REGULAR MEETING ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE · Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 236-1800 ......

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, February 2, 2017 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. SCAG Main Office 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Policy Committee Room A 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]. Agendas and Minutes for the EEC are also available at: http://www.scag.ca.gov/committees/Pages/default.aspx 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.

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Energy and Environment Committee Members – February 2017

Members Representing

Chair* 1. Hon. Carmen Ramirez Oxnard District 45

Vice-Chair* 2. Hon. Ross Chun Aliso Viejo TCA

* 3. Hon. Margaret Clark Rosemead District 32

4. Hon. Ned Davis Westlake Village LVMCOG

5. Hon. Jordan Ehrenkranz Canyon Lake WRCOG

* 6. Hon. Mitchell Englander Los Angeles District 59

7. Hon. Larry Forester Signal Hill GCCOG

8. Hon. Mike Gardner Riverside WRCOG

9. Hon. Sandra Genis Costa Mesa OCCOG

10. Hon. Ed Graham Chino Hills SANBAG

11. Hon. Jack Hadjinian Montebello SGVCOG

12. Hon. Jon Harrison Redlands SANBAG

13. Hon. Shari Horne Laguna Woods OCCOG

* 14. Hon. Steve Hwangbo La Palma District 18

15. Hon. Diana Mahmud South Pasadena SGVCOG

16. Hon. Thomas Martin Maywood GCCOG

* 17. Hon. Judy Mitchell Rolling Hills Estates District 40

18. Hon. Jim Osborne Lawndale SBCCOG

* 19. Hon. Linda Parks Ventura County

* 20. Hon. Greg Pettis Cathedral City District 2

* 21. Hon. Luis Plancarte Imperial County ICTC

22. Hon. David Pollock Moorpark VCOG

* 23. Hon. Deborah Robertson Rialto District 8

* 24. Hon. Laura Rosenthal Malibu District 44

25. Hon. Meghan Sahli-Wells Culver City WCCOG

26. Hon. Betty Sanchez Coachella CVAG

27. Mr. Steve Schuyler Building Industry Association of Southern California (BIASC)

Ex-Officio

28. Hon. Diane Williams Rancho Cucamonga SANBAG

29. Hon. Edward Wilson Signal Hill GCCOG

30. Hon. Bonnie Wright Hemet WRCOG * Regional Council Member


ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA

FE B R U A R Y 2, 2017

i

The Energy & Environment Committee (EEC) 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 & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (The Honorable Carmen Ramirez, Chair) 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 Committee, must fill out and present a speaker’s card to the Assistant prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. The Chair may limit the total time for all comments to twenty (20) minutes. REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS

CONSENT CALENDAR Time Page No.

Approval Item

1. Minutes of the January 5, 2017 Meeting Attachment 1

Receive and File

2. SCAG Sustainability Planning Grants Program Award

Recommendation and Next Steps Attachment 6

3. 2017 Meeting Schedule of the Regional Council and Policy

Committees Attachment 13

INFORMATION ITEMS

4. Draft Addendum #1 to the 2016-2040 Regional

Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) Program Environmental Impact Report (Roland Ok, SCAG Staff)

Attachment 10 mins. 14

5. Active Transportation Health and Economic Impact Study

(Rye Baerg, SCAG Staff) Attachment 20 mins. 44

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA

FE B R U A R Y 2, 2017

ii

INFORMATION ITEMS - continued Time Page No.

6. Water Desalination (Rich Nagel, General Manager, West Basin Municipal Water District; Bruce Reznik, Executive Director, Los Angeles Waterkeeper)

Attachment 50 mins. 65

CHAIR’S REPORT (The Honorable Carmen Ramirez, Chair)

STAFF REPORT (Grieg Asher, SCAG Staff)

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the EEC is scheduled for Thursday, March 2, 2017 at the SCAG Los Angeles Office.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE (EEC) MINUTES OF THE MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 2017

THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE A SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE. AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THE ACTUAL MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT SCAG, 818 W. 7TH STREET, 12TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017. The Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) held its meeting at the SCAG Los Angeles Office. A quorum was present. Members Present Hon. Ross Chun, Aliso Viejo (Vice-Chair) TCA Hon. Margaret Clark, Rosemead District 32 Hon. Jordan Ehrenkranz, Canyon Lake WRCOG Hon. Larry Forester, Signal Hill GCCOG Hon. Mike Gardner, Riverside WRCOG Hon. Sandra Genis, Costa Mesa OCCOG Hon. Jack Hadjinian, Montebello SGVCOG Hon. Jon Harrison, Redlands SBCTA/SBCOG Hon. Shari Horne, Laguna Woods OCCOG Hon. Linda Parks Ventura County Hon. Greg Pettis, Cathedral City District 2 Hon. Luis Plancarte, Imperial County ICTC Hon. David Pollock, Moorpark VCOG Hon. Carmen Ramirez, Oxnard (Chair) District 45 Hon. Meghan Sahli-Wells, Culver City WCCOG Hon. Betty Sanchez, Coachella Valley CVAG Mr. Steve Schuyler, Ex Officio Building Industry Association Hon. Diane Williams, Rancho Cucamonga SBCTA/SBCOG Hon. Edward Wilson, Signal Hill Gateway Cities COG Members Not Present Hon. Mitchell Englander, Los Angeles District 59 Hon. Ed Graham, Chino Hills District 10 Hon. Steve Hwangbo, La Palma District 18 Hon. Diana Mahmud, South Pasadena SGVCOG Hon. Thomas Martin, Maywood GCCOG Hon. Judy Mitchell, Rolling Hills Estates District 40 Hon. Jim Osborne, Lawndale SBCCOG Hon. Deborah Robertson, Rialto District 8 Hon. Bonnie Wright, Hemet WRCOG

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1

EEC Packet --- Page 1 of 66

CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Honorable Carmen Ramirez, Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. and asked Councilmember Greg Pettis, Cathedral City, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD There were no public comments. REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS There was no reprioritization of agenda items. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval Items 1. Minutes of the November 3, 2016 Meeting 2. Transportation Control Measure (TCM) Substitution by Orange County Transportation Authority

(OCTA) 3. 2016 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Appendix IV-C: Regional

Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and Transportation Control Measures Receive and File 4. Transportation Conformity Analysis for Draft Amendment No. 1 to the 2016-2040 Regional

Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) and Draft Consistency Amendment No. 17-03 to 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP)

5. SCAG Sustainability Planning Grants Program 6. 2017 Meeting Schedule of the Regional Council and Policy Committees A MOTION was made (Forester) to approve the Consent Calendar Agenda Items 1 through 6. Motion was SECONDED (Horne) and passed by the following votes: AYES: Chun, Clark, Ehrenkranz, Forester, Gardner, Hadjinian, Horne, Pettis, Pollock,

Ramirez, Sahli-Wells, Sanchez and Williams (13). NOES: None (0). ABSTAIN: None (0).


INFORMATIONS ITEMS 7. Impact of Climate Change on West Nile Virus and Other Mosquito-Borne Diseases Kenn Fujioka, Manager, San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District, updated the Committee on the West Nile Virus and other mosquito-borne diseases. Mr. Fujioka stated that since 1989, the District has been a public health agency that is committed to managing populations of mosquitoes and other vectors so they are not nuisances, do not cause outbreaks of human disease, and do not interrupt quality of life. The agency is an independent special district which serves the residents from 23 cities and the unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County. Similar agencies serve other parts of the SCAG Region. Kenn Fujioka continued to state that for over 100 years the major objective of the State’s Mosquito Control Program was preventing mosquitos from transmitting diseases, their ability to create a nuisance was secondary. Over the next five years it will be the incessant biting behavior of the invasive Aedes, not Zika, West Nile, Dengue, or Chikungunya that will cause the region’s residents to change their behavior. As individuals, each of us needs to contribute to the control of mosquitos. The invasive Aedes, the diseases they transmit, and the unpredictability of West Nile Virus are examples of a changing environment which have affected vector control agencies. 8. Los Angeles County Water Resilience Work Plan and Funding Report Leslie Friedman-Johnson, Los Angeles County Consultant for the Conservation & Natural Resources Group, LLC, and Russ Bryden, Principal Engineer, Watershed Management Division, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works updated the Committee on the status of the planning and policy development efforts of the Los Angeles County Water Resilience Work Plan and Funding Report. Ms. Friedman-Johnson stated that Southern California continues to experience a historic drought, and public agencies such as Los Angeles County are exploring ways to combat the drought through various means such as capturing stormwater and maintain/improving water quality. On April 5, 2016, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed a motion to address water resiliency and the costs of implementation strategies. The Water Resilience Plan (Plan) would increase drought preparedness and local water self-reliance, improve water quality to protect public health, and advance a community’s ability to adapt to the effects of climate change. The Plan would implement projects that improve storm and ground water management while also providing community amenities such as river parkways, green space, and habitat. In addition, the Board of Supervisors directed relevant County agencies to report back on existing authorities and potential funding mechanisms that could be used to implement the Plan. The funding mechanism, if adopted by the Board of Supervisors, would be submitted to voters. 9. Stormwater Funding Options Kenneth Farfsing, City Manager, City of Carson, provided the Committee with an update on stormwater funding alternatives being explored by a coalition of cities in Los Angeles County. Kenneth Farfsing stated that in 2013, the League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division and the California Contract Cities appointed an “Elected Officials Steering Committee.” In October


2014, the Steering Committee released a report “Stormwater Funding Options, Providing Sustainable Water Quality Funding in Los Angeles County” on options for providing sustainable water quality funding in Los Angeles County. The Steering Committee continues to meet regularly to advance the report’s recommendations and facilitate collaboration to increase funding for stormwater management. The Steering Committee is in the process of drafting and reviewing four (4) potential pieces of legislation for the 2017 Legislative session:

Add a one dollar ($1.00) tire fee to address stormwater pollution caused by tires. Modify the Porter-Cologne Act to require financial capability assessment guidance issued

by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in November 2014 in the establishment of water quality objectives in MS4 Permits.

Establish a state indemnity fund for personal injury or property damage caused by pollutants in waters from stormwater capture and dry-weather runoff capture projects.

Legislation requiring the State Architect to develop guidelines for water capture design and development.

CHAIR’S REPORT The Honorable Carmen Ramirez reminded the committee members to attend the Joint Meeting of the Policy Committees for a presentation on the State of California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2030 Target Scoping Plan Discussion Draft. STAFF REPORT None FUTURE AGENDA ITEM/S None ADJOURNMENT The Honorable Carmen Ramirez adjourned the meeting at 10:58 a.m. The next regular meeting of the EEC will be held on Thursday, February 2, 2017 at the SCAG Los Angeles office.




