Alternatives Report

Alternatives Report

March 1, 2011

San Joaquin CountyGeneral Plan Update

Board of Supervisors Carlos Villapudua, District 1 Larry Ruhstaller, Chair, District 2 Steve Bestolarides, District 3 Ken Vogel, District 4 Leroy Ornellas, District 5

Planning Commission Miguel Villapudua, District 1 Richard Nickerson, M.D., District 2 Peter Johnson, Chair, District 3 Michael Devencenzi, District 4 Stan Morri, District 5

Acknowledgements

Agriculture Brad Lange, Farmer Joe Petersen, Farmer Mike Darnell, American Farmland Trust Mark Chandler, Lodi‐Woodbridge Winegrape Commission Jack Hamm, Farm Bureau Katie Patterson, Farm Bureau Scott Hudson, Ag Commissioner Paul Precissi, Flying Services Mike Serpa, Delicato Vineyards/Attorney Mel Lytle, San Joaquin County Public Works/Water Resources Brandon Nakagawa, San Joaquin County Public Works/Water Resources Gary Barton, Farmer Rudy Mussi, Farmer Richard Wagner, Dairy Farmer Paul Verdegaal, UC Cooperative Extension Natural Resource/Delta David Beadles, San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Rick Mielbrecht, Sierra Club Mel Lytle, San Joaquin County Public Works/Water Resources Brandon Nakagawa, San Joaquin County Public Works/Water Resources Dan Gifford, Cal Dept. of Fish & Game Ellen McBride, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Steve Mayo, San Joaquin COG

Dante Nomellini, Jr., Reclamation District Representative/Attorney Mike Brown, Brown Sand Lillie Noble, Teichert Kelly Foote, Citizen Stacy Luthy, UOP Mary Hildebrand, Farm Bureau David Weisenberger, Banta‐Carbona Irrigation District Michael Machado, Delta Protection Commission Christopher H. Neudeck, Consultant Land Use/Housing/ Economic Development John Beckman, BIA Shelley Burcham, San Joaquin Partnership Mike Locke, San Joaquin Partnership Randy Hatch, Campaign for Common Ground Mike Souza, Realtor/Developer Douglas Wilhoit, Greater Stockton Chamber Mark Plovnick, UOP Howard Seligman, Attorney Bill Cook, Banker Pete Mitracos, Former Tracy Planning Commissioner Bob Hurst, Citizen Don Moyer, Consultant Xochitl Paderes, Citizen Bob Lauchland, Farm Bureau Mel Lytle, San Joaquin County Public

Works/Water Resources Brandon Nakagawa, San Joaquin County Public Works/Water Resources Daniel Barber, SJVAPCD Patia Siong, SJVAPCD Joe Sublett, Lockeford MAC Gary Gordon, Lockeford Historical Society Pat Gotelli, Morada MAC William Van Fields, Morada MAC Mike Swearingen, SJCOG Kim Anderson, SJCOG Transportation/Circulation Firoz Vohra, San Joaquin County Public Works/Transportation Mike Swearingen, SJCOG Stacey Mortensen, San Joaquin Rail Commission Kathy Selsor, Caltrans Tom Dumas, Caltrans Nathaniel Atherstone, Regional Transit District Historical Society Susan Palmeri, Stockton Metro Airport Steve Escobar, Port of Stockton James Barbour, Citizen Bob Hurst, Citizen John Beckman, BIA Richard Rodriguez, Farm Bureau Daniel Barber, SJVAPCD Patia Siong, SJVAPCD Joe Sublett, Lockeford MAC Gary Gordon, Lockeford

Services/Utilities/Safety Alex Chetley, San Joaquin Public Works/Public Services John Maguire, San Joaquin Public Works/Flood Management Mel Lytle, San Joaquin Public Works/Water Resources Brandon Nakagawa, San Joaquin Public Works/Water Resources Donna Heran, San Joaquin County Environmental Health Ron Baldwin, San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services Lt. John Williams, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office Darwin Davis, Fire Services Karen Soliz, Woodbridge MAC Alex Garcia, Citizen Donald Dunn, Retired Military/Logistics Andrew Estrada, Citizen Ted Leland, UOP Ross Moilan, Cal Water Kevin Kauffman, Stockton East Water District Jeanette Thomas, Stockton East Water District John Green, Stockton East Water District Chris Neudeck, Kjeldsen, Sinnock, & Neudeck William Van Fields, Morada MAC

Focus Group Members

Lead County Staff Kerry Sullivan, Community Develop-ment Director Community Development Department Raymond Hoo, Senior Planner Community Development Department Technical Advisory Committee Phonxay Keokham County Administrator’s Office Scott Hudson Agricultural Commission

Tom Gau Department of Public Works Donna Heran Environmental Health Department Ron Baldwin San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services Lt. John Williams San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office Susan Palmeri Stockton Metro Airport Joseph Chelli San Joaquin County Human Services Agency

William Mitchell San Joaquin County Department of Public Health John Solis Employment and Economic Development Department Lani Schiff-Ross First 5 of San Joaquin Mary Joan (Mamie) Starr, Administra-tive Director San Joaquin County Superintendent of Schools Mark Myles, County Counsel San Joaquin County

David Beadles San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Jim Glaser, Executive Officer San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com-mission Mike Swearingen San Joaquin Council of Governments David Stuart Historical Society & Museum Darwin Davis Fire Services Coordinator

County Staff

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE March 1, 2011 1-1

I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

This report describes four growth alternatives and identi-fies policy options that will enable decision-makers and the community to weigh the pros and cons of future de-velopment within San Joaquin County. The Alternatives Report presents different approaches that can be used to address significant issues identified during the General Plan Update process.

Based on previous work done in the General Plan Update program, comments from residents and public agencies and organizations, and information contained in this re-port, the Board of Supervisors will select the philosophy and course of action for guiding development within the County.

The Updated General Plan will include goals and policies for San Joaquin County that comprehensively address land use, mobility, public facilities needs, resource protec-tion, and environmental quality. Many of these issues are defined by State planning law, while others reflect local concerns. At this point in the General Plan Update proc-ess, the County must make important choices that will provide direction for the new General Plan.

INTRODUCTION

Introduction Chapter 1 provides an overview of the Alternatives Re-port and the General Plan Update process. It describes

the purpose, preparation, and organization of the Alternatives Report.

Growth Alternatives and Comparative Summary Chapter 3 presents different growth alternatives for how

the County could grow in the future. It also includes a comparative summary of the evaluation topics and major issue scenarios described in Chapters 4 and 5.

Comparative Evaluation Chapter 4 evaluates

topical issues that may occur as a result of each alternative. The alternatives are analyzed for their contribution to or ability to alleviate adverse effects of different issues.

Policy Options Policy options provide different approaches to address the impacts of the alternatives. Options are given for each major issue scenario and alternative evaluation topic.

1

Major Issue Scenarios Chapter 5

extrapolates on current issues to create hypothetical situations the County may need to be prepared to address in the future. The alternatives are evaluated for their ability to cope with and address each scenario.

Constraints Analysis Chapter 2 summarizes development constraints. The constraints illustrate the complexity of apportioning

growth throughout the County and identify areas of the County that are more or less suitable to accommodate future growth.

2

3

4 5

1-2 March 1, 2011 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

A LT E R N AT I V E S R E P O RT

General Plan Documents

The following describes the documents that make up the General Plan.

Background Report The Background Report, released for public review in July 2009, is a “snapshot” of current conditions and trends in San Joaquin County. It provides a detailed description of a wide range of topics such as land use, demographic and economic conditions, public facilities, and environmental resources. The Report provides decision-makers, the public, and local agencies with a factual context for making policy decisions. The Background Report also serves as the description of the existing setting for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for the General Plan later in the process.

Vision and Guiding Principles The Draft Vision and Guiding Principles, accepted by the Board of Supervisors January 4, 2010, will be used to shape the future of the County. The Vision and Guiding Principles will be used as the basis for developing the General Plan goals and policies. Upon adoption of the General Plan, the Vision and Guiding Principles will become part of the Plan.

Goals and Policies Report The draft Goals and Policies Report will be prepared following the alternatives phase. The Goals and Policies Report is the essence of the General Plan. It will contain the goals and policies that will guide future decisions within the County and will identify implementation programs that will ensure the goals and policies are carried out. The Policy Document will also contain a land use

diagram, which will guide the distribution of land uses throughout the County.

Support Documents

The following describes four supporting documents published as part of the General Plan Update.

Issues and Opportunities Report The Issues and Opportunities Report, published November 9, 2009, identifies key issues and opportunities to be addressed in the General Plan Update. It was developed based on input from County staff, stakeholder interviews, community workshops, and direction from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Community Profiles Report The Community Profiles Report, published November 9, 2009, is a companion report to the Issues and Opportunities Report. It provides an overview of each of the unincorporated communities and city fringe areas. Alternatives Report The Alternatives Report describes and evaluates four growth alternatives for how San Joaquin County might develop over the next 20 years and beyond. Environmental Impact Report The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be used by the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission during the General Plan Update process to assess the potential environmental implications associated with implementing the General Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires preparation of an EIR. This report will be published after the draft Policy Document has been released.

1 Program Initiation

Alternatives Report Develop and evaluate a range of growth alternatives and select a preferred growth alternative to guide future development.

5

2 Background Report

3 Housing Element

4 Issues and Opportunities

Draft Goals and Policies Report Draft goals, policies, and programs that the County needs to follow to implement the preferred alternative.

6

Environmental Impact Report Assess the environmental implications of the draft goals and policies.

7

Public Review Review and collect input on the draft General Plan at hear-ings with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

8

Final Documents and Adoption Prepare the final General Plan and EIR following public review and hearings.

9

The timeline below shows the overall General Plan Update project schedule. Phases in gray were complete as of October 2009. This Alternatives Report, shown in orange, represents Phase 5 of the process. All remaining General Plan Update items are shown in brown.


I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 Alternatives Process

The purpose of the alternatives process is to stimulate a discussion concerning future growth options and help the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors determine the philosophy and course of action for guiding future development within the County. The Alternatives are based on input received during preceding General Plan Update phases and Update documents prepared to date.

The goal of the alternatives process is for the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to select a preferred alternative that will provide the framework for drafting the County’s updated General Plan. The following summarizes the major steps and products of the alternatives process:

Following publication of the Alternatives Report and companion newsletter, County staff and the General Plan Update Consultants will meet with the Focus Groups and conduct a third round of Community Workshops. These outreach efforts will give stakeholders and residents an opportunity to review the alternatives and provide input on how the County should grow in the future.

Based on Focus Group and Community Workshop feedback, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will review the growth alternatives. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on a preferred growth alternative. The Board of Supervisors will then select a Preferred Growth Alternative, which will be used by County staff and the Consultants to prepare the General Plan goals and policies. The preferred alternative will not necessarily be one of the alternatives described in this Report. It could be made up of concepts and development patterns from each alternative that the community and decision-makers feel represent the best future for San Joaquin County.

Alternatives Process

Public Input 28 Previously Held

Community Workshops

Decision-Maker Input Board of Supervisors and

Planning Commission

Focus Group Input Various representatives

from throughout the community

Foun

datio

n

Issues and Opportunities Report

Identified key community-wide issues and options

Background Report Identified existing

conditions, trends, and future growth projections

Alternatives Report/Newsletter

Focus Group Meetings 14 Community Workshops

Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission

Study Sessions

Draft Vision and Guiding Principles

Describes community’s future hopes and desires

County Staff and General Plan Update Consultant

input

Alte

rnat

ive

Rev

iew

and

Inpu

t

Preferred Growth Alternative



The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) participated in the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Planning Process, a joint effort of the Councils of Government (COGs) representing the eight valley counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Tulare, Fresno, Kings, and Kern.

The Blueprint process started in 2006 as a commitment from the Governor to support efforts to protect and revitalize the San Joaquin Valley with “The California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley.” This was followed by regional cooperation by the eight COGs to participate in an effort to plan for the future of the region through 2050. The goal of the Blueprint process was to develop a preferred future growth vision for each county and the San Joaquin Valley.

On April 1, 2009, the Blueprint Regional Policy Council voted to adopt Scenario B+, which calls for an increase in the Valley’s overall density from 4.3 units per acre to 6.8 over the next four decades. Scenario B+ is known as the “locally-combined” growth scenario. It places greater emphasis on protection of agricultural land and environmental resources by focusing new growth in existing communities. It also assumes high speed rail and other Valleywide transit projects, including an interconnected multi-modal transportation system in the southern Valley counties and a State Route 65 connector.

In 2009 the Valley COGs embarked on the next stage of the Blueprint: implementation. Blueprint implementation will occur in two primary ways: 1) through collaborative local and regional programs and planning processes; and 2) through on-the-ground projects built primarily by private sector developers. Successful implementation of the Blueprint will involve the continuing efforts of decision-makers, planners, and other stakeholders.

In San Joaquin County SJCOG carried out the local Blueprint planning effort, which included

workshops and analysis to develop a vision and guiding principles and a preferred growth scenario. Unlike the other Valley COGs, SJCOG did not develop a map to illustrate the San Joaquin County preferred growth scenario. SJCOG staff determined that a map would distract residents from the larger message embodied in the San Joaquin County Blueprint vision, principles, and performance measures.

SJCOG Blueprint Vision Creative community planning, combined with a shared regional vision, will result in a superior quality of life for all San Joaquin County residents, now and as we move forward. Sustainability in action as well as in vision will ensure this quality of life for future generations. SJCOG Blueprint Principles

1. Sustainable Planning and Growth 2. Housing Choices 3. Transportation and Mobility Options 4. Farming and Agriculture 5. Preservation of the Environment 6. Economic Development 7. Education and Workforce Development 8. Cultural Richness and Unique Attractions The San Joaquin County Blueprint is not a general plan. However, due to its universal nature, it can be viewed as an overarching planning strategy that can support the maintenance and development of general plans. SJCOG has no authority to develop a regional land use plan that is binding on the actions of the local governments. However, the principles, tools, and implementation strategies from the Blueprint may be used in local government on-going planning processes.

Blueprint vs. General Plan

The Blueprint process is separate from the General Plan Update. The Blueprint is a regional planning document that is intended to serve as a guide to local governments in developing land use plans. However, Councils of Government do not have the authority to develop land use plans that are binding on the actions of local governments. The General Plan is not required to be consistent with the Blueprint.

San Joaquin Valley Blueprint

A complete copy of the San Joaquin County Regional Blueprint can be found at the San Joaquin Council of Gov-ernments website: www.sjcog.org.


I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 Selecting a Preferred

Alternative

There are four growth alternatives described and analyzed in this report: Base Case, A, B, and C. The Base Case alternative represents a continuation of the County’s adopted 2010 General Plan through 2030. The other three alternatives represent different choices for how the General Plan could direct growth and development.

After the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission thoroughly review the alternatives and receive feedback from the community, they will select a preferred course of action. The preferred alternative will not necessarily be one of the alternatives described in this Report. Rather, the preferred alternative will likely be made up of parts of each alternative that the community and decision-makers feel best represents how San Joaquin County should grow in the future.

Public discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of the alternatives will assist County officials in ultimately choosing a preferred alternative, which will be the basis of the draft General Plan.

As you review the alternatives in this Report, think about which parts of each alternative you would like to see included in the preferred growth alternative.

Reviewing Policy Options

Chapter 4 of this Report contains broad policy options that address the key issues and impacts caused by the different evaluation topics. These policy options were developed from a number of sources including the existing 2010 General Plan, input from County staff and the Consultants, Focus Groups, Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, and the public.

The policy options, along with the deletion, revision, or retention of existing 2010 General Plan policies, will set the framework for the extensive and detailed goals, policies, and implementation programs that will comprise the new General Plan.

As you review the policy options in this Report, think about what policy direction the County should take to address the impacts and issues caused by or arising from the different growth alternatives.

Issue/ Impact

Policy Option 3 Policy Option 2 Policy Option 1

New General Plan Goals, Policies, Implementation Programs

...the preferred alternative could be made up of parts of each alternative.



Before deciding where new growth might occur within the County, the amount and type of growth that will occur must be defined. Typically, growth alternatives are de-fined by a “projected growth assumption” that holds con-stant the amount of population and employment growth that is expected to occur among the alternatives. This approach allows for a consistent comparison of the growth alternatives and more clearly defines the differ-ences and impacts that may occur under each alternative.

Growth projections provide an estimate of the potential growth that is expected to occur based on migration, mar-ket demand, land use inventory, infrastructure, constraints, and other considerations. Projections tend to vary over time depending on their source, and are used only as a general target on which to base demand for future devel-opment. The following population and employment growth assumptions were used to develop and evaluate the base case and three alternatives.

Population In 2010 San Joaquin County’s population was estimated by SJCOG to be about 685,000. On average the County’s population has doubled every 30 years since 1900. Ac-cording to projections developed by Economic Planning Systems (EPS) based on Department of Finance and SJCOG projections, over the next 20 years Countywide population is expected to grow by an additional 338,000. By 2030 it is estimated that over one million people will live in the County, an average growth rate of about 2 per-cent per year.

Employment In 2010 about 214,000 people were employed within San Joaquin County, according to estimates by SJCOG. Ac-cording to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), SJCOG, University of the Pacific, the Califor-nia Employment Development Department (CEDD), and EPS, over the next 20 years Countywide employment is expected to grow by 81,000. By 2030 it is estimated that about 295,000 people will work in the County.

685,000

214,000

338,000

81,000

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

Population Employment

Net New Growth

(2010-2030)

Existing (2008)

Growth Projections


I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

City Limits

Urban Communities

Rural Communities

City Fringe Areas

Remaining Capacity in Unincorporated Areas

Based on Existing General Plan (2010)

Community Population Employees

Urban Communities

French Camp 8,760 3,282

Linden 1,438 748

Lockeford 4,204 3,988

Morada 1,777 60

Mountain House 30,323 18,339

Thornton 1,470 862

Woodbridge 374 209

Subtotal 48,346 27,488

Rural Communities

Acampo 2 38

Banta 4 267

Chrisman 13 0

Clements 55 250

Collierville 364 825

Coopers Corner 6 16

Farmington 17 52

Glenwood 32 7

Lammersville 27 0

New Jerusalem 13 0

Noble Acres 124 0

Peters 650 0

Stoneridge 6 0

Vernalis 111 25

Victor 15 97

Subtotal 1,439 1,577

City Fringe Areas

Escalon 6,143 995

Lathrop 0 947

Lodi 757 261

Manteca 10,695 1,719

Ripon 13 0

Stockton 58,113 13,656

Tracy 19,845 3,260

Subtotal 95,566 20,838

TOTAL 145,351 49,903

Remaining Capacity

San Joaquin County is well positioned to absorb all of the projected population and employment growth over the next 20 years. Holding capacity for unincorporated areas was calculated by multiplying parcel area (acres) with a typical density or intensity based on the planned land use in the existing 2010 General Plan. This analysis did not include any analysis of adequate infrastructure or other regulatory or physical constraints that may limit development. The details of the County’s holding capacity analysis can be found in the draft Background Report (July 2009).

The table below shows the estimated remaining capacity within each City Fringe Area, Urban Community, and Rural Community. This capacity does not include remaining capacity within city limits; however, the Alternatives Analysis (see Chapter 2) assumes future growth will occur within city limits. While the County’s existing General Plan can accommodate projected growth, the County has chosen to reevaluate how it will grow in the future. It should be noted that currently (2010) limited infrastructure and services and other regulatory and environmental constraints may limit the ability of this capacity to be realized within the time frame of the General Plan (i.e., 2030). Chapter 2 of this Report details the physical and regulatory constraints and policy considerations that may limit remaining development capacity.



Page intentionally blank.


C O N S T R A I N T S A N A LY S I S 2

This section identifies development constraints and considerations. Constraints generally indicate areas where development opportunities are limited to varying degrees. The constraints analysis assists the County in determining the most appropriate areas for growth. The analysis is also used to compare the relative merits of the three land use alternatives (see Chapter 3).

The analysis considers three types of constraints:

• Physical Constraints

• Regulatory Constraints

• Policy Considerations

This chapter begins with an overview of how the constraints analysis is used to evaluate future growth and development. Each constraint is then discussed, including the development limitations it presents. Finally, a composite constraint diagram illustrates the degree to which land is constrained for development.

The constraints and considerations are organized into five general categories: 1) waterways, the Delta, and flood risk areas; 2) agriculture, farming, and mineral resources; 3) groundwater, biological, and cultural resources; 4) infrastructure and services; and 5) other. The categories are organized based on the constraints and considerations with similar attributes and impacts.

Introduction

Constraints Analysis

Growth Alternatives and Comparative Summary

Comparative Evaluation

Policy Options

1

2

3

4 Major Issue Scenarios 5

INTRODUCTION



Within this chapter each constraint is indicated with one of three following symbols.

Physical Constraint Regulatory Constraint Policy Consideration

Phys

ical

C

onst

rain

ts Physical constraints are the most easily identifiable limitations to development. They include rivers, lakes,

steep slopes, and flood prone areas. While most physical constraints are not absolute, they can pose major safety risks or significantly increase the cost to develop land. Physically constrained lands often have value in that they may provide habitat for endangered species, offer access to open spaces and views, or preserve historic resources.

What are Constraints and Considerations?

Regu

lato

ry

Con

stra

ints

Po

licy

Con

side

ratio

ns

Laws and regulations constrain development in several ways. Federal and State laws and regulations limit development (or make it cost prohibitive) and require significant mitigation to offset development impacts (e.g., wetland and endangered species protection). Local regulations constrain development in areas that pose a threat to the safety and well-being of residents. Agricultural and wildlife conservation easements, while not strictly regulations, similarly limit or eliminate development potential.

Issues for consideration when planning for new development are often addressed through local policy. The degree to which development is limited depends on the terms of those policies. Policy considerations typically address resources, such as agricultural land and minerals, and the degree to which public policy favors preservation over development. Policy considerations also may address the balance between financial resources and the provision of infrastructure and services.

1) Waterways, the Delta, and Flood Risk Areas

2) Agriculture, Farming, and Mineral Resources

3) Groundwater, Wetland, Biological, and Cultural Resources

4) Infrastructure and Services

5) Other



Infrastructure and Public Services Considerations

A key policy consideration for the County in determining where new growth should occur is the provision of infrastructure and services. For the purposes of this report, infrastructure and public services considerations include: infrastructure capacity (e.g., sewer, water, streets); water supply; water quality; railroad right-of-ways; utility transmission lines; solid waste landfills; transportation access and capacity; and sheriff and fire service.

Urban growth is most efficiently served where urban infrastructure and public services exist or can be easily extended. Most infrastructure repair or expansion requires large capital investments. Capital resources are increasingly scarce, particularly given the recent economic downturn and strained County budget. The location of planned new growth should be carefully considered when deciding the infrastructure and services for which the County is capable of or willing to be responsible.

How to use this analysis

The constraints describe major factors that should be considered when thinking about where new growth should occur within the County. Generally, physical constraints are the most limiting to development. They create significant obstacles to development or pose major safety concerns that make development, in most cases, infeasible. Regulatory constraints can pose significant challenges to growth by restricting the location or intensity of development. However, some regulatory constraints can be reduced by mitigating for development impacts. Finally, policy considerations do not by themselves limit or constrain development. However, based on local issues, concerns, and direction, policy considerations often determine where development is preferred.

