developing walkable, bikeable, and transit-ready neighborhoods that work in tandem with motor vehicle facilities for a safe and comprehensive local circulation system for people of all levels of income and various availability of resources, focusing on Environmental Justice disadvantaged communities.

For the policies following this objective to achieve the goal of prioritization of environmental justice or disadvantaged communities, those policies must, in turn, explicitly prioritize disadvantaged communities.

In addition, in recognition that investment in the development of walkable, bikeable, and transit-ready neighborhoods could increase housing costs, this section must include policies to mitigate the impacts of and prevent displacement of disadvantaged and/or low-income residents due to rising costs of housing. Strong policies to this effect are necessary to ensure that RTP policies designed to enhance mobility and access for all residents and disadvantaged communities in particular do not have the effect of further disadvantaging the County’s vulnerable and low-income populations.

We recommend the inclusion of the following anti-displacement policy in the RTP:

� For transit priority areas, TCAG shall require local jurisdiction to adopt anti-displacement policies as a condition of receiving regional transportation dollars.

B. System Performance Section

Objective: Develop a safe and reliable regional road system. (2:4)

We recommend the addition of the following policy to explicitly identify and address transportation safety issues in disadvantaged communities:

Undertake a comprehensive needs assessment to identify needed safety and reliability improvements in disadvantaged communities, including but not limited to roadway improvements, sidewalks, stop signs, flashing cross walks, street lights, and other traffic-calming infrastructure.

9.10

9.11

9.9

B-99



Objective: Plan for and implement cost-effective transportation improvements which utilize all types of public funds, including federal, state, and local funds and funds allocated by formula, competitive grants, or other sources.

We recommend the addition to implementing policy 1 for this objective in order to ensure that vulnerable populations benefit from transportation projects selected:

“Rank and score transportation projects based on regional significance, the extent to which the project addresses the transit needs of and improves access to transit for low-income communities and transit-dependent populations, safety, cost effectiveness, and project warrant based on specific funding guidelines.

We recommend the addition of the following policy to bolster funding for transit projects that address the identified needs of disadvantaged communities:

“Prioritize the pursuit of funding for transit projects that address the transit needs of disadvantaged communities and populations, including low-income communities dependent on transit services.”

Objective: Minimize environmental impacts of transportation projects and encourage the coexistence of nature and human circulation needs. (2:5)

The policies following this objective primarily state existing legal requirements applicable to the creation and adoption of RTPs. The Policy Element should include “action-oriented” policies

that will achieve the element’s stated objectives. We therefore propose the addition of the

following policies to minimize environmental impacts of transportation projects pursuant to the objective:

“Prioritize and encourage projects that reduce vehicle-miles traveled, to reduce both GHG emissions environmental degradation associated with vehicle emissions, including ROG, NOx, p.m. 10 and p.m. 2.5.”

“Assess the environmental impact of transportation projects for their impact on disadvantaged communities both with respect to mobility and air quality”

“Prioritize and encourage projects that support the preservation of farmland and open space.”

Objective: Perform public outreach to ensure the reasonable satisfaction and meeting the needs of the public. (2:6)

We recommend the following additions to the policies corresponding to the objective above to ensure linguistically and culturally-appropriate outreach to the County’s diverse populations,

including residents of disadvantaged communities:

9.12

9.13

9.14

9.15

B-100



� Conduct targeted outreach in all threshold languages2 or to low-income communities to

identify, document and prioritize projects that address the transit needs of those communities.

� Work in partnership with residents and community-based and non-profit organizations to develop and implement effective strategies for outreach to low-income communities throughout the County.

� Publish public notices in all threshold languages and hold hearings with translation services available to allow the public to comment on regional road and circulation projects….

� Hold public hearings during evenings and weekends and provide translation services to maximize attendance and participation.

� Provide a time for public comment at each TCAG Board meeting. Time used for translation shall not be counted against time permitted for comment.

C. Transit Section

Goal: PROVIDE A SAFE, SECURE, COORDINATED AND EFFICIENT PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT CAN REASONABLY MEET THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS.

We recommend the following revision and addition to explicitly incorporate equity into the goal above:

PROVIDE A SAFE, SECURE, COORDINATED AND EFFICIENT, AND EQUITABLE PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT CAN REASONABLY MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL RESIDENTS. (2:6)

Similarly, we recommend modification of the subsequent objective as follows:

Encourage and support the development of a safe, efficient, effective, and economical, and equitable public transit system through the update and implementation of short and long range local Transit Development Plans, the Tulare County Coordinate Transportation Plan, and other transit improvements.

Likewise, we recommend the following policy modification to implementing policy 5 for the objective above (2:6):

“Encourage transit agencies to make use of all available federal, state, and local funding

to sustain, expand and improve local transit services, prioritizing the transit needs of existing and disadvantaged neighborhoods and residents, including low-income and transit dependent residents, and ensure the timely and best use of those funds.”

