2014 rtp, scs and peir final regional transportation plan and sustainable communities strategy and...

2014 RTP, SCS and PEIR

Final Regional Transportation Plan and

Sustainable Communities Strategy and

Program Environmental Impact Report

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

This presentation will be part of the record of today’sMCTC Board Meeting.

As such, the contents of this presentation will be read to the attending audience.

This presentation will be available to download on the MCTC website Thursday, July 24.

www.maderactc.org

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

MCTC Responsibilities What is a Regional Transportation Plan? What is a Sustainable Communities Strategy? What is a Program EIR? Work Activity to Date RTP and SCS Issues Response to Additional

Comments Clarification of Roles &

Responsibilities Recommendations Questions/Comments?

RESPONSIBILITIES

As the RTPA & MPO for Madera County, MCTC is responsible for preparation of the documents

RTP and SCS prepared in accordance with: Federal requirements California Senate Bill (SB) 375 (climate change legislation)

Program EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA MCTC developed the RTP and SCS,

& Program EIR over the past 2 years working with local agencies & the RTP and SCS Roundtable

Updated every 4 years Long-range transportation plan

(20+ years) (2014-2040)Identifies Madera County’s

transportation goalsIdentifies the existing & future

transportation system & projects/costs equal to expected revenues

Required to contain an SCS

WHAT IS A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN?

Reflects the region’s transportation system & implementation policies/programs that will safely & efficiently accommodate growth envisioned in: Land Use Elements of:

• City of Chowchilla• City of Madera• Madera County

WHAT IS A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN?

Supports the State's climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

Better integrates land use, housing & transportation planning through coordinated planning with local agencies

Identifies existing or planned land use strategies that help reduce vehicular travel [or greenhouse gases] with the goal of more sustainable communities

WHAT IS A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY?

Must reflect “a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from light trucks and cars, to achieve, if feasible, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets approved by the Air Resource Board” ARB set GHG emission reduction targets of 5%

by 2020 & 10% by 2035 from the 2005 Base Year

The SCS is not a land use plan


If the SCS does not meet the targets, MCTC must: Prepare a separate “alternative planning strategy" (APS) in consultation

with ARB that reflects strategies that would meet the targets The APS is not a part of the RTP The RTP and SCS can be adopted even if the targets are not met


WORK ACTIVITY TO DATE

Retained VRPA Technologies to assist with preparation of the 2014 RTP/SCS & PEIR

Worked with local agencies & Roundtable Committee (agency staff & stakeholders)

ARB issued GHG reduction targets A separate consultant prepared the traffic model Numerous public meetings held:

MCTC Board approval of the SCS Scenario 2 public hearings 5 Roundtable meetings 7 public workshops 2 EJ (in Spanish) workshops 1 EJ event Stakeholder presentations


Roundtable was presented with 3 alternative scenarios Status Quo Low Change Hybrid Scenario

No other alternative scenarios were presented by the Roundtable

Roundtable unanimously selected the Hybrid Scenario as the Preferred Scenario

The Preferred SCS Scenario was adopted in March 2014 by the MCTC Policy Board


Even though MCTC does not meet the 5% and 10% target reduction it is not business as usual

The Preferred SCS Scenario includes: Low density change in Chowchilla and other parts of the County Moderate density change in:

• SE Madera County New Growth Area • City of Madera

Existing and future transit system improvements for each of the three transit providers

Enhanced transit along major corridors within the region including SR 41, SR 99, SR 145, and Avenue 12

Proposed SCS Funding Program for projects that reduce GHG emissions Pedestrian & bicycle improvement projects Other projects that reduce vehicle trips

RTP AND SCS ISSUES

Public comments have a common theme: The RTP and SCS does not meet the targets due to New Town development NOTE: MCTC

did not add allocate development that was not already reflected in General Plans Madera does not meet GHG targets NOTE: MCTC working with ARB to prepare the APS in

accordance with SB 375 RTP and SCS should provide for more multi-family homes & fewer single-family homes

NOTE: Local agencies preparing Housing Elements that reflect the RHNA allocation (market demand for housing)

Prepare a scenario that meets targets NOTE: MCTC will work with ARB on the APS & demonstrate how targets can be reached

MCTC has “significant” authority over RTP projects and should condition transportation project funding to achieve or come closer to meeting GHG reduction targets NOTE: MCTC cannot amend the Measure T Investment Plan without agency and voter approvals and cannot condition projects considering planned land use actions

Because state and federal funds are allocated competitively to reward the best-performing plans, underperforming could result in Madera receiving less funding NOTE: MCTC is in compliance with SB 375; don’t foresee funding issues

WHAT IS A PROGRAM EIR?

