DOCSLIB.ORG

Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis SECTION 6 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis The following discussion provides responses to each of the questions set forth in the City of Los Angeles Initial Study Checklist as adjusted for use as a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21155.2(b) and 21159.28. This analysis assumes all applicable mitigation measures (MMs) from the RTP/SCS are incorporated. Where applicable, project specific project design features (PDFs) and/or MMs are identified in the analysis to help reduce or avoid significant impacts on the environment. 6.1 Aesthetics On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The purpose of SB 743 is to streamline the review under CEQA for several categories of development projects including the development of infill projects in transit priority areas (TPAs). Public Resources Code Section 21099 (a)(7) defines a TPA as an area located within 0.5 miles (2,640 feet) of a major transit stop that is “existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” As defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3, a major transit stop is a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.1 PRC Section 21099(d)(1) states that a project’s aesthetic impacts shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment if: 1. The project is a residential, mixed-use residential or employment center project, and 2. The project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area. Further provisions of SB 743 provide that this legislation “does not affect, change, or modify the authority of a lead agency to consider aesthetic impacts pursuant to local design review ordinances or other discretionary powers provided by other laws or policies” (PRC Section 21099(d)(2)(A)), and that “aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.” Section 21099(d)(2)(B). As the Project is not located within a state designated scenic highway and does not contain and is not in the near vicinity of any historic resources, the Project would have a 1 The City of Los Angeles defines Peak Periods to be between 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 7:00 p.m. https://planning.lacity.org/ordinances/docs/toc/TOCGuidelines.pdf. 7940 Lankershim Boulevard Project City of Los Angeles 6-1 SCEA August 2020 6. Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis significant impact on cultural or historic resources, including existing scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural features within a state-designated scenic highway. The Project’s potential impacts on cultural and historic resources are discussed in more detail in Section 6.5, Cultural Resources, below. Therefore, no mitigation is required with respect potential aesthetic impacts on cultural or historic resources. Consistent with SB 743, City of Los Angeles Zoning Information File ZI No. 2452 states that visual resources, aesthetic character, shade and shadow, light and glare, and scenic vistas or any other aesthetic impact as defined in the City’s CEQA Threshold Guide shall not be considered a significant impact for infill projects within TPA pursuant to CEQA. The City of Los Angeles Zoning Information File ZI No. 2452 also notes that the limitation of aesthetic impacts pursuant to PRC Section 21099 does not include impacts to historic or cultural resources. Therefore, under ZI No. 2452, impacts to cultural resources, such as historical buildings and districts will need to be evaluated pursuant to CEQA regardless of project location. The Project would be a mixed-use, infill project located in a TPA. Nearby transit service includes Metro Bus lines 94, 152/353, 169, 222, 224, 230, 353, and 794. Metro Bus line 152 provides service to Woodland Hills and Sun Valley and travels generally along Roscoe Boulevard and Vineland Avenue north of the Project Site with service intervals of less than 15 minute during peak hours. Metro Bus line 353 is a limited stop local line that travels from Woodland Hills to North Hollywood via Roscoe Boulevard and Lankershim Boulevard. This line provides service to Northridge, Panorama City and Sun Valley and travels along Roscoe Boulevard and Lankershim Boulevard. Metro Bus line 224 travels from Sylmar to Studio City via Lankershim Boulevard immediately adjacent to the Project Site. This bus line provides service to Pacoima, Sun Valley, and North Hollywood with service intervals of less than 15 minute during peak hours. As such, the Project Site is located near a high-quality transit corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. Furthermore, Metro Bus lines 224 and 353/152 run along Lankershim Boulevard with a connection to the Metro Red Line at Universal Studios. The Metro Red Line route provides a connection to downtown Los Angeles through the Hollywood and Mid-Wilshire areas. The Metro Red Line provides a direct link to Union