DATE: February 2, 2017

TO: Regional Council (RC) Executive/Administration Committee (EAC) Community, Economic, and Human Development (CEHD) Committee Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) Transportation Committee (TC)

FROM: Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director, (213) 236-1944, [email protected]

SUBJECT: SCAG Sustainability Planning Grants Program Award Recommendation and Next Steps

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL: RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR EEC AND TC: Receive and File. RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR EAC AND CEHD: Recommend the Regional Council to approve award recommendations; begin development and release related Request for Proposals (RFPs). RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR RC: Approve award recommendations; begin development and release related Request for Proposals (RFPs). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 29, 2016, the Regional Council approved the guidelines and scoring criteria for the 2016 Sustainability Planning Grant (SPG) program. Staff subsequently released the SPG Call for Proposals and received a total of 139 project proposals requesting approximately $35.5 million dollars across all project categories and types by the November 18, 2016 deadline. The SPG is a multi-year program designed to support and implement the policies and initiatives of the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and continues the themes of the previous round of grant funded projects. Staff has completed a ranking of proposals, and has identified fifty-four (54) top ranked projects for funding totaling approximately $9.6 million dollars (see attached list). Staff is seeking RC approval of award recommendations and authorization to begin contacting project sponsors in order to develop and release RFPs. Staff is seeking RC approval concurrent with CEHD recommendations in order to meet the California Transportation Commission’s deadline of February 2 for receiving SCAG’s recommendations for programming the regional Active Transportation Program funds, which will support eleven of the projects included in the Sustainability Planning Grant Program. Staff intends to return to the RC in April to recommend funding for an additional $2 million in awards for proposals that can be modified to better align with available funding sources, along with recommendations for supporting all the member agencies that applied in advancing their planning goals.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 2


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 4: Develop, Maintain and Promote the Utilization of State of the Art Models, Information Systems and Communication Technologies. BACKGROUND: Consolidated Call for Proposals A consolidated SPG Call for Proposals framework with associated guidelines and scoring criteria was developed by SCAG staff to help support innovative approaches to addressing and solving regional issues. Active Transportation (AT) grants will fund planning and non-infrastructure projects or programs that promote safety and encourage people to walk and bike more. Integrated Land Use (ILU) grants will continue to focus on sustainable land use and transportation planning. Green Regions Initiative (GRI) grants will assist local jurisdictions in funding sustainability plans or studies, such as climate action plans and water, energy, resiliency or open space studies. The new consolidated Call for Proposals solicited project proposals for all three program areas. Following the Regional Council’s approval, on September 29, 2016, of the 2016 SPG Program guidelines and scoring criteria staff released a call for proposals on and set an application deadline of November 18, 2016. SCAG received a total of 139 project proposals requesting approximately $35.5M in funding across all project categories and types. Evaluation Process The evaluation process was documented in the program guidelines as follows. For AT projects, six (6) evaluation teams, one (1) per county, were established to review, score and rank applications submitted to the SPG. Each team was comprised of staff from the county transportation commissions and SCAG. Projects were ranked against other projects within their respective county, except as noted below. To avoid any conflict of interest, if a county transportation commission submitted a proposal for any of the project types, the application was reviewed and scored by SCAG staff only. Final award recommendations are based on application score, regional equity targets and funding eligibility. For ILU/GRI projects three (3) evaluation teams, one (1) for each project type category, were established to review, score and rank applications submitted to the SPG. Each team was comprised of staff from partner agencies, stakeholder groups, and from SCAG. Projects were ranked against other projects within their respective categories. Final award recommendations are based on application score, regional geographic equity and funding eligibility. Both AT and ILU/GRI Capacity Building Mini-Grants were awarded competitively across the region and were scored by SCAG staff only to avoid any conflict of interest. Award Recommendations Staff has completed a ranking of proposals, and is recommending fifty-four (54) top ranked projects for funding totaling approximately $9.6 million dollars. These highest ranking proposals reflect stated SPG program goals, including but not limited to:


Identifying regional strategic areas for infill and investment; Focusing new growth around transit; Planning for growth around livable corridors; Supporting local sustainability planning and climate action planning; Increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking; Increasing safety and mobility of non‐motorized users; and Implementing the goals, objectives and strategies of the 2016 RTP/SCS.

The following tables summarize the proposed award recommendations by county:

Active Transportation Projects

Imperial $200,000 Los Angeles $2,283,452 Orange County $731,054 Riverside $796,418 San Bernardino $716,373 Ventura $200,000 Total $4,927,297

Integrated Land Use / Green Region Initiative Projects

Imperial $200,000 Los Angeles $2,253,000 Orange $820,000 Riverside $445,000 San Bernardino $740,000 Ventura $242,000 Total $4,700,000

Grand Total $9,627,297

The attached table lists all fifty-four (54) top ranked projects. Following the evaluation process AT projects are group by county, and the other categories are group by project type. The funding awards represent the maximum funding available and do not represent the final cost estimates for future RFPs. In order to best reflect SPG program goals and to expand the pool of project awards, in some cases SCAG is recommending reduced funding amounts from an applicant’s request. SCAG staff will contact project sponsors to discuss reductions in funding and the related scope of work; no project


sponsors will be expected to complete the same amount of work where reduced funding is recommended. Staff will work to ensure that reduced funding still results in meaningful benefits for project sponsors. Approximately $2.8 million of the project awards being recommended for active transportation projects will be funded through the Regional Active Transportation Program (ATP). These projects are concurrently being reviewed and approved by the TC as part of the larger $50 million, Regional ATP. The Regional ATP is anticipated to be approved by the California Transportation Commission in March. Selecting ATP projects through the SPG Call for Projects provided the opportunity for planning and non-infrastructure projects to access ATP funding through a more focused and simplified application process. Adding ATP funding to the SPG also helped leverage additional funds from the Mobile Source Reduction Fund. SCAG will administer ATP funds for SPG applicants, if desired. Next Steps Pending RC approval, staff will contact all top-ranking project applicants to discuss details of their award, refine scopes of work, and develop RFPs. Where applicable, staff will submit recommended projects to funding partners, CTC and MSRC, for approval; as well as pursue allocation and finalize funding agreements. Additionally, staff will reach out to unfunded applicants to explore opportunities and develop strategy for addressing unmet needs. Staff intends to return to the CEHD and RC in April to recommend funding for an additional $2 million in awards for proposals that can be modified to better align with available funding sources. Through the support of the Mobile Source Reduction Committee, the SPG for the first time will provide resources for active transportation programs, including Go Human demonstration projects that encourage walking and biking. Within the current budget, SCAG has capacity to support additional programs and will be reaching out and working with interested applicants over the next month to better align project proposals with funding requirements for such programs. Additionally, to support all member agencies that applied in advancing good projects that promote SCS implementation, staff intends to work with all unfunded applicants to develop a refined, potential Phase II list that is subject to future funding availability. The potential Phase II list and a funding strategy for addressing unmet needs will be presented to the CEHD and RC in April. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff’s work budget for the current fiscal year is included in FY 2016-17 OWP 065.00137.01 and OWP 150.04094.01 ATTACHMENT: Sustainability Planning Grant Program Award Recommendation Tables


SCAG Sustainability Planning Grant Program Award RecommendationsActive Transportation Projects

County Project Type Subregion Applicant Project Recommended AwardImperial Non‐Infrastructure ICTC Imperial County Safe Routes to School Project 200,000$

Non‐Infrastructure SGVCOG Baldwin Park Go Human Bike‐Friendly Business Program 168,500$ Non‐Infrastructure SGVCOG El Monte and South El Monte Go Human Bike‐Friendly Business Program 196,552$ Non‐Infrastructure SGVCOG Los Angeles County Walnut Park Walnut Park Demonstration Project 190,000$ Non‐Infrastructure SGVCOG San Dimas Arrow Highway Complete Street Demonstration 183,400$ Non‐Infrastructure SGVCOG South El Monte South El Monte Open Streets 200,000$ Non‐Infrastructure GCCOG Long Beach DHHS Long Beach Safe Routes to School Program 200,000$ Non‐Infrastructure LA CITY Los Angeles DOT Vision Zero Campaign ‐ Media Development 200,000$ Non‐Infrastructure LA CITY Los Angeles DOT Vision Zero ‐ Community‐Based Outreach 200,000$ Active Trans Plans GCCOG Commerce Active Trans. & Safe Routes to Schools Plan 245,000$ Active Trans Plans LA CITY Los Angeles Exposition Park Exposition Park Active Transportation Plan 200,000$ Active Trans Plans SGVCOG SGVCOG Greenway Network Implementation Plan 200,000$ Mini‐Grants SGVCOG El Monte First/Last Mile Transit Station Planning 50,000$ Mini‐Grants LA COUNTY Los Angeles County Vision Zero Action Plan 50,000$ Non‐Infrastructure OCCOG OCTA Partnerships With Police 100,000$ Non‐Infrastructure OCCOG Santa Ana Pedestrian and Bicyclist Education Campaign 471,054$ Active Trans Plans OCCOG Garden Grove Safe Routes to School: Phase I Plan 160,000$ Non‐Infrastructure WRCOG San Jacinto Envision San Jacinto 147,600$ Non‐Infrastructure CVAG Riverside Cnty Dept of Pub Health Eastern Coachella Valley Safe Routes to Schools 348,818$ Active Trans Plans WRCOG Wildomar Active Transportation Plan 300,000$ Non‐Infrastructure SBCTA San Bernardino County Safe Routes to Schools Program 316,373$ Active Trans Plans SBCTA San Bernardino County Morongo Basin Active Transportation Plan 200,000$ Active Trans Plans SBCTA SBCTA Redlands Rail Accessibility Plan 200,000$ Active Trans Plans VCCOG Ventura County Safe Routes to School Master Plan 100,000$ Active Trans Plans VCCOG Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan 100,000$

Total 4,927,297$

Orange County

Riverside

San Bernardino

Ventura

Los Angeles


SCAG Sustainability Planning Grant Program Award Recommendations

Integrated Land-Use / Green Region Initiative

Project Type County Subregion Applicant Project Recommended Award

Los Angeles SFVCOG Burbank Golden State Implementation Study $375,000

Los Angeles GCCOG Long Beach Destination Uptown $250,000

Los Angeles LA CITY Los Angeles County Metro Union Station Civic Center $375,000

Orange OCCOG Anaheim Center City Corridors Plan $225,000

Orange OCCOG Santa Ana Sustainability Vision $325,000

San Bernardino SBCTA Rancho Cucamonga Empire Yards Station Specific Plan $200,000

Imperial ICTC Imperial County Trans Commission Imperial Valley Regional Climate Action Plan $200,000

Los Angeles SBCCOG Carson Neighborhood Mobility Plan $193,000

Los Angeles SGVCOG Duarte Town Center Traffic Plan $150,000

Los Angeles SGVCOG Glendale Streetcar Vision $200,000

Los Angeles LA COUNTY Los Angeles County Planning 2030 Climate Action and Adapation Plan $200,000

Los Angeles NLAC Palmdale Integrated Sustainability Strategy $150,000

Los Angeles GCCOG Norwalk Firestone Corridor/San Antonio Village Vision $100,000

Los Angeles SGVCOG South Pasadena Climate Action Plan $100,000

Los Angeles GCCOG Vernon Transit Route Feasibility Study $60,000

Orange OCCOG Mission Viejo Core Area Specific Plan $120,000

Orange OCCOG Placentia Green Open Space $150,000

Riverside WRCOG Corona Climate Action Plan Update $70,000

Riverside WRCOG Moreno Valley Nason Street Corridor Phase II $150,000

Riverside WRCOG WRCOG SB743 Implementation $175,000

San Bernardino SBCTA Colton South Colton Revitalization Plan $160,000

San Bernardino SBCTA Fontana Urban Greening Landscape Plan $200,000

San Bernardino SBCTA SBCTA SB County Regional GHG Reduction Plan Update $150,000

Ventura VCCOG Gold Coast Transit Building Transit Communities $67,000

Ventura VCCOG Santa Paula SCS Consistency Framework for General Plan $175,000

Los Angeles SGVCOG Claremont Claremont Locally Grown Power $50,000

Los Angeles GCCOG GCCOG Climate Action Planning Framework $50,000

Riverside WRCOG Perris Healthy Cities Challenge $50,000

San Bernardino SBCTA SBCTA Story Maps $30,000

Total $4,700,000

Mini-Grants

Shared Vision

Plans

Focused Purpose

Plans


4%

46%

15%

16%

15%

4%

Recommended Awards by County -Active Transportation

Imperial

Los Angeles

Orange County

Riverside

San Bernardino

Ventura

4%

48%

17%

10%

16%

5%

Recommended Awards by County -Integrated Land Use/Green Region

Imperial

Los Angeles

Orange

Riverside

San Bernardino

Ventura



2017 Meeting Schedule

Regional Council and Policy Committees

All Regular Meetings are scheduled on the 1st Thursday of each month

(Approved by the Regional Council 09-01-16)

Executive/Administration Committee (EAC) 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM

Community, Economic and Human

Development Committee (CEHD)

10:00 AM – 12:00 PM

Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM

Transportation Committee (TC) 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM

Regional Council (RC) 12:15 PM – 2:00 PM

January 5, 2017

February 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

April 6, 2017

May 4 – 5, 2017 (SCAG Regional Conference and General Assembly, JW Marriott Desert Springs)

June 1, 2017

July 6, 2017

August 3, 2017 (DARK)

