Issues and Opportunities Report

November 8, 2009 San Joaquin County General Plan Update

Introduction ......................................................... 1

Countywide Issues and Opportunities ............ 5

Demographics and Economic Development ........ 6

Land Use and Development ................................. 12

Climate Change ...................................................... 18

Agriculture ............................................................... 21

Transportation ......................................................... 26

Public Services and Utilities ................................. 32

Natural Resources .................................................. 36

The Delta ................................................................. 40

Recreation and Cultural Resources ..................... 44

Safety ....................................................................... 46

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Board of Supervisors

Leroy Ornellas, Chair District 5

Carlos Villapudua, Vice Chair District 1

Larry Ruhstaller District 2

Steve Bestolarides District 3

Ken Vogel District 4

Planning Commission

Michael Devencenzi, Chair Miguel Villapudua Richard Nickerson, M.D. Peter Johnson Stan Morri

Focus Groups

Agriculture Land Use, Economic Development, Housing Transportation Natural Resources, The Delta Utilities, Services, Safety

Workshop #1 Participants

Stakeholders

Technical Advisory Committee

General Plan Update Consultants

Mintier Harnish In association with:

Planning Partners Dowling Associates Morton Pitalo Mead & Hunt EDAW/AECOM

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

San Joaquin County General Plan Update November 8, 2009 1

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to focus community attention on key physical, environmental, economic, cultural, social, safety, and planning-related issues and opportunities that have major policy implications for San Joaquin County. An issue is defined as an important condition or problem that needs to be addressed in the General Plan. An opportunity is defined as a unique, favorable, or advantageous condition that can be preserved or that the County can capitalize on in the General Plan.

Based on input from stakeholder interviews, community workshops, Focus Group meetings, the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, County staff, and information from the Draft Background Report, this report summarizes the range of issues and opportunities that will likely shape growth and determine quality of life in San Joaquin County through 2030. The issues and opportunities described in this report meet the following criteria: they can be influenced by the General Plan; they are subject to the legal authority of the County; and they can be appropriately addressed through General Plan policy. This report does not reach conclusions or suggest the manner in which the County should proceed in the development of the General Plan. Rather it provides an overview of major discus-sion issues that are of key importance and opportunities that could help shape the future.

This report is organized into two major sections: 1) Introduc-tion; and 2) Countywide Issues and Opportunities. The Intro-duction provides an overview of the Issues and Opportunities Report and discusses the sources of information that were used to prepare the report. The Countywide Issues and Opportuni-ties section organizes the major issues and opportunities into major themes that generally correspond to the outline of the Draft Background Report. In addition to the Issues and Op-portunities described in this report, a companion report, Com-munity Profiles, provides an overview of defined rural commu-nities, urban communities, and city community areas (i.e., unin-corporated “fringe” areas adjacent to city limits).

San Joaquin County’s population is expected to expand to over 1.1 million by 2030. In order to prepare for this growth, the County’s decision-makers, leaders, and community members need to make informed choices about how we address key issues and make the most of our opportunities. These deci-sions will help shape the future of San Joaquin County’s communities and land.


2 November 8, 2009 San Joaquin County General Plan Update

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS OVERVIEW

In May 2008, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervi-sors approved a three-year program to update the existing 2010 General Plan (adopted in 1992). The plan is the overarching development policy document that guides land use and development, housing, transportation, infrastructure, agriculture, and other policy decisions. The new General Plan will create a blueprint for growth during the planning period through 2030. The following paragraphs describe the two documents (i.e., Background Report and Policy Docu-ment) that make up the General Plan.

Background Report

The Background Report represents a “snapshot” of San Joaquin County’s current conditions and trends. It provides a detailed description of a wide range of topics within the County, such as demographic and economic conditions, land use and development, public facilities, and natural re-sources. The Report provides decision-makers, the public, and local agencies with context for making policy decisions. The Background Report also serves as the description of existing conditions for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the General Plan.

Policy Document

The Policy Document is the essence of the General Plan. It contains the goals and policies that will guide future deci-sions within the County and identifies implementation pro-grams that will ensure the goals and policies in the General Plan are carried out. The Policy Document also contains a land use diagram and circulation diagram, which serve as general guides to the distribution of land uses and transpor-tation facilities throughout the County.

GENERAL PLAN SUPPORT DOCUMENTS

As part of the General Plan Update, the County will prepare several support documents that will serve as building blocks for the Policy Document and analyze the environmental impacts associated with implementing the General Plan. These reports include the following:

Issues and Opportunities Report

This report identifies key issues and opportunities to be addressed in the General Plan based on public input from County staff, stakeholder interviews, community workshops, Focus Group meetings, and direction from the Technical Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors.

Alternatives Report

For any planning effort there will be a number of possi-ble courses of action a community may pursue. The Alter-natives Report will present alternative approaches that can be used to address the various issues and opportunities throughout the County and its numerous communities. The report will evaluate the alternatives for their long-term social, economic, and environmental effects on the County. Decision-makers will select one or a combination of alter-natives as the preferred alternative. Once the preferred alternative is selected, the guiding principles, goals, poli-cies, programs, and land use and circulation diagrams will be developed based on that alternative.

Environmental Impact Report

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) re-quires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission will use the EIR during the General Plan Update process to understand the potential environmental implications associ-ated with implementing the General Plan.



ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES IDENTIFICATION

County staff and the Consultants compiled the list of issues and opportunities contained in this report from a variety of sources, including the following:

Stakeholder Interviews

In August and September 2008 San Joaquin County con-ducted a series of stakeholder interviews as part of the Gen-eral Plan Update. A diverse group of stakeholders partici-pated in the interviews, representing a variety of agencies, groups, and interests, including: the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, County departments, San Joaquin COG, cities, Delta Protection Commission, Farm Bureau, Si-erra Club, Building Industry Association, San Joaquin Partner-ship, Agricultural Commission, and many others. The inter-views were held to explore the perceptions of problems, is-sues, goals, and opportunities related to development chal-lenges facing the County.

Community Workshop #1

In October and November 2008 San Joaquin County held 14 community workshops to help kick off the General Plan Update. Diverse groups of County residents attended work-shops from Manteca, Ripon, Escalon, French Camp, Lammers-ville, Tracy, Lodi, Stockton, the Delta, Mountain House, Mo-rada, Lockeford, Clements, Woodbridge, Thornton, Linden, and Lathrop. The workshops provided an opportunity for the public to offer their thoughts on what they like and what are prblems about their communities and the County, and what important issues should be addressed in preparing the Gen-eral Plan.

Draft Background Report

As mentioned earlier, the Background Report provides a “snapshot” in time of the County’s existing conditions. It pro-vides data and information on a wide range of topics includ-ing demographics and economics, communities, land use, cli-mate change, agriculture, housing, transportation, public utili-ties and services, natural resources, the Delta, recreational and cultural resources, safety, and noise. The Draft Back-ground Report identifies a list of key findings concerning the various topical areas.

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) includes staff from County departments. The TAC provides input and re-view of draft Update documents. On May 22, 2009, the TAC held a meeting to discuss and provide input on issues and opportunities for inclusion in the Issues and Opportunities Report.

Focus Groups

The Focus Groups provide technical and policy input to County staff and the Consultants. Each of the five Focus Groups consists of 12-20 members formed around the fol-lowing topics: Agriculture; Natural Resources and the Delta; Land Use, Housing, and Economic Development; Transporta-tion and Circulation; and Services, Utilities, and Safety. On May 28 and June 3, 2009, the Focus Groups met to discuss the issues and opportunities that the General Plan Update should address and should be included in the Issues and Op-portunities Report. The meetings were open to the public and several community members provided comments.


RURAL ROADWAYS

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY IS ONE OF CALIFORNIA’S MOST CULTURALLY DIVERSE, AGRICULTURALLY RICH, INTERCONNECTED, AND ENVIRONMENTALLY UNIQUE COUNTIES...

AIRPORT

PORT

COMMUNITIES

OPEN SPACES

AGRICULTURE

WILDLIFE


CCCOUNTYWIDEOUNTYWIDEOUNTYWIDE IIISSUESSSUESSSUES & O& O& OPPORTUNITIESPPORTUNITIESPPORTUNITIES

The updated San Joaquin County General Plan will address a lengthy list of issues and opportunities. Many of these issues and opportunities are defined by State planning law, while others reflect local concerns and de-sires. Typically, in a general plan update program, the plan revolves around and is shaped by a handful of key issues and opportunities. Those key issues frequently con-cern growth, land use, agricultural preservation, climate change, economic development, transportation, public ser-vices and utilities, natural resource protection, and safety.

Despite the many challenges San Joaquin County may face, there are also opportunities to take advantage of over the time frame of the General Plan. However, due to fiscal limitations and regulatory requirements, the County may not be able to capitalize on or address all of the issues and opportunities identified in this report. There-fore, the County and its industry leaders and residents will need to make important choices during the General Plan Update process as to which issues and opportunities are important to shape the vision of the County’s future.

WHAT IS AN ISSUE?

An “Issue” is defined as an important unsettled mat-ter or problem that needs to be addressed through the General Plan Update process.

WHAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY?

An “Opportunity” is defined as a unique, favorable, or advantageous condition within the County that the County can capitalize on through the General Plan Up-date process.

INFORMATION BLOCK

Throughout this report, supplemental notes are provided in yellow boxes like this. These notes

provide detailed information related to information on topics related to an important issue or opportunity.

Issues are identi-fied in green text boxes. “Issues” is printed along the outside edge of the page.

Opportunities are identified in blue text boxes. “Opportunities” is printed along the outside edge of the page.


ISS

UE

S

San Joaquin County’s population is expected to exceed one million by 2030. Where and how these people live and work is a central General Plan issue.

On average San Joaquin County’s population has doubled every 30 years since 1900. From 1990 through 2008 the population within San Joaquin County grew by over 200,000, from just under 480,000 to about 685,000 (U.S. Census and Califor-nia Department of Finance). The County’s historic growth is consistent with growth seen in other areas of California that are similar to the County; however, San Joaquin County birthrates are 10 and 12 percent higher than the state and national averages, respec-tively. According to the San Joaquin Council of Gov-ernments (SJCOG) and the California Department of Finance (DOF), by 2030 the Countywide population is expected to grow to about 1.1 million, which means an additional 418,000 people will live in the County. However, the expected population growth in unincor-porated areas represents only about 66,880 (16 per-cent) of this population, which means that most growth is expected to occur within the County’s cities.

The County’s elderly population (i.e. age 60 and over) is expected to double in the coming decades.

The elderly population (i.e., age 60 and over) in Cali-fornia has grown rapidly. Between 1950 and 1990 the elderly population grew from 1.6 million to 4.2 million, an increase of 157 percent. The California Department on Aging (CDA) projects that within California, the elderly population is expected to grow more than twice as fast as the total population and this growth will vary by region. In 2009 the CDA estimated that over 101,000 people (13 percent of the population) within San Joaquin County were over the age of 60. CDA projects that the elderly popula-tion will nearly double to over 197,000 (or 18 percent of the population) through 2030. The oldest age group (i.e., those over 85 years old) is also expected to increase rap-idly. The influence of the 85 and over age group on the County will become even more apparent from 2030 to 2040 when the first of the baby boomers reach 85 years of age. Because the elderly often have more chronic health problems which demand special attention, the rapid growth of this population group has many implications for individu-als, families, and governments. This age group is expected to increase the number of extended families living in larger homes. They will also demand smaller homes, accessible health care, readily available fresh foods, safe places for physical activity, transit services, and other amenities that accommodate their lifestyles.

