JTAC STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: RTP/SCS EIR Alternatives

MEETING DATE: December 6, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: 4

STAFF CONTACT: Peter Imhof, Aubrey Spilde

RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that, in addition to the “no project” alternative, the environmental impact report for the Regional Transportation Plan-Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP-SCS) study Scenarios 5, 6, and 7 as project alternatives. SUMMARY: In October, following JTAC’s recommendation, the SBCAG Board voted unanimously to direct staff to proceed with “Scenario 3 plus an enhanced transit strategy” as the preferred RTP-SCS alternative and project for purposes of environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In discussing the preferred SCS alternative, JTAC briefly discussed, but did not make specific recommendations on alternatives to study in EIR. This item seeks JTAC input and guidance on the alternatives to be included in the EIR. CEQA requires that an EIR study a “reasonable range of alternatives” which would feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, with the purpose of fostering informed decision-making and public participation. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice, with alternatives limited to those that would avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. Staff modeled and analyzed eight, separate scenarios for consideration as the preferred alternative to be included in the RTP-SCS for purposes of meeting the greenhouse gas emission targets and other requirements of SB 375. Of these eight scenarios, four meet the SB 375 GHG emission targets (Scenarios 3, 5, 6 and 7), which are a basic objective of the RTP-SCS. These scenarios represent a reasonable range of project alternatives which vary the location of possible land uses, the allocation of forecast future job and population growth and the transportation projects to be considered. Because these other modeled scenarios constitute a reasonable range of alternatives, it makes sense to study these scenarios, which meet the project objectives and could lessen potential environmental effects, if any, of the project, as the CEQA alternatives. Staff recommends that, in addition to the “no project” alternative, the EIR study Scenarios 5, 6 and 7 as alternatives to the proposed “Scenario 3+” project. DISCUSSION: Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines gives specific guidance as to the alternatives to be

2

considered in an EIR:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

14 CCR § 15126.6(a). The discussion of alternatives should also focus on alternatives to the project or its location that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic project objectives and are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. 14 CCR § 15126.6(b), (c). Staff modeled and evaluated eight, separate project alternatives to determine project alternatives that would meet the objectives and requirements of SB 375, including the State’s passenger vehicle GHG emission target of zero net per capita growth:

1. Future Baseline.

2. No Project.

3. TOD/Infill.

4. Urban Area Expansion.

5. Blended Infill/Expansion.

6. North County-weighted Jobs, South County-weighted Housing Emphasis.

7. TOD/Infill + Enhanced Transit.

8. Historic Commute Trend Continued.

Of these eight scenarios, four achieved the GHG emissions target (Scenarios 3, 5, 6 and 7) and thus meet this basic, statutorily required project objective. These four scenarios vary basic project inputs, including allowable land uses, future job and population growth allocations, and transportation projects as described in the table and “scenarios pyramid” in Attachment 1. Scenarios 3, 5 and 7 all vary the location of allowable land uses from the currently adopted land uses studied in Scenario 6. Scenario 7 enhances transit service over and above the transportation projects considered in the other scenarios. All four scenarios vary the allocation of forecast future population and job growth. Following JTAC’s recommendation, the SBCAG Board selected a variation on Scenario 3, which included a strategy for enhancing future transit service, as the preferred scenario. This variation is identical to Scenario 3 in all respects, except that it would also include a strategy for additional transit enhancements in the future. Since this enhanced transit strategy is dependent on additional revenues from new sources becoming available and does not program such enhancements within existing financial constraints, for purposes of CEQA analysis it is identical

3

to Scenario 3. (Federal regulation requires that the RTP be financially constrained by reasonably foreseeable revenue. This requirement thus represents another important project objective and feasibility limitation.) Per the terms of the contract with EIR consultant, Rincon Consultants, Inc., the EIR will evaluate three alternative scenarios in addition to the no project alternative. Because the three alternative scenarios that meet the SB 375 GHG emission target vary the basic project inputs, including allowable land uses, future job and population growth allocations, and transportation projects, they represent a reasonable range of alternatives and it makes sense to study them in the EIR. These three modeled alternatives scenarios meet the project objectives and are potentially feasible. Evaluation in the EIR will determine whether and to what extent they could lessen potential environmental effects, if any, of the “Scenario 3+” project alternative. Once we have completed the impact analysis for the proposed plan, we will confirm that these alternatives have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project and represent a reasonable range. Staff accordingly recommends that, in addition to the “no project” alternative, the EIR study Scenarios 5, 6 and 7 as the project alternatives. In making this recommendation, staff has duly considered comments received to date on the EIR and Notice of Preparation, included in Attachment 2. Of possibly greatest relevance to the discussion of alternatives are perhaps comments included in the October 26 California Rural Legal Assistance letter on behalf of PUEBLO, which seeks the consideration of “all feasible sites” in the unincorporated Goleta area for higher density zoning as additional, specific housing sites and references an earlier comment letter on the County’s proposed update to its Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan. The RTP-SCS is a regional plan which evaluates land use and transportation patterns at a regional scale. Two project alternatives (Scenarios 5 and 6) vary land use assumptions consistent with the project’s objective of studying regional land use and transportation relationships at the regional level. At this scale, overall land use patterns (e.g., transit-oriented development vs. urban expansion/greenfield development) are more important than identification of specific sites, as the land use and travel model will not be sensitive to such fine-tuned land use changes. In any case, CEQA does not require that an EIR evaluate “all feasible” project locations, but merely a reasonable range, which staff believes the proposed project alternatives adequately represent. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Scenarios Comparison

