Regional Council Full Agenda Packet - February 1, 2018. Hon. Charles Puckett ... 50. Hon. Sam...

REGIONAL COUNCIL Thursday, February 1, 2018 12:15 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.

Please Note NEW Address SCAG MAIN OFFICE

900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700 Board Room Los Angeles, CA 90017

(213) 236‐1800

If members of the public wish to review the attachments or have any questions on any of the agenda items, please contact Tess Rey‐Chaput at (213) 236‐1908 or via email at [email protected]. In addition, regular meetings of the Regional Council may be viewed live or on‐demand at: www.scag.ca.gov/scagtv Agendas & Minutes for the Regional Council are also available at: www.scag.ca.gov/committees SCAG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation in order to participate in this meeting. SCAG is also committed to helping people with limited proficiency in the English language access the agency’s essential public information and services. You can request such assistance by calling (213) 236‐1908. We request at least 72 hours (three days) notice to provide reasonable accommodations and will make every effort to arrange for assistance as soon as possible.

MEETING NO. 597

REGIONAL COUNCIL OFFICERS

PresidentMargaret E. Finlay, Duarte

First Vice PresidentAlan D. Wapner, Ontario

Second Vice PresidentBill Jahn, Big Bear Lake

Immediate Past PresidentMichele Mart inez, Santa Ana

COMMITTEECHAIRS

Execut ive/Administ rat ionMargaret E. Finlay, Duarte

Commu nit y, Economic &Human DevelopmentRex Richardson, Long Beach

Energy & EnvironmentCarmen Ramirez, Oxnard

Transportat ionCurt Hagman, San Bernardino County

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700Los Angeles, CA 90017

T: (213) 236- 1800www.scag.ca.gov

Please Note: SCAG’s new office address indicated below. Please visit SCAG’s website for Maps/Driving Directions; Parking Information and allow extra time for security check‐in.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Regional Council Members – February 2018

Members Representing

President 1. Hon. Margaret E. Finlay Duarte District 35

1st Vice President 2. Hon. Alan D. Wapner Ontario SBCTA

2nd Vice President 3. Hon. Bill Jahn Big Bear Lake District 11

Imm. Past President 4. Hon. Michele Martinez Santa Ana District 16

5. Sup. Luis Plancarte Imperial County

6. Sup. Janice Hahn Los Angeles County

7. Sup. Hilda Solis Los Angeles County

8. Sup. Shawn Nelson Orange County

9. Sup. V. Manuel Peréz Riverside County

10. Sup.. Curt Hagman San Bernardino County

11. Sup. Linda Parks Ventura County

12. Hon. Jim Predmore Holtville ICTC

13. Hon. Richard D. Murphy Los Alamitos OCTA

14. Hon. Jan Harnik Palm Desert RCTC

15. Hon. Mike T. Judge Simi Valley VCTC

16. Hon. Cheryl Viegas‐Walker El Centro District 1

17. Hon. Gregory Pettis Cathedral City District 2

18. Hon. Jim Hyatt Calimesa District 3

19. Hon. Clint Lorimore Eastvale District 4

20. Hon. Randon Lane Murrieta District 5

21. Hon. Frank Navarro Colton District 6

22. Hon. James Mulvihill San Bernardino District 7

23. Hon. Deborah Robertson Rialto District 8

24. Hon. L. Dennis Michael Rancho Cucamonga District 9

25. Hon. Ray Marquez Chino Hills District 10

26. Hon. Fred Minagar Laguna Niguel District 12

27. Hon. Barbara Kogerman Laguna Hills District 13

28. Hon. Donald P. Wagner Irvine District 14

29. Hon. Steve Nagel Fountain Valley District 15

30. Hon. Charles Puckett Tustin District 17



31. Hon. Stacy Berry Cypress District 18

32. Hon. Kris Murray Anaheim District 19

33. Hon. Tri Ta Westminster District 20

34. Hon. Art Brown Buena Park District 21

35. Hon. Marty Simonoff Brea District 22

36. Hon. Victor Manalo Artesia District 23

37. Hon. Sonny Santa Ines Bellflower District 24

38. Hon. Sean Ashton Downey District 25

39. Hon. José Luis Solache Lynwood District 26

40. Hon. Ali Saleh Bell District 27

41. Hon. Dan Medina Gardena District 28

42. Hon. Rex Richardson Long Beach District 29

43. Hon. Lena Gonzalez Long Beach District 30

44. Hon. Andrew Sarega La Mirada District 31

45. Hon. Margaret Clark Rosemead District 32

46. Hon. Peggy Delach Covina District 33

47. Hon. Barbara Messina Alhambra District 34

48. Hon. Jonathan Curtis La Cañada Flintridge District 36

49. Hon. Carol Herrera Diamond Bar District 37

50. Hon. Sam Pedroza Claremont District 38

51. Hon. James Gazeley Lomita District 39

52. Hon. Judy Mitchell Rolling Hills Estates District 40

53. Hon. Pam O’Connor Santa Monica District 41

54. Hon. Vartan Gharpetian Glendale District 42

55. Hon. Steven Hofbauer Palmdale District 43

56. Hon. Laura Rosenthal Malibu District 44

57. Hon. Carmen Ramirez Oxnard District 45

58. Hon. Glen Becerra Simi Valley District 46

59. Hon. John Procter Santa Paula District 47

60. Hon. Gilbert Cedillo Los Angeles District 48



61. Hon. Paul Krekorian Los Angeles District 49 / Public Transp. Rep.

62. Hon. Bob Blumenfield Los Angeles District 50

63. Hon. David Ryu Los Angeles District 51

64. Hon. Paul Koretz Los Angeles District 52

65. Hon. Nury Martinez Los Angeles District 53

66. Hon. Monica Rodriguez Los Angeles District 54

67. Hon. Marqueece Dawson Los Angeles District 55

68. Hon. Curren D. Price, Jr. Los Angeles District 56

69. Hon. Herb J. Wesson, Jr. Los Angeles District 57

70. Hon. Mike Bonin Los Angeles District 58

71. Hon. Mitchell Englander Los Angeles District 59

72. Hon. Mitch O’Farrell Los Angeles District 60

73. Hon. José Huizar Los Angeles District 61

74. Hon. Joe Buscaino Los Angeles District 62

75. Hon. Steve Manos Lake Elsinore District 63

76. Hon. Erik Peterson Huntington Beach District 64

77. Hon. Barb Stanton Town of Apple Valley District 65

78. Hon. Michael Wilson Indio District 66

79. Hon. Marsha McLean Santa Clarita District 67

80. Hon. Rusty Bailey Riverside District 68

81. Hon. Jeffrey Giba Moreno Valley District 69

82. Hon. Ben Benoit Wildomar Air District Representative

83. Hon. Peggy Huang Yorba Linda TCA Representative

84. Hon. Sabrina LeRoy San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

Tribal Government Regional Planning Board Representative

85. Mr. Randall Lewis Lewis Group of Companies Business Representative

86. Hon. Eric Garcetti Los Angeles Member‐at‐Large


REGIONAL COUNCIL AGENDA

Southern California Association of Governments

Wilshire Grand Center900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700 – Board Room

Los Angeles, California 90017Thursday, February 1, 2018

12:15 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

The Regional Council may consider and act upon any of the items listed on the agenda regardless of whether they are listed as Information or Action Items. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (The Honorable Margaret E. Finlay, President) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Members of the public desiring to speak on items on the agenda, or items not on the agenda, but within the purview of the Council, must fill out a Public Comment Card and present to the Clerk prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The President has the discretion to reduce the time limit based upon the number of speakers and may limit the total time for all public comments to twenty (20) minutes. PRESENTATION (The Honorable Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los Angeles) REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEM Page No. 1. SCAG Strategic Plan Update

(Darin Chidsey, Chief Operating Officer)

Recommended Action: As recommended by the President’s Strategic Plan Committee, that the Regional Council approve SCAG’s updated 2018 Strategic Plan Vision, Mission, Core Values, Goals and Objectives.

Attachment 1

CONSENT CALENDAR Approval Items 2. Resolution No. 18‐597‐1 Regarding Amendment 5 to the

Fiscal Year 2017‐18 Overall Work Program

Attachment 26


CONSENT CALENDAR – continued Page No. Approval Items 3. Minutes of the December 7, 2017 Meeting

Attachment 31

4. SCAG Memberships and Sponsorships

Attachment 40

5. H.R. 4667 (Frelinghuysen) – Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Assistance – SUPPORT

Attachment 43

6. Calendar Year 2018 Transportation Safety Targets

Attachment 45

7. Contracts $200,000 or Greater: Contract No. 18‐001‐B50, Safe Routes to School Program for San Bernardino County

Attachment 62

Receive and File 8. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)

Proposed Updates to the CEQA Guidelines

Attachment 72

9. Summary of the Department of Finance’s 2017 Population Growth Estimates for the SCAG Region

Attachment 77

10. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Proposed SB 743 Implementation Guidelines and Technical Advisory

Attachment 81

11. Purchase Orders more than $5,000 but less than $200,000; Contracts more than $25,000 but less than $200,000; and Amendments $5,000 but less than $75,000

Attachment 85

12. CFO Monthly Report

89

13. State and Federal Legislative Monthly Update [to be distributed at the meeting]

BUSINESS UPDATE (Randall Lewis, Business Representative, Lewis Group of Companies) AIR RESOURCES BOARD UPDATE (The Honorable Judy Mitchell, representing the South Coast Air Quality Management District ‐ SCAQMD)


EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT (Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director)

Sacramento Update

SB 375 GHG Target Update Status

SB 1 Implementation Update PRESIDENT’S REPORT

New Members and Committee Appointments

SCAG’s New Headquarters Office

COMMITTEE REPORTS Executive/Administration Committee (EAC) Report (The Honorable Margaret E. Finlay, Chair) Community, Economic and Human Development (CEHD) Committee Report (The Honorable Rex Richardson, Chair) Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) (The Honorable Carmen Ramirez, Chair)

Transportation Committee (TC) Report (The Honorable Curt Hagman, Chair)

Legislative, Communications and Membership Committee (LCMC) Report (The Honorable Clint Lorimore, Chair)

FUTURE AGENDA ITEM/S ANNOUNCEMENT/S ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Regional Council is scheduled for Thursday, March 1, 2018 at the Wilshire Grand Center, 900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017.


REPORT


900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017Agenda Item No. 1February 1, 2018

To: Executive/Administration Committee (EAC)

Regional Council (RC)

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL

From: Darin Chidsey, Chief Operating Officer, (213) 236‐1836,

[email protected]

Subject: SCAG Strategic Plan Update

RECOMMENDED ACTION: As recommended by the President’s Strategic Plan Committee, that the Regional Council approve SCAG’s updated 2018 Strategic Plan Vision, Mission, Core Values, Goals and Objectives. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG Strategic Plan Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; Objective c: Provide practical solutions for moving new ideas forward. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 2009, SCAG adopted a 10‐Year Strategic Plan to guide the agency. More than eight (8) years after its initial adoption, SCAG has made progress on many of the Strategic Plan’s goals. In July 2016, the Executive/Administration Committee (EAC) determined that many of the goals were no longer strategic, but have become operational best practices, and directed staff to initiate an update of the 2009 Strategic Plan. In November 2016, the President’s Strategic Plan (PSP) Committee was appointed to guide an update of SCAG’s Strategic Plan. To support this effort, a Staff Strategic Plan (SSP) Committee was also formed. The PSP convened six times since forming and has guided the SSP to reexamine, evaluate, and update principal components of the Strategic Plan. This iterative process, which has included stakeholder surveys, focus groups with staff, best‐practice analysis and valuable collaboration at all staff levels, has culminated with recommended updates to SCAG’s Strategic Plan Vision, Mission, and Core Values:

VISION Southern California’s Catalyst for a Brighter Future MISSION

To foster innovative regional solutions that improve the lives of Southern Californians through inclusive collaboration, visionary planning, regional advocacy, information sharing, and promoting best practices. CORE VALUES BE OPEN: Be accessible, candid, collaborative and transparent in the work we do.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 1 of 100

REY

Typewritten Text

REY

Typewritten Text

REPORT

LEAD BY EXAMPLE: Commit to integrity and equity in working to meet the diverse needs of all people and communities in our region. MAKE AN IMPACT: In all endeavors, effect positive and sustained outcomes that make our region thrive. BE COURAGEOUS: Have confidence that taking deliberate, bold and purposeful risks can yield new and valuable benefits.

Specific recommendations for updated Goals and Objectives are included at Attachment 1, Strategic Plan 2018. On January 22, 2018, the President’s Strategic Plan Committee reviewed SCAG’s proposed 2018 Strategic Plan Vision, Mission, Core Values and Goal and Objectives, and recommended their approval by the Executive Administration Committee and Regional Council. BACKGROUND: Strategic Plan Purpose and Process Nearly a decade ago, a Strategic Plan Committee was formed comprised of Regional Council and staff members to produce a multi‐year Strategic Plan that would focus SCAG’s vision and priorities, and improve the organization in its operations. After much collaboration, the committee identified and developed its recommendations to implement a Strategic Plan. Accordingly, the Strategic Plan’s Mission, Vision, Values, Goals and Objectives were adopted at the May 2009 General Assembly. Minor adjustments to the Strategic Plan were adopted by the Regional Council in 2013. More than eight (8) years after its initial adoption, SCAG has made progress on many of the Strategic Plan’s goals, and the document continues to provide a framework for the agency’s Work Plan and sustained success. It frames issues brought to the Regional Council and all Policy Committees to develop our budget and Overall Work Program, and align staff work plans and performance with measurable goals. In June, 2016, the Executive/Administration Committee (EAC) held a retreat to discuss SCAG Immediate Past President’s Michele Martinez’s initiatives during her tenure. After review of the current Strategic Plan, the EAC determined that many of the goals were no longer strategic but have become operational best practices. As one of the President’s initiatives, the EAC directed staff to initiate an update to the Strategic Plan. In November 2016, a President’s Strategic Plan (PSP) Committee was formed, and is comprised of the following members:

Hon. Margaret Finlay, Duarte (Los Angeles County) Hon. Michele Martinez, Santa Ana (Orange County) Hon. Alan Wapner, Ontario (San Bernardino County)

RC 02.01.18 - Page 2 of 100

REPORT

Hon. Cheryl Viegas‐Walker, El Centro (Imperial County) Hon. Pam O’Connor, Santa Monica (Los Angeles County) Hon. Margaret Clark, Rosemead (Los Angeles County) Hon. Jan Harnik, Palm Desert (Riverside County) Hon. Carmen Ramirez, Oxnard (Ventura County) Hon. Bill Jahn, Big Bear City (San Bernardino County)

To support the work of the PSP and ensure that staff from all levels of the organization and from various departments is included in the strategic planning process, a Staff Strategic Planning (SSP) Committee was formed, comprised of the following members:

Jason Greenspan, Manager of Sustainability (Chair) John Asuncion, Senior Regional Planner (Vice Chair) Frank Wen, Manager of Research and Analysis Kimberly Clark, Regional Planner Specialist Alison Linder, Senior Regional Planner Stephen Fox, Senior Regional Planner Rye Baerg, Senior Regional Planner India Brookover, Assistant Regional Planner Joseph Briglio, Regional Affairs Officer David Salgado, Regional Affairs Officer Margaret de Larios, Public Affairs Specialist Nicole Katz, Human Resources Analyst Andrew Mora, Budget and Grants Analyst

The PSP and SSP Committees have, through a thoughtful and research‐driven process, explored broader strategies in the rapidly changing planning world and ways to foster innovation. Meeting approximately two (2) times per month since its formation, the SSP began by reviewing the current Strategic Plan and the roles and responsibilities it defines for the agency. They identified SCAG’s stakeholders, conducted surveys, and facilitated focus groups in order to identify needs and priorities. Stakeholder Survey Results and Analysis An external assessment of the agency was one of the first tasks conducted. The PSP and SSP developed a stakeholder matrix to map out who influences SCAG activities, and identify who are impacted by these activities. A twelve (12) question survey was prepared that was directed to Regional Council members, elected officials, business leaders, federal/state agency partners and other partner organizations. Questions were asked regarding the issues most critical to the future of the region, and identifying SCAG’s role in addressing related challenges. The goal of the survey was to gauge what people in the region care most deeply about, and to define SCAG’s role in addressing related challenges. The survey design included both multiple‐choice and open‐ended questions.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 3 of 100

REPORT

The SSP distributed a Strategic Plan Survey to 1,442 individuals in December 2016. The survey was closed in January 2017, with 378 people participating, or 26% of those invited. The findings for each question are briefly discussed below:

Question 1: What type of organization do you represent? ‐ Over half of the survey respondents came from local jurisdictions in the SCAG region. State and federal agencies were represented the least in this survey with 5 percent of all responses. Question 2: Which county do you serve? ‐ The percentage of respondents from each county in the SCAG region are roughly proportional to their relative population sizes. Question 3: What is your role at your organization? ‐ A majority of survey respondents (60%) hold senior management positions; 18% are elected officials; and 21% hold regular staff positions. Question 4: How often do you or your organization interact with SCAG? ‐ The majority of respondents reported interacting with SCAG monthly or more often, with “monthly” as the most commonly reported frequency. Elected officials reported interacting with SCAG at the highest frequency. Question 5: What are the most important challenges currently facing our region? ‐ While the average score across issues was high, participants ranked Transportation as the most important challenge, with Economy/Jobs and Housing similarly very important. Question 6: (Open‐Ended) What kind of role do you think SCAG should have in addressing these challenges? ‐ Stakeholders see SCAG as playing a primary role in providing services, convening, facilitation and coordination, and having an important role as a solution finder and regional leader. Question 7: How effective are SCAG’s communication methods in informing and engaging you and other stakeholders? – SCAG’s communication methods were generally rated as somewhat effective, with email and in‐person presentations considered most effective and newspaper public notices considered least effective. Question 8: Out of the following groups, which ones do you think should be more engaged with SCAG? ‐ Most respondents suggested that SCAG should engage more with state/federal legislators and universities, while few respondents indicated that SCAG should engage more with the agricultural industry. Question 9: How strongly does SCAG’s work impact or influence you and your organization? ‐ Approximately 83%, of respondents felts SCAG’s work had some direct or significant impact on their agencies’ core programs. Question 10: What is the value to SCAG’s services to you? ‐ Respondents placed high value on many SCAG’s services, with Regional Collaboration and Data and Information Resources scoring slightly higher than others. Question 11: How effective is SCAG in offering the following services? ‐ Respondents rated SCAG high in effectiveness in offering services, with “Fulfilling federal and state requirements for regional plans and programs,” and “Providing data, resources, and research on regional trends” ranked highest. Question 12: (Open‐ended) How can SCAG improve its services? What additional services would you like SCAG to offer? ‐ Most survey respondents want to see more outreach,

RC 02.01.18 - Page 4 of 100

REPORT

specifically more personal engagement and improved outreach to city staff as well as non‐municipal organizations.

Further analysis of these findings may be found in Attachment 2, Strategic Plan Survey Response Summary and Analysis. Focus Groups Since the stakeholder survey was externally focused, the PSP inquired about engaging a broader group of staff in the Strategic Plan update. The SSP conducted three focus groups for staff in early 2017 to solicit input into the update of the Strategic Plan. Approximately half of SCAG’s staff participated in these sessions. The participants reflected the agency as a whole as each group was diverse in terms of participation. The results of the focus groups are discussed below highlighting Roles, Values, and Aspirations. At each focus group staff members were asked a series of questions ranging from:

“What makes you want to work at SCAG?” to “Is there something you want to work on that you are not currently working on?” and

“What makes SCAG innovative?”

Roles Staff highlighted three key roles that the Agency should continue to pursue as it moves forward:

1. Facilitating regional connections and relationships ‐ Participants most frequently mentioned bringing jurisdictions together and connecting ideas and people, providing technical support and data, and being responsive to requests for information. Consensus‐building was also mentioned.

2. Information sharing ‐ The second most commonly cited operation was SCAG’s role in sharing information. This included sharing data, introducing new research, and providing a forum for introducing new ideas to help inform policy decisions. One example was SCAG’s success as a transportation leader that has initiated conversations around needed regional transportation projects.

3. Meeting statutory requirements ‐ A less frequently mentioned theme was the need to fulfill our state and federal statutory requirements in relation to current funding streams and programs.

Values Focus group participants were asked to describe what is meaningful about their jobs, specifically what makes them want to work at SCAG and what inspires them about the agency. The following themes emerged from their responses:

RC 02.01.18 - Page 5 of 100

REPORT

1. Collaboration ‐ Collaboration was by far the most common response, particularly related to SCAG’s work connecting different agencies throughout the region.

2. Improving quality of life ‐ Many participants said that improving the quality of life, or “making a positive difference,” was what made them want to work at SCAG or what inspired them about the agency. This sentiment ranged from the “helping people live closer to work” to “the future well‐being of the next generation.” Though “quality of life” is a broad concept, staff embraced the ideas of choice, diversity, equity and opportunity.

3. Knowledge sharing ‐ Participants found providing data, educational opportunities, and sharing information with policy makers and the public to be an important aspect of working at SCAG.

4. “Big Picture” thinking ‐ Staff noted the positive qualities of being “less mired in details,” “having a bigger footprint to make a difference,” and the ability to “think beyond constraints.” They also appreciated being able to look towards the future in the work, and initiate far‐reaching strategies and “big ideas.”

5. Accountability and transparency ‐ Staff discussed the importance of following regulatory requirements, and fulfilling our responsibilities in an ethical and transparent way. Accountability to the public and the “tax‐payer” was a theme that was discussed.

6. Expertise ‐ Staff noted the positive culture at SCAG that is the result of having a talented and driven workforce that “focuses on performance” to serve its “clients” (the people) of Southern California. There was also an acknowledgement that the agency is constantly trying to improve efficiency and accountability by upgrading internal operations, and providing opportunities for continued professional development and training of staff.