Futur e Popula t ion Growth Aging Popula t ion

DDDEMOGRAPHICSEMOGRAPHICSEMOGRAPHICS ANDANDAND EEECONOMICCONOMICCONOMIC DDDEVELOPMENTEVELOPMENTEVELOPMENT

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PROJECTED ELDERLY POPULATION CHANGE

13%

87%

2009

60 and over

59 and under

18%

82%

2030

60 and over

59 and under

Elderly Population: 110,000 Elderly Population: 197,000 Source: California Department on Aging, 2009; California Department of Finance, May 2009


PPPROJECTEDROJECTEDROJECTED PPPOPULATIONOPULATIONOPULATION ANDANDAND DDDEMOGRAPHICEMOGRAPHICEMOGRAPHIC CCCHANGEHANGEHANGE

Countywide population growth is projected to increase by over 418,000 people by 2030. Unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County are expected to increase by 66,880 people. Source: San Joaquin COG, 2004

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Projected Existing

718,640

881,704

1,103,132 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PROJECTED 2030 RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic 42.6%

White 28.6%

Native American 0.6%

Asian/Pacific Islander 18.7%

Black 7.6%

Multi-racial 1.9%

Source: California Department of Finance, 2006

480,000

563,598


ISS

UE

S

Retention of highly trained and skilled employees and students graduating from the County’s higher education institutions is low within the County.

The presence of an educated, skilled workforce provides for a diverse employment base, more busi-ness recruitment opportunities, and increased incomes and economic mobility. Companies are increasingly reporting that an existing pool of skilled workforce and management talent is one of the most important factors when deciding where to locate. A greater number of educated residents are leaving the County compared to educated residents moving into the County. The County also faces significant challenges in retaining a trained workforce. Recent graduates and skilled workers require a significant investment in education or training to prepare them to enter or ad-vance through the workforce. Losing this segment of the workforce is costly to existing and potential busi-ness growth and limits employment opportunities for residents.

Educa t ion and Tra in ing S tudent/Employee Retent ion


23%

52%

20%

5%

Educational Attainment (2006)

No Diploma

High School Diploma

Associate/Bachelor's Degree

Graduate/Professional Degree

Source: 2006 U.S. Census American Communities Survey

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (2006)

San Joaquin County’s educational attainment is low compared to the rest of the state, resulting in higher un-employment rates and lower wages for residents.

Approximately 77 percent of the County’s population has at least a high school diploma; however, Focus Group members highlighted educational attainment and high school drop-out rates as a continuing hindrance to the County’s economic growth. In addition, over 60 percent of international migrants coming into San Joaquin County do not have a high school diploma. Statewide, about 28 per-cent of the total population are college graduates; compa-rably only 25 percent of the County’s population has an associate or bachelor’s degree or higher. The County’s ability to attract new, higher paying businesses and indus-tries is affected by the educational attainment and skill development of its labor pool. The General Plan is limited in its ability to directly influence or resolve issues in the K-12 public school system. The County can work with schools, other educational institutions, and businesses to encourage the development of higher education facilities and technical schools. This can provide employment-preparation and professional skills needed in today’s global economy.


IS

SU

ES

Unemployment is extremely high in San Joaquin County

and its cities and continues to worsen during the current economic downturn.

In 2006 unemployment throughout San Joaquin County was only 7.5 percent; however, by the end of 2008 the County’s unemployment rate was nearly 13 percent. At the writing of this report (April 2009), unemployment had grown to nearly 16 percent. The current (2009) global economic downturn has exacer-bated unemployment throughout the County and will take several years to recover. Unemployment places strains on both individuals and County government, particularly related to the availability and funding of unemployment and welfare programs and other ser-vices. Unemployment can also lead to increased mort-gage and credit card defaults, bankruptcies, job skill loss, and increased crime and homelessness.

Wages within the County and its cities are low com-pared to state averages, putting a strain on families and limiting the retention of highly skilled workers and attrac-tion of new high wage industries.

Simply increasing the number of jobs within San Joaquin County is inadequate if the jobs do not pro-vide high wages adequate to truly support individuals and families. Sectors of employment that are ex-pected to grow the most in the County and its cities (i.e., service and transportation) are also on average lower-wage jobs. Median household income through-out the County is only $51,800 (2006), significantly lower than the state median household income ($60,400). In addition, as of 2008, 67 percent of wage earners earned less than $32,000. In the cur-rent economy many families struggle to make ends meet, even with two adults working fulltime. Without higher wages many highly educated and skilled work-ers leave the County and its cities for better opportu-nities. The lack of this workforce can also cause new businesses to pass by County and its cities, further lim-iting the growth of higher wage jobs.

Low Wage Jobs Unemployment


Average annual wages for five of the County’s 10 largest industries is

less than $27,000.


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S


San Joaquin County has several key economic engines (i.e., Port of Stockton, Stockton Metropolitan Airport, agriculture, and commercial/manufacturing opportuni-ties) that have access to one of the most interconnected transportation hubs in California.

Initial economic projections indicate continued ex-pansion of office, industrial, and retail uses to support the expanding employment base. Projections indicate a need for an additional 95 acres of land per year to meet Countywide (unincorporated areas and cities) commercial and industrial growth through 2030. There are several major economic opportunities in the County that can enhance and expand employment, industries, and tax revenues, including:

⇒ The Port of Stockton is the busiest small port in California, with over 3.3 million tons of waterborne tonnage reported in 2007.

⇒ County airports. The Stockton Airport (i.e., Air Park 5-99) is in a position to expand in-dustry, take advantage of low landing fees, and implement a $10 million improvement program.

⇒ Agriculture is a $6.6 billion industry that em-ployees nearly 17 percent of employment Countywide.

⇒ Technical manufacturing was identified by Focus Group members as an emerging indus-try and key economic opportunity to provide more higher-paying wages and expand ad-ditional support industries.

The County, working with community and industry leaders, can capitalize on its location and goods movement infrastructure to expand its major economic areas and facilitate an entrepreneurial environment that fosters new industry and business, and the devel-opment of value-added, economic opportunities.

The Stockton/San Joaquin Enterprise Zone offers busi-nesses and industries considerable advantages of a Cali-fornia State Enterprise Zone, which in turn can stimulate business investment and entrepreneurship, create jobs, and sustain economic expansion.

The Stockton/San Joaquin Enterprise Zone provides incentives and benefits within more than 638 square miles of San Joaquin County and its cities. Companies locating or expanding within the Enterprise Zone can benefit from financing and tax incentives, develop-ment incentives (e.g., reduced or deferred fees), and business assistance. Major development areas located in the Enterprise Zone include the Airport Area and the Port of Stockton. Enterprise Zone businesses are able to select from a variety of industrial or commercial sites and existing buildings near major markets, labor, raw materials, and excellent access to freeways, rail, water, and air connections. Focus Group members identified these resources as opportunities for expan-sion of business and employment within the County and its cities.

Key Economic Genera tors En te rpr ise Zone


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

Natural and agricultural resources offer a major oppor-tunity to expand new areas of the economy while sup-plementing existing industries and marketing the County’s unique resources and products.

The County is in a position to expand tourism as an economic driver in focused areas such as the wine in-dustry, agri-tourism, the Delta, entertainment, cultural events, and other authentic San Joaquin County ven-ues. County farmers can compliment their already strong agricultural industry and provide additional sources of income through the addition of agri-tourism. San Joaquin County is also renowned for its unique environmental resources, including the Delta, riparian corridors, unique plant and animal species, and natu-ral resource recreation opportunities. In addition, the County is a gateway to the Gold Country and Sierras to the east. Focus Group members identified these assets as an opportunity within the County that can expand tourism beyond the already strong winery industry to attract tourists and researchers from around the state and western U.S.


As demand for clean, renewable energy continues to grow, the County can tap into this demand and be an economic center for green industries and “green-collar” jobs.

Renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar power, are expected to generate more jobs in construction, manufacturing, and installation. They are also expected to create opportunities for public-private partnerships. As America’s fossil fuel supply continues to decline, the importance of investing in clean energy technologies will grow. The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA), cur-rently moving through Congress, may transition the United States to a clean energy economy through in-creased clean energy requirements and incentives for green industry development. There are major oppor-tunities to use this emerging sector to plan for and en-courage the conversion of existing, infrastructure, buildings (e.g., warehouses), and businesses into new clean industries that employ existing and new County residents in new green-color jobs. These jobs can be targeted toward more traditional “blue-collar” manu-facturing and industrial workers as well as traditional office-supporting employment, allowing for potential economic mobility.

Tour ism Clean-Green Indus t r ies


ISS

UE

S

4,76413,055

21,379

32,801

47,532

69,626

90,191

146,191

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1950 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 Future

LLLANDANDAND UUUSESESE ANDANDAND DDDEVELOPMENTEVELOPMENTEVELOPMENT

How and where growth occurs within San Joaquin County over the next 20 years is a major issue that the General Plan will address.

Decision-makers, Focus Group members, and com-munity workshop participants identified the manner in which growth occurs in unincorporated areas of the County as a major concern. Historically, most urban development has occurred in the incorporated cities. A majority of population growth is projected to occur within cities. This trend has limited the County’s ability to control the types of development that occur and capitalize on potential economic benefits and job growth. Limited development in unincorporated com-munities has also restricted the ability of rural areas to support jobs and needed infrastructure to residents, while impacts (e.g., traffic, crime, limited access to healthy foods) have continued to grow. Regulatory mandates (e.g., climate change legislation) are also expected to reshape the way cities and communities will grow in the future, with an emphasis on more com-pact, higher-density development. Significant popula-tion and employment growth is expected to occur within the County over the time frame of the General Plan (i.e., 2030), and where this growth is planned will have an impact on many aspects of the County includ-ing agriculture, unincorporated communities, and em-ployment opportunities.

Expansion of cities has continued to urbanize more of the County’s agricultural areas and encroach on unincor-porated communities.

Since 1992 about 27,769 acres of land have been annexed into cities. Cities now (2009) encompass 90,191 acres (9.8%) of the County's 922,400 acres. An additional 56,000 acres of land have been tar-geted for annexation to cities by their adopted Spheres of Influence (SOI), which define areas around cities planned for development. When combined with land within existing city limit boundaries, the cities have the potential to expand to about 16 percent of the County. It is important to note that much of the land identified for future growth within the cities’ SOIs and General Plans cover productive farmland. Be-yond San Joaquin County, the City of Modesto Gen-eral Plan plans future growth to the southern border of the County along SR 99, which could eventually urbanize into a continuous strip of development be-tween Ripon and Modesto. Decision-makers, commu-nity workshop participants, and Focus Group members identified the continued expansion of cities into rural areas of the County as a major issue.

Growth and Development C i t ies Expans ions

HISTORIC CITY GROWTH

(ACRES WITHIN CITY LIMITS)

Source: San Joaquin County GIS, 2009


AAANNEXATIONSNNEXATIONSNNEXATIONS ANDANDAND SSSPHERESPHERESPHERES OFOFOF IIINFLUENCENFLUENCENFLUENCE


ISS

UE

S

Demand for rural residential homesites can lead to the conversion of agricultural lands, resulting in a diminished flexibility and profitability of farming.

Much, if not most, of the residential development controlled by the County occurs within unincorporated communities (e.g., Mountain House); however, some also occurs on parcels within agricultural areas. The current San Joaquin County Development Code re-stricts homesites in agricultural areas to 2-5 acres in size. However, recently few parcels of this size have been created within the unincorporated County. Par-cels must be created from original parcels of at least 40 acres and are limited to properties that have been in the same ownership for at least 10 years. Agricul-tural leaders in the County indicate that as individual homesites form within agricultural areas, those resi-dential parcels of only a few acres in size are often too small to be farmed profitably. Agricultural lead-ers also indicate that parcels less than 40 acres gen-erally lack the production flexibility required to be profitable agricultural enterprises. As well as limiting agricultural production, the proliferation of rural resi-dences on small parcels can increase farm costs by driving up land values, increase agricultural-urban conflict, limit extension of infrastructure, fragment ag-ricultural-habitat areas, reduce opportunities for open space preservation, and impact groundwater supplies and quality.

Agr icu l tu ra l Parce l iza t ion The County’s six public airports face risks from conflicts

between growth of the airport and urbanization of sur-rounding land.