This section includes maps and text describing the constraints and considerations. These illustrate the location of land subject to each constraint or consideration. It should be noted that not all constraints and considerations are mapped. Each of the constraints or considerations includes a rating of the degree to which it limits development. This “severity scale” indicates areas that are most impacted based on that constraint.

The following symbol \ indicates that the constraint/consideration is displayed on the map.

When combined, the constraints show which areas of the County are the least suitable or most suitable for growth. The Composite Constraints diagram (page 2-15) shows areas of the County where development is most limited. While an area may be suitable for growth despite also having one or more constraints, the location of this growth and types of development that can occur (e.g., commercial versus residential) will be determined based on the selection of a preferred alternative by the Board of Supervisors.

Severe Moderate

Less

M

ore

Like

ly to

Lim

it D

evel

opm

ent

Relative Degree of Constraint



This discussion addresses six constraints and considerations related to waterways, the Delta, and flooding. Physical constraints include rivers, lakes and streams, and flood protection levees. The Primary Delta and 100- and 200-year floodplains are regulatory constraints, while policy considerations include the Secondary Delta.

The figure to the right shows waterways, the Delta, and flooding constraints. The following provides a brief overview of where these constraints and considerations occur and the impacts of each on development potential:

1 Rivers, lakes, and streams cross the County from east to west feeding into the Delta. Development is generally infeasible in the natural waterway of rivers and streams and in lakebeds.

1 Flood protection levees protect lands adjacent to major waterways from flooding. These structures create barriers to development. Development is generally restricted on or adjacent to levees to protect the integrity of the levees.

1 FEMA 100-year floodplains generally flank County rivers and streams. These areas, due to topography, have a one percent chance of reaching or exceeding the base flood in any single year. Development in areas protected by levees are subject to more stringent building standards.

1 The 200-year floodplain expands upon the 100-year floodplain along County rivers and streams. These areas, due to topography, have a one-half percent chance of reaching or exceeding the base flood in any single year. Development in these areas is often protected by levees and property should maintain adequate flood insurance.

1 The Primary Delta covers much of western San Joaquin County. This area is governed by State laws that significantly limit the intensity and type of development.

1 The Secondary Delta expands upon the Primary Delta. This area is governed by State laws that provide guidance to local governments on reviewing development applications to limit development in the area.

Waterways, the Delta, and Flood Risk Areas

Relative Degree of Constraints and Considerations

Severe Moderate Significant

Rivers, lakes, streams

FEMA 100-year floodplain

Primary Delta

Flood protection levees

Secondary Delta 200-year floodplain

Floodplains Defined 100-year floodplain: A one percent chance of flooding being reached or exceeded in any single year. 200-year floodplain: A ½ percent chance of flooding being reached or exceeded in any single year.



Sources: Department of Water Resources, 2008; FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 2010; San Joaquin County GIS, 2008.

Wat

er

ways, t

he D

elta

, an

d F

lo

od

Risk

Ar

ea

s



The following addresses five constraints and considerations related to agriculture and mineral resources. Regulatory constraints include agricultural conservation easements and Williamson Act contracts. Policy considerations include Prime Farmland, mineral resource areas, and farming operations. There are no physical constraints in this category.

The figure to the right shows agricultural and mineral resources. Policy considerations related to farming operations are not mapped. The following provides a brief overview of where these constraints and considerations occur and the impacts of each on development potential:

1 Agricultural conservation easements are located throughout the County. These easements regulate the continued agricultural use of land in perpetuity. Development within these areas is limited to agriculturally-related improvements.

1 Prime farmland occurs primarily in the central and western parts of the County. This land is considered the best land for long-term agricultural production to a combination of physical and chemical characteristics such as soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply.

1 Mineral resource areas have been identified in the northeastern and southwestern parts of the County. These are areas where aggregate extraction is currently being conducted, have potential for mineral extraction, or have known or suspected mineral deposits.

1 Williamson Act contracts exist on agricultural parcels throughout the County. Williamson Act contracts prohibit non-agricultural development on agricultural land in exchange for lower property taxes. Williamson Act contracts extend for a period of 10 or 20 years.

• Farming operations and urban uses often conflict with one another as development extends into agricultural areas. These conflicts are most frequent near cities and urban communities. Farmers often experience increased theft and vandalism, while new inhabitants and businesses are impacted by ongoing farming operations (e.g., noise, dust, spraying).

Agricultural and Mineral Resources



Agricultural Conservation Easements Farming Operations

Williamson Act Contracts

Prime Farmland

Aggregate Resource Areas



Sources: San Joaquin County GIS Department, July 2008; California Farmland Conservancy Program, 2008; San Joaquin Council of Governments, 2008; California Department of Conservation, Division of Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2006; California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 160; San Joaquin County General Plan, 1992.

Ag

ric

ult

ur

al a

nd

Min

er

al R

eso

ur

ces



The following addresses eight constraints and considerations related to water, wetland, biological, and cultural resources. Regulatory constraints include conservation easements, wetlands and vernal pools, endangered and threatened species, oak woodlands, and cultural and historic resources. Policy considerations include groundwater recharge areas, groundwater overdraft (and resulting saltwater intrusion), and scenic resources.

The figure to the right shows areas where development may be limited by water, wetland, biological, and cultural resources. Policy considerations related to cultural and historic resources, groundwater overdraft, and scenic resources are not mapped. The following provides a brief overview of where these constraints and considerations occur and the impacts of each on development potential:

1 Habitat conservation easements are located throughout the County. These easements protect habitat areas in perpetuity. Development within these areas is prohibited and they can limit some types of agricultural production.

1 Wetlands and vernal pools are located throughout the Delta and northeastern part of the County. These areas, protected by Federal and State laws and regulations, limit development potential and require mitigation.

1 Protected species have been found throughout the County and include plants and animals that are protected by Federal and State law. Development in areas that include protected species habitat is limited and subject to mitigation.

• Cultural and historic resources have been found throughout the County and include areas that are known or have potential for cultural and historic resources. These areas are protected by Federal and State laws that may limit development and require mitigation.

• Groundwater recharge areas exist in central and southwestern parts of the County. High recharge potential areas infiltrate/percolate water into the groundwater table more efficiently than other areas due to unique geological and soil conditions. Limiting development in these areas can increase groundwater recharge.

• Groundwater overdraft, a condition where removal of water from the groundwater basin exceeds water recharge, is a concern in the Eastern San Joaquin Sub-basin. Development that relies on groundwater can contribute to overdraft conditions.

1 Scenic resources exist throughout the County along highways and provide views of natural beauty. Development in areas with scenic resources can diminish their quality.

1 Oak woodlands are located in the northern, southern, and eastern parts of the County and include native stands of oaks. Development in areas where these species reside may be limited and subject to mitigation.

Groundwater, Wetland, Biological, and Cultural Resources



Habitat Conservation Easements

Scenic Resources

Oak Woodlands

Wetlands and Vernal Pools

Protected Species

Cultural/Historic Resources

Groundwater Recharge Areas

Groundwater Overdraft



Sources: Multi-Source Land Cover Data, CSU Stanislaus, 2004; California Natural Diversity Database 2008; National Wetland Inventory GIS data; San Joaquin County GIS Department.

Gr

ou

nd

wat

er

, Wet

la

nd

, Bio

lo

gic

al, a

nd

Cu

lt

ur

al R

eso

ur

ces



The following addresses eight constraints and considerations related to infrastructure and public services. Physical constraints include railway rights-of-way, utility transmission lines, and solid waste landfills, while regulatory constraints are limited to water supply and quality. Policy considerations include infrastructure capacity, transportation access and capacity, and sheriff and fire service.

The following provides a brief overview of where these constraints and considerations occur and the impacts of each on development potential:

• Infrastructure capacity in many unincorporated areas of the County is either not available or is insufficient to serve new development and will be costly to expand. This constrains development potential in rural and urban communities intended for development.

• Water quality and supply can limit development potential. State and Federal laws can restrict development in areas with poor water quality. Water supply is a critical development concern in California and must be considered when determining whether or not to approve new development.

• Railroad rights-of-way crisscross the County creating barriers to development, limiting access, and creating potential noise impacts. Constructing railroad crossings and/or moving railroad alignments for development can be very costly.

• Utility transmission lines, including electricity, gas, and oil, crisscross the County creating barriers to development and creating safety concerns for adjacent residents. Moving major transmission lines for development can be very costly. There are also various utility rights-of-way controlled by agencies such as East Bay Municipal Utility District and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission that are a constraint to development.

• Major Canals, for transporting water cross the County, create barriers to development and safety concerns for adjacent residents. Crossing canals, such as the Delta Mendota Canal, can be costly and nearby development requires buffers and safety measures.

• Solid waste landfills, located in the central and western parts of the County, require buffers to limit impacts (e.g., noise, odor) on adjacent areas. Development is generally limited near landfills.

• Transportation access and capacity is necessary to safely and efficiently move people and goods. Roadways and highways at or near capacity limit the potential for new development served by those roads. New development in areas without access to adequate roadways is similarly limited.

• Sheriff and fire service ensure that residents, businesses, and property are safe from crime and fire. New development increases demands for these services, which can reduce the ability to efficiently meet service needs.

Infrastructure and Public Services



Infrastructure Capacity

Railroad Rights-of-Way

Utility Transmission Lines

Major Canals

Solid Waste Landfills

Transportation Access/Capacity

Sheriff and Fire Service

Water Supply

Water Quality


C O N S T R A I N T S A N A LY S I S 2 In

fr

ast

ru

ct

ur

e a

nd

Pu

blic

Ser

vic

es



The following addresses eight other constraints and considerations. Physical constraints include steep slopes, while regulatory constraints include airport safety zones and wildland fire hazard areas. Policy considerations include airport areas of influence, noise, development fees, and public lands.

The figure to the right shows areas of the County where development may be affected by these other concerns. Development fees are not mapped. The following provides a brief overview of where these constraints and considerations occur within and the impacts of each on development potential:

1 Steep slopes in excess of 15 percent are located in the southwestern part of the County. Slopes greater than 25 percent are generally considered too steep to safely develop, while slopes between 15 percent and 25 percent can limit development.

1 Airport Safety Zones are located around the County’s six public airports and limit or restrict development. Residential and non-residential land uses can occur in these areas; however, generally, the closer the proposed development is to airport operations, the greater the density restrictions and prohibitions of certain land uses.

1 Airport Areas of Influence include areas designated by the County around its six public airports. These areas establish land use regulations that protect airport operations and limit development potential.

1 Wildland Fire Hazard areas are located in the northeast and southwestern parts of the County. These areas include lands designated by the State as having a high risk for fire. Development in these areas must adhere to regulations governing design, construction, maintenance, and fire service availability.

1 Noise exposure that exceeds certain thresholds limits development to certain non-sensitive uses. High noise levels are typically generated near roadways, airports, industrial operations, and farming operations.

• Development fees are established by cities and the County to cover the cost of processing development applications and building and maintaining infrastructure and services for new development. Fees that are too high can discourage development, while fees that are too low can strain government budgets and result in inadequate infrastructure and services.

• Maintenance costs for infrastructure can be significant over time. Infrastructure without long-term funding for maintenance and upkeep can result in inadequate service, strain on government budgets, and health and safety concerns.

1 Public lands include property owned by local, State, and Federal agencies. Development on these lands is generally restricted to public uses.

Other Concerns



Steep Slope

Development Impact Fees

Maintenance Costs

Public Lands

Wildland Fire Hazard Areas

Airport Safety Zones

Airport Area of Influence

Noise



Sources: San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Plan, 1997; California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2004; San Joaquin County GIS Department, 2008; Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., 2008.

Ot

her

Co

nc

er

ns



The following map shows the combined effect of the constraints and considerations described in previous pages. San Joaquin County has numerous physical and regulatory constraints and policy considerations. The Composite Constraints diagram illustrates the degree of the constraints and considerations.

The Composite Constraints diagram only shows the mapped constraints and considerations. As noted in each of the previous topical discussions, many unmapped constraints and considerations also influence where development can or should occur.

Mapped Constraints/Considerations

• Primary Delta • Secondary Delta • 100-year Floodplain • 200-year Floodplain • Flood Protection Levees • Rivers, Lakes, and Streams • Williamson Act Contracts • Prime Farmland • Mineral Resource Areas • Agricultural Conservation Easements • Scenic Resources • Oak Woodlands • Wetlands/Vernal Pools • Protected Species • Habitat Conservation Easements • Public Lands • Wildland Fire Hazard Areas • Airport Areas of Influence • Airport Safety Zones • Noise • Steep Slopes

Unmapped Constraints/Considerations

• Farming Operations • Cultural/Historic Resources • Groundwater Recharge Areas • Groundwater Overdraft • Infrastructure Capacity • Utility Transmission Lines • Major Canals • Solid Waste Landfills • Transportation Access/Capacity • Railroad Rights-of-Way • Development Fees • Maintenance Costs • Sheriff and Fire Service • Water Supply • Water Quality

Composite Constraints/Considerations



Source: Mintier Harnish, 2010.

Co

mpo

sit

e C

on

st

ra

in

ts/C

on

sid

er

at

io

ns



Page intentionally blank.


G R O W T H A LT E R N AT I V E S 3

INTRODUCTION This section presents four growth alternatives for the future growth of San Joaquin County. These alternatives are intended to show different approaches to accommodating growth in the County through 2030. The Base Case is based on continued implementation of the existing 2010 General Plan. The three other alternatives – Alternatives A, B, and C – were formulated based on input from community workshops, focus groups, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors.

As shown in Section 2, there are many constraints and considerations to development to be weighed when reviewing the different growth alternatives. This section provides a description of each alternative and their respective growth implications. Following the alternatives descriptions is a side-by-side comparison of the alternatives, which summarizes the impacts of each of the evaluation topics and major issue scenarios described in detail in Sections 4 and 5. These evaluation topics and issues scenarios are based on the constraints and considerations outlined in Section 2, key findings from the Background Report and Issues and Opportunities Report, and input from community members and decision-makers.

Introduction

Development Constraints and Considerations

Growth Alternatives and Comparative Summary


Policy Options

1

2

3




Alternative C Alternative C focuses new employment growth and some population growth in specific locations along Interstate 5 and State Route 99. A detailed description of Alternative C can be found on page 3-10.

Base

Case

A

B

C

Alternatives At-A-Glance

Base Case The Base Case represents a continuation of the County’s existing 2010 General Plan (adopted in 1992), and the seven city general plans. A detailed description of the Base Case can be found on page 3-4.

Alternative A Alternative A distributes population growth among the urban unincorporated communities of French Camp, Linden, Lockeford, Morada, Mountain House, Thornton, and Woodbridge. A detailed description of Alternative A can be found on page 3-6.

Alternative B Alternative B is an interpretation of the San Joaquin Council of Governments Blueprint. Alternative B focuses growth in cities and assumes a more compact development pattern. A detailed description of Alternative B can be found on page 3-8.


G R O W T H A LT E R N AT I V E S 3 Alternatives At-A-Glance

The tables below compare expected net new population and employment growth between 2010 and 2030 for each alternative. Growth that occurs outside city limits but within city sphere of influence is included under “Cities and City Spheres of Influence.” While these areas are currently within the unincorporated County, it is anticipated that cities will incorporate these areas as they implement their General Plans.

Comparison of Net New Population2010-2030

Location

Net New Population

Base Case Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Unincorporated County

Urban Communities 40,770 12% 46,100 14% 40,520 12% 40,770 12%

Rural Communities 320 0% 5,440 2% 320 0% 2,950 1%

Balance of Unincorporated County 8,250 2% 2,740 1% 2,150 1% 2,750 1%

Subtotal 51,010 15% 54,280 16% 42,980 13% 46,470 14%

Cities and City Spheres of Influence

City Limits 232, 650 69% 232,090 69% 279,590 83% 238,770 71%

City Spheres of Influence 54,260 16% 51,560 15% 15,540 5% 52,680 16%

Subtotal 286,910 85% 283,650 84% 295,130 87% 291,450 86%

Total County 337,920 100% 337,920 100% 338,110 100% 337,920 100%

Comparison of Net New Employment2010-2030

Location

Net New Employees

Base Case Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent


Urban Communities 8,680 11% 8,660 11% 8,730 11% 8,880 11%

Rural Communities 340 0% 550 1% 340 0% 610 1%

Balance of Unincorporated County 3,710 5% 2,650 3% 1,480 2% 4,080 5%

Subtotal 12,700 16% 11,860 15% 10,550 13% 13,570 17%


City Limits 55,110 68% 52,960 66% 56,890 70% 51,490 64%

City Spheres of Influence 13,020 16% 16,020 20% 13,640 17% 15,650 19%

Subtotal 68,130 84% 68,980 85% 70,530 87% 67,140 83%

Total County 80,840 100% 80,840 100% 81,080 100% 80,710 100%



Throughout this report Alternatives A, B, and C are measured and compared against the Base Case. The Base Case Alternative is based on development trends described in the County’s existing 2010 General Plan (adopted in 1992) and the seven adopted city general plans. The County’s existing land use policies emphasize city-centered growth that uses city-provided urban services. The Plan directs most unincorporated growth to urban communities and discourages growth in rural communities, except for minimal infill development. The Plan discourages growth in rural areas outside of designated communities since agriculture is the dominant land use in these areas. However, under the Base Case and all the alternatives, the County will continue to allow homesite parcels in the agricultural areas of the County.

Base Case (existing 2010 General Plan)

Cities UnincorporatedLess

Em

plo

ym

en

t G

row

th

More

Farmland Less

Fa

rmla

nd

Pre

se

rva

tio

n

More

Less

Po

pu

lat

ion

Gro

wt

h

More

Cities Unincorporated

County

Single

Family

Multi-

Family Single

Family Multi-

Family

Since 1992 little unincorporated land in San Joaquin County has developed, except for the community of Mountain House and some permitted homesite development. Most of the development in the County has occurred in cities through annexation. Remaining unincorporated development capacity is estimated at about 51,000 dwelling units (145,000 people) and 28 million square feet (58,000 employees) of industrial and commercial uses; however, much of this capacity is located adjacent to cities within the city Spheres of Influence and will likely develop within the cities through annexation.

New job centers will locate around the Stockton Airport. While this employment growth surrounding the airport would be within the future City of Stockton, the County would benefit through tax sharing agreements.

Additional unincorporated land is expected to develop under the Base Case, as cities continue to grow outward beyond their existing SOIs, consistent with adopted city general plans. Much of this growth is shown in the table below under balance of unincorporated County.

The unincorporated community of Mountain House is assumed to grow at the same rate among all the Alternatives. This is because Mountain House is a master-planned community that has already completed an extensive planning process.

BASE CASE Net New Growth

2010-2030

Location

Population Employees

Number Percent Number Percent


Urban Communities 40,770 12% 8,680 11%

Rural Communities 320 0% 340 0%

Balance of Unincorporated County 8,250 2% 3,710 5%

Subtotal 51,010 15% 12,700 16%


City Limits 232, 650 69% 55,110 68%

City Spheres of Influence 54,260 16% 13,020 16%

Subtotal 286,910 85% 68,130 84%

Total County 337,920 100% 80,840 100%


G R O W T H A LT E R N AT I V E S 3 B

ase C

ase



The Distributed Growth Alternative (Alternative A) directs new residential growth to unincorporated urban communities and cities and limits growth in other unincorporated areas. Employment growth is expected to occur similar to the Base Case.

Alternative A encourages growth in existing urban communities. Urban communities would have new housing opportunities, services, and infrastructure. Alternative A also encourages development to accommodate an additional 5,000 people in the rural community of Farmington, transforming it into an urban community.

Alternative A

Less Cities Unincorporated

County

Em

plo

ym

en

t G

row

th

More

Farmland Less

Fa

rmla

nd

Pre

se

rva

tio

n

More

*Farmington is counted as a rural community, but would become an urban community by 2030.

Alternative A assumes that population within urban communities will expand by about 46,000; however, about 38,400 of this new population growth (85 percent) would occur in Mountain House. Other urban communities would grow by about two to three times the expected population growth identified for the Base Case.

Many urban communities already have enough land designated under the existing 2010 General Plan to accommodate additional population growth. However, a few communities (e.g., Farmington) would need to designate additional land for development to accommodate new growth and develop full urban services to serve this growth.

Alternative A assumes that cities will develop contiguous land as identified in their adopted general plans. However, the amount of growth that would occur within cities is slightly less (283,700) than the Base Case (286,500) because this alternative assumes new residents would be attracted to living in the unincorporated communities rather than in the city fringe areas.

Compared with the Base Case, growth under Alternative A would convert some open space and farmland to urban uses within and around urban community boundaries and cities; however, overall less farmland in the other unincorporated areas would be lost to development since growth would be concentrated within existing community boundaries rather than at the city fringe.

Less

Po

pu

lat

ion

Gro

wt

h

More


County

Single

Family

Single

Family Multi-

Family

Multi-

Family

ALTERNATIVE A Net New Growth

2010-2030

Location





Rural Communities* 5,440 2% 550 1%


Subtotal 54,280 16% 11,860 15%


City Limits 232,090 69% 52,960 66%


Subtotal 283,650 84% 68,980 85%

Total County 337,920 100% 80,840 100%


G R O W T H A LT E R N AT I V E S 3 A

lt

er

nat

iv

e A



Alternative B is an interpretation of the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) Blueprint. Alternative B increases densities and directs most population growth to the cities and Mountain House. Other unincorporated communities are expected to grow similar to the Base Case. Population growth in remaining unincorporated ar-eas (2,150) would be significantly less than the Base Case (9,930).

Residential growth under Alternative B would be higher-density, compact development and require less land than the Base Case or Alternatives A and C. In other words, under Alternative B cities would grow inward, rather than outward and multi-family housing would make up a larger

Alternative B


Em

plo

ym

en

t G

row

th

More

Farmland Less

Fa

rmla

nd

Pre

se

rva

tio

n

More

proportion of new residential development. Under the Base Case and Alternatives A and C, about 79 percent of new development would be single-family and only 21 percent would be multi-family. Under Alternative B, multi-family housing would make up about 32 percent of new residential development. This alternative would preserve the most farmland.

Alternative B directs more commercial and industrial growth to the cities, closer to where a majority of residents live and where there is adequate infrastructure and transit services.

Most of the growth in Alternative B is directed to cities; however, the alternative differs from the adopted city general plans. This alternative assumes the cities in San Joaquin County alter their existing land use plans to fol-low the principles of the SJCOG Blueprint. Since the County does not have jurisdiction within city boundaries and does not control decisions to annex land at the city fringes, the County’s power to implement this alternative may be limited.

Less

Po

pu

lat

ion

Gro

wt

h

More

Single

Family

Single

Family Multi-

Family

Multi-

Family


County

ALTERNATIVE B Net New Growth

2010-2030

Location





Rural Communities 320 0% 340 0%


Subtotal 42,980 13% 10,550 13%


City Limits 279,590 83% 56,890 70%


Subtotal 295,130 87% 70,530 87%

Total County 338,110 100% 81,080 100%



lt

er

nat

iv

e B

*Alternative B includes several policy assumptions over which the County has limited or no control. Implementation of Alternative B would require regional cooperation.