Station. Union Station provides access to the majority of the region’s rail and bus lines, linking to major job centers throughout Los Angeles County. The Project is also 0.90 miles southwest of the Metrolink Sun Valley Station, which serves the Metrolink Antelope Valley (AV) Line that travels to and from downtown Los Angeles, with a final destination in the City of Lancaster. Because of the mixed-use residential character of the Project and its location on an infill site within a TPA, the Project’s aesthetic impacts will not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Accordingly, the Project’s aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099. While Section 21099 prohibits aesthetic impacts from being considered significant environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA, it does not affect the ability of the City of Los Angeles to implement design review through its ordinances or other discretionary powers. Therefore, an assessment of the Project’s potential aesthetics impacts is not required. 7940 Lankershim Boulevard Project City of Los Angeles 6-2 SCEA August 2020 6. Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural features within a state- designated scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. 6.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Project Site is located within a highly urbanized area and is currently developed with a single-story office and a single-story commercial building and associated uses. No agricultural uses, or related farmland operations, are present within the Project Site or surrounding area. The Project Site is not located on designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland 7940 Lankershim Boulevard Project City of Los Angeles 6-3 SCEA August 2020 6. Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The urban character of the Project Site would be consistent with the FMMP’s definition of “Urban and Built-Up Land,” which does not constitute farmland. Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? No Impact. The Williamson Act of 1965 allows local governments to enter into contract agreements with local landowners with the purpose of trying to limit specific parcels of land to agricultural or other related open space use.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Los Angeles City Clerk
    CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM j!; 23 PM 3: 26 OFFICI:ft CITY ADMINWR ATIVE Date: July 22, 2014 To: Honorable Eric Garcetti, Mayor Attention: Mandy Morales, Legislative Coordinator From: Jon Kirk Mukri, General Manager Department of Transportation Subject: RECOMMENDED CONTRACT A A BS FOR THE CONTINUED MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE OF LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR LADOT BIKE PATH AND TRANSIT FACILITIES SUMMARY The Department of Transportation (LADOT) requests authority to execute contracts with ShelterClean Services, Inc. (incumbent) for the continued provision of management and landscaping / maintenance services for LADOT bike path and transit facilities. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council, subject to the approval of the Mayor: 1. AUTHORIZE the General Manager, Department of Transportation, to enter into a five-year contract with ShelterClean Services, Inc., for the management and performance of maintenance and landscaping services for eleven (11) City bike path facilities, with a total cost not-to-exceed $3,000,000, subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form and legality. 2. AUTHORIZE the General Manager, Department of Transportation, to enter into a five-year contract with ShelterClean Services, Inc., for the management and performance of maintenance and landscaping services for seven (7) City transit facilities, with a total cost not-to-exceed $2,140,000, subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form and legality. DISCUSSION As will be discussed in this section, the request for proposals(RFP) Evaluation Committee ranked the combined Economy of Scale proposal submitted by ShelterClean Services, Inc. as the best and most cost-effective for the City.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Agenda
    MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the meeting will only be conducted via video conferencing and by telephone. Please follow the instructions on the following page to join the meeting remotely. COMMISSIONERS Chair – Ben J. Benoit Vice Chair – Jan Harnik Second Vice Chair – V. Manuel Perez Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District 1 Waymond Fermon / Oscar Ortiz, City of Indio Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District 2 Brian Berkson / Chris Barajas, City of Jurupa Valley Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District 3 Kathleen Fitzpatrick / Robert Radi, City of La Quinta V. Manuel Perez, County of Riverside, District 4 Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Jeff Hewitt, County of Riverside, District 5 Bill Zimmerman / Dean Deines, City of Menifee Art Welch / Daniela Andrade, City of Banning Yxstain Gutierrez / Carla Thornton, City of Moreno Valley Lloyd White / Julio Martinez, City of Beaumont Scott Vinton / Christi White, City of Murrieta Joseph DeConinck / Johnny Rodriguez, City of Blythe Berwin Hanna / Ted Hoffman, City of Norco Larry Smith / Linda Molina, City of Calimesa Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert Randall Bonner / Jeremy Smith, City of Canyon Lake Lisa Middleton / Dennis Woods, City of Palm Springs Raymond Gregory / Mark Carnevale, City of Cathedral City Michael M. Vargas / Rita Rogers, City of Perris Steven Hernandez / Megan Beaman Jacinto, City of Coachella Ted Weill / Charles Townsend, City of Rancho Mirage Wes Speake / Jim Steiner, City of Corona Rusty Bailey / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Andrew Kotyuk / Russ Utz, City of San Jacinto Clint Lorimore / Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale Michael S.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Committee February 7, 2019 Minutes
    REPORT Southern California Association of Governments 900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE MEETING THURSDAY, February 7, 2019 THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE A SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. A DIGITAL RECORDING OF THE ACTUAL MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING IN SCAG’S OFFICE. The Transportation Committee (TC) met at SCAG, 900 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017. The meeting was called to order by Chair Curt Hagman, San Bernardino County. A quorum was present. Members Present: Hon. Sean Ashton, Downey District 25 Hon. Kathryn Barger Los Angeles County Hon. Will Berg, Port Hueneme VCOG Hon. Russell Betts, Desert Hot Springs CVAG Hon. Drew Boyles, El Segundo President’s Appointment Hon. Art Brown, Buena Park District 21 Hon. Ross Chun, Aliso Viejo OCTA Hon. Jonathan Curtis, La Cañada‐Flintridge District 36 Hon. Emily Gabel‐Luddy AVCJPA Hon. James Gazeley, Lomita District 39 Hon. Jack Hadjinian, Montebello SGVCOG Hon. Curt Hagman (Chair) San Bernardino County Hon. Steven Hofbauer, Palmdale District 43 Hon. Jim Hyatt, Calimesa District 3 Hon. Mike T. Judge, Simi Valley VCTC Hon. Trish Kelley, Mission Viejo OCCOG Hon. Randon Lane, Murrieta District 5 Hon. Clint Lorimore, Eastvale District 4 Hon. Steve Manos, Lake Elsinore District 63 Hon. Ray Marquez, Chino Hills District 10 Hon. Larry McCallon, Highland SBCTA Hon. Marsha McLean, Santa Clarita District 67 Attachment: Minutes of the Meeting - February 7, 2019 (Minutes TC Meeting, 2019) Hon. Dan Medina, Gardena District 28 Hon. Fred Minagar, Laguna Niguel District 12 Hon. Carol Moore, Laguna Woods OCCOG Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Conditions Report
    Antelope Valley Line Study Appendix I Existing Conditions Report AVL ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE STUDY Contract No. PS-2415-3024-03 APPENDIX 1 Existing Conditions Report Prepared for: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Prepared by: Review Copy Date Initials Originator 7/27/18 SM 444 South Flower Street Checker 8/3/18 LF Suite 800 Back Checker 8/7/18 SM Los Angeles, California 90071 Format Checker 8/8/18 SM Approved by 8/8/18 LF August 8, 2018 Contents CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY PURPOSE ......................................................................... 1-1 1.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 CORRIDOR CONTEXT ........................................................................................... 1-14 1.3 Section 1 Rerefences ............................................................................................... 1-18 2 ANTELOPE VALLEY PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ..................... 2-1 2.1 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE CONFIGURATION AND ASSESTS ....................... 2-1 2.2 OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3 ROLLING STOCK ................................................................................................... 2-19 2.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................... 2-21 2.5 REHABILITATION NEEDS ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Transit Advocate