September 7, 2017 (Note: League of California Cities Annual Conference, Sacramento, CA; Sep. 13 - 15)

October 5, 2017

November 2, 2017

December 7, 2017 (SCAG 8th Annual Economic Summit --- in lieu of the regularly scheduled

Regional Council and Policy Committees’ Meeting

AGENDA ITEM NO. 3




TO: Energy and Environment Committee (EEC)

FROM: Roland Ok, Senior Regional Planner, (213) 236-1819, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Draft Addendum #1 to the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) Program Environmental Impact Report

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL: RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Information Only – No Action Required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Since approval of the 2016-2040 of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) and certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report (2016 RTP/SCS PEIR) by the Regional Council at its April 7, 2016 meeting, SCAG has received requests from several county transportation commissions (CTCs) to amend the 2016 RTP/SCS to reflect additions or changes to project scopes, costs, and/or schedule for a number of transportation projects, as well as the addition of some new projects. SCAG staff has conducted a programmatic environmental assessment analyzing the changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List documented in the Amendment # 1 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SCAG staff finds that the proposed changes would not result in a substantial change to the region-wide impacts programmatically addressed in the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. SCAG staff also finds that the projects identified in 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment # 1 are programmatically consistent with the analysis, mitigation measures, and Findings of Fact contained in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. As such, SCAG staff has prepared a Draft Addendum #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR for EEC’s review. 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: SCAG is the six-county region’s designated metropolitan planning organization pursuant to federal law, and the region’s designated transportation planning agency pursuant to state law. As such, SCAG is responsible for developing and maintaining the RTP/SCS in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the CTCs, public transit operators, and local jurisdictions, as well as other partners and stakeholders, including other public agencies, businesses, and environmental and community groups.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 4


On April 7, 2016, the RC adopted the 2016 RTP/SCS and certified the associated PEIR. Since that time, staff has received requests from several CTCs in the SCAG region to amend the 2016 RTP/SCS to reflect additions or changes to project scopes, costs, and/or schedule for a number of transportation projects, as well as the addition of some new projects in order to move forward towards the implementation phrase. To address these requests, Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS has been prepared. Amendment #1 includes changes or revisions to 76 projects, or approximately 2 percent of the total projects referenced in the 2016 RTP/SCS. Specifically, the revised plan proposes revisions to 54 projects already included in the 2016 RTP/SCS as well as proposes the inclusion of 22 new projects. BASIS FOR A PEIR ADDENDUM: When an EIR has been certified and the project is modified or otherwise changed after certification, additional review may be necessary pursuant to the CEQA. The key considerations for determining the need and appropriate type of additional CEQA review are outlined in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15163 and 15164. In general, an Addendum is allowed when there are not substantial changes to the project or new information that would require major revisions to the EIR. Substantial changes are defined as those which “will require major revisions of the previous EIR…due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” An Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review. PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: SCAG staff has conducted a programmatic environmental assessment of the changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List documented in the proposed Amendment #1 pursuant to CEQA. SCAG finds that the projects identified in 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are programmatically consistent with the analysis, mitigation measures, and Findings of Fact contained in the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, and that adoption of the proposed modifications would not result in either new significant environmental impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. Therefore, it is determined that a Subsequent or Supplemental PEIR is not required and that Draft Addendum #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR fulfills the requirements of CEQA. SCHEDULE: On March 2, 2017, Addendum #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR will be scheduled for EEC to recommend approval by the RC at its April 2017 meeting. On April 6, 2017, the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 and associated Draft Addendum #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR will be presented to the RC for approval. FISCAL IMPACT: Work associated with this item is included in the current Fiscal Year 2016/17 Overall Work Program (16-020.SCG00161.04: Regulatory Compliance). ATTACHMENT: Draft Addendum #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report


FOR THE

2016–2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGYA Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability and a High Quality of Life

DRAFT ADDENDUM #1

TO THE

FEBRUARY 2017 l STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2015031035

PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT


INTRODUCTION 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 22

LONG TERM CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 23

FINDINGS 24


FOR THE

2016–2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY

DRAFT ADDENDUM #1

TO THE



INTRODUCTIONSouthern California Association of Governments (SCAG) proposes to amend the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS or Plan). The RTP is a long-range vision for regional transportation investments. Using growth forecasts and economic trends, the RTP considers the role of transportation relative to economic factors, environmental issues and quality-of-life goals and provides an opportunity to identify transportation strategies today that address mobility needs for the future. The RTP is updated every four years to reflect changes in economic trends, state and federal requirements, progress made on projects and adjustments for population and jobs. The SCS, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375, integrates land use, transportation strategies and transportation investments within the Plan.

The 2016 RTP/SCS Project List (hereafter referred to as “Project List”) contains thousands of individual transportation projects that aim to improve the region’s mobility and air quality and revitalize the economy and includes, but is not limited to, highway improvements such as mixed flow lanes, interchanges, ramps, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, toll lanes and arterials; transit improvements such as bus, bus rapid transit (BRT) and various rail projects and upgrades; and goods movement strategies. Although the 2016 RTP/SCS has a long-term time horizon under which projects are planned and proposed to be implemented, federal and state mandates ensure that the Plan is both flexible and responsive in the near term. Therefore, the 2016 RTP/SCS is regarded as both a long-term regional transportation blueprint and as a dynamic planning tool subject to ongoing refinement and modification.

As the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.), SCAG prepared the Final 2016 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the 2016 RTP/SCS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS and to identify practical and feasible mitigation measures.

As is appropriate for a PEIR, the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR focuses on a region-wide assessment of existing conditions and potential impacts as well as broad policy alternatives and

program-wide mitigation measures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(b)(4)). Pursuant to Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines, subsequent environmental analyses for separate, but related, future projects may tier off the analysis contained in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The CEQA Guidelines do not require a Program EIR to specifically list all subsequent activities that may be within its scope. For large scale planning approvals (such as the RTP/SCS), where site-specific EIRs or negative declarations will subsequently be prepared for specific projects broadly identified within a Program EIR, the site-specific analysis can be deferred until the project level environmental document is prepared (Sections 15168 and 15152), provided deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand.

The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR was certified on April 7, 2016 and the associated Plan was adopted on the same day (SCH No. 2015031035). Since the adoption of the 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG has received requests from several county transportation commissions to amend the Plan to reflect changes to project scopes, costs and/or schedule for a number of transportation projects, as well as the addition of some new transportation projects contained therein (proposed Amendment #1 to the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, referred to herein as “2016-2040 RTP/SCS Amendment #1”).

This Addendum to the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR has been prepared by SCAG to assess potential environmental impacts of the proposed updates and revisions to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List included in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1. This document is prepared as an addendum to the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR in April 2016 (SCH No. 2015031035).

In summary, the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR and Addendum to the PEIR serves as an informational document to inform decision-makers and the public of the potential environmental consequences of approving the proposed Plan by analyzing the projects and programs on a broad regional scale, not at a site-specific level of analysis. Site specific analysis will occur as each project is defined and goes through individual project-level environmental review.

DRAFT ADDENDUM #1


2 2016 RTP/SCS I DRAFT ADDENDUM #1 TO THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

BASIS FOR THE ADDENDUMWhen an EIR has been certified and the project is modified or otherwise changed after certification, additional CEQA review may be necessary. The key considerations in determining the need for the appropriate type of additional CEQA review are outlined in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163 and 15164.

Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) provides that a Subsequent EIR is not required unless the following occurs:

z Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

z Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

z New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:

� The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;

� Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

� Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

� Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

An Addendum to an EIR may be prepared by the Lead Agency that prepared the original EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions have occurred requiring preparation of a Subsequent EIR (Section 15164(a)). An Addendum must include a brief explanation of the agency’s decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR and be supported

by substantial evidence in the record as a whole (Section 15164(e)). The Addendum to the EIR need not be circulated for public review but it may be included in or attached to the Final EIR (Section 15164(c)). The decision-making body must consider the Addendum to the EIR prior to making a decision on the project (15164(d)).

An addendum to the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR is appropriate to address the proposed changes in the 2016 RTP/SCS because the proposed updates and revisions do not meet the conditions of Section 15162(a) for preparation of a subsequent EIR. Neither the proposed new projects or changes to existing projects would result in 1) substantial changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS which will require major revisions of the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR; 2) substantial changes to the circumstances under which the 2016 RTP/SCS is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the 2016 PEIR; or 3) new information of substantial importance showing significant effects not previously examined.

While the proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List documented in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 may arguably represent “new information of substantial importance …” at the local project-level, these changes are not substantial at the regional program-level as analyzed in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR. More specifically, the proposed changes to the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Project List documented in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 would not result in one or more significant effects (at the regional level) not discussed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects disclosed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. Moreover, no changes to the mitigation measures or alternatives contained in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR are necessary or being proposed that could trigger additional review regarding such measures. Furthermore, as discussed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, the level of detail for individual projects on the RTP/SCS Project List is generally insufficient to be able to analyze local effects. Such analysis is more appropriately undertaken in project-specific environmental documents prepared by the individual CEQA lead agencies proposing each project.

SCAG has assessed potential environmental effects of the proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List, contained in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1, at the regional program-level and finds that the additional and modified projects contained in Amendment #1 are consistent with the region-wide environmental impacts analysis, mitigation measures or alternatives and Findings of Fact discussed in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR and do not result in any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1)(2)(3). For these reasons, SCAG has elected to prepare an addendum to the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR rather than a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR and this Addendum #1 to the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR is prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.


DRAFT ADDENDUM #1 TO THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE PEIRSCAG has prepared this Addendum #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR to demonstrate that the proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List, contained in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1, satisfies the requirements contained in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines for the use of an Addendum to an EIR. The proposed changes to the Project List do not require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15163, respectively, of the CEQA Guidelines due to the absence of new or substantially more adverse significant impacts than those analyzed in the certified EIR.

This Addendum #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR neither controls nor determines the ultimate decision for approval of the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 and the proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List contained therein. The information presented in this Addendum to the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR will be considered by SCAG’s decision making body, the Regional Council, prior to making a decision on the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1.



PROJECT DESCRIPTIONA major component of the 2016 RTP/SCS is the Project List, which includes thousands of individual transportation projects and programs that aim to improve the region’s mobility and air quality and to revitalize our economy. More specifically, the 2016 RTP/SCS includes approximately 4,000 projects with completion dates spread over a 24 year time period (through 2040). The proposed 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 (revised plan) includes 76 projects, or approximately 2 percent of the total 2016 RTP/SCS projects. The revised plan proposes revisions to 54 projects already included in the 2016 RTP/SCS and it also proposes the inclusion of 22 new projects. The new projects include state and local highway projects as well as projects classified as other (e.g., Port of Los Angeles projects), none of which are different than the types of projects already included in the 2016 RTP/SCS and analyzed in the 2016 PEIR.

As part of the 2016 RTP/SCS amendment process, SCAG solicited input from the region’s six County Transportation Commissions (CTCs) regarding updates to their individual project lists. The types of changes reflected in the updated Project List include:

z Project is new and not currently included in the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List;

z Project currently exists in the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List, but has a:

� Revised description;

� Revised schedule; and/or

� Change in total cost;

z Project is a duplicate and needs to be removed or combined with another project in the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List;

z Project is no longer being pursued and the CTC has requested its removal from the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List;

Based on input received, a total of 54 projects were modified under Amendment #1 and a total of 22 new projects were proposed. A total of four projects were removed from the Project List. As part of Amendment #1 to the 2016 RTP/SCS, the Project List has been updated to reflect the latest CTC-approved project modifications. The updated Project List forms the foundation of the 2016 RTP/SCS. (See 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 at: http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/DRAFT2016RTPSCSAMEND01.aspx).

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSISThe changes described above to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 would not result in a substantial change to the region-wide impacts programmatically analyzed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR broadly identifies a number of region-wide significant impacts that would result from the numerous transportation policies and projects encompassed by the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.

The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR presents analysis at the programmatic level of various types of projects, including both modifications to the existing system as well as new systems such as new highway and transit facilities, goods movement roadway facilities, rail corridors, flyovers, interchanges and High-Speed Rail.