7. Leading by example ‐ Staff was proud of the things that SCAG does to lead by example. For instance, many employees take transit to work. SCAG is also maintaining certification as a green business and seeking ways to improve operational efficiency and resource conservation.

Aspirations Certain themes emerged from questions related to how SCAG can be more innovative and what staff desire to work on in the future.

1. Building on SCAG’s current resources ‐ Many of the improvements and aspirational ideas stemmed from finding opportunities in SCAG’s current capacity as a regional planning organization with significant resources and brain power. Examples included regional emergency management, engaging tribal organizations on a regional level and addressing regionally significant concerns such as the economy, the housing shortage, homelessness, climate change, drought and food accessibility.

2. Relationship building ‐ Participants noted that they wanted to see stronger relationships with other MPOs, think tanks and educational institutions.

3. Researching and supporting cutting edge fields and technologies ‐ Participants were interested in economic analyses of new technological industries as well as engaging in state of the art practices such as demonstration projects.

4. Improve efficiency and effectiveness ‐ Diverse strategies for improving efficiency and SCAG and for its stakeholders were frequently mentioned. To improve the efficiency of cities within

RC 02.01.18 - Page 6 of 100

REPORT

the SCAG region and to help them make the most of their resources, SCAG could play a role in finding inefficiencies, reducing redundancies, standardizing activities and improving performance monitoring.

5. Increase access to and provide more detailed data ‐ Participants were interested in increasing and diversifying the amount of available data, especially more detailed data for information at the local level.

6. Adaptable and future‐focused thinking ‐ Staff wanted to see SCAG have a strong focus on anticipating and preparing for possible events. Strategies mentioned were more alternative scenario planning, preparing for future mandates, climate change preparedness, training future leaders and looking into potential catastrophic events relevant to the region. SCAG has the opportunity to “be transformative” in its approach to the future.

7. Marketing our added value ‐ Staff were interested in expanding outreach efforts to ensure that local jurisdictions/regional agencies are aware of SCAG’s resources and know how to “plug in.” The support of the current graphics staff in making complex ideas easily presentable was acknowledged in being crucial to the agency’s continued success.

Vision and Mission As a foundation for the strategic planning process, and considering input gleaned from surveys and focus groups, the PSP and SSP Committees referred to the following principles when revisiting the agency’s Vision and Mission:

Vision Principles (aspirational, future‐focused):

A vision is an aspirational statement that clarifies intent. Comprehensive, positive and inspiring, a vision captures the worth of work, and allows

individuals to identify how they are going to contribute and participate in the success of an organization.

A vision is a memorable and engaging expression that defines where an organization wants to be in the future, describes a future identity, reflects the optimistic view of the organization's future, and outlines what a company wants to be.

Mission Principles (operational, present‐focused):

A mission is a broad purpose statement describing why an organization exists ‐ an operational statement that explains what you do.

Focused on the present, a mission incorporates the core concepts and nature of an organization, the reason an organization exists, defines an organization's products and services, and provides a frame of reference for all major planning decisions.

A mission is clear, understandable, brief, flexible, focused, achievable and realistic.

Accordingly, the following updated Vision and Mission statements are recommended:

RC 02.01.18 - Page 7 of 100

REPORT

VISION Southern California’s Catalyst for a Brighter Future.

MISSION

To foster innovative regional solutions that improve the lives of Southern Californians through inclusive collaboration, visionary planning, regional advocacy, information sharing, and

promoting best practices. Core Values When updating the agency’s Core Values, the PSP and SSP Committees felt that strong, succinct, and positive expressions would solidify the agency’s purpose and philosophy; provide employees with clear guidance as to expectations; facilitate recruitment of employees with aligned values; and motivate staff by promoting a sense of belonging and pride. Considering input gleaned from surveys and staff focus groups, the following updated Core Values are recommended:

CORE VALUES

BE OPEN: Be accessible, candid, collaborative and transparent in the work we do.

LEAD BY EXAMPLE: Commit to integrity and equity in working to meet the diverse needs of all people and communities in our region.

MAKE AN IMPACT: In all endeavors, effect positive and sustained outcomes that make our region thrive.

BE COURAGEOUS: Have confidence that taking deliberate, bold and purposeful risks can yield new and valuable benefits.

Goals and Objectives A key element of the strategic planning process is setting actionable Goals and Objectives to guide SCAG’s work plan. Concise Vision and Mission statements coupled with meaningful Core Values established a clear pathway for updating SCAG’s organizational Goals and Objectives. Accordingly, seven (7) priority areas were identified to guide the process by President Margaret Finlay and the EAC in June 2017:

1. Innovative Planning 2. Data and Information Hub 3. Advocacy & Voice of the Region 4. Value Added Membership 5. Develop and Maintain a Premier Workforce & Workplace 6. Branding & Communications 7. Resource Accordingly

RC 02.01.18 - Page 8 of 100

REPORT

These priority areas provided guidance for the SSP and PSP Committees to work with SCAG management in developing updated Goals and Objectives. After extensive consultation throughout the last quarter of 2017, the following seven (7) goals are recommended:

Goal 1: Produce innovative solutions that improve the quality of life for Southern Californians.

Goal 2: Advance Southern California’s policy interests and planning priorities through regional, statewide, and national engagement and advocacy.

Goal 3: Be the foremost data information hub for the region.

Goal 4: Provide innovative information and value‐added services to enhance member agencies’ planning and operations and promote regional collaboration.

Goal 5: Recruit, support, and develop a world‐class workforce and be the workplace of choice.

Goal 6: Deploy strategic communications to further agency priorities and foster public understanding of long‐range regional planning.

Goal 7: Secure funding to support agency priorities to effectively and efficiently deliver work products.

A series of specific recommended Objectives intended to advance these Goals are included in Attachment 1. On January 22, 2018, the PSP Committee met and discussed the proposed 2018 Strategic Plan Mission, Vision, Core Values and Goals and Objectives, and recommended their approval to the Executive Administration Committee and Regional Council. FISCAL IMPACT: All new Goals and Objectives that may require additional fiscal resources will be incorporated into SCAG’s budget and Overall Work Program as appropriate. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2018 Strategic Plan Vision, Mission, Core Values, Goals and Objectives 2. Strategic Plan Survey Response Summary and Analysis

RC 02.01.18 - Page 9 of 100


S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S

Strategic Plan2018

RC 02.01.18 - Page 10 of 100

REY

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 1

4 Strategic Plan

Strategic Plan

Vision

Southern California’s Catalyst for a Brighter Future

Mission

To foster innovative regional solutions that improve the lives of Southern Californians through inclusive collaboration, visionary planning, regional advocacy, information sharing, and promoting best practices.

Core Values

Be Open

Be accessible, candid, collaborative and transparent in the work we do.

Lead by Example

Commit to integrity and equity in working to meet the diverse needs of all people and communities in our region.

Make an Impact

In all endeavors, effect positive and sustained outcomes that make our region thrive.

Be Courageous

Have confidence that taking deliberate, bold and purposeful risks can yield new and valuable benefits.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 11 of 100

6 Strategic Plan

Produce innovative solutions that improve the quality of life for Southern Californians.

A. Create plans that enhance the region’s strength, economy, resilience and adaptability by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

B. Be the leading resource for best practices that lead to local implementation of sustainable and innovative projects.

C. Ensure quality, effectiveness, and implementation of plans through collaboration, pilot testing, and objective, data-driven analysis.

D. Identify partnership opportunities with the private sector that yield public benefits.

E. Facilitate inclusive and meaningful engagement with diverse stakeholders to produce plans that are effective and responsive to community needs.

F. Partner with the broader research community to ensure plans are informed by the most recent research and technology.

1

2

Goals & Objectives

Advance Southern California’s policy interests and planning priorities through regional, statewide, and national engagement and advocacy.

A. Cultivate dynamic knowledge of the major challenges and opportunities relevant to sustainability and quality of life in the region.

B. Develop and implement effective legislative strategies at both the state and federal level..

C. Advocate for the allocation, distribution and expenditure of resources to meet the region’s needs.

D. Promote and engage partners in a cooperative regional approach to problem-solving.

E. Act as the preeminent regional convener to shape regional, state and national policies.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 12 of 100

7Strategic Plan

Be the foremost data information hub for the region.

A. Develop and maintain models, tools, and data sets that support innovative plan development, policy analysis and project implementation.

B. Become the information hub of Southern California by improving access to current, historical, local, and regional data sets that reduce the costs of planning and increase the efficiency of public services.

C. Allocate resources to accelerate public sector innovation related to big data, open data and smart communities with a focus on social equity in the deployment of new technologies across the region.

D. Develop partnerships and provide guidance by sharing best practices and promoting collaborative research opportunities with universities, local communities and the private sector regionally, nationally, and internationally.

E. Facilitate regional conversations to ensure data governance structures are in place at the local and regional level to standardize data sets, ensure timely updates of data, and protect the region’s data systems and people.

F. Model best practices by prioritizing continuous improvement and technical innovations through the adoption of interactive, automated, and state-of-the-art information tools and technologies.

Provide innovative information and value-added services to enhance member agencies’ planning and operations and promote regional collaboration.

A. Promote information-sharing and local cost savings with enhanced services to member agencies through networking events, educational and training opportunities, technical assistance, and funding opportunities.

B. Provide resources and expertise to support local leaders and agencies in implementing regional plans.

C. Expand SCAG’s ability to address local and regional planning and information needs by prioritizing regular engagement with members to develop innovative, insight-driven, and interactive tools.

D. Promote data-driven decision making, government transparency, and information as public engagement tools to increase opportunities for the public to inform local and regional policy.

E. Identify, support, and partner with local champions to foster regional collaboration.

3

4

RC 02.01.18 - Page 13 of 100

8 Strategic Plan

Goals & Objectives

Recruit, support, and develop a world-class workforce and be the workplace of choice.

A. Integrate the Strategic Plan into SCAG’s day-to-day operations by defining roles and responsibilities across the agency.

B. Prioritize a diverse and cooperative environment that supports innovation, allows for risk-taking, and provides opportunities for employees to succeed.

C. Encourage interdepartmental collaboration through the use of formal and informal communication methods.

D. Adopt and support enterprise-wide data tools to promote information sharing across the agency.

E. Anticipate future organizational needs of the agency by developing a systematic approach to succession planning that ensures leadership continuity and cultivates talent.

F. Invest in employee development by providing resources for training programs, internal mentorship opportunities, and partnerships with universities.

G. Foster a culture of inclusion, trust, and respect that inspires relationship-building and employee engagement.

Deploy strategic communications to further agency priorities and foster public understanding of long-range regional planning.

A. Leverage cutting-edge communication tools and strategies to maximize connectivity and sustain regional partnerships.

B. Produce clear and consistent communications, media, and promotional campaigns that exemplify agency values and standards

C. Enhance the SCAG brand as a respected and influential voice for the region by increasing awareness of agency’s work and purpose.

D. Practice robust public engagement, conducting proactive outreach to traditionally underrepresented communities as well as long-term stakeholders.

5

6

RC 02.01.18 - Page 14 of 100

9Strategic Plan

Secure funding to support agency priorities to effectively and efficiently deliver work products.

A. Pursue innovative funding opportunities for planning and infrastructure investments.

B. Maximize efficiency and effectiveness in resource allocation to maintain adequate working capital, appropriate reserves, and investments, and utilize resources in a timely and responsible fashion.

C. Pioneer best practices and streamline administrative processes to better support agency activities.

D. Focus resources to maintain and expand programs that are aligned with agency values.

7

RC 02.01.18 - Page 15 of 100

SCAG STRATEGIC PLAN SURVEY

Response Summary and Analysis

QUESTION 1: What type of organization do you represent?

The data shows that over half of the survey responses came from Local Jurisdictions in the SCAG

region. State and Federal Agencies were represented the least in this survey with 5% of all responses.

What type of organization do you

represent?

Answer Options Percent Count

Local Jurisdiction 65.1% 228County Transportation Commission

6.6% 23

State or Federal Agency 5.4% 19Business, Corporation, or Business Organization

8.9% 31

Non‐Profit Organization 14.0% 49Other (please specify) 37answered question 350

skipped question 27

QUESTION 2: Which county do you serve?

The percentage of respondents from each county in the SCAG region are roughly proportional to their

relative population sizes.

About 43% of these respondents were from Los Angeles County, the most populous jurisdiction. 3.5% of respondents represented Imperial County, the least populous of the region’s counties. About 13% of respondents represented more than one county or the the state or national level.

Please select which county you serve:


Imperial County 3.5% 13Los Angeles County 42.8% 157Orange County 14.4% 53Riverside County 8.7% 32San Bernardino County 12.0% 44Ventura County 5.7% 21More Than One County, State or Nationwide

12.8% 47

Other (please specify) 14

Answered Question 367

Skipped Question 10

Organization TypeLocal Jurisdiction

CountyTransportationCommissionState or FederalAgency

Business,Corporation, orBusiness OrganizationNon‐ProfitOrganization

County ServedImperial County

Los Angeles County

Orange County

Riverside County

San Bernardino County

Ventura County

RC 02.01.18 - Page 16 of 100

REY

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 2

The following graph represents the different organization types represented by each county, and it is evident a large percent of responses from each county come from local jurisdictions. However, not all counties were equally represented. The response for each county is noted in each horizontal axis label.

QUESTION 3: What is your role at your organization?

A majority of survey respondents (60%) hold senior management positions; 18% are elected officials

21% hold regular staff positions.

Respondents identified themselves as holding one of three types of roles in their organization: Staff, Senior Management or Elected Official. The majority of respondents (217, or 60%) identified as Senior Management. Elected officials made up 18% of those surveyed, with 65 respondents. Elected officials from Orange and Riverside Counties were particularly well represented, each with a higher share of elected officials than overall respondents.

What is your role at your organization?


Staff 21% 77Senior Management 60% 217Elected Official 18% 65Other 18answered question 359 359

skipped question 18 18

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

VenturaCounty (21)

ImperialCounty (13)

Los AngelesCounty (157)

OrangeCounty (53)

RiversideCounty (32)

SanBernardinoCounty (44)

More thantwo counties,

State, orother (61)

Organization Type by County

Local Jurisdiction County Transportation Commision

State or Federal Agency Business, Corporation, or Business Organization

Non‐Profit Organization Other

Staff

Sr. Management

Elected Official

RC 02.01.18 - Page 17 of 100

QUESTION 4: How often do you or your organization interact with SCAG?

The majority of respondents reported interacting with SCAG monthly or more often, with “monthly”

as the most commonly reported frequency; elected officials reported interacting with SCAG at the

highest frequency.

Respondents estimated the approximate frequency of their interactions, or their organization’s interactions, with SCAG, choosing between “Daily,” “Weekly,” “Monthly,” “Quarterly,” and “Annually.” Few respondents reported interacting with SCAG as often as daily (3%), and not many respondents reported interacting with SCAG as seldom as annually (12%). Over two‐thirds of respondents interact with SCAG monthly or more often. Only 20% of respondents interact with SCAG weekly or more often.

How often do you or your organization interact with SCAG? Answer Options Percent Count

Daily 3.2% 11Weekly 16.5% 57Monthly 48.6% 168Quarterly 19.7% 68Annually 12.1% 42Other 37answered question 346

skipped question 31

Respondents from Imperial, Orange and Riverside Counties were most likely to report interacting with SCAG weekly or more often, though the distribution was fairly consistent across locations.When respondents were separated out into their work roles, there was some difference among types in frequency of interaction with SCAG. Elected officials reported interacting with SCAG by far the most often (97% monthly or more often), trailed by staff (66% monthly or more often) and senior management (60% monthly or more often).

Annually

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

ELECTED OFFICIALS

Annually

QuarterlyMonthly

Weekly Daily

SR. MANAGEMENT

Annually

Quarterly

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

STAFF

RC 02.01.18 - Page 18 of 100

QUESTION 5: What are the most important challenges currently facing our region? (Please rank

each of the following issues from 1 to 5, with 1 being not important and 5 being most important)

While the average score across issues was high, at 3.95, transportation was ranked as the most

important challenge, with economy/jobs and housing very close behind.

The responses to this question indicate that all challenges deserve attention from SCAG. The average across all issues was a 3.95 and across all categories, at least 88% of respondents rated the importance of each challenge as a 3 or greater. Although Air Quality had the lowest score, it is important to note that over half of survey respondents still consider Air quality to be a 4 or a 5 on importance as a regional challenge.

In Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, the challenges with the greatest percent of “5” responses were Transportation, Housing and the Economy, though in varying orders in each county. A similar “Top 3” existed in Imperial and Ventura Counties with Sustainability replacing Housing in Imperial County and with Water/Drought replacing Transportation in Ventura County. While these commonalities existed in the Top 3 challenges for each county, the priority order for the remaining challenges differed geographically. For instance, Goods Movement was ranked 4th in Riverside County.

The table below shows the counts along with the average score for each issue:

Answer Options 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Transportation 4 5 23 131 185 4.40 Economy/Jobs 2 10 44 95 197 4.36 Housing 1 11 61 106 165 4.23 Water/Drought 8 23 83 111 118 3.90 Poverty/Homelessness 9 23 81 120 110 3.87 Sustainability 9 24 91 127 90 3.78 Education 6 28 96 132 82 3.74 Goods Movement 7 40 97 120 79 3.65 Air Quality 10 31 124 109 73 3.59 Totals 56 195 700 1051 1099

RC 02.01.18 - Page 19 of 100

QUESTION 6: (Open‐Ended) What kind of role do you think SCAG should have in addressing these

challenges?

Stakeholders see SCAG as playing a primary role in providing services, convening, facilitation and

coordination, and also as having an important role as a solution finder and regional leader.

To analyze this question, all 277 open ended responses were coded into distinct categories and it was possible for one response to be appropriate for more than one category. The majority of responses (111) described a role for SCAG as a Convener, Facilitator, Consensus Builder, Coordinator, or Collaborator. Others talked about important roles for SCAG in Leadership, Research and Solution Finding, Advocacy and its ability to speak for the region with one voice. Providing services such as Education, Technical Assistance, and Funding or assistance with grants was also a role for SCAG. If combined, these distinct support categories would become a primary role for SCAG as a “Service or Resource Provider.”

Many respondents commented on issues that SCAG may take a lead on. Though the words “planning” or “RTP” were mentioned only 16 times, issues such as housing, transportation and sustainability were often mentioned. These 78 responses were coded as “Planning and Policy” suggesting that while respondents understood SCAG’s issue areas, they may see policy development and planning as related or interchangeable functions. It is noteworthy that the idea of implementation was very infrequent, (only 5 mentions) suggesting that while SCAG develops policies, advocates, researches and informs, implementation is not a major role.

Themes of Leadership came up frequently (76) and responses in this category also encouraged SCAG to take a more “Active,” “Huge” or “Proactive” role. However, the idea of SCAG as a “visionary” or “thought leader” only showed up 10 times in this data. There were only 9 responses out of 277 that encouraged SCAG to limit its scope or take a “back‐seat” position. The responses to this question highlights the diversity of roles that SCAG provides and supports a high level of involvement from SCAG in solving regional challenges.

Survey Response Mentions

Convener, Consensus Builder, Collaborator, Facilitator, Coordinator 111 Solution Finder, Research and Best Practices 90 Planning and Policy 78 Leader 76 Technical Support, Resources, and Data 55 Regional Policy Advocate 54 Funding and Grant Provision 48 Educator 34 Other 14

RC 02.01.18 - Page 20 of 100

QUESTION 7: How effective are SCAG’s communication methods in informing and engaging you

and other stakeholders?

SCAG communication methods were generally rated as somewhat effective, with email and in‐person

presentations considered most effective and newspaper public notices considered least effective.

Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of SCAG communication methods (including email, social media, print ads, etc.) on a scale of one to five, with zero being ineffective and five being very effective. The highest rated method was in‐person presentations and workshops, with the runner‐up being email, with ratings of 3.97 and 3.94 respectively. The lowest ranked method was newspaper public notices, with an average score of 2.16. All eight methods had ranked values of between 2.0 to 4.0, so there were no large disparities among methods, and none of the methods was rated either ineffective or very effective. Overall among the eight media categories taken as a whole, the average ranking was 3.11.


In‐person presentations/workshops 5 21 65 114 113 3.97

Email 10 12 83 104 118 3.94 Website 10 26 93 123 69 3.67 Printed fact sheets 18 51 111 98 36 3.26 Social media 36 77 122 55 20 2.83 Online video 35 80 119 59 12 2.78 Radio public announcements 84 95 93 27 7 2.27

Newspaper public notices 102 85 94 20 6 2.16

Totals 56 195 700 1051 1099

QUESTION 8: Out of the following groups, which ones do you think should be more engaged with

SCAG?

Most respondents suggested that SCAG should engage more with state/federal legislators and

universities, while few respondents indicated that SCAG should engage more with the agricultural

industry.

Respondents were asked which industry groups should be more engaged with SCAG, and given a choice of ten industry groupings, such as the agricultural industry, the manufacturing industry, think tanks, etc. The highest ranked group was state and federal legislators at 66.1%. The next highest ranked was universities, at 52.2%. The lowest ranked for the need for more engagement with SCAG was the agricultural industry at 19.3%. Respondents were given the opportunity to suggest other industry groups as well. These included city planning staff, regional collaborative groups, international interests, school districts (three suggestions) and goods movement firms and trade groups.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 21 of 100

Out of the following groups, which ones do you think should be more engaged with SCAG? (Please select one or more)


State and Federal Legislators 66.1% 209 Universities 52.2% 165 For‐Profit Businesses 47.8% 151 Water Districts (i.e. MWD, LADWP) 44.0% 139 Ports, including landports, seaports & airports 42.4% 134 Think tanks 38.9% 123 Manufacturing Industry 38.6% 122 Non‐Profit Organizations 33.9% 107 Utilities 32.9% 104 Agricultural Industry 19.3% 61 Other (please specify) 24

QUESTION 9: How strongly does SCAG’s work impact or influence you and your organization?

