San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Directors Committee

San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Directors Committee c/o San Joaquin Council of 555 East Weber Ave. Stockton, CA 95202 Phone: 209-235-0600 FAX: 209-235-0438 San Joaquin Council of Andrew Chesley Chair Tulare County Association of Ted Smalley Vice Chair Fresno Council of Tony Boren Meeting Agenda Tuesday, October 6, 2015 Time: 3:00 p.m. Meeting Host: Merced County Association of Meeting Location: Tenaya Lodge at Yosemite Board Room 1122 Highway 41 Fish Camp, CA 93623 Teleconference Number: 1-712-432-1212 Participant Code: 432-600-639 Kern Council of Ahron Hakimi Kings County Association of Terri King Madera County Transportation Commission Patricia Taylor Merced County Association of Marjie Kirn Stanislaus Council of Rosa Park APPROVAL OF MINUTES Enclosure 1. September 3, 2015 Directors Meeting A. Chesley þ DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: 2. Air Resources Board Target Setting Update GUEST SPEAKER: Terry Roberts, California Air Resources Board 3. Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program A. Chesley þ a. Discuss Proposed Guideline Changes (full guidelines) b. Discuss Technical Assistance to Valley Applicants 4. Valley Legislative Affairs Committee (VLAC) R. Phipps þ Follow Up Discussion Regarding Valley Voice D.C. 5. San Joaquin Valley Goods Movement M. Sigala a. I-5/SR 99 Goods Movement Corridor Study Update b. SJV Goods Movement Sustainable Implementation Plan Update 6. SHOPP Funding K. Baxter Receive Caltrans Update

Enclosure 7. Administrative M. Sigala Review Draft Marketing Materials for Directors Committee/Valleywide Planning Efforts INFORMATIONAL ITEMS The following items are for informational purposes and require no action or vote. A member of the public or Director may request that any Informational Item be pulled for further discussion. Written summaries of Informational Items are included in the agenda packet. þ 8. RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategies/AQ Update T. Taylor 9. Caltrans Directors Report S. Ehlert /D. Agar 10. San Joaquin JPA for Passenger Rail D. Leavitt 11. High Speed Rail D. Gomez 12. Proposition 84/Blueprint/Greenprint R. Terry 13. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley J. Chilingerian þ 14. Regional Energy Planning M. Sigala OTHER ITEMS 15. Director Items 16. Public Presentations for Items Not on Agenda. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Committee on items within its jurisdiction but NOT on this agenda. Unscheduled comments may be limited to three minutes. Note: The general public may comment on listed agenda items as they are considered. ADJOURN MEETING. Directors Only Session (if necessary) Next Directors Meeting: Thursday, November 5, 2015 in Madera Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodations The meeting room and restrooms are ADA accessible. Representatives or individuals with disabilities should contact the SJV Regional Planning Agencies at (559) 266-6222, at least three days in advance, to request auxiliary aids and/or translation services necessary to participate in the meeting.

San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Directors Committee c/o San Joaquin Council of 555 East Weber Ave. Stockton, CA 95202 Phone: 209-235-0600 FAX: 209-235-0438 San Joaquin Council of Andrew Chesley Chair Tulare County Association of Ted Smalley Vice Chair Fresno Council of Tony Boren Kern Council of Ahron Hakimi Kings County Association of Terri King Director(s) Andrew Chesley via phone Ted Smalley Tony Boren Robert Phipps in lieu of Ahron Hakimi Terri King Patricia Taylor Marjie Kirn Rosa Park Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 3, 2015 Time: 10:00 a.m. Meeting Host: Tulare County Association of Meeting Location: Professional Development Center 4031 W. Noble Visalia, CA 93277 Members Attending: MPO(s) San Joaquin Council of Tulare County Association of Fresno Council of Kern Council of Kings County Association of Madera County Transportation Commission Merced County Association of Stanislaus Council of Others: See Appendix A for List of Others Attending Madera County Transportation Commission Patricia Taylor Merced County Association of Marjie Kirn APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. August 6, 2015 Directors Meeting There was a motion to approve the August 6, 2015 Directors Committee minutes: First Motion: Second Motion: No Nays Motioned Carried Mr. Robert Phipps Ms. Terri King Stanislaus Council of Rosa Park

DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: 2. RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategies/Air Quality T. Taylor Update and Discussion Ms. Tanisha Taylor reported on the air quality update. Five of the eight MPOs have released their amendments for the 2012 PM2.5 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard. The remaining three will be released during the next couple of weeks for public comment. Ms. Tanisha Taylor noted that all eight will need to be approved at the same time by FHWA by the end of December. As a reminder, Ms. Tanisha Taylor noted this will be the last time for regionally significant amendments for Fresno COG, Stan COG and TCAG prior to the beginning of the lockdown. We are still coordinating with EPA and ARB in determining the end date of the lockdown. Additional updates and information will be provided as it becomes available. Of importance, ARB and EPA management are aware of the potential project delivery impacts, the current status of SBX1-1 as well as the 2016 STIP being committed in minimizing the impacts to the extent feasible. In terms of the RTP/SCS Ms. Tanisha Taylor reported that TCAG is currently undergoing through their ARB SCS review process along with KCAG. The process is moving forward with anticipated date of adoption by the ARB Board on October 22 nd or 23 rd during their board meeting in Sacramento. MCAG and MCTC are also moving through their process. In terms to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Investment Plan which is related to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program, the Draft Investment Plan is the second investment plan that ARB will be updating covering fiscal years 2016-17 and 2017-18. This plan will not impact the AHSC program for FY 2015-16 funding. The draft concept paper was released in July with an anticipated actual investment plan that outlines the funding to be released in September or early October time frame. Public workshops are scheduled for October with anticipated ARB Board action by end of November or December. The concept paper highlights six goals: 1. Maximize economic, environmental, and public health benefits to the State 2. Foster job creation by promoting in-state greenhouse gas emission reduction projects carried out by California workers and businesses 3. Compliment efforts to improve air quality 4. Direct investment toward the most disadvantaged communities and households in the State, including allocation of at least 10 percent of the investments to projects located within disadvantaged communities, and 25 percent to projects benefitting those communities 5. Provide opportunities for businesses, public agencies, nonprofits, and other community institutions to participate in and benefit from statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 6. Lessen the impacts and effects of climate change on the State s communities, economy, and environment. Ms. Tanisha Taylor noted that these goals line up with the valley and MPO priorities and suggested to continue to follow this process as this will dictate how FY 2016-17 and 2017-18 funds will be spent. The investment plan outlines three categories (1) Transportation and Sustainable Communities (2) Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency and (3) Natural Resources and Waste Diversion. Lastly in terms of the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program draft guidelines, it is anticipated that there will be draft guidelines in mid-september for the second round of funding. There are currently several meetings being developed to talk about several components of those guidelines and she encouraged the valley to participate in these meetings. Merced reported progress; they are pursuing a RTP amendment in lieu of the APS. There was no update from Madera. 3. Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program A. Chesley Follow Up Discussion Pertaining to the August 2015 Meeting With Strategic Growth Council Executive Director Winston 2