Although the new projects identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 were not identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, SCAG has assessed these additional projects at the programmatic level and finds that they are consistent with the scope, goals and policies contained in the 2016 RTP/SCS and with the analysis and conclusions presented in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. Further, each project will be fully assessed at the project-level by the implementing agency in accordance with CEQA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and all applicable regulations.

No changes to the mitigation measures or alternatives contained in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR are necessary or proposed. SCAG has determined that the changes and additions identified above would result in impacts that would fall within the range of impacts already identified in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. Therefore, no substantial physical impacts to the environment beyond those already anticipated and documented in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR are anticipated to result from the changes and additions identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1.

The environmental analysis provided in this Addendum describes the information that was considered in evaluating the questions contained in the Environmental Checklist of the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, consistent with the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.. Potential region-wide environmental impacts from the proposed project changes, documented in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1, as compared to those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR are summarized in Table 1, Summary of Impacts from Amendment #1 Changes identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1.



Impact Compared to theCertified 2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR

Aesthetics Same; no new impacts

Agriculture and Forestry Resources Same; no new impacts

Air Quality Same; no new impacts

Biological Resources Same; no new impacts

Cultural Resources Same; no new impacts

Energy Same; no new impacts

Geology and Soils Same; no new impacts

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Same; no new impacts

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Same; no new impacts

Hydrology and Water Quality Same; no new impacts

Land Use and Planning Same; no new impacts

Mineral Resources Same; no new impacts

Noise Same; no new impacts

Population, Housing, and Employment Same; no new impacts

Public Services Same; no new impacts

Recreation Same; no new impacts

Transportation, Traffic, and Safety Same; no new impacts

Utilities and Service Systems Same; no new impacts

Comparison of Alternatives Same; no new impacts

Long-Term CEQA Considerations Same; no new impacts

TABLE 1 Summary of Impacts From Amendment #1 Changes AESTHETICSThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to aesthetics beyond those already described in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. Potential significant impacts anticipated in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR would be the substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, adverse effects on a scenic vista, damage to scenic resources, creating a new source of substantial light affecting day or nighttime views and affecting shadow-sensitive uses that would be shaded by a project-related structure for more than three hours in the winter or for more than four hours during the summer (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.1-21 – 3.1-36).

Detailed project level analysis, including project level mitigation measures, will be conducted by the implementing agency of each project.

The analysis in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List, contained in the Amendment #1, would not result in any new significant impacts to aesthetics, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to aesthetics beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCESThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources beyond those already described in the previously certified 2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR. Implementation of transportation projects and anticipated development resulting from land use strategies included in the 2016 RTP/SCS would have the potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use, conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland zoned Timberland Production, lose forest land or convert forest land to non-forest use and change the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, would result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.2-16 – 3.1-29).




The analysis in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List, contained in the Amendment #1, would not result in any new significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to agriculture and forestry resources beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

AIR QUALITYThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to air quality beyond those already identified in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR identified that implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS would result in less than significant impact to air quality related to the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the adopted SIPs/AQMPs/Attainment Plans in the SCAG region and increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under applicable NAAQs or CAAQS but would result in significant impacts to air quality related to the potential to violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an air quality violation and increase cancer risks due to exposure of substantial pollutant concentrations to sensitive receptors (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.3-38 – 3.3-54). Both the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #1 meet the regional emissions and other tests

set forth by the federal Transportation Conformity regulations, demonstrating the integrity of the State Implementation Plans prepared pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act for the non-attainment and maintenance areas in the SCAG region. The updated conformity analysis can be found below.

The Plan conditions (2040) and existing conditions (base year 2012) of the criteria pollutant emissions for the six counties in the SCAG region (Table 2, Criteria Pollutant Emissions by County – Existing Conditions (Base Year 2012); Table 3, Criteria Pollutant Emission By County – Amendment #1 (2040) vs. Existing Conditions (2015)) remained the same (See Table 2 Criteria Pollutant Emissions by County – Existing Conditions (Base Year 2012); Table 3.3.4-1, Criteria Pollutant Emission By County – Plan (2040 vVs. Existing Conditions (2015), of the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR) with the proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 therefore resulting in no changes to analyses already discussed in the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

The 2016 RTP/SCS project daily VMT for the six counties in the SCAG region (Table 4, Daily VMT by County – Amendment #1) also remained the same with the proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 therefore resulting in no changes to analyses already discussed in the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.


NOTE: *No Changes Between Original Plan and Amendment #1SOURCE: SCAG Transportation Modeling, 2016.

TABLE 2 Criteria Pollutant Emissions by County–Existing Conditions (Base Year 2012)*

County

(Tons/Day)

ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX

Summer Annual Summer Annual Winter Winter Annual Annual Annual

Imperial 4 4 10 11 11 28 1 0 0

Los Angeles 103 101 179 194 190 851 17 9 1

Orange 28 28 42 46 45 225 5 2 0

Riverside 26 23 66 70 69 183 5 3 0

San Bernardino 32 28 81 86 84 225 6 3 0

Ventura 9 8 12 14 14 70 1 1 0



SOURCE: SCAG Transportation Modeling, 2016.NOTE: Please note that 2012 base year network includes projects in the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) adopted in September 2014 and projects in the 2012 RTP/SCS as last amended in September 2014.*No Changes between Original Plan and Amendment #1

TABLE 3 Criteria Pollutant Emission by County–Amendment #1 (2040) vs. Existing Conditions (2015)*

County

(Tons/Day)

ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX

Summer Annual Summer Annual Winter Winter Annual Annual Annual

Imperial

Existing 4 4 10 11 11 28 1 0 0

Plan 2 2 3 3 3 13 1 0 0

Difference -2 -2 -7 -7 -7 -14 0 0 0

Los Angeles

Existing 103 101 179 194 190 851 17 9 1

Plan 22 21 36 38 37 144 14 6 1

Difference -81 -80 -144 -157 -154 -707 -3 -3 0

Orange

Existing 28 28 42 46 45 225 5 2 0

Plan 7 7 8 8 8 45 5 2 0

Difference -21 -21 -34 -37 -37 -181 0 -1 0

Riverside

Existing 26 23 66 70 69 183 5 3 0

Plan 8 7 14 14 14 42 5 2 0

Difference -18 -17 -52 -56 -55 -140 0 -1 0

San Bernardino

Existing 32 28 81 86 84 225 6 3 0

Plan 8 7 21 22 22 46 6 2 0

Difference -24 -21 -60 -64 -63 -179 0 -1 0

Ventura

Existing 9 8 12 14 14 70 1 1 0

Plan 2 2 2 2 2 11 1 0 0

Difference -7 -7 -10 -11 -11 -59 0 0 0



As shown in the tables above, changes are minimal and insignificant when compared to the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. As such, the analysis in the previously certified 2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Amendment # 1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant air quality impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of air quality impacts beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCESThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to biological resources beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR concluded that significant impacts expected with the implementation of the RTP/SCS includes the disturbance and removal of natural vegetation that may be utilized by sensitive species, habitat fragmentation and associated decrease in habitat quality, litter, trampling, light pollution and road noise, displacement of riparian and wetland habitat, siltation, loss of prime farmlands, grazing lands, open space and recreation lands (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.4-53 – 3.4-83).

Detailed project-level analysis, including project level mitigation measures, will be conducted by each implementing agency for each individual project.

The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, the incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant impacts to biological resources, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to biological resources beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

CULTURAL RESOURCESThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to cultural resources beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR determined that the development of new transportation and land use strategies may affect archaeological and paleontological resources, primarily through the disturbance of buried resources. Additionally, the development of transportation projects and land use strategies may affect historic architectural resources (structures 50 years or older), either through direct affects to buildings or through indirect affects to the area surrounding a resource if it creates a visually incompatible structure adjacent to a historic structure (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.5-34 – 3.5-46).


The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, the incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant impacts to cultural resources, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to cultural resources beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

County 2012 Base Year 2040 Baseline 2040 Plan*

Imperial 5,000 10,000 9,000

Los Angeles 227,000 254,000 235,000

Orange 77,000 85,000 80,000

Riverside 59,000 88,000 81,000

San Bernardino 63,000 90,000 87,000

Ventura 20,000 23,000 21,000

Total (Amendment #1) 450,000 549,000 514,000

Total (Original Plan) 450,000 549,000 514,000

NOTE: * Calculation for Amendment #1Source: SCAG GIS modeling and data, 2016.Round to the nearest thousand

TABLE 4 Daily VMT by County–Amendment #1



ENERGYThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to energy beyond those already described in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS would result in energy impacts as a result of increased energy demands for construction of transportation projects and development, increase energy demands for operation of the regional transportation system and the growing energy demand from anticipated growth and development associated with implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS.

The estimated transportation fuel consumption for the SCAG region (Table 5, SCAG Region Estimated Transportation Fuel Consumption – Amendment #1) indicates that there is a slight increase of fuel consumption with the proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1. The slight increase is not expected to cause any new or substantial impacts previously discussed in the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.


As shown in the tables above, changes are minimal and insignificant when compared to the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. As such, the analysis in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List, contained in the Amendment #1, would not result in any new significant impacts to aesthetics and views, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to energy beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

GEOLOGY AND SOILSThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to geology and soils beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR identified that damage to transportation infrastructure can result from geologic and seismic activity, such as surface rupture, ground shaking, subsidence, liquefaction, soil expansion and land-sliding. In addition work associated with implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS could cause impacts such as soil erosion, ground instability and loss of mineral resources. However, incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR would alleviate significant impacts associated with geological safety and mineral loss (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.7-19 – 3.7-34).


The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, the incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant impacts to geology and soils, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to geology and soils beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGEThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. Though lead agencies retain the discretion to determine thresholds of significance of GHG emissions, the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR identifies three thresholds of significance: increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions, conflict with SB 375 GHG emission reduction targets and conflict with other applicable GHG reduction plans. The 2016-RTP/SCS Amendment #1 achieves and exceeds the SB375 per capita GHG reduction targets for the SCAG region.

The 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1, which includes light and medium duty vehicles and heavy duty trucks, would result in an approximately daily decrease of 23 percent (similar to the original plan) in GHG emissions by 2040 and annual decrease of 24 percent, with the largest losses occurring in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties (Table 6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation by County –Amendment #1 and Table 7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation by County –Amendment #1).

YearFuel Consumed

Percentage under ExistingBillion Gallons

per Year Thousand

Gallons per Day

2012 9.3 25,564

2040 Baseline 7.3 19,965 -21.9%

Amendment #1* 6.8 18,738 -26.7%

Original Plan 6.8 18,730 -26.7%

SOURCE: SCAG transportation modeling, 2016.NOTE:*Calculation for Amendment #1

TABLE 5 SCAG Region Estimated Transportation Fuel Consumption–Amendment #1



CountyCO2 Emissions (ton/day)

2005 2012 Base Year 2040 Plan 2040 Plan 2040 Plan** vs. 2012 Base Year

Imperial 3,768 3,459 3,757.90 4,625.80 34%

Los Angeles 130,123 117,828 103,758.50 77,781.00 -34%

Orange 39,423 38,052 33,553.10 23,662.40 -39%

Riverside 32,454 33,045 33,214.30 32,211.10 -3%

San Bernardino 35,841 36,117 35,037.70 38,534.50 7%

Ventura 10,239 9,796 8,694.10 6,312.40 -36%

Total (Amendment #1) 251,847 238,297 217,958.35 183,049.50 -23%

Total (Original Plan) 251,847 238,297 218,015.60 183,127.20 -23%

NOTE: *Light and medium duty vehicles and heavy duty truck**Calculation for Amendment #1SOURCE: SCAG modeling, 2016.