Objective: Provide information and receive input from residents regarding transit needs within the region and work to implement feasible transit improvements. (2:7)

2 For purposes of the RTP/SCS, “Threshold Languages” may be defined as languages that serve as the primary language for 3% or more of the region’s population or of the area to which outreach is targeted.

9.15

9.16

9.17

9.18

B-101



The policies following this objective should include language expressly targeting disadvantaged neighborhoods and populations for public outreach:

1. Encourage each transit agency to further their citizen involvement process, identify and eliminate barriers to involvement by residents of disadvantaged communities and disadvantaged residents, including by residents that are low-income, people of color, non-English speaking, disabled, residents lacking access to transit services and residents with nontraditional employment schedules, and as well as participate in Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (SSTAC) and Transit Forum meetings.

2. Update and adopt unmet transit needs definitions at least every five years, and seek increasing public participation in the transmit unmet needs process, with particular attention to increasing public participation by residents of disadvantaged communities and among disadvantaged residents, including by residents that are low-income, people of color, non-English speaking, disabled, and residents lacking access to transit services and residents with nontraditional employment schedules.

Additionally, the RTP should include a policy that ensures an effective process to:

Assess unmet transit needs, especially in disadvantaged communities and implement an action plan to address identified needs.

D. Active Transportation (Bicycle and Pedestrian Modes)

Objective: Encourage bicycle usage in Tulare County by providing safe and convenient bike routes and facilities as outlined in the Tulare County Regional Transportation Bicycle Plan.

Revise the policies corresponding to this objective as follows (Note: we have suggested policies expanding the bicycle plan to include walking routes as well. An alternative could include a separate pedestrian access plan):

1. Update the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Plan every four years to identify bicycle and walking routes that are appropriate for commuter, recreational, and student riders uses.

3. Designate and design regional bicycle and walking routes that reduce conflicts with motor vehicles.

4. Encourage local agency review of bicycling and pedestrian needs with all new development.

6. Coordinate bicycle and pedestrian planning and implementation with other modes of transportation, particularly with transit.

7. Support development of designated regional bicycle and walking paths adjacent to or separate from commute corridors, connecting cities and communities.

8. Support implementation of local bicycle, pedestrian, and trail plans.

9.19

9.20

9.21

B-102



Additionally, TCAG should engage in a needs assessment with respect to pedestrian and bicycle access in disadvantaged communities and incorporate projects to address those needs into the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Plan and prioritize those projects. Objective: Educate, incentivize, and enable residents to utilize active modes of transportation.

We recommend revision to implementing policy 6 for this objective as follows:

Monitor key corridors for bicycle and pedestrian usage and develop strategies for improvement.

Active modes of transportation may be further encouraged through investment in existing communities:

Prioritize mixed-use and infill development in existing communities in order to enhance the viability and attractiveness of active modes of transportation.

Objective: Support safe pedestrian walkways within the transportation network in Tulare County. (2:10)

Implementing policy 1 may be strengthened to better address key infrastructure deficiencies and the needs of populations with unique transit issues as follows:

1. Encourage Ensure identification and removal of barriers (walls, fences, etc.) and the alleviation of infrastructure deficiencies (e.g., incomplete or absent sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streetlights, safe crossing, etc.), for safe and convenient movement of pedestrians. Special emphasis should be placed on the needs of youth that rely on walking to travel to and from school and/or school bus stops, people relying primarily on walking as a primary mode of transportation, and people with disabilities and ADA compliance.

GOAL: PRESERVE AND ENHANCE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND CORRIDORS (2:11)

Objective: Coordinate local and regional planning to result in development that minimizes and/or mitigates impacts along regional corridors.

We recommend the addition of the following policy in furtherance of the aim of SB 375 of reducing VMT through the prioritization of infill development over sprawl and new town development:

Support mixed-use, infill development, and affordable housing creation in existing communities and development that improves the jobs-housing balance in order to reduce dependence on travel along regional corridors for daily needs.

9.22

9.23

9.24

9.25

B-103



E. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Section

GOAL: PROMOTE THE IMPROVEMENT OF AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCATIONS THROUGH CONGESTION MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION OF LAND USE, HOSIING, AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE MODES. (2-11)

Objective: Encourage coordinated development to achieve an improved jobs-housing balance in the region.

We recommend the following additions to the implementing policies for the objective above in order to ensure that the disadvantaged communities and low-income residents share in the benefits intended to reduce Green House Gas Emissions:

1. Encourage mixed-use developments in urbanized areas and existing small communities, both incorporated and unincorporated.

2. Encourage the location of land uses that supply basic goods and services (e.g., grocery stores, retail outlets, and public parks and facilities) in residential communities lacking such amenities, including both incorporated and unincorporated communities.

3. Encourage provision of an adequate supply of housing to meet the needs of all income-brackets of for the region’s workforce in proximity to jobs and opportunity, and adequate sites to accommodate business expansion to minimize interregional trips and long-distance commuting.

