REGULAR MEETING COMMUNITY ECONOMIC HUMAN … · Hon. Carl Morehouse, ... Hon. Ray Musser, Upland SANBAG Hon. Steve Nagel, City of Fountain Valley OCCOG ... data-driven index that

REGULAR MEETING Thursday, January 5, 2017 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. SCAG Main Office 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Policy Committee Room B 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 CEHD Committee 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 notice to provide reasonable accommodations and will make every effort to arrange for assistance as soon as possible.

COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Community, Economic, and Human Development Committee Members – January 2017

Members Representing

Chair* 1. Hon. Bill Jahn Big Bear Lake District 11

Vice Chair* 2. Hon. Larry McCallon Highland District 7

3. Hon. Al Austin, II Long Beach GCCOG

4. Hon. Stacy Berry Cypress OCCOG

5. Hon. Wendy Bucknum Mission Viejo OCCOG

6. Hon. Carol Chen Cerritos GCCOG

* 7. Hon. Donald P. Wagner Irvine District 14

8. Hon. Jeffrey Cooper Culver City WSCCOG

9. Hon. Rose Espinoza La Habra OCCOG

10. Hon. Kerry Ferguson San Juan Capistrano OCCOG

* 11. Hon. Margaret E. Finlay Duarte District 35

12. Hon. Debbie Franklin Banning WRCOG

* 13. Hon. Vartan Gharpetian Glendale District 42

14. Hon. Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre Barstow SANBAG

15. Hon. Tom Hansen Paramount GCCOG

16. Hon. Robert “Bob” Joe South Pasadena Arroyo Verdugo Cities

* 17. Hon. Barbara Kogerman Laguna Hills District 13

18. Hon. Joe Lyons Claremont SGVCOG

* 19. Hon. Victor Manalo Artesia District 23

20. Hon. Charles Martin Morongo Band of Mission Indians

21. Hon. Joseph McKee Desert Hot Springs CVAG

22. Hon. Susan McSweeney Westlake Village LVMCOG

* 23. Hon. Steve Nagel Fountain Valley District 15

24. Hon. Edward Paget Needles SANBAG

* 25. Hon. Erik Peterson Huntington Beach District 64

26. Hon. Jim Predmore Holtville ICTC

27. Hon. John Procter Santa Paula VCOG

* 28. Hon. Mary “Maxine” Resvaloso Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

* 29. Hon. Rex Richardson Long Beach District 29

30. Hon. Sonny R. Santa Ines Bellflower GCCOG

Community, Economic, and Human Development Committee Members – January 2017

Members Representing

*Regional Council Member

* 31. Hon. Andrew Sarega La Mirada District 31

32. Hon. Becky Shevlin Monrovia SGVCOG

* 33. Hon. Tri Ta Westminster District 20

34. Hon. Mark Waronek Lomita SBCCOG

35. Hon. Frank Zerunyan Rolling Hills Estates SBCCOG

COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA

JANUARY 5, 2017

i

The Community, Economic and Human Development (CEHD) Committee 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 Bill Jahn, 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 November 3, 2016 Meeting Attachment 1 Receive and File 2. Receipt of Transfer Agreement Related to the Regional

Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Attachment 7

3. Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Housing-

Related Parks Program from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

Attachment 15

4. 2017 Meeting Schedule of the Regional Council and Policy

Committees Attachment 20

INFORMATION ITEMS 5. SCAG Sustainability Planning Grants Program

(Marco Anderson, SCAG Staff) Attachment 10 mins. 21

COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA

JANUARY 5, 2017

ii

INFORMATION ITEMS - continued Time Page No, 6. California’s Proposition 64: Marijuana Legalization Initiative

Statute Presentation (Dustin McDonald, Government Relations, Weedmaps)

Attachment 25 mins. 25

7. Active Transportation Health and Economic Impact Study

(Rye Baerg, SCAG Staff) Attachment 20 mins. 40

CHAIR’S REPORT (The Honorable Bill Jahn, Chair)

STAFF REPORT (Frank Wen, SCAG Staff) FUTURE AGENDA ITEM/S ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the CEHD Committee is scheduled for Thursday, February 2, 2017 and will held at the SCAG Los Angeles Office.