TABLE 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation by County–Amendment #1

CountyCO2e Emissions (million metric tons/year)

2005 2012 Base Year 2040 Plan 2040 Plan 2040 Plan** vs. 2012 Base Year

Imperial 1.40 1.25 1.33 1.62 30%

Los Angeles 46.81 41.71 36.38 27.16 -35%

Orange 14.08 13.41 11.74 8.25 -38%

Riverside 11.80 11.78 11.68 11.24 -5%

San Bernardino 13.05 12.92 12.34 13.47 4%

Ventura 3.68 3.46 3.05 2.20 -36%

Total (Amendment #1) 90.82 84.54 76.50 63.96 -24%

Total (Original Plan) 90.82 84.54 76.50 63.93 -24%

NOTE: *Light and medium duty vehicles and heavy duty truck**Calculation for Amendment #1SOURCE: SCAG modeling, 2016.

TABLE 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation by County–Amendment #1



Based on the analysis for the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1, transportation emissions include on-road mobile sources (Table 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from On-Road Vehicles in the SCAG Region): light and medium duty vehicles, heavy duty trucks and buses. As shown on Table 8, the proposed changes from the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 project list would result in a slight increase of total GHG emissions from on road vehicles. Off-road emission sources include: rail, aviation and ocean going vessels (Table 9, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Off-Road Vehicles in the SCAG Region – Amendment #1 and Table 10, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from On-Road and Off-Road Sources in the Transportation

Sector in the SCAG Region – Amendment #1). Table 9 indicates that the proposed changes from the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 project list would result in similar total GHG emissions from off-road vehicles. According to Table 10, the proposed changes from the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 project list would result in slight increase (1.5 percent) in emissions for on-road and off-road vehicles. However this increase is minimal (1.5 percent) and would result in a 20 percent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 compared to existing conditions (2012 Base Year).

On-Road Vehicles2012 Based Year 2040 (Plan)**

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

Light and Medium Duty Vehicles 68.4766 0.0042 0.0021 36.9571 0.0008 0.0003

Heavy Duty Trucks 14.2284 0.0007 0.0035 26.5881 0.0007 0.0010

Buses 1.3237 0.0016 0.0004 1.1002 0.0003 0.0000

On-Road Vehicles (Subtotal) in CO2 84.0287 0.0065 0.0060 64.6454 0.0018 0.0013

On-Road Vehicles (Subtotal) in CO2e* 84.03 0.14 1.87 64.65 0.04 0.39

Total GHG Emissions from on-road vehicles in CO2e (Amendment #1) * 86.03 65.07

Total GHG Emissions from on-road vehicles in CO2e (Original Plan) * 86.03 63.72

SOURCE: SCAG Modeling, 2016. NOTE: *CO2 was converted to CO2e based on the Global Warming Potential (GWP): http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/background/gwp.htm **Calculation for Amendment #1

TABLE 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from On-Road Vehicles in the SCAG Region (Million Metric Tons Per Year)–Amendment #1



On-Road Vehicles2012 Based Year 2040 (Plan)**

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

Rail 2.2214 0.0001 0.0011 3.8101 0.0000 0.0005

Aviation 2.8791 0.0000 0.0000 2.2517 0.0000 0.0000

Ocean-going Vessel 0.8574 0.0000 0.0005 2.5976 0.0001 0.0003

Off-Road Vehicles (Subtotal) in CO2 5.9579 0.0001 0.0016 8.6593 0.0001 0.0008

Off-Road Vehicles (Subtotal) in CO2e* 5.958 0.002 0.499 8.659 0.003 0.238

Total GHG Emissions from off-road vehicles in CO2e (Amendment #1) * 6.459 8.901

Total GHG Emissions from off-road vehicles in CO2e (Original Plan) * 6.459 8.901


TABLE 9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Off-Road Vehicles in the SCAG Region (Million Metric Tons Per Year)–Amendment #1

2012 Based Year 2040 (Plan)**

Total GHG Emissions from on-road vehicles in CO2e* 86.03 65.07

Total GHG Emissions from off-road vehicles in CO2e* 6.459 8.901

All Transportation Sector (On-Road and Off-Road Vehicles) in CO2e* 92.492 73.974

Amendment #1 vs. 2012 Base Year -20.0% 65.07

Original Plan vs. 2012 Base Year -21.5% 63.72


TABLE 10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from On-Road and Off-Road Sources in the Transportation Sector in the SCAG Region (Million Metric Tons Per Year)–Amendment #1



As shown on Table 11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary for the SCAG Region – Amendment #1, the 2016 RTP/SCS and Amendment #1 would result in a net decrease of 16 Percent for building energy emissions when compared to existing conditions (2012 Base Year). As stated in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, these three sectors account for approximately 70 percent of the total GHG emissions in the SCAG region. According to Table 11, the proposed changes from the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 project list would

result in a slight increase (1 percent) in total GHG emissions from the transportation sector, including on-road and off-road vehicles. However this increase is considered minimal due to the fact that the overall per capita decrease (21 percent) in GHG emissions would remain the same (see Table 3-12, SB 375 Analysis – Amendment #1). It is important to note that the Plan is not responsible for addressing sectors beyond transportation, building, water-related energy consumption and construction.

AreaCO2e Emissions (MMT CO2e per year)

2012 Base Year 2020 Plan 2040 Plan 2040*** vs. 2012

Transportation* 92.49 81.62 73.97 22%

Building energy** 53.68 40.51 49.99 –7%

Water-related energy** 7.41 3.84 4.79 –35%

Total (Amendment #1) 153.58 125.97 128.75 -16%

Total (Original Plan) 153.58 125.97 127.40 -17%

NOTE: *On-road and off-road vehicles.**Scenario Planning Model is a scenario planning tool used for developing scenarios for the Plan during the scenario planning process to compare relative differences among scenarios. ***Calculation for Amendment #1SOURCE: SCAG Modeling, 2016.

TABLE 11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary for the SCAG Region–Amendment #1

2005 (Baseline) 2020 (Plan) 2035 (Plan) 2040 (Plan)****

Resident population (per 1,000) 17,161 19,060 21,125 21,766

CO2 emissions (per 1,000 tons) 204.0* 203.7** 206.9** 206.6**

Per capita emissions (pounds/day) 23.8 21.4 19.6 19.0

% difference from Plan (2020) to Baseline (2005) –8%*

% difference from Plan (2035) to Baseline (2005) –18%***

% difference from Plan (2040) to Baseline (2005) (Amendment #1) –21%***

% difference from Plan (2040) to Baseline (2005) (Original Plan) –21%***

NOTE: *Based on EMFAC2007 **Based on EMFAC2014***Included off-model adjustments for 2035 and 2040****Calculation for Amendment #1.SOURCE: SCAG modeling, 2016

TABLE 12 SB 375 Analysis–Amendment #1



As shown on Table 12, SB 375 Analysis – Amendment #1, similar to the original plan (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, Table 3.8.4-7, SB 375 Analysis) per capita CO2 emissions from cars and light duty trucks (only) from the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1, would result in 19 pounds per day. The percent decrease would achieve the 8 percent emissions reduction target by 2020 for the region set by SB 375. By 2035, 19 pounds per day for per capita CO2 emissions would result from cars and light duty trucks (only). This represents an approximately 18 percent decrease in per capita CO2 emissions from 2005 to 2035. This 18 percent decrease would meet and exceed the 13 percent emissions reduction target set by CARB for 2035. Furthermore, although there is no per capita GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles set by CARB for 2040, the Plan’s GHG emission reduction trajectory shows that more aggressive GHG emission reductions are projected for 2040. The Plan would continue result in an estimated 21 percent decrease in per capita GHG emissions by 2040. By meeting and exceeding the SB 375 targets for 2020 and 2035, as well as achieving an approximately 21 percent decrease in per capita GHG emissions by 2040, the Plan is expected to fulfill and exceed its portion of SB 375 compliance with respect to meeting the State’s GHG emission reduction goals. Amendment #1 would not conflict with SB 375 GHG emission reduction targets and would result in a less-than-significant impact and mitigation measures would not be required.

Senate Bill (SB) 32 was signed into law on September 08, 2016. SB 32 codifies the 2030 target stated in Executive Order B-30-15 (40% below 1990 levels by 2030). However, when the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR was being prepared, SB 32 had not been passed. While the 2030 target is now mandated, CARB has not yet set a target for the transportation sector. As such, the approach taken in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, i.e., analysis of the trajectory of GHG emissions reductions as a result of the 2016 RTP/SCS, is still appropriate.

As stated in the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, the 2016 RTP/SCS is required to meet the GHG reduction targets set by CARB, i.e., 8% reduction by 2020 and 13% by 2035, both on per capita basis relative to 2005 levels. The GHG reduction trajectory of the 2016 RTP/SCS is consistent with and is more aggressive than the ARB GHG Reduction Target Trajectory for the SCAG region, as the Plan’s trajectory shows aggressive GHG reductions between 2020 and 2040 (see Figure 3.8.4-1, SB 375 (per capita) Reduction Trajectory, 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR). However, the new statewide 2030 target set forth under EO B-30-15 suggests that an accelerated timeline would be necessary. In order to address the 2030 target, the 2016 RTP/SCS accelerates the reduction of GHG emissions such that by 2030, the Plan is expected to achieve a 14.7% reduction. This reduction would exceed SCAG’s current target of 13% by 2035. The GHG reduction trajectory of the 2016 RTP/SCS is more aggressive than CARB’s targets between 2020 and 2035. Additionally, the GHG reduction trajectory of the 2016 RTP/SCS beyond 2030 is consistent, if not more aggressive, with the accelerated pace established by SB 32. Further, it should be noted that the goals set forth by AB 32, SB 32, and the Executive Orders are intended to be achieved by all the responsible sectors. Because the 2016 RTP/SCS is demonstrated to meet more than its share of GHG emissions

reductions, even on an accelerated schedule, the Plan is not in conflict with the State’s long-term GHG emission reduction goals.Amendment #1 would result in the same GHG reduction trajectory as the original Plan and would also not be in conflict with the State’s long term GHG emission reduction goals.

The changes proposed in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 would result in minimal changes to GHG emissions and would remain consistent with the findings stated in the certified 2016 RTP/SCS EIR.


As shown in the tables above, changes are minimal and insignificant when compared to the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALSThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR concluded that there would be potential hazards created due to the disturbance of contaminated property during implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS and risk of accidental releases due to an increase in the transportation of hazardous materials and the potential for such releases to reach schools within one-quarter mile of transportation facilities affected by the 2016 RTP/SCS (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.9-23 – 3.9-42).


The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.



HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITYThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to hydrology and water quality beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS would result in significant impacts to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, existing drainage patterns of the area, existing drainage patterns of the area, runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or providing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff but will have no impact on placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.10-43 – 3.10-63).


The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant impacts to hydrology and water quality, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to hydrology and water quality beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

LAND USE AND PLANNINGThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to land use and planning beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR analyzed potential impacts of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS on land use and planning consistency and compatibility. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR concluded that implementation of major transportation projects and land use strategies included in the 2016 RTP/SCS has the potential to conflict with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations, physically divide established communities as result of creating real or perceived barriers to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists and conflict with habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.11-22 – 3.11-35).


The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/

SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant impacts to land use and planning, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to land use and planning beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

MINERAL RESOURCESThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to mineral resources beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR concluded that implementation of transportation projects included in the 2016 RTP/SCS could have the potential to result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state and result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.12-5 – 3.12-10).


The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant impacts to mineral resources, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to mineral resources beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

NOISEThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to noise beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. Implementation of transportation projects in the 2016 RTP/SCS could potentially cause temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels and expose noise-sensitive land uses to noise increases in excess of acceptable levels. However, the assessment in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR Noise Chapter adequately evaluates these impacts across the SCAG region at the programmatic level and includes mitigation measures to be implemented at the project level (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.13-26 – 3.13-40). Impacts from the proposed projects identified in this Amendment would be expected to fall within the range of impacts previously identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.