Objective: Prioritize projects that contribute to improved air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. (2:12)

We recommend that the following addition to the objective above:

Objective: Prioritize projects that contribute to improved air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, with particular emphasis on projects benefiting communities facing the greatest environmental and health risks. (2:12)

We also recommend the addition of the following policies to further support the RTP’s ability to

drive air quality improvements:

Prioritize transit, pedestrian, and bicycle projects and roadway improvements serving existing and disadvantaged communities, with particular emphasis on projects benefiting communities with median household incomes 80% or less of median state household income or ranking within the top 20% of pollution burdened census tracts under the California EPA Communities Environmental Health Screen Tool.

Assess the air quality impacts of the RTP on disadvantaged communities, especially to the extent that the chosen scenario did not perform best with respect to air quality metrics.

9.26

9.27

9.28

B-104



Develop a program to assess the air quality impacts of funded transportation projects on disadvantaged communities.

F. Public Health Section

GOAL: PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE REGION BY PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS TO BICYCLE AND WALK TO DESTINATIONS SUCH AS HOME, WORK, SCHOOL, AND COMMERCIAL AND SERVICE BUSINESSES.

Objective: Consider effects on public health when investing in the transportation system, giving specific attention to bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Low-income communities and communities of color in the U.S. and the San Joaquin Valley experience significant and persistent health disparities, including higher rates of asthma, diabetes, obesity rates and lower life expectancies, as compared to higher-income and white populations.3 RTP policies specifically addressing the mobility needs of these populations can contribute to improved health outcomes, thereby furthering the RTP’s goal of promoting public

health in the region and in conformance with the civil rights laws discussed above in this letter.

Accordingly, we recommend the addition of the following policy:

Seek funding for, and prioritize investment in transit, bicycle, pedestrian system and roadway improvements to meet the transportation needs of disadvantaged communities, increase access to physical activity and reduce air pollution in order to improve environmental-related health outcomes in disadvantaged communities.

In addition, we suggest the inclusion of a policy to:

Reduce air pollution to improve health outcomes in the County, and especially in communities disproportionately impacted by air pollution and other environmental impacts.

G. Environmental Justice Section

Goal: ENSURE THAT TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS DO NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX, AGE OR DISIBILITY.

Objective: Require regional transportation planning that is consistent with Title VI and Environmental Justice Federal Requirements. (2:14)

We recommend the addition of the following policies to implement the objective:

3 See Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Place Matters for Health in the San Joaquin Valley, Feb. 2012, available at http://www.jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/upload/research/files/PM%20Full.pdf; CERD Working Group on Health and Environmental Health, “Unequal Health Outcomes in the United States, Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care Treatment and Access”, the Role of Social and Environmental Determinants of

Health and the Responsibility of the State, Jan. 2008, available at http://www.prrac.org/pdf/CERDhealthEnvironmentReport.pdf.

9.28

9.29

9.30

9.31

B-105



1. Develop and implement a program to identify existing transportation needs in

disadvantaged communities, including through engagement with residents and community-based and non-profit organizations.

2. Give first priority to investment that addresses transportation needs in disadvantaged communities in order to mitigate the longstanding patterns of investment in transportation improvements therein.

3. Give priority to investments in existing communities to support transportation infrastructure, services and access in that promotes the health and well-being of existing neighborhoods.

Objective (2:15): Include targeted and culturally-appropriate outreach to environmental justice disadvantaged communities in transportation planning in order to inform planning and investment to achieve environmental justice.

We recommend the following revisions implementing policy 2 for this objective:

2. Provide outreach to various environmental justice communities within Tulare County, including, but not limited to, Tule River Indian Tribe and primarily Spanish-speaking communities. Work with residents and community-based and non-profit organizations to develop and implement a strategy for culturally-appropriate outreach to disadvantaged communities within Tulare County, including, but not limited to, communities with median household incomes 80% or less of median state household income or ranking within the top 20% of pollution burdened census tracts under the California EPA Communities Environmental Health Screen Tool, the Tule River Indian Tribe, communities with threshold languages other than English, and farmworker communities.

We recommend the addition of the following policies:

� Provide appropriate translation services at all public hearings and for outreach to disadvantaged communities.

� Provide public hearing notices and other key transportation-related documents in appropriate languages.

We also recommend the inclusion of a policy to:

Protect disadvantaged communities from transportation-related air pollution by encouraging projects that improve air quality, discouraging projects that increase air pollution and assessing the impact of projects and the RTP generally on air quality with respect to the pollution burden of disadvantaged communities.

VII. Targeted Grant Program to Strengthen Existing Communities

The suggestions detailed above, if implemented can create a stronger RTP by encouraging equitable planning and investment throughout the County. Additionally, TCAG should consider, as several MPOs are considering, a grant program specifically targeting disadvantaged

9.31

9.32

9.33

9.34

B-106



communities with significant unmet transportation needs. This program may be called the Sustainable Planning and Infrastructure Program. The comprehensive needs assessment suggested above can help TCAG identify where and how to invest funds allocated for this program. The Action Element can describe how the grant program can support the development of multi-model neighborhoods. Likewise, the Financial Element should identify estimated revenue that will be allocated to this grant program.