______________________________________________________________________________

COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

November 3, 2016 Minutes

______________________________________________________________________________ THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE A SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THE ACTUAL MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING. The Community, Economic & Human Development Committee held its meeting at SCAG’s downtown Los Angeles office. A quorum was present. Members Present Hon. Dante Acosta, Santa Clarita SFVCOG Hon. Carol Chen, Cerritos GCCOG Hon. Steven Choi, City of Irvine District 14 Hon. Jeffrey Cooper, Culver City WSCCOG Hon. Kerry Ferguson, San Juan Capistrano OCCOG Hon. Margaret Finlay, Duarte District 35 Hon. Debbie Franklin, Banning WRCOG Hon. Vartan Gharpetian, Glendale District 42 Hon. Tom Hansen, City of Paramount GCCOG Hon. Bill Jahn, Big Bear Lake (Chair) District 11 Hon. Robert Joe, South Pasadena Arroyo Verdugo Cities Hon. Paula Lantz, Pomona District 38 Hon. Joe Lyons, City of Claremont SGVCOG Hon. Victor Manalo, Artesia District 23 Hon. Larry McCallon, Highland (Vice-Chair) District 7 Hon. Joe McKee, City of Desert Hot Springs CVAG Hon. Carl Morehouse, San Buenaventura District 47 Hon. Ray Musser, Upland SANBAG Hon. Steve Nagel, City of Fountain Valley OCCOG Hon. John Nielsen, Tustin District 17 Hon. Jim Predmore, Holtville ICTC Hon. John Procter, Santa Paula VCOG Hon. Sonny Santa Ines, Bellflower GCCOG Hon. Becky Shevlin, Monrovia SGVCOG Hon. Mark Waronek, Lomita SBCCOG Hon. Frank Zerunyan, Rolling Hills Estates SBCCOG Members Not Present Hon. Al Austin, Long Beach GCCOG

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1

CEHD Packet --- Page 1 of 60

Members Not Present (Cont’d) Hon. Stacy Berry, Cypress OCCOG Hon. Wendy Bucknum, Mission Viejo OCCOG Hon. Rose Espinoza, City of La Habra OCCOG Hon. Barbara Kogerman, Laguna Hills District 13 Hon. Charles Martin Morongo Band of Mission Indians Hon. Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre, Barstow SANBAG Hon. Susan McSweeney, Westlake Village LVMCOG Hon. Ed Paget , Needles SANBAG Hon. Erik Peterson, Huntington Beach District 64 Hon. Mary Resvaloso, Torres-Martinez Indians Torres-Martinez Indians Hon. Rex Richardson, Long Beach District 29 Hon. Andrew Sarega, City of LaMirada District 31 Hon. Tri Ta, Westminster District 20 CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Hon. Bill Jahn, Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:15 AM and asked the Hon. Debbie Franklin to lead the Committee in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Kent Kernahan, Director, Community Home Energy Retrofit Project (CHERP) spoke prior to the presentation of Item #6, Claremont Locally Grown Power Initiative. Mr. Kernahan emphasized that the breakthrough is the application of intellectual property, specifically for middle-class employment creation within communities. He further noted that the technology was conceived in the framework of building employment within communities in a non-profit configuration. REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS There was no reprioritization of the agenda. Approval Item 1. Minutes of the September 29, 2016 Meeting

A MOTION was made (Morehouse) to approve the Minutes of September 29, 2016. The MOTION was SECONDED (McCallon) and APPROVED by the following vote:

AYES: Acosta, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Ferguson, Finlay, Gharpetian, Jahn, Joe, Lyons, Manalo, McCallon, McKee, Morehouse, Musser, Nielsen, Predmore, Procter, Santa Ines, Shevlin, Waronek, Zerunyan NOES: None ABSTAIN: Franklin, Hansen, Nagel


Receive and File 2. SB 375 Target Stress Test Status Report 3. 2017 Meeting Schedule of the Regional Council and Policy Committees

A MOTION was made (McCallon) to approve the remaining Consent Calendar, Item #2, SB 375 Target Stress Test Status Report, and Item #3, 2017 Meeting Schedule of the Regional Council and Policy Committees. The MOTION was SECONDED (Morehouse) and APPROVED by the following vote:

AYES: Acosta, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Ferguson, Finlay, Franklin, Gharpetian, Hansen, Jahn, Joe, Lyons, Manalo, McCallon, McKee, Morehouse, Musser, Nagel, Nielsen, Predmore, Procter, Santa Ines, Shevlin, Waronek, Zerunyan NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ACTION ITEM 4. Proposed Protocol for Distributing Sub-jurisdictional Level Population, Household and Employment Data to Regional Stakeholders Kimberly Clark, SCAG staff, stated that the 2016 RTP/SCS requires approval from SCAG’s Regional Council to release sub-jurisdictional level socioeconomic estimates and projections to non-governmental organizations and individuals. As part of Amendment #1 to the Plan, staff received input from the Technical Working Group (TWG) to create a Protocol for Data Distribution of Sub-jurisdictional Level Population, Household and Employment Data that will expedite the dissemination of public information for the purposes of research and local planning, while upholding the adopted principles of the Policy Growth Forecast. Hon. Carol Chen suggested that a provision be included that would, under certain circumstances, reserve SCAG’s right to request a report based on the information generated using SCAG’s data. A MOTION was made (McCallon) to recommend to the Regional Council to adopt the proposed protocol for data distribution and amended language to the Plan to be included in Amendment #1 to the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The MOTION was SECONDED (Morehouse) and APPROVED by the following vote: AYES: Acosta, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Ferguson, Finlay, Franklin, Gharpetian, Hansen, Jahn, Joe, Lantz, Lyons, Manalo, McCallon, McKee, Morehouse, Nagel, Nielsen, Predmore, Procter, Santa Ines, Shevlin, Waronek, Zerunyan NOES: None