The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant noise impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of noise impacts beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENTThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to population, housing and employment beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR analyzed potential impacts to population growth and current residential and business land uses that could occur upon implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR concluded that the Plan would result in significant impacts and significant cumulative impacts, including substantial induced population growth in areas adjacent to transit, displacement of existing businesses and homes, separation of residences from community facilities and services and impacts on vacant natural lands. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR also concluded that the plan would result in indirect significant impacts, including increased population distribution that is expected to occur due to the transportation investments and land use policies identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.14-17 – 3.14-27).


The proposed changes stated in Amendment #1, would not cause any population growth, nor would it affect housing and employment. As such, the analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Therefore, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant impacts to population, housing and employment, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to population, housing and employment beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

PUBLIC SERVICESThe proposed changes to the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to public services beyond those already identified in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR. Amendment #1 would not place additional strain on public services and anticipated significant cumulative impacts include demand for more police, fire, emergency personnel and facilities and demand for more school facilities and teachers during implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.15-21 – 3.15-34).


The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant impacts to public services, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to public services beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR.

RECREATIONThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to recreation beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. Implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR would result in significant cumulative impacts, including increased demand of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities in the SCAG region that leads to substantial physical deterioration and increased potential of constructed or expanded recreational facilities that may have adverse physical effects on the environment (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.16-15 – 3.16-23).


The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant impacts to recreation, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to recreation beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.



TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC AND SECURITYThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to transportation, traffic and security beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR utilized data from the Regional Travel Demand Model to present a regional analysis for the impacts of the 2016 RTP/SCS on transportation. The 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR identifies the following significant impacts from implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS: per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); average daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) for light, medium and heavy-duty truck trips; percentage of work opportunities within a 45 minute travel time; and system-wide fatality accident rate

and injury accident rate in the SCAG region (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.17-37 – 3.17-64). Despite the benefits shown by implementing the 2016 RTP/SCS, impacts from the transportation projects and land use strategies considered in the Plan still remain significant.

Amendment #1 would result in similar daily vehicle miles traveled throughout the SCAG region (Table 13 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled in 2012 and 2040 – Amendment #1). Tables 14 through 17 indicate that there are slight differences (less than 1 percent) with the proposed changes to the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1. When compared to the certified 2016 RTP/SCS, these slight differences are not expected to cause any new or substantial impacts previously discussed in the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

CountyIn Thousands

2012 Base Year* 2040 No Project 2040 Plan**

Imperial 5,000 10,000 9,000

Los Angeles 227,000 254,000 234,000

Orange 77,000 85,000 80,000

Riverside 59,000 88,000 81,000

San Bernardino 63,000 90,000 87,000

Ventura 20,000 23,000 21,000

SCAG Total (Amendment #1) 450,000 549,000 514,000

SCAG Total (Original Plan) 450,000 549,000 514,000

NOTE: Numbers are rounded to nearest thousand.*Please note that 2012 base year transportation network includes project information from the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) adopted in September 2014 and approved by Federal Highway Administration in December 2014, as well as projects listed in the 2012 RTP/SCS as last amended in September 2014.**Calculation for Amendment #1SOURCE: SCAG modeling, 2016.

TABLE 13 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled in 2012 and 2040–Amendment #1*



CountyIn Thousands

2012 Base Year* 2040 No Project 2040 Plan**

Imperial 1 8 6

Los Angeles 1,636 2,135 1,432

Orange 443 553 314

Riverside 162 468 211

San Bernardino 190 575 242

Ventura 70 135 67

Regional Total (Amendment #1) 2,502 3,875 2,272

Regional Total (Original Plan) 2502 3,875 2,264

SOURCE: SCAG modeling, 2016.NOTE: *Please note that 2012 base year transportation network includes the 2015 project information from the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) adopted in September 2014 and approved by Federal Highway Administration in December 2014, as well as projects listed in the 2012 RTP/SCS as last amended in September 2014**Calculation for Amendment #1

TABLE 14 Total Daily Hours of Delay in 2012* and 2040–Amendment #1

CountyIn Thousands of Hours

2012* 2040 No Project 2040 Plan**

Imperial 0 1 1

Los Angeles 71 149 96

Orange 18 39 24

Riverside 11 47 27

San Bernardino 17 81 41

Ventura 2 6 3

Regional Total (Amendment #1) 120 322 193***

Regional Total (Original Plan) 120 322 193

SOURCE: SCAG modeling, 2016.NOTE: * Please note that 2012 base year transportation network includes the 2015 project information from the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) adopted in September 2014 and approved by Federal Highway Administration in December 2014, as well as projects listed in the 2012 RTP/SCS as last amended in September 2014**Calculation for Amendment #1***Numbers appear to be similar due to rounding (less than 1 percent difference)

TABLE 15 Total Daily Heavy-Duty Trucks Trips Hours of Delay in 2012* and 2040–Amendment #1



SOURCE: SCAG Modeling, 2016*Please note that 2012 base year transportation network includes the 2015 project information from the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) adopted in September 2014 and approved by Federal Highway Administration in December 2014, as well as projects listed in the 2012 RTP/SCS as last amended in September 2014.**Calculation for Amendment #1

TABLE 16 Percentage of PM Peak Period Work Trips Completed Within 45 Minutes–Amendment #1

County 2012 Base Year* 2040 No Project 2040 Plan**

AUTOS –SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLES

Imperial 95.8% 95.4% 97.0%

Los Angeles 80.4% 81.4% 88.6%

Orange 79.8% 80.3% 86.7%

Riverside 87.2% 83.3% 89.8%

San Bernardino 85.2% 83.3% 87.6%

Ventura 90.0% 89.6% 92.3%

Region 81.9% 82.2% 88.5%

AUTOS – HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLES

Imperial 83.4% 80.7% 84.2%

Los Angeles 75.6% 75.5% 80.8%

Orange 69.5% 69.9% 76.3%

Riverside 76.5% 70.4% 76.2%


Ventura 72.9% 72.3% 76.7%

Region 73.8% 72.9% 78.3%

TRANSIT

Imperial 16.7% 12.3% 32.4%

Los Angeles 30.5% 28.0% 32.7%

Orange 13.6% 13.9% 18.8%

Riverside 17.6% 14.6% 15.8%


Ventura 7.6% 7.0% 10.6%

Regional Total (Amendment #1) 28.4% 26.2% 30.5%

Regional Total (Original Plan) 28.4% 26.2% 30.1%




As shown in the tables above, changes are minimal and insignificant when compared with the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. As such, the analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the

proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Therefore, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant region-wide impacts to transportation, traffic and security, or a substantial increase in the severity of region-wide impacts to transportation, traffic and security beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

Mode Share 2012* 2040 No Project 2040 Plan**

Walk 10.6 10.7 13.5

Bike 1.3 1.6 2.2

Active Transportation 11.9 12.3 15.7

Transit 2.1 2.1 3.1

Total (Amendment #1)*** 14.0 14.4 18.9

Total (Original Plan) 14.0 14.4 18.9

SOURCE: SCAG modeling, 2016. NOTE: * Please note that 2012 base year transportation network includes the 2015 project information from the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) adopted in September 2014 and approved by Federal Highway Administration in December 2014, as well as projects listed in the 2012 RTP/SCS as last amended in September 2014.**Calculation for Amendment #1***Numbers appear to be similar due to rounding (less than 1 percent change)

TABLE 17 Percentage of Mode Share on Transit and Active Transportation–Amendment #1



would not substantially increase impervious surfaces and are not expected to cause any new or substantial impacts previously discussed in the certified 2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR.


The analysis in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the program level. Thus, incorporation of the proposed changes to the Project List would not result in any new significant impacts to utilities and service systems, or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to utilities and service systems beyond those programmatically addressed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMSThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are not expected to cause any new or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts to utilities and service systems beyond those already identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. Implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS would result in significant cumulative impacts, including increased demand of storm water drainage facilities and water supplies (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 3.18-26 – 3.18-42).

There are slight increases to Table 18, Amendment #1 to 2040 Plan Lane Miles by County (PM Peak Network) as a result of including the proposed changes to the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1. However, these changes

County Freeway (Mixed-Flow) Toll* Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Freeway (HOV) Total (All

Facilities)**

Imperial 417 5 662 539 2,465 0 4,089

Los Angeles 4,788 697 8,696 9,055 6,681 360 30,277

Orange 1,432 709 3,802 3,162 1,068 195 10,368

Riverside 1,875 132 1,622 3,627 5,568 131 12,956

San Bernardino 2,657 436 2,250 4,656 7,240 147 17,386

Ventura 563 0 851 1,007 1,017 61 3,498

Total (Amendment #1) 11,733 1,980 17,883 22,046 24,039 894 78,574

Total (Original Plan) 11,732 1,968 18,024 22,075 24,033 896 78,728

NOTE: * Toll includes truck and High-occupancy toll (HOT)**Calculation for Amendment #1SOURCE: SCAG modeling, 2016. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Highways & Arterials Appendix. Los Angeles, CA.

TABLE 18 Amendment #1 to 2040 Plan Lane Miles by County (PM Peak Network)



COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVESThe proposed changes to the Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 would not significantly change the comparison of alternatives in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. Potential impacts from the proposed changes to the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are anticipated to be within the scope of the programmatic-level comparison among the alternatives already considered in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR: 1) No Project Alternative; 2) 2012 RTP/SCS Updated with Local Input Alternative; and 3) Intensified Land Use Alternative.

The Alternatives Chapter of the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR adequately addresses the range of alternatives to the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) at the programmatic level. Incorporation of the proposed projects identified in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 would not require comparison of any new alternatives or alternatives which are considerably different from or inconsistent with those already analyzed in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS PEIR. Therefore, no further comparison is required at the programmatic level.



At the programmatic level, any region-wide growth inducing impacts from the proposed projects (as revised by the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1) are expected to be approximately equivalent to those previously disclosed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 5-1 – 5-6). Overall, the proposed changes to the Project List presented in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are within the scope of the broad, programmatic-level region-wide impacts identified and disclosed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. Thus, the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 would not be expected to result in any new long-term impacts that have not been analyzed in the previous 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, or any long-term impacts that are considerably different from or inconsistent with those already analyzed in the previous 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.

LONG TERM CEQA CONSIDERATIONSThe proposed changes to the 2016 RTP/SCS Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 would not significantly change the scope of the discussion presented in the Long Term CEQA Considerations Chapter of the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, which includes an assessment of programmatic level unavoidable impacts, irreversible impacts, growth inducing impacts and cumulative impacts (see 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR pp. 5-1 – 5-6). Unavoidable and irreversible impacts from inclusion of the proposed changes to the Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 are reasonably covered by the unavoidable and irreversible impacts previously discussed in the certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.



Further, SCAG finds that the proposed changes to the Project List identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 do not require any new mitigation measures or alternatives previously unidentified in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, or significantly affect mitigation measures or alternatives already disclosed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. As such, SCAG has assessed the proposed changes to the Project List included in 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 at the programmatic level and finds that inclusion of the proposed changes would be within the range of and consistent with the findings of impacts analysis, mitigation measures and alternatives contained in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR, as well as the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations made in connection with the 2016 RTP/SCS. Therefore, a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required and SCAG concludes that this Addendum to the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR fulfills the requirements of CEQA.

FINDINGSAfter completing a programmatic environmental assessment of the proposed changes described herein to the Project List, SCAG finds that the proposed changes identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 would not result in either new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant effect. The proposed changes are not substantial changes on a regional level as those have already been adequately and appropriately analyzed in the 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR. The proposed changes to the Project List do not require revisions to the programmatic, region-wide analysis presented in the previously certified 2016 RTP/SCS PEIR.