The County’s six public airports (i.e., Stockton Mu-nicipal, Lodi, Lodi Airpark, Kingdon Airpark, Tracy Municipal, and New Jerusalem) are subject to increas-ing land use conflicts from surrounding development, which could reduce airport operations and planned economic expansion. The potential for economic devel-opment and industry growth around airports, namely Stockton Metro, is vast, with hundreds of millions of square feet of potential industrial and commercial space, aviation uses (e.g., air cargo, passenger avia-tion, flight training, general aviation, aircraft mainte-nance, and aircraft sales), and other airport compati-ble uses. Some areas adjacent to the airports and within the Spheres of Influence of cities are also planned for non-compatible uses, which could lead to heightened safety and noise concerns. Decision-makers and Focus Group members raised land use conflicts around airports as a major issue that could impact economic growth within the County.

Airpor t Compa t ib i l i ty



IS

SU

ES


Historic inefficient development patterns in the Central Valley and San Joaquin County cities have resulted in lower densities and rapid conversion of agricultural lands.

In 2000 there were only 6.4 people per acre of urbanized land in the Central Valley, compared with 9 people per acre in Bay Area counties and 20 peo-ple per acre in coastal Southern California. In San Joaquin County the forces that have shaped develop-ment patterns since the 1980s are expected to shift as fuel prices increase, the foreclosure crisis impacts com-munities, and new legislation is passed. With the pas-sage of SB 375 in 2008, the State has focused new attention on compact, sustainable land use patterns for the future growth and development of communities. These influences are placing increasing pressure on the County and decision-makers to plan more efficient communities that support transit use and access to local services. Future development are expected to take on new forms that reduce pollution, support public transit, and preserve agricultural and open space lands.

Shi f t ing Land Use Pa t te rns

SB 375

SB 375 calls for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (e.g., San Joaquin COG) to

incorporate plans for more compact, sustainable forms of development and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as part of their Regional Transporta-tion Plans (RTP). RTPs are plans for future transpor-tation improvements (e.g., roads, highways, and transit systems). SB 375 now requires the RTP to in-clude provisions for sustainable land use planning (i.e., Blueprint or Sustainable Communities Strategy). SB 375 provides incentives (e.g., reduced environ-mental review and access to transportation funding) to those jurisdictions whose General Plan is in com-pliance with the RTP. These efforts are intended to reduce vehicular travel and increase “infill” devel-opment, resulting in reduced GHG emissions produc-tion. Future growth and development within the County and cities will need to be more consistent with the RTP if they want to qualify for transporta-tion funding. In addition, proposed developments that are consistent with the RTP will be eligible for less environmental review, which may streamline the development process and reduce costs.


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

A carefully applied strategy can ensure that the County has a consistent approach to maintaining open space separation between its urban areas.

The County’s cities and communities, for the most part, are geographically defined and separate from one another. Community workshop participants and Focus Group members have expressed a desire to preserve the County communities’ unique character and identity and called for more protection against expansion of cities and communities that would lead to a loss of urban separation. Open space separators, also known as greenbelts, can provide natural or ac-tively farmed separation among the County’s cities and unincorporated communities, which maintains the County’s agricultural character, protects view-sheds, takes advantage of the County’s most productive farmland, and affords nearby urban areas with addi-tional economic resources (e.g., wineries and tourism). Potential separators within the County might include undeveloped farmland, floodplains and flood ease-ments, or other areas that may or may not be desir-able for residential or commercial development. Separators can be achieved using a variety of tools, including: conservation easements, outright purchase of land, or zoning restrictions.

Open Space Separa tors


The San Joaquin County General Plan Update offers a unique opportunity to establish partnerships with sur-rounding jurisdictions and agencies.

San Joaquin County residents are concerned about cities making development decisions without the County’s input. Residents feel that the County should take a more active role in reviewing and commenting on city annexations. In 2007 the San Joaquin LAFCO adopted new policies that call for the County to pro-vide for input on actions related to cities’ requests to expand their SOIs and conduct annexations. Other opportunities for the County to work with cities on how they grow in the future include the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint process and future efforts by the San Joa-quin Council of Governments (SJCOG) to implement SB 375.

In te r governmenta l

Coord ina t ion

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY BLUEPRINT

The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint process is an effort to plan land use and transportation throughout the San Joaquin Valley from Lodi to Bakersfield. The Blueprint represents the first regional planning docu-ment created by a group of San Joaquin Valley pub-lic officials and stakeholders. On April 1, 2009, the three-year Blueprint process concluded with the Blue-print Policy Council voting 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. The B+ scenario will go before each county board of supervisors and city council within the San Joaquin Valley, who will vote on ratification of the final regional blueprint. The ratification is ex-pected to take several months. Once ratified at the city and county levels, a year of implementation training would start in Summer 2009. The blueprint process is separate from the General Plan Update. The General Plan is not required to be consistent with the blueprint.


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S


The County has sufficient land planned under the current 2010 General Plan to accommodate population growth for the next 20 years.

The current County General Plan designates enough land to accommodate about 51,000 housing units (145,000 people) and 28 million square feet of industrial and commercial uses (58,000 employees). The unincorporated County is projected to grow by only 43,000 people, which is far less than the remain-ing capacity. Much of the land available for residen-tial development is adjacent to cities (i.e., city fringe areas) and within their SOIs. However, unincorpo-rated communities have capacity for over 49,000 people. For employment, the incorporated cities and unincorporated County projection for growth is about 117,600 jobs. Since most employment growth has historically occurred within incorporated cities, it is likely that the current 2010 General Plan has ade-quate capacity to meet the County’s employment needs. Development of residential and non residential uses may be shifted to meet future demand without resulting in additional conversion of agriculture and open space lands.

Avai lab le Capac i ty

There are many opportunities to plan for unincorporated employment centers that can provide jobs for residents and revenues for the County.

Historically, San Joaquin County has not accommo-dated much development in unincorporated areas. While this policy choice has preserved open spaces and farmland, it has also limited the County’s ability to attract new businesses and employees. The Board of Supervisors and Focus Group members have ex-pressed an interest in planning employment generat-ing uses in unincorporated areas. Examples of key locations where these non-residential uses could occur include:

⇒ Areas adjacent to airports (e.g., Airport 5-99);

⇒ Reclaimed mining sites in the southwest;

⇒ Areas around freeway interchanges;

⇒ Mountain House; and

⇒ Patterson pass.

Employment Genera t ing

Deve lopment

19,244

49,785

31,852

95,566

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

Dwelling Units

Population

City Fringe Areas Unincorporated Communities

REMAINING CAPACITY UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES AND CITY FRINGE AREAS


ISS

UE

S

CCCLIMATELIMATELIMATE CCCHANGEHANGEHANGE

Future planning and environmental review processes must address the issue of climate change consistent with State mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (i.e., AB 32) requires the State to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In order to meet that mandate, the State has identified local governments as important partners in GHG re-duction through land use and development controls. Since 2007 the California Attorney General’s Office has taken an interest in encouraging local governments to address global warming in their general plans, environmental review documents, and development approvals envisioned by AB 32. More recently (2008) the State passed SB 375, which ties transpor-tation plans prepared by Metropolitan Planning Or-ganizations (i.e., San Joaquin Council of Governments) to GHG reduction targets and sustainable develop-ment plans. GHG emissions are expected to continue to increase within the County as population and em-ployment grows; however, the General Plan can be crafted to mitigate for this increase. Without appro-priate actions within the General Plan to reduce GHG emissions, the County may not be able to meet AB 32 mandates.

Reduc ing GHG Emiss ions

Climate change impacts are expected to include shifts in the availability of resources and increased risks from natural disasters.

In 2008 the Governor signed an executive order calling for preparation of statewide adaptation strategies to address expected climate change im-pacts. It is likely that the County will experience envi-ronmental impacts from climate change, and should be prepared to mitigate those impacts. Climate change predictions could potentially affect the frequency and intensity of impacts such as: crop shifts; droughts; sea level rise (i.e., Delta water rise); saltwater intrusion; flooding; heat waves; water supply; water quality; and wildfire. According to the California Climate Ac-tion Team, over the next century the County and its residents and businesses may have to adapt to chang-ing conditions by modifying farming practices and crop types, improving flood protection, identifying new water sources, conserving water and energy, ex-panding emergency services, and modifying develop-ment patterns.

Adapt ing to C l ima te Change

COOL COUNTIES DECLARATION

On July 15, 2008, the Board of Supervi-sors adopted a resolution in support of the U.S.

Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration. The Cool Counties Declaration commits the County to re-ducing GHG emissions by creating an inventory of local emissions and planning and implementing poli-cies and programs to achieve significant, measurable, and sustainable reductions. It calls for the County to work with regional and State agencies to reduce re-gional GHG emissions by 80 percent below current levels by 2050. Finally, the Declaration calls for the County to urge Congress and the Administration to enact a multi-sector national program of market-based limits and incentives for reducing GHG emis-sions.


3,387,646 3,387,646

2,486,532

4,832,020(2007)

6,786,173

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Historic GHG Emissions

GHG Emissions Reduction Mandates

"Business-as-Usual" GHG Emissions

GGGREENHOUSEREENHOUSEREENHOUSE GGGASASAS (GHG) E(GHG) E(GHG) EMISSIONSMISSIONSMISSIONS Unincorpora ted County GHG Emiss ions

(Met r i c Tons)

Total 1990 GHG Emissions: 3,387,646 MT Total 2007 GHG Emissions: 4,832,020 MT

Electricity 552,71711% Natural Gas

278,8146%

Transportation3,005,613

62%

Waste43,8511%

Agriculture951,02420%

2007Electricity 428,49213%

Natural Gas249,7267%

Transportation2,015,218

59%

Waste30,3121%

Agriculture663,83420%

1990

Unincorpora ted County GHG Emiss ions Pro jec t ions

Based on a continued “business as usual” trend, it is expected that GHG emissions will be over 5.00 MMT in 2010, when the new General Plan is expected to be adopted, and over 6.78 MMT in 2030 (i.e., the planning horizon for the General Plan Update). State mandates (i.e., AB 32) have charged the County with incorporating into the General Plan strategies to reduce GHG emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020 (i.e., 3.38 MMT). In addition, the State has set a GHG emissions reduction tar-get of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This means that the Updated General Plan should include strategies to reduce unincorporated GHG emissions to around 2.48 MMT (i.e., 26 percent below 1990 levels) by 2030.

GHG emissions levels can be attributed to a variety of sources within unincorporated San Joaquin County. The total emis-sions in 1990 accounted for over 3.38 million metric tons (MMT) of GHG emissions. Between 1990 and 2007 emissions grew to over 4.83 MMT. Transportation has been the largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all emis-sions in the unincorporated County, followed by electricity and natural gas, which is attributed to energy consumption by homes, businesses, and industry. Agriculture and farming practices are also a significant source (20 percent) of the County’s GHG emissions.


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

San Joaquin County’s agricultural lands are the County’s biggest resource to remove GHG emissions from the atmosphere.

Carbon sequestration is a strategy to remove and store carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and is one of the earth’s only mechanisms to remove GHG emissions from the atmosphere. While agriculture is a significant source of GHG emissions in the County, it can play a key role in the County’s strategy to ad-dress climate change by serving as a “sink” for CO2. Changes in agricultural management can also poten-tially increase the accumulation rate of carbon in soils that results in sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere. For example, agricultural carbon sinks can be devel-oped by switching from row crops to orchards or pas-tures, employing managed grazing, using less inten-sive tillage, and retiring land. However, the amount of carbon sequestered by a specific farming practice depends on the history of the land and the soil type. In addition, carbon sequestered in agricultural lands may be released when agricultural practices are changed. It should also be noted that annual row cropping is not a sink, but part of the short-term car-bon cycle, and the conversion from row crops to vines or trees can reduce habitat and require a permanent source of irrigation water.

The County can address the issue of climate change and reduce GHG emissions with a Climate Action Plan.

Many jurisdictions throughout California and the nation are preparing Climate Action Plans (CAP), as either a part of their General Plan or as a separate document. A CAP generally includes goals, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to climate change impacts. The General Plan Update offers a unique opportunity for the County to incorpo-rate the elements of a CAP into the new General Plan. As part of the General Plan Update, the County is conducting an analysis of the County’s baseline GHG emissions for 1990 and 2007, consistent with bench-mark years of AB 32, and has identified the likely impacts that will occur due to climate change. Using this analysis, the County will establish GHG emissions reduction targets, incorporate goals and policies to reduce the County’s contribution to global warming, and address safety risks due to climate change. Cor-responding implementation programs will lay out a strategy for carrying out goals and policies. Upon adoption of the General Plan, the County can begin monitoring its progress in meeting its emissions reduc-tion target and its success in implementing CAP pro-grams.