Alternative C would focus new growth and development in specific locations along Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 99 (SR-99). Alternative C would increase employment growth in the County by attracting new employers, which would in turn attract additional population growth to certain unincorporated communities nearby. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C attracts residents and employees that might otherwise live and work in the city and city fringe areas.

Unincorporated communities along I-5 and SR-99 (i.e., Thornton, New Jerusalem, Chrisman, and Vernalis) would accommodate new residential and employment growth. Unincorporated employment growth would

Alternative C


County


Em

plo

ym

en

t G

row

th

More

Farmland Less

Fa

rmla

nd

Pre

se

rva

tio

n

More

occur at key I-5 and SR-99 interchanges, including Flag City, the Stockton Airport, and between Manteca and Ripon. The communities of New Jerusalem, Vernalis, and Chrisman would gain modest residential and employment growth as a result of expanding mining opportunities in the area. Overall, Alternative C would direct nearly 1,000 additional new jobs (13,570) to the unincorporated County compared to the Base Case (12,700).

Less farmland would be converted in Alternative C compared with the Base Case; however, some losses would occur along I-5 and SR-99. Most farmland to the east and west of these corridors would be preserved.

Less

Po

pu

lat

ion

Gro

wt

h

More

Single

Family

Single

Family Multi-

Family

Multi-

Family ALTERNATIVE C Net New Growth

2010-2030

Location





Rural Communities 2,950 1% 610 1%


Subtotal 46,470 14% 13,570 17%


City Limits 238,770 71% 51,490 64%


Subtotal 291,450 86% 67,140 83%

Total County 337,920 100% 80,710 100%



lt

er

nat

iv

e C



• Population growth in Alternative A is higher (about 46,000) than in the Base Case and Alternatives B and C (approximately 41,000).

• All urban communities grow more dramatically in population in Alternative A than in the Base Case (by two to ten times as much), except for Mountain House, which grows the same in each alternative.

• Population growth in the Base Case and Alternatives B and C is identical or very similar for all communities, with the exception of Thornton, which has less population growth in Alternative B and higher job growth in Alternative C, and Woodbridge, which has lower population growth in Alternative B.

• Population growth in Mountain House (38,350) is the same in all four alternatives. Mountain House accounts for 94 percent of total growth for urban communities, 75 percent of the total growth for the unincorporated county, and 11 percent of total growth Countywide.

Geographical Comparison

Unincorporated Urban Communities

Unincorporated Rural Communities • Population and job growth is

modest and identical in the Base Case and Alternative B – 320 in new population and 340 in new jobs.

• The greatest population growth occurs in Alternative A (5,440), followed by Alternative C (2,950).

• The greatest job growth occurs in Alternative C (610), followed by Alternative A (550).

• The growth for all rural communities in Alternative A is identical to the Base Case, except for Farmington, which grows dramatically – 5,140 in population and over 220 in jobs. All the increased growth in Alternative A,

compared to the Base Case, is attributable to Farmington.

• Growth for all rural communities in Alternative C is identical to growth in the Base Case and Alternative B, except for Chrisman, New Jerusalem, and Vernalis (which grow dramatically in population and jobs).

Urban Communities

• French Camp

• Linden

• Lockeford

• Morada

• Mountain House

• Thornton

• Woodbridge

• Acampo

• Banta

• Chrisman

• Clements

• Collierville

• Coopers Corner

• Farmington

• Glenwood

• Lammersville

• New Jerusalem

• Noble Acres

• Peters

• Stoneridge

• Vernalis

• Victor

Rural Communities

40,770

46,100

40,520 40,770

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Base Case A B C

Urban Communities

Net New Population

2010-2030

8,660 8,6608,730

8,880

8,000

8,500

9,000

9,500

10,000

Base Case A B C

Urban Communities

Net New Employment

2010-2030

320

5,440

320

2,950

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Base Case A B C

Rural Communities

Net New Population

2010-2030

340

550

340

610

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Base Case A B C

Rural Communities

Net New Employment

2010-2030


G R O W T H A LT E R N AT I V E S 3 Balance of Unincorporated County • The remaining unincorporated areas,

outside of communities, grows the most in population in the Base Case(8,250), followed in order by Alternatives A and C (both about 2,750), and Alternative B (2,190). The difference in unincorporated County growth between the Base Case and the alternatives can be attributed to cities growing outward beyond their existing Spheres of Influence.

• The remaining unincorporated areas, outside of communities, gains the most jobs in Alternative C (4,080), followed in order by the Base Case (3,710), Alternative A (2,650), and Alternative B (1,480).

Cities and City Spheres of Influence • The population and job growth for

cities and city spheres of influence is very similar under all the alternatives, except for Stockton.

• Stockton and its sphere of influence grows the most dramatically in Alternative B (150,970) and Alternative C (146,170).

• Population growth within city spheres of influence is lowest in Alternative B; however, overall growth in cities is highest in Alternative B.

8,250

2,7402,150

2,750

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Base Case A B C

Balance of Unincorporated County

Net New Population

2010-2030

Cities

• Escalon

• Lathrop

• Lodi

• Manteca

• Ripon

• Stockton

• Tracy

3,710

2,650

1,480

4,080

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Base Case A B C


Net New Employment

2010-2030

232,650 232,090

279,590

238,770

54,260 51,56015,540

52,680

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Base Case A B C


Net New Population

2010-2030

City

SOIs

City

Limits

55,110 52,96056,890 51,490

13,020 16,020 13,64015,650

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Base Case A B C


Net New Employment

2010-2030

City

SOIs

City

Limits



ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY: POPULATIONNet New Population Growth

2010-2030

Location

Existing

Population

(2010)

Net New Population Growth

Base Case Alternative A Alternative B Alternative CUnincorporated County Urban Communities

French Camp 2,410 1,250 2,900 1,240 1,250

Linden 320 150 760 150 150

Lockeford 2,410 320 1,670 320 320

Morada 5,540 300 990 300 300

Mountain House 16,280 38,350 38,350 38,350 38,350

Thornton 1,250 100 780 60 100

Woodbridge 4,540 300 660 100 300

Subtotal 33,070 40,780 46,100 40,530 41,620

Rural Communities Acampo 330 >10 >10 >10 >10

Banta 340 >10 >10 >10 >10

Chrisman 200 >10 >10 >10 760

Clements 330 30 30 30 30

Collierville 1,480 30 30 30 30

Coopers Corner 720 >10 >10 >10 >10

Farmington 340 20 5,140 20 20

Glenwood 1,290 30 30 30 30

Lammersville 1,060 20 20 20 20

New Jerusalem 330 10 10 10 850

Noble Acres 790 60 60 60 60

Peters 520 70 70 70 70

Stoneridge 200 >10 >10 >10 >10

Vernalis 40 0 0 0 1,050

Victor 440 20 20 20 20

Subtotal 8,080 300 5,440 300 2,100


Subtotal 41,040 8,250 2,740 2,150 2,750

Unincorporated

County Total 82,190 51,010 54,280 42,980 46,470

Cities and City Spheres of Influence Escalon 8,970 4,880 4,740 4,890 4,910

Lathrop 18,310 9,600 9,600 9,320 9,710

Lodi 72,890 17,930 17,820 17,820 18,280

Manteca 62,810 50,960 49,890 51,350 51,400

Ripon 14,080 13,240 13,030 13,230 13,500

Stockton 349,790 144,820 141,400 150,970 146,170

Tracy 76,820 47,160 47,160 47,550 47,490

Subtotal 603,660 288,590 283,650 295,130 291,450

Total County 685,770 337,920 337,920 338,110 337,920


G R O W T H A LT E R N AT I V E S 3 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY: POPULATION

Total Population

2030

Location

Existing

Population

(2010)

Total Population (2030)


French Camp 2,410 3,660 5,310 3,650 3,660

Linden 320 470 1,080 470 470

Lockeford 2,410 2,730 4,070 2,730 2,730

Morada 5,540 5,840 6,530 5,840 5,840

Mountain House 16,280 54,630 54,630 54,630 54,630

Thornton 1,250 1,350 2,030 1,310 1,350

Woodbridge 4,540 4,840 5,200 4,630 4,840

Subtotal 33,070 73,500 78,840 73,250 73,500

Rural Communities Acampo 330 330 330 330 330

Banta 340 350 350 350 350

Chrisman 200 200 200 200 950

Clements 330 360 360 360 360

Collierville 1,480 1,510 1,510 1,510 1,510

Coopers Corner 720 730 730 730 730

Farmington 340 360 5,480 360 360

Glenwood 1,290 1,320 1,320 1,320 1,320

Lammersville 1,060 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,080

New Jerusalem 330 350 350 350 1,180

Noble Acres 790 850 850 850 850

Peters 520 590 590 590 590

Stoneridge 200 210 210 210 210

Vernalis 40 40 40 40 1,090

Victor 440 450 450 450 450

Subtotal 8,080 8,730 13,860 8,730 11,370


Subtotal 41,040 49,290 43,770 43,190 43,790

Unincorporated

County Total 80,900 131,520 136,470 125,170 128,660

Cities and City Spheres of Influence Escalon 8,970 13,850 13,710 13,860 13,890

Lathrop 18,310 27,910 27,910 27,630 28,010

Lodi 72,890 90,820 90,710 90,710 91,160

Manteca 62,810 113,770 112,700 114,160 114,200

Ripon 14,080 27,320 27,110 27,320 27,590

Stockton 349,790 494,610 491,190 500,760 495,960

Tracy 76,820 123,980 123,980 124,360 124,300

Subtotal 603,660 892,250 887,310 898,790 895,110

Total County 685,770 1,023,780 1,023,780 1,023,970 1,023,780



ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY: EMPLOYMENTNet New Employment Growth

2010-2030

Location

Existing

Employment

(2010)

Net New Employment Growth

Base Case Alternative A Alternative B Alternative CUnincorporated County

Urban Communities

French Camp 1,200 350 350 410 350

Linden 500 60 60 60 60

Lockeford 1,010 160 160 160 160

Morada 460 310 310 330 310

Mountain House 140 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500

Thornton 280 90 90 90 320

Woodbridge 600 190 190 190 190

Subtotal 4,290 8,660 8,660 8,730 8,880

Rural Communities

Acampo 40 >10 >10 >10 >10

Banta 120 20 20 20 20

Chrisman 20 >10 >10 >10 40

Clements 100 70 70 70 70

Collierville 220 110 110 110 110

Coopers Corner 150 30 30 30 30

Farmington 30 >10 220 >10 >10

Glenwood 20 >10 >10 >10 >10

Lammersville 140 0 0 0 0

New Jerusalem 100 30 30 30 110

Noble Acres 20 >10 >10 >10 >10

Peters 10 0 0 0 0

Stoneridge 0 0 0 0 0

Vernalis 160 >10 >10 >10 170

Victor 290 40 40 40 40

Subtotal 1,320 340 550 340 610


Subtotal 18,300 3,710 2,650 1,480 4,080

Unincorporated

County Total 23,910 12,700 11,860 10,550 13,570


Escalon 1,900 440 440 420 440

Lathrop 4,860 1,320 1,320 1,390 1,150

Lodi 22,830 8,110 8,600 7,950 8,410

Manteca 14,950 5,200 5,170 5,180 4,730

Ripon 3,660 1,120 1,110 1,120 1,120

Stockton 119,570 46,470 46,850 48,020 46,310

Tracy 22,460 5,490 5,490 6,450 4,980

Subtotal 190,230 68,130 68,980 70,530 67,140

Total County 214,140 80,840 80,840 81,080 80,710


G R O W T H A LT E R N AT I V E S 3 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY: EMPLOYMENT

Total Employment

2030

Location

Existing

Employment

(2010)

Total Employment (2030)


French Camp 1,200 1,550 1,550 1,610 1,550

Linden 500 560 560 560 560

Lockeford 1,010 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170

Morada 460 770 770 790 770

Mountain House 140 7,640 7,640 7,640 7,640

Thornton 280 370 370 370 600

Woodbridge 600 790 790 790 790

Subtotal 4,190 12,850 12,850 12,930 13,080

Rural Communities

Acampo 40 50 50 50 50

Banta 120 140 140 140 140

Chrisman 20 20 20 20 50

Clements 100 170 170 170 170

Collierville 220 330 330 330 330

Coopers Corner 150 180 180 180 180

Farmington 30 30 240 30 30

Glenwood 20 20 20 20 20

Lammersville 140 140 140 140 140

New Jerusalem 100 130 130 130 210

Noble Acres 20 20 20 20 20

Peters 10 10 10 10 10

Stoneridge 0 >10 >10 >10 >10

Vernalis 160 170 170 170 330

Victor 290 330 330 330 330

Subtotal 1,420 1,740 1,950 1,740 2,010


Subtotal 18,300 22,010 20,950 19,780 22,380

Unincorporated

County Total 23,910 12,700 11,860 10,550 13,570


Escalon 1,900 2,340 2,340 2,320 2,340

Lathrop 4,860 6,180 6,180 6,250 6,010

Lodi 22,830 30,940 31,430 30,790 31,240

Manteca 14,950 20,140 20,120 20,130 19,670

Ripon 3,660 4,780 4,770 4,780 4,780

Stockton 119,570 166,040 166,420 167,580 165,880

Tracy 22,460 27,950 27,950 28,910 27,440

Subtotal 190,230 258,370 259,210 260,760 257,360

Total County 214,140 271,070 271,070 271,310 270,930



Evaluation Topics:

Comparative Summary

Want more details on the alternative implications for the evaluation topics? See Section 4 of this report.

Legend

Least Favorable

Most Favorable

The table below provides a qualitative summary and comparison of the Base Case and three alternatives. The table shows how the alternatives compare with one another in terms of the topical areas discussed in Section 4 (Evaluation Topics) of the Alternatives Report.

Criteria Base

Case A B C

Land Use

Land Use Efficiency Range of Housing Types Community Identity

Climate Change Greenhouse Gas Emissions Agriculture Agricultural Land Conversion

Transportation/

Circulation

Future Airport Growth Vehicle Miles Traveled Roadway Impacts

Public Facilities

and Services

Capacity/Demand for

Infrastructure Demand for Emergency Services

Natural

Resources

Water Supply/ Demand Aquifer Recharge Energy Consumption Biological Resources

The Delta Urban Development in the Delta Recreation Demand for Parkland

Safety Flood Risk Wildland Fire Hazard Risk

Economic and

Fiscal Health

Jobs/Housing Balance Fiscal Health Property Tax Sharing


E VA LUAT ION T O P I C S 4 INTRODUCTION

This section evaluates the impacts of significant issues identified during the General Plan Update process for each of the alterna-tives. Evaluation topics were chosen based on the Issues and Opportunities Report and input from community workshops, focus groups, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Su-pervisors. This section first describes each evaluation topic and its implications on existing and future development. Key ques-tions and considerations are included with each topic to help frame the discussion. Each of the alternatives is then evaluated for its impacts related to that topic. Finally, a set of policy op-tions are included that offer different ways the County could address the topic in the General Plan.

The following are the evaluation topics:

• Land Use Efficiency • Range of Housing Types • Community Identity • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Agricultural Land Conversion • Future Airport Growth • Vehicle Miles Traveled • Roadway Impacts • Capacity/Demand for Infrastructure • Demand for Emergency Services • Water Supply/Demand • Aquifer Recharge • Energy Consumption • Biological Resources • Urban Development in the Delta • Demand for Parkland • Flood Risk • Wildland Fire Hazard Risk • Jobs/Housing Balance • Fiscal Health • Property Tax Sharing

Introduction


Land Use Alternatives and Comparative Summary


Policy Options

1

2

3




Land use efficiency is measured by the amount of urban land used per person. The less land per capita needed for homes, shopping, schools, and jobs, the more efficient the land use. Land use efficiency directly relates to the density and intensity of growth. In particular, higher average residential densities result in an increase in land use efficiency. The San Joaquin COG Blueprint Preferred Land Use Scenario includes increased residential densities as one of the most important factors in achieving more sustainable growth in the County. In San Joaquin County, increased land use efficiency generally means reduced conversion of productive agricultural land to urban uses and increased efficiency in the provision of public infrastructure and services. Growth outside cities and community boundaries typically represents the most inefficient use of land due to large parcel sizes, very low population density, and the scattered nature of the development.

Land Use Efficiency

Questions and Considerations

• How much land is used to accommodate new growth?

• What is the average residential density of new growth?

• What is the number of people per acre on new ur-ban land uses?

• What is the average intensity of new commercial and industrial uses?

24,60023,500

15,700

23,700

4,700 4,600 4,200 4,700

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

24,000

28,000

Base Case A B C

Ac

res

Acres of Land Converted to Urban Use

Residential Acres Employment Acres

4.54.8

7.7

4.7

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Base Case A B C

Un

its

/Ac

re

Average Countywide Residential Density

17.2

17.5

19.2

17.1

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.5

18.0

18.5

19.0

19.5

Base Case A B C

Em

plo

ye

es

/Ac

re

Average Countywide Employment Intensity

Source: Resourceful Communities Program More compact land use patterns can result in less open space converted to urban development.


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Land Use Efficiency

The Base Case Alternative reflects the least efficient use of land for residential development of the four alternatives. While population growth is directed to existing cities and urban centers with urban services,

far more growth occurs outside those areas than in the other three alternatives as a result of the outward growth of cities. Employment-related land use efficiency will likely be moderate when compared to the other alternatives.

In Alternative A about 1,500 fewer acres of land will be required to accommodate growth compared to the Base Case. Alternative A represents a slight increase in residential land use efficiency because

rural residential development outside cities and communities is reduced from the Base Case. While the amount of land affected by this reduction is small when compared to total land used for urban development, the land use efficiency is still improved. However, the emphasis on urban community growth over city centered growth will result in less efficient residential land use. Residential development in unincorporated urban communities is usually significantly less dense than that in cities. The exception, besides Mountain House, may be the expansion of Farmington. A large, contemporary new development project at Farmington would likely include residential densities similar to urban cities rather than densities typically found in unincorporated rural and urban communities.

Alternative B reflects the most efficient use of land and the greatest increase in land use efficiency over the Base Case. Emphasis on increased residential densities and employment concentration will reduce

the amount of land required to support future growth. Further, the allocation of a larger percentage of residential and employment land uses to cities, Mountain House, and selected urban communities increases proximity and access to public facilities and services. In turn, less space and resources are required to provide those services and facilities, further increasing land use efficiency. Based on an increase of 50 percent in the average densities of new residential growth, nearly 7,000 fewer acres of land will be required to accommodate that growth in Alternative B than in the Base Case.

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C represents a slight increase in land use efficiency because rural residential development outside cities and unincorporated communities is reduced by about 75

percent. While the amount of land affected by this reduction is small when compared to total land used for urban development, the land use efficiency is still improved. However, Alternative C may represent the least efficient use of residential land of the three alternatives. The emphasis on unincorporated community growth in several isolated communities (e.g., New Jerusalem, Chrisman, and Vernalis) over city centered growth will result in less efficient residential and commercial land use. Alternative C does not include any opportunities for non-city, higher efficiency land use as does Alternative A with the expansion of Farmington. In Alternative C about 1,200 fewer acres of land will be required to accommodate growth compared to the Base Case.

The dispersed nature of employment growth under this alternative is likely to result in relatively low employment-based land use efficiency. There will be few opportunities for high intensity, concentrated employment centers. The result will be numerous, dispersed separate businesses developed on cheaper rural land along Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 99 (SR-99).

Policy Options

Require new major development projects be planned for higher residential densities.

Encourage economic development and business expansion in urban communities.

Require higher minimum residential densities.

Provide incentives, such as parking reductions and fee deferrals, for new employment-based development that increases land use efficiency.

BC

B

C

A



A broad range of housing types, sizes, and affordability increases the opportunities for residents to find housing suitable to their needs and income. Increased housing opportunities mean a greater jobs/housing balance and more sustainable communities. Housing choice also increases potential for new businesses to locate where their employees can find adequate housing. A broad range of housing types and sizes includes not only traditional detached single-family houses on a range of lot sizes, but attached single-family, second units, duplexes, stacked flats, lofts, live/work, apartments, condominiums, and mobile homes.

Range of Housing Types


• Do growth patterns promote a variety of housing types and lot sizes?

• Do growth patterns result in housing that is affordable to a range of incomes?

• Which alternatives result in the greatest range of hous-ing types?

• What areas are most appropriate for different housing types?

Mul

ti-Fa

mily

Sin

gle-

Fam

ily


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 The emphasis on development in cities and city fringe areas in the Base Case Alternative increases the likelihood that a broad range of housing types will be provided. Residential development in cities

typically includes more high-density housing than found in unincorporated communities. Availability of public infrastructure and services in cities increases the range of housing types, including apartments, condominiums, duplexes, and attached single-family. Unincorporated communities tend to offer fewer housing choices beyond single-family detached homes on larger lots. This is especially true for rural communities without public sewer and water, although rural communities and development in unincorporated areas may offer more opportunities for mobile homes on individual lots. Lower land values in unincorporated communities may result in some more affordable single-family homes.

The emphasis on development in unincorporated urban communities in Alternative A will probably result in a narrower range of housing choices in the County. Housing in urban communities is

predominately detached single-family homes on larger lots. Introducing significant change to these communities in the form of higher-density housing types is likely to meet resistance from community residents. Because Alternative A allocates the least population to cities of the four alternatives, it is likely to result in the narrowest range of housing types.

Of the four alternatives, Alternative B is likely to result in the broadest range of housing types. The emphasis on increased densities and mixed uses should result in the development of both traditional

and innovative housing types. Most new housing will be located in cities and some will be located in urban communities. The increased density of new development should result in more affordable housing in Alternative B than the other alternatives since homes on smaller lots generally cost less than those on larger lots.

Similar to Alternative A, the unincorporated urban community development emphasis of Alternative C will probably result in a narrower range of housing choices in the County. The urban communities

tend to be largely comprised of detached single-family homes on larger lots. Introducing significant change to these communities in the form of higher-density housing types is likely to meet resistance from current residents.

Range of Housing Types

Policy Options

Require a full range of housing types in new residential developments of a certain size.

Update community land use plans to include land uses that support a broader range of housing types.

Discourage development in or expansion of unincorporated communities

BC B

C

A



San Joaquin County has a number of unincorporated communities whose residents place high value on the quality and character of their neighborhood and town. Small town atmosphere, friendly neighbors, long-time family and friends, great schools, community spirit, as well as many other characteristics are signs of a community with a strong identity. These characteristics have been supported by modest to slow growth that has reinforced the existing neighborhood and community structure; a rich community history; a town center; and a strong social structure with active, involved residents. Significant amounts of new growth or development that does not reflect the historic character of a smaller community could have negative influences on its identity. However, if properly planned and designed, new growth could maintain and even enhance community character by funding historic preservation and community core revitalization. On the other hand, very slow growth that leads to stagnation could have equally negative effects.

Community Identity


• Is there an identifiable community center or unifying place?

• Is it likely that a strong sense of place or community is retained or created?

• Which alternative(s) would most impact the character of unincorporated communities?

• Does growth support quality development?

• Are historic structures and cultural heritage preserved or enhanced?

Large subdivisions such as the one shown here lack individual character and detract from community identity.

Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Visualizing Density. A Bird’s Eye View.

Many of the County communities have important historic structures that help define the community identity.

Source: US EPA

Smart growth in rural communities can enhance community identity by creating vibrant walkable main streets, while preserving productive farmland.


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Community Identity

The Base Case alternative reflects modest rural and urban community growth. All community growth can be accommodated on land currently designated for such growth; no expansion of any community

would be required. Because the Base Case reflects a continuation of current policy and trends, it is the most likely of the alternatives to reinforce existing community identity. One exception may be French Camp, which is projected to grow by about 50 percent under the Base Case. That growth is likely to significantly change the small town community atmosphere. While Mountain House is projected to build out and add 38,352 people (from the current approximate 4,000), this growth is consistent with the original plans for the community and is likely to result in the development of the Town Center, high school, and community college – all attributes that will contribute to community character.

Alternative A allocates a significant amount of growth to unincorporated urban communities. Most communities would double or triple in size. While most communities have enough vacant land

designated to accommodate this new growth, Woodbridge would need to expand to accommodate the projected growth. Significant growth in most of these communities has the potential to alter community identity. If properly planned and designed, that change may be positive; however, significant population change in small communities can also result in clashes in values and expectations between the long-time residents and newcomers. In particular, the substantial growth projected for Farmington will certainly alter local character and identity. Again, the exception will likely be Mountain House, where such growth has not only been anticipated, but is probably necessary for the community to realize its full potential. Alternative A has the greatest potential of the four alternatives to result in changing community values and identity.

Alternative B is similar to the Base Case relative to unincorporated community growth; two communities (Thornton and Woodbridge) are allocated slightly less growth. The lack of growth in

unincorporated communities compared to Alternative A could lead to stagnation and declines in the local economy and housing stock. Alternative B emphasizes development at higher average residential densities. If these densities alter the character of city neighborhoods and communities, some change in community identity could occur. While higher densities do not equate to change in community identity, they do increase the potential for such change. The areas experiencing the greatest increases in residential density under Alternative B may experience greater change in community identity than under the Base Case. The increased growth in the cities may place more development pressure on city fringe areas, potentially changing the identity of these areas to more urban or suburban character.

Alternative C has the potential to significantly affect community character in three communities: New Jerusalem, Chrisman, and Vernalis. These communities are indentified for significant

population and employment growth to capitalize on economic development opportunities along the SR-99 and I-5 corridors. Population would increase several fold in each community. The communities would significantly expand beyond their existing boundaries. As such, the character of these three communities would almost certainly be substantially altered. The other communities would remain relatively unchanged, similar to the Base Case.

BC B

C A

Policy Options

Require new growth in existing communities to reflect local character and identity.

Enhance public outreach and communication to build consensus on development in communities.

Require that new community plans reflect, to the extent feasible, existing community character.



The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) requires that California reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The State is requiring local governments to help meet GHG emission reduction goals through land use and development controls. In the absence of reduction efforts, GHG emissions within San Joaquin County will continue to increase as population and employment grow. The most important ways the County can influence GHG emission reduction is through increased energy conservation, reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT), compact land use, balanced jobs/housing, and green building standards. Agricultural practices also influence GHG emissions through equipment use and farming practices. In agricultural counties such as San Joaquin, agriculture generates a significant portion of GHG emissions compared to other sources. Consequently, GHG emission reduction can be achieved through modified agricultural practices, especially those focusing on dairies.

Existing and proposed State regulations are designed to reduce GHG emissions. Consequently, the projected emissions of the 2030 Base Case and Alternatives summarized in this report will likely be lower because of these regulations. However, even with the myriad GHG regulations proposed and in place, 2030 GHG emissions will be substantially higher than 2010 Baseline conditions. There is not likely to be a significant difference among the alternatives in the amount of GHG emissions produced.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions


• What is the likely change in GHG emissions from all emission sectors?

• Which alternative results in the greatest potential reduction in GHG emissions?

• Which alternative supports measures that will reduce GHG emissions?

Transportation-related emissions account for 62 percent of the County’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

1.0%

0.1%

4.5%

1.1%

-1.3%

2.2%

-2.4%

-0.7%

2.5%

-6.3% -6.5%

-0.6%

-6.8%-6.3%

-0.6% -0.2%-0.8%

-2.0%

-1.2%

-3.7%

2.5%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

Percentage Changes in GHG Emissions by Alternative as

Compared to 2030 Base Case

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

Travel

(VMT)Travel

(ADT)

Electricity

Use

Natural

Gas Use

Agriculture Solid

Waste

(Residences)

Solid Waste

(Commercial)

89.2%

54.3%60.5%

62.1%

-1.4%

63.9%

52.3%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percentage Changes in GHG Emissions from

2010-2030 Under the Base Case

Travel

(VMT)

Travel

(ADT)

Electricity

Use

Natural

Gas Use

Agriculture Solid

Waste

(Residences)

Solid Waste

(Commercial)

1All estimates in this figure are based on the percentage increase in the 2030 Base Case condition as compared to the 2010 Baseline. For example, VMT for the 2030 Base Case condition would be 89 percent higher than the 2010 Baseline condition. Similarly, estimated electricity use would be 60.5 percent higher and natural gas use 62.1 percent higher in the 2030 Base Case condition compared to 2010 Baseline. The electricity and natural gas estimates assume the same energy usage rates per residence (7,406 kwh and 773 therms per residence) and per commercial employee (3,743 kwh and 173 therms per employee) in 2030 and 2010. Consequently, the increase in the electricity and natural gas use percentages reflect the combined increase in residences and employees in the 2030 Base Case compared to 2010 Baseline. The generation of solid waste from residential and commercial land uses was assumed to be parallel to the increase in the number of residences and employees in the 2030 Base Case compared to 2010 Baseline conditions. Solid waste generation assumes that the increase in solid waste would be proportional to the increases in residences and commercial square footage in the 2030 Base Case as compared to the 2010 Baseline.


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Between 2010 and 2030 population and employment increases will result in increases in VMT by 89.2 percent from 2010 levels, electricity by 60.5 percent, and natural gas by 62.1 percent due to

increases in the number of residential and commercial consumers. Solid waste generation will also increase substantially, as indicated by the increase in the number of residences and commercial square footage. Each of these increases will increase 2030 GHG emissions compared to 2010 conditions. Only agricultural acreage, which constitutes 20 percent of San Joaquin County’s 2007 GHG footprint, declines under the Base Case 2030 land use alternative, and only by 1.4 percent. Overall, the 2030 Base Case would result in slightly fewer GHG emissions than Alternative A, but greater emissions as compared to Alternatives B and C.

As compared to the Base Case, Alternative A would increase VMT by 1.0 percent, electricity use by 4.5 percent, natural gas combustion by 1.1 percent, and residential solid waste generation by 2.2 percent.

Commercial solid waste generation and associated GHG emissions would decrease by 2.4 percent. Alternative A would reduce the acreage of farmland converted by 1.3 percent compared to the Base Case. This decrease would slightly offset the GHG emissions increase associated with travel, energy use, and solid waste disposal. GHG emissions associated with Alternative A would be slightly higher than the Base Case, primarily because transportation emissions would generate well over half of all GHG emissions, and Alternative A would result in higher VMT than the Base Case. As a result, Alternative A would have the highest emissions of the four alternatives.

Compared to the Base Case (and set forth in Figure GHG-3), Alternative B would reduce VMT by 0.7 percent, electricity use by 6.3 percent, natural gas use by 6.5 percent, farmland conversion by 0.6

percent, and solid waste from residences by 6.8 percent and commercial development by 6.3 percent (See Figure GHG-3). These metrics are lower than the Base Case because Alternative B increases population density by focusing the majority of new population in the cities. Consequently, Alternative B would generate lower GHG emissions than the Base Case, and would have the lowest GHG emissions of all four alternatives.

Compared to the Base Case, Alternative C would reduce VMT by 0.6 percent, electricity use by 0.8 percent, natural gas use by 2.0 percent, and farmland conversion by 1.2 percent (See Figure

GHG-3). Alternative C would generate lower GHG emissions than the Base Case and Alternative A, although its GHG emissions would be slightly higher than Alternative B.

BC

B

C

A

Policy Options

Aggressively pursue measures to reduce emissions from existing GHG emission sources by:

Promoting green building retrofit programs for existing residential and non-residential buildings.

Adopting a green building ordinance, going beyond CalGreen, requires both new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate green building technologies.

Encouraging methane capture at landfills and at large dairies.

Allowing or permitting appropriate waste-to-energy projects for energy generation.

Encouraging methods to reduce GHG emissions in farming operations by promoting no or low tillage practices, and by educating farmers on ways to reduce emissions of nitrous oxides from fertilizer application.

Encouraging lighting efficiency improvements in existing buildings and in outdoor uses.

Promoting the use of hybrid vehicles in County vehicle fleets.

Improving energy efficiency through energy audits.

Require all new buildings to be 20 percent more efficient than Title 24 standards.

Pursue strategies to reduce vehicle trips, such as upgrading transit system interconnectivity and providing Park and Ride Lots on the SR-99 and I-5 Corridors.

Increase public awareness of climate change challenges, and support a public education program and outreach materials on reduction measures and achievements.

Consider adopting a comprehensive water conservation strategy, including the use of recycled water.

Ensure that development patterns in growing communities use existing infrastructure, reduce the need for new roads, and develop and enhance non-automobile transportation.



From 1992 through 2006 San Joaquin County experienced a 3.5 percent decline in agriculturally-productive land. Prime farmland conversion occurred at a much higher rate of decline, 6.5 percent. About 21,500 acres of agricultural land were converted directly to urban uses, much of which occurred within cities. The County has limited control over the expansion of cities onto productive agricultural land. Loss of productive agricultural land to urban uses raises a number of concerns for the County, including: economic consequences of the loss of agricultural jobs and income; reduced productivity of adjacent agricultural land; and increased agriculture/urban conflicts. Conversion of farm land to urban uses can be reduced or minimized through increased land use efficiency and directing growth to communities not located on or near productive farmland. Conversion of agricultural land to other uses, such as conservation easements for habitat mitigation, is also a concern for the County. The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) has identified Delta agricultural lands as potential habitat mitigation areas. Unlike the SJCOG Habitat Conservation Program, which allows agricultural uses, the strategy in the BDCP does not allow agricultural uses. This poses a potential economic impact to the County and a potential impact of the Delta's identity.

Agricultural Land Conversion


• How much productive agricultural land is converted to urban uses?

• How much prime agricultural land is converted to urban uses?

• How much agricultural land in unincorporated areas is converted to urban uses?

Prime Farmland in 2006

8,090 7,670

3,800

7,700

7,1306,710

1,900

6,780

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Base Case A B C

Ac

res

Farmland Converted to Urban Uses

Prime Farmland Other Farmland

14,48015,220

14,380

5,700


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Agricultural Land Conversion

Policy Options

Require major new development projects to be planned for higher residential densities.

Require higher minimum densities for new residential development.

The Base Case Alternative directs growth to cities and urban fringe areas. While growth within cities does not convert farmland to urban uses, many of the fringe areas include active farmland. In the

absence of city policies to increase land use efficiency within developing areas and minimize expansion in fringe areas, the Base Case will result in the conversion of more than 15,000 acres of farmland to urban uses in the next 20 years, of which about 8,000 could be prime farmland. Despite the emphasis on city-centered growth, the Base Case includes far more outward expansion of cities.

Alternative A directs more growth to the unincorporated communities than the Base Case. While most communities can accommodate that growth within their existing boundaries, some

communities (e.g., Farmington) would expand beyond their existing boundaries. Many communities are surrounded by productive farmland; community expansion would result in conversion of that farmland to urban uses. Because average residential densities are typically lower in unincorporated communities than cities, a greater amount of farmland is likely to be converted to urban uses than the same amount of population growth allocated to cities under the Base Case. Alternative A is likely to result in slightly less farmland conversion than the Base Case.

Alternative B directs more growth to cities (primarily the city of Stockton) at higher residential densities. As a result, growth under this alternative would result in about 9,500 fewer acres of farmland

and 4,000 fewer acres of prime farmland converted to urban uses than under the Base Case. Growth allocated to rural and urban unincorporated communities would be accommodated within existing community boundaries, eliminating any need to expand those communities onto surrounding farmland. Alternative B reduces the outward expansion of cities, further reducing farmland conversion. Of the four alternatives, Alternative B would result in the least amount of farmland converted to urban uses.

Alternative C directs more population and employment growth to cities and three unincorporated communities than the Base Case. The three communities (Chrisman, New

Jerusalem, and Vernalis) would be required to expand beyond their existing developed areas. All three communities are surrounded by productive farmland; community expansion would result in conversion of those farmlands to urban uses. This alternative directs more growth to the cities than either the Base Case or Alternative A; however, that growth would not be at the higher densities of Alternative B. While outward city expansion would occur under Alternative C, it would not be as great as the Base Case. Alternative C is likely to result in slightly less farmland conversion than the Base Case, but more than Alternative B.

BC

B

C

A



There are six public-use airports in San Joaquin County: Kingdon, Lodi (Lind’s), Lodi (Precissi) Airpark, New Jerusalem, Tracy Municipal, and Stockton Metropolitan. Airport activity and growth can be affected by neighboring incompatible land uses or activities. Incompatible land uses include uses that: attract large gatherings of people, such as stadiums; include occupants with limited mobility, such as schools and hospitals; are sensitive to noise, such as residential neighborhoods; include hazardous materials, such as above-ground petroleum storage; or attract birds. The San Joaquin COG, acting as the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), adopted the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in July 2009. The ALUCP identifies incompatible land uses within the airport influence area established for five of the six airports, not including Stockton Metropolitan.

Encroachment of noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., homes, schools) around airports will often result in noise complaints, greater restrictions on aircraft operations and, ultimately, restrictions on future airport growth. The ALUC establishes 60 dB CNEL as the maximum noise exposure considered acceptable for new residential land uses in the vicinity of the six airports covered by the ALUCP. However, the airport influence areas extend well beyond the mapped noise contours to address airspace protection and overflight noise concerns because noise from individual aircraft operations can be intrusive and annoying in locations beyond the limits of the mapped noise contours. Ideally, all noise- and risk-sensitive land uses would be kept outside of the airport influence areas.

Future Airport Growth


• Are projected land uses consistent with airport compatibility plans and standards?

• Is expansion of airport facilities, services, and operation accommodated?

• Are greater concentrations of housing and jobs planned within the airport influence areas?

15,300 15,000

12,200

15,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Base Case A B C

Re

sid

en

tia

l Un

its

Estimated Number of New Residential

Units in Airport Influence Areas


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Future Airport Growth

Allegiant Air recently expanded service at the Stockton Airport, providing extended service to several vacation destinations.

The Base Case scenario will place the greatest number of residential units within the airport influence areas of the six public-use airports in the County. While the County’s current land use

policies emphasize city- and urban-centered growth, this scenario would result in far more outward growth of cities than the other three land use alternatives. Residential growth in unincorporated areas will put greater development pressures on the smaller general aviation airports in the County, particularly New Jerusalem Airport, Kingdon Airport, and Lodi Airpark. However, the existing General Plan contains policies to protect airports from encroachment by incompatible uses.

Compared to the Base Case scenario, Alternative A would add slightly fewer new residential units within the airport influence areas of the six airports. However, of all the alternatives, Alternative A

places the greatest development pressure from residential encroachment on Stockton Metropolitan Airport, the largest and busiest public-use airport in the County. Alternative A places over 300 additional residential units within the influence area of Stockton Metropolitan Airport than in the Base Case scenario. Encroachment of noise- and risk-sensitive uses, such as residential neighborhoods, could create airport land use conflicts and place unwanted limitations on the airport.

Alternative B represents the most compatible alternative of all four land use scenarios because it would place the fewest number of new residential units within the influence areas of the six airports.

Alternative B has about 3,100 residential units less than the Base Case in the airport influence areas. Furthermore, Alternative B places the least amount of development pressure from residential encroachment on the two busiest airports in the County: Stockton Metropolitan and Tracy Municipal Airports. Tracy Municipal Airport, the second busiest public-use facility in the County, serves as an alternate to Stockton Metropolitan Airport for business and general aviation-related activities. The emphasis on increased residential densities around existing city and urban centers will further discourage residential development in the airport influence areas. Alternative B will direct some population growth to the community of Woodbridge located northwest of Lodi (Lind’s) Airport, but the growth is negligible as it would place less than 50 residential units within the airport’s influence area.

Alternative C falls between the Base Case and Alternative A in terms of the total number of new residential units that would be added to the influence areas of the six public-use airports. The

emphasis on unincorporated community growth in several isolated communities (New Jerusalem, Chrisman, and Vernalis) over city-centered growth will result in more development pressures on the two airports located in the southern part of the County: Tracy Municipal and New Jerusalem.

BC

B

C

A

Policy Options

Implement ALUC’s compatibility policies.

Prohibit residential uses inside the noise-impacted and higher-risk areas of the airport influence areas.

Require low-intensity non-residential uses within airport influence areas.



Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the total number of miles driven by all vehicles within a given time period and geographic area. VMT, among other things, is used to determine the extent of mobile source air and noise emissions (including GHG emissions) and energy consumption (gas and oil). VMT is influenced by several factors, including population, age distribution, and the number of vehicles per household. However, the greatest factor is how land uses are arranged. Higher-density, compact development, and mixed land uses tend to generate fewer, shorter vehicle trips and miles traveled since trip lengths are reduced. Locating housing closer to employment centers also reduces VMT, as does the availability of and access to alternative modes of travel (e.g., transit, bicycle, walking). VMT reduction typically leads to improved air quality and reduced energy consumption.

Vehicle Miles Traveled


• What is the total VMT of each alternative?

• What is the change in peak hour VMT?

• What is the change in off-peak hour VMT?

• What is the change in per capita VMT?

• How does support for alternative transportation modes vary by land use alternative?

26.927.0

26.7

26.9

Base Case A B C

Mill

ion

Mile

s

Total Vehicle Miles Traveled

27

26.5

26

In the Base Case the 2030 daily VMT is projected to reach 26,980,000 miles. This represents a 76 percent increase in VMT or an annualized growth of 2.9 percent. Growth in VMT translates into greater congestion. As a reflection of future freeway system congestion, the composite average speed for all travel in San Joaquin County is projected to collectively drop by 5 mph by 2030. The percentage share of Countywide daily VMT traveling at speeds greater the 60

mph will decrease from approximately 35 percent to 20 percent by 2030. Under existing conditions approximately 43 percent of the daily VMT is internal to San Joaquin County (i.e., both trip origin and destination are within San Joaquin County). The remaining 57 percent of VMT are from trips that have at least the origin or destination outside of the County. Under the Base Case the share of internal travel relative to the total County VMT in 2030 is projected to decrease to 33 percent. The growth in the interregional travel share from 57 percent to 67 percent is commensurate to the projected growth of the County’s jobs-housing imbalance between existing to 2030 Base Case conditions (from 1.08 to 1.17). Specifically within the unincorporated areas of the County, the percentage of VMT traveling is projected to remain fairly constant (63 percent vs. 61 percent) between existing (2010) and Base Case conditions, respectively. Given that the Base Case directs the most future growth of all the alternatives to dispersed rural areas where the fewest alternative mode choices exist (e.g., transit services, bike paths, sidewalks) – this flat trend in unincorporated VMT share is plausible. Although growth in inter-county trips is projected to occur in all neighboring regions, Base Case trips, both coming from and going to the Bay Area (i.e., Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), is projected to increase five-fold relative to existing conditions. This growth increase eclipses all other neighboring areas. Although the greatest growth of interaction will be from the Bay Area, the most interaction will continue to be between Stanislaus County and San Joaquin County.

BC


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Vehicle Miles Traveled

Given the dispersed nature of urban communities in the County, where significant growth is directed in Alternative A, the travel patterns under this alternative do not yield significant differences

relative to the Base Case. Unincorporated communities are not well-served by existing transit services, Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) passenger rail services, or alternative mode infrastructure (e.g., bike paths and sidewalks), so most new growth will be auto-dependent. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative A results in the greatest amount of VMT within the unincorporated areas of the County and generates slightly higher daily VMT overall. The share of inter-county, intra-county, and pass-through VMT remains similar to the Base Case. Projected inter-county travel also remains relatively unchanged relative to the Base Case.

The emphasis on dense and mixed-use developments in existing urban areas in Alternative B ostensibly provides the most efficient land-use scenario of all the land-use alternatives. Alternative

B directs approximately 8,000 more residents to Stockton, which is well served by local and regional transit service and is the best passenger rail-served city in the County. The compact growth in Alternative B supports existing transit services and transit-oriented development, and promotes shorter trip lengths that can potentially be served by non-vehicular modes. As a result of this more compact and dense development pattern, Alternative B is projected to experience the lowest daily VMT total of the alternatives. Given that the unincorporated County’s share of projected new development relative to the sum of existing plus planned growth in the cities is statistically marginal, the resulting total VMT change is also marginal. However, the direction of change is noteworthy. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative B results in the lowest VMT within the unincorporated County. The share of internal (i.e., intra-county) VMT is higher (34 percent) while the share of pass-through VMT is significantly below the other alternatives (19 percent). Despite a positive direction of change, the percentage share of intra-county VMT is projected to drop significantly from existing conditions.

Alternative C generates VMT that more closely matches the Base Case and Alternative A. Relative to the Base Case, intra-county trips decrease marginally; whereas, corresponding external pass-

through trips increase. The share of inter-county, intra-county, and pass-through, as well as incorporated vs. unincorporated VMT is the same as the Base Case and Alternative A. Similar to Alternative A, much of the new growth will be directed to communities that are not necessarily better served by existing transit services, Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) passenger rail services, or alternative mode infrastructure (e.g., bike paths and sidewalks), so most new growth will be auto-dependent.

B

C A

Policy Options

Support passenger rail service expansion, including High Speed Rail initiatives, and the Regional Rail Commission efforts to acquire an ACE service line from Stockton to Niles Junction.

Support implementation of park-and-ride lots along State highway routes consistent with SJCOG’s Park-and-Ride Lot Master Plan.

Support implementation of SJCOG’s Congestion Management Program

Support implementation of SJCOG’s Transportation Demand Management Plan and adopt a TDM Resolution of Commitment.

Support implementation of SJVAPCD Rule 9410 (Employer-Based Trip Reduction).

Periodically update the Bicycle Master Plan to establish future needs for bike facilities and support SJCOG’s development of a Regional Bikeway Plan.

Support expansion of rail service for Port of Stockton drayage operations to reduce truck traffic.



The amount and location of new growth can impact roads, both the condition of the road and the level of congestion. This section evaluates deficient lane miles and deficient intersections on State highways and local roads. A performance measure indicates if the facility is deficient (i.e., poor pavement conditions) and whether or not service improvements are needed. An increase in population within the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County will result in increased traffic on the County roadways. Communities such as Lockeford and Mountain House already face traffic issues stemming from increased State highway use.