    How to join SO.CA.TA: Yearly dues are $30.00 cates. In all other cases, permission must be ($12.00 low income). Dues are prorated on a secured from the copyright holder. quarterly basis. Disclaimer: The Southern California Transit THE TRANSIT ADVOCATE Submission of materials: ALL materials for the Advocates is not affiliated with any governmental TRANSIT ADVOCATE newsletter go to Andrew agency or transportation provider. Names and Newsletter of the Southern California Transit Advocates Novak at P.O. Box 2383, Downey California 90242 logos of agencies appear for information and or to [email protected]. Please enclose a self reference purposes only. May 2010 Vol. 18, No. 5 ISSN 1525-2892 addressed stamped envelope for returns. SO.CA.TA officers, 2010 Newsletter deadlines are the Fridays a week President: Lionel Jones before SO.CA.TA meetings, at 6:00 PM Pacific Vice President: Charles Hobbs time, unless otherwise announced. Recording Secretary: Kymberleigh Richards Executive Secretary: Dana Gabbard Opinions: Unless clearly marked as "Editorial" or Treasurer: Hank Fung "Position Paper", all written material within, Directors at Large: Ken Ruben including all inserted flyers and postcards, are the J.K. Drummond expressed opinions of the authors and not Nate Zablen necessarily that of the Southern California Transit ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Advocates. Newsletter Editor: Andrew Novak Newsletter Prod. Mgr: Dana Gabbard Copyright: © 2010 Southern California Transit Webmaster: Charles Hobbs Advocates. Permission is freely granted to repro- th th duce/reprint ORIGINAL articles from the Transit NEXT SO.CA.TA MEETINGS : May 15 and June 12 at Angelus Plaza, 4th Floor, 255 S. Hill, Los Angeles Advocate, provided credit is given to both the au- thor and the Southern California Transit Advo- May 2010 — Issue 210 Southern California Transit Advocates 3010 Wilshire #362 Los Angeles, CA 90010 44¢ First 213-388-2364 Class http://www.socata.net Postage [email protected] FIRST CLASS MAIL Inside This Issue: Metrolink cab car 638 is one of the agency’s new • Bulletin Board (pg.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sunset Limited? Amtrak’S Line Manager’S Report on the Sunset and Starlight Selden on Competition Arizona Meeting Jackson Hits the Rails President’S Commentary
    ISSN 2325-629X IN THIS ISSUE: 2017 - Make or Break for the Sunset Limited? Amtrak’s Line Manager’s Report on the Sunset and Starlight Selden on Competition Arizona Meeting Jackson Hits the Rails President’s Commentary Photo by Georg Trub STEEL WHEELS / 4TH QUARTER 2016 1 RailPAC is a 501c3 Organization therefore all donations are tax deductible. 2 STEEL WHEELS / 4TH QUARTER 2016 anyway since with an optimum wheel-rail interface you achieve the best ride, the lowest fuel consumption, and the least rail and wheel wear. As for Positive Train Control, installing it on a 43 mile system, effectively President’s closed to other traffic, with a captive fleet of 14 dmus Commentary should not be that hard. The sad thing is that cost overruns and delays lend High Speed Rail ammunition to passenger rail’s many detractors. News came in October This is supposed to be a low cost “starter” system. that the HSR engineers Unfortunately regulations such as mandatory PTC had decided that small is and ADA requirements mean that there is no longer a beautiful. The word is that shorter trains need smaller cheap way to get into the passenger rail business. We stations which fit more easily into built urban areas. A are fortunate to have relatively recent additions such as lot of people could have told them that five or six years Metrolink and ACE. Would they be built under today’s ago before millions were spent on designing half mile regulatory regime? I seriously doubt it. long stations and even longer approach tracks.
    [Show full text]
  • I-5 Freight Corridor Project
    I-5 Freight Corridor Project LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 7 – LA – 5 (PM 27.0/R67.0) 34210/0717000244 Initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation The environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 USC 327 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016 and executed by FHWA and Caltrans. January 2019 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code Project Description The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes the I-5 Freight Corridor Improvement Project to improve freight efficiency along Interstate 5 (I-5) from State Route 134 (SR-134) to Templin Highway Undercrossing in Los Angeles County. The project proposes to increase the vertical clearance to 16’-6”, to eliminate load capacity restrictions for heavy loads, and to reduce the frequency of route closures due to maintenance. Determination This proposed Negative Declaration (ND) is included to give notice to interested agencies and the public that it is Caltrans’ intent to adopt a ND for this project. This does not mean that the Caltrans’ decision regarding the project is final. This ND is subject to change based on comments received by interested agencies and the public. Caltrans has prepared an Initial Study for this project, and pending public review, expects to determine from this study that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: The proposed project would have no effect on agriculture and forest resources, mineral resources, and population and housing.