2. NOP Comment Letters a. APCD NOP Comment Letter b. Environmental Defense Center NOP Comment Letter c. PUEBLO/CRLA Comment Letter

4

Attachment 1: Scenarios Comparison

1. Future

Baseline 2. No Project 3. TOD/Infill

5. Blended

TOD/Infill +

Urban Area

Expansion

6. North

County-

weighted Jobs,

South County-

weighted

Housing

Emphasis

7. TOD/Infill +

Enhanced Transit

Land Use Inputs

Adopted Land Uses Only ● ● ●

TOD/Infill Changes Based on Local Plans in Process ● ● ●

Urban Edge/Greenfield ●

Jobs/Housing Correction? No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Transportation Project Inputs

All Programmed and Planned Transportation Improvements ● ● ● ● ●

No Transportation Improvements ●

Enhanced transit Improvements? None None None None None Increased Frequencies

Financially Constrained?

With Existing Revenue Sources Yes n/a Yes Yes Yes No

Supplemental Revenue Sources Needed No No No No No Yes

Inputs

Scenarios Meeting SB 375 Emissions TargetBaseline Scenarios

5

Attachment 2: EIR Notice of Preparation Comment Letters

California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. 2020 Alameda Padre Serra, Suite 101 * Santa Barbara, CA 93103 * (805) 963-5982

October 26, 2012

(Via E-Mail)

Peter Imhoff

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments

260 North San Antonio Road, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA 93110

Re: Comments by PUEBLO on SBCAG’s Scope and Environmental Analysis of

EIR for Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

Dear Mr. Imhoff:

We are attorneys who write on behalf of PUEBLO (People United for Economic

Justice Building Leadership Through Organizing) to respond to the Santa Barbara County

Association of Government’s (“SBCAG”) solicitation for public comment in its September,

2012 “Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report” for the Regional

Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS”). PUEBLO is

interested in the inclusion of adequate sites in the Goleta Valley Community Plan Update for

affordable housing for extremely low, very low and low-income households. Our comments,

required by CEQA regarding the public commentary process for EIRs, also address Santa

Barbara County’s housing element compliance, which is integral to any analysis of the

RTP/SCS.

Our EIR comments for the RTP/SCS specifically concern the County of Santa

Barbara’s Goleta Valley Community Plan Update, which is to undergo its own EIR as part of

the Santa Barbara County Housing Element. We hereby incorporate by reference our

comments of October 19, 2012 (attached herein, and supplemented by this letter) to Santa

Barbara County for the Notice of Preparation and Scoping of the EIR for the Goleta Valley

Community Plan Update for Eastern Goleta as our comments for the RTP/SCS herein. These

comments address the environmentally-salient issues concerning the RTP/SCS for the Eastern

Goleta Valley region and beyond, including visual resources, air quality, educational and

business resources, cultural offerings, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation and

land use.

SBCAG has estimated that 30,000 workers commute into Santa Barbara from Santa

Barbara North County and Ventura County, increasing traffic congestion and air pollution in

the Santa Barbara area. Many local employees, who provide essential services in all phases of

industry from the public to private sectors, cannot afford to reside in the community that they

serve. To create a sustainable community, these negative conditions of excess commuting,

traffic congestion and resultant air pollution need to be mitigated by providing affordable and

workforce housing on urban infill near transportation, public services and

Page 2

commerce. Accordingly, it is critical that all feasible sites be considered for higher density

zoning in the Eastern Goleta Valley to effectuate affordable housing goals and contribute to

enhancing the RTP/SCS.

We are interested in the Regional Transportation Plan’s framework for all of Santa

Barbara County, and its application to Eastern Goleta Valley, concerning growth and mobility

needs; an economical transportation network of public transit and streets and highways; an

integrated land use capacity evaluation that considers the area’s future employment and

housing needs and protects public resources; a future land use pattern, including regional gas

emission targets for passenger cars; and other objectives, including a financial plan identifying

the funding sources and means to implement the RTP/SCS.

Your attention to our public comments is appreciated.