Ms. Tanisha Taylor reported that there is a meeting with the CalCOG sub-group that will talk about the MPO roles. Dates for the meeting is tentative but Mr. Chesley (who is a part of the sub-group) will be participating in the meeting (via phone) and will follow up and report back to this group. In terms of the September released guidelines, there is discussion in terms of how to help applicants in the valley by providing technical and policy support. Ms. Tanisha Taylor reiterated from a presentation by Mr. Sigala on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Program that within the Sustainable Communities Program the valley received only 6.7 percent of the total funding (24.7 million of 371 million) to which Ms. Tanisha Taylor noted does not reflect our population share. Mr. Sigala added he has been having conversation with several groups interested in providing technical assistance to applicants in the valley e.g. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, the San Joaquin Valley Partnership, the Rural Development Center, the Northern California Community Loan Fund and the California Housing Coalition. 4. Valley Legislative Affairs Committee (VLAC) R. Phipps a. Discuss Recent Federal and State Proposed Legislation Mr. Phipps reviewed the recent State and Federal proposed legislation, an enclosure was included in the agenda packet that highlighted the proposed legislation. Mr. Phipps highlighted SB16, SB32, SB516, AB1043, SB1X, and SB10X. Mr. Phipps added that Caltrans had sent out a request for support for the Reauthorization Consensus Principles which mirrors the reauthorization that we will be taking to Washington. VLAC had requested that Mr. Sigala prepare a letter on behalf of the COG Directors to the Valley congressional delegation that would endorse those principles. Mr. Phipps requested for a vote on this item. A discussion ensued regarding the principles along with the amendments of SB1X proposed legislation. A motion was called for supporting Caltrans letter for the Reauthorization Consensus Principles. First Motion: Second Motion: No Nays Motioned Carried Ms. Patricia Taylor Mr. Tony Boren b. Valley Voice Washington D.C. September 9 & 10, 2015 Update Mr. Phipps reported that final materials were sent out earlier this week, thanking Fresno COG staff for their efforts on organizing the binder material. Mr. Phipps noted that during the Policy Council meeting that took place last Friday (via phone) key decisions were made in terms of moving water as the first topic on the agenda and in the binder materials. Mr. Phipps added that there have been adjustments to the agenda that have not been reflected yet and that VLAC will be providing an updated agenda. 5. Valleywide Collaborative on Federal-Aid & STIP Programming D. Nguyen Discuss Swap Meet Activities Related to the 2016 STIP and Beyond Ms. Nguyen reported positive news on the federal aid. In terms of AB1012, a law that will reprogram any apportionments over three years old, and as a valley, no MPO in the valley is subject to AB1012. This means that all CMAQ and RSTP projects are being delivered. In terms of the FY 2014-15 apportionment obligation rates per each COG in the valley, we try to obligate 100 percent of the cut year apportionment and as of July 31, 2015 the following is the percent obligated per COG: Fresno: 86 percent (reflecting 19.4 million of projects authorized to proceed) Kern: 80 percent (reflecting 21 million of projects authorized to proceed) Kings: 65 percent Madera: 50 percent Merced: 81 percent San Joaquin: 103 percent Stanislaus: 92 percent Tulare: 63 percent 3