    [Show full text]
  • Antelope Valley Line
    ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE 76.54 LANCASTER STATION 48.67 Burke Rd. Metrolink Valley Sub. 29/29 SIGNAL 48.2”P” /48.1 76.2 CP SIERRA 47.3 SLIDE DETECTOR FENCE 76.05 Ave. J U.P. 406.1 46.85 Pvt. xing 75.04 Ave. K U.P. 407.1 SIGNAL 46.2”P” /46.1 75.0 CP BONITA 75.0 W/B 40 MPH 45.68 Rosmussen Pvt. xing SIGNAL 73.1/73.2 45.42-45.47 TUNNEL #18 266 FT. 34 MPH 6.21.2 73.02 Columbia Way Ave. M U.P.409.1 45.14 Capra Rd. 71.99 Ave. N Pvt. xing Lockheed U.P.410.1 44.97-45.04 TUNNEL #19 328 FT. 34 MPH SIGNAL 71.2/71.1 44.94 HIGH WATER DETECTOR 6.21.2 69.95 Rancho Vista Blvd. Ave. P U.P. 412.2 44.2 CP SOLEDAD “P” W/B only 50 mph t/o 69.32 Sierra Hwy. U.P. 412.8 43.62 Lang Station Rd. SIGNAL 69.2/69.1 SIGNAL 43.1/43.2 43.3/43.4 69.19 PALMDALE STATION 41.6 CP LANG 50 mph t/o 68.40 Palmdale Blvd. U.P. 413.7 41.55 A St. Pvt. Xing 67.92 Ave. R U.P 414.2 67.97 E/B 55 MPH 40.8 DETECTOR DE w/o count talk 40.0 CP HUMPHREYS 25 mph t/o 40.05 W/B 55 MPH 67.55 CP HAROLD 45 mph t/o 65.30 W/B 55 MPH 38.9 E/B 55 MPH 66.91 Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria
    SECTION 3 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria 3.1 Senate Bill 375 The State of California adopted Senate Bill (SB) 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, to outline growth strategies and better integrate regional land use and transportation planning, which will help the State meet its greenhouse gas reduction mandates. SB 375 requires that the State’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations incorporate a “sustainable communities strategy” with their respective regional transportation plans to achieve their respective region’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the metropolitan planning organization that has jurisdiction over the Project Site. For the SCAG region, pursuant to SB 375, CARB set greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets that were updated in 2018 to an 8 percent reduction by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction by 2035 in per capita passenger vehicle GHG emissions, which became effective October 1, 2018.1 On April 7, 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016‐2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS): A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. The 2016 RTP/SCS outlines strategies that meet or exceed these targets set by CARB.2 For the SCAG region, CARB gas set greenhouse gas reduction target to eight percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2020, and 13 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. On June 28, 2016, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(J)(ii), CARB accepted SCAG’s determination that its 2016 RTP/SCS would, if implemented, achieve CARB’s applicable GHG reduction targets.3 1 California Air Resources Board, SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets.