ABSTAIN: None INFORMATION ITEMS 5. Best Cities for Successful Aging – Mayor’s Pledge Lianna Soll, Senior Associate of the Center for the Future of Aging at the Milken Institute, provided an overview of the biannual “Best Cities for Successful Aging” report and encouraged all mayors in the SCAG region to sign the “Mayor’s Pledge.” Best Cities for Successful Aging is a first-of-its-kind, data-driven index that measures and ranks the performance of 352 U.S. metropolitan areas in promoting and enabling successful aging. 6. Claremont Locally Grown Power Initiative Devon Hartman, Executive Director of Community Home Energy Retrofit Project (CHERP) provided an overview of the “Claremont Locally Grown Power (CLGP) Initiative, which addresses local communities re-powering themselves by building and installing their own solar. The Claremont pilot program is driven locally by community action, with the goal of creating a replicable, scalable, non-profit, and economically sustainable solar panel assembly factory. CLGP is uniting community organizations, City Hall, and regional partners, to bring back middle-class manufacturing jobs and stimulate the local economy, while creating sustainable energy and economics. 7. Cap-and-Trade Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program and Award Update Jason Greenspan, SCAG staff, provided an overview of the AHSC Program, which is a statewide competitive program providing grants and loans for affordable housing, infill and compact transit-oriented development, and also providing infrastructure to connect these projects to transit. The program is intended to further the regulatory purposes of AB 32 and SB 375. The Strategic Growth Council (SGC) and Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) administer the program. SCAG staff will continue to provide resources to cities and potential applicants in anticipation of future AHSC funding opportunities. 8. 2017 Local Profiles Update Mike Gainor, SCAG staff, stated that since 2009 SCAG has prepared and updated the Local Profiles report as part of SCAG’s member services. The reports provide current and historical demographic, socio-economic, housing, transportation, and education data compiled from a variety of sources. The 2017 Local Profiles will be released at the May 2017 General Assembly. 9. California Housing Summit Recap Ma’Ayn Johnson, SCAG staff, stated that SCAG, in partnership with thirty-four (34) non-profit, private and public entities, held a Housing Summit on October 11, 2016 to address causes of California’s housing crisis and offer solutions for more housing to be built. Approximately 400


people participated in the Summit, which featured over twenty-five (25) speakers. All event sessions and presentations will be posted on SCAG’s website. CHAIR’S REPORT There was no report presented. STAFF REPORT There was no report presented. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items presented. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements presented. ADJOURNMENT The Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:55 AM. Minutes Reviewed By: Frank Wen, Manager Research & Analysis



DATE: January 5, 2017

TO: Regional Council (RC) Community Economic and Human Development Committee (CEHD)

FROM: Frank Wen, Manager; (213) 236-1854; [email protected]

SUBJECT: Receipt of Transfer Agreement Related to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL: RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Information Only - No Action Required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Assembly Bill (AB 242 Blakeslee) set forth the process for addressing RHNA transfers related to annexation and incorporation of new cities. On November 15, 2016, SCAG staff has been informed of an agreement reached by Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Clarita regarding a RHNA transfer related to an annexation between the two jurisdictions. Information related to this transfer agreement is provided herein. The transfer became effective immediately on the date of SCAG’s receipt of the notification. 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: The County of Los Angeles has transferred a total of 727 RHNA units (186 Very Low Income, 113 Low Income, 122 Moderate Income, and 306 Above Moderate Income) to the City of Santa Clarita as a result of the “West Creek Annexation” (LAFCO Annexation No. 2016-07). SCAG received written notice on November 15, 2016 of a letter of agreement, from the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning confirming the City of Santa Clarita accepting the transfer of the units. The unit transfer became effective immediately on the date of SCAG’s receipt of the notification. On November 21, 2016, SCAG staff informed the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) of the RHNA transfer. The following provides further background regarding the staff law related to RHNA transfers resulting from annexations or incorporations. AB 242 (Blakeslee), which was codified into state law in 2008 as part of Government Code Section 65584.07, governs the transfer of regional housing needs between a county and city in the event of an annexation or incorporation. If the annexation or incorporation was not accounted for when the RHNA numbers were first determined and distributed, the county and the city may mutually agree to a transfer or RHNA need (hereinafter referred to as a “transfer agreement”), which must be accepted by the Council of Governments (COG). Despite the requirement that the COG