Planning and Moni to r ing Carbon Seques t ra t ion

CCCLIMATELIMATELIMATE CCCHANGEHANGEHANGE


IS

SU

ES

AAAGRICULTUREGRICULTUREGRICULTURE

Agricultural farmland continues to be converted to ur-banization primarily as a result of annexation and devel-opment of cities.

From 1992 through 2006 San Joaquin County ex-perienced a 3.5 percent (28,000 acres) decline in agriculturally productive land. Prime farmland conver-sion occurred at a much higher rate with about 6.5 percent lost. About 21,500 acres of agricultural land were converted directly to urban uses, much of which occurred within cities. The remaining 6,500 acres taken out of production included temporarily idling land pending future development. A small amount of this is a result subdivisions, development of low-density rural residences, and preservation for wetlands and other natural reserves. Most conversion activity is due to city expansion and development. The County has limited control over the expansion of cities as decisions made related to city annexations are governed by the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

Far mland Convers ion As the population continues to increase in urban and

rural areas of the County, agricultural-urban conflicts are likely to increase.

In 2004 San Joaquin County had about 477 miles of agricultural-urban edges, where farms and ranches are adjacent to residential uses. As urban centers in agricultural areas expand outward and new residents populate agricultural areas, the potential for urban-agricultural conflicts will increase. Agricultural opera-tors experience trespassing, equipment and crop theft, vandalism, dog attacks on livestock, restrictions on pesticide use, congested local roads, and other im-pacts that reduce productivity and income. Residential and commercial neighbors frequently object to the dust, noise, odors, early morning operations, and chemical use. They are also often concerned about possible health problems from spraying and other commercial farming practices. San Joaquin County and several cities within the County have adopted “right-to-farm” ordinances that protect farms and their continued operation; however, these ordinances are not consistent.

Agr icu l tu ra l -Urban Conf l i c ts



INCREASING GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS OF AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

Government regulations were identified by County agricultural leaders as a significant issue for local farm-ers, ranchers, and agri-business. The range and scope of government regulations for agriculture are primarily

controlled at the State and Federal levels, which is beyond the scope of the General Plan. The County is limited in its ability to address these regulatory issues. Agriculturalists are spending more time, energy, and resources responding to an increasing number of government regulations related to environmental impacts, state food production, and land use. Farmers are strained under regulations that require more money and higher levels of management, which is hav-ing a direct impact on productivity and profitability. San Joaquin County can work with agricultural support organi-zations to support farmers, ranchers, and agri-business by advocating for more flexible regulations and less policing of agricultural operations to reduce impacts on the local agriculture industry.

Changes in Land Use , 1992 th rough 2006


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S


Farmland preservation opportunities exist through a variety of tools, including: farmland and habitat conser-vation easements, flood easements/levee setbacks, Wil-liamson Act contracts, and agricultural mitigation.

More than 10,000 acres of agricultural land in San Joaquin County is preserved through agricultural, habitat, or other types of conservation easements. Nearly two-thirds of this land has been preserved by the San Joaquin Council of Government’s (SJCOG) San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conserva-tion and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). While effective in protecting field crop and range land, habitat con-servation easements cannot be applied to more inten-sively-cultivated orchards and vineyards. Another method for acquiring easements in San Joaquin County is through the mitigation of urbanization of agricultural land. The County and the cities of Stock-ton, Manteca, and Tracy have Agricultural Mitigation Ordinances that require land easement dedication or payment of in-lieu fees for the development of same agricultural land. These are recently-adopted meas-ures that have not been widely implemented to date. In 2008 the County formed an Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee which is charged with overseeing the preparation of a strategy to guide how and where agricultural land is preserved through preser-vation, agricultural mitigation, and land trusts.

Farmland Pr eserva t ion Keeping the agricultural industry healthy and robust will

maintain San Joaquin County’s diverse farming industry, encourage economic and job growth, and provide effec-tive and efficient infrastructure-serving agriculture.

Agriculture represents the largest economic sector in San Joaquin County. Since 1987 agriculture prod-uct values have nearly tripled to rank San Joaquin County seventh in the state for agricultural production market value. San Joaquin County agriculture ac-counts for $6.6 billion in economic production and pro-vides 17 percent of the County’s jobs. San Joaquin County’s independent farmers, ranchers, and agri-business leaders have been innovative and resilient in finding opportunities and new ways to farm and oper-ate their enterprises to meet changing regulatory re-quirements and market demands. Local agricultural support organizations (e.g., Farm Bureau, UC Coop-erative Extension, and the Agriculture Commissioner) have also been major contributors to the success of County agriculture.

Agr icu l tu ra l Economy

Garden State Preservation Trust


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

Organic farming offers a small but potentially very prof-itable “niche” segment of San Joaquin County agricul-ture.

In its efficient use of resources and reduced envi-ronmental impacts, organic farming is an obvious ex-ample of sustainable agriculture. In 2007 there were 16,000 acres of organically farmed land on about 57 farms within San Joaquin County. Organic farms had a market value in 2007 of about $4 million. While constituting a very small portion of the County’s billion dollar agriculture industry, this production included 39 different commodities. Opportunities are available to County farmers for additional organic production as shown by crop diversity, much larger organic sectors in nearby counties with similar agricultural characteristics, and growing market demand. It should be noted, however, that farmers seeking to grow organic crops face considerable obstacles, including: a lengthy certi-fication process, pesticide drift from other farms, and the need to have steady markets.

Agricultural operations can expand their stewardship of the land through sustainable agricultural practices and make possible the benefits of farming to future genera-tions.

Sustainable agriculture rests on the principle of meeting the needs of the present without compromis-ing the ability of future generations to successfully continue farming. Is it often noted that farmers and ranchers, as private landowners, are the most consci-entious stewards of rural land resources. As such, they are regularly engaged in sustainable agricultural practices, including: looking for ways of making more efficient use of water and other resources, and reduc-ing the impacts of their operations on the environment. However, there is room for improvement in this area. Individual farmers can become more sustainable stew-ards by learning from each other, receiving practical advice from industry sources (e.g., UC Cooperative Extension), and participating in cost-share conservation programs (e.g., National Resources Conservation Ser-vice of USDA).

Sus ta inable Agr i cu l tu r e Organic Farming



OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S


Urban populations within the County can learn the benefits through an understanding and support of local agriculture.

San Joaquin County is an important agricultural region; however it also includes a dominant urban population. Most people live within the County’s seven incorporated cities, and most residents in unincorpo-rated rural areas do not live on farms. The result, in the view of many agricultural leaders, is County resi-dents are generally unfamiliar with the problems, needs, and benefits of commercial farming. This has put agriculture at a disadvantage when land use, regulatory, and other relevant decisions are made by local governments. There are several educational and advocacy groups in the County that serve agriculture, and opportunities for systematically disseminating to non-farm audiences accurate and useful information about the realities of local farming and ranching.

The County is surrounded by large urban populations that can support markets for agricultural products that are grown, purchased, and consumed locally.

People are discovering the benefits of buying local food, including fresher food, local economic benefits (i.e., buying directly from family farmers), and re-duced energy for goods transport. Locally grown food within San Joaquin County’s “food-shed,” which in-cludes the Bay Area, provides a way for local consum-ers to create relationships with local farms and agri-culturalists. San Joaquin County is also in a unique position to capitalize on its location near the Bay Area to provide food to a large market within less than 100 miles. Locally grown food programs can take many forms including: community supported agricul-ture programs, farmers markets, pick-yourself farms, farm stands, food co-ops, and foods sold directly to local markets and grocers. The County can support locally grown programs by cooperating regionally to define what is considered “locally grown.” The County can also encourage partnerships between the agricul-tural community to increase access to locally grown produce by providing infrastructure, marketing, cus-tomer access, and public education; and adopting zoning regulations supportive of locally grown pro-gram efforts. Supporting locally grown produce can address local food security issues and provide local residents with access to healthier food choices.

Local ly Grown Produce Agr icu l tu ra l Educa t ion


ISS

UE

S

TTTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION

Service and coordination continues to be a challenge to provide public transit service to unincorporated commu-nities.

The San Joaquin County Regional Transit District provides public transit to unincorporated areas of the County. The County is also served by municipal public transit providers in Tracy, Lodi, and Manteca and re-gional transit service from the neighboring counties of Solano, Calaveras, and Sacramento. Transit service to the County’s unincorporated communities is irregular or non-existent, and bus pullouts and waiting areas are rare. Focus Group members identified inadequate transit as a critical issue in the County’s transportation system. However, many areas of the County, both ur-ban cities and unincorporated areas, lack the density and population to support comprehensive transit. With increasing interaction and growing market demand for intercity and interregional public transit, especially for commuting, the need for more efficient, expanded public transit systems is expected to increase.

Publ i c Trans i t Serv ice Passenger rail service is limited and unable to meet ex-

isting and expected demands.

Passenger rail ridership has steadily increased over the past five years. The primary service in the County is between Stockton and the Bay Area. This service is provided by the Bay Area Altamont Com-muter Express (ACE), which is operated by the Re-gional Rail Commission. Increased demand for freight movement in recent years on Union Pacific rail lines has increased conflicts between freight trains and ACE passenger trains and Amtrak. This conflict has had a significant impact to on-time service and potential for service expansion. There is a need for more efficient, expanded passenger rail service to meet expected demand into the Central Valley, Bay Area, and Sac-ramento region.

Passenger Rai l Serv ice

RAIL SYSTEM PLANS

The Regional Rail Commission is pursuing, as a priority, ownership of the majority of

ACE’s service line from Stockton to Niles Junction. If successful, the purchase would increase the likelihood of start-up rail service between the Central Valley and the Port of Oakland. The California State Rail Plan (2005) identifies improvements to the Amtrak San Joaquin Valley line and ACE trains. Proposed ACE improvements include operational improvements to reduce travel time and increase on-time perform-ance, construction of a layover and maintenance fa-cility in San Joaquin County, passenger car upgrades, and an evaluation of potential service expansions and new service areas.

PARK & RIDE AND REGIONAL TRANSIT MASTER PLANS

In October 2007 SJCOG adopted the San Joaquin County Park-and-Ride Master Plan to ad-dress park-and-ride demand estimates and identify potential lot locations to serve existing and future development. SJCOG is also currently (2009) pre-paring a long-range Regional Transit Plan that will coordinate projected growth in San Joaquin County with existing transit services.

Drove Alone Carpooled Took Transit Biked Walked

77.2% 15.2% 0.8% 0.6% 1.7%

Source: 2006 U.S. Census American Communities Survey

Means of Transpor ta t ion to Work (2006)


IS

SU

ES


Bikeway connections among unincorporated areas and cities lack continuity, resulting in a fragmented inconven-ient system.

The County’s existing bikeways in unincorporated areas are limited. Rural roadways reflect a more rural setting and tend to lack wide shoulders or bike lanes, which can result in conflicts between bicyclists and motorists, agricultural equipment, and commercial trucking. In addition, the County’s bikeways do not provide consistent links among rural communities and cities. There is a need to plan interconnected bicycle routes and develop facilities that are safe and con-venient for both recreational riders and commuters.

Bikeways Lack of funding has made it increasingly difficult for the

County to construct transportation improvements neces-sary to meet mobility needs and provide transit options.

The County’s limited budget for transportation im-provements has caused roadway conditions to esca-late congestion. Anticipated roadway and transit im-provements, maintenance, and operations in the County are expected to cost between $3.1 to $3.3 billion through 2030. Revenues over the same twenty-year period are anticipated to be only $1.74 billion, resulting in a major shortfall in transportation improve-ment and maintenance funds. Funding shortfalls for public transit improvements are expected to be less severe compared to roadway improvements. A sig-nificant amount of State and Federal funding is ex-pected to be available for public transit; however, transit improvements still face major funding hurdles, especially for operating costs.