REGIONAL OFFICESImperial County 1405 North Imperial Avenue, Suite 1 El Centro, CA 92243 Phone: (760) 353-7800 Fax: (760) 353-1877

Orange County OCTA Building 600 South Main Street, Suite 1233 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (714) 542-3687 Fax: (714) 560-5089

Riverside County 3403 10th Street, Suite 805 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: (951) 784-1513 Fax: (951) 784-3925

San Bernardino County Santa Fe Depot 1170 West 3rd Street, Suite 140 San Bernardino, CA 92410 Phone: (909) 806-3556 Fax: (909) 806-3572

Ventura County 950 County Square Drive, Suite 101 Ventura, CA 93003 Phone: (805) 642-2800 Fax: (805) 642-2260

MAIN OFFICE818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 236-1800

www.scag.ca.gov

please recycle 2721 2017.01.19

FOR THE

2016–2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY

A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability and a High Quality of Life

DRAFT ADDENDUM #1

TO THE




TO: Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) Community, Economic, and Human Development Committee (CEHD)

FROM: Rye Baerg; Senior Regional Planner, Active Transportation and Special Programs, (213) 236-1866, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Active Transportation Health and Economic Impact Study

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL: RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Information Only - No Action Required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On June 6, 2013, the Regional Council adopted the Public Health Subcommittee Recommendations, which supported providing robust public health data related to physical activity, health outcomes, and the monetary impacts of different plan alternatives. To implement this recommendation, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) expanded its modeling capacity in support of the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to better measure the impacts of the Plan on physical activity rates and related health outcomes. This study builds off the work conducted as part of the 2016 RTP/SCS by monetizing the health benefits of the Plan related to active transportation and examining the effects of the Plan’s active transportation investments on the regional economy. 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 C (Provide practical solutions for moving new ideas forward) and 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 June 6, 2013, the Regional Council adopted the Public Health Subcommittee Recommendations to support the development of the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan and Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The second goal of the recommendations directed SCAG to “Provide robust public health data and information, as feasible, to better inform regional policy” and “to the extent feasible, include information in the following emphasis areas:”

Monetary and health impacts of different plan alternatives

Physical activity

AGENDA ITEM NO. 5


Emissions and exposure

Consider implementation of zero and/or near-zero emissions vehicles

Safety

Health outcomes (for example, incidence of chronic disease)

It was noted at the time that SCAG did not currently possess the modeling capabilities necessary to conduct much of this analysis. To address this challenge, SCAG expanded modeling efforts in two areas to support the development of the 2016 RTP/SCS. In partnership with state agencies and other Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), SCAG participated in the development of C-PHAM, a new public health module that can be used to measure the benefits of increased physical activity resulting from land use changes and transportation investments. This model can be used to estimate the reduction in cases of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and obesity in response to increased rates of physical activity in the form of walking and bicycling. In addition, SCAG expanded its modeling capacity related to active transportation by hiring a consulting firm to develop a regional active transportation model. Outcomes from both tools were presented to SCAG’s policy committees and working groups and included in the 2016 RTP/SCS. The Active Transportation Health and Economic Impact Study (Study) builds off of these modeling efforts by supporting the goal of estimating the monetary benefits related to the improved health impacts of the Plan. Going forward, the methodologies developed for monetizing health impacts in this Study will serve as a foundation for SCAG’s analysis of active transportation in the development of the 2020 RTP/SCS. To complete the Study, SCAG hired the consulting firm Urban Design 4 Health to research the current annual public health and economic benefits of bicycling and walking on the SCAG region’s economy. The Study includes three main analysis areas: 1) assessment of current rates of active transportation and spending on these modes; 2) estimates of health impacts from current and proposed active transportation infrastructure; and 3) an analysis of the regional economic impacts from infrastructure spending and health savings. Outcomes of the Study include the following:

Trips by active mode are increasing and currently equate to 14.5 million miles/5.4 million hours of physical activity daily.

The SCAG region currently spends approximately $21 billion dollars a year on health care costs related to heart disease, diabetes and hypertension.

Current active transportation infrastructure helps avoid approximately 85,000 cases of hypertension, 14,000 cases of heart disease, and 30,000 cases of diabetes across the region for adults aged 18-64. This equates to an annual benefit of $275 million in reduced health care expenditures and improved productivity gains. Implementing the 2016 RTP/SCS active transportation investments would reduce current rates by approximately 82,000 cases of hypertension, 16,000 cases of heart disease, and 15,000 cases


of diabetes for adults aged 18-64. This would result in an additional annual benefit in 2040 of $337 million in reduced health care expenditures and improved productivity gains.

Total health care savings for adults aged 18-64 gained from the implementation of the 2016

RTP/SCS would be approximately $4.5 billion over the life of the plan. Additional savings would be captured by seniors aged 65+.

Implementing the active transportation components of the 2016 RTP/SCS will create an average of 11,500 jobs per year.

For every $1 spent on active transportation, the regional economy will see a total of $8.41 in sales output, $5.20 of which will stay within the region as value added. Of this $2.65 will be captured as personal income.

The Southern California region is expected to spend approximately $12.9 billion on active transportation infrastructure and programmatic spending by 2040 as outlined in the 2016 RTP/SCS. This Study has outlined a process for modeling and monetizing the benefits of this investment on the regional economy and demonstrates the cost effectiveness of this investment. The Active Transportation, Health and Economic Impact Study can be accessed from this link: http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/Documents/AT-HealthImpactStudy/2016ATHealthEconomicImpactStudy_REPORT.pdf

The Active Transpiration, Health and Economic Impact Study Appendices can be accessed from this link: http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/Documents/AT-HealthImpactStudy/2016ATHealthEconomicImpactStudy_APPENDICES.pdf

FISCAL IMPACT: This project was funded through SCAG’s 2015 and 2016 OWPs under project number 050.SCG0169B.03 for a total of $154,413.26. ATTACHMENTS:

1. PowerPoint Presentation: “Active Transportation Health and Economic Impact Study” 2. Economic Impacts of Biking and Walking in the SCAG Region Infographic 3. Translating Infrastructure to Health Savings Infographic 4. Regional Economic Impacts of Active Transportation Infographic



11

Active Transportation Health and Economic Impact Study

February 2, 2017

Rye BaergSenior Regional Planner

22

Context

ATTACHMENT 1


33

Current Chronic Disease Rates

44

Physical Activity

“Physical activity is the closest thing we have to a wonder drug. Being active is one of the most important things people of all ages, sizes, and

shapes can do to improve their health.”Dr. Thomas Frieden

Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)


55

Response to Stakeholders

66

California Public Health Assessment Model


77

Goal: Estimate current annual public health, transportation and economic costs and benefits of bicycling and walking on the SCAG region’s economy

Study Purpose

88

Modeling Process


99

Physical Activity

1010

41.4%44.1%

12.3%

2.2%

38.1%43.1%

15.7%

3.1%

Drive Alone Carpool Walking and Biking Transit

Mode Choice – Total TripsPlan vs. Trend Baseline

Note: These figures include additional improvements in walking and biking associated with the benefits of certain active transportation investments, which are analyzed as a supplement to SCAG’s Regional Trip Based Model

Baseline Plan Baseline Plan Baseline Plan Baseline Plan


1111

33%

26%

‐2% ‐2% ‐3% ‐3%

Daily Per CapitaWalking (Minutes

Daily)

Daily Per CapitaBiking (Minutes

Daily)Rate of

Diabetes ‐ Type 2Obese

PopulationRate of

Heart Disease

Rate ofHigh BloodPressure

Public Health Outcomes in 2040 – Adults Aged 18-65Plan vs. Trend Baseline

* Results are for the new population in areas of the plan experiencing land use changes.

1212

Current Costs to the Region


1313

Current Costs to the Region

1414

Current Infrastructure


1515

Additional Savings from 2016 RTP/SCS Implementation

1616

2016 RTP/SCS Implementation


1717

2016 RTP/SCS Implementation

1818

Consumer Savings


1919

Consumer Savings

2020

Regional Impact


2121

Benefits by Input

2222

Thank you!

Rye [email protected]



This briefing explores the state of active transportation in the SCAG region, including the costs and economic impact* of transportation facilities and events, as well as estimates of savings from reduced vehicle-miles traveled made possible by active transportation trips.

In California the average person takes 3.6 trips per day. Collectively, individuals in the SCAG region alone make 8.6 million active transportation trips (walk, bike, or walk to transit) daily.

Active Transportation Usage in the SCAG Region

Daily Trips in the SCAG Region by Mode

86.7%Auto & TransitModes

13.3%Active

Modes 78.4%WalkingTrips

9.5% Biking Trips12.1% Walking to Transit Trips

3.3 MillionHours of Daily Walking

1.9 Million Hours of Daily Biking

139 ThousandHours of Daily Walking to Transit

5.28 Miles Traveled by Transit

6.20 Miles Driven in 2-Person Carpool

7.33 Miles Driven Alone

$0.02 $0.05$0.11

$0.72

$1.22

Walk Bike Transit 2-Person Carpool

Drive Alone

$30 $395$1,182

$5,704

$11,407

Yearly Average CostCost per Mile

Yearly and Per Mile Costs by Mode

Consumer Costs of Active TransportationTravel costs vary by mode for residents in the SCAG region. Consumers spend money throughout the year on active transportation items items such as tires, clothing, shoes, helmets, and parts. While these costs add up, it is relatively cheaper to own and maintain a bicycle ($0.05 per mile) compared to owning a car ($1.22 per mile).

.61 Miles Walked

Average Weekday Trip Length by Mode

Economic Impacts of Biking and Walking in the SCAG Region

1

*Unless otherwise noted, all figures in this briefing are valued in 2011 dollars. For more information, see Appendix B of Economic Impacts of Active Transportation in SCAG Region (August 2016)

2.53 Miles Biked


rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 2

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

Economic Impact of Active TransportationCommunities sometimes look to running or biking events as a community or economic development strategy. Large running events, such as the Los Angeles Marathon, generate the greatest revenue per participant. Conversely, open streets events, such as CicLAvia, generate very little revenue per participant, in part due to the lack of registration fees.

$10.5 MillionEstimated revenue generated per large running event

$200 MillionApproximate annual spending of cycling, running, and walking participants in SCAG region active transportation events

Active Transportation Investments and ReturnsInvestments in active transportation infrastructure maintenance and construction contribute the greatest amount to the economy. The 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) forecasts active transportation spending from 2016 to 2040 at $12.9 billion in 2011 dollar value. The average annual economic spending on active transportation infrastructure for years 1-5 totals $435 million per year, or $24 per capita per year. This will increase to $656 million per year or $36.41 per capita in years 6-20.

$2.8BRegional Trip

Strategies

$7.6BShort Trip

Enhancements (sidewalks and

bikeways)

$2.2BTransit Integration

Strategies

$976 MillionPotential annual savings in the year 2040 from estimated reduced vehicle-miles traveled

$288MEducation and

Encouragement Campaigns

RTP Active Transportation Investment Areas

$1.6 BillionA rough estimate of annual consumer savings if half of the miles driven by a single-occupancy vehcile were walked or biked instead

2.3 MillionEstimated annual vehicle-miles traveled daily that could be eliminated in the year 2040 through RTP active transportation programming

Opportunities for Returns through Active Transportation Programming Implementation

$ $

2November 2016EEC Packet --- Page 59 of 66

Translating Infrastructure to Health SavingsThis briefing monetizes the predicted physical activity health benefits from active transportation infrastructure as modeled by the California Public Health Assessment Model (C-PHAM). It applies cost-of-illness information to predicted avoided cases of diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease due to increased physical activity from active travel.*

SCAG Region Economic Burden of Disease Chronic diseases are costly, contributing to both health care expenditures and lost productivity expenses. Using econometric modeling, cost-of-illness studies calculate a “per case” estimate of additional spending attributable to diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension.

6.6%753,000 Cases

3.4%391,000 Cases

Hypertension

$7,774$3,311

$4,055$3,633

$551$44

Diabetes

Heart Disease

22.0%2,514,000 Cases

Health Condition

AdultPrevalence

(2012)(Ages 18-64) Cost per Case

$12.8 BillionTotal annual regional costs of diabetes, heart

disease, and hypertension in ages 18-64. Seniors add an additional $8.5 billion in

health costs for the same conditions.