AGENDA ITEM NO. 2


accept the transfer agreement, the actual transfer agreement is effective immediately upon its receipt by the COG under the law. Alternatively, if a transfer agreement cannot be reached by the respective city and county, either party may submit a written request (hereinafter referred to as a “written request”) to the COG to consider the facts, data, and methodology presented by both parties and make a determination on the number of units, by income category, that should be transferred from the county’s allocation to the city. The COG has 180 days from receipt of the written request to finalize the RHNA transfer for the subject city and county. Any transfer of RHNA numbers, whether by way of a transfer agreement or resulting from the written request submitted to the COG, shall neither reduce the total regional housing needs nor change the regional housing needs allocated to other cities and counties. Based upon the review of the written request and any additional documentation, the final determination of the COG must be based on the methodology used to assign the RHNA Allocation Plan within the region. A copy of the transfer finalized by the COG shall be submitted to HCD. Newly incorporated cities receiving RHNA transfers are required to amend their housing element and identify sites where the transfer may be implemented within 30 months from the date of incorporation. Cities receiving RHNA transfers as a result of an annexation of unincorporated land must update their housing elements and identify suitable sites within 180 days from the effective date of transfer. FISCAL IMPACT: Work associated with this item is included in the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 General Fund. ATTACHMENT: Attachment 1, Letter from Hasan Ikhrata regarding RHNA transfer for City of Santa Clarita, dated November 21, 2016


November 21, 2016

Ben Metcalf

Director

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

1800 3rd

Street, Room 450

Sacramento, CA 95811

Subject: The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Acceptance of

Transfer of RHNA Units from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa

Clarita

Dear Mr. Metcalf,

This is to inform you of the recent transfer of housing units from the County of Los

Angeles (County) to the City of Santa Clarita (City) related to their respective 5th

cycle

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), resulting from mutually acceptable

agreements by the parties.

The transfer was part of the annexation of former County land by the City. Specifically,

the annexation relating to the “West Creek Annexation” (LA County LAFCO Annexation

No. 2016-07) whereby the County and City agreed to the transfer 727 housing units to

apply to the 2014-21 housing element planning period. Further details relating to this

transfer are set forth in two letters. The first letter was dated on June 28, 2016, from the

Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office to the City of Santa Clarita. The second letter,

dated November 8, 2016, from the Los Angeles Regional Planning Department to SCAG,

confirming the City of Santa Clarita’s acceptance of the transfer.

In accordance with Government Code Section 65584.07 (d), the subject transfer became

effective on November 15, 2016, the date in which SCAG received notice thereof. This

letter represents SCAG’s formal acceptance of the transfer based upon our review of the

information set forth in the County’s notification.


November 21, 2016

SCAG Acceptance of Transfer RHNA Units – Santa Clarita

Page 2 of 3

As a result of this transfer, the respective Final RHNA allocations for the County and City are amended as

shown in the enclosed table and account for the transfer of RHNA units as described herein.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Ma’Ayn Johnson, Senior Regional

Planner, at (213) 236-1975 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Hasan Ikhrata

Executive Director

Southern California Association of Governments

Enclosures:

1. Letter from Douglas S. Baron, County of Los Angeles, dated June 28, 2016

2. Letter from Richard Buckner, County of Los Angeles, date November 8, 2016

cc: Office of Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (Edel Vizcarra)

County Counsel (Mary C. Wickham)

Chief Executive Office (Doug S. Baron; Jason Tajima)

City of Santa Clarita (Kenneth W. Striplin, City Manager)


November 21, 2016

SCAG Acceptance of Transfer RHNA Units – Santa Clarita

Page 3 of 3

County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita 5th

cycle RHNA Allocations based

upon mutually-agreed upon RHNA Transfer Agreements

(Related to West Creek Annexation, November 2016)

County of Los Angeles (Planning period of January 1, 2014 – October 1, 2021)

Number of very low

income household

units

Number of low

income household

units

Number of

moderate

income

household

units

Number of

above

moderate

income

household

units

Total

7,668 4,537 4,938 12,275 29,418

City of Santa Clarita (Planning period of January 1, 2014 – October 1, 2021)

Number of very low

income household

units

Number of low

income household

units

Number of

moderate

income

household

units

Number of

above

moderate

income

household

units

Total

2,394 1,428 1,532 3,695 9,049






TO: Regional Council (RC) Community, Economic and Human Development (CEHD) Committee

FROM: Ma’Ayn Johnson, Senior Regional Planner, 213-236-1975, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Housing-Related Parks Program from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL: RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Information Only - No Action Required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 16, 2016, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Housing-Related Parks Program. This program is designed to reward local governments that approve housing units for lower-income households and are in compliance with State housing element law with grant funds to create or rehabilitate parks. Approximately $35 million is available for the 2016 funding round. Grant applications are due to HCD by February 23, 2017. 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: The purpose of HCD’s Housing-Related Parks Program is to increase the overall supply of housing affordable to lower income households by providing financial incentives to cities and counties with documented housing starts for newly constructed units affordable to very low or low income households. The 2016 NOFA (see attached) appropriates approximately $35 million to provide grant funds to create or rehabilitate parks. The grant does not use a competitive process to award funds and all jurisdictions that meet the grant eligibility requirements will be funded as outlined in the grant guidelines. Jurisdictions must have an adopted housing element determined by HCD, be in substantial compliance with State housing element law and have submitted its Annual Progress Report for the corresponding years in its grant application.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 3


Grant amounts are based on the numbers of bedrooms in newly constructed rental and ownership units restricted for very low and low income households for which building permits have been issued during the period from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2016. Additionally, bonus grant funds will be awarded for the following:

Newly constructed units Units affordable to extremely low income households Units developed as infill projects Park projects that will serve disadvantaged communities Park projects located within park-deficient communities Park projects supporting an infill project or located within a jurisdiction included in an adopted

regional blueprint plan Jurisdictions demonstrating progress in increasing their overall supply of housing.