Congestion relief funding for the unincorporated areas of the County is estimated to be $446 million through 2030, or $21 million annually. After deducting the funding already committed (i.e., programmed improvements and transportation impact mitigation fee (TIMF) revenue), the County will still need to identify $144 million to fund all needed roadway improvements through 2030. These cost estimates reflect future needs only. Total cost would also include $54 million in existing County roadway deficiencies. Including existing deficiencies yields a total improvement cost of $198 million, which represents 43 percent of funding potentially available for San Joaquin County improvement projects. Given that roadway impacts will vary by general plan land use alternative, the level of transportation investment required to maintain the County’s adopted level of service standards will also vary.

Roadway Impacts


• What is the total lane miles?

• How does total deficient lane miles vary by land use alternative?

• How does cost of congestion mitigation improvements vary by land use alternative?

228.08

3.10

266.88

180.30

98.66

296.94

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Two Lane Multi Lane Freeway

La

ne

Mile

s (U

nin

co

rpo

rat

ed

)

Facility Type

State Routes Lane Miles

(Unincorporated)

2008

2030

0

50

100

150

200

Two Lane Multi Lane Freeway

De

fic

ien

t L

an

e M

iles

(Un

inc

orp

ora

te

d)

State Routes Deficiency by Facility Type

Base Case

A

B

C


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Despite adding approximately 78 new lane miles of State highway and the assumed completion of the County’s Traffic Impact Fee Capital Improvement Projects, approximately 317 lanes miles are

projected to be deficient by 2030 under the Base Case (excluding city-owned facilities). Of these deficient lane miles, approximately 47 lanes miles will be on County-owned roadways. The most impacted State facilities will include I-5, SR-99, and SR-26. The freeway functional class, rather than rural two-lane highway functional class, will be the most impacted facility type in the State highway system.

The cost to correct existing County roadway deficiencies is approximately $54 million. This does not include the cost to correct existing deficiencies on the State highway system. Existing roadway deficiencies combined with future roadway deficiencies identified in the County’s Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Update Report will cost approximately $300 million ($54 million for existing and $246 million for future). Based on revised modeling of future conditions, estimated traffic growth in the Base Case is projected to result in an additional 47 deficient lane miles of County-owned and operated roadways. This equates to approximately $110.7 million in additional roadway improvement costs. This will increase the percentage share of anticipated cumulative revenue from all sources required for making County roadway improvements from 43 percent to 57 percent.

Alternative A will result in slightly more deficient lane miles (332 lane miles) than the Base Case (excluding city-owned facilities). Of these deficient lane miles approximately 50 lane miles will be on

County-owned roadways. This equates to approximately $118.5 million in additional roadway improvement costs. This will increase the percentage share of anticipated cumulative revenue from all sources required for making County roadway improvements from 43 percent to 57 percent.

With its greater densification and allocation of new growth to Stockton, Alternative B is projected to create the least impact (i.e., lowest deficient lane miles) on freeways of all the alternatives. However,

this is offset by comparatively greater projected impacts on County-owned roadways and rural two-lane State highway segments (i.e., SR-132 and SR-88). The latter is primarily the result of the greater interaction (i.e., inter-county trips) between counties to the east (i.e., Amador and Calaveras Counties) and south (i.e., Stanislaus County), which are served by SR-88 and SR-132 respectively. Given that these are rural two-lane highways, operations are more sensitive to marginal increases in peak hour traffic, hence the deficiencies. So, although Alternative B results in the least amount of VMT of

all the alternatives and reflects the most efficient land use allocation for promoting alternative modes of travel, it results in the greatest LOS impact to the roadway system. Based on revised modeling of future conditions, traffic growth in Alternative B is projected to result in an additional 51.5 deficient lane miles of County-owned and operated roadways. This equates to approximately $122.2 million in additional roadway improvement costs. This will increase the percentage share of anticipated cumulative revenue from all sources required for making County roadway improvements from 43 percent to 57 percent.

Based on revised modeling of future conditions, traffic growth in Alternative C is projected to result in an additional 47 deficient lane miles of County-owned and operated roadways. This equates to

approximately $110.7 million in additional roadway improvement costs. This will increase the percentage share of anticipated cumulative revenue from all sources required for making County roadway improvements from 43 percent to 57 percent. Impacted State facilities are identical between Alternatives C and A.

Roadway Impacts

B

C

A

Policy Options

Support implementation of SJCOG’s Congestion Management Program.

Support implementation of SJCOG’s Transportation Demand Management Plan and adopt a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Resolution of Commitment.

Support enforcement of over-weight truck restrictions on County roadways.

In coordination with SJCOG, support interregional TDM efforts with neighboring counties.

Improve the roadway system to accommodate STAA-rated trucks that serve critical economic activity.

BC



Many existing infrastructure systems (i.e., water, wastewater, and drainage) within the unincorporated County (excluding Mountain House) are aging and frequently lack available funding to meet existing and future demands. Development within the rural areas of the County has expanded the number of small satellite facilities operated by County Service Areas (CSAs). However, CSA operations are limited by individual CSA budget constraints. In addition, funding is limited for CSAs to keep pace with ever increasing maintenance costs and regulatory changes. The County’s ability to operate these CSAs is strained.

The US EPA has found Small Community Public Water Systems (that serve less than 200 connections) are the most problematic water systems. Over 3,000 small systems across the US have drinking water that has tested with contaminants that exceed the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL). The cost to treat the water or construct sources that meet the standards can exceed $ 150,000 per water system. The country does not have the resources to financially assist all of these systems.

The US EPA is now encouraging each State to consolidate these small systems with the Large Public Water Systems, which have the technical, managerial, and financial resources to provide water that meets the drinking water standards.

More than 70 independent special districts maintain public infrastructure systems for water, wastewater, and/or drainage. Operating small independent water and sewer systems is rapidly approaching the level where the costs may be prohibitive for homeowners and businesses. Areas with aging infrastructure will ultimately require additional financing and rate increases to fund long-term capital replacement needs. Areas that lack adequate infrastructure capacity or the funds to expand capacity will not be able to accommodate future growth and development.

Capacity/Demand for Infrastructure


• Is there sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate new growth?

• Would new growth worsen existing infrastructure deficiencies?


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Capacity/Demand for Infrastructure

While growth in urban areas can connect to existing systems, upgrading treatment facilities is needed. Under the Base Case, more growth would occur at scattered rural locations than the other alternatives,

making new growth more dependent on private wells and septic tanks. Public potable water distribution systems in the communities of Linden, Lockeford, French Camp, and Clements are antiquated and need extensive investment in new infrastructure before any new growth could occur. Public wastewater treatment facilities in the communities of Linden and Lockeford are land base disposal systems currently at capacity and any new growth in these communities would need to meet more stringent State Regional Board’s discharge requirements. French Camp and Clements do not have public wastewater treatment facilities, therefore urban development is limited. Most rural and unincorporated areas of the County lack centralized storm drainage systems to facilitate urbanized communities. Localized flooding would need to be addressed as growth occurs in the rural and unincorporated areas.

Alternative A would incur the greatest increase in infrastructure demands within urban communities compared to the other alternatives. However, far fewer new residents would live in the balance of the

unincorporated area compared to the Base Case, thereby reducing the likelihood of reliance on private wells and septic tanks. With new residents concentrated in urban communities, many of which have aging public services and facilities with limited capacity, infrastructure improvements would be necessary. New development in these communities could provide the financing necessary to create new or improve existing community infrastructure; however, maintenance costs can be prohibitively expensive depending on the size of development served.

Alternative B generates the least impacts on County infrastructure networks by directing growth to cities where centralized water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage facilities can serve new development. Septic

tanks would be needed for the few scattered rural and unincorporated areas expected to develop under this alternative.

Alternative C directs new growth to communities in the southwestern part of the County where public facilities and infrastructure are extremely limited. The majority of existing development in New Jerusalem,

Vernalis, and Chrisman is served by private wells and septic tanks, and storm drainage infrastructure is limited. The water quality in these areas is poor. Several of the water systems currently do not meet the drinking water standards for secondary contaminants and one source exceeds the arsenic standard. The service area may be too small to pay for the appropriate level of treatment. New development in and around these communities would require significant investment in new infrastructure.

BC B

C

A

Policy Options

Growth in rural areas should occur on parcels at least five acres in size, rather than two, as is currently (2010) required.

Ensure that public facilities are upgraded and updated to accommodate new growth.

Encourage water saving features in new development.



The Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of the County. Fire protection and emergency medical services within the County are provided by city, special district, and State fire departments. All fire protection districts and departments within San Joaquin County operate under a master mutual aid agreement, which requires them to provide assistance, at no charge, to other fire protection districts and departments on a case-by-case basis. Fire districts at the edge of expanding cities and outside city Spheres of Influence (SOI) are being encouraged to consolidate services and funding when city annexations occur. Some fire districts are concerned that as cities continue to grow and annex land, district revenues will be reduced. The County’s fire districts and Sheriff’s Department currently (2008) provide adequate service. However, as the County’s population increases, additional deputies and fire fighters will be needed to maintain the County’s standard for service. In addition, the widely dispersed population in the Delta poses a constraint to the provision of emergency service.

Demand for Emergency Services

The County’s existing General Plan emphasizes city-centered growth that uses city-provided urban services. The majority of new growth within existing urban areas would continue to be served by existing law enforcement and fire protection districts. However, the Base Case also projects the most amount of growth within the unincorporated county outside communities, placing thousands of new residents in rural areas without urban services, where response

times are low. New growth in the rural areas of the County would require expanded law enforcement and fire protection services. Only the growth proposed within urban communities and existing cities would encourage city service districts to consolidate and use resources more efficiently. Therefore, as cities annex land within their Spheres of Influence (SOI) over time, service district concerns regarding decreasing revenue sources will continue unless alternative mechanisms for additional sources are identified and implemented.

While calls for service are expected to increase due to population growth, the County’s standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 residents could be maintained if 77 additional deputies were provided for the proposed 51,500 additional residents in urban areas in the Base Case. Due to the wide distribution of growth in both cities and rural areas of the County, the delivery of law enforcement services are likely to be less efficient than for the other alternatives. The need for expanded police and fire protection services across a broader area means it would be more difficult to maintain adequate response times and consolidate existing and proposed police and fire stations, and could reduce insurance (ISO) ratings. The Base Case would require more new deputies than Alternatives B and C and slightly less than Alternative A to maintain County standards, and it would result in the greatest impacts to existing and future public services related to police and fire protection response.


• Will sufficient funds be available to support adequate law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency ser-vices for new growth?

• How many additional deputies and fire stations would be required to maintain existing County standards for service?

77 81

6470

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Base Case A B C

Additional Deputies Needed to Maintain

County Standard

BC


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Demand for Emergency Services

Alternative A would require a minimum of 81 additional deputies to accommodate the increase in population among the unincorporated communities and maintain the County’s standard of 1.5 deputies

per 1,000 residents. An additional 46,000 people would be residing in unincorporated communities under this alternative, 85 percent of which would reside at Mountain House. (Approximately 58 of the sworn officers would be located and stationed at Mountain House under all the alternatives because the growth allocated to Mountain House remains constant.) Overall, Alternative A would require the greatest amount of new police and fire services to accommodate growth because it has the highest amount of population growth in the unincorporated part of the County. Future growth in Lockeford and Farmington would need to be evaluated for impacts to services and the potential need for new substations due to the remote nature of both areas. Unlike the Base Case, the distribution of new services could be concentrated in cities and rural and urban communities rather than rural areas in the County. Planned consolidation of public services over time means police and fire protection response times and levels of services would remain low, and better service could be provided to new residents.

Alternative B focuses growth away from unincorporated communities where service levels would be lowest, and away from rural communities where response from mutual aid would be lower.

Alternative B would require fewer new deputies and County fire services. To maintain the County’s standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 residents for urban unincorporated areas, in planning for 42,738 additional residents, approximately 64 deputies would be needed in the County. The majority of this demand would occur within Mountain House, French Camp, Lockeford, and Morada. Alternative B requires the least investment in new officers and infrastructure to maintain service levels, since the majority of growth would be concentrated in cities. However, existing emergency access routes could become more constrained due to increased traffic and limited ingress/egress routes to residential and commercial development.

Alternative C would require additional County fire protection and law enforcement services to accommodate growth. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative C would require fewer new services than

the Base Case because new growth would be concentrated in existing communities near major transportation corridors. This would provide more timely access by secondary responders. Approximately 70 additional deputies would be required to maintain the County’s law enforcement service standard under Alternative C. While the majority of the new deputies would be stationed at Mountain House, approximately eight to ten new deputies would be needed to serve the southern part of the County near the Stockton Airport, and the rural communities of New Jerusalem, Vernalis, and Chrisman.

B

C A

Policy Options

Consolidate fire service districts to increase efficiency and support coordination and emergency service delivery.

Maintain an average response time of five minutes or less for priority calls in urban areas and an average response time of eight minutes or less for priority calls in rural areas.

Plan for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of new branch Sheriff stations near Mountain House and other growing communities.

Require all new development to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles, particularly firefighting equipment, as well as clearly designated evacuation routes.



The long-term availability of water is one of the most critical determinants for future growth and development in San Joaquin County. In 2008 about 60 percent of County water demand was met by groundwater. The water needs of the agriculture industry relate directly to the health of the County economy. If agricultural water supplies are impeded or reduced, the economy will likely suffer. The County and water districts have developed extensive planning activities to supplement groundwater with surface water through conjunctive use programs that identify integrated strategies to reduce demand and increase supply. These programs, including increased funding for the development of additional and expanded groundwater quality assessment and monitoring programs, provide the best opportunity for the County to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to serve new growth as it occurs.

Historic reliance on groundwater for both municipal and agricultural purposes has resulted in overdraft. While surface water use does not cause the types of problems created by the use of groundwater, the availability of surface water and deliveries from the Federal and State water projects is uncertain. A finite water supply, and increasing competition for that existing supply, will continue to test the ability of water districts and agencies to meet the increasing water demand created by new growth. Standards for drinking water are higher than water used for agriculture and are expected to become more stringent and costly to achieve in the future. In addition, the effects of climate change may reduce overall water supply.

Based on water demand and water availability estimates provided by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), by 2030 there will be a shortfall in water resources available to the County compared to demand.

Water Supply/Demand

Under the Base Case more growth would occur within the eastern portion of the County in the form of scattered rural development that is dependent on private individual groundwater wells. The long-term availability of an adequate water supply for future urban uses is uncertain; however, if the Base Case involves the most growth on unincorporated land lacking public water supplies, it will likely increase reliance on private community service districts and individual

private wells, rather than public water district services. Also, a scattered growth scenario makes it more difficult for water districts to efficiently implement conjunctive use programs and related conservation plans. Urban and rural residential water demands would result in annual demand for approximately four billion additional gallons of water use by 2030. However, the conversion of agricultural lands to urban use would likely decrease water demand because urban lands use fewer water resources than agriculture. Agricultural water demand is expected to decrease the most under the Base Case because it would result in the conversion of approximately 12,300 acres of agricultural land to urban development. Since the Base Case would add a similar number of new residents and jobs as Alternative A, but result in a greater loss of agricultural lands (approximately 2,000 more acres), it would require slightly less water (12,600 acre feet per year) than Alternative A (13,400 acre feet per year).


• Which alternative results in the least demand for water?

• What is the demand for urban water use and agricultural water use in each alternative?

• Which alternative has the greatest potential for water conservation and reuse?

• Is there an adequate long-term water supply identified for new growth?

• If the water source for a new growth area is groundwater, will overdraft conditions be worsened?

• Which alternative increases demand for water from districts involved in the conjunctive use programs under the Integrated Regional Water Management Plans?

12,60013,400

10,60011,500

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

BC A B C

Water Demand of Net New

Development

Ac

re F

ee

t (

pe

rY

ea

r)

BC


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Water Supply/Demand

Alternative A would result in a slightly greater water demand than the Base Case for most unincorporated rural communities. The greatest increase would occur in Farmington. Alternative A

would incur the greatest increase in water demands within urban communities compared to the other alternatives. However, far fewer new residents would live in the balance of the unincorporated area, thereby reducing the likelihood of reliance on individual private wells. Concentrating growth in urban communities like Lockeford would increase reliance on public water supplies that may eventually receive surface water deliveries. Future water conveyance and conjunctive use programs could be able to more efficiently deliver surface water resources and monitor groundwater use and recharge.

New residential water demands would result in approximately 13,400 acre-feet of water use per year by 2030 compared to current conditions, the highest demand compared to all the alternatives. Although the conversion of agricultural lands is slightly less for Alternative A than the Base Case, the overall differences in water demand is minimal. The estimated water availability by 2030 would be the same for this alternative as the Base Case, resulting in an estimated shortfall in water resources. The difference between the Base Case and Alternative A depends on whether a public or private water district would supply the water, how those districts are involved in the conjunctive use programs under the Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs), and how water is delivered. Since Alternative A directs the majority of new growth to urban and rural communities rather than the remaining unincorporated area of the County, future water supply would be more evenly and efficiently distributed, and conservation programs would be better implemented than under the Base Case.

Alternative B would result in the smallest increase in water demand compared to the other land use alternatives. Alternative B results in an additional demand of 10,600 acre-feet of water per year from

urban water use. Because the distribution of growth under Alternative B would be compact and occur mainly within cities and urban communities, the distribution and delivery of future water supply would be the most efficient compared to the other alternatives. It would also mean that new residents may be able to rely on future conveyance of surface water (if available) rather than groundwater, thereby reducing the long-term impacts of overdraft and development in sensitive recharge areas. Again, since the estimated water availability by 2030 in the County would be constant, Alternative B would still result in an overall deficit of water resources, but the gap between supply and demand would be smaller. Alternative B would convert the least amount of agricultural land to urban

uses, which would result in greater demand for agricultural water use compared to the other alternatives.

Alternative C would result in an increased demand for approximately 11,500 acre-feet of water per year from urban water users. This is slightly more than Alternative B. Alternative C would involve

less overall growth in unincorporated areas compared to the Base Case. However, more new growth would be concentrated in Thornton, New Jerusalem, Chrisman, and Vernalis, and at new employment centers near the Stockton Airport. With the exception of Mountain House, the most water demand would occur at Chrisman and Vernalis, where the depth of groundwater is still low, but recharge potential is high. Any decreases in agricultural water demand due to crop irrigation would be similar to Alternative A.

B

C A

Policy Options

Require that all new development result in no net increase in water demand Countywide by minimizing water use within new development, funding conservation measures, funding conjunctive use programs, and other methods to maximize water efficiency.

Promote efficient water conveyance systems in new construction, including recycling of greywater.

Encourage existing water districts to integrate conjunctive use programs and water conservation and efficiency standards.

Assist public and community water purveyors with the development of water supply plans that meet existing and planned growth in designated service areas.

Seek funding for the development of a Countywide groundwater quality assessment program that includes monitoring of individual permitted wells.

Increase the adaptive capacity of infrastructure to respond to climate change.

Initiate educational programs on groundwater best management practices related to water conservation and groundwater recharge.

Increase water recharge efforts.



Recharge of groundwater aquifers is necessary to correct problems caused by groundwater overdraft. Aquifers are replenished through surface percolation or underground water flow. Nearly all of the population in the unincorporated County depends on groundwater. The amount of groundwater across the County fluctuates by variations in recharge potential caused by changes in rainfall, surface water runoff, underground geology, and depth to groundwater. A large amount of recharge occurs in upland valley areas of the County to the east of Stockton, Lodi, and Manteca, especially adjacent to rivers and large streams. Small areas of recharge also occur in alluvial fans at the base of the foothills. Recharge areas within the County are defined based on preferable soil types with good infiltration and surface drainage. New development on these areas would inhibit or prevent recharge.

Aquifer Recharge

Areas shown in green have the highest recharge potential.

Source: California Department of Water Resources

Groundwater recharge is a hydrologic process where water moves downward from surface water to groundwater. Groundwater is recharged naturally by rain and snow melt and to a smaller extent by surface water (rivers and lakes). Recharge may be impeded somewhat by human activities including paving, development, or logging.


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4


• Which alternative results in the greatest impact on aquifer recharge areas?

• How much growth is projected to occur within aquifer recharge areas?

• Do any of the alternatives conflict with proposed conjunctive use or recharge programs (e.g., Farmington Recharge Area)?

Aquifer Recharge

Policy Options

Create a recharge area overlay consistent with Federal, State, and regional water districts for the areas of the County that fall in high recharge potential areas.

Limit urban land uses within high recharge potential areas.

Restrict land uses that have a high potential for water contamination in primary groundwater recharge areas.

Protect aquifer recharge areas to maintain suitable groundwater levels and protect groundwater quality.

Protect the groundwater resources in high potential recharge areas by implementing measures to control increases in post-development runoff volumes.

Support and provide funding for the Farmington Recharge Project to recharge over 35,000 acre-feet of water each year in the area east of Lodi and Manteca.

Under the Base Case the majority of new growth within unincorporated areas, such as Mountain House and French Camp, would occur primarily within areas of high recharge potential. The rest of

the growth would be scattered in rural locations within recharge zones. The Base Case would distribute the most growth to areas with the highest recharge potential. This would limit surface water percolation and result in the greatest impacts on the declining groundwater aquifers.

As in the Base Case and the other alternatives, Alternative A directs significant growth to Mountain House. Unlike the other alternatives, significant population growth would occur in

Farmington. Both of these unincorporated communities are within high recharge potential areas. Alternative A would limit growth within unincorporated areas of the County and other areas with high recharge potential, including rural areas surrounding French Camp, south of Manteca, west of Escalon, surrounding the City of Lodi, and north of Linden. However, Alternative A would increase the potential for growth within the Farmington Project Recharge Area, a major planned recharge project located south and east of the community of Farmington.

Alternative B would result in the fewest impacts on aquifer recharge areas. Alternative B would result in the greatest impacts to recharge zones east of Stockton, where groundwater levels are the

most depressed. Like the Base Case and Alternative A, the amount of new growth at Mountain House, where high recharge potential exists, would remain constant. New growth in French Camp and Woodbridge would also occur within high potential recharge zones. However, the amount of growth occurring in French Camp, Woodbridge, and unincorporated areas of the County would be substantially less in Alternative B compared to the other alternatives.

Alternative C would have similar impacts to the Base Case and Alternative A because, although most growth is concentrated in communities near major transportation links, a large proportion still

occurs within rural communities within high recharge areas. While Thornton is within a low recharge potential area, new growth proposed within the rural communities of New Jerusalem, Chrisman, and Vernalis would be within a high recharge area. Population growth in these communities would result in urban development that would increase the amount of impervious acreage, and reduce the functionality of high recharge areas.

B

C A

BC



64%

52%

64%

53%

67%

50%

67%

50%47%

44%

53%

44%

50%

57% 58% 57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Residential

Electricity

Commercial

Electricity

Residential Natural

Gas

Commercial Natural

Gas

Percentage Increase in Energy Use Base Case

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

While there has been an overall decline in per capita household and business energy consumption as a result of increased conservation programs, total energy consumption in San Joaquin County has increased 25 percent since 1990. From 1990 to 1997 electricity consumption in the County increased from about 3.9 billion kWh of electricity to 5.2 billion kWh. In 2007 residential customers accounted for approximately 33 percent of electricity use and commercial users accounted for 32 percent. Energy use has a direct link to air quality and climate change. Energy produced from coal, oil, and natural gas sources generates significant emissions, particularly greenhouse gases (GHG), in its production and use. Energy conservation and increased renewable energy production (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal) are considered essential to reduce GHG emissions. Assuming the same per capita energy consumption rates in 2007, and that energy use will increase proportionate to population growth, energy demand and cost are expected to continue to increase in the County. Fuel use is also expected to increase as development continues and additional vehicles are added to the roads.