VIII. Include a clear list of priority transportation projects/investments

Throughout the RTP documents there is clear language indicating that regional investments in expanding and improving transit access and active transportation are a priority. However, there is no comprehensive list of, nor adequate information regarding transportation projects slated for completion that would demonstrate that such investments will actually track with the RTP’s

stated priorities. Moreover the lack of a clear, consolidated list of projects makes it impossible to assess where projects will occur, what share of funding each transportation mode will receive and whether investments are being made in the places where they will have the greatest impact in advancing public health, environmental justice, and climate goals. The RTP should include a consolidated list of priority projects. This list should include both the location of the project, a project description, and an estimated cost.

IX. Balance Expanding Road Capacity with the Stated Priority of Improving Transit and Increasing Active Transportation

While there is no list by which to accurately measure this, it appears that the RTP focuses primarily on increasing road capacity. While there are instances where increasing road capacity makes sense, the current focus in this area seems to run counter to the larger goals of lowering VMT, increasing transit use, and supporting active transportation. This RTP – through policies and commitments in the financial element – should increase investments that will support transit and active transportation.

X. Include Measurable Indicators of Regional Transportation Issues

Government Code § 65080(b)(1) empowers transportation planning agencies to adopt indicators measuring various transportation issues in the region under their jurisdiction. These indicators include but are not limited to:

� Measures of road and bridge maintenance and rehabilitation needs, including but not limited to roadway pavement and bridge conditions.

� Measure of means of travel, including but not limited to percentage share of all trips made by single occupant vehicle, multiple occupant vehicle or carpool, public transit, walking, and bicycling.

� Measures of safety and security, including injuries and fatalities assigned to each mode.

� Measures of equity and accessibility, including but not limited to percentage of the population served by frequent and reliable public transit, with breakdown by

9.36

9.37

9.38

9.35

B-107



income bracket, and percentage of jobs accessible by frequent and reliable public transit service, with breakdown by income bracket.

The SCS emphasizes that TCAG will monitor and review its progress in implementing RTP/SCS strategies. (SCS-17), stating that “It will be important for TCAG to continue to improve its

performance monitoring programs, to track how well the region is doing in terms of overall progress towards meeting its goals.” Id. Despite this statement and the indicators suggested in Gov. Code § 65080, the Draft RTP adopts no indicators to measure existing transportation issues and progress over the planning period.

We recommend that TCAG include policies in the Policy Element requiring the specification of the above-listed indicators and measurement at the onset and over the course of the planning RTP planning period. Adoption of indicators will contribute to the efficacy of the RTP by providing a mechanism for the COG to monitor and assess progress towards the achievement of the goals, objectives, and policy statements set forth in the RTP.

XI. Growth Scenarios Should Individually Identify Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

We commend TCAG for focusing growth on already existing communities. What is not clear, however, is how the SCS allocates growth among unincorporated communities and how the RTP allocates resources to the same. The growth scenarios included in the SCS address the region’s

unincorporated communities generally without any identification of or analysis relating to growth scenario outcomes for specific communities. Failure to identify individual unincorporated communities, in particular, disadvantaged unincorporated communities, impedes analysis of the impact of the growth scenarios on those communities and the extent to which the RTP benefits all of the region’s residents and meets applicable civil rights obligations.

Accordingly, we recommend that the growth scenarios provided in the SCS be supplemented to include a break down for unincorporated communities, and the RTP as well delineate how projects and funds will be allocated to communities.

XII. Consider State Housing Goals Specified in Gov. Code §§ 65580 and 65881

Government Code § 65080(b)(2)(B) requires that an SCS consider the state housing goals specified in Sections 65580 and 65581. These housing goals include the following goal, among others, which is not considered by the SCS:

“The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.”

This goal highlights the importance placed by the State of California not only on the achievement of sufficient quantities of housing to meet the needs of all Californians but also on the attainment of quality housing and living environments. The state’s emphasis on both

quantity and quality of housing and on living environments generally is particularly significant for residents of disadvantaged communities of Tulare County, many of whom are farmworkers

9.39

9.40

9.41

B-108



or otherwise contribute to the local agricultural economy, but who may live in dilapidated housing conditions and where the living environment (e.g., incomplete or lacking public infrastructure and services) undermines resident health outcomes. The Draft SCS must be supplemented to include consideration of state goal of attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, specifically with respect to the region’s

disadvantaged communities and most vulnerable residents.

XIII. Include Specific Affordable Housing Criteria for CEQA Streamlining Incentives

The SCS provides that residential and mixed use projects consistent with the SCS can qualify for streamlined CEQA review if at least 75% of total building square footage consists of residential use. (SCS-9). Likewise, A Transit Priority Project (TPP) is eligible for streamlining if it is consistent with the SCS; contains at least 50% residential use; is proposed to be developed at a minimum 20 dwelling units per acre; and is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor that is included in the RTP. (SCS-11).