Scale of 1 to 5, 1 equals “No Influence,” while 5 equals “significant impact to core programs.”

Approximately 237 out of 287, or 83%, of respondents felts SCAG’s work had some direct or significant

impact on their agencies core programs.

53% of respondents felt that SCAG’s work impacted their core programs on a score of 4 or greater, meaning at least half of respondents feel SCAGS work has a high to significant effect on their programs. 53% amounts to 153 out of the 287 total responses to question number 9. 55, approximately 20%, of the 287 respondents selected 5. Approximately 30% selected a score of 3, which concludes that approximately 83% of respondents feel SCAG has a significant role or impact on their programs. Roughly 17% of respondents felt SCAG’s work had little to no effect on their core programs by selecting 1 or 2. When respondents were sorted by county and government agency type the responses stayed consistent. Very few respondents felt SCAG’s work has little to no influence on their agencies or organizations. The overall score when averaged was 3.5.

5%

12%

31%33%

19%

SCAG's External Influence

No Influnece (1)

2

3

4

Significant Impact (5)

RC 02.01.18 - Page 22 of 100

QUESTION 10: What is the value to SCAG’s services to you? (Please rate each item from 1 to 5,

with 1 indicating no value and 5 indicating high value.) Responses include: Regional Collaboration,

Data and Info Resources, Tech Assistance and Support, Participation at Regional Events and

Training, Funding Assistance and Grants, and Legislative Monitoring and Advocacy.

Respondents placed high value on all of SCAG’s services as shown by the range presented of 4.1 to

3.19, while Regional Collaboration and Data and Information Resources were 2 items which scored

slightly higher, over 4, than the 3.6 overall average.

Question 10 highlights the significance of all of SCAG’s activities to the respondents. Of the six choices for respondents, no service had a weighted average of more than 4.1 or lower than 3.2. 284 survey takers responded to the question. Regional collaboration and Data and Information Resources were the top two rankings service areas. Over 75% of each of the 2 categories, Regional Collaboration and Data and Informational Resources, respondents selected 4 or 5 when responding to the survey and both of the areas weighted average response is over 4. Very few respondents ranked the choices below a 2, which also supports the overall theme of appreciation and importance of SCAG’s services.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Elected Official Senior Management Staff

SCAG's External Influence

Significant Influence

4

3

2

No Influence


Regional Collaboration 5 17 53 105 140 4.11 Data and Information Resources 6 19 47 125 120 4.05 Technology Assistance and Support 22 68 100 77 48 3.19 Participation at Regional Events and Training 14 38 79 96 85 3.64 Funding Assistance and Grants 27 39 65 78 109 3.62 Legislative Monitoring and Advocacy 18 34 79 115 73 3.56

TOTALS 92 215 423 596 575

RC 02.01.18 - Page 23 of 100

QUESTION 11: How effective is SCAG in offering the following services? (Please rank each item

on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being ineffective and 5 being very effective)

The average score for each service was somewhat consistent, all within the range of 3.3 and 3.94.

Most services were scored with a 4 (804 total) followed by a 3 (622).

Answer options 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Fulfilling federal and state requirements for regional plans and programs

6 15 62 131 93 3.94

Providing data, resources, and research on regional trends

10 18 61 147 77 3.84

Stakeholder engagement through workshops, summits, and trainings

11 28 94 129 55 3.59

Leading collaborative, inclusive efforts that move us forward as a region

11 27 97 122 56 3.58

Innovative and sustainable regional plans that can be implemented at the local level

19 43 92 106 53 3.41

Providing a singular voice for the region in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

15 51 100 91 51 3.36

Financial support for local and regional initiatives 21 47 116 78 51 3.29 Totals: 93 229 622 804 436

Respondents rated the effectiveness of several of SCAG’s services on a scale of 1‐5, with 1 as least effective and 5 as most effective. The average score for each service was somewhat consistent, all within the range of 3.3 and 3.94. The most effective service according to survey respondents is “Fulfilling federal and state requirements for regional plans and programs” with an average overall score of 3.94 The least scored service is “Financial support for local and regional initiatives” with an average score of 3.3.

Most of the scores were evenly distributed. However, it is notable that some services had an equal amount of low and high scores. “Providing a singular voice for the region in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.” scored 17% in both 2s and 5s. Fifteen percent of participants scored “Financial support for local and regional initiatives” at a 2, and 16% gave it a score of 5.

Participants were also able to provide comments. Some stated that they were not knowledgeable of SCAG enough to rate the effectiveness of its services. Others wanted to improve upon SCAG’s role as a lobbyist in Sacramento and Washington DC.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 24 of 100

QUESTION 12: (Open‐ended) How can SCAG improve its services? What additional services would

you like SCAG to offer?

Most survey respondents wrote that they wanted to see more outreach, specifically more personal

engagement and improved outreach to city staff as well as non‐municipal organizations.

This open‐ended question received 129 individual responses. Several key themes emerged throughout the comments. The most frequently cited suggestions for service improvement included:

More outreach and general engagement More education and workshops Stronger leadership role in state and federal‐level legislation More technical assistance and grant assistance

Improved engagement and outreach was the dominant suggestion among the comments, emerging through five distinct themes (bolded in the table below). The majority of comments (23) called for general improvement in outreach. Example comments are “Add better means of communication and participation,” and “increased engagement.” Following, a nearly equal amount of comments called for improved outreach to city government staff (19) as private or non‐municipal organizations (18). Over a dozen commenters called for more frequent “face‐to‐face” communication and outreach, specifically in‐person presentations at City Council meetings, a city managers working group, one‐on‐one meetings, and consistent designated staff that local agencies can call for assistance. Finally, improved outreach about services was mentioned 8 times. Example comments include: “As a small city with limited resources additional outreach may help educate the city as to what resources are available” and “Be an information clearinghouse for experts on various topics that can be available to assist local governments with specific problems and issues.”

Survey Response Suggestion Mentions in individual comments

Improve access to data 4 More outreach about services 8

Increased role in regional leadership 9 More technical assistance/grant assistance 11 More “face to face” engagement 13 More engagement and legislative influence in Sacramento and Washington DC.

13

More outreach to non‐municipal organizations 18

More outreach to city government and staff 19

More education/workshops 20 More outreach and general engagement 23

Some suggestions/critiques that were not mentioned frequently but are nonetheless notable include:

Make data easier to access on website Board members need agendas earlier in the month Provide annual or bi‐annual progress reports to demonstrate whether the region is improving

and meeting goals Education for elected officials, especially on federal and state transportation funding.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 25 of 100

REPORT






From: Basil Panas, Chief Financial Officer, [email protected]

(213) 236‐1817

Subject: Resolution No. 18‐597‐1 Regarding Amendment 5 to the Fiscal Year 2017‐18 Overall Work Program

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 18‐597‐1 approving Amendment 5 to the Fiscal Year 2017‐18 (FY18) Overall Work Program (OWP) and authorize the Executive Director, or his designee, to submit the necessary documentation to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the Regional Council adopt Resolution No. 18‐597‐1 approving Amendment 5 to the FY18 OWP. Amendment 5 will increase the OWP budget by approximately $1.4 million, from $89.8 million to $91.2 million. The budget increase in Amendment 5 results mainly from programming approximately $1.2 million of Senate Bill 1 – The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1) competitive grant funds. The two competitive grants awarded to SCAG are: 1) $942,600 from the Adaptation Planning Grant Program to prepare a comprehensive framework to support regional climate adaptation planning, address climate change vulnerabilities, and provide implementation tools for local jurisdictions; and 2) $312,510 from the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program to develop a forecasting tool to better analyze long range demand for ADA paratransit services in the SCAG region. Amendment 5 also includes an increase of approximately $0.2 million of Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for the cash match provided by SCAG to support the work funded by the grants. Finally, Amendment 4 includes reprogramming Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) funds for staff time on various regional transportation planning projects which resulted in a net decrease of $4,235. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan Goal 3: Enhance the Agency’s Long‐term Financial Stability and Fiscal Management.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 26 of 100

REPORT

BACKGROUND: In May 2016, the Regional Council adopted SCAG’s FY18 Comprehensive Budget that included the FY18 OWP budget of $46.7 million. In July 2017, the Regional Council adopted Amendment 1 to the FY18 OWP increasing the budget to $47.7 million. The Regional Council approved Amendment 2 in September 2017 increasing the budget to $49.3 million, and approved Amendment 3 in October 2017 increasing the budget to $83.7 million. On December 7, 2017, the Regional Council approved Amendment 4 increasing the budget to $89.8 million. At this time, another amendment is needed as described below. DISCUSSION: Amendment 5 includes the following changes for a total of approximately $1.4 million:

1. Programming $1.2 million of SB1 funds for two competitive grants awarded to SCAG:

a. $942,600 from the Adaptation Planning Grant Program to prepare a comprehensive framework to support regional climate adaptation planning, address climate change vulnerabilities, and provide implementation tools for local jurisdictions; and

b. $312,510 from the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program to develop a forecasting tool to better analyze long range demand for ADA paratransit services in the SCAG region.

2. Increasing $0.2 million of TDA funds for the cash match provided by SCAG to support the work funded by the grants.

3. Decreasing $4,235 of CPG funds for staff time on various regional transportation planning projects.

FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed Amendment 5 to the FY18 OWP will result in a budget increase of approximately $1.4 million, from $89.8 million to $91.2 million. ATTACHMENT/S: 1. Table 1. Budget Changes 2. Resolution No. 18‐597‐1

RC 02.01.18 - Page 27 of 100

Project Task No. Project Task Name Category

Budget

Request CPG TDA SB 1 Grants In‐kind/Local

025‐0164.01 Air Quality Planning and Conformity Staff (58,429) (51,727) ‐ ‐ ‐ (6,702) 045‐0694.03 Professional GIS Services Program Support Staff (85,626) (75,805) ‐ ‐ ‐ (9,821) 050‐0169.01 RTP/SCS Active Transportation Dev & Implementation Staff (17,983) (15,920) ‐ ‐ ‐ (2,063) 065‐4092.01 Adaptation Analysis Staff (7,756) (7,756) ‐ ‐ ‐ 070‐0147.01 RTP Modeling, Coordination and Analysis Staff (11,685) (10,345) ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,340) 095‐1533.02 Regional Planning & Policy Intern Program Staff 85,626 75,805 ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,821 100‐1630.02 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Planning Staff 14,043 12,431 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,612 140‐0121.01 Transit Planning Staff (14,038) (12,428) ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,610) 140‐0121.02 Regional High Speed Transport Program Staff (29,212) (25,862) ‐ ‐ ‐ (3,350) 140‐0121.07 LA‐Orange Inter‐County Connectivity Study (Green Line Extension) Staff (2,486) ‐ (2,486) ‐ ‐ ‐ 145‐4815.01 Montclair Safe Routes to School Plan Staff 0 ‐ 322 ‐ ‐ (322) 145‐4816.01 First‐Mile Last‐Mile Connectivity Study for Naval Base Ventura County Staff 0 ‐ 111 ‐ ‐ (111) 145‐4817.01 Mobility Innovatons and Pricing Staff (10,855) ‐ 4,524 ‐ (8,684) (6,695) 145‐4817.01 Mobility Innovatons and Pricing Consultant 10,855 ‐ 2,171 ‐ 8,684 ‐ 145‐4818.01 Westside Mobility Study Update Staff 0 ‐ 21 ‐ ‐ (21) 145‐4819.01 Paths to Clean Vehicle Technology and Alternative Fuels Implementation in San Bernardino County Staff 0 ‐ 654 ‐ ‐ (654) 150‐4093.01 Integrated Co‐Benefits/Special Programs Staff 51,746 45,810 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,936 150‐4590.01 Integrated Sustainability Program Consultant (50,000) (50,000) 150‐4095.03 SCAG Regional Active Transportation Data Partnership Platform Consultant 12,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 12,000 ‐ 150‐4096.05 Affordable Housing & Displacement Analysis Staff (58,428) (51,726) ‐ ‐ ‐ (6,702) 225‐3564.10 MSRC Go Human ‐ Sustainability Planning Grants Staff (45,807) ‐ ‐ ‐ (45,807) ‐ 225‐3564.01 Southern CA Safety & Encouragement Campaign Staff 119,205 105,532 ‐ ‐ ‐ 13,673 266.0715.05 Riverside Reconnects Phase 2 Consultant (50,000) (50,000) 266.0715.01 Locally Funded Projects Consultant 100,000 100,000

SUBTOTAL (48,830) (4,235) (2,439) ‐ (33,807) (8,349)

145‐4835.01 ADA Paratransit Demand Forecast Staff 5,001 ‐ 574 4,427 ‐ ‐ 145‐4835.01 ADA Paratransit Demand Forecast Consultant 348,000 ‐ 39,916 308,084 ‐ ‐ 145‐4834.01 Southern California Regional Climate Adaptation Framework Staff 15,814 ‐ 1,814 14,000 ‐ ‐ 145‐4834.01 Southern California Regional Climate Adaptation Framework Consultant 1,048,910 ‐ 120,310 928,600 ‐ ‐

SUBTOTAL 1,417,724 ‐ 162,613 1,255,111 ‐ ‐ TOTAL 1,368,894 (4,235) 160,174 1,255,111 (33,807) (8,349)

New Grants in FY18

Table 1

FY 2017‐18 OWP AMENDMENT 5

Ongoing Projects in FY18

RC 02.01.18 - Page 28 of 100

REY

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 1


RESOLUTION NO. 18‐597‐1

A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG)

APPROVING AMENDMENT 5 TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2017‐18 OVERALL WORK PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the

Metropolitan Planning Organization, for the six county region consisting of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial counties pursuant to 23 U.S.C.§ 134 et seq. and 49 U.S.C. §5303 et seq.;

WHEREAS, SCAG has developed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017‐18 Comprehensive Budget that includes the following budget components: the General Fund Budget; the Overall Work Program (OWP); the Indirect Cost Budget (ICAP); and the Fringe Benefits Budget; and

WHEREAS, the OWP is the basis for SCAG’s annual regional planning activities and budget; and

WHEREAS, in conjunction with the OWP Agreement and Master Fund Transfer Agreement, the OWP constitutes the annual funding contract between the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and SCAG for Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) funding; and

WHEREAS, SCAG is also eligible to receive other Federal and/or State grant funds for certain regional transportation planning related activities. For such funding upon award, the funds are implemented through the OWP and SCAG and the applicable Federal or State agency shall execute the applicable grant agreement(s); and

WHEREAS, SCAG’s Regional Council approved the OWP for FY 2017‐18 in May 2017, which was subsequently approved by Caltrans in June 2017. The Regional Council approved Amendment 1 to the OWP in July 2017, Amendment 2 to the OWP in September 2017; Amendment 3 to the OWP in October 2017; and Amendment 4 to the OWP in December 2017; and

WHEREAS, Amendment 5 to the FY 2017‐18 OWP, along with its

corresponding staff report, has been reviewed and discussed by SCAG’s Regional Council on February 1, 2018.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 29 of 100

REY

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 2

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments, that Amendment 5 to the FY 2017‐18 OWP is approved and adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

1. The Regional Council hereby authorizes submittal of Amendment 5 to the FY 2017‐18

OWP to the participating State and Federal agencies. 2. SCAG pledges to pay or secure in cash or services, or both, the matching funds

necessary for financial assistance. 3. The SCAG Executive Director, or in his absence, the Chief Financial Officer, is hereby

designated and authorized to execute all related agreements and other documents on behalf of the Regional Council.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Regional Council of the Southern California

Association of Governments at its regular meeting this 1st day of February, 2018. _______________________________________ Margaret E. Finlay President, SCAG Councilmember, City of Duarte Attested by: ________________________________________ Hasan Ikhrata Executive Director Approved as to Form: ________________________________________ Joann Africa Chief Counsel

RC 02.01.18 - Page 30 of 100

NO. 595

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017

THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE A SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE REGIONAL COUNCIL. A VIDEO RECORDING OF THE ACTUAL MEETING IS AVAILABLE ON THE SCAG WEBSITE AT: www.scag.ca.gov/scagtv/index.htm The Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) held its meeting at 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017. A quorum was present. Members Present Hon. Margaret E. Finlay, President Duarte District 35

Hon. Alan D. Wapner, 1st Vice President Ontario SBCTA/SBCCOG

Hon. Bill Jahn, 2nd Vice President Big Bear Lake District 11

Hon. Michele Martinez, Imm. Past President Santa Ana District 16

Supervisor Janice Hahn Los Angeles County Hon. Richard D. Murphy Los Alamitos OCTA Hon. Mike T. Judge Simi Valley VCTC Hon. Cheryl Viegas‐Walker El Centro District 1 Hon. Jim Hyatt Calimesa District 3 Hon. Randon Lane Murrieta District 5 Hon. Frank Navarro Colton District 6 Hon. James Mulvihill San Bernardino District 7 Hon. Barbara Kogerman Laguna Hills District 13 Hon. Steve Nagel Fountain Valley District 15 Hon. Charles Puckett Tustin District 17 Hon. Art Brown Buena Park District 21 Hon. Marty Simonoff Brea District 22 Hon. Victor Manalo Artesia District 23 Hon. Sonny Santa Ines Bellflower District 24 Hon. Sean Ashton Downey District 25 Hon. José Luis Solache Lynwood District 26 Hon. Ali Saleh Bell District 27 Hon. Dan Medina Gardena District 28 Hon. Rex Richardson Long Beach District 29

REPORT


900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017Agenda Item No. 3February, 1, 2018

RC 02.01.18 - Page 31 of 100

Members Present – continued Hon. Margaret Clark Rosemead District 32 Hon. Peggy Delach Covina District 33 Hon. Barbara Messina Alhambra District 34 Hon. Carol Herrera Diamond Bar District 37 Hon. James Gazeley Lomita District 39 Hon. Judy Mitchell Rolling Hills Estates District 40 Hon. Pam O’Connor Santa Monica District 41 Hon. Vartan Gharpetian Glendale District 42 Hon. Steven Hofbauer Palmdale District 43 Hon. Laura Rosenthal Malibu District 44 Hon. Carmen Ramirez Oxnard District 45 Hon. Glen Becerra Simi Valley District 46 Hon. Steve Manos Lake Elsinore District 63 Hon. Michael Wilson Indio District 66 Hon. Rusty Bailey Riverside District 68 Hon. Jeffrey Giba Moreno Valley District 69 Hon. Ben Benoit Wildomar Air District Representative Hon. Peggy Huang Yorba Linda Transpo. Corridor Agencies Hon. Sabrina Le Roy San Manuel Band of

Mission Indians Tribal Government Regional Planning Board Representative

Members Not Present Supervisor Luis Plancarte Imperial CountySupervisor Mark Ridley‐Thomas Los Angeles County Supervisor Shawn Nelson Orange County Supervisor V. Manuel Peréz Riverside County Supervisor Curt Hagman San Bernardino County Supervisor Linda Parks Ventura County Hon. James Predmore Holtville ICTC Hon. Jan Harnik Palm Desert RCTC Hon. Greg Pettis Cathedral City District 2 Hon. Clint Lorimore Eastvale District 4 Hon. Deborah Robertson Rialto District 8 Hon. L. Dennis Michael Rancho Cucamonga District 9 Hon. Ray Marquez Chino Hills District 10 Hon. Fred Minagar Laguna Niguel District 12 Hon. Donald P. Wagner Irvine District 14 Hon. Kris Murray Anaheim District 19 Hon. Tri Ta Westminster District 20 Hon. Lena Gonzalez Long Beach District 30 Hon. Andrew Sarega La Mirada District 31 Hon. Jonathan Curtis La Cañada Flintridge District 36 Hon. Sam Pedroza Claremont District 38 Hon. John Procter Santa Paula District 47 Hon. Gilbert Cedillo Los Angeles District 48

RC 02.01.18 - Page 32 of 100

Members Not Present ‐ continued Hon. Paul Krekorian Los Angeles District 49/Public Transit Rep. Hon. Bob Blumenfield Los Angeles District 50 Hon. David Ryu Los Angeles District 51 Hon. Paul Koretz Los Angeles District 52 Hon. Nury Martinez Los Angeles District 53 Hon. Monica Rodriguez Los Angeles District 54 Hon. Marqueece Harris‐Dawson Los Angeles District 55 Hon. Curren D. Price, Jr. Los Angeles District 56 Hon. Herb Wesson, Jr. Los Angeles District 57 Hon. Mike Bonin Los Angeles District 58 Hon. Mitchell Englander Los Angeles District 59 Hon. Mitch O’Farrell Los Angeles District 60 Hon. José Huizar Los Angeles District 61 Hon. Joe Buscaino Los Angeles District 62 Hon. Erik Peterson Huntington Beach District 64 Hon. Barb Stanton Town of Apple Valley District 65 Hon. Marsha McLean Santa Clarita District 67 Mr. Randall Lewis Lewis Group of Companies Business Representative Hon. Eric Garcetti Los Angeles Member‐at‐Large Staff Present Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director Darin Chidsey, Chief Operating Officer Debbie Dillon, Deputy Executive Director, Administration Kome Ajise, Director of Planning Art Yoon, Director, Policy and Public Affairs Basil Panas, Chief Financial Officer Julie Loats, Chief Information Officer Joe Silvey, General Counsel Joann Africa, Chief Counsel/Director, Legal Services Tess Rey‐Chaput, Office of Regional Council Support CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE President Margaret Finlay called the meeting to order at 12:17 p.m. and asked Brielle Finlay to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD President Finlay opened the Public Comment period. CEHD Committee member Frank Zerunyan, on behalf of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, offered assistance for any potential horse evacuation as wildfires continue to sweep Southern California and stated the city of Rolling Hills Estates would be able to accommodate the evacuated horses in the city’s equestrian park. President Finlay closed the Public Comment period.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 33 of 100

REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEM/S There was no reprioritization of the agenda. PRESENTATION ITEM President Finlay announced that due to the current wildfires raging in Southern California and to address city state of emergencies, City of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti rescheduled his presentation regarding the Olympics and a future date will be announced. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Open Data/Big Data – Smart and Connected SCAG Region Committee: Final Report and Recommendations President Finlay introduced the item and asked Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director, to provide background information. Mr. Ikhrata thanked Immediate Past President Michele Martinez, Santa Ana, District 16, who has chaired the Open Data/Big Data ‐ Smart and Connected SCAG Region Committee for the past six (6) months. He stated the committee provided the framework to be able to achieve the agency’s goal of becoming the biggest data center in the world where information will be readily accessible to everyone. Mr. Ikhrata announced that a summit is being planned for the day prior to the upcoming Regional Conference and General Assembly in May 2018 specifically to further discuss this initiative and asked Kimberly Clark, SCAG staff, to provide the final report and recommendations. Kimberly Clark, SCAG staff, reported on the overview of the committee’s discussion topics; supporting outreach; recommendations; framework policies and strategies; and SCAG’s Future Communities Initiative. In closing, Kimberly Clark reported on the initiative’s partnership framework whereby SCAG will launch a 3‐year $8 million dollar initiative to advance priority projects; an initiative that will leverage public/private funds, including $4.5 million dollars in SCAG resources; and projects will be administered by SCAG leveraging existing relationships and programs with cities/counties. Chair Michele Martinez thanked SCAG staff members who supported the committee. She also thanked the committee members for their ideas, time, dedication and efforts for the past six (6) months. On behalf of the Regional Council, Chair Martinez presented each of the following committee members with a token of appreciation: President Margaret Finlay; Supervisor Curt Hagman; Past Presidents Pam O’Connor and Cheryl Viegas‐Walker; Regional Council members Jeff Giba and Margaret Clark; Councilmember Richard Montgomery; and SCAG partners in the private/public sectors and members of the academia: Marlon Boarnet; Jack Ciulla; Lea Deesing; Crystal Dorn; Mark Greninger; Mojgan Sami; Scott Larson; Juan Matute; Frank Ury; and Dohyung Kim. Lastly, Hasan Ikhrata announced that the Future Communities Framework Initiatives will be overseen by Planning Director Kome Ajise. President Finlay reminded the members to vote on the communicator keypad using their pre‐coded identifying smartcard and to insert the smartcards in the keypad when voting; to remove the cards if they need to leave the meeting room; and to re‐insert the cards when they return to the meeting. The electronically‐recorded votes will indicate how each member voted, by selecting “1” for a “Yes” vote; “2” for a “No” vote and “3” for an “Abstention.” These votes will be a part of the official record of the Regional Council minutes of the meeting.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 34 of 100

There being no further discussion, a MOTION was made (Navarro) to approve the Future Communities Framework. Motion was SECONDED (Ashton) and passed by the following votes: FOR: Ashton, Bailey, Becerra, Benoit, Brown, Clark, Delach, Finlay, Gazeley, Gharpetian, Giba, Hahn,

Herrera, Hofbauer, Huang, Hyatt, Jahn, Judge, Kogerman, Lane, Le Roy, Manalo, Manos, M. Martinez, Medina, Messina, Mitchell, Mulvihill, Murphy, Nagel, Navarro, O’Connor, Puckett, Ramirez, Richardson, Rosenthal, Saleh, Santa Ines, Simonoff, Solache, Viegas‐Walker, Wapner and Wilson (43).

AGAINST: None (0). ABSTAIN: None (0). 2. Acting on Behalf of the Regional Council, Allowing Teleconference for Special Meeting of the EAC in January

2018 President Finlay introduced the item and asked Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director, to provide background information. Mr. Ikhrata reported that since the Regional Council will not be meeting until February 2018, a Special Meeting of the EAC will need to be held in January 2018; therefore, staff is requesting that the Regional Council allow teleconferencing for this meeting to ensure greater participation from the EAC members who will act on behalf of the Regional Council in accordance with Article V, Section C, (3)(a) of the SCAG Bylaws. A MOTION was made (Jahn) to allow teleconferencing for a Special Meeting of the EAC in January 2018. Motion was SECONDED (Gharpetian) and passed by the following votes: FOR: Ashton, Bailey, Becerra, Benoit, Brown, Clark, Delach, Finlay, Gazeley, Gharpetian, Giba, Hahn,

Herrera, Hofbauer, Huang, Hyatt, Jahn, Judge, Kogerman, Lane, Le Roy, Manalo, Manos, M. Martinez, Medina, Messina, Mitchell, Mulvihill, Murphy, Nagel, Navarro, O’Connor, Puckett, Ramirez, Richardson, Rosenthal, Santa Ines, Simonoff, Solache, Viegas‐Walker, Wapner and Wilson (42).

AGAINST: None (0). ABSTAIN: None (0). CONSENT CALENDAR Approval Items 3. Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting – November 2, 2017 4. Resolution No. 17‐595‐1 Regarding Amendment 4 to the FY 2017‐18 Overall Work Program (OWP) 5. SCAG Ethics Policy Update

6. SCAG Membership

7. Contracts $200,000 or Greater: Contract No. 18‐004‐C1, 2018 Go Human Media and Public Awareness

Campaign

RC 02.01.18 - Page 35 of 100

8. Contracts $200,000 or Greater: Contract No. 18‐006‐C1, Los Angeles and Orange County Events, Tactical

Urbanism Round 3

9. Contracts $200,000 or Greater: Contract No. 18‐001‐B02, Long Beach Uptown Zoning and Investment Plan (UZIP)

10. Contract Amendment that Exceeds $75,000: Contract No. 12‐019‐ C1, Monthly Managed Information

Technology (IT) Services

11. Fiscal Year (FY) 2016‐17 External Financial Audit Receive & File 12. Purchase Orders more than $5,000 but less than $200,000; Contracts more than $25,000 but less than

$200,000; and Amendments $5,000 but less than $75,000 13. State of California 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan

14. Fiscal Year 2018‐19 Budget Development Schedule

15. CFO Monthly Report

16. 2018 Meeting Schedule of the Regional Council and Policy Committees

17. December 2017 State and Federal Legislative Update

A MOTION was made (Jahn) to approve the Consent Calendar Agenda Item Nos. 3 through 17. Motion was SECONDED (Gharpetian) and passed by the following votes: FOR: Ashton, Bailey, Becerra, Benoit, Brown, Clark, Delach, Finlay, Gazeley, Gharpetian, Giba, Hahn,

Herrera, Hofbauer, Huang, Hyatt, Jahn, Judge, Kogerman, Lane, Le Roy, Manalo, Manos, M. Martinez, Medina, Messina, Mitchell, Mulvihill, Murphy, Nagel, Navarro, O’Connor, Puckett, Ramirez, Richardson, Rosenthal, Santa Ines, Simonoff, Solache, Viegas‐Walker, Wapner and Wilson (42).

AGAINST: None (0). ABSTAIN: None (0). BUSINESS UPDATE As the business representative on the Regional Council, Randall Lewis, Lewis Group of Companies, stated the economy report is the same as the past month as retail continues to shift to the internet and that housing and jobs are stable. However, he cautioned the potential shortage of labor in certain jobs which may propel some prices to rise. He also reported on the negative impacts in the building industry regarding the high cost of housing. He stated that he, along with Terri Carbaugh, Associate Vice President for Media and Government Relations for the Office of Public Engagement of the Long Beach College Promise; and Mark Taylor, Chief of Staff for the Long Beach Mayor’s Office presented at the CEHD Committee regarding programs that promote education and

RC 02.01.18 - Page 36 of 100

career partnerships between jurisdictions and local communities. Randall Lewis expressed support for the agency’s Future Communities Framework initiative and stated that the “future is happening now.” He also shared an article regarding the impact of California Land Use policies on the GDP [gross domestic product] due to the length of the period in getting a project accomplished. He also reported on the future of the automobile industry where subscription models will be available without having to purchase a car and autonomous cars. Lastly, he thanked Councilmember Judy Mitchell, ARB Board member, for her efforts in California. AIR RESOURCES BOARD UPDATE As an ARB Board Member, representing the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Councilmember Judy Mitchell, Rolling Hills Estates, District 40, stated that the SCAQMD website will have updated information regarding the present air quality conditions resulting from the wildfires in southern California. She also reported that she attended The L.A. Auto Show which included an electric and hybrid vehicles program available for low‐income residents of disadvantaged communities and a “Replace Your Ride’ program for the socio‐economic groups to obtain funding for cleaner cars. With respect to the most recent ARB Board meeting, Councilmember Mitchell reported regarding the passage of AB 398, that extends the cap‐and‐trade program. The Board also heard an update on efforts underway to implement the mandates of AB 617, known as the Community Air Protection Program. Councilmember Mitchell stated that AB 617 is the most significant criteria and toxics air quality legislation passed in California. Lastly, she announced the upcoming meeting scheduled for December 14, 2017 whereby the Board will receive a status on the SB 375 regional target update process; consideration of the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update and the Funding Plan for Clean Transportation Incentives. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT Hasan Ikhrata announced the SCAG office move to the new building is scheduled for December 15, 2017. He expressed appreciation to Debbie Dillon, Deputy Executive Director of Administration, for coordinating all of the logistics that entails with moving the office and likewise, expressed appreciation to Debbie’s staff for their efforts. Hasan Ikhrata thanked and acknowledged the upcoming retirement of the following SCAG staff: Judy Owens, Jane Embry and Cathy Alvarado. On behalf of SCAG and the Regional Council, Hasan presented a plaque of recognition to each of the retirees. Hasan Ikhrata thanked the California Air Resources Board staff for continuing to work and collaborate with SCAG staff regarding the targets and announced the upcoming ARB meeting scheduled for December 14. Lastly, Hasan Ikhrata provided an update regarding an effort that is currently underway to repeal SB1, California’s gas tax bill. He emphasized SCAG’s support position on SB1, a bill that would create new revenue as the taxes will be used to build and repair transportation infrastructure system, roads, highways, bridges, etc. Supervisor Janice Hahn, Los Angeles County, commented regarding the gas tax and stated the conversation should not be about the gas tax and cited The L.A. Auto Show as an example of where the future is headed with the availability of fuel‐efficient automobiles and electric vehicles. She stated the gas tax is not progressive nor innovative on how we fund future transportation infrastructure. Supervisor Hahn recommended moving away from the dependency on gas and suggested getting into a serious, long‐term and sustainable revenue stream to fund these transportation projects. Hasan Ikhrata echoed Supervisor Hahn’s comments and stated that SCAG is the first MPO in the country to propose moving away from the gas tax to a user‐based demonstration project.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 37 of 100

PRESIDENT’S REPORT New Members and Committee Appointments President Finlay welcomed and announced the following new members:

Transportation Committee: Councilmember Emily Gabel‐Luddy, City of Burbank, representing Arroyo Verdugo Communities Joint Powers Authority (formerly known as Arroyo Verdugo Cities) CEHD Committee: Councilmember Paul Rodriguez, City of Chino, a President’s Appointment General Assembly Host Committee: Regional Councilmembers Pam O’Connor, City of Santa Monica; and Randon Lane, City of Murrieta

President Finlay stated the final appointment of the members for the Nominating Committee and the Bylaws and Resolutions Committee will be announced at the February 1, 2018 Regional Council meeting. President Finlay reported that, on behalf of the Regional Council, a Special Meeting of the EAC was held on November 8, 2017 to discuss in Closed Session an urgent matter regarding an employment litigation case that had to be addressed before the next regular meeting of the Regional Council on December 7, 2017. President Finlay stated that no reportable action was taken during the Closed Session. President Finlay reported her approval for a discretionary merit increase for SCAG Executive Director Hasan Ikhrata. In accordance with the Executive Director’s Employment Agreement, any merit increase for the Executive Director is determined using the score from his annual performance evaluation and a merit increase compensation table that is comparable to that used for all SCAG staff. President Finlay also stated that the discretionary merit increase for the Executive Director will be effective at the same time that all SCAG staff receive their discretionary merit increases this year. She further reported that in accordance with Mr. Ikhrata’s employment agreement, as SCAG President, her approval was necessary before the increase could be implemented. Lastly, the Federation of Local Authorities in Israel (FLAI) extended an invitation for President Finlay to speak at the MuniWorld 2018 Conference, “Global Brainstorm on Smart City Challenges and Threats,” scheduled for February 13 – 15, 2018 in Tel Aviv, Israel. At the next meeting, staff will be seeking Regional Council approval as required by the Regional Council Travel Policy. COMMITTEE REPORTS Community, Economic and Human Development (CEHD) Committee Report As the CEHD Committee Chair, Councilmember Rex Richardson, Long Beach, District 29, reported the Committee heard three presentations regarding Education and Career Partnerships with Local Communities; General Plan/Map Tool for Local Jurisdictions; and an Update on the Bottom‐up Local Input and Envisioning Process for the 2020 RTP/SCS and RHNA.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 38 of 100

Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) As the EEC Chair, Councilmember Carmen Ramirez, Oxnard, District 45, reported the Committee heard three presentations regarding the California Climate Change Assessment Report; Climate Change Scoping Plan; and the Transportation Safety and Go Human Campaign Update reports. Transportation Committee (TC) Report (The Honorable Randon Lane) As the TC Vice Chair, Councilmember Randon Lane, Murrieta, District 5, reported the Committee voted for the Transportation Safety Targets and California State Rail Plan Update and to authorize the Executive Director to submit a comment letter to Caltrans by the December 11, 2017 deadline. He also reported the Committee heard three presentations regarding Transit Ridership Trends Study; Transportation Asset Management Plan; and Trade Corridor Enhancement Program. Audit Committee As Chair for the Audit Committee, 2nd Vice President Bill Jahn, Big Bear Lake, District 1, announced the Committee meeting dates for 2018 are: March 20, June 12, August 14 and November 12. He also reported SCAG’s internal auditor updated the Audit Charter and a copy was provided to the Audit Committee for review and input. Chair Bill Jahn also reported regarding the preliminary findings by SCAG’s external auditors, Varinek, Trine, Day and Company, LLP. The final report is expected to be released in late December 2018. Lastly, Chair Jahn reported on the Review of Extended Warranties and explained that staff will address the process for monitoring extended warranties and software agreements as part of the updating of the project management and procurement policies and procedures. FUTURE AGENDA ITEM/S There were no future agenda items. ANNOUNCEMENT/S President Finlay announced the next meeting of the Regional Council is scheduled for Thursday, February 1, 2018 at the Wilshire Grand Center, 900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90017. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, President Finlay adjourned the Regional Council meeting at 1:37 p.m.

[MINUTES ARE UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE REGIONAL COUNCIL] //

RC 02.01.18 - Page 39 of 100


REPORT


900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017Agenda Item No. 4February 1, 2018




From: Art Yoon; Director of Policy & Public Affairs; (213) 236‐1840;

[email protected]

Subject: SCAG Memberships and Sponsorships

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At its meeting on January 16, 2018, the Legislative/Communications & Membership Committee (LCMC) recommended approval of up to $20,000 in memberships for: 1) Southern California Leadership Council and the Center of Economic Development; and up to $42,500 in sponsorships for the 2) Urban Land Institute Los Angeles: 2018 Urban Marketplace ($7,500); 3) Local Government Commission 27th Yosemite Policymakers Conference ($5,000); and 4) California Transportation Congressional Reception ($30,000). STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan: Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; and Goal 2: Obtain Regional Transportation infrastructure Funding and Promote Legislative Solutions for Regional Planning Priorities. BACKGROUND: Item 1: Southern California Leadership Council and the Center of Economic Development Type: Membership Amount: $20,000 Established in 2005, The Southern California Leadership Council is comprised of business and community leaders from throughout the seven counties of Southern California, including four former California Governors. The Leadership Council funds, prioritizes, and approves the work of the Center of Economic Development (CED), which is a regional program of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC). As a program of the LAEDC, the CED benefits from related work of the LAEDC's acclaimed business assistance, economic research, and consulting programs. The Center's work is

RC 02.01.18 - Page 40 of 100

REPORT

funded, prioritized and approved by the Leadership Council to shape and solve public policy issues such as business vitality, resources (energy, water and environment), and transportation (goods and people) that are critical to SCAG and the region’s economic vitality and quality of life. The Leadership Council also co‐hosts (with SCAG) the annual Southern California Economic Summit. SCAG Executive Director Hasan Ikhrata regularly attends Southern California Leadership Council meetings along with SCAG Board officers. Item 2: Urban Land Institute Los Angeles: 2018 Urban MarketplaceType: Sponsorship Amount: $7,500 The Urban Land Institute (ULI) Los Angeles 2018 Urban Marketplace will be held on March 28, 2018 at The MacArthur in MacArthur Park. The Urban Marketplace is ULI Los Angeles’s flagship annual event and draws the city’s top‐level development professionals, including elected officials, city staff, developers, urban planners, architects, attorneys, and builders. The mission of the event is to convene dealmakers in one room for a half‐day, inspirational program with plenty of time to dialogue. The Urban Marketplace is a conference and expo designed to promote real estate investment opportunities and development strategies for the Los Angeles area’s lower income and higher poverty neighborhoods. Previous events have attracted well over 400 attendees and SCAG Executive Director Hasan Ikhrata has participated as a speaker in the past. SCAG staff is recommending that the agency continue sponsorships at the “Gold” level in the amount of $7,500, which will include the following benefits: ‐ One (1) half‐page advertisement in the program; ‐ Eight (8) complimentary registrations to the conference (value of $960); ‐ Eight (8) city/county tables to promote development opportunities that aligned with work

resulting from SCAG's Sustainability Planning Grant program efforts; ‐ Priority placement on all publicity and marketing; and ‐ Premium exhibitor booth space. Item 3: Local Government Commission 27th Yosemite Policymakers Conference Type: Sponsorship Amount: $5,000 The Local Government Commission’s 27th Yosemite Policymakers Conference will be held March 15‐18, 2018 at the Yosemite Valley Lodge in Yosemite National Park. This popular conference, attended by mayors, city council members, county supervisors, city managers, and other high level department heads, features a timely and inspirational agenda designed to assist California’s local elected officials in finding the tools and support they need to implement innovative solutions to address society’s most pressing challenges. This year’s conference theme, “Building Livable Communities,” will focus on which policymakers can implement innovative solutions and utilize practical strategies and accessible tools to help their communities recover from immediate economic, social, and environmental challenges while increasing longer‐term community resilience to prosper in the future.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 41 of 100

REPORT

Staff is recommending a “Conference Champion” level sponsorship in the amount of $5,000, which includes the following benefits: - One (1) complimentary conference registration; - Prominent logo placement in promotional materials; - Prominent logo placement on the conference website; - On‐site acknowledgment of the agency’s support during the conference; - Logo projected on screen during sessions; - Special discount registration code (10% off) for local policymakers within the agency’s network; - Opportunity to display up to two (2) promotional materials at the event. Item 4: California Transportation Congressional ReceptionType: Sponsorship Amount: $30,000 The California Transportation Congressional Reception is an event in Washington, DC—which SCAG has co‐sponsored for over a decade—that is organized to present a California‐focused event on Capitol Hill to celebrate with California’s Congressional delegation and to thank the Congressional Leadership and Members for their support in working towards long‐term solutions for our state’s transportation infrastructure needs. In addition, the reception brings together everyone in California transportation to emphasize the need to work in solidarity with the new Administration to implement its ambitious infrastructure investment plans so critically needed throughout California and the nation. This year’s reception, which will be co‐sponsored with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, will be held on, Tuesday, March 13, 2018, from 5:45 p.m. – 7:45 p.m. at 2165 Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC. To maximize attendance, this event is scheduled concurrent with the National League of Cities' 2018 Congressional City Conference. The event typically draws about 500 guests and invitees include all of the California Congressional Delegation and staff, House and Senate Members of the Appropriations and Authorizing Committees, officials and staff from the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Governor of California, Commissions and staff from the California Transportation Commission, and members of the business community. SCAG staff recommends approval of this sponsorship in the amount of $30,000. FISCAL IMPACT: $62,500 for memberships and sponsorships is included in the approved FY 17‐18 General Fund budget. ATTACHMENT(S): None

RC 02.01.18 - Page 42 of 100


REPORT


900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017Agenda Item No. 5February 1, 2018




From: Art Yoon; Director of Policy & Public Affairs; (213) 236‐1840;

[email protected]

Subject: H.R. 4667 (Frelinghuysen) – Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Assistance – SUPPORT

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Support EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At its meeting on January 16, 2018, the Legislative/Communications & Membership Committee (LCMC) recommended that the Regional Council adopt a “Support” position of H.R. 4667, authored by Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R‐NJ). H.R. 4667 would provide $81 billion in emergency funding for disasters caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, as well as the California wildfires. This emergency funding will continue efforts to recover, rebuild, and reduce the impact of future natural disasters. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan: Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; and Goal 2: Obtain Regional Transportation infrastructure Funding and Promote Legislative Solutions for Regional Planning Priorities. BACKGROUND: H.R. 4667, authored by the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R‐NJ), provides $81 billion in emergency funding for disasters caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, as well as the California wildfires. H.R. 4667 is the third disaster‐related spending bill for the year and will continue the efforts to recover, rebuild, and reduce the impact of future natural disasters. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 251‐169 on December 21, 2017 and is awaiting action in the United States Senate. The legislation appropriates funding along seven different categories: Federal Emergency Management Administration ‐ $27.6 billion

‐ FEMA Disaster Relief Fund: $27.5 billion to provide critical funding to assist the ongoing federal disaster response.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 43 of 100

REPORT

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development ‐ $ 27.8 billion ‐ Community Development Block Grants Disaster Recovery (CDBG‐DR): $26.1 billion for

housing and infrastructure needs. o $13.56 billion for grants to states, tribes, and territories for housing needs and business

losses. o $12.5 billion for mitigation efforts to help communities protect against future disasters.