CEQA requires that the 2014 RTP and SCS be evaluated to determine potential impacts on the environment

Environmental areas are evaluated by determining:

Standards of Significance Direct and Indirect Impacts Mitigation Measures Environmental Determination

CEQA requires that a Draft PEIR be prepared and distributed for review by: Regulatory agencies Other agencies General public

The Final PEIR reflects: Draft PEIR comments and

responses to the comments 48 comments were received

• 7 agencies• 3 stakeholders or groups• 38 general public

Changes to the Draft PEIR

WHAT IS A PROGRAM EIR?

Considered Vulcan in Air Quality Conformity Analysis? All growth and development to the Year 2040, consistent with General

Plans, was considered in the analysis. Thresholds for Population, Housing and Employment for the Year 2040 are reflected in the modeling

Climate Change Analysis Should Reflect a Later Baseline Year Using a Baseline year of

2010 instead of 2005 results in the estimates provided to the right.

RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Referencing the Table, GHG emissions decrease between 2010 and 2035 and between 2010 and 2040. As a result, no additional impacts result using a later baseline or 2010

Reflect GHG Emissions Associated with Planned Land Use There is no established methodology to estimate GHG emissions from

planned use on a regional scale. Using available resources, the estimated MMT of GHG emissions has been estimated in the following table. These emissions are in addition to the emissions estimated for the transportation improvements noted in the PEIR and continue to represent a significant and unavoidable impact


Provide an Estimate of Long-Term Climate Change Impacts Without an exact estimate

of 1990 baseline GHG emissions, Long-term Climate Change Impacts have been estimated as referenced below. The results continue to indicate a significant and unavoidable impact


Implementation of the proposed RTP/SCS will may potentially interfere with achievement of AB 32 goals. AB 32 calls for the State of California to reach 1990 levels of GHG emissions from all sources by the year 2020. For purposes of this analysis, 1990 levels were estimated to be 15 percent below the 2008 levels. The 2008 baseline was used as it matches the Third Edition ARB GHG inventory last updated in May 2010. A 15 percent reduction below 2008 was used as a proxy for 1990 because there is no 1990 GHG emissions data for the plan area, and the Scoping Plan states that 15 percent reduction in emissions from 2008 is an approximate estimate of 1990 levels (ARB, 2010)

GHG emissions were measured in MMtCO2e from transportation, electricity generation, residential and commercial uses, industrial operations, and agricultural and forestry lands. These sectors match the Level 1 Sectors of the Third Edition ARB GHG inventory. However, since the proposed RTP/SCS only impacts land use and transportation, the initial analysis only included emissions from the transportation, electricity generation, and residential and commercial sectors


For the region, 2008 GHG emissions totaled were estimated to be 1.957 MMtCO2e. Therefore, to achieve AB 32’s goals, the plan area emissions must reach 1.66 MMtCO2e by 2020. With implementation of the proposed RTP/SCS and the Scoping Plan measures, 2020 emissions are forecasted to be 1.76 MMtCO2e, 6 percent higher than the target, but a total of 10 percent below 2008

The Executive Order, as described in the Settings section of this chapter, calls for reductions in GHGs of 80 percent below 1990 levels. For Madera County, this would constitute a goal of 0.33 MMtCO2e by 2050. However, the Executive Order does not include any specific measures to achieve these reductions, and instead merely places oversight for reporting from all state agencies with CalEPA. As noted above, AB 32 and the Scoping Plan–as informed but not mandated by Executive Order #S-3-05–establish the statewide standards and implementation measures for emissions reductions applicable to regional planning agencies such as MCTC


Because AB 32 and the Scoping Plan establish the statewide standards and implementation measures (including SB 375) for GHG emissions reductions, there is no statewide guidance on assumptions, strategies, or measures to calculate achievement of the Executive Order’s aspirational goal. Nevertheless, preliminary analysis to estimate GHG emissions for 2050 for the plan area was prepared. This preliminary analysis is for informational purposes only

First, a BAU GHG scenario was estimated for 2050 by deriving an average annual reduction in GHGs from the proposed RTP/SCS, multiplying it by the number of years from the 2040 horizon of the plan to 2050, and adding it to 2040 GHG estimates. The result is a BAU GHG estimate for 2050 of 1.56 MMtCO2e, which exceeds the estimated goal of 0.33 MMtCO2e


Identify Adequate Mitigation for Impacts MCTC has no authority to impose mitigation measures on individual projects for

which it is not the lead agency. Mitigation measures in this the Program are intended to be used by projects seeking to use this Program EIR for CEQA streamlining (under SB 375 and SB 226 – CEQA Streamlining for Infill Projects) and tiering. MCTC has no authority to impose mitigation measures, all mitigation measures are subject to a city or county’s independent discretion as to whether measures are applicable to projects in their respective jurisdictions. The determination of significance and identification of appropriate mitigation is solely the responsibility of the lead agency

The SCS Funding Program must be approved as part of the RTP and SCS before it can be developed. Once the RTP and SCS are approved, MCTC will move forward with development of the SCS Funding Program. Projects that may be funded through the SCS Funding Program are referenced in Chapter 5 of the RTP and SCS. Furthermore, the Final PEIR notes that “60% of CMAQ funding is set aside for the grant program.”