Applications for the Housing-Related Parks Program 2016 NOFA must be submitted to HCD by February 23, 2017. While this grant program has released a number of NOFAs over the last few years, it is anticipated that this will be the final NOFA released for the Housing-Related Parks Program. The Housing-Related Parks Program guidelines, application forms, and related program information is posted on the HCD website at: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-related-parks-program/. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENT: Notice of Funding Availability, dated November 16, 2016


`STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino, Suite 500 P. O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-7411 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov

November 16, 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR: Housing-Related Park Program Stakeholders Interested Parties FROM: Lisa Bates, Deputy Director Division of Housing Policy Development SUBJECT: NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY HOUSING-RELATED PARKS PROGRAM The Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) is pleased to announce the release of a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the 2016 funding round of the Housing-Related Parks (HRP) Program. The HRP Program is an innovative Program designed to reward local governments that approve housing for lower-income households and are in compliance with State housing element law with grant funds to create or rehabilitate parks and/or recreational facilities. Approximately $35 million is available for the 2016 funding round. It is anticipated that this will be the final HRP Program NOFA. All eligible applications are strongly encouraged to apply. The 2016 NOFA will award HRP Program funds to eligible jurisdictions on a per-bedroom basis for each residential unit affordable to very low- and low-income households permitted during the Designated Program Year (DPY) as defined below. In addition, units substantially rehabilitated, converted from market-rate to affordable (multifamily rental units only), and preserved with certificates of occupancy issued during the DPY are also eligible to receive funding provided they meet the requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.1 of the Government Code. Base and bonus fund award amounts per bedroom are set forth in the Program Guidelines, Sections 105 and 106. For detailed information, please see the Program Guidelines. The DPY 2016 NOFA includes all eligible units affordable to lower-income households permitted, substantially rehabilitated, converted and/or preserved during the designated time period of January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2016. Applicants that submitted an application for any prior funding round may apply for additional funding for DPY 2016 if there were additional eligible units that would have qualified but were not included in the previous funding round applications. Applicants, however, are not eligible to receive funding for the same units in more than one round of funding.


http://www.hcd.ca.gov/

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-related-parks-program/docs/dpy-2016-hrp-program-guidelines.pdf

HRP Program NOFA - 2016 FUNDING ROUND Page 2 Please note, the deadline for meeting HRP Program threshold requirements, as set forth in Section 102 of the Program Guidelines, has been updated as detailed below. Please note, if applying for funds based on eligible units for multiple calendar years, required Annual Progress Reports must be submitted to the Department no later than the application due date, February 23, 2017, as established in this NOFA.

Documentation of Eligible Units

Housing Element Compliance

Annual Progress Report

Building permit/occupancy documentation must fall within the following date

range detailed below

Housing element which has been adopted by the jurisdiction’s governing body and

determined to be in substantial compliance with State housing element

law pursuant to Government Code Section 65585

Annual Progress Report submitted by application

due date for the corresponding calendar year(s) detailed below

CY 2010

Housing element compliance as of December 31, 2016

CY 2009 CY 2011 CY 2010 CY 2012 CY 2011 CY 2013 CY 2012 CY 2014 CY 2013 CY 2015 CY 2014 CY 2016 CY 2015

To verify housing element compliance and Annual Progress Report submittal status, please refer to the Department’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrpp/. Applications must be submitted using the application materials provided on the Department’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrpp/.

** Final Application Filing Date ** February 23, 2017 (Thursday) by 5:00 p.m.

All applicants must submit one original hard copy application with all required attachments and one electronic copy of the application forms (in Excel format). Applications transmitted by e-mail or facsimile will not be accepted. Applications must be received by the Department by 5:00 p.m. on the application due date. Post marked applications will not be accepted. The HRP Program’s Guidelines, application forms, workshop/webinar details, and related Program information are posted on the Department’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrpp/.


http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrpp/



HRP Program NOFA - 2016 FUNDING ROUND Page 3 If you are interested in receiving updated HRP Program information, including notice of the application release, please register for the HRP Program listserv on the Department’s webpage at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-subscribe.html. If you have any questions, please contact your HRP Program Representative (see below). The Department looks forward to working with you on this Program.