Ms. Nguyen expects all COGs will be reporting 100 percent obligation or will be exceeding it within the following couple of months that are still due for reporting. In terms of the STIP, Ms. Nguyen reported the valley has programs in the STIP ($220 million) that is part of the $2 billion statewide STIP. The valley s capital projects account for approximately 30 capital projects. Ms. Nguyen noted this is significant because the California Transportation Commission confirmed in their August meeting that there will be no new projects added into the STIP and that the existing projects will be made whole. However projects will need to be shifted 1-3 years in order to meet financial constraints. From the fund estimate, the new 2016 STIP will be a $2 billion dollar STIP with the last two years of the new STIP will account for $1 billion dollars of capacity. This means $1 billion dollars will be pushed back of the new STIP. This further underscores the need to work as a valley and retain position in existing programming years for projects which cannot move and to take advantage of projects that can be delayed to keep projects that are currently in programming. In terms of the existing STIP for the valley, in FY 2014-16, our total projects are $42 million, in FY 2016-17 there are $79 million, followed by $52 million and $43 million. As of today, we are still working with each COG staff and making connections with various agencies on STIP projects in order to determine what the shift will be (1-2 years) for projects. Ms. Nguyen added that next steps will be: SJCOG will continue to take the lead and work with the valley SWAMP group to acquire current schedules. SWAMP group will be meeting in the next couple of weeks and put together an analysis called the Valleywide STIP Analysis. In terms of RTIP development schedule, the RTIP is due to the CTC by December 16, 2015. 6. San Joaquin Valley Goods Movement M. Sigala a. I-5/SR 99 Goods Movement Corridor Study Update Mr. Sigala reported that Cambridge Systematics, Inc. was selected as the consultant group to begin work on the project. Fresno COG is the lead agency and is finalizing the contract. It is anticipated that the contract will be signed before the start up meeting tentatively scheduled for September 17, 2015 from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM. b. SJV Goods Movement Sustainable Implementation Plan Update Mr. Sigala reported that there were two submittals during the RFP process; Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and Hatch Mott MacDonald. Both teams were interviewed on August 14, 2015 in Stockton, and the evaluation committee selected Cambridge Systematics, Inc. as the preferred consultant. SJCOG has initiated the process for board approval in terms of entering into a contract with the preferred consultant. A start up meeting is tentatively scheduled for early October once the contract has been approved. 7. 2015 Fall Policy Conference S. Dabbs Receive Update Ms. Dabbs reported that they released the draft agenda on the event page of the Policy Council website along with reporting on the logistics in terms of keynote speakers scheduled to speak at the conference. Ms. Dabbs did request for help in terms of drumming up final registrations between now and the end of the month. Ms. Dabbs noted that she will be finalizing the agenda and will be sending that out. She encouraged each respective office to forward the agenda to their respective networks. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 8. Federal Highway Administration Report Mr. Smalley reported in lieu of Mr. Jack Lord who will be the principle contact replacing Mr. Jermaine Hannon until the end of this calendar year. Mr. Smalley stated that it is anticipated that there will be another extension to get us through the end of the calendar year. 4

9. Caltrans Directors Report S. Ehlert / D. Agar No update was reported. 10. San Joaquin JPA for Passenger Rail D. Leavitt Ms. Kirn reported in regards to the Improving and Expanding San Joaquin and ACE Passenger Rail Services hearing that took place in August that it was well attended. Mr. Smalley noted that the next board meeting will be September 18, 2015 in Merced (Merced County Board of Supervisors Chambers). 11. High Speed Rail D. Gomez No update was reported. 12. Proposition 84/Blueprint/Greenprint R. Terry Mr. Thompson reported for the Greenprint. They will be having a Greenprint Advisory Committee meeting next Thursday. He also added that there will be a shift from previous discussions on the expert panels to the pilot projects. He noted moving forward that they will be referring to the pilot projects as demonstration projects. The demonstration projects will demonstrate how they utilize some of the information that was developed in Phase One. Mr. Thompson anticipates presenting the RFP for the demonstration projects to the Directors in their October meeting (prior to releasing RFP). In terms of the expert panels, Mr. Thompson noted a a change. Initially they were perceived to be in person panels corresponding to the various themes within the Greenprint project. The panel will move to an Internet or online panel (virtual panel) moving forward due to the complexity of schedules for the panelist. In light of this, the panel group was expanded from experts in their respective professions to include state and federal agency representatives along with COGs. Their goal is to link the expert panel work to real world applications. 13. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley J. Chilingerian No update was reported. Mr. Smalley did request permission from this group for Mr. Sigala to attend and speak on behalf of the Directors in lieu of himself to attend the next California Partnership meeting. The group granted Mr. Smalley s request. 14. Regional Energy Planning M. Sigala Mr. Sigala reported things are moving forward and are in the process of engaging the cities in terms of identifying energy policies they are developing or policies they would like to pursue with the intent of helping them develop more sustainable policies. Mr. Sigala also highlighted and circulated a white paper on the impacts of solar farms on agricultural land in the San Joaquin Valley. OTHER ITEMS: 15. Director Items There were no director items reported. 16. Public Presentations for Items Not on Agenda. There were no public presentations reported. Meeting adjourned at approximately 11:40 A.M. Next Directors Meeting: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 3:00 PM (Tenaya Lodge at Yosemite) 5