A number of mitigation measures in various sections of the PEIR will result in reductions to GHG emissions including those listed in the Air Quality, Climate Change, and Transportation Sections of Chapter 3 of the Draft PEIR

MCTC is a very small MPO (150,000 population) in the State of California and is vastly different than the other agencies referenced in the comments from Sierra Club attorneys (MTC, SANDAG, City of San Carlos, SACOG, etc.). The funding streams for those agencies is also significantly greater than for MCTC

Noted in the Final PEIR Chapter 2, MCTC has little discretion or control of funding streams that flow through MCTC. Any change to the Measure T Investment Plan would require elected and voter approvals – MCTC cannot make changes without those approvals


Measure T funding is allocated to local jurisdictions in accordance with the Investment Plan. This includes allocation by funding program. MCTC is not an agency to which Safe Routes to School funding can be allocated. Amendment to the Investment Plan would be required

MCTC only has the authority to administer the funding programs in the Investment Plan. It does not have the authority to allocate Measure T funding at its discretion

Evaluate and Mitigate Public’s Health Impacts Public health impacts were evaluated and appropriate mitigation

measures were identified


MCTC agrees to adding the following mitigation measures to the PEIR:• Implementing agencies should require that new development install air

filtration devices, as appropriate.• Implementing agencies should require that new development consider

site development constraints, such as prohibiting residential units and day care centers on the ground floor of buildings located within 500 feet of a non-elevated highway.

• Implementing agencies should require new development to reduce emissions from diesel trucks by a variety of measures, including installing electrical hook-ups at loading docks and requiring truck-intensive projects to use advanced exhaust technology.

• Implementing agencies should adhere to the Air Resources Board Handbook siting guidance and require Best Management Practices such as passive electrostatic filtering systems and the correct placement of air intakes away from toxic air contaminant sources.


Evaluate and Mitigate Farmland Impacts MCTC is committed to forming a committee of local agency

representatives and stakeholders to discuss and identify appropriate strategies to reduce transportation and land use impacts on agricultural resources. It is the local agencies that have land use authority and are also the lead agencies for the design and construction of transportation improvement projects. MCTC will, as representative of its member jurisdictions, facilitate the committee as referenced in the mitigation measure contained in the PEIR


Alternatives Analysis is Inadequate MCTC did include an adequate range of alternatives in the PEIR. Specifically,

MCTC worked with the Roundtable (local agency staff and environmental advocates, health advocates, development representatives, and other stakeholders) to identify the RTP and SCS alternatives (Status Quo, Low Change, and Hybrid)

No other alternatives were identified or suggested by the Roundtable Committee when the alternatives were discussed

The three alternatives were reviewed with the public and the Hybrid Scenario was approved as the preferred SCS Scenario by the Roundtable and the MCTC Board


Alternatives Analysis is Inadequate The Hybrid Scenario was developed considering the Blueprint Low Change and

Moderate Change Scenarios, even though the approved Blueprint scenario was the Low Change Scenario – the RTP and SCS Hybrid Scenario is not “business as usual”

There are a number of GHG reduction strategies included in the RTP and SCS Hybrid Scenario. The RT unanimously recommended the most ambitious of the scenarios offered and the Board agreed. Unfortunately the scenario did not meet the targets

SB 375 allows MCTC to approve the RTP and SCS and work with CARB to prepare an APS as noted in the RTP and in the PEIR. The APS will identify GHG reduction strategies that would meet targets


Water Quality and Quantity Impacts Section 3.11 of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)

identifies impacts and appropriate mitigation measures related to hydrology and water resources. MCTC does not have land use authority, which rests with the local jurisdictions. Local agencies have the responsibility to approve or disapprove of land use development and require analysis of specific impacts and appropriate mitigation at the time of approval. MCTC will encourage the local agencies to implement the appropriate mitigation strategies identified in the Draft PEIR


Q1: Does MCTC have land-use authority, such that it can limit growth/development or demand that growth/development only occur in certain areas? A1: No. There is no statutory or case law confirming that MCTC (or

Metropolitan Planning Organizations in general) have land use authority. In fact:• In general, MPOs (such as MCTC) consist of local elected officials, officials

of public agencies that administer or operate major modes of transportation in the metropolitan area, and appropriate State officials. The federal statutes that create MPOs do not provide them with land use authority. (23 USC § 134(b).)