Energy Consumption

In the Base Case energy demand is expected to increase proportionately with population growth. If the per capita energy use remains constant under each growth alternative and does not account for conservation and energy efficiency, and updated building standards, by 2030 the Base Case would result in a 64 percent increase in residential electricity use and a 52 percent increase in commercial electricity use due to the construction of new housing units and

increases in employment. While this estimate is assumed to be a “worst-case” scenario because it does not take into account energy efficiency programs, such as updated Title 24 standards, the Base Case is expected to result in residential and commercial electricity use similar to that forecast for Alternatives A and C because each land use alternative has a similar projection for new housing units and employment growth.1

The Base Case would also result in a 64 percent increase in natural gas usage (13.3 million additional therms) by 2030 in residential uses, and a 53 percent increase (2.2 million additional therms) in commercial use. Further, because residential growth would be the greatest in unincorporated areas with larger-lot zoning as cities grow outward, new residential development in the County may involve the construction of large homes that use proportionally greater amounts of electricity and natural gas than smaller dwellings or more compact development.

The Base Case would be the least likely to result in walkable, transit-oriented development within the urban and rural communities. This alternative would likely result in a higher proportion of automobile trips and greater traffic congestion on County roads. The higher proportion of vehicle trips would increase the amount of fuel (primarily gasoline) consumption. Overall, the Base Case would result in the greatest increase in energy use when taking into consideration increases in fuel use related to automobile trips and the potential construction of larger homes on rural lots.


• Which alternative results in the least amount of new energy demand?

• Which alternative promotes the greatest potential for conservation and efficiency?

1 To determine the 2030 Base Case residential and commercial energy use, per capita residential energy consumption is assumed to remain at 7,406 kWh per housing unit. This assumption relies on energy consumption data provided by the California Energy Commission (CEC) that calculated that approximately 1,716 GWh was consumed by the County in 2007 for residential purposes by approximately 231,702 total residential units in the County. As a result, the per capita residential energy use was 7,406 kWh per housing unit. Assuming approximately 1,665 GWh of total electricity was used for commercial purposes, and approximately 208,414 employees were working in the County at the time (1997), the energy use rate per employee was 3,743 kWh.

BC


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Energy Consumption

By 2030 Alternative A would result in approximately 1.33 million kWh of additional residential electricity use (67 percent increase) and approximately 44 million kWh of commercial

electricity use (50 percent increase). Alternative A would also result in the use of approximately 14 million additional therms (67 percent increase) of residential natural gas use, and 2 million additional therms (50 percent increase) of commercial natural gas demand. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under this alternative would be slightly less than the Base Case because Alternative A directs more of the new residential growth to unincorporated urban communities and cities. As a result, more infill development would occur in urban communities and cities, making the communities more conducive to transit, bicycle use, and walking, which would result in less vehicle fuel use than the Base Case. While residential and commercial energy use in Alternative A would be similar to the Base Case, overall total energy use is expected to be slightly less, particularly in relation to the decrease in vehicle trips and VMT. Further, because growth would be more concentrated in urban communities and cities, the distribution of energy supplies and the installation of new utility facilities for electricity and natural gas could be more efficiently provided to customers in central locations rather than to scattered customers in various rural locations in the County.

Alternative B would result in the smallest increase in overall fuel use related to transportation, and would result in the fewest energy impacts compared to the other growth alternatives. Alternative B would

result in approximately 92 million kWh of additional residential electricity use (47 percent increase) and approximately 39 million kWh of new commercial electricity use (44 percent increase). Alternative B would also result in approximately 11 million additional therms (53 percent increase) of residential natural gas use, and 1.8 million additional therms (44 percent increase) for commercial users. Because Alternative B increases densities and directs most population growth to cities, and directs the least amount of new growth into the rural County, this alternative would result in more compact, multi-family, and smaller housing units that would reduce projected residential energy use. Alternative B would also result in the least VMT due to more infill and transit-oriented development, which would be more conducive to transit, biking, and walking. Alternative B would also place the majority of future residential units and job growth within urbanized areas that have existing infrastructure, utility hook-ups, and a better distribution of energy services.

Alternative C would result in total residential and commercial energy use that is slightly less than the Base Case and Alternative A, but more than Alternative B. Alternative C would result in

approximately 100 million kWh of additional residential electricity use (50 percent increase) and approximately 50 million kWh of new commercial electricity use (57 percent increase). Alternative C would also result in approximately 12 million additional therms (58 percent increase) due to residential natural gas use and an additional 2.3 million additional therms (57 percent increase) due to commercial natural gas usage. Alternative C is expected to result in similar or slightly more VMT than Alternative A. As a result, fuel use would be either the same as, or greater than, Alternative A due to more population growth near transportation corridors along I-5 and SR-99 in the southern portion of the County. In this alternative, new growth in Thornton, New Jerusalem, Chrisman, and Vernalis may result in new homes constructed on larger parcels, and may allow the construction of large homes that require more residential electricity and natural gas use than more compact development and smaller dwellings, resulting in higher energy consumption.

B

C A

Policy Options

Locate new residential areas within or near existing service provider district boundaries for such services as electricity and gas to maximize their availability and reduce the need for additional infrastructure.

Provide opportunities for alternative fuel facilities and new infrastructure in the County.

Determine the current capacity of utility providers for energy services and determine projected capacity by 2030 to ensure that adequate electricity and natural gas supplies are available.

Require large commercial and industrial developments to include renewable energy features (e.g., solar panels, roof top wind turbines).

Support the development of solar farms on non-productive agricultural land.



Urban development frequently results in impacts on biological resources and wildlife habitat. The expansion of urban development into sensitive ecosystems is a major challenge for the protection and viability of habitat areas. Increases in population and human activity negatively impact habitat areas, including the destruction of habitat, increased air and water pollution, and introduction of invasive species. Also, as agricultural operations cultivate previously natural habitat areas, the potential for habitat area conflicts increases. At the same time, some existing agricultural activities provide habitat for some animal and bird species.

Resource impacts within the County could include the losses of critical wildlife habitat areas, agricultural lands, wetlands, grasslands, freshwater emergent and seasonal wetlands, creeks, riparian areas, vernal pools, and valley and blue oak savannahs. Resource impacts may have particular adverse effects on essential critical habitat for endangered, threatened, or sensitive species, such as the Delta Smelt located within the Delta; Alameda Whipsnake and Large-headed Fiddleneck habitat in the southwestern areas of the County; and California Tiger Salamander, Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, and Succulent Owl Clover habitat located in the northern and eastern areas of the County.

Biological Resources


• Will habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species be converted to urban or agricultural uses?

• Will any protected natural areas or preserves be adversely affected?

• Can potential biological impacts be mitigated?

Photo by Dave Feliz


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Biological Resources

The Base Case would result in the greatest impacts to biological resources. Planned development under the Base Case also has the potential to convert approximately 100 acres of Blue Oak and Foothill

Pine woodland, and 500 acres of Blue Oak habitat to urban uses. The Base Case would result in the greatest amount of agricultural land conversion at the edge of cities, potentially impacting animal and bird species that forage in these areas.

Similar to the Base Case, Alternative A has the potential to threaten various critical habitat areas due to growth in the Delta and concentrated growth near habitat areas in the eastern part of the County.

The greatest biological impacts under Alternative A threaten Delta Smelt habitat; however, the overall impacts within the unincorporated County are relatively small when compared to the growth projected in cities and city SOIs. Alternative A allocates more growth to Farmington, directly south of the critical habitat areas for California Tiger Salamander and Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, increasing the potential for the area to be converted to urban uses. Alternative A also includes the conversion of approximately 10,000 acres of agricultural land to urban uses, further impacting sensitive habitat areas that are currently surrounded or separated from urban uses by large parcels of agricultural land. Alternative A would result in the conversion of approximately 50 acres of significant Blue Oak and Foothill Pine habitat to residential development, and the conversion of approximately 250 acres of significant Blue Oak habitat. However, Alternative A would have impacts to wetland, vernal pool, and riparian habitats similar to the Base Case since designated wetland types would overlap with areas proposed for urban development in much of the eastern part of the County.

Alternative B would conserve the most open space, habitat area, and existing agricultural lands compared to the other land use alternatives. As a result, it would have the fewest impacts on sensitive

wildlife, wetlands, riparian corridors, and plants. The greatest impacts under Alternative B would occur within the Delta; however, overall impacts within the unincorporated County would be relatively small when compared to the growth projected in cities and city SOIs.

Alternative B would result in the smallest impacts to significant oak woodland habitat by converting only approximately 19 acres of significant Blue Oak and Foothill Pine habitat and 75 acres of significant Blue Oak habitat to urban uses. Some impacts would occur to wetlands, vernal pools, and riparian areas, and agricultural lands, but they would be far less compared to the other alternatives.

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C would result in the conversion of approximately 10,500 acres of agricultural land to urban uses, which would reduce the potential foraging habitat and protective buffers

for wildlife. Alternative C would result in the same amounts of conversion of oak woodland habitat to residential develop-ment as Alternative A. Some impacts would occur to wetlands, vernal pools, and riparian areas, but they would be less than impacts under the Base Case and Alternative A since growth is directed to the southern part of the County where there are fewer wetlands than in the eastern part of the County.

B

C

A

BC

Policy Options

Encourage the acquisition and preservation of land adjacent to critical wildlife habitat areas as development occurs.

Limit residential, commercial, and industrial uses in sensitive wildlife and terrestrial habitat areas through zoning amendments.

Preserve wetland areas and riparian zones by restricting development and implementing an adequate replacement standard for restoration if impacts occur.

Mitigate impacted habitat in the Delta through riparian restoration planning.

Continue to implement the County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).

Adopt an oak woodlands preservation ordinance and program.



In San Joaquin County the pressure for urbanization of the Delta has been, and is projected to continue to be, greatest adjacent to the cities of Stockton, Tracy, and Lathrop. Urban development pressure in the unincorporated areas of the County in the Delta region is relatively limited. Increasing urbanization of the Delta may result in the loss of productive agricultural land as well as loss of recreational land. It may also result in ecosystem degradation by eliminating habitat and by increasing pollutant levels in Delta channels from urban runoff and wastewater discharges. Increasing urbanization will put more pressure on Delta services such as transportation, utilities, water supply, recreation, and emergency response, and potentially put a larger number of people and more property at risk from levee failures. Urbanization of the Delta also reduces the flexibility of agencies managing the Delta to implement projects to restore habitat, manage flood risks, and improve water supply.

Urban Development in the Delta


• Which alternative has the greatest potential impact on the Delta?

• How much new urban development is located in the Primary Delta Zone in each alternative?

• How much new urban development is located in the Secondary Delta Zone in each alternative?

177,700

175,700

181,310

178,010

370

170

50

170

170,000

172,000

174,000

176,000

178,000

180,000

182,000

184,000

Base Case A B C

Net New Population in the Delta Zones

Primary Zone

Secondary Zone


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Urban Development in the Delta

Policy Options

Encourage preservation and restoration of the Primary Delta Zone.

Ensure consistency with the Delta Vision Strategic Plan.

In the Base Case population in the San Joaquin County portion of the Delta Primary Zone is projected to increase by 370 people, and employment by only 340 jobs, between 2010 and

the 2030. Most of this relatively small amount of growth is projected to occur within unincorporated areas just outside the cities of Stockton, Lathrop, and Tracy. This represents the most growth in the Delta Primary Zone compared to the other alternatives. Population in the County within the Delta Secondary Zone is projected to increase by about 177,700 people, and employment by 35,200 jobs by 2030 in the Base Case. Most of this growth is projected to occur within the cities or city SOIs. More than 90 percent of the population and employment growth projected within the unincorporated portion of the Delta Secondary Zone is within Mountain House, which is located at the southern end of the Delta on land that is at or above sea level.

Population in the County within the Delta Primary Zone is projected to increase by only 170 people, and employment by only 170 jobs, between 2010 and 2030 under Alternative A. This represents less

growth in the Primary Zone than in the Base Case. Population in the County within the Delta Secondary Zone is projected to increase by about 175,700 people, and employment by 34,200 jobs, roughly the same amount as under the Base Case. Most of this growth is projected to occur within the cities or city SOIs. As under the Base Case, more than 90 percent of the population and employment growth projected within the unincorporated portion of the Delta Secondary Zone is within Mountain House.

Population in the County within the Delta Primary Zone is projected to increase by only 50 people, and employment by only 90 jobs, between 2010 and 2030 under Alternative B. This represents the least

amount of growth in the Delta Primary Zone of all of the alternatives. Population in the portion of the County within the Delta Secondary Zone is projected to increase by 181,310 people, and employment by 36,110 jobs, the most of any of the 2030 alternatives. Most of this growth is projected to occur within the cities and city SOIs. Population and employment in the unincorporated portion of the Delta Secondary Zone is projected to increase by slightly less than under the Base Case. However, population and employment growth in the cities of Stockton, Lathrop, Manteca, and Tracy within the Delta Secondary Zone is projected to increase the most of any of the alternatives. As with the Base Case, more than 90 percent of the population and employment growth projected within the unincorporated portion of the Delta Secondary Zone is within Mountain House.

Population in the County within the Delta Primary Zone is projected to increase by 170 people, and employment by 180 jobs, between 2010 and 2030 under Alternative C. This represents the same

amount of new growth in the Delta Primary Zone as Alternative A. Population in the portion of the County within the Delta Secondary Zone is projected to increase by 178,000 people, and employment by 34,110 jobs, between 2010 and 2030 under Alternative C. Most of this growth is projected to occur within the cities and city SOIs. Population in that portion of unincorporated San Joaquin County within the Delta Secondary Zone is projected to increase by the most of any of the alternatives, but Countywide, about the same as Alternative A. More than 98 percent of the population and employment growth projected within the unincorporated portion of the Delta Secondary Zone would be within Mountain House.

B

C

A

BC



There is no minimum parkland dedication or in-lieu fee requirement in San Joaquin County. For the purposes of this comparative analysis, we rely on the California State Subdivision Map Act local park standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 people. The National Recreational Park Association (NRPA) recommends 15-20 acres of regional parkland per 1,000 people. Under existing (2008) conditions, the County provides approximately 4.3 acres of regional parkland per 1,000 people, and, including State parks, approximately 16.5 acres of regional parkland per 1,000 people. However, many rural communities in the County do not meet the 3.0 acres per 1,000 people standard, even though Countywide the County is providing 4.3 acres per 1,000 people.

While existing regional park acreage meets minimum standards recommended by NRPA, the County regional parks are serving many out-of-county residents, and many of the parks are reported as crowded, especially during the summer months. While several unincorporated communities are near ecological reserves and wildlife areas that allow hiking and fishing, most of these lack any existing nearby public parks or recreational facilities.

Demand for Parkland


• Do existing local parks within the County meet the demands of additional population growth?

• Will additional population growth in the region require the provision of additional local and regional parklands?

• Will parklands be located so that all County residents can have access to nearby facilities?

Oak Grove Regional Park, maintained by the San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Department, is located in Stockton.

154 163128 139

257271

211232

0

100

200

300

400

500

Base Case A B C

Acres of Additional Parkland

Needed to Meet Standards

Parkland Maximum Parkland Minimum


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Demand for Parkland

Policy Options

Provide approximately 5 acres of local parks and 5 acres of regional parks for every 1,000 persons in the unincorporated County.

Locate new parks and recreation facilities near exist-ing communities that lack recreational amenities, or near other community-oriented facilities, such as schools, libraries, and recreation centers to create defined community centers.

Require additional regional parks to provide a range of recreational activities for both County residents and visitors.

Require new development to provide a fair-share contribution towards park and recreation facilities consistent with local, State, and Federal laws to maxi-mize the funding for the acquisition and develop-ment of new parks, recreational facilities, natural pre-serves, and bicycle and pedestrian trails, as well as the expansion and maintenance of existing recreational facilities.

Evenly distribute new parkland within the urban communities of the County to match population growth in order to serve the growing demand for recreational facilities.

The Base Case would create demand for about 154 acres of new parkland within the unincorporated County to meet the standard of 3 acres of park per 1,000 residents. To accommodate additional

parkland demands created by both County residents and out-of-County visitors, an additional 257 acres would be required to meet the standard of 3 acres of park per 1,000 residents, which would require the County to provide 40 percent more parkland than currently (2008) exists, not including State Parks. The majority of new parkland demand would occur in the urban communities of Mountain House, Woodbridge, Lockeford, Morada, Linden, and French Camp.

Alternative A would generate demand for about 163 acres of new parkland within the unincorporated County to meet the 3 acres of park per 1,000 residents standard. To accommodate additional

parkland demands created by both County residents and visitors, an additional 271 acres would be required to provide 5 acres of park per 1,000 residents. This would result in a 43 percent increase in parkland from 2008. The majority of new parkland demand would occur in the urban communities of Mountain House and Farmington. Additional parkland demand would also occur in the urban communities of Lockeford, Thornton, Woodbridge, Morada, French Camp, and Linden. While some of these communities have existing recreation facilities nearby, most communities further from the Delta and from the cities of Lodi and Stockton do not have easy access to recreational areas, parks, or wildlife areas. Alternative A would result in the greatest demand for additional parkland because growth would be more focused in urban communities.

Alternative B would generate demand for about 128 acres of new parkland within the unincorporated County to meet the 3 acres of park per 1,000 residents standard. To accommodate additional

parkland demands created by both County residents and visitors, an additional 211 acres would be required to provide 5 acres of park per 1,000 residents. This would result in a 30 percent increase in parkland from 2008. The majority of new parkland demand in the unincorporated County would occur in urban communities, including Lockeford, Morada, Woodbridge, Mountain House, and French Camp. This alternative requires the smallest demand for additional parkland in the County. Because the majority of growth will occur within cities where more parks and recreational facilities already exist, it would have the smallest impact on County recreational resources.

Alternative C would generate demand for about 139 acres of new parkland within the unincorporated County to meet the 3 acres of park per 1,000 residents standard. To accommodate

additional parkland demands created by both County residents and visitors, an additional 232 acres would be required to provide 5 acres of park per 1,000 residents. This would result in a 37 percent increase in parkland from 2008. The majority of new parkland demand would occur in the communities along I-5 and SR-99, including Thornton, New Jerusalem, Chrisman, and Vernalis. This alternative would direct the demand for parkland to rural communities that have little existing public parkland and recreational facilities.

B

C

A

BC



A large part of San Joaquin County is in natural floodplains and basins that include several rivers, streams, canals, and sloughs. These areas are susceptible to flooding hazards that can ultimately threaten life, safety, and property. Despite more than a century of flood protection efforts at the local and regional levels, large areas of the County continue to be at risk for flooding. The most current (2009) FEMA flood maps show that 302,000 acres of land in the County are within the high-risk Special Flood Hazard Areas (1 percent annual chance of flooding, or 100-year floodplain). This represents 33 percent of the County. An additional 102,900 acres are designated as low-risk Special Flood Hazard Areas (0.2 percent annual chance of flooding, or 500-year floodplain). About 90 percent of the land in the high-risk Special Flood Hazard Area is unincorporated land outside city SOIs; the other 10 percent is within cities and their SOIs. While the vast majority of the flood-prone land in the County is unincorporated, most of the people exposed to flood risk are in the cities. The physical risks associated with potential flooding from both regional and local sources, and regulatory requirements for floodplain management, are important aspects of future decisions throughout the County. Flood management programs will help guide the local and community-level emergency response needs. Any growth that would occur within the defined floodplains would require costly levee improvements prior to development occurring.

Flood Risk

The Base Case would result in an estimated 36,500 additional persons (70.9 percent of the increased new population) residing within the 100-year floodplain in the unincorporated County. Under the Base Case 15.7 percent of the total new population in FEMA high-risk special hazard flood zones would be in the unincorporated areas, while the remaining 84.3 percent would be within cities and SOIs. An estimated 28,200 additional persons would reside within

the 500-year floodplain (but outside of the 100-year floodplain) in the unincorporated county, which would locate 54.8 percent of the increased unincorporated area population within FEMA low-risk special flood hazard zones. Under the Base Case 18.3 percent of the total new population in FEMA low-risk special hazard flood zones would be in the unincorporated areas, while the remaining 81.7 percent would be within cities and SOIs. The Base Case would result in the development of an additional 7,200 acres within the 100-year floodplain of the unincorporated County, representing a 2.4 percent expansion within the total designated FEMA high-risk special flood hazard zones. An additional 7,400 acres would likely be developed within the 500-year floodplain of the unincorporated County, representing a 7.2 percent expansion within the total designated FEMA low-risk special flood hazard zones.


• How much new growth will occur in FEMA special flood hazard zones?

• Do areas identified for new growth have 200-year level of flood protection?

• If development occurs in special flood hazard areas, what will be the risks to those who live there and the affects on emergency response?

• To what degree are the spatial patterns and magnitude of growth within flood-prone areas compatible with emergency response planning?

• Are land use decisions likely to meet SB 5 prohibitions and/or findings required for approvals within flood hazard zones consistent with the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan to be adopted by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (scheduled for 2012)?

• Are land use decisions likely to meet AB 70 cost-sharing requirements for new development in areas protected by a State flood control project?

36,500 42,50023,500 21,600

196,400 193,900

192,100 199,500

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Base Case A B C

Net New Population within FEMA High-Risk

(100-year) Floodplain

Unincorporated County Cities and SOIs

28,200 28,2009,700 11,800

126,100 123,900

107,300

128,100

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Base Case A B C

Net New Population within FEMA Low-Risk

(500-year) Floodplain

Unincorporated Cities and SOIs

BC


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Flood Risk

Policy Options

Direct new development to areas that have existing flood protection facilities, rather than to areas requiring new flood protection facilities.

Update requirements for flood protection on new residential, public, commercial, and industrial development to be consistent with the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan and adopted State and Federal standards (required within 24 months of adoption of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan).

Strengthen prohibitions against the development of facilities essential for emergencies and public assembly within flood zones.

Require that all new development be designed and implemented in a manner that will not adversely impact flood hazards to upstream/downstream properties.

Update hazard mitigation/emergency response plans to include anticipated population growth, with provisions to address the spatial pattern of new growth.

Continue and expand efforts to coordinate multi-jurisdictional emergency preparedness that include feasible measures for directing the public response to flooding that may occur within the County from levee or dam failures, as well as other local sources of flooding.

Promote awareness and provide education for residents regarding flood hazards, warning systems, and emergency procedures, and evacuation routes.

Alternative A will result in greater population increases within unincorporated areas of special flood hazard zones compared to the Base Case for high-risk flood zones, and similar to the Base Case

for low-risk flood zones. Alternative A likely would result in the development of an additional 4,400 acres within the 100-year floodplain of the unincorporated county, representing a 1.5 percent expansion within the total designated FEMA high-risk special flood hazard zones. An additional 4,200 acres would be developed within the 500-year floodplain of the unincorporated county, representing a 4 percent expansion within the total designated FEMA low-risk special flood hazard zones. The increase in acres developed in unincorporated areas for both high- and low-risk special flood hazard zones under Alternative A would be lower than the Base Case, but not as low as under Alternatives B and C. New development in Farmington would provide a relative improvement over the dispersed/scattered pattern that could occur under the Base Case in terms of both floodplain management and emergency flood response.