Region Representative Contact

Information

Northern California/Bay Area Fidel Herrera 916.263.7441 [email protected]

Sacramento/Central Valley/ Central Coast/Eastern Sierra Tom Brinkhuis

916.263.6651 [email protected]

Southern California

Greg Nickless

916.274.6244 [email protected]

Program Manager

Jennifer Seeger 916.263.7421 / [email protected]


http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-subscribe.html

mailto:[email protected]





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’ Meetings)

AGENDA ITEM NO. 4




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

FROM: Jason Greenspan, Manager of Sustainability, 213-236-1859; [email protected]

SUBJECT: SCAG Sustainability Planning Grants Program

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and File. 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 is now providing a summary of applications received 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 RTP/SCS and continues the themes of the previous round of grant funded projects. There is a multi-year SPG funding commitment of $6 million including $1.0 million from SCAG and $5 million from external sources, for a current program total of $11 million. Any additional SCAG resources will be requested as part of the budget development process in future fiscal years. SCAG is providing this preliminary summary of total project proposals received, and total amount of requested funding. SCAG received a total of 139 project proposals requesting approximately $35.5M, across all project categories and types. 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 Sustainability Planning Grant Call for Proposals Since 2004, the SPG (formerly Compass Blueprint) has been a successful component of SCAG’s efforts to assist local jurisdictions and implement RTP/SCS policies. To date, 200 Sustainability Planning Grant-funded local planning projects have been completed or are currently in progress, providing a total funding of $22M. Each of these innovative projects provides an example of integrated transportation and

AGENDA ITEM NO. 5


land use planning, tailored to local needs and aligned with regional priorities that other cities and counties can emulate. 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. The SPG guidelines and scoring criteria were presented simultaneously to all three Policy Committees on September 1, 2016, and staff made certain adjustments to respond to comments received. The revised guidelines and scoring criteria were approved by the Regional Council on September 29, 2016. Following the Regional Council’s approval of the 2016 SPG Program guidelines and scoring criteria in September, staff released a call for proposals on and set an application deadline of November 18, 2016 The SPG Call for Proposals seeks to support the following goals:

• Provide needed planning resources to local jurisdictions for sustainability planning efforts • Develop local plans that support the implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS • Increase the region’s competitiveness for federal and state funds, including the California

Active Transportation Program and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds. 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. SCAG is providing this preliminary summary of total project proposals received, and total amount of requested funding. SCAG received a total of 139 project proposals requesting approximately $35.5M in funding, across all project categories and types. The attached summary report provides a breakdown by project category. Please note this number may change if projects are disqualified, or deemed ineligible.

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. In addition, if a county transportation commission submits a proposal for any of the project types, the application will be reviewed and scored by SCAG staff only. Final awards will be based on application score, regional equity targets and funding eligibility. For ILU/GRI projects three (3) evaluation teams, one (1) for each project 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 awards will be 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 conflicts of interest. Next Steps The tentative schedule for finalizing the proposal evaluation, and announcing results is presented below. Greater details on eligibility, selection criteria and the evaluation process can be found in the Consolidated SPG Guidelines (http://sustain.scag.ca.gov/Pages/DemoProjApplication.aspx).

• January 2017: County Transportation Commission Approvals (Active Transportation Program funded projects only)

• February 2, 2017: Regional Council Approval of 2017 SPG proposal rankings

• February 6, 2017: Submit Regional Program to CTC (Active Transportation Project funded projects only)

• March 2017: CTC adopts Regional Program (Active Transportation Program funded projects only)

• March - June 2017: SCAG staff contacts top-ranking project applicants to develop consultant Request for Proposals

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 Summary Table


SCAG Sustainability Planning Grants January 5, 2017 Regional Council Program Summary

County Projects Total Request Active

Transportation

Shared Vision

Projects

Integrated Land Use /

Green Region

Los Angeles 72 $16,301,481 39 $5,488,534 9 $7,296,843 24 $3,516,104

Orange 16 $4,202,355 10 $1,992,975 3 $1,610,000 3 $599,380

Riverside 27 $6,555,504 11 $2,186,399 5 $2,893,822 11 $1,475,283

San Bernardino 18 $7,570,000 8 $3,225,000 2 $1,490,000 8 $2,855,000

Ventura 4 $466,116 2 $200,000 - - 2 $266,116

Imperial 2 $400,000 1 $200,000 - - 1 $200,000

Total 139 $35,495,456 71 $13,292,908 19 $13,290,665 49 $8,911,883



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

FROM: Ping Chang, Manager, 213-236-1839, [email protected]

SUBJECT: California’s Proposition 64: Marijuana Legalization Initiative Statute Presentation

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL: RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Information Only - No Action Required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Dustin McDonald, Government Relations staff at Weedmaps will present information on the impact of the passage of California’s Proposition 64. The purpose of the presentation is to explain how local jurisdictions can be prepared for land use decisions and additional zoning and permitting requirements that will be required for implementing Proposition 64. 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: On November 8, 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64. Proposition 64 legalizes nonmedical use and possession of 1 ounce or less of loose marijuana and up to 8 grams of marijuana products for those aged 21 and older. It also legalizes personal cultivation of up to six (6) marijuana plants indoors or outdoors, so long as the plants are not visible from a public place. Proposition 64 creates a Bureau of Marijuana Control (“Bureau”), which will begin issuing licenses on January 1, 2018. The Bureau will regulate both nonmedical (recreational) and medical marijuana. With passage of Proposition 64, local jurisdictions may need to establish additional zoning and permitting requirements to implement the new law. At today’s meeting, Dustin McDonald from Weedmaps will present to the Committee information on how local jurisdictions can be prepared for land use decisions and additional zoning and permitting requirements that will be required for implementing Proposition 64. Launched in July 2008, Weedmaps (weedmaps.com) is a web-based legal marijuana database that contains information over 950 strains of cannabis and over 3,000 medical marijuana dispensaries. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENT: PowerPoint Presentation: “California State and Local Cannabis Policy: A 2017 Outlook”