• Similarly, COGs (another form of MPOs) only have the authorities granted to them via their joint powers agreements. (CA Gov. Code, § §6503 and 6508.) Here, MCTC is not a COG, nor is it subject to a Joint Powers Agreement that would give it any land use powers.

CLARIFICATION OF ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

• Finally, County Transportation Commissions – like MCTC – may only exercise the powers provided by statute. (See CA Public Utilities Code § 130200 et seq.). These powers include eminent domain, the power to sue or be sued, the sale of property, the ability to enter into contracts and so on. However, the list of statutory powers does not include land use authority.

Q2: Does the case cited by the Sierra Club (Cleveland National Forest Foundation vs. SANDAG; San Diego Case No. 37-2011-00101593) have any bearing on MCTC’s RTP? A2: No. (A copy of the trial court decision is attached in case you need

it.) First, the decision striking down SANDAG’s SCS is a trial court decision.

Therefore, it has no binding effect on MCTC under the law. (CA Rule of Court 8.1115(a).)


Second, the trial court’s decision in Cleveland National Forest is not applicable to MCTC because it was made on facts and environmental conditions unique to San Diego. Madera County is different from San Diego because Madera has a population of 150,000 compared to 2+ million, they have considerable funding resources available, they have an international border, they have national interstate system running through the County, they have an international airport, etc.

Third, the trial court found that the EIR failed to “address the inconsistency between the dramatic increase in overall GHG emissions after 2020 contemplated by the RTP/SCS and the statewide policy of reducing same during the same three decades (2020-2050).” Here, MCTC’s EIR does analyze and disclose that the RTP/SCS will not meet the ARB’s GHG reduction target for the area. That is exactly why MCTC would be required by SB 375 to next move forward with the preparation of an APS, to develop other strategies for reducing GHGs. Thus, MCTC’s EIR meet’s CEQA’s informational disclosure requirements and did not conceal or otherwise fail to discuss impacts.


Finally, in Cleveland National Forest, the trial court found that SANDAG “ignore[d] the purse string control [it] has over TransNet funds” and did not consider whether it could use available funds to pay for local agencies’ Climate Action Plans. In contrast, MCTC has prepared detailed responses to comments that lay out all potential sources of funding and explain why it does not have purse-string control over that funding and, thus, cannot use those funds to pay for mitigation like local Climate Action Plans. For example, Measure T funds are already dedicated to a particular slate of projects, which were approved by MCTC and a vote of the people. The only way to re-allocate those funds to other projects or to use those funds for RTP mitigation would be to revise the expenditure plan, obtain MCTC approval, and then re-submit it to a vote of the people. The outcome of a potential election is unknown and unforeseeable, and MCTC has no legal ability to force the public to vote in any particular way. Thus, it is “infeasible” under CEQA to require revision of the Measure T expenditure plan in order to fund local mitigation.


Q3: Does the case cited by Sierra Club (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 360) require that MCTC control local agencies’ land use uses as a form of mitigation? A3: No. Again, MCTC does not have any land use authority that would

make it legally feasible to impose such restrictions on local agencies. Further, Sierra Club did not include the full quotation from the Napa Citizens case, which actually confirms that: “Mitigation measures must be feasible and enforceable. 'Feasible' means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors…..” Here, it is not feasible for MCTC to control local land use, thus MCTC properly rejected potential mitigation measures that would require such action.


Q4: Doesn’t MCTC have to adopt an APS now? A4: No. An alternative planning strategy (APS) must be adopted after

the SCS, and may even be a separate document from the Regional Transportation Plan.

SB 375 (via Government Code section 65080(I)) says that “[i]f the sustainable communities strategy . . . is unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established by the state board, the metropolitan planning organization shall prepare an alternative planning strategy to the sustainable communities strategy showing how those greenhouse gas emission targets would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies. The alternative planning strategy shall be a separate document from the regional transportation plan, but it may be adopted concurrently with the regional transportation plan.”


Here, the next step for MCTC would be to prepare an APS to address alternative means of reducing GHGs. MCTC has already been consulting with the ARB regarding options for moving ahead with an APS. Once an APS is prepared, it would come back before MCTC, at which time the APS could be adopted and the RTP may be amended as necessary.


RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Certify the RTP and SCS PEIR2. Approve the PEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program3. Approve the PEIR Findings and Overriding Considerations4. Approve the Air Quality Conformity Finding

5. Approve the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP)

6. Approve the 2014 RTP and SCS

NOTE: Projects in the RTP can not move forward without approval of the RTP, FTIP, & Air Quality Conformity Finding. Without approvals noted, projects throughout the Valley will not move forward

MCTC 2014 RTP, SCS, and PEIR

MCTC Board Questions

MCTC 2014 RTP, SCS, and PEIR

Public Comment

2014 rtp, scs and peir final regional transportation plan and sustainable communities strategy and...

Documents