Alternative B has the lowest population increases within unincorporated areas of special flood hazard zones, but slightly worse for high-risk flood zones compared to Alternative C. Alternative B would

result in the development of an additional 2,000 acres within the 100-year floodplain of the unincorporated County, representing a 1 percent expansion within the total designated FEMA high-risk special flood hazard zones. An additional 1,700 acres would likely be developed within the 500-year floodplain of the unincorporated County, representing a 2 percent expansion within the total designated FEMA low-risk special flood hazard zones. The increase in acres developed in unincorporated areas for both high- and low-risk special flood hazard zones would be lower than the Base Case, considerably lower than Alternative A, and somewhat lower than Alternative C. Alternative B has the lowest expansion of developed area within designated high- and low-risk flood zones for both unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County. The spatial pattern of development under Alternative B would concentrate population growth in dense urban areas, so demands on emergency planning and response for the County would be better compared to the Base Case and the other Alternatives.

In Alternative C population increases within unincorporated areas of special flood hazard zones would be less than the Base Case, similar to Alternative B, but slightly better for high-risk flood

zones and slightly worse for low-risk flood zones. Alternative C would result in the development of an additional 2,000 acres within the 100-year floodplain of the unincorporated County,

representing 1 percent of the total designated FEMA high-risk special flood hazard zones. An additional 1,700 acres would be developed within the 500-year floodplain of the unincorporated County, representing an increase of about 2 percent within the total designated FEMA low-risk special flood hazard zones. The increase in acres developed in unincorporated areas for both high- and low-risk special flood hazard zones under Alternative C would be lower than the Base Case, considerably lower than Alternative A, but not as low as Alternative B. The spatial pattern of growth, with emphasis on several isolated urban communities rather than city-centered growth, could be an advantage in terms of flood management and response. This advantage would reflect the lower flood risk in the designated growth communities than the flood risk in city areas that would be emphasized in either Alternatives A or B.

B

C

A



Based on the presence of fuel loads and topography, wildland fire hazard is most severe in the extreme southwest corner of the County, in the west County along the I-5/I-580 corridor, and in the northeast. Fire threats can also be an issue in the Delta, where peat fires can start and burn for great lengths of time. Approximately 42,000 acres of unincorporated County are within high or very high fire severity zones, but the majority of this area is undeveloped or grazing land. Of significant concern are those areas of open grassland near residential areas and parks. The wildfire hazard areas closest to existing or proposed development include land in the southwest area of the County along I-580 near the city of Tracy Sphere of Influence (SOI), but not within the SOI. No new development within very high or high fire hazard severity zones is proposed in any of the County’s urban or rural communities under any of the four proposed alternatives. However, a substantial amount of growth is proposed within moderate fire hazard severity zones, which represents an increased threat of personal injury and property damage. The communities within the County at greatest risk include Bellota, Clements, Linden, and Lockeford. Each of these communities is located within the northeastern part of the County along SR-12/88 and north and south of SR-26 and Collierville. These communities are also identified by CAL FIRE as “Communities at Risk” of wildland fire. Because many of these communities have nearby accessibility to major transportation corridors, existing and future fire protection and emergency response services are expected to adequately serve potential urban wildfire threats.

Wildland Fire Hazard Risk


• Is new development located in areas subject to very high, high, or moderate wildland fire risk?

• Will new development in rural communities have adequate emergency response services?


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Wildland Fire Hazard Risk

The Base Case would place a modest number of additional people in areas exposed to moderate fire threat when compared to the other alternatives.

Under Alternative A, little residential development would occur within moderate fire hazard severity zones because the majority of growth would be directed into cities and unincorporated urban

communities, which are all outside fire hazard severity zones. However, in Alternative A a significant amount of growth would occur near the rural community of Farmington. The areas surrounding Farmington are within a moderate fire hazard severity zone potentially exposing new homes to fire risks along the community boundaries. The community could be safely protected through enhanced emergency response services, and by mutual aid support from nearby communities.

Under Alternative B no residential development would occur within moderate fire hazard severity zones in the County. Instead, the majority of growth would be directed to cities, and a few urban

communities, including Mountain House and Woodbridge. However, a small area along the edge of the urban community of Woodbridge lies within a moderate fire hazard severity zone.

Alternative C focuses new growth and development at specific locations along I-5 and SR-99. The areas at greatest risk under this alternative are along I-5 near the southern part of the County. Modest

growth is proposed around the rural communities of Chrisman, New Jerusalem, and Vernalis. Development in each of these rural communities would occur near moderate fire hazard severity zones; however, these zones are located beyond the communities’ boundaries. New housing units are also proposed in the southwestern part of the city of Tracy SOI along I-580. This area is adjacent to moderate to high fire hazard severity zones.

B

C

A BC Policy Options

Minimize the number of new homes sited in areas exposed to wildland fire hazards.

Require that new development in areas of heightened wildland fire risk be located, designed, and constructed with adequate defensible space to minimize structural loss and personal injury resulting from wildland fires.

Reduce fuel loads and flammable vegetation that surround residences.

Provide adequate and sufficient fire and emergency response services, and multiple ingress and egress routes, to ensure safe access is provided for fire equipment and for safe civilian evacuation.

Require all new, remodeled, or re-constructed structures to comply with current fire-resistant construction codes.

Establish standards that support retrofitting existing structures in high fire hazard severity zones.



Jobs/housing balance describes the relationship between the number of jobs and the number of housing units located within a given area. The concept behind a jobs/housing balance is to create housing opportunities to enable people to live close to their jobs if they so choose. The underlying objectives of achieving a balance between jobs and housing include reducing commute lengths, traffic congestion, air pollution, travel costs, and public expenditures for capital facilities and ongoing operations and maintenance of roads.

A variety of sources within the planning community indicate 1.5:1 jobs per housing unit is considered an average, balanced-development ratio, with an acceptable range falling between 1.3:1 and 1.7:1. As of 2010 the ratio of jobs to housing in the County is 1.05:1; for every house there is a job. In the unincorporated portion of the County, the jobs/housing ratio is 1.08:1, while the jobs/housing ratio in the incorporated portion of the County is 1.04:1.

All the alternatives produce similar jobs/housing ratios – and lower than the existing jobs/housing ratios - stemming from net new development in the County over the course of the General Plan time horizon. This is because current population and employment projections anticipate that housing growth will significantly outpace job growth, furthering the County’s role as a bedroom community for the Bay Area. On a Countywide basis, all growth alternatives result in a net new jobs/housing ratio of approximately 0.50:1. After accounting for existing jobs and housing units, all growth alternatives reduce the existing jobs/housing ratio from 1.0:1 to 0.87:1 by the end of the General Plan period (FY 2028-29).

Graphical representations of the jobs/housing ratio for net new development in the County only and combined with existing development are presented below.

Jobs/Housing Balance


• Are new job-based land uses and new residential land uses distributed in a balanced manner?

• Is there an existing imbalance of jobs and housing that is reduced or eliminated?

• Which alternative results in the best jobs/housing balance?

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Cities Unincorporated Countywide

Estimated Jobs/Housing Balance:

Existing and Net New Development

Base Case A B C

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Cities Unincorporated Countywide

Estimated Jobs/Housing Balance:

Net New Development

Base Case

A

B

C


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Jobs/Housing Balance

Net new development under the Base Case results in a jobs/housing ratio of 0.52:1 for cities, 0.40:1 for unincorporated areas, and an average of 0.50:1 Countywide. With the inclusion of existing jobs and

housing units, the jobs/housing ratio is estimated to be 0.86:1 for cities, 0.90:1 for unincorporated areas, and 0.87:1 Countywide. While the jobs/housing ratios are very similar for all alternatives because they are based on population and employment projections, the jobs/housing ratio for the unincorporated County in the Base Case is slightly lower than Alternatives B and C, and slightly higher than Alternative A.

Net new development under Alternative A results in a jobs/housing ratio of 0.52:1 for cities, 0.38:1 for unincorporated areas, and an average of 0.50:1 Countywide. With the inclusion of existing jobs

and housing units, the jobs/housing ratio is estimated to be 0.86:1 for cities, 0.89:1 for unincorporated areas, and 0.87:1 Countywide. The jobs/housing ratio for the unincorporated County is the lowest in Alternative A; however, the differences between the alternatives is minor.

Net new development under Alternative B results in a jobs/housing ratio of 0.50:1 for cities, 0.43:1 for unincorporated areas, and an average of 0.49:1 Countywide. With the inclusion of existing jobs

and housing units, the jobs/housing ratio is estimated to be 0.85:1 for cities, 0.93:1 for unincorporated areas, and 0.87:1 Countywide. The jobs/housing ratio for the unincorporated County is higher than the Base Case and Alternative A, but lower than Alternative C; however, as previously stated, the differences between the alternatives is minor.

Net new development under Alternative C results in a jobs/housing ratio of 0.50:1 for cities, 0.49:1 for unincorporated areas, and an average of 0.50:1 Countywide. With the inclusion of existing jobs

and housing units, the jobs/housing ratio is estimated to be 0.85:1 for cities, 0.94:1 for unincorporated areas, and 0.87:1 Countywide. The jobs/housing ratio for the unincorporated County is the highest in Alternative C.

B

C

A

BC

Policy Options

Encourage new development to provide a mix of residences and employment that promote a jobs/housing ratio of 1.0:1 in incorporated and unincorporated portions of the County.

Promote jobs-housing balance through review of home occupation regulations.

Encourage affordable housing to be located near job centers.

Support office and retail development adjacent to key residential growth areas.

Attract higher-wage employment to the County.



The location and type of new growth can influence the County’s fiscal health. The efficiency and cost-effectiveness of Countywide services, such as law enforcement and planning services, can be affected by whether new growth is concentrated or dispersed within the unincorporated County. For example, the cost of providing sheriff patrol to outlying, rural areas is less effective and more costly on a per capita basis than providing services to developed, more populated communities. Types of new growth can also influence the County’s fiscal stability. Typically commercial and industrial uses generate more tax revenues than service costs, resulting in net fiscal surpluses for the County. These land uses also generate jobs and economic growth that can contribute to the health of the County’s local economy. On the other hand, residential land uses typically generate more service-related costs than revenue, resulting in a potential fiscal deficit. Despite these fiscal outcomes, a balance of residential and nonresidential land uses are desired to achieve specific County objectives (e.g., maintain a close balance between jobs and housing), State policy objectives (e.g., Senate Bill 375), and a balanced regional economy.

The purpose of the fiscal impact analysis is to estimate the overall fiscal impacts to the County’s General, Library, and Road funds based on the projected residential and nonresidential development of each General Plan growth alternative. The analysis takes into consideration projected development in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County and the resulting impacts on service costs.

Actual fiscal impacts of new development will vary from those presented depending on variations of key assumptions such as assessed value, property tax sharing ratios, and service levels. To that end, modest increases in the assessed value of projected

development could eliminate the net fiscal deficits and create a “break-even” scenario based on current expenditure levels.

It is important to note that the analysis does not take into account differences in the amount of existing agricultural lands preserved in each growth alternative. Agricultural lands produce revenues to the County (namely, property tax revenue) and require limited service expenditures resulting in annual net fiscal surpluses to the County. To the extent these lands are converted to other land uses that result in annual net fiscal deficits to the County (e.g., residential uses), net fiscal impacts would likely result in higher deficits than shown in this analysis.

Fiscal Health


• Will new growth generate a net fiscal surplus or deficit for the County?

• Will growth generate sufficient revenues to fully fund required County services?

• Which alternative is potentially the best fiscal alternative for the County?

($5.0)

($4.0)

($3.0)

($2.0)

($1.0)

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

Annual Net Fiscal Impacts (FY 2028-29) (2010$)

County General, Road, Library Funds

Base Alternative A

Alternative B Alternative C

General Fund Library Fund Road Fund

Mill

ion

s $


E VA LU AT I O N T O P I C S 4 Fiscal Health

Policy Options

Adopt service standards that require new development to fully fund new facilities and services required to meet the service demands created by new development.

Pursue cost recovery measures for services provided through use of fees and charges, where possible.

Pursue the creation of local entities (e.g., road maintenance district, county service area benefit assessment district, special taxes for public safety, development impact fees) to fund existing and future service demands.

Ensure that development is net fiscally neutral or net fiscally positive to the County.

Adopt Williamson Act Contract limits.

Transfer any net Road Fund surplus to the County General Fund to cover a portion of the annual net fiscal deficit.

The Base Case results in an annual net fiscal deficit of $2.8 million for the County General Fund, an annual net fiscal deficit of $478,000 for the County Library Fund, and an annual net fiscal surplus of

$276,000 for the County Road Fund at the end of the General Plan time horizon (FY 2028-29).

Alternative A results in an annual net fiscal deficit of $2.9 million for the County General Fund, an annual net fiscal deficit of $451,000 for the County Library Fund, and an annual net fiscal deficit of


Although Alternative A will produce slightly greater General Fund revenue for the County than the Base Case, the shift in population from incorporated to unincorporated areas of the County will place greater demands on County services. This growth alternative is anticipated to result in additional service costs beyond the existing FY 2010-11 expenditure levels per capita or persons served for County departments serving the unincorporated County population: Capital Maintenance and Improvement; Law & Justice (patrol and other services in the unincorporated County); Environmental Protection (which would include planning services for unincorporated areas of the County); and Parks and Recreation. As a result, Alternative A results in slightly higher General Fund expenditures compared with the Base Case.

Alternative B results in an annual net fiscal deficit of $4.2 million for the County General Fund, an annual net fiscal deficit of $591,000 for the County Library Fund, and an annual net fiscal surplus of

$1.6 million for the County Road Fund at the end of the General Plan time horizon (FY 2028-29).

Based on an emphasis of new growth occurring in incorporated areas of the County (including SOIs that would be annexed), Alternative B is anticipated to result in some cost savings for specific departments that serve the unincorporated areas of the County (e.g., Law and Justice). However, the level of County General Fund revenues (which is influenced by a higher proportion of development subject to a lower County General Fund property tax rate within incorporated areas) falls below the service costs per capita or persons served even after accounting for estimated cost savings.

Alternative B includes the highest net fiscal surplus to the County’s Road Fund, based on anticipated reduced capital, as well as operations and maintenance expenditures for County roads because of a shift from unincorporated to incorporated portions of the County.

Alternative C results in an annual net fiscal deficit of $2.4 million for the County General Fund, an annual net fiscal deficit of $516,000 for the County Library Fund, and an annual net fiscal surplus of


Alternative C produces the lowest annual fiscal deficit for the County’s General Fund. The largest influence is the shift of commercial development (e.g., retail, office, industrial) into the unincorporated County, which produces a greater amount of County General Fund revenue and requires lower service costs than residential land uses.

B

C A

BC



The County shares property taxes through tax sharing agreements with the seven cities in the County: Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy. The intent of these agreements is to ensure that there are sufficient property tax revenues allocated to the County to support the provision of Countywide services to new growth areas. In addition, these property tax sharing agreements include provisions that obligate cities to adopt the County’s Facilities Fee Program prior to or concurrent with execution of any annexation agreement.

For future development that will be annexed into these cities, the agreement specifies a property tax sharing arrangement of 80 percent to the County and 20 percent to the city, assuming detachment from a fire district. For two cities (Escalon and Ripon), the property tax sharing split is 63.4 percent to the

County and 36.6 percent to the city. Because the overwhelming majority of net new development will be annexed to cities with 80 percent/20 percent tax sharing arrangements, this assumption is used in this analysis to estimate property tax sharing revenue to the County. (Note: At buildout of each of the land use alternatives, less than two percent of residential development and a half percent of nonresidential development within the County is projected to occur within areas that would annex to the cities of Escalon and Ripon.)

Property Tax Sharing


• Are there likely to be revenue sharing agreements in place for future annexation areas that are beneficial to the County?

• Will revenue sharing agreements assure that new growth is at least revenue neutral?

At the end of the General Plan time horizon (FY 2028-29), annual property tax sharing revenues stemming from future annexations under the Base Case are estimated to be approximately $7.4 million.

Despite this revenue source, the Base Case growth alternative is estimated to result in an annual net fiscal deficit for the County of $2.8 million.

At the end of the General Plan time horizon, annual property tax sharing revenues stemming from future annexations under Alternative A are estimated to be approximately $7.4 million. Alternative A produces

a similar amount of property tax sharing revenue for the County as the Base Case. And, similar to the Base Case, Alternative A results in an annual net fiscal deficit for the County of $2.9 million.

Since property tax sharing agreements apply to development on unincorporated land that is annexed into the city and Alternative B includes fewer annexations by shifting the greatest amount

of growth to infill areas within existing city limits, Alternative B results in the lowest amount of annual property tax sharing revenues for the County. At the end of the General Plan time horizon, annual property tax sharing revenues stemming from future annexations under Alternative B are estimated to be approximately $3.1 million. Alternative B results in an annual net fiscal deficit for the County of $4.2 million.

Alternative C contains the largest amount of growth in future annexation areas and, therefore, produces the largest amount of property tax sharing revenue for the County. At the end of the General Plan

time horizon, annual property tax sharing revenues stemming from future annexations under Alternative C are estimated to be approximately $7.5 million. Despite this revenue source, an annual net fiscal deficit of $2.4 million is estimated for the County.

B

C A

BC

Policy Options

Pursue cost recovery measures for services provided through use of fees and charges, where possible.

Pursue the creation of local funding entities for urban services where possible (e.g., road maintenance district, county service area benefit assessment district, special taxes for public safety, development impact fees).

Increase the property tax sharing ratio to 90 percent/10 percent.

$7.4 $7.4

$3.1

$7.5

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

$7.0

$8.0

Base Case A B C

Mill

ion

$

Annual Property Tax Sharing Revenue

(FY 2028-29)


M A J OR I S S U E S C E N A R I O S 5

This section extrapolates on current issues to create hypotheti-cal situations or scenarios the County may need to address in the future. While the evaluation topics analyzed in Section 4 address the impacts of significant issues that the County can directly influence, these major issue scenarios describe condi-tions or major emergencies outside the County’s control. The major issue scenarios described in this section are fictional sto-ries set at some point in the future. The intent of this analysis is to better understand how development decisions may be im-pacted if a scenario occurs at some point in the future.

The major issue scenarios were chosen based on the Issues and Opportunities Report and input from community workshops, focus groups, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Su-pervisors. The following are the scenarios:

• High Speed Rail

• Water Resources and Drought

• Flooding

• Energy Cost Increase

• Peripheral Canal

• Fiscal

This section describes each scenario and how it could affect the County. Each of the alternatives is then evaluated for how it prepares the County to cope with and address each scenario.

Introduction


Land Use Alternatives and Comparative Summary


Policy Options

1

2

3


INTRODUCTION



Introduction 2010

In 1996 the California State legislature created the California High Speed Rail Authority to begin planning an 800-mile long high speed rail line linking Northern California and Southern California. In 2008 the voters of California authorized the State to issue nearly $10 billion in bonds to continue planning and construction of the system. In 2009 the Federal Government awarded California $2.34 billion for development of its high speed rail system.

Scenario 2025

In 2025 the California High Speed Rail Authority completed construction of the last segments of the high speed rail system linking Northern California and Southern California. The main line of the system links downtown San Francisco with down-town Los Angeles via Pacheco Pass and the San Joaquin Valley. A northern extension of the mainline passes through San Joa-quin County, linking Merced with Sacramento. The high speed rail line uses the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail cor-ridor south of Stockton. The train makes a stop in Modesto and downtown Stockton and uses the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) rail corridor north of Stockton to Sacramento. Travel-ers on high speed rail can get from downtown Stockton to downtown Sacramento or downtown Merced in 20 minutes and to downtown Los Angeles in two hours on trains that travel up to 220 miles per hour.

The high speed rail has made California a more competitive state in the global economy. It has brought more jobs to places throughout the San Joaquin Valley, as companies from around the world have located in Stockton, Modesto, Merced, and other major stops along the high speed rail corridor because of

the Valley’s new accessibility to the rest of the County and world. Unemployment is down and the number of higher-wage jobs is up.

The downtown Stockton station is also the eastern terminus of the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), which connects Stockton to San Jose . The ACE system has been dramatically upgraded. Trains that operate at speeds of up to 150 mph have cut travel time between Stockton and San Jose from two hours to one hour. The new ACE system also connects travelers with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and other transit systems, mak-ing the entire Bay Area easily accessible from Stockton. ACE train service continues to make the same stops in the cities of Lathrop/Manteca and Tracy, and the enhanced service has made commuting via train a more popular alternative. This has increased growth pressures around ACE stations, which are now centers of commuter activity.

The high speed rail lines have had very little physical impact on land or roads since the rail line follows existing rail alignments and is elevated as it passes through cities and over major road-ways.

The biggest impact of high speed rail and enhanced ACE ser-vice in San Joaquin County is to make downtown Stockton a major transportation hub. The Downtown Station connects other cities and communities to high speed rail and ACE through enhanced bus service. The area around the station continues to redevelop as a mixed-use center with integrated commercial, employment, and residential uses. Cities and communities that are linked well to the Downtown Station by bus service also have experienced more residential and job growth.

High Speed Rail and Enhanced ACE Train Scenario


• In 2025 which cities and communities are affected by/benefit from high speed rail and enhanced ACE service?

• Which alternative(s) distributes growth in a manner/pattern that best capitalizes on the enhanced high speed rail and ACE service?

Image by California High Speed Rail Authority


M A JO R I S S U E S C E N A R I O S 5 High Speed Rail and Enhanced ACE Train Scenario

Image by California High Speed Rail Authority

Along with Alternative A, the Base Case directs the least amount of new population growth to city centers with high speed rail and ACE stops (i.e., Stockton, Lathrop/Manteca, and Tracy). Rather, it

directs the most growth in a dispersed pattern to fringe areas of cities, far from rail stops. The Base Case does not allow the County to take advantage of the potential economic benefits of HSR.

Alternative A is similar to the Base Case in the amount of new growth directed to cities, but directs relatively more growth to urban communities; however, these communities are not necessarily

better connected to cities with rail stops than the development in the Base Case. Additionally, Alternative A does not emphasize higher densities to support transit-oriented development. More people would be commuting by automobile from urban communities to city centers where the high speed rail and ACE stations are located. However, with new population concentrated in urban communities, there may be opportunities to create new feeder bus service to connect to high speed rail and ACE in Stockton.

Alternative B is similar to the Base Case in the amount of new growth it directs to urban and rural communities, but it directs about 8,000 more residents to Stockton, which will be the best rail-

served city in the County, and comparable only to Sacramento in the Central Valley. The growth in Alternative B is overall more dense and compact than in the other alternatives, which means it is more transit supportive. Development could support more interconnected bus service. In Alternative B fewer people would need to drive from other parts of the County to get to the high speed rail and ACE stations, reducing impacts to the local road system.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative C directs more population growth to Stockton than the Base Case (approximately 4,000 more); however, Alternative C does not emphasize higher densities to support

transit-oriented development, and it includes development in areas of the County that are not well-connected to the high speed rail and ACE stations. More people would be commuting by automobile into city centers where the high speed rail and ACE stations are located.