To ensure that projects that take advantage of CEQA streamlining benefit all Tulare residents and help the region meet its need for affordable housing, the SCS should require projects to meet specific affordable housing criteria in order to qualify for streamlining. For example, this criteria may include the requirement that at least 15% of residential square footage be affordable to low-income residents, and at least 5% of residential square footage affordable to very low and extremely low-income residents.

XIV. Strengthen Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan

While the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan (RHNAP) takes strong steps toward promoting housing opportunities for residents of all income levels, we are concerned that there is no discussion of extremely low income residents; that insufficient growth and investment will be allocated to existing, unincorporated communities but instead will be focused in and near incorporated cities and that there will be insufficient housing opportunities for lower income households in Visalia. The Draft RHNAP corresponding to the Draft RTP can be strengthened as follows:

� Housing opportunity and investment should be directed to existing communities, including unincorporated communities

� The RHNA should – but does not – specifically identify affordable housing allocations for extremely low-income households.

� The RHNA for low-income households in Visalia should increase

* * * * *

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We are confident that this RTP can effectively address the needs of, and plan for, a vibrant future for all residents of Tulare County and help create a stronger region for everyone. We further believe that the suggestions laid out above will ensure that the plan meets the goals and mandates included in SB 375 and Tulare’s

9.41

9.42

9.43

B-109



local planning priorities. Please let us know if you would like to set up a meeting to discuss these comments in person. Again, we look forward to future collaboration and discussion.

Sincerely,

Ashley Werner Attorney Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

B-110


TCAG

General Response: Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. The TCAG Board will consider the recommended changes to the 2014 RTP/SCS when it considers whether to approve the 2014 RTP/SCS. Nevertheless, the following specific responses are provided. Response 9.1 The Regional Transportation Plan is a long-range planning level document that extends to the year 2040. It is not intended to be a fully committed financial document or provide a complete list of projects that may be developed over that time period. Policies regarding expansion and improvement of transit and active transportation projects are a high priority to TCAG and it is TCAG’s intent that the commitment be reflected in the RTP/SCS. The policies will allow TCAG to prioritize many specific projects in the future as they are planned and designed, and as funding becomes available. Funding for very large road improvement projects is fairly complicated and the timeline for implementing most major regional road projects is very long. This makes it somewhat simpler to list those proposed projects out to 2040. Naming specific transit and active transportation projects is more difficult to do. While there are many short-term plans in place to implement, agencies do not have projects planned out to the year 2040. Additionally, these fund types are quite numerous and somewhat unpredictable. TCAG is continuously planning for the future. The bike plan will be updated this upcoming year as will the first ever Regional Long Range Transit Plan. These updated plans will go a long way to identifying transit and active transportation-type projects. The Regional Bicycle Plan, adopted in 2010, is a part of this RTP as an appendix and contains many projects to view. Other appendices have listed projects as well. These appendices are more project-specific, as it is difficult to plan specific projects through 2040. Appendices with specific projects include: the Measure R Expenditure Plan, Federal Transportation Improvement Program, and Air Quality Conformity Analysis. The Expenditure Plan lists several specific projects through 2037, and the FTIP and Conformity analysis list projects with secured funding for the next four years. With the RTP policies in place, TCAG will be able to prioritize funds for future planned projects as funds continue to come in, in whichever transportation mode they are made available (transit, bicycles, pedestrian, etc.). TCAG is committed to evaluating the needs in unincorporated communities and keeping these needs a high priority for projects. For the unincorporated area of the county, over $600,000 in grant funds have been received by the county to prepare plans that will identify bicycle, pedestrian (including safe routes to school), and transit projects. As these plans are approved, projects can be compiled for the next RTP. It is anticipated that the county will complete a significant number of unincorporated community complete streets studies in the next few years. Once plans are completed and priorities are established, TCAG can work with the county to obtain funding through all available sources.

B-111


TCAG

Response 9.2 Please see Response to 9.1. Response 9.3 The 2014 RTP/SCS outlines investments in transit and active transportation projects unprecedented in Tulare County. The amount expected for capacity increasing projects has decreased in proportion compared to the last 2014 RTP/SCS, as projected investments in transit and active transportation have greatly increased. TCAG is committed to reducing air pollution in the region; congestion relief along with providing modes of transportation other than the automobile and the primary ways to do this. Additionally, the vast majority of funding sources available to the region are project-type specific and funds are allocated to project types accordingly. Response 9.4 TCAG will replace the term “Environmental Justice Communities” with the term “Disadvantaged Communities” and will define “Disadvantaged Communities” in the glossary as “Areas with either a median household income of 80% or less than the state median household income or that fall within the top 20% of disadvantaged communities as identified by CalEnviroScreen.” Response 9.5 Measuring existing or potential inequities in transportation infrastructure, as well as access levels, is not something that TCAG cannot calculate nor is it required as part of the RTP process. TCAG does support improvement in the access and provision of transportation infrastructure in disadvantaged communities, and will strive to bring all communities up to the highest level of access and transportation opportunity as possible. Response 9.6 Please see Response to 9.5. Response 9.7 The inclusion and definition of the term “Disadvantaged Communities” in the glossary of the RTP will help to define those communities in the county. As a long range planning document, this definition will work to identify the communities over time, as the communities that fall into this category may change. TCAG’s commitment to Complete Streets, and current funding commitments found in the Overall Work Program (budget), are the best sources of information for addressing current barriers to mobility in disadvantaged communities and identifying plans to eliminate those barriers. Currently, TCAG does not have a definition of, a method, or the capability to measure and quantify transportation barriers in specific locations.