This funding can provide for housing elevation, buyouts in the flood plain, water/sewer infrastructure enhancements, public infrastructure hardening (e.g. storm proofing public buildings), etc.

o Increases oversight, accountability, and transparency of CDBG funds. ‐ Federal Highway Administration’s Emergency Relief: $1.4 billion to address all current

damages to federal highways caused by designated disasters. Army Corps of Engineers ‐ $12.11 billion

‐ $12.11 billion to repair existing damages by natural disasters and for studies and projects to reduce the risk of future natural disasters. o $10.5 billion for repairs to ongoing construction projects, and to expedite construction

projects that will help mitigate future disaster damage; o $370 million to repair damages along the Mississippi River and its tributaries; o $608 million for Operation and Maintenance to repair damages, such as dredging of

navigation channels; o $537 million for Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies to repair damages; and o $75 million to expedite studies to help mitigate future disaster damage.

Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education ‐ $3.99 billion

‐ Hurricane Education Recovery: $2.9 billion to help displaced students get back to school. o Funding can be used for both public and private schools.

‐ Provides additional funding for public health response activities. Agriculture ‐ $3.8 billion

‐ Crops: $2.6 billion in agriculture assistance, including citrus. ‐ Emergency Watershed Protection: $541 million for watershed and flood prevention efforts. ‐ Emergency Conservation: $400 million. ‐ Rural Development: $165 million for rural water and waste disposal systems.

Small Business Administration Disaster Loans ‐ $1.66 billion

‐ To assist small businesses and homeowners repair or replace real estate, personal property, machinery and equipment, and inventory and business assets.

Defense Facilities – $1.5 billion

‐ Repairs Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Reserve, National Guard, Coast Guard, and medical military facilities.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 44 of 100

REPORT



To: Regional Council (RC)

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S

APPROVAL

From: Kome Ajise, Planning Director, (213) 236‐1835; [email protected]

Subject: Calendar Year 2018 Transportation Safety Targets

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend that the Regional Council approve and adopt SCAG’s calendar year 2018 Transportation Safety Targets, which are supportive of the adopted statewide safety targets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On December 7, 2017, the Transportation Committee voted in favor of recommending that the Regional Council approve and adopt the calendar year 2018 transportation safety targets, which are supportive of the adopted statewide targets. By way of background, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a Final Rule, effective April 14, 2016, to establish performance measures for state departments of transportation (DOTs) to carry out the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as required by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21). The Final Rule calls for State DOTs, working with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), to establish targets for reducing the numbers and rates of transportation fatalities and serious injuries. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) established vision‐based statewide safety targets in August 2017. SCAG has until February 27, 2018 to establish regional safety targets. SCAG has the option to agree to support the statewide targets, establish numerical targets specific to the region, or use a combination of both. SCAG staff recommend supporting the statewide targets and adopting SCAG‐specific targets based on Caltrans’ target setting methodology. This recommendation would allow SCAG to more accurately monitor its performance in relation to the State’s targets going forward. Because targets will be updated annually, SCAG will have the opportunity to revisit and update its targets each calendar year. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan, Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; Objective: a) Create and facilitate a collaborative and cooperative environment to produce forward thinking regional plans. BACKGROUND: Safety Performance Management Measures Final Rule The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued the National Performance Management Measures: Safety Performance Management Measures Final Rule, effective April 14, 2016, to establish performance measures for State departments of transportation (DOTs) to carry out the

RC 02.01.18 - Page 45 of 100

REPORT

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). State DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) will be expected to use the information and data generated as a result of the new regulations to inform their transportation planning and programming decision‐making and link investments to performance outcomes. In particular, FHWA expects that the new performance measures will help State DOTs and MPOs make investment decisions that will result in the greatest possible reduction in fatalities and serious injuries. The Final Rule is aligned with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) support of Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) (similar to Vision Zero), which has also been adopted by many State DOTs and municipalities (e.g., Los Angeles). The Final Rule calls for State DOTs, working with MPOs, to assess fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, regardless of ownership or functional classification. Specifically, the Final Rule establishes the following five performance measures for five‐year rolling averages for:

Number of Fatalities; Rate of Fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); Number of Serious Injuries; Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT; and Number of Non‐motorized Fatalities and Non‐motorized Serious Injuries.

The Final Rule also establishes the process for DOTs and MPOs to establish and report their safety targets, and the process that FHWA will use to assess whether State DOTs have met or made significant progress toward meeting their safety targets. Caltrans is required to establish statewide targets on an annual basis, beginning August 2017 for calendar year 2018 targets. SCAG is required to establish targets for the same five safety performance measures up to 180 days after Caltrans establishes the statewide targets (i.e., February 27 each year). SCAG has the option to agree to support the statewide targets, establish numerical targets specific to the SCAG region, or use a combination of both. SCAG must provide regular updates on its progress towards achieving these targets, including within the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program. FHWA will consider whether Caltrans has met or made significant progress toward meeting its safety targets when at least four of the five targets are met or the outcome for the performance measure is better than the baseline performance the year prior to the target year. The met or made significant progress determination only applies to State DOT targets, not MPOs. However, as part of oversight of the planning process, FHWA will review how MPOs such as SCAG are addressing their targets or assisting the state in addressing its targets during Transportation Management Area (TMA) Certification Reviews, when FHWA reviews the Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs). FHWA will also review how MPO targets are achieved during the Federal Planning Finding associated with the approval of the STIP. If California does not meet its targets, a State Implementation Plan will have to be developed to meet its targets,

RC 02.01.18 - Page 46 of 100

REPORT

and whatever flexibility there is in using HSIP funds will be gone. Also, if California is not meeting the requirements, greater coordination of Caltrans and MPO safety activities will likely have to occur. Target Setting Approaches There are two main types of target setting, vision‐based target setting and evidence‐based target setting. When developing aspirational, vision‐based targets, agencies use the term “target” to refer to a long‐term vision for future performance, their ultimate goal. Many transportation agencies are setting vision‐based targets for zero fatalities (e.g., Vision Zero or TZD) and for progress towards this vision (e.g., reduce fatalities by one‐half within 20 years). Evidence‐based targets take a more narrow approach to target setting – focused specifically on what can be achieved within the context of a set of investments, policies, and strategies defined within an implementation plan and subject to a shorter timeframe (e.g., five to ten years). While these two approaches are distinct, they are not necessarily in conflict. A vision‐based target is useful for galvanizing support around a planning effort and for ensuring successful strategies are considered and/or implemented while keeping the focus on a clear goal. Evidence‐based targets promote accountability. Being able to demonstrate the benefits of different levels of investment in safety can help strengthen understanding of the implications of investment decisions. Many agencies choose to adopt interim hard targets based on a broader vision (e.g., TZD). Caltrans’ Statewide Safety Targets Caltrans used a vision‐based approach to establish the calendar year 2018 statewide safety targets. For the fatality and serious injury targets, the methodology the State used was to identify existing trends through 2016, forecast performance for 2017, and then estimate annual targets for 2018 using annual vision‐based goals. The number and rate of fatalities targets reflect the State’s TZD goal for zero traffic fatalities by 2030. The number and rate of serious injuries targets correspond to the targets identified within the current Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), a 1.5 percent annual reduction. The non‐motorized safety target corresponds to the State’s Strategic Management Plan vision‐based goal of 10 percent annual reductions in non‐motorized fatalities and serious injuries. The statewide targets for calendar year 2018, all of which reflect five‐year rolling averages, are as follows:

Number of Fatalities: 3,590.8 Rate of Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.029 Number of Serious Injuries: 12,823.4 Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT: 3.831 Number of Non‐motorized Fatalities and Non‐motorized Serious Injuries: 4,271.1

For additional details regarding the State’s target setting methodology, please review Attachment 1: Safety Performance Management Targets for 2018.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 47 of 100

REPORT

Regional Safety Targets SCAG staff solicited feedback from SCAG’s Technical Working Group, Active Transportation Working Group, and CEO Sustainability Working Group regarding target setting approaches. Many expressed support for adopting an overarching vision‐based goal or target (e.g., TZD) supported by near‐term evidence‐based targets. This feedback is consistent with safety target setting literature, which reports that the most commonly documented safety target setting approach is to establish a top‐down visionary target and track success using interim, hard targets. Still, other stakeholders recommended that SCAG support the statewide targets, recognizing the limits of SCAG’s ability to forecast future trends and considering the agency’s ability to motivate reductions when compared to a county transportation commission or local jurisdiction. Target Setting Evaluation In order to evaluate potential targets, SCAG staff took the following steps: (1) estimate the existing trends to determine where we are now, (2) determine what external factors will impact the target in order to forecast future trends, and (3) estimate targets based on forecasted fatality reductions from safety plans. SCAG’s efforts related to each of these steps is detailed below. (1) Regional Existing Conditions SCAG staff developed an existing conditions report that analyzed the region’s roadway collision data, patterns, and trends. In summary, on average, 1,500 people are killed, 5,200 are seriously injured, and 136,000 are injured in traffic collisions in Southern California each year. These collisions are happening in every community in the region, from El Centro in Imperial County to Malibu in Los Angeles County. They are happening to people from all walks of life, to those who drive and disproportionately, to those who walk and bike. SCAG experienced a period of annual declines in traffic‐related fatalities and serious injuries until 2012 when they began to steadily rise, though they have not risen to their previous peaks. The existing conditions report and corresponding county fact sheets can be reviewed online here: http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/Pages/Safety.aspx. (2) Influence of External Factors Collisions and collision severity are impacted by many factors, some of which are not under the direct control of transportation agencies, such as vehicle safety features, weather, and the state of the economy. Some research suggests that in California, 70 percent of the collision variation can be taken into account from only considering the unemployment rate and per capital Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth for California for the years 1998 to 2015.1 Other external factors to consider include: continued population growth; demographic changes (e.g., increasing share of older adults, Millennial transport preferences); the changing mode mix on the roadways; mobility innovations; changing drug laws; and the availability of funding for safety‐related projects and programs, among others.

1 National Cooperative Highway Research Project 17‐67, “Identification of Factors Contributing to the Decline of Fatalities in the United States”

RC 02.01.18 - Page 48 of 100

REPORT

(3) Estimating Targets based on Forecasted Fatality Reductions from Safety Plans Though there are clearly many external factors, SCAG recognizes that there are many actions agencies can take to influence the numbers and rates of fatalities and serious injuries, including engineering our roadways better, conducting targeted education and enforcement, and ongoing evaluation. Also, we are undoubtedly in a better position to take actions that can have impact when we have a firm handle on our existing conditions. SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) prioritizes ensuring the safety and mobility of the region’s residents, including drivers and passengers, transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The Plan’s Safety and Security Appendix provides a framework, largely grounded in the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan, that can help member agencies interested in pursuing safety initiatives and strategies at the local level. Though a solid resource, for the 2020 RTP/SCS, SCAG proposes working more closely with local jurisdictions to develop a more detailed regional safety plan. At this time, SCAG does not have modeling software that can forecast collisions and safety numbers. However, SCAG staff are interested in exploring whether such a model is available or can be developed that takes into account a variety of inputs including proposed transportation projects, land uses, population growth, VMT growth, roadway types, and the density of intersections, for example. In the absence of modeling, SCAG staff used a linear regression methodology (also knowns as a “line of best fit”) to project future fatality and serious injury numbers and rates if the trends were to continue. More specifically, SCAG staff developed simple trend lines based on 2001‐2016 data and five‐year rolling averages from 2005 to 2016. SCAG staff also reviewed the average percentage declines from 2001 to 2016 for annual and five‐year rolling averages. Finally, SCAG staff applied the State’s methodology to the region. As reflected in the table below, the trend line projections were considerably more ambitious than the targets resulting from applying the State’s methodology.

Baseline5-Year Rolling

Average

State Methodology

Applied (5-Year Rolling

Average)Measure 2016 Average Annual

% Change (Past 16 Years

of Data)

2018 Prediction Average Annual % Change

(Past 16 Years of Data)

2018 Prediction 2018 Prediction

Number of Fatalities 1403 -0.04% 1213 -1.97% 1121 1601Rate of Fatalities per 100M VMT 0.88 -0.99% 0.73 -2.50% 0.70 0.97Number of Serious Injuries 5044 0.12% 4612 -1.35% 4358 5752Rate of Serious Injuries per 100M VMT 3.162 -0.83% 2.79 -1.87% 2.72 3.5Total Number of Nonmotorized 2046.4 8% 1995.8 -0.30% 1849.9 2068.2* In all cases, referring to victims, not collisions

Forecasted Reductions2001-2016 Linear Trend

ProjectionAnnual Numbers

(Not 5-Year Rolling)

2005-2016 5-Year Rolling Average Linear Trend Projection

RC 02.01.18 - Page 49 of 100

REPORT

Target Setting Recommendation As previously mentioned, SCAG has the option to agree to support the statewide targets, establish numerical targets specific to our region, or use a combination of both. Based on the issues outlined earlier—that is, the considerable influence of external factors such as the economy, SCAG’s need to work more with stakeholders to develop a more detailed regional safety plan, and SCAG’s current inability to accurately forecast safety numbers using a model—SCAG staff recommend supporting the overall statewide targets and adopting SCAG‐specific targets based on Caltrans’ target setting methodology (noted in the table above). This recommendation allows SCAG to establish numerical targets specific to the region that are consistent with and supportive of the statewide targets, and it allows SCAG to more accurately monitor its performance in relation to the State’s targets going forward. Because targets will be updated annually, SCAG will have the opportunity to revisit and update its targets each calendar year. Timeline and Next Steps SCAG has until February 27, 2018 to finalize its regional targets. Once the regional targets are established, SCAG anticipates working with stakeholders to develop a regional safety plan that could be incorporated into the 2020 RTP/SCS. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for staff work on this issue is included in the FY17/18 OWP (010.00170.08: Transportation Security Planning). ATTACHMENT/S: Safety Performance Management Targets for 2018

RC 02.01.18 - Page 50 of 100

1

California’s Safety Performance Management Targets for 2018 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in cooperation with the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), is required to set five annual Safety Performance Management Targets (SPMTs) for all public roads by August 31, 2017 for the 2018 calendar year. This is pursuant to the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, P.L. 112-141), the Safety Performance Management Final Rule adds Part 490 to Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations to implement the performance management requirements in 23 U.S.C. 150. Caltrans and OTS have adopted aspirational goals consistent with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and Caltrans’ Strategic Management Plan (SMP), as follows: TABLE 1. THE PERFORMANCE MEASURE AND THE TARGET BASED ON THE 5-YEAR ROLLING AVERAGE Performance Target Data Source 5- Yr. Rolling Average

(2018) Percent Reduction (2018)

Number of Fatalities FARS 3590.8 -7.69%

Rate of Fatalities (per 100M VMT)

FARS & HPMS

1.029 -7.69%

Number of Serious Injuries SWITRS 12,823.4 -1.5% Rate of Serious Injuries (per 100M VMT)

SWITRS & HPMS

3.831 -1.5%

Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Non-Motorized Severe Injuries

FARS & SWITRS

4271.1 -10%

Note: The targets highlighted in gray are set in coordination with OTS.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. The HSIP regulation under 23 CFR 924 establishes the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) HSIP policy, as well as program structure, planning, implementation, evaluation and reporting requirements for States to successfully administer the HSIP. The overarching highway safety plan for the State of California is the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). In September 2015, California updated its SHSP, which is “a statewide coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and severe injuries on all public roads” (SHSP, 5). It further states that the “SHSP is a multi-disciplinary effort involving Federal, State, and local representatives from the 4Es of safety [i.e. engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services]” (SHSP, 2015-2019, 34). In support of a data-driven and strategic approach, the HSIP Final Rule contains three major policy changes related to: (1) the HSIP report content and schedule, (2) the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) update cycle, and (3) the subset of the model inventory of roadway elements (MIRE), also known as the MIRE fundamental data elements. The Safety PM Final Rule supports the data-driven performance focus of the HSIP. The Safety PM Final Rule establishes five performance measures to carry out the HSIP: the five-year rolling averages for: (1) Number of Fatalities, (2) Rate of Fatalities per 100 million VMT, (3) Number of Serious Injuries, (4) Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT, and (5) Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries. These safety performance measures are applicable to all public roads regardless of ownership or functional classification. The Safety PM Final Rule also establishes a common national definition for serious injuries.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 51 of 100

2

States must establish statewide targets for each of the safety performance measures. States also have the option to establish any number of urbanized area targets and one non-urbanized area target for any or all of the measures. Targets will be established annually, beginning in August 2017 for calendar year 2018. For common performance measures (number of fatalities, rate of fatalities and number of serious injuries), targets must be identical to the targets established for the National Highway Transit Safety Administration (NHTSA) Highway Safety Grants program that is administered by OTS. The State Department of Transportation (DOT) must also coordinate with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in the State on establishment of targets, to the maximum extent practicable. States will report targets to the FHWA in the HSIP report due in August of each year. MPOs will establish targets for the same five safety performance measures for all public roads in the MPO planning area within 180 days after the State establishes each target. The targets will be established in coordination with the State, to the maximum extent practicable. The MPO can either agree to support the State DOT target or establish a numerical target specific to the MPO planning area. MPOs’ targets are reported to the State DOT, which must be able to provide the targets to FHWA, upon request. A State is considered to have met or made significant progress toward meeting its safety targets when at least four of the five targets are met or the outcome for the performance measure is better than the baseline performance the year prior to the target year. Optional urbanized area or non-urbanized area targets will not be evaluated. Each year that FHWA determines a State has not met or made significant progress toward meeting its performance targets, the State will be required to use obligation authority equal to the baseline year HSIP apportionment only for safety projects. States must also develop a HSIP Implementation Plan.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 52 of 100

3

Target Selection Methodology There are three steps to setting safety performance targets, which are: (1) estimating the existing trends to determine where we are now, (2) determining what external factors will impact the target in order to forecast future trends, and (3) to estimate targets based on forecasted fatality reductions from safety plans. The need to forecast future collision trends is prescribed by the fact that safety performance targets are set a year in advance where at least two years of collision data is unknown. For example, in the case of setting the first target in 2018, the total numbers of collisions are not known for the years 2017 and 2018 (and possibly the current year). In order to answer the question of what external factors will impact the targets, there is an active National Cooperative Highway Research Project (NCHRP) 17-67 titled, “Identification of Factors Contributing to the Decline of Fatalities in the United States.” This study has preliminarily determined that economic factors contribute up to 85 percent of the variation of collisions on yearly basis. This study has found that the main factors are: the percent of unemployment for 16-24 year olds, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, median income, and beer consumption. In the case of California, seventy percent of the variation can be taken into account from only considering the unemployment rate and per capital GDP growth for California for the years 1998 to 2015. FIGURE 1: THE INFLUENCE OF ECONOMIC FACTORS ON THE NUMBER OF FATAL ITIES IN CALIFORNIA

Therefore, to accurately forecast future collision trends for fatalities, serious injuries, and property damage only collision types, the difficult task of forecasting the economy with political and economic uncertainties would need to be completed.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 3,459 3,559 3,730 3,926 4,089 4,225 4,094 4,304 4,197 3,976 3,401 3,076 2,739 2,835 2,995 3,107 3,074 3,176 3680

Unemployment Rate (%) 5.70% 5.00% 4.70% 6.40% 6.80% 6.60% 5.80% 5.10% 4.90% 6.00% 9.30% 12.10% 12.10% 11.00% 9.60% 8.20% 6.90% 5.90% 5.20%

Per Capita GDP Growth 4.9% 5.9% 6.0% -1.7% 1.3% 2.9% 3.2% 3.2% 2.7% 0.9% -0.5% -5.4% -0.1% 0.4% 1.4% 1.6% 2.1% 3.2% 3.7%

Model (R2=0.7 3636 3705 3761 4132 3728 3619 3777 3944 4050 3961 3315 3127 2597 2813 3049 3367 3627 3754 3874

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

NU

MB

ER

OF

FAT

AL

ITIE

S (F

AR

S)

Economic Determinism (1998-2016)

RC 02.01.18 - Page 53 of 100

4

In forecasting the number of fatalities, a more straightforward approach is to use the National Safety Council’s (NSC) Motor Vehicle Estimates for the current year and then to extrapolate these values for an additional two years. For example in 2016, California ended up 13 percent higher as compared to 2015 and 19 percent higher as compared to 2014 for the number of fatalities. If this methodology is followed, then collisions are in corresponding fashion extrapolated to also increase 13 percent until 2018 (which is the first safety performance target reporting period). The advantage of using this methodology is that it is simple and it considers actual collision trends that are close in time to the target year. Therefore, the recommendation is to use NSC estimates to forecast future trends due to the difficulty of forecasting economic trends for the number of fatalities. If the five-year rolling average is taken from the years 2014 to 2018, this establishes the baseline values from which progress is measured. The rationale for using current trends to extrapolate to the near future is that in the face of uncertainties the best indicator is what is happening in the present. Therefore, in a likewise fashion, the current trends for serious injuries are extrapolated from current trends. For instance, if the number of serious injuries are increasing nine percent in the current year, then this number is used to forecast numbers for an additional two years (for the purposes of setting targets). Unlike the number of fatalities, there are no official estimates (such as the NSC) to forecast serious injuries. With regards to forecasting fatality and serious injury reductions from safety plans, the ideal is to set “empirically derived targets based on quantitative modeling of potential strategies. With this approach, targets are based on empirical evidence of the selected interventions’ previous effectiveness combined with best estimates of future effectiveness, using a model linking inputs and outcomes” (Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets, Federal Highway Administration, 2011). Since safety performance targets pertain to all public roads, in a practical sense for this to work, local jurisdictions need to develop individual performance measures based on the particular needs of the locality and to also target the appropriate strategies. If regional implementation is adopted, this denotes a bottoms-up approach where targets are rolled up from the State and local jurisdictions based on safety effectiveness, supported by research, and are more realistic and achievable which in turn helps secure political support (Joint Transportation Research Centre of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and International Transport Forum, Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach, 2008). At the other end of the spectrum, a target is set by edict from agency leadership, elected officials, or other policy making bodies. The advantage of this approach is it is less time and money intensive and it is unequivocal and well understood. The drawback is that having an aspirational or vision based target is only symbolic if they have no realistic safety program to ensure success and do not define actions and goals of all of the responsible agencies (FHWA, 25, 2011). As a part of this document, targets have been set through a consensus-based planning process within the context of a performance-based allocation of resources. Moreover, it is “felt strongly that Toward Zero Death (TZD) should be the ultimate aspirational goal for the plan, and that realistic and achievable steps should be set for California to move closer to zero deaths” (SHSP, 14). In a corresponding fashion, the rate of fatalities and serious injuries based on vehicle miles traveled will reflect the TZD goals.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 54 of 100

