DOCSLIB.ORG

I-5 Freight Corridor Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. In addition, the proposed project would have less than significant effects on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. ________________________________ ______________________ RONALD KOSINSKI Date Deputy District Director Division of Environmental Planning, District 7 California Department of Transportation THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Proposed Project .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Need ............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Independent Utility and Logical Termini ............................................................................................ 6 1.4 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.5 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion ..................................................... 9 1.7 Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................. 10 1.8 Permits and Approvals Needed ......................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2 - Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Human Environment ......................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................. 12 2.1.2 Growth ....................................................................................................................................... 41 2.1.3 Community Impacts ................................................................................................................... 44 2.1.4 Utilities/Emergency Services ..................................................................................................... 65 2.1.5 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .................................................... 70 2.1.6 Visual/Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 75 2.1.7 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 77 2.2 Physical Environment ....................................................................................................................... 84 2.2.1 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff .................................................................................... 84 2.2.2 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography .......................................................................................... 93 2.2.3 Hazardous Waste/Materials ....................................................................................................... 96 2.2.4 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 101 2.3 Biological Environment .................................................................................................................. 137 2.3.1 Natural Communities ............................................................................................................... 137 2.3.2 Wetlands and Other Waters ..................................................................................................... 141 2.3.3 Plant Species ............................................................................................................................ 143 2.3.4 Animal Species ........................................................................................................................ 146 2.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................ 148 2.3.6 Invasive Species ....................................................................................................................... 152 Chapter 3 – California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation.......................................... 154 CEQA Environmental Checklist ....................................................................................................... 155 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................. 184 Chapter 4 – Comments and Coordination ............................................................................................ 196 Chapter 5 – List of Preparers ................................................................................................................ 199 Chapter 6 – Distribution List ................................................................................................................. 200 Chapter 7 – List of Studies and Technical Reports ............................................................................. 225 Appendix A: Section 4(f) De Minimis Determination .......................................................................... 226 Appendix B: Title VI Policy Statement ................................................................................................. 236 Appendix C: Summary of Relocation Benefits ..................................................................................... 237 Appendix D: Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary ............................................... 242 Appendix E: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Species Lists ................................................................................ 258 Appendix F: Key Correspondence ........................................................................................................ 284 List of Figures Figure 1: I-5 Freight Corridor Project Locations ____________________________________________________ 3 Figure 2: Project Locations in Sun Valley __________________________________________________________ 4 Figure 3: Santa Clarita Valley Land Use __________________________________________________________ 18 Figure 4: Sun Valley Land Use _________________________________________________________________ 20 Figure 5: City of Glendale Land Use Development Trends Near the Study Area ___________________________ 22 Figure 6: Public Facilities
Recommended publications
  • Los Angeles City Clerk

    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.
  • Water Supply and Habitat Resiliency for a Future Los Angeles River: Site-Specific Natural Enhancement Opportunities Informed by River Flow and Watershed-Wide Action

    Water Supply and Habitat Resiliency for a Future Los Angeles River: Site-Specific Natural Enhancement Opportunities Informed by River Flow and Watershed-Wide Action