B-112


TCAG

Response 9.8 Please see Response to 9.8. Response 9.9 TCAG will replace the term “Environmental Justice” with disadvantaged. Response 9.10 TCAG does not set or enforce local policy requirements related to the displacement of housing or residents. TCAG does ensure compliance with applicable state, local, and federal regulations required for the receipt of funding. Response 9.11 TCAG will add the following policy in the system performance section: prepare needs assessment studies to identify needed safety and mobility improvements in disadvantaged communities such as roadway improvements, sidewalks, traffic calming infrastructure, etc., as funding allows. Response 9.12 This comment requests TCAG incorporate the following language in objective that begins “Plan for and implement cost-effective transportation improvements […].” This objective addresses the comprehensive transportation system and is specifically targeting requirements for fund expenditure for different types of funding in general terms. The inclusion of “the extent to which the project addresses the transit needs of and improves access to transit for low-income communities and transit-dependent populations” is not appropriate. Response 9.13 The second recommendation starting with “Prioritize the pursuit of funding” is not appropriate. Response 9.14 This comment focuses on the objective to minimize environmental impacts of transportation projects and encourage the coexistence of nature and human circulation needs. TCAG will add the policy “Prioritize projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled to reduce greenhouse gas pollutants and criteria pollutants.” TCAG will add the policy “Encourage projects that support the preservation of farmland and open space.”

B-113


TCAG

Regarding the request to include language assessing the environmental impacts of transportation projects, this is not appropriate as project-level assessments will be performed by project-implementing agencies rather than by TCAG. Response 9.15 Regarding the public outreach policies, TCAG will include the following:

Conduct targeted outreach in English and Spanish.

Work in partnership with residents and community-based and non-profit organizations to develop and implement effective strategies for outreach to low-income communities throughout the county.

Publish public notices in English and Spanish and hold hearings with translation

services available to allow the public to comment on regional road and circulation projects.

Hold select public hearings during the evening and make translation services available

to maximize attendance and participation.

Provide a time for public comment at each TCAG Board meeting. Time used for translation shall not be counted against time permitted for comment.

Response 9.16 TCAG will revise the goal referenced to: PROVIDE A SAFE, SECURE, COORDINATED, EFFICIENT, AND EQUITABLE PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT CAN REASONABLY MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL RESIDENTS. Response 9.17 Regarding the objective that beings with “Encourage and support the development of […],” TCAG will add “and equitable” as requested. Response 9.18 TCAG will revise the referenced policy to state: Encourage transit agencies to make use of all available federal, state, and local funding to sustain, expand and improve local transit services, prioritizing the transit needs of disadvantaged neighborhoods and residents, including low-income and transit dependent residents and ensure the timely and best use of those funds. Under the objective that begins “Provide information and receive input […]” TCAG will revise the following:

B-114


TCAG

Response 9.19

Encourage each transit agency to further their citizen involvement process, including identifying and eliminating barriers to involvement by residents of disadvantaged communities, non-English speaking populations, disabled residents, residents lacking access to transit services, and residents with non-traditional employment schedules.

Update and adopt unmet transit needs definitions at least every five years, with

particular attention to increasing public participation by residents of disadvantaged communities, non-English speaking populations, disabled residents, residents lacking access to transit services, and residents with non-traditional employment schedules.

Response 9.20 This comment requests the addition of a policy to assess unmet needs in disadvantaged communities and to implement an action plan, that action should be implemented by each local transit provider. TCAG has an extensive process for receiving unmet needs. Once received, TCAG evaluates all unmet needs and provides them to the transit providers, including the requirements for meeting some of the received requests. Response 9.21 TCAG will add […] and coordinate pedestrian planning with bicycle planning countywide.” to the active transportation objective and will add the inclusion of “and walking” or “and pedestrian” to requested inclusions in numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. Response 9.21 (continued) and 9.22 Regarding request #1, TCAG is formulating plans to integrate pedestrian planning with the Regional Bicycle Plan, but the implementation of this is not yet finalized. A comprehensive plan for active transportation projects is planned for development in fiscal year 2014-15. Results of complete streets studies, locally-prepared needs assessment and any other applicable information provided by local agencies will be evaluated for inclusion in the new plan. Response 9.23 Under the objective that begins “Educate, incentivize, and enable […]”, TCAG will add “and pedestrian.” While viability and attractiveness of active modes of transportation are a priority to TCAG and a natural bolster to their success, TCAG would encourage a number of factors and policies to be considered by local agencies for viability and attractiveness of projects as their community desires and this policy is one that may be implemented by local agencies.