Transpor ta t ion Funding

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN

The County is currently (2009) updating its 2002 Bicycle Master Plan. The Master Plan pro-

vides a blueprint for development of a bikeway sys-tem consisting of both on-street and support facilities (e.g., racks). The plan complements bikeway plans prepared by SJCOG and the incorporated cities within the County, including identification of key con-nections to existing or planned bikeways


ISS

UE

S


Rural roads have become congested and are expected to continue to worsen as the County and its cities grow.

From 1990 to 2007 travel on local roadways grew at about 1.5 percent per year and travel on freeways and highways grew at 3 percent per year. During peak travel times approximately 216 miles of freeways and highways within the County operate deficiently (i.e., below adopted levels of service). These deficiencies are particularly acute on I-5 and I-205. According to Focus Group members, State Routes that pass through rural communities have also become very congested. SJCOG estimated that there were over 21,000 daily vehicle hours of delay within the County in 2006. This is projected to increase to over 116,000 hours by 2030. Similarly, vehicle miles trav-eled are projected to increase by over 56 percent by 2030. Congestion results in increased pollution, longer commute times, reduced quality of life, and diversion of through traffic and commuters onto parallel County roadways. As freeways and highways continue to become more congested, frustrated drivers increas-ingly will use rural roads to avoid congestion. In some cases the County may need to consider reducing its level of service standard, pursue options to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or develop new roads (i.e., bypass) to relieve congestion and make farm-to-market transport more efficient.

Traf f i c Conges t ion

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

SJCOG’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) lays out strategies to alleviate congestion and related impacts on economic development and the environment. The CMP represents the latest thinking about reducing single occupancy vehicle trips, includ-ing: using more proactive land use and pricing poli-cies; coordinating investment in alternative modes of transportation; and providing new incentives for get-ting people out of their cars. The Congestion Man-agement Program is currently (2009) being updated.

PROJECTED VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

17.63 Million

2006

30.86 Million

2030

Off-Peak Time Vehicle Miles Traveled

Peak Time Vehicle Miles Traveled

1.44 Million

2.57 Million

2006 2030

Source: 2007 SJCOG RTP

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the estimated num-ber of miles driven by cars and light trucks.

In 2006 more than 25 percent of San Joaquin County workers traveled more than 35 minutes to work.


IS

SU

ES


San Joaquin County’s rural roads are experiencing greater conflicts between the transport of farming equip-ment and commuter-oriented automobile traffic.

Congestion-related automobile diversion is causing increased roadway conflicts between traditional rural roadway users (e.g., farm vehicles and commercial trucking) and commuter traffic. Given that farm vehi-cles typically operate at slower speeds, backups on rural roadways are increasingly common. Rural roads often do not provide enough passing opportunities for motorists, resulting in driver impatience and overly aggressive passing maneuvers and unsafe driving con-ditions. Rural areas in San Joaquin County are ex-periencing and will continue to experience automotive growth over the next several decades. Increased commuter use of rural roadways and development in rural areas will require more effective transportation management and safety measures to reduce conflicts among agricultural equipment movement, commercial trucking, and autos.

Rura l Road Conf l i c t s Roadway conditions are poor on many local County

roads.

There are about 3,382 miles of roadways in San Joaquin County of which 310 are owned and main-tained by the State (i.e., Caltrans). The remaining 3,072 miles are owned and maintained by the County and the seven cities. Over half of the local roadways (1,674 miles) are the responsibility of the County. The expected pavement life for a roadway is roughly 20 years if not subject to preventive maintenance. Due to the high volume, speed, and vehicle weight, especially trucks and farm equipment, the County’s roadways experience significant deterioration and accelerated need for maintenance, rehabilitation, and replace-ment. Poor road conditions result in costs to roadway users (i.e., residents, commuters, and goods movers) for additional automobile and truck maintenance. For San Joaquin County’s roadway system to adequately serve residents and businesses and the movement of goods, a substantial investment increase in roadway maintenance funding is needed.

Roadway Condi t ions

Over one-third (37 percent) of the County’s local roads are in poor or failing condition.


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S


Transportation demand management is a major opportu-nity to reduce vehicle miles traveled, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution.

Investing in public transportation, pedestrian, and bikeways systems, and making the County more acces-sible can reduce the number of automobile trips taken by residents. Surveys performed by SJCOG during the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update showed that 76 percent of respondents favored an increase in funding for transportation control meas-ures, which include travel demand management strate-gies. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are strategies designed to reduce the de-mand for the automobile as a mode of travel. By en-couraging alternative transportation modes, the vehi-cle demand on the existing roadway system is re-duced and system efficiency is improved. TDM strate-gies can help reduce or delay the need for improve-ment projects to increase capacity on County road-ways. TDM strategies can include: ridesharing and vanpooling; bike and pedestrian facilities; guaran-teed ride home programs; flexible work schedules and locations; park-and-ride lots; and bus and rail transit access.

The County has opportunities to expand and link local and regional transit with inter-state and inter-regional transportation systems.

Well-used public transit reduces traffic congestion, helps improve air quality and provides an essential lifeline to many seniors, youth, and the disabled. In-creasing the availability and interconnectedness of public transit facilities can provide economic benefits to the County and its residents, including: increased real estate values, investment in community develop-ment or redevelopment, expansion of recreational and tourism opportunities, and savings for County resi-dents coping with fluctuating fuel prices. Increasing investment priorities in public transportation, especially rail and high-speed rail, can also encourage transit-oriented development, discourage sprawl, and de-crease impacts on agricultural land and the natural environment.

Publ i c Trans i t Inves tments Transpor ta t ion Demand

Management


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

Expanded and enhanced goods movement facilities and infrastructure offer potential solutions to addressing needs for better trade connections.

The County has four major transportation facilities (i.e., port, airport, rail, and highway) that provide for goods movement throughout the County, region, state, and western United States. These facilities include the Port of Stockton and the Stockton Metropolitan Air-port. Intermodal port and airport access, specifically for trucking, is a major opportunity to expand goods movement. However, growing congestion on the state highway system will continue to pose a potential prob-lem for the efficient movement of goods. Careful planning for more efficient operating conditions will ensure that the ingress and egress are maintained. New goods movement solutions such as motorized barges and short-haul rail can help to remove truck traffic from the roadways and increase transport effi-ciencies. SJCOG is currently (2009) undertaking a rail shuttle study to evaluate increasing goods move-ment by rail and truck trip reductions, and a Port ac-cess study evaluate extension of SR 4.


Extension of the ACE train line will expand connections to the Bay Area and areas south of San Joaquin County.

Passenger rail transit on the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Train has steadily increased over the past five years. According to a 2007 survey con-ducted by San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), most ACE Train riders from San Joaquin County use the train to access jobs in the Bay Area (i.e., Santa Clara County). ACE has been in operation for over a decade (since 1998) and the SJRRC, which owns and operates the train, hopes to expand ACE’s interregional service. The Commission has expressed interest in adding lines within the County to connect the northern County (i.e., Lodi) with the rest of the County, and expanding ACE into west Stanislaus County and Merced County.

High Speed Rail presents long-term transportation con-nections and economic growth opportunities.

In 2008 California voters approved a $9 billion bond to plan a high speed rail line. Expectations are high that additional Federal stimulus funding will be allocated for further planning, design, and ultimate construction of the system. The California High Speed Rail Authority is now planning and designing a high speed rail line that will run between southern Califor-nia and the Bay Area via the Pacheco Pass. Future extensions of the line are planned to pass through San Joaquin County with a stop in Stockton, before head-ing north to Sacramento and branching west to the Bay Area over the Altamont Pass. The benefits of high speed rail to the County go beyond more efficient transportation and better connections to the rest of the state. According to a 2008 study from the University of California, Merced, the high-speed rail is expected to stimulate employment and residential growth in ar-eas that have a high speed rail stop.

High Speed Rai l

ACE Tra in Ex tens ions

Goods Movement E f f i c iency

Improvements


ISS

UE

S

The County and Special Districts face challenges in maintaining, improving, and funding infrastructure.

Existing public infrastructure systems (i.e., water, wastewater, and drainage) within the unincorporated County are aging and frequently lack available fund-ing to meet existing and future demands. Due to the continued growth within the rural areas of San Joaquin County, commercial and residential developments have expanded the number of small satellite facilities operated by the County. More than 70 independent Special Districts contain 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 pro-hibitive for homeowners and businesses. Districts with aged infrastructure will ultimately require additional financing and possible rate increases to fund long term capital replacement needs.

In f ras t ruc tur e Age,

Capac i ty, and Funding

MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW

San Joaquin LAFCO is required to pre-pare Municipal Service Reviews (MSR) that

evaluate the provision of services and facilities pro-vided by County service district, special districts, and cities. MSRs also evaluate future service and infra-structure demands and whether service providers have capacity and resources to meet those needs. To date (2009) very few MSRs have been prepared for public service providers within San Joaquin County and its cities.

PPPUBLICUBLICUBLIC SSSERVICESERVICESERVICES ANDANDAND UUUTILITIESTILITIESTILITIES

San Joaquin County faces the challenges in meeting increased service demands with less money.

San Joaquin County manages and delivers public services including public assistance, foster care, public health care, libraries, general government, road main-tenance, law enforcement, courts, jails, and elections. All County functions and services are dependent on Federal or State funding, bond issues, and local reve-nues such as property taxes, sales taxes, and direct service fees. County departments and services have been operating at capacity and demands are ex-pected to rise as population increases. Recently (2009) the global recession and the State budget shortfall have severely reduced County funding to provide services, which has put even more strain on County ability to meet growing needs. County offi-cials have indicated that the County will not be able to provide vital services if State budget proposals for severe cuts, costs shifts, and deferrals are enacted.

Over -ex tended Serv ices

CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT

The County has developed a detailed in-frastructure inventory and completed a capital

asset management study for the various districts op-erated by the County. The study results and imple-mentation of a utility asset management system will provide a management tool for the tracking and maintaining of the assets, and assist in identifying user fee recommendations for County utility districts.


IS

SU

ES

Expansion of cities may limit the ability of some fire dis-

tricts to continue operating in the future.

Fire protection within San Joaquin County is pro-vided by city, special district, and State fire depart-ments. 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 dis-tricts and department on a case-by-case basis. The County’s fire districts currently (2008) provide ade-quate service. Fire districts at the edge of expanding cities 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, sources of district revenue will be reduced. SJ LAFCO is charged with reviewing spe-cial districts, which include fire districts, for potential efficiencies through consolidation or absorption by other districts or service providers. Consolidation can provide for more efficient response and more compre-hensive service.

F i r e Pro tec t ion Dis t r i c t s

FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE REVIEW

In Spring 2009 San Joaquin LAFCO initi-ated a Municipal Services Review (MSR) for all

fire districts within San Joaquin County. The MSR will evaluate the districts’ current service levels and facili-ties and evaluate their ability to meet future service demand. Based on findings from the MSR, SJ LAFCO may require some fire districts to consolidate with or be absorbed into other districts.


TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District formed a Technical

Advisory Committee (TAC) in May 2006. The TAC has been meeting regularly since its formation and in-cludes representatives from the County, several cities, reclamation districts, and other flood protection inter-ests. The group monitors the status of flood risk and flood protection facilities. Based on its findings, the group recommends flood protection improvements, both short- and long-term, to local elected officials.

Flood control infrastructure improvements are needed to protect residents from heightened flood risk.

San Joaquin County’s existing flood control facili-ties, including levees, have been improved and main-tained to provide a certain level of flood protection. However, parts of San Joaquin County were never mapped for flood risk in detail. Some area maps have not been updated in over 25 years. Most of the County’s existing flood control facilities along local and regional rivers, outside of the Delta, are currently (2008) maintained to provide a mandated level of flood protection required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). However, stricter Federal and State standards will require improvements to levees and the purchase of flood insurance by property own-ers in flood risk areas. Draft California Department of Water Resources (DWR) maps indicate a larger part of the County within 200-year floodplains. Lev-ees protecting these areas will likely require signifi-cant improvements.

F lood Cont ro l In f ras t ruc tu r e


ISS

UE

S

Law enforcement response time is a concern of County residents.