AGENDA ITEM NO. 6


Irvine, CA | Denver, CO | New York, NY | Kitchener, ON Canada | Barcelona, Spain

Dustin McDonald, Vice President of Government RelationsJano Dekermenjian, Senior Associate, Government Relations

California State and Local Cannabis Policy: A 2017 Outlook

January 5, 2017


What is ?• Founded in 2008, Weedmaps is the oldest and largest cannabis technology company in the world

and has been the leading innovator in developing software and platforms that drive the cannabis industry.

• Our core platform connects people with local dispensaries, delivery services, doctors, deals, brands, lab data and real-time menus. Weedmaps’ full suite of business-to-business and business-to-consumer software includes lab data integration, point-of-sale and medical practice management and we are also developing track and trace software.

• Beyond providing the software and advertising solutions that underpin the industry, Weedmaps has been advocating for measured growth and responsible policy to guide the modernization of the industry for nearly a decade.

• Weedmaps is working collaboratively with all levels of government and stakeholder organizations to encourage reforms to medical and recreational marijuana laws and to establish regulatory frameworks capable of ensuring safe and reliable patient access.


The Cannabis Industry in California • CA is largest state cannabis market (medical or adult use) in the world, with

thousands of industry participants across all licensing categories –cultivation, manufacturing, testing, dispensaries and delivery services.

• Responsible for ~62% of total medical cannabis sales and ~48% of all cannabis sales (medical + adult use markets combined) in the U.S. in 2015.

• $2.7B – Size of Legal CA Medical Cannabis Market in 2015.

• The CA adult use market projected to add ~$1.6B in sales revenue within first year of fully operational market (2018).


The Cannabis Industry in California • The total CA market (adult use + medical) projected to grow at

18.5% annually over next five years; from an estimated $2.76B in 2015 to $6.46B by 2020, with some market contraction occurring during regulatory implementation.

• CA legal cannabis industry still small compared to State’s largest industries – Aerospace/Tech: $62B; Ag: $54B; Tourism: $123B.

• Southern CA is home to the largest cannabis market in the State and the world.


California Cannabis Market ChallengesMost significant challenge to organizing an efficient legal market is taming the State’s sizable illegal market. Illegal cannabis markets: (1) Rob state and local government of tax dollars;

(2) Drive up policing/incarceration costs; and

(3) Allow unregulated market participants to amass large volumes of unbanked revenue and stay in business.

Primary driver of illegal markets is the combination of: (1) Policies which overly restrict the availability of legal

cannabis retail (storefront and delivery);

(2) High effective tax rates & legal compliance costs; and

(3) Insufficient quantity/quality of legal cannabis for sale.

California Cannabis Market Tax Rates

State: 15% on cannabis retail

State: 9.25% per dry weight oz flower

State: 2.75% per dry weight oz leaves

Counties: Variable

Cities: Variable


California Cannabis Market Challenges• With the largest cannabis market (both legal and illegal) in the world the State

should consider modifying its proposed tax model for the industry.

• The State of Colorado will reduce its’ cannabis tax rates in 2017 to address illegal market challenges following a report issued by the State earlier year.

• Colorado made $26M less than expected during year one of recreational marijuana sales, not because of fewer users, but because of an active illegal market.

• Local governments should also consider imposing lower tax rates to reduce the illegal market as they organize local industry regulatory policies.


What Does Prop 64 Do?

1. Adult use: Legalizes nonmedical use of marijuana for adults 21 or over.

2. Regulation and Licensing: Creates a regulatory system for recreational marijuana businesses (cultivation, manufacturing, testing, dispensaries).

3. Taxation: Imposes taxes on marijuana.

4. Criminal Justice: Changes penalties for marijuana related crime.

5. Local Regulation: Allows local governments to prohibit or regulate and license commercial nonmedical marijuana.


Adult Use of MarijuanaProposition 64 legalized the use of marijuana for adults 21 and over.

Here is a breakdown of what adults can and cannot do under Proposition 64:

Allowed Smoke marijuana in a private home or at a

business licensed for on-site consumption. Possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain,

or give away without compensation to persons 21 or older up to 28.5 grams (roughly one ounce) of marijuana and 8 grams of marijuana concentrate.

Grow up to six plants at home. Local governments have the authority to regulate but not ban home grow. For example, they can require you to grow indoors or obtain a permit.