B-115


TCAG

Response 9.24 Regarding the policy under the objective that begins “Support safe pedestrian walkways […] TCAG will revise the following to read: Encourage removal of barriers (walls, fences, etc.) and the alleviation of infrastructure deficiencies (e.g. incomplete or absent sidewalks, safe crossings, etc.), for safe and convenient movement of pedestrians. Special emphasis should be placed on the needs of youth that rely on walking to travel to and from school and/or bus stops, people relying primarily on walking as a primary mode of transportation, and people with disabilities. Response 9.25 Under the objective that begins “Coordinate local and regional planning […]” TCAG will add the following:

Support mixed-use, infill development, and affordable housing creation in existing communities and development that improved the jobs-housing balance in order to reduce dependence on vehicle travel along regional corridors for daily needs.

Response 9.26 Under the objective that begins “Encourage coordinated development […] TCAG will add the following:

Encourage mixed-use developments in urbanized areas and existing small communities, both incorporated and unincorporated.

Encourage the location of land uses, in both incorporated and unincorporated

communities, that supply basic goods and services, such as grocery stores, job centers, and public parks, in and near residential communities.

Encourage provision of housing to meet the needs of all income-brackets of the region’s

workforce in proximity to jobs, and adequate sites to accommodate business expansion to minimize interregional trips and long-distance commuting.

Response 9.27 TCAG will revise the referred to objective to read: Prioritize projects that contribute to improved air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, with particular emphasis on projects benefitting communities facing the greatest environmental health risks. Response 9.28 Regarding the requests under that objective, the language requested to prioritize transit and active transportation projects in disadvantaged communities is included throughout those specific sections in the RTP. Regarding assessing air quality impacts of funded projects, TCAG

B-116


TCAG

assesses air quality emissions on a regional scale. Air quality impacts of specific projects are evaluated at the project level by the implementing agencies. Response 9.29 In the public health section TCAG will add the following:

Prioritize investment in transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway system improvements to meet the transportation needs of residents in order to increase access to physical activity and reduce air pollutions in order to improve environmental-health related outcomes for Tulare County residents.

Response 9.30 TCAG will add the following:

Continue to prioritize projects that reduce air pollution in order to improve health outcomes in the county, particularly in communities disproportionately impacted by air pollution.


Work in partnership with residents and community-based and non-profit organizations to identify existing transportation needs in disadvantaged communities.

Prioritize investments in existing communities to support transportation infrastructure,

services, and access that promotes the health and well-being of existing neighborhoods. Regarding the recommended addition (#2), the prioritization of planning and investment in disadvantaged communities is clear and emphasized throughout the RTP. Response 9.32 TCAG will add the following:

Include targeted and culturally-appropriate outreach to disadvantaged communities in transportation planning in order to inform planning and investment to achieve environmental justice.

Work with residents and community-based and non-profit organizations to develop and

implement a strategy for culturally-appropriate outreach to disadvantaged communities within Tulare County, the Tule River Indian Tribe, Spanish-speaking communities, and farmworker communities.

B-117


TCAG


Make translation services available at all public hearings and for outreach to disadvantaged communities.

Provide public hearing notices and other key transportation –related documents in

English and Spanish. Response 9.34 The last comment in section VI is incorporated in other sections of the RTP, such as in the air quality section. Response 9.35 TCAG does not have a specific funding source identified for a local grant program at this time. The local, state, and federal sources of funds TCAG administers typically have their own requirements. TCAG is, however, moving forward when appropriate to identify additional measures, including disadvantaged community priority, for projects when possible. For example, the state is administering an ATP program for which a number of requirements have been set. TCAG has a direct allocation of ATP funding, and adopted a policy that expanded the state definition of disadvantaged communities and provides for extra points in project scoring. Another future potential example could be cap and trade funds. These funds may have set asides for disadvantaged communities as identified by CalEnviro Screen, or another method. TCAG is committed to considering all appropriate methods for prioritizing funds for projects. Comment 9.36 This comment is a copy of Comment I (9.1 and 9.2). Comment 9.37 This comment is a copy of Comment II (9.3). Response 9.38 The SCS emphasizes the importance of monitoring and reviewing progress towards meeting the goals of the RTP/SCS. The development and discussion of performance indicators will be an on-going activity led by TCAG but involving many stakeholders. The commenter is invited to participate. This process is expected to culminate in a discussion of performance results and indicators for incorporation in the 2018 RTP/SCS update. Response 9.39 TCAG will add the following policy in the comprehensive section:

B-118


TCAG

Develop performance indicators in coordination with member agencies, other regional stakeholders and statewide efforts to develop performance indicators for the implementation of SB 375.