    [Show full text]
  • Metrolink Schedule Rancho Cucamonga to Union Station
    Metrolink Schedule Rancho Cucamonga To Union Station Sejant Skip redetermined that fibrinolysin headreach wondrously and mitch unfalteringly. When Douggie Germanized his chlorites bedazzled not compassionately enough, is Gerhard graminivorous? Scotti remains scratchy after Tedrick overmatches phlegmatically or suds any deviance. Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga via Ontario Mills Mall. Downtown or use track 1 at Rancho Cucamonga today 52 pm departure. By law, we are required to ask your consent to show the content that is normally displayed here. Thomas was questioned and gave a fake name, but when officers. Installment agreement starts when device is shipped. Get personal shopping recommendations based on the products you own, and track your orders wherever you go. Big boy tour schedule on saturday morning in all. CEO David Solow has been in the spotlight. Metrolink train last night. Right now, light rail trains are the only ones that run through the station. West Colton to Metrolink Rancho Cucamonga Station Parking lot, via charter bus. Good news for commuters. Mission Viejo will stop at Corona North Main due to avoiding a vehicle on the tracks. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Jeep Cherokee on train tracks in Glendale. Bart Reed, the Executive Director of The Transit Coalition, said fare increases would better serve ridership. Metrolink monthly passholders can not receive occasional reader surveys and gave a great day holiday weekend day are responsible for current data powered by signing up? Digest: Lease agreement paves way for No. Lyft can carry up to four passengers and their bags. Metrolink is inviting ticket holders on Monday to bring a guest with them to ride for free.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Committee Agenda - Final September 15, 2016
    Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza 3rd Floor Board Room Los Angeles, CA Agenda - Final Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:00 AM One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012, 3rd Floor, Metro Board Room Construction Committee Don Knabe, Chair Diane DuBois, Vice Chair Mike Bonin Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker Sheila Kuehl Carrie Bowen, non-voting member Phillip A. Washington, Chief Executive Officer METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BOARD RULES (ALSO APPLIES TO BOARD COMMITTEES) PUBLIC INPUT A member of the public may address the Board on agenda items, before or during the Board or Committee’s consideration of the item for one (1) minute per item, or at the discretion of the Chair. A request to address the Board should be submitted in person at the meeting to the Board Secretary. Individuals requesting to speak on more than three (3) agenda items will be allowed to speak up to a maximum of three (3) minutes per meeting. For individuals requiring translation service, time allowed will be doubled. The public may also address the Board on non-agenda items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board during the public comment period, which will be held at the beginning and/or end of each meeting. Each person will be allowed to speak for up to three (3) minutes per meeting and may speak no more than once during the Public Comment period. Speakers will be called according to the order in which the speaker request forms are received. Elected officials, not their staff or deputies, may be called out of order and prior to the Board’s consideration of the relevant item.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Committee December 7, 2017 Minutes
    REPORT Southern California Association of Governments 900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 TC Agenda Item No. 1 February, 1, 2018 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017 THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE A SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. A DIGITAL RECORDING OF THE ACTUAL MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING IN SCAG’S OFFICE. The Transportation Committee (TC) met at SCAG, 818 W. 7TH Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017. The meeting was called to order by Chair Hon. Curt Hagman, San Bernardino County. A quorum was present. Members Present: Hon. Sean Ashton, Downey District 25 Hon. Rusty Bailey, Riverside District 68 Hon. Glen Becerra, Simi Valley District 46 Hon. Ben Benoit, Wildomar South Coast AQMD Hon. Will Berg, Port Hueneme VCOG Hon. Russell Betts, Desert Hot Springs CVAG Hon. Art Brown, Buena Park District 21 Hon. Joe Buscaino, Los Angeles District 62 Hon. Ross Chun, Aliso Viejo OCTA Hon. Jim Clarke, Culver City WCCOG Hon. Emily Gabel‐Luddy AVCJPA Hon. James Gazeley, Lomita District 39 Hon. Jeffrey, Giba, Moreno Valley District 69 Hon. Jack Hadjinian, Montebello SGVCOG Hon. Curt Hagman (Chair) San Bernardino County Hon. Carol Herrera, Diamond Bar District 37 Hon. Steven Hofbauer, Palmdale District 43 Hon. Jim Hyatt, Calimesa District 3 Hon. Mike T. Judge, Simi Valley VCTC Hon. Randon Lane, Murrieta (Vice Chair) District 5 Hon. Steve Manos, Lake Elsinore District 63 Hon. Dan Medina, Gardena District 28 Hon. Richard D. Murphy, Los Alamitos OCTA Hon. Frank Navarro, Colton District 6 Hon. Pam O’Connor, Santa Monica District 41 Hon.
    [Show full text]