The Sheriff’s Department includes about 137 patrol officers and Community Car Deputies, for a service level of only 0.95 officers per 1,000 county residents. This is far below the Sheriff’s Department standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 residents. The public has ex-pressed concerns with the current (2008) response times of the Sheriff’s department. Because San Joa-quin County covers over 900,000 acres, Sheriff’s deputies are limited in their ability to quickly reach all areas. In some cases County residents must contact local city police departments to address law enforce-ment needs in unincorporated areas. Workloads at the Sheriff’s Department and calls for service, such as burglary, vandalism, property thefts, and violent crimes, continue to increase as the population in-creases. However, budget constraints are limiting the Department’s ability to expand to meet these needs. The resulting impact on Sheriff’s Department resources and the overall need for more field officers are ob-stacles to improved service and response times.

Law Enforcement Response


Educational performance and the location and provision of educational facilities within San Joaquin County are in need of improvement.

The public has expressed concerns with the educa-tion system in San Joaquin County, including drop-out rates, school overcrowding, State testing scores, and access to extracurricular activities. In 2007, about two-thirds of County schools score below the State aver-age in mandatory testing. Other challenges include the location, siting , and construction of future school facilities within the County. The County is limited in its ability to resolve many school facility and education problems because the school districts are independent of County jurisdiction. However, there are several is-sues that the County may directly or indirectly influ-ence, including: coordination among cities, school dis-tricts, and the San Joaquin County Office of Education where overlapping jurisdictional boundaries occur; planning the future locations for new school facilities; assisting school districts in meting criteria in the identi-fication and location of school sites in newly develop-ing areas; and encouraging development of innova-tive and alternative continuing education programs, technical schools, and higher education facilities.

Schools and Educa t ion


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S


Improvements in high capacity information communica-tions infrastructure can benefit residents and stimulate economic growth.

Communications infrastructure (i.e., fiber-optic and broadband internet access) is transforming the way communities and businesses use the Internet to connect and conduct business. Older dial-up and telephone enabled internet access are no longer adequate to meet today’s information capacity demands. Broad-band access is critical to drawing new industries to the County and expanding job opportunities to residents in rural areas. Broadband also offers farmers better access to market information and allows them to ex-pand their potential customer base. High capacity broadband access is a relatively new type of infra-structure, and the County has an opportunity to pro-mote private-sector investment, leverage public-private partnerships, and be a leader in the effort to increase broadband availability and related tech-nologies within the County.

Communica t ions In f ras t ruc tu r e Low impact development offers a new, innovative way

to improve water quality, recharge groundwater basins, and provide cost-effective drainage systems.

Low impact development (LID) is an approach to land development, or redevelopment, that works with nature to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features and mini-mizing impervious surfaces to create functional and appealing site drainage that treat stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product. There are many practices that have been used to adhere to these principles such as bio-swales, bio-retention facili-ties, rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, and permeable pavements. By implementing LID prin-ciples and practices, water can be managed in a way that reduces the impact of built areas and promotes the natural movement of water within an ecosystem or watershed. LID has received support from the Water Env i ronmen t Re search Founda t ion and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). LID is being promoted as a method to help meet goals of the Clean Water Act. The County can use LID tech-niques to promote more efficient development while protecting habitat and natural resources, improving water quality, reducing localized flooding, recharging the groundwater basin, and reducing infrastructure development and maintenance costs.

Low Impac t Deve lopment

The County has started requiring LID principles as part of its Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan.


ISS

UE

S

Water supplies for urban, agricultural, and environ-mental uses will continue to decrease as demand in-creases.

Like many San Joaquin Valley communities, the pressures of rapid urban growth, increasingly com-petitive agricultural commodities markets, progres-sively aggressive laws and regulations, and the surety of drought years and wet years will test the ability of San Joaquin County to have continued access to water of sufficient quantity and quality. The water manage-ment challenges facing San Joaquin County and sur-rounding communities are multifaceted and are further complicated by competing water interests.

Water Supply

Groundwater overdraft has reduced the storage capac-ity of groundwater basins, limited the future availability of groundwater supplies, and causing eastward intrusion of saltwater.

Many city, community, agricultural, and individual water systems in the County rely on groundwater to meet their needs. Wells in Eastern San Joaquin County, particularly in areas where groundwater is the only source of water have shown average declines of approximately 1.5 feet per year. Groundwater level measurements from the Fall of 2009 threaten to revisit the 1992 lows following three consecutive drought years. The effect of declining groundwater levels has been increased pumping costs, reinvestment in deeper wells and larger pumps, and degradation of groundwater water quality. Historically, ground-water in San Joaquin County flowed towards the Delta in much the same way surface water flows through local water ways. Studies show that salts un-derlying the Delta are a major contributor of ground-water salinity. Depressed groundwater levels have reversed this natural flow gradient and have induced the migration of saline groundwater eastwardly from the Delta. Several wells within the City of Stockton have been closed due to elevated salinity levels. As saline groundwater continues to flow unmitigated to the east, more wells are expected to be removed from service.

Groundwa ter Overdraf t and

Sa l twa ter In t rus ion

NNNATURALATURALATURAL RRRESOURCESESOURCESESOURCES

About 60 percent of the County’s water demand is met using groundwater supplies.


IS

SU

ES

A serious threat to native plants, animals, and their habi-tats is conversion of habitat to urban development or agricultural uses.

According to San Joaquin Valley Endangered Spe-cies Recovery Program, by the year 2000, nearly all of the San Joaquin Valley's natural habitats had been either converted for human uses or were severely de-graded. Habitat conversion within the County includes losses of grasslands, valley oak savannahs, creeks, freshwater emergent and seasonal wetlands, freshwa-ter lakes, ponds, and vernal pools. Urban expansion is a major challenge for the protection and viability of habitat areas. As agricultural operations cultivate previously natural habitat areas, the potential for habitat area conflicts increase. Urban centers can attract more people to areas near habitat areas that are critical to endangered species. This increase in population can, in turn, cause negative impacts to habitat areas including: destruction of habitat, pollu-tion, and introduction of invasive species. Properly designed and maintained flood control infrastructure, flood easements, or setback levees can help protect or create natural habitat. Agricultural lands can provide relatively high value habitat for many biological re-sources, particularly as foraging habitat. However, growing crops and raising animals near or within habitat areas is not without conflicts to both wildlife and farming operations.

Habi ta t Encroachment/Loss Energy costs and renewable energy requirements are

expected to rise requiring more energy conservation and new sources of renewable energy.

There has been an overall decline in per capita household and business energy consumption (i.e., gas and electric) as a result of increased conservation pro-grams; however, overall energy consumption within San Joaquin County has increased by 25 percent since 1990. There has been an increase in the participation by County residents relying on renewable energy re-sources and decreasing energy consumption. How-ever, the local County market for energy conservation and residents paying for renewable energy has de-creased. Until recently, most decisions about energy use were based solely on cost and availability. Now energy use is viewed as having a direct link to mini-mizing environmental impacts and addressing climate change mandates. Many jurisdictions throughout the state have adopted policies and standards for energy conservation and renewable energy generation, in-cluding: encouraging or requiring energy conservation technologies, and allowing renewable energy tech-nologies (i.e., solar panels, wind farms). Energy needs and costs are expected to continue to increase as a result of increased population and global competition. More renewable resources and additional energy conservation will be needed to meet local demands, while addressing environmental concerns.

Energy



OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

Natural habitat protection can provide places for plants and wildlife to live and recreation amenities for residents and visitors.

San Joaquin County contains more than 200,000 acres of habitat and over 1,000 miles of riparian wa-terways, including: oak woodlands, desert-like scrub-lands, annual grasslands, wetlands, remnant riparian strips, and the Delta. The County supports habitat for 97 rare, threatened and endangered species, includ-ing 17 Federally-listed (threatened or endangered) species and 15 State-listed (rare, threatened, or en-dangered) species. The San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) provides a strategy for conserving open space that includes: protecting the region's agricultural economy; preserving landowner property rights; pro-viding for the long-term management of plant, fish and wildlife species; providing and maintaining multi-use open spaces; and accommodating a growing population. Continuation and support for the SJMSCP can ensure habitat areas are preserved for wildlife and maintained as a resource for County residents and visitors.

Habi ta t P ro tec t ion Increased demand for water and the costs associated

with providing additional supplies have led to strong sup-port for additional water conservation and re-use.

Support has increased for water conservation, wa-ter use efficiency, and re-use. Opportunities exist to implement regional conservation programs in County Service Areas and in rural areas. Efficient use of groundwater reduces the amount of water pumped from the groundwater basin. However more efficient use of surface water can cause a loss of recharge to the basin, which is contrary to the goal of raising groundwater levels. Another water conservation measure opportunity is the re-use of recycled munici-pal water. As wastewater treatment plant effluent becomes increasingly regulated and treated to higher standards, more water can be made available to more beneficial uses, such as irrigation water for agri-culture and large landscapes, or delivered to homes and businesses through separate “purple pipe” sys-tems.

Water Conserva t ion/Re-use

Efforts to recharge groundwater basins have been ef-fective in restoring groundwater levels.

Groundwater recharge is an important process for sustainable groundwater management. Natural recharge processes are impacted by human activities including paving with impervious surfaces. Active at-tempts by County water interests to recharge ground-water basins have been recognized as effective man-agement alternatives. Identification and protection of recharge areas within the County can further add to recharge efforts and correct groundwater overdraft problems. Large recharge areas, including upland areas and areas with preferable soil types for good recharge, offer an opportunity to allow the County to replenish its groundwater basins and maintain this sus-tainable water supply.

Groundwa ter Recharge Ar eas



OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

Alternative energy sources and technology have the potential to improve air quality and reduce energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are several alternative energy technologies already being pursued in San Joaquin County. The County has several resources that can be used to gen-erate additional clean energy and conserve energy resources. Biomass and biofuel potential from agricul-tural by-products has significant potential. Agricultu-ralists, local utilities, irrigation districts, and municipali-ties are actively pursuing this alternative energy source. Solar energy use is increasing in residential areas, in commercial and industrial developments, and in agricultural practices. Increased wind energy gen-eration in the southern part of the County can provide an additional source of clean energy. There is poten-tial for the County to further its own government-related energy efficiency by continuing to invest in energy efficient technologies such as high-mileage or alternative fuel fleet vehicles and energy-efficient buildings and water and wastewater treatment plants.

Al te rna t ive Ener gy Protection of mineral rich areas will ensure this resource

is available for future extraction.

The protection and extraction of local mineral re-sources (e.g., aggregate) can minimize the expense, energy cost, and pollution associated with long dis-tance hauls, lower the cost for construction, generate revenues for the County, and provide economic bene-fits to the local economy. The projected 50-year de-mand (i.e., through 2055) for aggregate in the Stock-ton-Lodi production-consumption area is 728 million tons. However, the current aggregate reserves per-mitted for extraction only amount to an estimated 196 million tons, a notable shortfall. Significant sand and gravel resources have been identified in the northeast part of the County near Calaveras County and in the southwest part of the County, just south of the City of Tracy. By identifying additional resource areas and supporting additional extraction permits, the County can continue to assure continued availability of aggre-gate to meet local and regional demand. Although available mineral resources are abundant, protecting these resources is critical to ensuring they are avail-able for future extraction and use.

Mineral Resources/Min ing



ISS

UE

S

TTTHEHEHE DDDELTAELTAELTA

The reliability of the Delta as a water supply source is increasingly threatened by drought, declining ecosystem conditions, and Delta levee stability.

The Delta provides water supply to agriculture located within the Delta. Due to the operation of wa-ter export projects (i.e., Central Valley Project and State Water Project) the water quality within the Delta has significantly deteriorated. Water quality and supplies within the Delta necessary to support agricultural uses and fishery resources is often inade-quate and causes negative economic impacts to the County. The Delta is relied upon to provide water to much of California. These water exports place signifi-cant demand on the water supply of the Delta. There is a statewide effort to improve water supply reliabil-ity. This statewide effort is often inconsistent and in conflict with San Joaquin County’s interests including the protection of the County’s water users and fishery resources within the Delta. There is currently (2009) insufficient water supply from the Delta to support current water demands of the population within Cali-fornia.