5

Furthermore, the SHSP recommends that “the regional approach could be an excellent way to address the Executives Leadership’s overarching regional, local, and tribal government policy priorities and could be managed concurrently with the overall statewide effort where Challenge Area Teams continue to meet and work on issues of statewide concern” (SHSP, 38). This approach would be consistent with empirically derived targets as described in the ideal scenario. Nevertheless, the SHSP also states that, “a regional approach to implementation has not been formally adopted by the SHSP Executive Leadership and is currently under advisement and review” (SHSP, 38). As a result, the SHSP as currently structured is somewhere in the middle between and bottoms-up regional approach and a top-down aspirational or vision based approach. As currently devised, the SHSP provides a comprehensive umbrella document with fifteen challenge areas that reflect the main topic areas in roadway safety. The 2018 SPMT engagement process started approximately one year after the 2015-2019 SHSP was published. The 2018 SPMT engagement process revealed a general consensus among California stakeholders, many of which participated in the development of the SHSP, to maintain the aspirational direction outlined in the SHSP a year earlier. The Number of Fatalities In 2018, the target for fatalities based on the five-year rolling average is 3590.8 with 3838 fatalities that are projected for the same year. The five-year rolling average includes four years of increasing fatalities and one year of decreasing fatalities. This is best explained while referring to Figure 2. The dark green bars denote the current data available in FARS (as of June 22, 2017), while the light green bar depicts the “NSC Motor Vehicle Fatality Estimates” for 2016. The gray bar in 2017 shows a thirteen percent increase in fatalities from 2016 to 2017, which is based on the most recent trends from 2015 to 2016, which is based on the NSC data. From 2017 to the 2030, the fatalities decrease at a rate of 7.69 percent based on the Toward Zero Death concept by 2030. For example, if the number of fatalities in 2018 of 4158 is multiplied by 0.9231 (or 1.000 – 0.0769 = 0.9231), this equals 3838 fatalities in 2018. The line in red depicts the five-year rolling average, which takes the average on a year-to-year basis the previous five years of data. FIGURE 2: THE NUMBER OF FATALITIES

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 4120 4333 4240 3995 3434 3090 2720 2816 2966 3107 3102 3176 3680 4158 3838 3543 3270

5-Yr (TZD or Vision Based") 4024.4 3818.4 3495.8 3211.0 3005.2 2939.8 2942.2 3033.4 3206.2 3444.6 3590.8 3679.0 3697.9

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

NU

MB

ER

(F

AR

S)

RC 02.01.18 - Page 55 of 100

6

Annual Fatality Rate (per 100M VMT) Before discussing fatality rates, a few words must be mentioned about statewide traffic volumes, which are reported in one hundred million vehicle miles traveled (100M VMT). While referring to Figure 3, traffic volumes have been steadily increasing since 2011. For the purposes of safety performance target setting, a 2 percent increase in VMT is forecasted from year-to-year for the years from 2015 to 2020. FIGURE 3. ANNUAL STATEWIDE TRAFFIC VOLUMES

The fatality rate is calculated by dividing the number of fatalities by 100M VMT. The same assumptions are relevant for the calculation of the number of fatalities and they are (refer to Figure 4):

The bars in dark green denote the current data that is available in FARS (as of June 22, 2017 when the OTS presents their targets to NHTSA);

The light green bar depicts the “NSC Motor Vehicle Fatality Estimates” for 2016; and The gray bars show a year-to-year increase of +13% from 2016 to 2017 (which is based on

the change of fatalities from 2015 to 2016) FIGURE 4. THE FATALITY RATE

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total 3274 3298 3304 3258 3243 3242 3250 3268 3292 3347 3398 3430

3100

3150

3200

3250

3300

3350

3400

3450

100M

VM

T (H

PM

S)

Annual 100M Vehicle Miles Traveled (Total)

RC 02.01.18 - Page 56 of 100

7

The red line represents the five-year rolling average from annual fatality numbers that reflect the TZD aspirational goal. This is a “vision” based target, based on a year-to-year decrease of 7.69% from 2017 and onwards (which is divided by the traffic volumes). The 5-year rolling average set at 2018 is 1.029 per 100M VMT. As stated, The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes are increased 2 percent per year from 2014 levels for the years from 2015 to 2020. In summary, the target, which is based on the five-year rolling average (set at 2018), is 1.029 per 100M VMT. The Number of Serious Injuries The serious injury data for the State of California resides in the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The definition of serious injury corresponds to “A” in the KABCO Scale and the corresponding value in the SWITRS database is coded as “2”. This is explained in Table 2 (below). TABLE 2. A COMPARISON BETWEEN KABCO AND SWITRS SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITIONS KABCO Definition (FHWA) SWITRS Definition (CHP) K: Fatal Serious Injury 1: Fatal A: Serious Injury 2: Injury (Severe) B: Minor Injury 3: Injury (Other Visible) C: Possible Injury 4: Injury (Complaint of Pain) O: Property Damage Only 5: Property Damage Only

Referring to Figure 5 below, the bars in dark green denotes the current data that is available in SWITRS (as of June 22, 2017). The light green bar depicts the forecasted values for 2017, which is based on an increase of +9% (the change from 2015 to 2016 for serious injuries). The gray bars show the number of serious injuries when decreased at a rate of -1.5% per year starting in the year 2018. The target year for serious injury numbers is 13,975. The red line represents a five-year rolling average from a decrease in serious injuries of -1.5% per year starting in 2017. This target is incorporated in the SHSP. This is a “vision” based or “aspirational” target. The five-year rolling average target for 2018 is 12,823.4. FIGURE 5. THE NUMBER OF SERIOUS INJURIES

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality Rate 1.323 1.286 1.209 1.054 0.953 0.839 0.866 0.908 0.944 0.927 0.930 1.057 1.171 1.059 0.959 0.868

5-Yr (TZD or Vision Based) 1.165 1.068 0.984 0.924 0.902 0.897 0.915 0.953 1.006 1.029 1.035 1.023

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

NU

MB

ER

(F

AR

S &

HP

MS)

Total Annual Fatality Rate Targets (per 100M VMT)

RC 02.01.18 - Page 57 of 100

8

The Rate of Serious Injury The serious injury rate is the number of serious injuries divided by 100M VMT. While referring to Figure 6 (below), the bars in dark green denote the current data that is available in SWITRS and HPMS. The light green bar shows the 2017 value, which incorporates an increase of +9% for serious injuries. The gray bar charts denote an annualized decrease of 1.5% for serious injuries from 2017. The serious injury rate in 2018 is 4.176. The red line represents a five-year rolling average or serious injuries that decreases 1.5 percent per year from 2017. This concept is incorporated in the SHSP. This is a “vision” based or “aspirational” target. The 2018 target for the serious injury rate is 3.831. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes are increased 2 percent per year from 2014 levels for the years from 2015 to 2020 (as is the case in calculating the fatality rate). FIGURE 6. THE RATE OF SERIOUS INJURIES

The Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Non-Motorized Serious Injuries (Bicycles and Pedestrians)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injuries 13,578 13,164 13,089 13,133 11,943 10,369 10,423 10,607 10,864 10,664 10,995 11,942 13,017 14,188 13,975 13,765 13,559

5-Yr (“Vision” Based or SHSP) 12981.4 12339.6 11791.4 11295.0 10841.2 10585.4 10710.6 11014.4 11496.4 12161.2 12823.4 13377.5 13700.9

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

NU

MB

ER

(SW

ITR

S)

Total Number of Serious Injuries (Targets)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injury Rate 4.020 3.969 3.975 3.666 3.198 3.215 3.263 3.324 3.240 3.285 3.568 3.889 4.239 4.176 4.113 4.051

5-Yr (“Vision” Based or SHSP) 3.766 3.604 3.463 3.333 3.248 3.265 3.336 3.461 3.644 3.831 3.997 4.094

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

NU

MB

ER

(SW

ITR

S &

HPM

S)

Annual Total Serious Injury Rate Targets (per 100M VMT)

RC 02.01.18 - Page 58 of 100

9

Concerning the number of fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorists, the strategy is to be more aggressive than the SHSP by mandating performance measures that are consistent with Caltrans’ 2015-2020 SMP. As part of Goal 1 in the SMP, which deals with Safety and Health, the strategic objective is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries by a adopting a “Toward Zero Deaths” practice. Therefore, the target for bicyclists and pedestrians fatalities and serious injuries is a 10 percent reduction per calendar year. In the SHSP there are challenge areas for both pedestrians and bicycling along with strategies in the implementation plan to reduce fatalities and severe injuries. While referring to Figure 7 (below), the orange bars show the number of fatalities for pedestrians and bicyclists combined. The number of fatalities is held constant from 2016 to 2017 at 985. The bar chart in green denotes the current data that is available in SWITRS for the number of serious injuries for pedestrians and bicyclists combined. The gray bars depict the forecasts for future years that are based on a year-to-year increase from 2016 to 2017 of 0.00%. That is, the number of serious injuries is held constant at 3500 from 2016 to 2017. The red line represents a five-year rolling average for serious injuries that decrease 10% per year from 2017 to 2020 for both fatalities and serious injuries. This is a “vision” based or “aspirational” target. The final target for 2018 is 4271.1. FIGURE 7. NON-MOTORIZED TARGETS FOR FATALITIES AND SERIOUS INJURIES (COMBINE)

Summary For a breakdown of the five Safety Performance Targets, please refer to Table 1 on page 1. Appendix A also details the outreach efforts done by Caltrans, OTS, and the FHWA to the MPO’s, Counties, and local agencies in order to coordinate and communicate the safety performance targets. Further information with regards to the four webinars listed in Appendix A is accessible at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/shsp/. Here data is provided from Caltrans, OTS, and the FHWA. For example, traffic volumes from HPMS are broken down by county for 10 years. In addition, all the four webinars have been recorded and can be accessed from this website. In addition, Appendix B provides a reporting template for the MPOs to document the 2018 Safety Performance Targets to the State six months after the August 31, 2017 deadline to the FHWA for the State targets.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 836 919 919 823 791 714 760 807 878 951 933 993 985 985 887 798 718

Serious Injuries 3127 3115 3135 3110 2990 3070 3031 3121 3207 3080 3209 3214 3500 3500 3150 2835 2552

5-Yr (Vision Based) 3953.0 3917.2 3868.6 3843.4 3873.8 3923.8 3995.4 4078.6 4190.0 4270.0 4271.1 4169.3 3981.8

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

NU

MB

ER

(SW

ITR

S)

Non-Motorized Targets (Pedestrians and Bicyclists)

RC 02.01.18 - Page 59 of 100

10

APPENDIX A: Safety Performance Target Setting Outreach Efforts Background: Safety Performance Management (Safety PM) is part of the overall Transportation Performance Management (TPM) program, which the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines as a strategic approach that uses system information to make investment and policy decision to achieve national performance goals. The Safety PM Final Rule supports the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), as it establishes safety performance measure requirements for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP and to assess fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The Safety PM Final Rule establishes five performance measures as the five-year rolling averages to include:

1. Number of Fatalities 2. Rate of Fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 3. Number of Serious Injuries 4. Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT 5. Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries

The Safety PM Final Rule also establishes the process for State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to establish and report their safety targets, and the process that the FHWA will use to assess whether State DOTs have met or made significant progress toward meeting their safety targets. Important Dates/Deadlines: The overall State targets required by FHWA are due on August 31st, annually, while the MPOs set their targets six months after the State sets its targets. Three of the five safety targets must be coordinated with the Highway Safety Plan administered by the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), which must submit their targets to NHTSA by June 30th of each year. Performance Targets must also be included in updates to Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plans (LRSTP), metropolitan transportation plans (MTP), state transportation improvement programs (STIP) and transportation improvement programs (TIP) after May 27, 2018.

Engagement Timeline:

November 28, 2016 – An all day workshop was held in Caltrans’ Boardroom to discuss, in a theoretical sense, what is behind safety performance targets. The MPOs, local and regional agencies, and the Tribal Governments were invited. The FHWA co-presented the workshop and answered frequently asked questions about the target setting process and what the possible consequences are for the State and MPOs if safety performance targets are not met. Caltrans presented the latest fatality and serious injury data for the State. The data was also broken down by the challenge areas in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. A prerequisite webinar was also developed by the FHWA to provide background information to the participants before the workshop. The OTS also presented at the workshop.

December 12, 2016 – This workshop was held at the Holiday Inn in Downtown Sacramento, California. Like the workshop in November, the participants included the MPOs, local and regional agencies and the Tribal Governments. The FHWA co-presented the workshop to provide further guidance on the final rules adopted for Safety Performance Management. The OTS also presented since three of the five state performance targets must be coordinated with OTS. Caltrans presented

RC 02.01.18 - Page 60 of 100

11

the latest trend data for fatalities and serious injuries and possible strategies for target setting. After the Caltrans presentation, the participants broke into groups to discuss the targets and preferences for where to set the targets from a regional perspective.

February 8, 2017 – This workshop was held in Fontana, California at the District 8 Traffic Management Center. The objective of this workshop was to demonstrate how to access and analyze safety data to set safety performance targets for an MPO. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) was the example used for the demonstration. The FHWA presented information on how to access HPMS, while the California Highway Patrol (CHP) made a presentation on how to access SWITRS data. Caltrans demonstrated how the data could be analyzed and OTS presented on what countermeasures could be funded through their grant program.

June 22, 2017 – The final workshop presented the State safety targets with an explanation of the underlying assumptions in establishing the targets. In addition, an overview of the Office of Traffic Safety’s Behavioral and Education funding opportunities were presented.

Contacts: John Ensch Phone: (916) 653-3099 Email: [email protected] Gretchen Chavez Phone: (916) 654-6101 Email: [email protected] Thomas Schriber Phone: (916) 654-7138 Email: [email protected]

RC 02.01.18 - Page 61 of 100


REPORT






From: Basil Panas, Chief Financial Officer, (213) 236‐1817;

[email protected]

Subject: Contracts $200,000 or Greater: Contract No. 18‐001‐B50, Safe Routes to School Program for San Bernardino County

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Contract No. 18‐001‐B50 in an amount not to exceed $526,523, with Alta Planning + Design, to develop an active transportation plan to identify biking/walking strategies that are specific to San Bernardino County. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The consultant shall provide assistance services for a Sustainability Planning Grant (SPG) for San Bernardino County. Specifically, the consultant shall develop an active transportation plan to identify biking/walking strategies that are specific to San Bernardino County. SPG Projects are intended to provide SCAG member jurisdictions the resources to implement regional policies at the local level, focusing on voluntary efforts that will meet local needs and contribute to implementing the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and providing the range of local and regional benefits outlined in the RTP/SCS. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; Objective: a) Create and facilitate a collaborative and cooperative environment to produce forward thinking regional plans. Staff recommends executing the following contract $200,000 or greater: Consultant/Contract # Contract Purpose Contract

Amount Alta Planning + Design (18‐001‐B50)

The consultant shall develop an active transportation plan to identify biking/walking strategies that are specific to San Bernardino County.

$526,523

FISCAL IMPACT: Funding of $526,523 has been included in the FY 2017‐18 budget in OWP projects 225‐3564.10 ($210,523 MSRC funds) and 225‐3564.11 ($316,000 FHWA ATP funds). ATTACHMENT: Consultant Contract No. 18‐001‐B50

RC 02.01.18 - Page 62 of 100

CONSULTANT CONTRACT 18‐001‐B50

Recommended Consultant:

Alta Planning + Design

See RFP Background & Scope of Work:

The consultant shall provide services for a Sustainability Planning Grant (SPG) for San Bernardino County. Specifically, the consultant shall develop an active transportation plan to identify biking/walking strategies that are specific to San Bernardino County. SPG Projects are intended to provide SCAG member jurisdictions the resources to implement regional policies at the local level, focusing on voluntary efforts that willmeet local needs and contribute to implementing the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and providing the range of local and regional benefits outlined in the RTP/SCS.

See Contract SOW

Project’s Benefits & Key Deliverables:

The project’s benefits and key deliverables include, but are not limited to: Developing a safe routes to school outreach strategy that includes various events and

activities at 25 schools identified in the County’s outreach plan; and Evaluating a program that will align with local and regional planning needs that can

be used in future grant applications. PM must determine Strategic Plan: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by

Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; Objective: a) Create and facilitate a collaborative and cooperative environment to produce forwardthinking regional plans.

See Negotiation Record Contract Amount: Total not to exceed $526,523

Alta Planning + Design (prime consultant) $362,723Safe Moves (subconsultant) $163,800 Alta Planning + Design originally proposed $599,753, but staff negotiated the price down to $526,523 without reducing the scope of work.

See Negotiation Record Contract Period: Notice to Proceed through June 30, 2019 See Budget Manager Project Number(s): 225‐3564.10 $210,523 (MSRC)

225‐3564.11 $316,000 (FHWA ATP) Funding source(s): Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC),Go Human, and Federal Highway Administration Active Transportation Program (FHWA ATP) Funding of $526,523 has been included in the FY 2017‐18 budget.

See PRC Memo Request for Proposal (RFP):

SCAG staff notified 1,796 firms of the release of RFP 18‐001‐B50 via SCAG’s Solicitation Management System. A total of 43 firms downloaded the RFP. SCAG received the following three (3) proposals in response to the solicitation: Alta Planning + Design (1 subconsultant) $599,753 The Inland Empire Biking Alliance (2 subconsultants) $300,028Safe Moves (1 subconsultant) $315,903

See PRC Memo

RC 02.01.18 - Page 63 of 100

Selection Process: The Proposal Review Committee (PRC) evaluated each proposal in accordance with thecriteria set forth in the RFP, and conducted the selection process in a manner consistentwith all applicable federal and state contracting regulations. After evaluating the proposals, the PRC interviewed all three (3) offerors. The PRC consisted of the following individuals: Rye Baerg, Associate Regional Planner, SCAG Barbara Alejandre, Chief Governmental Relations Officer, San Bernardino CounSuperintendent of Schools Matthew Higgins, Supervising Program Specialist, San Bernardino County, Department Public Health Rebecca Forbes, Transportation Planner, Caltrans – District 8 Josh Lee, Transportation Planning Analyst, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA)

See PM/Score Basis for Selection:

The PRC recommended Alta Planning + Design for the contract award because the consultant: Demonstrated the best understanding of the challenges related to operating a

large Safe Routes to School program on a tight timeframe within the context ofcountywide planning, including ensuring future program sustainability/funding;

Provided the best methodology related to data collection and evaluation which will be a key element of any future expansion; and

Provided the best overall value related to project management to ensure successful outcomes for the level of effort proposed.

Although other firms proposed lower prices, the PRC did not select the firms after the interview phase or for the contract award because these firms: Did not demonstrate the same level of experience operating large countywide Safe

Routes to School programs; and/or Did not provide a level of understanding of the regional planning context necessary

to ensure program sustainability/funding beyond the life of this contract; and/or Did not demonstrate sufficient project management experience related to complex

projects, as was apparent in the number of hours they allocated to this task.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 64 of 100

Conflict Of Interest (COI) Form ‐ Attachment Approve Contract No. 18‐001‐B50 in an amount not to exceed $526,523, with Alta Planning + Design, to develop an active transportation plan to identify biking/walking strategies that are specific to San Bernardino County. The consultant team for this contract includes:

Consultant Name Did the consultant disclose a conflict in the Conflict of Interest Form they submitted with its original proposal

(Yes or No)? Alta Planning + Design (prime consultant) No ‐ form attached Safe Moves (subconsultant) No ‐ form attached

RC 02.01.18 - Page 65 of 100

SCAG CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM

RFP No. 18-001-B50

SECTION I: INSTRUCTIONS

All persons or firms seeking contracts must complete and submit a SCAG Conflict of Interest Form along with the proposal. This requirement also applies to any proposed subconsultant(s). Failure to comply with this requirement may cause your proposal to be declared non-responsive.

In order to answer the questions contained in this form, please review SCAG’s Conflict of Interest Policy, the list of SCAG employees, and the list of SCAG’s Regional Council members. All three documents can be viewed online at www.scag.ca.gov. The SCAG Conflict of Interest Policy is located under “OPPORTUNITIES”, then “Doing Business with SCAG” and scroll down under the “CONTRACTS” tab; whereas the SCAG staff may be found under “ABOUT” then “Employee Directory”; and Regional Council members can be found under “ABOUT”, then scroll down to “ELECTED OFFICIALS” on the left side of the page and click on “See the list of SCAG representative and their Districts.”

Any questions regarding the information required to be disclosed in this form should be directed to SCAG’s Deputy Legal Counsel, especially if you answer “yes” to any question in this form, as doing so MAY also disqualify your firm from submitting an offer on this proposal

Name of Firm:

Name of Preparer:

Project Title:

RFP Number: Date Submitted:

SECTION II: QUESTIONS

1. During the last twelve (12) months, has your firm provided a source of income to employees ofSCAG or members of the SCAG Regional Council, or have any employees or Regional Councilmembers held any investment (including real property) in your firm?

YES NO

If “yes,” please list the names of those SCAG employees and/or SCAG Regional Council members and the nature of the financial interest:

Name Nature of Financial Interest

Alta Planning + Design

Brett Hondorp, Vice President

08/03/2017

X

County of San Bernardino Safe Routes to School Program

18-001-B50

RC 02.01.18 - Page 66 of 100

4/6/17

2. Have you or any members of your firm been an employee of SCAG or served as a member of theSCAG Regional Council within the last twelve (12) months?