$488 MillionEstimated total annual physical activity health savings for adults and seniors due to avoided health care expenditures and increased productivity

Direct costs (health care spending)

Indirect costs (reduced productivity)

$82M$193M

Direct costs (health care savings)Indirect costs (increased productivity)

21.1%428,000 Cases

19.2%488,000 Cases

61.1%1,238,000 Cases

SeniorPrevalence

(2012)(Ages 65+)

How Does Active Transportation Infrastructure Impact Adult Health Costs?Availability of sidewalks and bike lanes encourages people to walk and bike more, increasing physical activity in the SCAG region and improving community health. Assuming that 50% of active travel is attributable to this infrastructure, the active transportation system prompts the average adult to spend 18.3 minutes walking and 2.4 minutes of biking for transport each week.

We can expect that this physical activity keeps rates of diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension lower. By predicting how much lower, we can monetize the additional number of cases and associated health costs the region would see without active transportation infrastructure.

$179M

Hypertension

Diabetes

Heart Disease $54M

$42M

Health Condition

Estimated Reduction in Current Prevalence Rates due

to Active Transportation (Ages 18-64)

.14%16,151 Cases

.06%7,132 Cases

.60%70,621 Cases

Estimated SCAG Region Health

Savings

1

$70M$141M

ADULT(18-64)

SENIOR(65+)

*Unless otherwise noted, all figures in this briefing are valued in 2011 dollars. For more information, see Appendix C of Economic Impacts of Active Transportation in SCAG Region (August 2016)


rey

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 3

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

How Do We Monetize the Benefits of Active Transportation Infrastructure?By assessing the built environment and travel pattern behaviors, cases of hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes can be understood as events prevented by physical activity attributed to active transportation infrastructure. By applying cost-of-illness figures, the prevented cases can be translated into predicted savings and monetized health outcomes through the following process:

Characterize Built

Environment

Model Physical Activity

Model Public Health

Apply Cost-of-Illness

Studies suggest somewhere between 40% and 60% of physical activity is due to available infrastructure like bike lanes and sidewalks. This analysis conservatively attributes the first 50% of active travel to land use destinations or basic transportation needs, and the remainder to active transportation infrastructure.

Assuming 50% of active travel is attributable to infrastructure, the active transportation system prompts the average adult to spend 18.3 minutes of walking for transport and 2.4 minutes of biking each week.

These minutes spent in active travel equate to preventing 70,621 cases of hypertension, 7,132 cases of heart disease, and 16,151 cases of diabetes in adults ages 18-64. In those over age 65, an additional 14,153 cases of hypertension, 6,884 cases of heart disease, and 13,673 cases of diabetes are prevented.

The cases prevented by the SCAG region’s active transportation system saves $275.5 million in health-related costs each year from physical activity in adults ages 18-64. An additional $212.5 million in health-related costs would be saved from those over age 65, for a total regional savings of $488 million in health related costs each year.

Annual Monetized Health Benefits Per Capita for Adults (18-64) by County*

Since demographics and the built environment vary across the SCAG region, we would expect that the benefits of the active transportation network should also vary. Because county populations vary significantly, a per capita benefit provides a better lens of analysis.

In general, adults in Los Angeles see similar per capita benefits as that of the greater region; Orange and Ventura County per capita benefits are lower than the region; and the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino) show higher than regional per capita benefits.

How are Savings Distributed throughout the SCAG Region?

2

*Imperial County not reported due to small sample size and insufficient built environment data. The SCAG benefit assumes Imperial County prevalence rates will match the SCAG average.

LosAngeles

Orange County

Riverside San Bernandino

Ventura

$3.59

$4.54

$15.45

$12.49

$4.31

$3.30

$17.36

$5.36

$3.80

$16.89

$4.93

$3.77

$14.61

$4.77

$3.68

DiabetesHeart DiseaseHypertension

$23.58

$20.11

$26.52 $25.59

$23.06


Overall, accumulated savings from reduced hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease in adults (ages 18-64) is predicted to be $4.5 billion throughout the life of the RTP.

$4.5 Billion

Predicting 2040 Prevalence Rates for Adults (Age 18-64)

Results apply to the 12.6 million additional adults ages 18-64 who live in areas with built environment change in 2040

$167M

$122M

$48M

Predicted Annual Physical Activity Savings in 2040 for Adults (Age 18-64)

Predicted annual physical activity savings in 2040 in adults ages 18-64 from full RTP implementation

$337 Million

The 2016 Final RTP/SCS Public Health Appendix reports reductions in public health outcomes resulting from the plan. These outcomes are based upon C-PHAM’s adult, all-income model which was used to estimate reductions in chronic disease rates due to increased rates of physical activity. The number of avoided cases from increased physical activity can be converted into monetary estimates by multiplying by per case cost estimates for total savings by health condition.

The number of avoided cases from increased physical activity can be converted into monetary estimates by multiplying by per case cost estimates for total savings by health condition.

3

Monetizing the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

Direct costs (health care savings)Indirect costs (increased productivity)

$111M

$226M

November 2016

SCAG Region2012 Prevalence

2040 Forecasted Rates

2040 Planned RTP

DiabetesHeart DiseaseHypertension

6.5%

21.7%

3.1%

6.1%

21.5%

4.4%6.0%

20.8%

4.2%

Diabetes

Heart Disease

Hypertension

RTP spending on active transportation including bikeways, sidewalks, and educational campaigns.

$12.9 Billion34%



Regional Economic Impacts of Active TransportationThis briefing describes the multiple pathways in which active transportation amenities and infrastructure such as bikeways and sidewalks, as well as programming promoting active transit, stimulate the SCAG regional economy.* Through the use of an econometric model (REMI TransightTM) the economic impact of dollars spent on active transportation is traced as it ripples through and stimulates areas related to job growth, benefits associated with improved health, and added value to the region.

Stimulating the Regional Economy The 2016 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) includes significant active transportation investments. Implementing the active transportation investments, coupled with people walking and biking will result in significant annual and cumulative economic benefits. Average annual impacts on employment will be 11,500 jobs. Over the life of the plan, economic benefits of over $36 billion in personal income, $113 billion in output sales and $70 billion in value will occur in the SCAG region.

Active Transportation Infrastructure Workforce ImpactsWorkforce impacts associated with active transportation infrastructure spending include construction and program job creation, contributing on average 6,347 (55%) of the total net jobs created per year. Job loss does occur in the healthcare sector due to less demand from a more active, and consequently healthier, population. Healthier people area also more productive workers. The labor productivity gains of healthier workers far outweigh healthcare sector employment loss. On average, 4,243 (36%) net jobs per year are gained from better health.

1

Sales Output ($B)Sales output discounted for prior stages of manufacturing that occurred outside the SCAG region.

Value Added ($B)The difference between retail sale prices and the cost to purchase the item being sold.

Personal Income ($B)Employment total multiplied by average wages by position type

Employment (total jobs)The total number of jobs associated with active transportation infrastructure spending and the associated health effects

*Unless otherwise noted, all figures in this briefing are valued in 2015 dollars. For more information, see Appendix D of Economic Impacts of Active Transportation in SCAG Region (November 2016)

Travel SpendingFrom reduced vehicle ownership costs

Improved MobilityFrom reduced congestion

Construction + AT StrategyBy local agencies

Health + ProductivityGains from healthier workers

6%

2%

36% 55%

6%

Annual Average Job Creation by Category of 2016-2040 RTP/SCS

$113

$70

Dolla

rs (

Billi

ons)

11,500 Jobs

Average Annual Economic Impacts due to Active Transportation

$

$$36


rey

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 4

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

Economic Returns from 2016 RTP/SCS Active Transportation Spending

2

Implementing the RTP/SCS will increase physical activity, resulting in healthier communities and greater monetary impacts. Decreased healthcare spending shrinks the economy slightly, but is far outweighed by economic expansion due to healthier workers. Additional gains are expected from construction and travel spending.

Every $1 spent on active transportation infrastructure and programs over the

course of the RTP/SCS creates: = $8.41in Sales Output

$2.65in Personal Income

$1

Impacts of 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment

Sales OutputCumulative output over the life of the RTP/SCS is $113.3 billion. Output is impacted strongly by improvements in labor productivity due to healthier workers; $79.5 billion or approximately 70% of economic growth is attributable to health. An additional increase of $26.6 billion in output is expected to come from construction and strategy spending; construction increases are more profound after 2020 as a higher level of construction spending begins.

Personal IncomeOver $35.7 billion in personal income is gained over the life of the plan from the active transportation portion of the RTP/SCS.

November 2016

Sales Output Return Breakdownof 2016-2040 RTP/SCS

Sales OutputWhen normalized by RTP spending, every $1 spent is expected to increase sales output by $8.41. Sales output is impacted strongly by improvements in labor productivity due to healthier workers and fewer healthcare expenditures. Health-driven output for every $1 spent on the RTP equates to $5.96.

Construction spending rippling through the economy also contributes to sales output, equating to $1.97 in output from construction and strategy spending for every $1 spent on the RTP.

Construction and Strategy

Health (Fewer Expenditures +

Increased Productivity)

Household Travel Savings

Mobility

$8.41Total

$5.96

$.38

$1.97

$.05

Dolla

rs (

Billi

ons)

Cumulative Economic Impacts of 2016-2040 RTP/SCS

Health + Productivity

Construction Mobility

$79.5

$16.2$26.6

$15.6$5.2 $2.8



TO: Energy and Environment Committee

FROM: Alan Thompson, Senior Regional Planner, Active Transportation and Special Programs (213) 236-1940, thompson@ scag.ca.gov

SUBJECT: Water Desalination

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL: RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Information Only – No Action Required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Messrs. Rich Nagel and Bruce Reznik (West Basin Municipal Water District and Los Angeles Waterkeeper, respectively) will provide the Committee with an overview of the desalination process, the relevance to the SCAG region in periods of increasing drought, as well as benefits and drawbacks to the process. 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 c) Provide practical solutions for moving new ideas forward. BACKGROUND: Southern California has battled severe droughts throughout history and is preparing for a drier future as the result of climate change. In 2016, water restrictions were put in place to help ensure adequate potable water. Water agencies are also exploring additional sources to augment existing water supply, including making water drinkable through desalination. Desalination is the process by which salt and other impurities are removed from sea water, making water drinkable. There are two types of desalination: 1) Thermal Desalination boils the seawater (distilling) into steam. The steam is captured virtually free of contaminants. This is the traditional method used for thousands of years; 2) Reverse Osmosis, which uses a series of ever finer filters to remove the impurities and salt. Desalination is being used globally. Roughly fourteen billion gallons of desalinated drinking water are produced each day by thousands of plants scattered along the coastlines of China, India, Australia, Spain, and other countries with scarce freshwater supplies. According to the International Desalination Association, Ras Al-Khair, in Saudi Arabia, is the largest desalination plant in the world, producing two hundred and seventy-three million gallons of drinking water per day. In Israel, the technology produces about 25% of the nation’s water supply.1 1 Little, Amanda Can Desalination Counter the Drought? The New Yorker July 22, 2015

AGENDA ITEM NO. 6


California has just two dozen small desalination plants, most of them inland facilities that clean up brackish groundwater that can’t be used for crop irrigation or drinking. Of those in Southern California, the following have opened or are proposed: Proposed facilities include:

Dana Point - Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) El Segundo - West Basin Municipal Water District Huntington Beach - Poseidon Resources Long Beach - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and the Long Beach Water

Department Los Angeles - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)

Existing facilities include:

Camarillo Round Mountain Water Treatment Plant Carlsbad: San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) Poseidon Resources - opened in

December 2015. Catalina Island - Southern California Edison, 0.132 MGD currently not in use Diablo Canyon - PG & E, 0.576 MGD, used for nuclear power plant operations, no plans to

expand (note: Nuclear Plant is slated to shut down) Santa Barbara - City of Santa Barbara, 2.5 MGD, currently decommissioned

The high cost and energy use associated with desalination pose challenges to more wide-scale use of the technology. In addition, environmental concerns exist regarding sea life that may be destroyed by the intake forces or degraded by reintroducing the concentrated brine back into the ocean. The speakers will provide additional perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for desalination in addressing Southern California’s water demands. FISCAL IMPACT: No Fiscal Impact. Item is not part of SCAG budget. ATTACHMENT: PowerPoint Presentation [To be distributed under separate cover]


Date post:	24-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times