Response 9.40 Growth forecasts can be calculated down to the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level. This provides a rough approximation of growth allocation to all unincorporated communities. This information is available upon request but is not appropriate to include in the RTP document. The allocation of growth to specific community boundaries is problematic since TCAG is required to provide a single housing allocation to the County of Tulare. TCAG is committed to working with the County to help develop and update their community and area plans to include the most accurate and comprehensive local forecast available. Response 9.41 The SCS is a regional strategy focused on planning a coordinated and balanced regional system. The SCS outlines the growth as projected by available population data coupled with projected transportation improvements. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is an appendix to the RTP and is integral to the SCS. Consideration of specific state housing goals are evaluated in the RHNA. TCAG’s role within the region is to develop a fair methodology to distribute required housing units. TCAG does not mandate where exactly housing needs to go within each jurisdiction. The General Plan Housing Element process is designed to do that. That holds true for Tulare County as well. The Tulare County Housing Element includes an inventory of possible development sites and ultimately determines which communities within the county will get housing and where exactly within those communities housing will be developed. The SCS includes a density analysis and growth projections for unincorporated communities. By showing increased density and growth patterns, TCAG , has demonstrated that those areas have not been neglected as part of the planning process and that projected growth includes residential development. “Decent” housing is a subjective term. TCAG measures housing type and quality; however, housing is not included in the scope of discussion for the greenhouse gas analysis. Response 9.42 The CEQA streamlining provision in Senate Bill 375 is a tool that can be utilized by public agencies to reduce the level of analysis required to advance Transit Priority Projects as well as other types of projects through the CEQA process. The language in SB 375 is specific as are the criteria stipulated in SB 226 that must be met to streamline CEQA review. TCAG does not serve as a lead agency for the review of project specific development and is not authorized to require additional requirements for the streamlining provision. The decision to use CEQA streamlining on specific projects would be more appropriately left to agencies that are implementing the individual housing elements.

B-119


TCAG

Response 9.43 This comment is regarding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

B-120

Letter 10

10.1

B-121

10.2

10.3

10.4

10.5

B-122

10.6

10.7

B-123

10.8

10.9

10.10

10.11

10.12

10.13

10.14

B-124

10.15

10.16

10.17

10.18

10.19

10.20

10.21

B-125

10.22

10.23

10.24

10.25

10.26

10.27

10.28

B-126


TCAG

Response 10.1 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. TCAG consulted with all municipalities and Tulare County during preparation of the 2014 RTP/SCS. It is beyond TCAG’s authority to require cities or the County to preserve right of way for future expansion of state facilities to accommodate traffic. Response 10.2 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Land use is regulated by cities and Tulare County. It is beyond TCAG’s control to limit development near highways, freeways and expressways to facilitate future modification or expansion of these facilities. Response 10.3 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the 2014 RTP/SCS is based on the Blueprint scenario which consists of an intensified land use distribution approach that concentrates the forecasted population and employment growth in urban areas. The multimodal transportation network includes additional highway, local street, active transportation, and transit investments to serve a more concentrated urban growth pattern. Response 10.4 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. See response to Comment 10.3 above. Response 10.5 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.6 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.7 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required.

B-128


TCAG

Response 10.8 Although climate change could have adverse effects on transportation facilities, specific risks assorted with flooding, extreme heat, or wildfires depend on the location of a particular facility and its time frame for implementation. Specific climate change risks would be addressed in project-specific CEQA documents. Also, many climate change impacts are projected to intensify over the next 50-100 years, well beyond the time frame of the RTP/SCS EIR. Response 10.9 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.10 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. TCAG will address funding mechanisms for projects programmed between 2037 and 2040 in subsequent iterations of the RTP/SCS. Response 10.11 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.12 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.13 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.14 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the 2014 RTP/SCS is based on the Blueprint scenario which consists of an intensified land use distribution approach that concentrates the forecasted population and employment growth in urban areas. The multimodal transportation network includes additional highway, local street, active transportation, and transit investments to serve a more concentrated urban growth pattern.

B-129


TCAG

Response 10.15 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. See response to Comment 10.3 above. Response 10.16 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.17 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.18 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.19 Although climate change could have adverse effects on transportation facilities, specific risks assorted with flooding, extreme heat, or wildfires depend on the location of a particular facility and its time frame for implementation. Specific climate change risks would be addressed in project-specific CEQA documents. Also, many climate change impacts are projected to intensify over the next 50-100 years, well beyond the time frame of the 2014 RTP/SCS EIR. Response 10.20 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.21 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. TCAG will address funding mechanisms for projects programmed between 2037 and 2040 in subsequent iterations of the RTP/SCS. Response 10.22 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required.

B-130


TCAG

Response 10.23 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.24 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.25 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the technical elements of the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.26 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the technical elements of the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.27 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the technical elements of the Draft EIR, no response is required. Response 10.28 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the technical elements of the Draft EIR, no response is required.

B-131

Letter 11

11.1

B-132


TCAG

Response 11.1 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required.

B-133

Letter 12

12.1

B-134


TCAG

Response 12.1 Because this comment does not raise an environmental issue related to the Draft EIR, no response is required.

B-136

final eir comments and responses eir comments and responses ... tulare county association of...

Documents