YES NO

If “yes,” please list name, position, and dates of service:

Name Position Dates of Service

3. Are you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm related by blood or marriage/domesticpartnership to an employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council that is consideringyour proposal?

YES NO

If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship

4. Does an employee of SCAG or a member of the SCAG Regional Council hold a position at yourfirm as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or any position of management?

YES NO

If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship

x

x

x

RC 02.01.18 - Page 67 of 100

1. Have you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm ever given (directly or indirectly),or offered to give on behalf of another or through another person, campaign contributions or giftsto any current employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council (includingcontributions to a political committee created by or on behalf of a member/candidate)?

YES NO

If “yes,” please list name, date gift or contribution was given/offered, and dollar value:

Name Date Dollar Value

SECTION III: VALIDATION STATEMENT

This Validation Statement must be completed and signed by at least one General Partner, Owner, Principal, or Officer authorized to legally commit the proposer.

DECLARATION

I, (printed full name) _________________________________, hereby declare that I am the (position or title) ______________________________ of (firm name) ______________________________, and that I am duly authorized to execute this Validation Statement on behalf of this entity. I hereby state that this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form dated ___________________ is correct and current as submitted. I acknowledge that any false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements on this Validation Statement will result in rejection of my contract proposal.

Signature of Person Certifying for Proposer (original signature required)

Date

NOTICE A material false statement, omission, or fraudulent inducement made in connection with this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form is sufficient cause for rejection of the contract proposal or revocation of a prior contract award.

X

Brett Hondorp

Vice President Alta Planning + Design

07/21/2017

07/21/2017

RC 02.01.18 - Page 68 of 100

RC 02.01.18 - Page 69 of 100

RC 02.01.18 - Page 70 of 100

RC 02.01.18 - Page 71 of 100

REPORT


900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Agenda Item No. 8

February 1, 2018

To: Energy and Environment Committee (EEC)

Community, Economic and Human Development Committee(CEHD) Transportation Committee (TC) Regional Council (RC)


From: Roland Ok, Senior Regional Planner, 213‐236‐1839, [email protected]

Subject: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) ProposedUpdates to the CEQA Guidelines

RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR EEC: For Information Only ‐ No Action Required RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR CEHD, TC and RC: Receive and File. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 27, 2017, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) transmitted the final proposed amendments to the Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the California Natural Resources Agency. OPR’s comprehensive package contains a complete set of updates to the CEQA Guidelines. It reflects input from numerous public comment periods and input received during informal stakeholder meetings, conferences, and other venues. The package contains changes or additions involving nearly thirty different sections, addressing steps to facilitate the environmental review process. Key proposed updates are aimed towards improving efficiency, substantive analysis, and technical analysis. Updates also include the proposed SB743 Implementation Guidelines (For further details please refer to a separate February 2018 Staff Report titled: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Proposed SB743 Implementation Guidelines). The Natural Resources Agency will soon begin the formal administrative rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of drafting this Staff Report, the Natural Resources Agency has not initiated its formal administrative rulemaking process. When initiated, the rulemaking process will entail additional public review and may lead to further revisions. After completing the rulemaking process, the Secretary for the Natural Resources Agency may adopt the changes. Changes would only go into effect after the Office of Administrative Law reviews and approves the changes. Additionally, SCAG hosted a CEQA Guidelines and SB 743 Workshop on

RC 02.01.18 - Page 72 of 100

REPORT

January 31, 2018 at the Caltrans District 7 office. SCAG Staff is currently evaluating comments received from the workshop and will consider incorporating them into SCAG’s comment letter, as needed. For more information on the proposed updates to the CEQA Guidelines, please visit OPR’s website at: http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/guidelines/ and California Natural Resources Agency’s website at: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies. BACKGROUND: On November 27, 2017, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) transmitted the final proposed amendments to the Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the California Natural Resources Agency for final rulemaking. CEQA requires public agencies, as part of the project approval decision‐making process, to evaluate and mitigate a project’s potential environmental impacts. OPR is charged with developing the administrative regulations to implement CEQA, and the Natural Resources Agency adopts those regulations following a formal rulemaking process. The implementation regulations, commonly referred to as the CEQA Guidelines, are required to be updated on a regular basis. The last comprehensive update to the CEQA Guidelines was completed in the late 1990s. In 2013, OPR initiated a process to comprehensively update the CEQA Guidelines. Since that time, the State Legislature has adopted numerous revisions to CEQA law in regard to specific elements of the Guidelines, including a change in the methodology for assessing transportation related impacts (Senate Bill 743, Steinberg, 2013), and the addition of tribal cultural resources (Assembly Bill 52, Gatto, 2014) as a consideration in environmental documents. Key dates in the OPR CEQA Guidelines update process included the following:

Distribution of a formal solicitation for input on possible improvements (Summer, 2013)

Publication of a list of potential topics to address in the update (December, 2013)

Development of a draft Technical Advisory on the analysis of Tribal Cultural Resources pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (May, 2015)

Release of a first draft of the Comprehensive Update to the CEQA Guidelines (August, 2015)

Development of proposed changes to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines addressing Tribal Cultural Resources (November, 2015)

RC 02.01.18 - Page 73 of 100

REPORT

Coordination with the Natural Resources Agency to complete the changes to Appendix G related to Tribal Cultural Resources (August, 2016)

Development of changes to the Guidelines addressing hazards in response to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (CBIA v. BAAQMD) (October, 2017)

Finalization of the comprehensive CEQA Guidelines update package and submission to the Natural Resources Agency for final rulemaking (November, 2017)

Hosting of a webinar providing an overview of the proposed revised Guidelines in conjunction with the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) (December, 2017)

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE CEQA GUIDELINES OPR has crafted a comprehensive package of updates to the CEQA guidelines that reflects input obtained through numerous public comment periods and feedback received during informal stakeholder meetings, conferences, and other venues. The OPR proposal contains changes or additions involving nearly thirty different sections, including steps to facilitate and streamline the environmental review process. Key updates to the CEQA Guidelines include the following: Efficiency Improvements Regulatory Standards: Promotes the use of existing regulatory standards in the CEQA process. Using standards as “thresholds of significance” creates a predictable starting point for analysis and allows lead agencies to rely on the expertise of other regulatory bodies without foreclosing the consideration of any potential project‐specific effects. Updates to the Environmental Checklist: The OPR package proposes to update the environmental checklist that most agencies use to conduct their environmental review. Redundant questions in the existing checklist are eliminated and some questions are updated to address contemporary topics. The checklist has also been updated with several new questions related to transportation impacts and wildfire risk, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), and Senate Bill 1241 (Kehoe, 2012), respectively. It also relocates questions related to paleontological resources as directed by Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, 2014).

Tiering: The OPR package includes several changes to make the existing programmatic environmental review process easier to use for subsequent projects. Specifically, it clarifies the rules on tiering and provides additional guidance on when a later project may be considered within the scope of a program EIR, thereby obviating the need for additional environmental review. Exemptions: The OPR package enhances several existing CEQA exemptions. For example, consistent with Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), it expands upon an existing exemption for projects

RC 02.01.18 - Page 74 of 100

REPORT

implementing a specific plan to include not just residential, but also commercial and mixed‐use projects that are located near transit. It also clarifies exemption rules for changes to existing facilities so that vacant buildings can more easily be redeveloped. Changes to that same exemption would also promote pedestrian, bicycle, and streetscape improvements within an existing right of way. Substantive Improvements Energy Impacts Analysis: The OPR package provides new guidance regarding energy impact analysis. Specifically, it requires an EIR to include an analysis of a project’s energy impacts that addresses not just building design, but also transportation, equipment use, location, and other relevant factors. Water Supply Impact Analysis: The OPR package proposes guidance on the analysis of water supply impacts. The guidance is built upon the California Supreme Court decision in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 . The new provision requires analysis of a proposed project’s possible sources of water supply over the life of the project and the environmental impacts of supplying that water to the project. The analysis must consider any uncertainties in supply, as well as potential alternatives. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis: The OPR package includes proposed updates related to the analysis of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed changes reflect current appellate case law, including Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204; and Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497. Transportation Impact Analysis: Please refer to a separate February 2018 Staff Report titled: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Proposed SB743 Implementation Guidelines) Technical Improvements Evaluation of Hazards: The OPR package includes changes related to the evaluation of hazards as mandated by the California Supreme Court in CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369. Environmental Baseline: The OPR package clarifies when it may be appropriate to use projected future conditions as the environmental baseline. Mitigation Measures: The OPR package clarifies when agencies may defer specific details of mitigation measures until after project approval. Responses to Comments: The OPR package proposes a set of changes related to the duty of lead agencies to provide detailed responses to comments on a project. The changes clarify that a general response may be appropriate when a comment submits voluminous data and information without explaining its relevance to the project. Other Changes: Other proposed updates address a range of topics such as selecting the lead agency, posting notices with county clerks, clarifying the definition of “discretionary,” and others. The package includes technical changes to Appendices D and E to reflect recent statutory requirements

RC 02.01.18 - Page 75 of 100

REPORT

and previously adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, and to correct typographical errors. Additional technical improvements include those related to pre‐approval agreements, lead agency by agreement, common sense exemption, preparation of the initial study, consultation with transit agencies, citations in environmental documents, time limits for negative declarations, project benefits, joint NEPA/CEQA documents, use of the emergency exemption, discretionary projects, use of conservation easements as mitigation, and Appendices C and M to the CEQA Guidelines. STATUS OF STAFF REVIEW Since the release of the proposed update to the CEQA Guidelines, SCAG staff has been reviewing and are carefully evaluating the following potential topics for comments:

1. Environmental baseline (Proposed amendments to Section 15125) 2. Proposed language on tiering 3. Promoting the use of existing regulatory standards in the CEQA process 4. Discussion of energy based impacts under Appendix G 5. Proposed changes to greenhouse gas impact analysis (Proposed amendments to Section

15064.4) 6. Discussion of project benefits (Proposed amendments to Section 15124)

PUBLIC REVIEW AND NEXT STEPS The Natural Resources Agency will soon begin the formal administrative rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of drafting this Staff Report, the Natural Resources Agency has not initiated its formal administrative rulemaking process. When initiated, the rulemaking process will entail additional public review, and may lead to further revisions. After completing the rulemaking process, the Secretary for the Natural Resources Agency may adopt the changes. Changes would only go into effect after the Office of Administrative Law reviews and approves the changes. SCAG hosted a CEQA Guidelines and SB 743 workshop on January 31, 2018 at the Caltrans District 7 office and subject matter were presented by OPR staff. SCAG Staff currently evaluating comments from the workshop and will consider incorporating them into our comment, as needed. For more information on the Proposed Update to the CEQA Guidelines, please visit OPR’s website at: http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/guidelines/ and California Natural Resources Agency’s website at: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ FISCAL IMPACT: Work associated with this item is included in the Fiscal Year 17/18 Overall Work Program (080.SCG00153.04: Regional Assessment). ATTACHMENT/S: None

RC 02.01.18 - Page 76 of 100


REPORT


900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Agenda Item No. 9

February 1, 2018

To: Community, Economic and Human Development

Committee (CEHD) Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) Transportation Committee (TC) Regional Council (RC)


From: Kevin Kane, Associate Regional Planner, 213‐236‐1828, [email protected]

Subject: Summary of the Department of Finance’s 2017 Population Growth Estimates for the SCAG Region

RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Information Only ‐ No Action Required EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: SCAG staff will provide a summary of the California Department of Finance (DOF) year 2017 population growth estimates. DOF estimates are consistent with SCAG’s preliminary draft forecasts for the 2020 RTP/SCS, despite high growth numbers the SCAG region’s share of California’s population is decreasing modestly, and in 2017 the population who left the SCAG region for another state dropped significantly. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan, Goal 4: Develop, Maintain and Promote the Utilization of State of the Art Models, Information Systems and Communication Technologies; Objective b: Develop, maintain and enhance data and information to support planning and decision making in a timely and effective manner. BACKGROUND: On December 21, 2017, the California Department of Finance (DOF) released its official estimates for population growth from July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017. Overall these estimates were consistent with SCAG’s preliminary draft forecasts for the 2020 RTP/SCS which were presented to the SCAG Policy Committees in July 2017, with annual growth rates within one‐tenth of one percent. Two relevant points emerge from these updated estimates which are notable for the SCAG region. First, four SCAG counties – Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino – were amongst the state’s top five for population gain. However only Riverside was in the state’s top five for population growth rate (in fifth place). The result of this is that while in 2010 the SCAG region represented 48.5%

RC 02.01.18 - Page 77 of 100

REPORT

of the state, today it only represents 48.1% of the state. This share is projected to continue to decrease gradually and it is not likely that the SCAG region will ever represent “half of the state’s population.” Second, the DOF report highlights that despite decreasing birth rates and increasing death rates due to ageing baby boomers, the source of population growth continues to be natural increase: 113,821 were born in the SCAG region. While growth due to natural increase has been on a downward trend for several years, this 2017 figure is consistent with expectations. Similarly, net international immigration remains stable and consistent with SCAG projections at 89,359 per year. However, net domestic migration shifted dramatically in 2017. In 2015 the region lost 83,222 net residents to out‐of‐state and in 2016 lost 107,343. However in 2017 the region lost only 70,060 net migrants to out‐of state, mirroring the trends seen elsewhere in California. The recent run‐up in domestic out‐migration was believed to be related to high housing/living costs; in particular Orange County gradually flipped from a net landing point for migrants from out‐of state to a net jumping off point. Riverside County continues to be the only county in the region since 2012 to have positive net domestic migration. While all counties saw a net decrease in out‐of‐state movers in 2017, Los Angeles County lost 22,005 fewer residents in 2017 than it did in 2016. This trend is likely reflective of improving economic fundamentals, despite the region’s overall housing shortage. While SCAG’s preliminary 2020 RTP/SCS estimates are generally supported by the updated DOF estimates, DOF and other updated sources of information, such as the 2016 American Community Survey results released last month, will be investigated further and incorporated into the final 2020 RTP/SCS population projections as appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENT/S: PowerPoint Presentation

RC 02.01.18 - Page 78 of 100

11

SCAG region population growth during 2017

February 1, 2018

Kevin Kane, PhD, Associate Regional Planner

22

Population Growth: 7/1/16 – 7/1/17 CA Dep’t of Finance Mid-Year estimates SCAG counties: “Highest growth, but not the highest growth rate.” Result: SCAG region contains 48.1% of California’s population; down

from 48.5% in 2010

Population, 7/1/2017

Growth rate, prior 12 mos.

Growth, prior 12 mos.

Growth by natural increase

Growth by net immigration

Growth by net domestic migration

Imperial 188,650 1.14% 2,130 1,911 1,843 (1,624) Los Angeles 10,271,792 0.55% 56,689 59,395 55,783 (58,489) Orange 3,200,748 0.68% 21,626 18,030 17,568 (13,972) Riverside 2,389,723 1.28% 30,135 14,037 6,285 9,813 San Bernardino 2,163,680 0.94% 20,102 16,704 5,703 (2,305) Ventura 856,111 0.29% 2,438 3,744 2,177 (3,483) SCAG TOTAL 19,070,704 0.70% 133,120 113,821 89,359 (70,060) California 39,613,045 0.77% 300,816 220,597 185,430 (105,211)

RC 02.01.18 - Page 79 of 100

33

Fewer leaving for out-of-stateAdd Text Here

44

Thank youKevin Kane, PhD

Associate Regional [email protected]

RC 02.01.18 - Page 80 of 100

REPORT


900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 EEC Agenda Item No. 10

February, 1, 2018

To: Energy and Environment Committee (EEC)

Community, Economic and Human Development Committee(CEHD) Transportation Committee (TC) Regional Council (RC)


From: Mike Gainor, Senior Regional Planner, 213‐236‐1822, [email protected]

Subject: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Proposed SB 743 Implementation Guidelines and Technical Advisory

RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR EEC: For Information Only ‐ No Action Required RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR CEHD, TC, and RC: Receive and File. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 27, 2017, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) transmitted the final proposed Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) Implementation Guidelines to the California Natural Resources Agency for final rulemaking. OPR’s final proposal reflects and incorporates substantial input provided by a wide array of statewide stakeholders, including metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), County Transportation Commisions, local implementation agencies, and environmental advocacy organizations. Since SB 743 was signed into law by the Governor in 2013, OPR has provided multiple forums for stakeholder discussion and various opportunities for input and comment into how the new law should be implemented. SCAG has worked closely and cooperatively with OPR throughout this process. The final rulemaking process to be conducted by the California Natural Resources Agency will provide an additional opportunity for public review and comment, which may result in further revisions. At the time of this draft, the Natural Resources Agency had not yet announced details regarding the public review period. Any changes to the proposed Guidelines introduced through the rulemaking process or resulting from the accompanying public review period would only go into effect after the California State Office of Administrative Law reviews and approves the changes. To provide information to our local stakeholders, SCAG hosted a CEQA Guidelines and SB 743 Workshop on January 31, 2018 at the Caltrans District 7 offices. Staff is currently reviewing comments and feedback received at the Workshop.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 81 of 100

REPORT

For more detailed information on SB 743 and the proposed SB 743 Implementation Guidelines, please visit the OPR website: http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/guidelines, and the California Natural Resources Agency website: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies. BACKGROUND: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies, as part of the project approval decision‐making process, to evaluate and mitigate (as needed) a project’s potential environmental impacts. OPR is charged with developing the administrative regulations to implement CEQA, and the Natural Resources Agency adopts those regulations following a formal rulemaking process. Among the analyses required by CEQA is a transportation impact analysis. In response to the passage of SB 743, OPR initiated a process to update the transportation impact analysis language in the CEQA Guidelines and to develop a corresponding ‘Technical Advisory’ to provide methodological assistance and implementation recommendations for local agencies. On November 27, 2017, OPR transmitted its final proposed SB 743 Implementation Guidelines to the California Natural Resources Agency to initiate the final rulemaking process. Key dates in the SB 743 Implementation Guidelines development process included:

Senate Bill 743 was signed by the Governor, assigning OPR the responsibility to update the CEQA Guidelines accordingly (September, 2013)

OPR released an initial evaluation of several alternative transportation impact evaluation metrics to replace the existing ‘Level of Service’ (LOS) methodology (December, 2013)

OPR released an initial draft of the Proposed Revised Guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts using a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric (August, 2014)

OPR released an updated draft of the revised CEQA Guidelines including the VMT metric, together with a draft Technical Advisory (January, 2016)

SCAG, along with the other three major state MPOs, initiated a statewide consultant‐led case study demonstration project to evaluate potential SB 743 implementation issues (July, 2016)

Submittal of the final proposed CEQA Guidelines revision to the Natural Resources Agency for final rulemaking (November, 2017)

PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE SB 743 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES SB 743 charged OPR with the task of updating the CEQA Guidelines to emphasize current State planning priorities, including the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, streamlining infill and mixed‐use transit‐oriented development, and facilitating active transportation and transit improvement projects. The final OPR proposal contains several key revisions from the previous draft CEQA Guidelines and Technical Advisory proposal released in January, 2016.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 82 of 100

REPORT

The final proposed SB 743 Implementation Guidelines include several key revisions to the CEQA Guidelines: Transportation Impact Analysis: The proposed final SB 743 Implementation Guidelines includes significant changes related to the analysis of CEQA transportation impacts. SB 743 required OPR to develop an alternative methodology to replace the existing ‘Level of Service’ (LOS) analysis for evaluating CEQA transportation impacts. The proposed OPR update designates vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric for evaluating transportation impacts for most projects. VMT was selected by OPR as the preferred methodology to replace LOS because of its potential value in facilitating transit‐oriented projects in existing urbanized areas and for encouraging bicycle and pedestrian improvements in mixed use urban centers. One of the guiding principles of SB 743 was to encourage infill development, facilitate the use of active transportation, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The adoption of a VMT‐based metric eliminates the exclusive focus on automobile delay as the primary parameter for evaluating CEQA transportation impacts as was the focus of LOS analysis. Transportation impact analysis based on VMT will improve the viability of infill and transit‐oriented development projects, as well as other projects that serve to reduce GHG emissions through decreased dependency on single occupancy vehicles and increased use of active transportation and transit options.

VMT Implementation Changes: The final version of the proposed SB 743 Implementation Guidelines includes some significant revisions from the previous draft proposal released by OPR in January, 2016. These modifications are primarily related to implementation of the VMT methodology and were developed largely in response to concerns expressed by local implementation agencies and other statewide stakeholders. These proposed implementation changes include:

Use of the VMT methodology for evaluating CEQA transportation impacts is now optional for highway capacity projects.