B

C A

BC



Introduction 2010

The County currently draws 60 percent of the water it uses from groundwater, and the balance is supplied from surface sources. Groundwater in the County is in a state of over-draft to meet current demands, and groundwater levels have been declining on average 1.5 feet per year. Agriculture accounts for 70 percent of the total water used in the County annually. However, between 2010 and 2030 urban water demands are projected to double and agricultural water demands are projected to decline by 14 percent, according to the Department of Water Resources (DWR).

Many of the centralized water systems serving smaller unincorporated communities rely entirely on groundwater for their supply. The rural communities of Banta, Stonebridge, Glenwood, Noble Acres, Collierville, Coopers Corner, and Peters have no water districts and are reliant entirely on groundwater. The larger centralized water systems serving large urban communities and cities rely on a combination of groundwater and surface water. Because of the unsustainable overdraft conditions, the trend in 2010 among these larger public water supply systems has been to shift their reliance to surface water.

Drought tolerance in San Joaquin County often relies on access to groundwater. Those entirely dependent on surface water are most vulnerable and must rely on groundwater to meet demand. Those who rely entirely on groundwater are less affected, until groundwater levels begin to drop as more users rely on groundwater sources.

Scenario 2025

In 2025 California is in its fifth year of drought. Rainfall for the year has been only 70 percent of normal, the Sierra snowpack is only 60 percent of normal, and Northern California reservoirs are less than half full. Because of the drought the State Water Project is only delivering 10 percent of its allocation and the Central Valley Project is delivering only 40 percent of its municipal allocation and none of its agricultural allocation. The entire state is required to implement mandatory water rationing.

Because of the reduced runoff from the Sierra and increased groundwater pumping, groundwater levels in San Joaquin County have dropped dramatically, and some individual and community system wells have gone dry while new wells have needed to be drilled deeper. In the southwestern part of San Joaquin County and along the San Joaquin River, saltwater has intruded east from the Delta, in some areas up to two to three miles inland, contaminating well water and forcing the abandonment of many wells.

Because of the lower rainfall, dry land grazing has been dramatically reduced and, because of the shortage of both surface and groundwater, many acres of agricultural land lay fallow. Some tree crops have simply been abandoned. Because of huge crop losses, farm revenue losses in San Joaquin County are estimated at one billion dollars. Losses to the entire ag-related economy are even greater. Thousands of jobs have been lost. The earlier spring snowmelt, coupled with longer and drier summers, has also resulted in drier grasslands and increased tree death and disease, leading to more frequent and severe wildfires in the eastern and southwestern parts of the County.

Water Resources and 2025 Drought Scenario


• To what extent does each of the city and community water systems rely on ground water versus surface wa-ter? What will the situation be like in 2025?

• Is surface water supply or ground water supply more threatened by the drought?

• What areas and well locations are more susceptible to groundwater contamination due to high concentrations of chlorides, salinity intrusion, and nitrate and arsenic contamination?

• Which alternative(s) produces the pattern of develop-ment and intensity that is most vulnerable to water shortage? Conversely, the most resilient?


M A JO R I S S U E S C E N A R I O S 5 Water Resources and 2025 Drought Scenario

Compared to the alternatives, the Base Case directs the same amount of residential growth to unincorporated areas that depend on individual private wells for water supply. Because residential

development in the unincorporated areas is closely linked to agriculture, these residents are the most vulnerable to the economic hardships associated with reduced agricultural production due to the water shortage. Workers in these areas would also be the most vulnerable to losing their jobs because of the reduced agricultural production. In the eastern part of the County, residents would also be the most vulnerable to increased wildfire hazards.

Compared to the Base Case, Alternative A directs more residential growth to unincorporated urban and rural communities and less to cities. Since the unincorporated communities are dependent on

individual water wells and small private water systems, which are less reliable sources of water, more people in these communities would potentially be impacted by water shortages.

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B directs significantly less residential growth to urban communities and significantly more to cities, which have more reliable sources of water. In this

alternative, new development is more compact and higher density, which generally means less water would be consumed per capita.

Alternative C directs slightly more growth to the rural communities of Chrisman and Vernalis than the other alternatives. These areas have less reliable sources of water because they are served by smaller

private water systems that depend almost entirely on groundwater sources. The two communities are also adjacent to high fire risk areas, which may potentially put more people and properties at risk of wildfires.

B

C

A

BC



Introduction 2010

Flooding is the natural hazard most likely to occur in the County. The County is located at the downstream (north) end of the San Joaquin River basin. The San Joaquin River basin topography and that of the surrounding terrain creates high flood intensities. In addition, several river corridors flow from the Sierra Nevada foothills across the County from east to west (e.g., Dry Creek, the Mokelumne River, the Calaveras River, and the Stanislaus River). About 33 percent of the County lies within a designated FEMA high risk (100-year) special flood hazard zone. One of the most flood-prone areas of the County is the Delta, which receives flow from all major rivers in the Central Valley and makes up 35 percent of the land mass of San Joaquin County.

About one-quarter of California’s drinking water comes from the Delta; two-thirds of Californians get some or all their drink-ing water from the Delta. About three million acres of agricul-tural lands are irrigated using water from the Delta. The trans-portation corridors and utility infrastructure that run through the Delta and the County are of statewide and national impor-tance as well. More than 500 miles of electrical transmission lines run through the Delta carrying power within California and to the western United States. The petroleum pipelines that cross the Delta provide approximately 50 percent of the trans-portation fuel used in Northern California and Nevada. Within the Delta few of the levees were constructed or maintained to meet present or anticipated future levels of required protection.

Scenario 2025

In April 2025 San Joaquin County is weathering one of the worst storms in recent history. A month earlier the East Bay experienced a magnitude 6.7 earthquake, which resulted in sig-nificant shaking in San Joaquin County, damaging some build-ings and infrastructure and weakening Delta levees. The Delta islands have become more vulnerable to failure due to subsi-dence, which has lowered the interior elevations of some is-lands by more than 20 feet since the Delta was first settled.

Spring river flows have increased in volume due to earlier snow melt, and the reservoirs are full and cannot accommodate the increased runoff. At the same time, tides have become higher by several inches, leaving less free board on levees. There is unprecedented flooding along all the major rivers in the County – Mokelumne, Calaveras, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus – and along many creeks. The communities of Thornton, Wood-bridge, Lockeford, Morada, and Clements, as well as parts of Lodi, Tracy, Stockton, and Lathrop have flooded.

The Delta is experiencing catastrophic flooding – 15 islands have flooded within several days. The efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies to maintain and strengthen the levees had not been successfully completed prior to the March earthquake.

Despite the heavy runoff and flow of water through the Delta, it is clear that, after floodwaters subside, saltwater intrusion from the Bay will force DWR to end water deliveries south through the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project until major repairs are made. These repairs will take several years.

Transportation through the Delta has come to a stop. SR-160, SR-12, and SR-4 have all flooded. Rescue efforts are compli-cated by distance and the difficulty of reaching flood victims. The railroad tracks running through the Delta have been heav-ily damaged, ending passenger and freight service. Natural gas and oil pipelines have also been damaged and are leaking into the Delta, impacting sensitive habitat and contaminating drink-ing water. Major water pipelines from sources in the Sierra Ne-vada to the Bay Area have been damaged or severed, thereby creating severe shortages of uncontaminated water in that re-gion.

Tens of thousands of acres of agricultural land have been flooded, several thousand homes have been inundated, and hundreds of businesses and jobs have been displaced.

Flooding Scenario


M A JO R I S S U E S C E N A R I O S 5


• In which alternative(s) is new development more im-pacted by Delta levee failures and island flooding?

• In which alternative(s) is new development more im-pacted by river and creek flooding?

• In which alternative(s) is emergency response more effi-cient/effective?

Flooding Scenario

Compared to the alternatives, the Base Case assumes growth will occur in the Delta, which would experience the most damage in this scenario because of levee failures. More resources and effort

would be required to minimize susceptibility of levees to seismic hazards and subsidence effects in order to keep people living in these areas safe from flood hazards. Additionally, the growth pattern may complicate emergency response. The Base Case puts the largest number of people at risk of flooding (similar total persons to Alternative A) in the cities and SOIs, but slightly fewer persons at risk in unincorporated areas.

While urban communities would not be directly affected by the Delta flooding, they would experience some flooding along nearby rivers and creeks. The total number of additional persons at

risk from flooding is similar to the Base Case, but Alternative A places more people at risk of flooding in unincorporated areas. The length of levees required to be improved and maintained to protect people from flood hazards would be less than in the Base Case, since population is more concentrated in communities. The spatial pattern of development in the unincorporated areas may increase demands for emergency response, but ultimately provide better opportunities for the County to provide effective response than under the Base Case.

Of all the alternatives, Alternative B directs the most growth to the city of Stockton, potentially exposing new urban development and redevelopment to flooding along the Calaveras

River. Because this alternative provides for the highest density and most compact form of new development, it would expose the least amount of urbanized land to river and creek flooding. Levee improvements could be more efficient and require fewer resources than the Base Case and the other alternatives, since fewer homes and businesses would be located in flood

zones outside cities. Also, Alternative B assumes growth will occur away from the floodplain in the city of Lathrop, avoiding additional risk to residents who might otherwise locate in this area. In the event of levee failure or any other source of flooding that impacts the dense population centers in cities and city SOIs, the County may still have a relatively large role in emergency response as part of multi-jurisdictional efforts.

Alternative C is similar to Alternative A in terms of overall development densities; however, it directs increased development to Chrisman, Vernalis, and

New Jerusalem. These areas are not particularly susceptible to flooding. Alternative C also directs employment growth to areas along I-5 in Thornton and at Flag City, both of which are susceptible to flooding. If levee improvements and maintenance in these areas are not successful, a temporary loss of jobs could occur. Levee improvements required to protect people from flood hazards in this alternative would be less than in the Base Case, but similar to Alternative A. While the spatial pattern of development might increase demands for emergency response in some of the isolated communities, the potential for the County to provide effective response may be better than the Base Case.

B

C A

BC



Introduction 2010

Energy prices continue to rise and, according to some experts, the major reason for the rise is the result of “peak oil”. Since oil is the primary energy source in the world, its price indirectly determines the price of all other energy supplies. Peak oil ex-perts note that US oil production peaked in 1971 and that peak-ing of world oil production is only years away, if not imminent. Peak oil does not mean that oil has run out, but that it will be more difficult and expensive to extract than what has already been pumped. Natural gas is following a similar peaking pat-tern, according to some experts.

Scenario 2030

In 2030 crude oil costs $130 a barrel (in 2008 dollars), com-pared to $57 in 2009. Gasoline at the pump costs $4.78 per gal-lon (in 2008 dollars) compared to $2.77 in 2009. The increase in the cost of oil and gas has led to higher home energy costs, higher food costs, and higher transportation costs for all modes of travel. Air travel, in particular, has declined significantly. Higher energy costs have prompted the development of many new renewable energy sources, such as solar, but these alterna-tive technologies have yet to replace oil and gas as the bench-mark energy sources due to technology barriers, market con-trols, high costs, and challenges connecting the renewable en-ergy generated to distributed power systems on the grid.

In San Joaquin County the higher energy costs have meant higher costs for farmers in terms of more expensive petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides and higher costs for fuel for farm equipment. Transportation costs for agricultural and in-dustrial products have also increased dramatically.

Perhaps the most heavily affected segment of the economy are commuters. Workers are finding it more and more difficult to justify commuting by automobile, particularly alone, to jobs in the Bay Area and other Central Valley cities. Residents in gen-eral, but workers in particular, are looking increasingly to public transit to minimize their travel costs.

Energy Cost Increase Scenario


• Which alternative(s) promote a pattern and intensity of new development that would be most energy efficient or least susceptible to high energy costs?

• Which alternative(s) promote a pattern and intensity of new development that would be most conducive to rail and transit use?

• Which alternatives(s) promote a pattern and intensity of new development that would best support and integrate connections from renewable energy resources (e.g., PV, solar, wind) to the central distributed power grid?

• Which agricultural crops are more energy-intensive? Which require the least amount of energy?


M A JO R I S S U E S C E N A R I O S 5 Energy Cost Increase Scenario

The Base Case exposes more commuters to costly commutes because of the more dispersed pattern of development and the lack of access to transit. It also is most inefficient in terms of the per capita energy

consumption because of the dispersed service population, but may present more opportunities for small-scale on-site energy production, such as solar, wind, or biomass because residents would have more private land available.

Alternative A concentrates more unincorporated growth in urban and rural communities than in the Base Case, which should make it more efficient in terms per capita energy consumption. However,

Alternative A does little more than the Base Case to bring commuters closer to transit. Although new residents may not have as much land available to install small-scale on-site renewable energy production, because new homes will be located within urban communities, they will be closer to connections on the central power grid.

Alternative B directs the least amount of growth to unincorporated rural areas and the most growth to the city of Stockton. This alternative creates a pattern of development that is less vulnerable to

high energy costs because development would be higher density and more concentrated, requiring less energy per capita, and be closer to transit alternatives such as high speed rail and enhanced ACE service. Alternative B would also leave more land available for large-scale renewable energy projects, such as solar or wind farms and biomass production facilities that could provide more centralized and cost-effective renewable energy generation.

Alternative C directs slightly more growth to unincorporated rural communities along transportation corridors in the northern and southern parts of the County. Employment growth

under Alternative C would be more scattered, potentially increasing the time and cost of commuting, as well as the distance and cost of goods transport.

B

C A

BC

Both traditional and alternative energy sources will be needed to meet the future energy demands of San Joaquin County residents.



Introduction 2010

In 1982 the voters of California rejected a proposal to construct the Peripheral Canal, a plan that would have allowed water exporters to divert water from the Sacramento River in the north Delta instead of from the south Delta, as is the case today. Although this original idea was defeated by the voters, the debate continued and the idea of using a canal to convey water around, rather than through, the Delta was revived as part of the CALFED process, and similar concepts are being considered as part of the ongoing Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process. In broad terms, the proposed conveyance facilities would include five diversion facilities on the Sacramento River between Freeport and Courtland, 47 miles of pipeline with the capacity of carrying up to 15,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water, two new forebays, and various other supporting facilities. Details regarding the alignment of the proposed new conveyance facilities are not yet available, but several alignments are being considered, including one that involves pipelines tunneled under the Delta. In 2008 the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors voted to oppose a new version of the canal proposed by the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force.

Scenario 2030

The State has completed construction of the Peripheral Canal in 2030, having adopted the twin tunnel pipelines option. Up to 15,000 cfs of water is diverted into the canal from five diversion structures along the Sacramento River from Sacramento County to the Clifton Court Forebay in the southeast corner of Contra Costa County. There the water enters the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project pumps water for delivery to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

Changes brought by the project have had significant effects on San Joaquin County, including increases in the average salinity of the Delta and the loss of roughly 1,400 acres of agricultural land on Terminous Tract south of State Highway 12, Shin Kee Tract, Rio Blanco Tract, and Bishop Tract, which were converted to freshwater tidal habitat as part of the BDCP. This conversion of land has reduced the amount of property taxes paid to the County and has reduced economic activity related to agriculture.

The canal has also impacted the County's ability to access flood flows at upstream locations. Upstream water exports from the Sacramento River are now subject to increasing exports, which has reduced the assimilative capacity of County agricultural return flows, stormwater, and wastewater discharges. There are also emerging threats to infrastructure as decreased interest and agricultural activity in the Delta has reduced levee maintenance.

Peripheral Canal Scenario


• What new conveyance facilities will be constructed as part of implementation of the BDCP, and how will their construction affect San Joaquin County?

• What rules will govern the operation of any new con-veyance facilities in the Delta?

• How will salinity levels in the Delta be affected by the operation of the new conveyance facilities?

• If the operation of new conveyance facilities results in higher Delta salinity levels, how will impacts on existing in-Delta water users be mitigated?

• How and where will restoration associated with the BDCP be implemented within San Joaquin County?

• Will State efforts to increase tourism in the Delta offset losses in agricultural economic activity as a result of habitat restoration projects implemented in San Joaquin County?


M A JO R I S S U E S C E N A R I O S 5 Peripheral Canal Scenario

About one-quarter of California’s drinking water comes from the Delta and two-thirds of Californians get some or all of their drinking water from the Delta.

The effects of changes in Delta conveyance would be very similar among the Base Case and all the alternatives because the only relevant differences between these alternatives are minor differences in

the geographic distribution of growth. New houses and businesses located within the legal Delta would be the most likely to feel the adverse effects on water supply and agricultural loss from new Delta conveyance facilities.

Urban community and city water systems in the western part of the County that rely on groundwater would be exposed to higher salinity levels, which in the long-term could mean increased vulnerability to water quality that would not meet drinking water standards. However, the direct effects of the construction of the proposed new pipelines and accompanying conveyance facilities would be the same for the Base Case and the three alternatives.

Alternative A directs the least net new development to the Delta of all of the alternatives. It would, therefore, experience the least adverse water supply effects from changes in Delta conveyance.

Alternative B directs the most net new development to the Delta of all of the alternatives, when including the secondary Delta zone. It would, therefore, experience the most adverse water supply

effects from changes in Delta conveyance.

Alternative C directs roughly the same amount of growth to the Delta as the Base Case, so adverse water supply effects under Alternative C would be roughly similar to those under the Base Case.

B

C

A BC



San Joaquin County, as is the case with most other counties in the state, is undergoing a period of extreme fiscal stress due to the effect of the Great Recession and the ongoing State budget crisis. This fiscal stress is expected to continue for several years to come as local government revenues tend to lag general eco-nomic indicators.

A “worst case” fiscal scenario explores a combination of poor economic conditions and a continuing inability for the State to resolve its own monumental budget shortfalls (and by exten-sion, its continuing to raid local government fiscal resources). This scenario has now occurred; it is difficult to imagine worse economic and fiscal conditions. The annual budget message that introduces the County’s fiscal year 2009-10 Budget summa-rizes current fiscal circumstances quite well:

“The new reality is that property values have already fallen at rates that were unimaginable just two or three years ago. The reality is we are now seeing a huge reduction in property taxes that are based on the value of property. The reality is the sluggish economy is the principal reason for people spending less, and we are seeing a major reduction in sales taxes. The reality is there is a diminishing amount of revenue. The revenue dimi-nution has already caused a reduction in staff in many departments, and unless we change direction, many more reductions are on the horizon. The reality is there will be a shameful piracy of local resources by the State. All of this means there is an inevitable reduction in services already underway and it is almost sure to get worse before it gets better. The two main sources of General Purpose Revenue available to develop a balanced budget are property taxes and sales taxes. The assessed value of property in San Joaquin County, which has already experienced significant diminution, is expected to drop by another 15% in the upcoming fiscal year. To add to the problem, sales tax revenues are anticipated to go down by another 6% next year. Combined, these revenue sources will generate $35.2 million less in 2009-10 than what was available in the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2009.”

Fiscal conditions are expected to remain dire for at least the next two years as the problems and trends addressed in the 2009-10 Budget continue and in some instances worsen. Over time as the economy recovers, increases in economic activity, jobs, and improvements in the real estate market, will positively affect County revenues. While economic recovery is likely in coming years, reform in Sacramento appears less likely.

As noted above, the worst case scenario is already occurring relative to economic conditions and the impact of the State budget crises on County government finances. Unlike the case for the other scenarios where one can project future conditions in 2025 or 2030, the fiscal crisis is so dire and immediate that only a short-term perspective seems relevant.

Fiscal Scenario


• Which alternative(s) distributes new development be-tween cities and the unincorporated County in the most fiscally-beneficial way to the County?

• Which alternative(s) distributes new development to the various unincorporated areas in a pattern that is most fiscally beneficial to the County?

• Development in unincorporated areas without adequate institutional and service infrastructure creates long-term municipal cost responsibilities that are typically not off-set by County revenues generated by such develop-ment. Should the County continue its “city-centered” growth policy to limit increased demands for municipal services in unincorporated areas?

• Should the County collaborate with other local govern-ments to achieve efficiencies in the provision of mu-nicipal services throughout the County?

• The existing Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement provides a sound basis for ensuring that new develop-ment in cities supports the cost of County-provided services. How can the County assure that new develop-ment in cities contributes adequately to support the cost of County-provided regional services?

• The County Airport provides an example of economic development that is a major fiscal positive for the County. Strengthening agriculture, especially through incentivizing “value added” activities (e.g., processing, marketing) can also be a significant benefit to the County’s tax base. In what other ways can the County promote economic development and employment op-portunities in appropriate areas of the County that in-crease revenues without a proportional increase in costs?


M A JO R I S S U E S C E N A R I O S 5 Fiscal Scenario

The Base Case is based on the County’s existing city-centered growth policies, but compared to the other alternatives directs the second-most residential growth to the unincorporated County.

Based on current Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11 revenues and expenditures, the County General Fund is projected to result in an annual fiscal deficit for the County of $2.8 million at the end of the General Plan time horizon (FY 2028-29). Although this is the second-best fiscal scenario for the County, it is important to note that there are negligible differences compared with growth in Alternatives A and C. The Base Case scenario results in a small annual deficit in the Library Fund ($478,000), and a minimal annual surplus in the Road Fund ($276,000), which also represents the second-best fiscal scenario for the County.

Alternative A directs the most residential growth to the unincorporated County but shifts relatively more to the urban communities. This requires a greater investment in infrastructure and services in

urban communities. The biggest increase in rural community growth occurs in Farmington, which would become an urban community with adequately financed public services. The County General Fund is projected to result in an annual fiscal deficit of $2.9 million at the end of the General Plan time horizon (FY 2028-29). Alternative A represents the third-best fiscal scenario for the County, although the results are nearly identical to the fiscal impacts estimated for the Base Case and Alternative C. This growth alternative results in small annual fiscal deficits for the Library Fund ($451,000) and Road Fund ($158,000), which represents the best and worst fiscal scenarios for the County, respectively.

Alternative B directs the most residential and job growth to the cities, particularly to Stockton. Because this scenario includes the least amount of revenue-producing uses in the unincorporated

portion of the County, Alternative B results in the greatest annual General Fund and Library Fund deficits ($4.2 million and $591,000, respectively) at the end of the General Plan time horizon (FY 2028-29). This alternative also results in the greatest annual Road Fund surplus to the County ($1.6 million).

Alternative C is very similar to Alternative B in terms of the split between city and County growth. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative C directs the most employment growth to the

unincorporated County, including along I-5 near Thornton and at SR-12 and in the unincorporated communities of Chrisman, New Jerusalem, and Vernalis. Alternative C also directs the most employment growth to the area around the Stockton Airport. Because Alternative C creates the most opportunity for increased tax revenue in the unincorporated County, this growth alternative results in the lowest annual General Fund deficit for the County ($2.4 million) at the end of the General Plan time horizon (FY 2028-29). Alternative C results in the third-best fiscal scenario for the County’s Library and Road Funds, resulting in an annual net fiscal deficit of $516,000 and net fiscal surplus of $55,000, respectively.

B

C

A

BC

Alternatives Report

Documents

Transcript of Alternatives Report