Sincerely,

/S/

Kirk Ah Tye/CRLA

Attorneys

cc: PUEBLO

State Department of Housing and Community Development

Ilene Jacobs, CRLA Director of Litigation,

Advocacy and Training

Michael Rawson, California Affordable Housing Law Project;

Public Interest Law Project

Attachment: Comments by PUEBLO for Notice of Preparation and Scoping of EIR for

the Goleta Valley Community Plan Update for Eastern Goleta

California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. 2020 Alameda Padre Serra, Suite 101 * Santa Barbara, CA 93103 * (805) 963-5982

October 19, 2012

(Via E-Mail)

Bret McNulty

Planner

Santa Barbara County

Planning and Development Department

Long Range Planning Division

123 E. Anapamu Street

Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2058

Re: Comments by PUEBLO to Notice of Preparation and Scoping of

Environmental Impact Report for the Goleta Valley Community Plan Update for

the Eastern Goleta; Housing Element Compliance

Dear Bret McNulty and Santa Barbara County:

We are attorneys writing on behalf of PUEBLO (People United for Economic Justice

Building Leadership Through Organizing) to respond to the solicitation by this County

department of September 19, 2012 regarding the Notice of Preparation and Scoping of the

Environmental Impact Report for the Goleta Valley Community Plan Update for the Eastern

Goleta Valley. PUEBLO is concerned about the inclusion of adequate sites in Eastern Goleta

Valley for affordable housing for very low and low-income persons, families, disabled

individuals, seniors, farmworkers and other statutorily-recognized groups. Our comments, as

part of the commentary process required by CEQA, also address housing element compliance,

which, under state housing element law, additionally mandates public comment.

We have complained previously to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in

our letter of August 3, 2012, that the County’s failure to implement Program 1.3 of the County

Housing Element renders the Housing Element out of compliance with state housing element

law. Pursuant to the directive of the State Department of Housing and Community

Development (“HCD”), the County was to have already rezoned sites to higher densities,

including within the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan “by July, 2012.” The County’s

failure to do so has the final consequence that the “element will no longer identify adequate

sites and comply with State housing element law.” (HCD Letter of August 23, 2011; see also

HCD Letter of February 13, 2012.) Our comments on the EIR for the Goleta Valley

Community Plan update make no concession that the County is out of compliance with State

housing element law in accordance with the mandate of HCD. We assert that the County

should immediately rezone the most feasible and environmentally-superior sites there.

PUEBLO, while not advocating for the selection of any particular site or sites in the

Eastern Goleta Valley for affordable housing development, does support the inclusion of all

Page 2

potential viable sites for EIR review. The County’s selected sites appear to be unduly

restrictive, and not in conformity with the County’s own study (South Coast Potential Housing

Opportunity Sites Evaluation Criteria), which ranks the Hodges site above the other sites the

County has selected for EIR review. The EIR should examine the development of higher

density sites along the “Hollister Avenue corridor” as to its potential environmental

superiority. We are informed that the County has been notified of various and distinct

problems with the chosen sites, including development issues, competing commercial uses and

limited parcel sizes.

PUEBLO has also been critical of the County’s identification of aggregate housing

sites within the compacted and built-out Isla Vista as unfeasible for affordable housing as a

constituent of its Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Housing Element. The housing

production of mostly studio and one-bedroom units is and will continue to be oriented to only

students, inappropriate for larger low-income households and low-income persons. The

elimination of the Isla Vista Redevelopment Agency will ensure that the production of

affordable housing will not fulfill the projected amount of affordable units cited in the County

Land Inventory. This would induce the rezoning of more sites in Eastern Goleta Valley for

affordable housing -- yet another reason for expanding the number of sites there for EIR

review.

Under SB 375, a Sustainable Communities Strategy will outline this region’s plan for

combining transportation resources, including roads and mass transit, with a realistic land use

pattern to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Local governments are to be accountable for

reducing these emissions through well-placed and affordable residential development.

Congruously, the County should add those sites in Eastern Goleta Valley that best meet the

Sustainable Communities Strategy, situated near transportation, shopping and work places.

The “Hollister corridor,” near San Marcos High School, accessible to the 101 freeway and

public busing on Hollister Avenue -- a thoroughfare for this area, Goleta Valley Hospital, high

tech and business firms, and other resources, would conceivably fulfill the requirements and

criteria of SB 375 better than any of the included sites. The Hodge site, within the Hollister

corridor, and other alternative sites should be part of the EIR review.

PUEBLO seeks a re-envisioning of the County Housing Element regarding its RHNA

and statutory obligations for affordable housing. While PUEBLO advocates the immediate

rezoning of the best sites in Eastern Goleta Valley, the County owes its constituents an EIR

that meaningfully provides for affordable housing by omitting the unfeasible Isla Vista plan

Page 3

and inclusion for EIR review of all of the SB 375-compatible sites in Eastern Goleta Valley.

Your attention to our public comments is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Kirk Ah Tye/CRLA

Attorneys for PUEBLO

cc: PUEBLO

State Department of Housing and Community Development

Ilene Jacobs, CRLA Director of Litigation,

Advocacy and Training

Michael Rawson, California Affordable Housing Law Project;

Public Interest Law Project