    Water Supply and Habitat Resiliency for a Future Los Angeles River: Site-Specific Natural Enhancement Opportunities Informed by River Flow and Watershed-Wide Action Los Feliz to Taylor Yard Funded by a Grant from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy December 2016 Los Feliz Blvd to Taylor Yard Los Angeles River Habitat Enhancement Study and Opportunities Assessment The Nature Conservancy’s Urban Conservation Program Team that includes Brian Cohen (Conservation Analyst), Shona Ganguly (External Affairs Manager), Sophie Parker, Ph.D. (Senior Scientist), John Randall (Lead Scientist), Jill Sourial (Urban Conservation Program Director), and Lara Weatherly (Intern) led the process to create this report. Land IQ conducted surveys and analysis on behalf of The Nature Conservancy with the support of the Natural History Museum, WRC Consulting, Travis Longcore at the University of Southern California, and Connective Issue. When referring to this study, cite The Nature Conservancy’s Urban Conservation Program. Contributors Chapter 1: Introduction Travis Brooks and Margot Griswold (Land IQ); Krista Sloniowski (Connective Issue) Chapter 2: Historical Ecology of the Los Angeles River Riparian Zone in the Elysian Valley Travis Longcore (University of Southern California, School of Architecture and Spatial Sciences Institute) Chapter 3: Hydrology and Hydraulics Travis Brooks (Land IQ); Lan Weber (WRC Consulting) Chapter 4: Biota of the Los Angeles River in the Elysian Valley 4.1 Introduction: Travis Brooks, Margot Griswold, and Melissa Riedel-Lehrke (Land IQ); Brian V. Brown, James P. Dines, Kimball L. Garrett, Lisa Gonzalez, Bennett Hardy, Stevie Kennedy-Gold, Miguel Ordeñana, Gregory B. Pauly (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County) 4.2 Vegetation Communities: Travis Brooks, Margot Griswold, and Melissa Riedel-Lehrke (Land IQ) 4.3 Fish Fauna Review: Margot Griswold (Land IQ) 4.4 Insect Fauna: Brian V.
  • Meeting Agenda

    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.
  • Transportation Committee February 7, 2019 Minutes

    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.
  • Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study DRAFT

    Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study DRAFT

    US Army Corps of Engineers® Los Angeles District Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study DRAFT – APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL, INCLUDING HTRW September 2013 Los Angeles District Geotechnical Branch DRAFT Geotechnical Feasibility Report Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Study Project Area, Los Angeles County, CA 2013 Geotechnical Feasibility Report Los Angeles River Ecosystem Study Project Area TABLE of CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Context ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Los Angeles River Description and General History ..................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope of Work .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Proposed Improvements and Alternatives ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Considered Improvements ........................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Tentatively Selected Plan .............................................................................................................
  • Common Ground Plan

    Common Ground Plan

    COMMON GROUND from the Mountains to the Sea Watershed and Open Space Plan San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers October 2001 Prepared by: The California Resources Agency San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy With the assistance of: EIP Associates Arthur Golding & Associates Montgomery Watson Harza Oralia Michel Marketing & Public Relations Garvey Communications Tree People COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA CONTENTS Page PREFACE..............................................................................................................................................v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................1 MAJOR PLAN ELEMENTS................................................................................................................9 1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 11 A. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................11 B. Historical Context.............................................................................................................................................11 C. Planning Context...............................................................................................................................................13 2. CURRENT
  • Culture in Concrete

    Culture in Concrete

    CULTURE IN CONCRETE: Art and the Re-imagination of the Los Angeles River as Civic Space by John C. Arroyo B.A., Public Relations Minor, Urban Planning and Development University of Southern California, 2002 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN CITY PLANNING at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2010 © 2010 John C. Arroyo. All Rights Reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. THESIS COMMITTEE A committee of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning has examined this Masters Thesis as follows: Brent D. Ryan, PhD Assistant Professor in Urban Design and Public Policy Thesis Advisor Susan Silberberg-Robinson, MCP Lecturer in Urban Design and Planning Thesis Reader Los Angeles River at the historic Sixth Street Bridge/Sixth Street Viaduct. © Kevin McCollister 2 CULTURE IN CONCRETE: Art and the Re-imagination of the Los Angeles River as Civic Space by John C. Arroyo Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 20, 2010 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master in City Planning ABSTRACT The Los Angeles River is the common nature of the River space. They have expressed physical, social, and cultural thread that themselves through place-based work, most of connects many of Los Angeles’ most diverse and which has been independent of any formal underrepresented communities, the majority of urban planning, urban design, or public policy which comprise the River’s downstream support or intervention.
  • Existing Conditions Report

    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 ....................................................................................

  • 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.

  • 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.
  • Antelope Valley Line

    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.
  • Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria

    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.