Water Supply The peripheral canal was first proposed as part of the original State Water Project (SWP), approved by California voters in 1960. The canal was intended to move high-quality Sacramento River water around the Delta to the Harvey O. Banks (Banks) pumping plant in the south Delta. However, because of funding shortfalls, the canal was not built. The construction of a peripheral canal was again proposed in 1982 in a State referen-dum, which was defeated. Rapid declines in the popula-tion of a number of fish species in the Delta, the conse-quent reductions in water exports mandated by judicial decisions, and studies showing the vulnerability of Delta levees have renewed interest in the idea of conveying water around rather than through the Delta.

As a concept, the peripheral canal would run along the Delta’s eastern or western edge to deliver water from the Sacramento River to the Central Valley Project (CVP). Water from the canal would be pumped into the CVP’s Delta-Mendota Canal and the California Aque-duct and for delivery to the Bay Area, the Central Val-ley, and Southern California. Such a canal would be isolated from the numerous Delta channels now used to convey this water.

The Governor established the Delta Vision process to recommend solutions to the continuing degradation of the Delta ecosystem and the State’s water supply system to achieve co-equal goals of ecosystem restoration and more reliable water supplies. The Delta Vision Strategic Plan contains a number of important recommendations, including facilities to improve the existing water convey-ance system and expand statewide storage. In addition, the agencies exporting water from the Delta and those receiving water from the Delta established a process, called the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), to obtain Endangered Species Act compliance for improvements to the Delta, including improving the conveyance of water through or around the Delta.

In February 2009 the Governor declared a state-wide drought emergency, and directed the State De-partment of Water Resources (DWR) to begin environ-mental review of several conveyance options in response to the state's water crisis. DWR sent letters to over 1,000 property owners announcing it may need to access their land for preliminary surveys. DWR has outlined several potential canal routes: one on the east side of the Delta, one on the west, and a through-Delta alignment that would strengthen the existing natural waterway by im-proving critical levees and installing gates to protect fish. DWR wants to begin construction on the canal in 2011. State officials have suggested that such a plan would not require public or legislative consent based on the Burns-Porter Act, approved by voters in 1960 to au-thorize bond financing for State Water Project facilities.

DELTA VISION

Delta Vision was created by Executive Or-der in the Fall 2006, to find a durable vision for

sustainable management of the Sacramento-San Joa-quin Delta. In February 2007 the Governor appointed an independent "Blue Ribbon" Task Force to recom-mend actions to address natural resource, infrastruc-ture, land use and governance issues. The Task Force concluded at the end of 2008 and resulted in a re-port, “Our Vision for the California Delta.” In early 2009 several former Task Force members formed the Delta Vision Foundation, supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, to continue the mission of the Task Force and implementation of the strategies in, “Our Vision for the California Delta.”


IS

SU

ES

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY AND THE PERIPHERAL CANAL

On May 13, 2008, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors passed Resolution R-08-269 in opposi-tion to some of the assumptions and conclusions con-tained in the Delta Blue Ribbon Taskforce report, “Our Vision for the California Delta.” The resolution states, in part, “Now therefore be it resolved that the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors does not support the Blue Ribbon Task Force Delta Vision Report recom-mendations and the continued strategic planning proc-ess so long as this effort supports and promotes the development of a Peripheral Canal or any other iso-lated water conveyance facility in the Delta...”

Source: Sacbee.com; http://www.sacbee.com/1232/rich_media/1444540.html


Advocates for the Peripheral Canal believe that the conflicts between environmental and water supply goals can be greatly reduced by moving the point where wa-ter is diverted for export from it’s current location in the south Delta to a new point of diversion in the north Delta. This would somewhat isolate the water delivery system from the fish in Delta channels. They argue that this new configuration would reduce direct impacts on fish result-ing from entrainment into the pumps, and indirect impacts on fish habitat that result from operation of the powerful south Delta pumps. They further argue that the canal would: reduce the current vulnerability of water exports to levee failures in the Delta; protect the state water supplies against the effects of climate change; increase the flexibility of the system in maintaining water quality for in-Delta agriculture and other interests; and provide opportunities for habitat restoration that otherwise would not exist.

Opponents of the Peripheral Canal believe the canal poses many locally and environmentally adverse im-pacts, including: increasing water exports from the Delta; threatening water rights of water users; degrading wa-ter quality for in-Delta users; pushing fish and wildlife populations towards extinction; causing loss of prime agricultural lands and possibly urban uses; removing recreational resources; and jeopardizing businesses and the region's tax base. Local officials and Delta interests are also concerned that a canal will reduce State com-mitments to maintaining Delta levees, adversely affect local utilities and transportation systems, and change the control over land use from local governments to a re-gional government entity. Landowners along the eastern edge of the Delta are particularly concerned about the effects of a possible 40-mile long canal with a 1,000-foot wide footprint. Finally, there are concerns about the indirect effects of the canal on adjacent islands and flood protection due to seepage.

Many technical regulatory, financial, governance, and policy decisions will accompany the implementation of a long-term strategy for the Delta, whether it includes a Peripheral Canal or not. Regardless of the strategy selected, the Governor has advocated for a much greater commitment to water conservation and water use efficiency efforts throughout the state and greater re-gional self-sufficiency. Those who argue there are co-equal goals of Delta ecosystem recovery and water sup-ply reliability to areas outside the County will need to be supported by an enforceable governance frame-work, and regulatory and financial mechanisms to ensure that water delivery rules are enforced, costs are born according to agreements, and local interests and safety are addressed. Critics and supporters agree that the issue of the peripheral canal will likely end up in court.


ISS

UE

S

Development within the Secondary Zone of the Delta has increased over the past decade, placing pressure on existing delta agriculture and ecosystems.

The Secondary Zone of the Delta has been subject to increasing urban development for many years, de-spite the threat of flooding and impacts to natural and agricultural resources. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the incorporated parts of San Joaquin County adjacent to the Delta have been some of the fastest growing in the state. As population and economic growth continues in the County, the Delta will be increasingly subject to development pressures. Development-related impacts to the Delta may in-clude: heightened flood risk for residents and busi-nesses, degraded water quality, conflicts with Delta agriculture operations, and harm to the Delta ecosys-tem.

Development Pr essur es


Within the Delta few of the levees were constructed to meet modern engineering standards.

While most of the Delta’s levees were not origi-nally built to the same standards as those in modern urban settings, many have been improved to provide a level of protection appropriate for agricultural lands. Historically, there have been levee failures in the Delta; however, due to intensified rehabilitation and maintenance efforts, there have only been 22 failures in the Delta since 1990. Delta levees are unique in that, unlike most other levees, they are con-stantly holding back water, protecting land that is of-ten below sea level and would otherwise be inun-dated by the tides. Delta levees protect critical infra-structure of statewide importance, including rail lines, petroleum product pipelines, electricity transmission lines, water pipelines, and highways. Delta levees also protect tens of thousands of acres of prime agri-cultural land, and are a vital component of fish and wildlife habitat.

F looding/ Is land Loss

Aquiafornia.com


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S


Existing Delta management plans may offer guidance and policy directives for making decisions within the Pri-mary and Secondary Zones in the Delta.

The Delta Protection Commission’s (DPC) Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta (2002) sets out findings and policies on topics, including: environment; utilities and infrastruc-ture; land use; agriculture; water; recreation and ac-cess; levees; and marine patrol and boater education and safety. The County’s updated General Plan is required to be consistent with the plan for parts of the County within the Primary Zone. The General Plan is not required to be consistent for lands within the sec-ondary zone. However, development activities in the Secondary Zone have continued to increase at a sig-nificant rate, increasing the potential for adverse im-pacts to the Primary Zone. The Management Plan is currently (2009) being updated with newly available information reflecting changing conditions in the Delta, and several policy processes being planned for the Delta's future. The County can use the Delta Protection Management Plan to expand County policies related to the Secondary Zone and adjacent areas to ensure future development does not encroach or negatively impact agriculture and ecosystems within the Delta.

Del ta Pro tec t ion Commiss ion

Management P lan DELTA GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

The Legal Delta includes parts of San Joa-quin, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, Alameda, and

Contra Costa Counties. The Delta Protection Act of 1992 (Act) refined the definition of the Legal Delta by designating a Primary Zone and a Secondary Zone. It also established the Delta Protection Commis-sion (DPC) for the purpose of developing a long-term management plan for the Primary Zone, which consti-tutes approximately two-thirds of the Delta’s area. San Joaquin County governs land use and develop-ment decisions within its portion of the Delta. How-ever, the DPC is charged with developing and peri-odically updating a management plan to, “protect, maintain, and, where possible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the delta environment, including but not limited to, agriculture, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities.” The DPC is currently (2009) in the process of updating its management plan.

Competition for Delta resources is expected to increase in the future as changes occur in the Delta over the next 50 to 100 years. The combination of declining Delta resources and increased competition for those resources represents a major challenge. In-terests include: government agencies, agriculturalists; urban water agencies; environmental organizations; in-Delta landowners and residents; fishing; and boat-ing. Recently (2009) there have been proposals to expand the authority of the State in the Delta or form a new land use and environmental protection organi-zation to govern and manage activities in the Primary and Secondary Zones of the Delta and beyond. If formally pursued and adopted, this could result in the creation of a new layer of government, which could limit the County’s authority and decision-making pow-ers related to its land within the Delta.


ISS

UE

S

RRRECREATIONECREATIONECREATION ANDANDAND CCCULTURALULTURALULTURAL RRRESOURCESESOURCESESOURCES

Unincorporated communities lack access to local parks and recreation facilities and programs.

Currently (2008) the County provides approxi-mately 4.3 acres of local regional parkland (does not include school playgrounds) per 1,000 residents. When local regional parkland is combined with re-gional State parks there are approximately 16.5 acres of regional parkland per 1,000 residents. The County’s waterways also provide hundreds of acres of recreation area. However, much of these recreation areas are not located near County residents. While existing regional park acreage meets minimum aver-age standards, the County regional parks are serving many out-of-county residents and many of the parks report overcrowding, especially during the summer months. Residents have also indicated that the County’s recreation system lacks adequate trails for hikers, cy-clists, and horseback riders and that there is a lack of recreation and sports facilities and programs for youth. However, due to taxation and fee limitations, adequate financing is often difficult for acquisition and development of locally accessible parks and rec-reation facilities. Funding for recreation programs and park maintenance is also limited.

Parks and Recr ea t ion Public access to the waterways is limited and public

facilities serving waterway users are inadequate to meet demand.

Despite the number of Delta and waterway facili-ties available to the public, access to the waterways is limited. To gain access to waterways, many people pull their vehicles off the road and fish within a few feet of the road, often on private property. Since the levees are narrow, the parked cars and playing chil-dren can create a hazardous situation with passing cars and trucks. Vandalism, littering, and unsanitary conditions are issues in these areas, because access points and facilities are infrequent and inadequate. This has resulted in many County waterways and ar-eas of the Delta becoming polluted, private property being damaged, farm equipment being vandalized, and crops stolen.

Waterway Access/Fac i l i t i es

Many undiscovered archaeological sites are at risk of loss from development, agriculture, and river erosion.

Remaining archaeological sites in San Joaquin County represent about 5 percent of the original in-ventory and are of exceptional importance for the study of regional prehistory. As of June 2008 ap-proximately 96,788 acres (11 percent) of the County had been surveyed for cultural resources. San Joaquin County contains 4,853 documented historical re-sources, including 262 prehistoric archaeological sites, 239 historic archaeological sites, 14 multi-component archaeological sites, and 4,338 historic buildings or structures. It is likely that prehistoric sites, historic re-mains, and paleontological resources will be found on the surface, as well as in subsurface contexts, through-out the County, particularly, but not exclusively, in ri-parian (streamside or riverside) settings and on the elevated landforms flanking the County. These re-sources need to be preserved to share significance of cultural resources through interpretive education op-portunities with the community and visitors.

Cul tura l Resource Pro tec t ion

WOOLY MAMMOTH!