Analysis of freight VMT is no longer required. Only the number of residential units prescribed in the Sustainable Communities Strategy

(SCS) may be used to reference the average VMT for a city. Mixed‐use development projects may limit VMT‐based transportation impact analysis only

to the predominant land use. STATUS OF STAFF REVIEW SCAG staff has reviewed the proposed final SB 743 Implementation Guidelines and Technical Advisory, and are appreciative of the considerations OPR has made in response to our concerns and those of our local stakeholders, most notably for the provision for added flexibility in the use of VMT analysis for transportation capacity improvement projects. Staff will continue its review and will also consider comments received at the workshop described further below. Throughout the more than three years since the passage of SB 743, OPR has collaborated closely with SCAG and the other state MPOs to

RC 02.01.18 - Page 83 of 100

REPORT

ensure that implementation of this ground‐breaking new law will be implemented with minimal added burden to our local jurisdictions. PUBLIC REVIEW AND NEXT STEPS As part of its final rulemaking process, the California Natural Resources Agency will initiate a public review period for the proposed SB 743 Implementation Guidelines. At the time of this draft, details regarding the scheduling of the public review period have not yet been released. To provide information to our local stakeholders, SCAG hosted a CEQA Guidelines and SB 743 workshop on January 31, 2018 at the Caltrans District 7 offices. OPR was invited to provide information and answer questions regarding these regulatory modifications. Staff are currently reviewing comments and feedback received at the workshop. For more information on SB 743 and the proposed SB 743 Implementation Guidelines, please visit:

OPR website: http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/guidelines/, and

California Natural Resources Agency’s website: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/. FISCAL IMPACT: Work associated with this item is included in the Fiscal Year 17/18 Overall Work Program (080.SCG00153.04: Regional Assessment). ATTACHMENT/S: None.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 84 of 100

REPORT


900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017Agenda Item No. 11

February, 1, 2018




From: Basil Panas, Chief Financial Officer, (213) 236‐1817, [email protected]

Subject: Purchase Orders more than $5,000 but less than $200,000; Contracts more than $25,000 but less than $200,000; and Amendments $5,000 but less than $75,000

RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Information Only ‐ No Action Required STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG’S Strategic Plan Goal 3: Enhance the Agency’s Long Term Financial Stability and Fiscal Management. BACKGROUND: SCAG executed the following Purchase Orders (PO’s) more than $5,000 but less than $200,000 Vendor PO Purpose PO AmountThe LA Hotel Downtown 2017 Economic Summit Balance $86,325B And H Photo Video FY18 Video Parts & Service for Magewell USB‐HDMI $39,639Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA, Inc.

FY18 Design Jet Plotters $37,178

Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc. FY18 Office Supplies $30,000Metro Regional Tap Service Center FY18 Metro Tap Cards $23,000CDW Government, Inc. FY18 HPMaintenance Support $22,890Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc. FY18 Supplies $9,800B And H Photo Video FY18 Drytac Vacuum Press Machine $5,699 SCAG executed the following Contract more than $25,000 but less than $200,000

Consultant/Contract # Contract’s Purpose ContractAmount

N/A N/A N/A

RC 02.01.18 - Page 85 of 100

Page 2 of 2

REPORT

SCAG executed the Amendment more than $5,000 but less than $75,000

Consultant/Contract # Amendment’s Purpose Amendment Amount

AMMA Transit Planning (16‐030‐C1)

This amendment will enable the consultant to perform additional surveying and analysis in order to capture anoptimal demographic of commuters and travelers in theSan Bernardino Valley, which is crucial to developing studystrategies and recommendations to reduce single‐occupant vehicle travel, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

$20,045

ATTACHMENT: Contract Summaries

RC 02.01.18 - Page 86 of 100

CONTRACT 16‐013‐C1 AMENDMENT 2 Consultant: AMMA Transit Planning Background & Scope of Work:

On May 24, 2016, SCAG awarded Contract 16‐013‐C1 to AMMA Transit Planning to conduct a Customer‐Based Ridesharing and Transit Interconnectivity Study for San Bernardino County to identify options to better coordinate public transit, ridesharing, and active transportation customer outreach efforts, as well as to identify systemenhancements that can make transit, ridesharing, and active transportation more convenient and an attractive alternative to driving. This amendment is to allow for additional surveying and analysis in order to capture anoptimal demographic of commuters and travelers in the San Bernardino Valley, whichis crucial to developing study strategies and recommendations to reduce single‐occupant vehicle travel, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment also increases the contract value from $357,996 to $378,041. This increase is necessary to perform the additional surveying and analysis.

Project’s Benefits & Key Deliverables:

The project’s objectives, benefits and key deliverables include, but are not limited to: Identifying specific opportunities for improving ridesharing and transit

interconnectivity; Identifying employers and activity centers that can benefit from improved

interconnectivity and information on transportation choices; Conducting customer‐focused assessments (surveys, focus groups, etc.) of how the

transit/ridesharing system is currently used and how the system could better serve employers and activity centers; and

Documenting service gaps, inefficiencies, and information needs as well asidentifying strategies to improve each.

Strategic Plan: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by

Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; Objective a:Create and Facilitate a Collaborative and Cooperative Environment to Produce ForwardThinking Regional Plans.

Amendment Amount:

Amendment 2 $20,045Amendment 1 (administrative ‐ no change to contract’s value) $0Original contract value $357,996Total contract value is not to exceed $378,041 This amendment does not exceed $75,000 or 30% of the contract’s original value. Therefore, in accordance with the SCAG Procurement Manual (dated 12/01/16) Section 8.3, it does not require the Regional Council’s approval.

Contract Period: May 24, 2016 through June 30, 2018 Project Number: 145‐3830.01 $378,041

Funding sources: Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) – FTA Section 5304 and SANBAGcash match. The additional funding of $20,045 is available in the FY 2017‐18 budget.

Basis for the Amendment:

The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and Omnitrans areproject partners in this study. SBCTA would like to obtain more robust survey data and

RC 02.01.18 - Page 87 of 100

results to strengthen the survey findings, thereby better informing the study strategiesand recommendations. SBCTA is providing a local match of 11.21% ($4,115.31) for thiseffort.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 88 of 100

REPORT


900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017Agenda Item No. 12

February 1, 2018




From: Basil Panas, Chief Financial Officer; (213) 236‐1817;

[email protected]

Subject: CFO Monthly Report

RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Information Only ‐ No Action Required STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan Goal, 3: Enhance the Agency’s Long Term Financial Stability and Fiscal Management. AUDITS: Staff continue to respond to questions from the Caltrans auditors. A return date has not been set. SCAG’s outside independent auditors, Vavrinek, Trine, Day and Co., LLP will be at the March 20, 2018 Audit Committee meeting to present their FY18 audit plan and receive input from the Audit Committee. MEMBERSHIP DUES: All members renewed their memberships in FY18 and two cities are being recruited for membership. BUDGET & GRANTS (B&G): B&G staff continued to work on the development of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018‐19 Comprehensive Budget and Overall Work Program (OWP). A draft budget will be presented to the EAC and RC in March. B&G staff began preparation of the FY 2017‐18 2nd Quarter OWP Progress Report. This mid‐year progress report for projects is due to Caltrans on January 30, 2018. CONTRACTS: In December 2017, the Contracts Department issued two (2) Request for Proposals (RFP’s); awarded one contract (1); issued eight (8) contract amendments; and processed 63 Purchase Orders to support

RC 02.01.18 - Page 89 of 100

REPORT

ongoing business and enterprise operations. Staff also administered 91 consultant contracts. Contracts staff continued to negotiate better pricing and reduced costs for services. During December 2017 over $86,764 in budget savings was realized, bringing the FY18 total to $160,995. ATTACHMENT: December 2017 CFO Monthly Status Report

RC 02.01.18 - Page 90 of 100

DECEMBER 2017

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Monthly Status Report

RC 02.01.18 - Page 91 of 100

FY18 Membership Dues 1,974,303$

Total Collected 1,986,186$

Percentage Collected * 100.60%Exceeds 100% because ICTC joined during the year.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY18 Membership Dues Collected

As of Jan 17, 2018, 195 cities and counties had

renewed their memberships; zero cities had yet

to renew, and there were two cities in the SCAG

region still being recruited for membership.

OVERVIEW

SUMMARY

RC 02.01.18 - Page 92 of 100

Office of the CFOInterest Earnings Variance

SUMMARY

The amount projected for FY18 is $124,210, which is $29,210 more than the target.

OVERVIEW

Actual interest income is plotted against the target amount. The amount credited to SCAG's account through November was $51,753. The LA County Pool earned 1.44% in November.

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

TARGET $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95

FY18 ACTUAL $9.6 $17.6 $26.8 $42.2 $51.8

FY18 FORECAST $9.6 $17.6 $26.8 $42.2 $51.8 $62.1 $72.5 $82.8 $93.2 $103.5 $113.9 $124.2

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

TARGET

FY18 ACTUAL

FY18 FORECAST

INTEREST EARNINGS VARIANCE

Inte

rest

Ear

ned

(Th

ou

san

ds)

RC 02.01.18 - Page 93 of 100

Office of the CFOIndirect Cost Recovery

Through December 2017, SCAG was under-recovered by $1,589,112. This was because of the lease obligation payment of $1,555,787 for the LA Office at 818 W. 7th Street.

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Actual Exp's $808 $967 $965 $1,119 $2,653 $1,079 $- $- $- $- $-

Recovered $828 $1,112 $946 $995 $1,111 $1,009 $- $- $- $- $-

Cum Actual Exps $808 $1,775 $2,740 $3,859 $6,512 $7,591

Cum Recovered $828 $1,940 $2,886 $3,881 $4,992 $6,001

$-

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

$7.0

$8.0

$9.0

$10.0

$-

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

Cu

m A

ctu

al A

mo

un

tM

illion

sM

on

thly

Ac

tua

l A

mo

un

t

Mill

ion

s

FY18 INDIRECT COST & RECOVERY

Actual Exp's

Recovered

Cum Actual Exps

Cum Recovered

OVERVIEW

SUMMARY

A comparison of Indirect Cost (IC), incurred by SCAG vs. IC recovered from SCAG's grants.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 94 of 100

Office of the CFOInvoice Aging

Actual

May 17 Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17

30 dayTarget 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

< 31 days 97.84% 96.25% 98.01% 94.55% 98.57% 97.95% 98.62% 97.91%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

% o

f Paid

Invo

ices

INVOICE AGING30 dayTarget < 31 days

May 17 Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17

TARGET 90 DAYS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

< 90 DAYS 100.00% 99.46% 100.00% 99.26% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.65%

< 60 DAYS 99.07% 98.39% 100.00% 97.28% 100.00% 99.71% 100.00% 99.65%

TARGET 60 DAYS 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%

94%

95%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%

101%

% o

f P

aid

Invo

ices

INVOICE AGING

TARGET 90 DAYS < 90 DAYS < 60 DAYS TARGET 60 DAYS

OVERVIEW

OVERVIEW

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

The percent of totalinvoices paid within 60and 90 days. The target isto pay 98% of invoiceswithin 60 days and 100%within 90 days.

These goals were partiallyduring this period.

99.65% of December 2017'spayments were within 60days of invoice receipt and99.65% within 90 days.Invoices unpaid 30-60 daystotaled 9; 60-90 days: 1; >90days: 6.

97.91% of December 2017'spayments were made within30 days of invoice receipt.

At month-end, 39 invoicesremained unpaid less than 30days.

The percent of total invoices paid within 30 days. The target is to pay 95% of all invoices within 30 days. This goal was met.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 95 of 100

Office of the CFOConsolidated Balance Sheet

1 11/30/2017 12/31/2017 Incr (decr) to equity COMMENTS

2 Cash at Bank of the West 1,941,506$ 1,687,659$ 3 LA County Investment Pool 7,173,747$ 7,293,823$ 4 Cash & Investments 9,115,253$ 8,981,482$ (133,771)$ 5 6 Accounts Receivable 5,978,288$ 5,771,602$ (206,686)$ Received $405K payment from OTS; billings to AQM increased $200K7 8 Other Current Assets 5,388,001$ 5,309,609$ (78,392)$ Some prepaid expenses were expensed 9

10 Fixed Assets - Net Book Value 1,231,475$ 1,231,475$ -$ No change (balance shown is as of previous year-end as full fixed asset accounting is done annually)

11 12 Total Assets 21,713,017$ 21,294,168$ (418,849)$ 13 14 Accounts Payable (352,024)$ (550,540)$ (198,515)$ Slowdown due to the holidays 15 16 Employee-related Liabilities (296,080)$ (306,762)$ (10,682)$ Nov had four unpaid working days; Dec had five 17 18 Deferred Revenue (141,020)$ (151,020)$ (10,000)$ FY18 GA sponsorships from Auto Club, Charter 19 20 Total Liabilities and Deferred Revenue (789,125)$ (1,008,322)$ (219,197)$ 21 22 Fund Balance 20,923,893$ 20,285,846$ (638,046)$ 23 - 24 WORKING CAPITAL

25 11/30/2017 12/31/2017 Incr (decr) to working capital

26 Cash 9,115,253$ 8,981,482$ (133,771)$ 27 Accounts Receivable 5,978,288$ 5,771,602$ (206,686)$ 28 Accounts Payable (352,024)$ (550,540)$ (198,515)$ 29 Employee-related Liabilities (296,080)$ (306,762)$ (10,682)$ 30 Working Capital 14,445,436$ 13,895,782$ (549,654)$

GF and TDA were spent per budget

RC 02.01.18 - Page 96 of 100

Office of the CFOFiscal Year-To-Date Expenditure Report Through December 31, 2017

Adopted Budget

Amended Budget Expenditures Commitments Budget

Balance % Budget

Spent

1 Staff & Allocated Fringe Benefits 406,555 406,057 54,348 351,709 13.4%2 51001 Allocated Indirect Costs 335,223 363,474 48,647 314,827 13.4%3 54300 SCAG Consultants 295,850 234,934 141,990 92,944 0 60.4%4 54340 Legal costs 105,000 105,000 41,145 56,837 7,018 39.2%5 55441 Payroll, bank fees 12,500 12,500 4,794 7,706 38.4%6 55510 Office Supplies 25,000 25,000 8,872 16,127 0 35.5%7 55600 SCAG Memberships 21,250 41,263 41,263 0 - 100.0%8 55610 Professional Membership 11,500 11,500 5,511 619 5,370 47.9%9 55730 Capital Outlay 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,060,810 239,190 - 81.6%

10 55830 Conference - Registration 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 0.0%11 55860 Scholarships 32,000 32,000 20,000 12,000 62.5%12 55910 RC/Committee Mtgs 25,000 25,000 8,961 3,039 13,000 35.8%13 55912 RC Retreat 5,000 5,000 166 5 4,829 3.3%14 55914 RC General Assembly 500,000 500,000 60,181 147 439,672 12.0%16 55915 Demographic Workshop 18,000 18,000 - 18,000 0.0%17 55916 Economic Summit 80,000 93,150 93,102 48 99.9%18 55918 Housing Summit 40,000 40,000 1,325 38,675 3.3%19 55920 Other Meeting Expense 45,000 45,000 34,122 10,877 0 75.8%20 55930 Miscellaneous other 12,000 12,000 10,838 1,143 19 90.3%21 55940 Stipend - RC Meetings 215,925 215,925 83,990 0 131,935 38.9%22 56100 Printing 10,500 10,500 102 10,398 1.0%23 58100 Travel - outside SCAG region 44,500 43,868 23,064 0 20,804 52.6%24 58101 Travel - local 25,500 25,500 15,309 0 10,191 60.0%25 58110 Mileage - local 21,500 21,500 8,016 0 13,484 37.3%26 58200 Travel - Reg Fees 1,000 1,632 1,632 0 100.0%27 58800 RC Sponsorships 135,000 135,000 77,900 1,200 55,900 57.7%28 Total General Fund 3,738,803 3,738,803 1,846,088 422,128 1,470,587 49.4%29 - 30 Staff & Fringe Benefits 14,739,246 14,995,339 6,650,482 8,344,857 44.4%31 51001 Allocated Indirect Costs 12,153,156 13,422,734 5,952,847 7,469,887 44.3%32 54300 SCAG Consultants 11,184,241 11,301,482 1,872,368 6,512,709 2,916,405 16.6%33 54360 Pass-through Payments 3,525,186 4,975,186 4,936,402 0 38,784 99.2%34 55210 Software Support 247,231 247,231 197,506 49,725 0 79.9%35 55280 Third Party Contribution 3,250,173 3,416,080 1,486,839 1,929,241 43.5%36 55620 Resource Materials - subscrib 653,040 653,040 120,256 179,749 353,035 18.4%37 55810 Public Notices - 3,415 3,415 0 100.0%38 55920 Other Meeting Expense 36,158 36,158 1,089 35,069 3.0%39 55930 Miscellaneous - other 766,300 136,857 25,420 4,015 107,422 18.6%40 56100 Printing 23,000 23,000 3,264 19,736 14.2%41 58100 Travel 185,000 185,000 44,503 2,500 137,997 24.1%42 Total OWP 46,762,731 49,395,522 21,294,392 6,748,697 21,352,433 43.1%43 - 44 Comprehensive Budget 50,501,534 53,134,325 23,140,479 7,170,825 22,823,020 43.6%

-

COMPREHENSIVE BUDGET

RC 02.01.18 - Page 97 of 100

Office of the CFOFiscal Year-To-Date Expenditure Report Through December 31, 2017

Adopted Budget

Amended Budget Expenditures Commitments Budget Balance % Budget

Spent

1 50010 Regular Staff 3,848,626 3,879,689 2,057,746 1,821,943 53.0%2 50013 Regular OT - 4,000 3,646 354 91.2%3 50014 Interns, Temps, Annuit 119,000 115,000 15,345 99,655 13.3%4 51000 Allocated Fringe Benefits 2,962,884 2,978,393 1,600,450 1,377,943 53.7%5 54300 SCAG Consultants 240,200 240,200 37,580 57,973 144,647 15.6%6 54301 Consultants - Other 1,328,995 1,386,750 610,406 620,703 155,641 44.0%7 54340 Legal 50,000 50,000 18,805 31,195 0 37.6%8 55210 Software Support 442,916 434,416 182,884 1,967 249,565 42.1%9 55220 Hardware Supp 66,250 74,754 74,288 466 0 99.4%10 55240 Repair & Maint Non-IT 15,000 15,000 7,293 7,706 0 48.6%11 55400 Office Rent 818 Offices 1,230,000 875,250 875,220 0 30 100.0%12 55410 Office Rent Satellite 245,883 200,633 74,201 125,007 1,425 37.0%13 55420 Equip Leases 120,000 120,000 40,772 47,483 31,745 34.0%14 55425 Lease Obligation Payment - 1,555,787 1,555,787 0 100.0%15 55430 Equip Repairs & Maint 28,500 28,500 16,999 11,501 0 59.6%16 55435 Security Services 100,000 100,000 31,668 32,270 36,062 31.7%17 55440 Insurance 183,373 199,089 98,757 100,332 49.6%18 55441 Payroll / Bank Fees 17,000 17,000 5,772 11,228 34.0%19 55445 Taxes 6,200 6,200 1,278 1,722 3,200 20.6%20 55460 Mater & Equip < $5,000 14,000 14,000 2,079 3,723 8,198 14.8%21 55510 Office Supplies 74,300 64,800 19,910 44,891 0 30.7%22 55520 Graphic Supplies 2,500 2,500 19 2,481 0.7%23 55530 Telephone 170,000 170,000 83,787 71,456 14,757 49.3%24 55540 Postage 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 0 0.0%25 55600 SCAG Memberships 194,900 184,400 21,399 3,833 159,168 11.6%26 55620 Res Mats/Subscrip 54,800 54,800 13,966 3,378 37,457 25.5%27 55700 Deprec - Furn & Fixt 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 0.0%28 55710 Deprec - Computer Equipment 120,000 120,000 - 120,000 0.0%29 55715 Amortiz - Software 250,000 250,000 - 250,000 0.0%30 55720 Amortiz - Leasehold Improvements 37,500 37,500 - 37,500 0.0%31 55800 Recruitment Notices 20,000 20,000 7,625 12,375 38.1%32 55801 Recruitment - other 38,000 38,000 12,309 25,691 0 32.4%33 55810 Public Notices 2,500 2,500 - 2,500 0.0%34 55820 Training 81,500 61,500 - 61,500 0.0%35 55830 Conference/workshops 15,000 15,000 12,621 905 1,474 84.1%36 55920 Other Mtg Exp 2,500 2,500 - 2,500 0.0%37 55930 Miscellaneous - other 1,500 3,500 3,390 0 110 96.9%38 55950 Temp Help 38,500 49,000 48,723 277 0 99.4%39 56100 Printing 30,000 39,500 10,761 3,195 25,544 27.2%40 58100 Travel - Outside 90,500 88,500 11,295 77,205 12.8%41 58101 Travel - Local 13,300 13,300 5,107 8,193 38.4%42 58110 Mileage - Local 18,300 18,300 12,215 6,085 66.7%43 58200 Travel - Reg Fees - 20,000 16,503 3,497 82.5%

44 Total Indirect Cost 12,294,427 13,570,261 7,590,605 1,105,340 4,874,315 55.9%

INDIRECT COST EXPENDITURES

RC 02.01.18 - Page 98 of 100

115

128133136

137

126128127124124129

101107105

99 96 98

88 88 89 8993 96

85 88 91 93 9692 91

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

# of C

ontra

cts

Months

SCAG Contracts (Year to Date)

Awarded Contracts

Closed Contracts

Active Contracts

OverviewThis chart shows the number of contracts administered by the Contracts division, by month, from July 2015 thru October 2017

SummaryThe chart shows that the Contracts Department is managing 91 active consultant contracts. Thirty-four of these are Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts, 16 are fixed price contracts, and the remaining 41 are Time and Materials (T&M) contracts (includes Labor Hour and Retainer contracts). The Contracts Department anticipates issuing approximately 50 contracts for FY 2017-18. Note, due to the nature of SCAG's work, the majority of SCAG contracts have a one year term and end on June 30th each year.

RC 02.01.18 - Page 99 of 100

Office of the CFO Staffing Report as of January 1, 2018

GROUPS Authorized Positions

Filled Positions

Vacant Positions

Executive 7 5 2

Legal 2 2 0Strategy, Policy & Public Affairs 20 16 4

Administration 43 39 4

Planning & Programs 67 62 5

Total 139 124 15

GROUPS Limited Term Positions

Interns or Volunteers

Temp Positions

Agency Temps

Executive 0 0 0 1Legal 0 0 0 07Strategy, Policy & Public Affairs 0 3 0 0

Administration 1 4 1 1

Planning & Programs 3 26 1Total 4 33 2 2

OTHER POSITIONS

RC 02.01.18 - Page 100 of 100

REY

Typewritten Text

Date post:	18-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongkhanh
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

Regional Council Full Agenda Packet - February 1, 2018. Hon. Charles Puckett ... 50. Hon. Sam...

Documents