Not Allowed Smoking marijuana in any public place; where

smoking tobacco is prohibited; and while driving.

Possess, smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products in or upon the grounds of a school, day care center, or youth center while children are present.

Grow marijuana in an area that is unlocked or visible from a public place.

Provide marijuana for nonmedical purposes to minors.


Key Differences Between MCRSA and Prop 64For purposes of local regulation, there are four key differences between MCRSA and Prop 64.

1. Focus: MCRSA regulates medical marijuana, while Prop 64 regulates recreational marijuana.

2. Taxation: MCRSA authorizes counties to impose excise taxes. Prop 64 exempts medical marijuana from state and local sales tax, but permits local governments to impose their own tax rates on recreational marijuana. Prop 64 imposes state taxes on the purchase and cultivation of recreational marijuana.

3. Local Regulations: Under the MCRSA and the Prop 64, local governments may allow, regulate, or prohibit commercial marijuana businesses within their jurisdictions. However local governments that prohibit cannabis businesses from operating will be prohibited from accessing any of Prop 64’s grants to local governments. Local governments are also barred from prohibiting use of public roads for deliveries in other jurisdictions.

Note: State standards are minimum standards, and CA local governments may establish their own regulatory structures.

4. Personal Cultivation: MCRSA allows local governments to prohibit all personal cultivation. Prop 64 allows local governments to reasonably regulate personal cultivation but prohibits local bans on private indoor personal cultivation.


Revenue Distribution Administrative and Research Funding

A portion of the revenue will be allocated for the following purposes: Pay back state agencies for administrative costs not

covered by licensing fees. $10 million for job placement assistance and

substance abuse treatment. Will increase by $10 million a year for 5 years until the annual allocation reaches $50 million.

$10 million annually to research and evaluate the effects of Proposition 64.

$3 million to the California Highway Patrol to develop protocols and best practices to determine when someone is driving impaired.

$2 million to the University of California, San Diego Center for Medical Cannabis Research to study the risks and benefits of medical marijuana.

Distribution of Remaining Revenue All remaining monies, which will make up the majority of revenue, will be distributed as follows: 60 percent for youth programs, including

substance abuse education, prevention and treatment.

20 percent to clean up environmental damage caused by illegal marijuana grows.

20 percent to fund DUI and traffic safety programs and help state and local governments enforce the new law.


Prop 64: Local Grant Opportunities• Prop 64 will redistribute revenue generated from taxing marijuana

businesses to local governments and qualified nonprofit organizations.

Specifically, the initiative will deposit 20 percent of marijuana-related tax revenue into the State and Local Government Law Enforcement Account, which would steer funding to the California Highway Patrol to develop best practices for identifying and engaging drugged drivers.

Funding in this account would also flow into California Highway Patrol grants to local governments and qualified nonprofit organizations for education, prevention and enforcement programs as well as the purchase of law enforcement equipment.


Criminal Justice Reforms

Marijuana Offenses Under Prop 64Offense (21+) Before Prop 64 After Prop 64

Possession of < 1 ounceof marijuana

$100 fine Legal

Possession of < 8 grams of concentrate

Misdemeanor(1 year and/or $500)

Legal

Cultivation < 6 marijuana plants

Felony(16 months; 2 / 3 years)

Legal Ages 18-20 = $100 fine

Cultivation > 6 marijuana plants


Misdemeanor (6 months and/or $500)

Possession of marijuana for sale


Misdemeanor (1st & 2nd

Offense)(6 months and/or $500)

Transportation of Marijuana for Sale

Felony (16 months; 2 / 3 years)

Misdemeanor(6 months and/or $500)

Third or aggravated offense: cultivation > 6 marijuana plants


Wobbler

Third of aggravated offense: possession for sale


Wobbler

Individuals convicted of marijuana offenses may proactively seek expungement or felony reduction in court.

Marijuana possession for minors under 18 is punishable by requirement to attend a drug education or counseling program and perform community service.


Key Local Government Policy Recommendations• Revenue and Tax: Due to the enormous size of the Southern CA illegal market

and the high tax rates being imposed by the State, local governments are encouraged to keep local tax rates on cannabis businesses low in the short-term.

• Zoning and Land Use: To establish a strong legal market and eliminate illegal market operators local governments should adjust current zoning laws to be consistent with Prop 64 (600 feet buffer between cannabis businesses and schools and day care centers).

• Licensing: Ensure sufficient licensing to establish legal market and reduce size of illegal market, and be creative with licensing to meet your local government’s need – cultivation, manufacturing, testing, delivery, dispensary.


Jano DekermenjianSenior Associate, Government Relations

(949) [email protected]

Dustin McDonaldVice President of Government Relations

(949) [email protected]






TO: 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

Emissions and exposure

AGENDA ITEM NO. 7


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 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:

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 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

December 15, 2016

Rye BaergSenior Regional Planner

22

Context

2


rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 1

rey

Typewritten Text

rey

Typewritten Text

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 Transit10

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

11* 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 2016 CEHD Packet --- Page 55 of 60

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