In 2007 during a construction site excava-tion in downtown Stockton, the remains of a

wooly mammoth were discovered sixty-two feet be-low ground. Scientists say the mammoth bones ap-pear to be from the Pleistocene ice age, about 30,000 years ago, hidden beneath layers of sedi-mentation. Greg Anderson, an assistant professor of biology at the University of the Pacific, stated, “There was a building there for over a hundred years. This would have been completely undiscovered if they hadn’t knocked it down.”


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

RRRECREATIONECREATIONECREATION ANDANDAND CCCULTURALULTURALULTURAL RRRESOURCESESOURCESESOURCES

The Delta is the County’s single most important recrea-tional asset.

The Delta provides a wide variety of land- and water-based recreational activities. Land-based ac-tivities include hunting, camping, picnicking, hiking, bik-ing, wildlife viewing and photographing, sightseeing, attending special events, visiting historic and cultural sites, and touring wineries. Water-based activities include fishing, sailing, water skiing, operating per-sonal watercraft, cruising, canoeing and kayaking, swimming, boat camping, house boating, windsurfing, and hunting. Water-based recreation activities are the most popular recreational activity in the Delta. Boating use in the Delta averages more than 2.13 million trips and more than 6.4 million visitor days an-nually. Senate Bill 1556, signed by the Governor in September 2006, directed the creation of the Califor-nia Delta Trail, a bike and pedestrian trail system and recreation corridor along more than 1,000 miles of Delta waterways. As population both within and out-side the County continue to come to the Delta for rec-reation, this resource can enhance the County’s tourism industry and provide critical recreation for residents.

The Del ta Abandoned rail lines offer an opportunity to link recrea-

tional activities and communities.

Rails-to-trails programs convert abandoned rail-ways to multi-use paths for walking, cycling, and horseback riding. The characteristics of railways with long, flat routes that often pass through historical com-munities make them an appealing recreational re-source. However, conversions can be complex for le-gal, social, and economic reasons. Railroads in the United States were often built with a mix of purchased land, government land grants, and easements. The land deeds can be over a hundred years old, land grants might be conditional upon continuous operation of the rail line, and easements may have expired. Strong local support from local communities and Focus Group members support conversion of abandoned County railways for recreation uses.

Rai ls to Tra i l s

School playgrounds can provide an important local rec-reation resource, particularly in smaller communities and neighborhoods in the County.

Many school playgrounds are available at ele-mentary, middle, and high schools throughout the County, and some are currently (2009) jointly used by schools and residents. Neighborhood parks may be located adjacent to schools so that the facilities can complement each other. Alternatively, existing school facilities can double as parks to provide additional community recreational opportunities. In order to maximize use, school facilities can be open during non-school hours to provide additional local park and recreation facilities in unincorporated communities.

Jo in t Use School Fac i l i t ies

DELTA DISCOVERY CENTER

The Discover the Delta Foundation is plan-ning to build the Delta Discover the Delta Infor-

mation Center, a 7,728-square-foot building, to serve as a gateway for visitors entering the Delta. Visitors will be able to receive tourist related infor-mation about the Delta from a display of brochures, from a computer kiosk and from a docent working at the help desk. The complex will include the informa-tion center building, parking for cars and school buses, arbor and outdoor sitting area and displays of historic agricultural equipment. The Delta Farms Market will also be located on the site. The center will be located along the Sacramento River at state highways 12 and 160 just east of Rio Vista.


ISS

UE

S

SSSAFETYAFETYAFETY

Aquiafornia.com

Air quality in the County is among the poorest in the state, annually exceeding Federal and State standards.

Air pollution-related health ailments bring with them both a human toll and economic costs. The County is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which has not met Federal and State air quality stan-dards and has problems with several criteria air con-taminants, including: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). These pol-lutants are produced by combustion activities, includ-ing: motor vehicles, trucks, electric utilities, agricultural practices, and other industrial, commercial, and resi-dential sources that burn fuels. However, many pollu-tion sources are located outside the County (i.e., the Bay Area). Prevailing winds carry pollution into the County. According to studies by California State Uni-versity Fullerton (2008), poor air quality in San Joa-quin County accounts for about 110 early deaths per year and has an economic cost of about $761 million due to loss in productivity and hospitalization. Poor air quality can also cause asthma, even in healthy chil-dren and adults. According to the Center for Disease control, rates of asthma diagnosis are on the rise both nationally and in California. Experts agree that with-out significant new transportation alternatives both locally and regionally, improvements in the County’s air quality will be difficult to improve.

Air Qual i ty Flooding is the most likely natural hazard to occur in the

County.

Flood risks from waterways and the Delta threaten the safety of residents and the economic health of the County. Historically the County has sustained and re-covered from major floods. The cumulative impacts of these flooding events, combined with a growing rec-ognition of flood risks, have strengthened community resolve to improve and maintain local flood control systems. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) have initiated comprehensive floodplain re-mapping studies which include a new and more stringent levee accreditation process. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is leading a multi-agency effort to inventory levees nationwide and re-assess the standards of design, maintenance, and policies toward levees. In November 2006, the voters of California approved issuance of bonds total-ing $4.9 billion for levees and related flood control actions in California. Because levees within San Joa-quin County provide both flood protection and neces-sary movement of water through the Delta to the Bay Area and Southern California, the need for integrity of the Delta levees was a significant factor leading to passage of the State bonds. There is significant State and national interest in the Delta, with respect to wa-ter supply, ecosystem restoration and flood protection. The risk of flooding in San Joaquin County is real.

F looding

Most air entering the San Joaquin Valley travels through the Bay Area. In addition to the air pollution generated within the County, the air flow from the Bay Area includes significant air pollutants that contribute significantly to the County’s poor air quality.

WHY IS AIR QUALITY SO BAD?

Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, US EPA, California Air Resources Board, U.S. Geological Survey, DOG, Caltrans.


FFFLOODLOODLOOD HHHAZARDAZARDAZARD AAAREASREASREAS


ISS

UE

S

SSSAFETYAFETYAFETY

Unincorporated communities and rural areas in San Joa-quin County are at risk during major emergencies due to lack of coordinated evacuation planning.

Evacuation of rural areas presents certain chal-lenges that are not as prevalent in urban areas. San Joaquin County’s rural areas are much less dense and more spread out than urban areas. This means that using mass transit vehicles to transport residents to safer areas is harder because the population is spread out over a larger area. In addition, transit-dependent populations are harder to serve because many may not be able to make it to central evacua-tion locations. Rural evacuation plans can address transit-dependent populations so that no one gets left behind in a natural disaster or other major emergency situation.

Evacua t ion Routes Updates to Airport Land Use Plans will require consid-

eration and incorporation within the General Plan.

There are six public-use airports located in San Joaquin County, including: Stockton Metropolitan, Tracy Municipal, Kingdon, Lodi (Precissi), Lodi (Lind’s), and New Jerusalem. Although the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Commission provides recommended safety compatibility criteria and maps for these six airports, implementation of these compatibility criteria is the responsibility of the County. Minimizing risks to residents and businesses near airports cannot always be avoided, especially when land uses such as resi-dences, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes are al-lowed to develop or operate nearby. Other land uses that are sensitive to airport operations, include: power plants, fire stations, and hazardous materials sites (e.g., oil refineries or chemical plants). The San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Plan (1997), which establishes safety policies for the six public-use air-ports in San Joaquin County, is currently (2009) being updated with new safety compatibility policies and maps. Coordination between the County and the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Commission is neces-sary to ensure consistency between the new General Plan and the Compatibility plan updates.

Airpor t Hazards

Significant increases in locally reported crimes and local crime rates have occurred compared to statewide trends.

Law enforcement and crime reduction are a major concern of County residents, businesses, and agricul-tural operators. Specific areas of concern include: car theft, petty crime, drug use, gang problems, graffiti, and agricultural-related crime (e.g., trespassing, van-dalism, theft, and dumping). Overall, in terms of crime rate trends, San Joaquin County has experienced a significant increase in crime compared to California as a whole. For example, between 2000 and 2006 the violent crime index throughout California decreased 7.8 percent. This compares to a 32.3 percent increase for San Joaquin County over the same period.

Cr ime


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

SSSAFETYAFETYAFETY

New Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the County will ensure that existing and future residents are aware of their flood risk exposure and are prepared for possible flooding.

San Joaquin County’s current flood hazard maps are out of date. Some formerly undeveloped areas were never mapped in detail, and other areas haven’t been mapped in more than 25 years. Over time wa-ter flow, levee conditions, and drainage patterns have changed due to erosion, land use, and natural forces. The likelihood of flooding in certain areas has also changed. On April 16, 2009, FEMA completed a set of updated Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) for the County that include 100-year (1 per-cent annual chance) floodplains. The new flood maps can help home and business owners understand their current flood risk and make more informed decisions about protecting their property. The new FIRMs also allow community planners, local officials, engineers, builders, and others to make important determinations about where and how new structures and develop-ments should be built to minimize flood risk. The FIRMs will become effective and regulatory on October 16, 2009.

New F lood Maps Preparing area response plans that incorporate inven-

tory data, training for emergency responses, and evacua-tion plans is crucial for ensuring the safety of County resi-dents and businesses.

The San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Ser-vices (OES) is the single coordinating center for major emergency activities. In cooperation with others, OES maintains and oversees the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, which is the countywide disaster preparedness program, including dam evacuation procedures and hazardous materials incidents. OES also provides training for first responders, businesses, and other governmental agencies. The San Joaquin Operational Area, a formal agreement between the cities and County, provides consolidated resources and informa-tion management as well as enhanced inter-jurisdictional coordination during disasters. The Agree-ment provides for equal control over the process by all participating jurisdictions, and places county op-erations in conformance with the regulations of the Statewide Emergency Management System (SEMS).

Emergency Preparedness


OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

Access to grocery stores, parks, and recreational pro-grams can influence an individual's choice to eat better, exercise more, and live healthier.

The factors that contribute to a healthy environ-ment cannot always be controlled by local residents. Some of the elements of healthier communities include: walkable and bike-friendly communities; school and playground location; access to health care services that focus on both treatment and prevention; and ac-cess to affordable fresh foods that provide better eating choices. The San Joaquin County Public Health Services and the Community Partnership for Families of San Joaquin, are working with community members and key stakeholders to:

• promote “smart growth” strategies to help create healthier communities;

• create or improve parks, safe walking trails, safe bicycle lanes, and accessible public transit;

• establish farmers markets, community gardens, and markets with fresh foods in local communities;

• increase physical activity and physical education in schools and after-school programs; and

• support healthy food and physical activity policies in the workplace.

Incorporating healthy community strategies into the General Plan can provide residents with a better quality of life and increase the economic growth of the County.

Heal thy Communi t ies Land use policies play a critical role in avoiding incom-

patible land uses and reducing localized air pollution exposure that can result in adverse health impacts.

Criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs) represent significant health risk, especially for sensitive populations (e.g., children, elderly, chronically ill). Discouraging the placement of residential uses near existing industrial uses and requiring adequate setbacks and land use compatibility standards can also serve to protect the public from TACs. Actions to limit the impacts of air pollution include: ensuring that new residential development locations avoid sources of TACs, and that new sources of TACs do not locate near residential and other sensitive populations (schools, senior centers, hospitals). The County can establish setbacks to ensure development locations have minimal exposure to adjacent populations and by requiring “green” designs and technologies. Devel-oping design strategies to reduce vehicle travel and energy consumption can also reduce air pollution im-pacts as well as greenhouse gas emissions.

Minimal Impac t Deve lopment

AIR QUALITY LAND USE HANDBOOK

In 2005, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepared the Air quality and land use hand-book: a community health perspective. The handbook brings attention to the potential health risks of air pollution and outlines land use strategies that can help mitigate identified risks. The handbook highlights the potential health impacts associated with proximity to air pollution sources so planners can address this issue in planning processes. Examples of recommen-dations for achieving these goals include more com-munication between air agencies and land use plan-ners and setting minimum separation standards be-tween sensitive land uses and known air pollution risks.

Date post:	27-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dale-kunce
View:	217 times
Download:	1 times

Issues and Opportunities Report

Documents