Appendix A: List of Others Attending In Attendance: Individual(s) Clark Thompson Robert Phipps Matt Fell Elisabeth Hahn Ben Kimball Michael Sigala Jose Ramirez Organization(s) Fresno Council of Kern Council of Merced County Association of Stanislaus Council of Tulare Council of San Joaquin Valley Coordinator Sigala Inc On the phone: Individual(s) Organization(s) Robert Ball Kern Council of Chris Lehn Kings County Association of Stacie Dabbs Merced County Association of Jeff Findley Madera County Transportation Commission Diane Nyguen San Joaquin Council of Tanisha Taylor San Joaquin Council of David Ripperda San Joaquin Council of Melody Lin San Joaquin Council of Dennis Agar Caltrans, District 10 Ken Baxter Caltrans, District 10 Joanne Striebich Caltrans, District 6 Appendix B: List of Acronyms that may have been used in the minutes. ACRONYMS TERMS APS Alternative Planning Strategy ARB Air Resource Board ATP Active Transportation Program CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CALCOG California Association of Council of CalSTA California State Transportation Agency CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIPR California Intercity Passenger Rail CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality COG Council of CTA California Transit Association CTC California Transportation Commission FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG Green House Gas GSC Greenprint Steering Committee MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization PM 2.5 Particle Matter 2.5 RFP Request for Proposal RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation RPC Regional Policy Council RSTP Regional Surface Transportation Program RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTP Regional Transportation Plan RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency SGC Strategic Growth Council SIP State Implementation Plan SJJPA San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority SJV San Joaquin Valley STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program STP Surface Transportation Program 6

Memorandum DATE: September 17, 2015 TO: FROM: RE: Interested Stakeholders Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Staff Updates: 201516 SGC Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program This memo provides updates on the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program, including a summary of changes proposed to the 201516 SGC AHSC Program Guidelines. Public Review Draft Guidelines The 201516 Draft Guidelines reflect the robust feedback received on the first year of SGC AHSC Program, including our first round of applicants and awards, as well as comments from hundreds of diverse stakeholders. The proposed changes are intended to advance the goals and objectives of the AHSC Program by strengthening the connection between housing, transportation, and transit investments to further reduce vehicle miles travelled and greenhouse gas emissions while creating healthier, transitoriented environments. Proposed revisions cover a range of topics including: revised scoring criteria, the jurisdictional cap for localities, projects in rural areas, transportation capital improvements, housing and transportation collaboration, urban greening and green infrastructure, active transportation, and community benefits and engagement. Input on Draft Guidelines SGC will be holding several public workshops to describe proposed changes in the Draft Guidelines and hear public comments on the Draft Guidelines. Written comments may be sent to: AHSC@sgc.ca.gov no later than Friday, October 30, 2015 in order to be considered for the draft Final Guidelines document. The attached document will undergo public review, feedback, and staff revision prior to Council adoption of the final 201516 AHSC Guidelines at its December 17, 2015 meeting.

Other Updates September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 201516 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation (SALC) Program. Revised guidelines for the SALC Program will be released in early October, with public workshops to be announced. Staff anticipates adoption of 201516 SALC Program Guidelines at its December 17, 2015 meeting. Policy Considerations outside of the Guidelines. The attached draft does not address the following topics. Staff will provide options on these issues for Council discussion at the October 15, 2015 SGC meeting. Statewide Geographic Distribution of Funds Technical Assistance for AHSC Applicants Coordination with Metropolitan Planning Organizations Alignment of AHSC and SALC Programs 201415 AHSC Applicants Affected by the Jurisdictional Cap. Staff has developed an approach to allow projects affected by the $15 million AHSC award limit per locality to potentially receive funding. This approach will be presented at the October 15, 2015 SGC meeting. 2

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO 201516 AHSC GUIDELINES Notes An updated Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Quantification Methodology (Appendix D in the Program Guidelines) will be released by the Air Resources Board (ARB) under separate cover prior to public workshops on Draft Guidelines. ARB has prepared Draft Funding Guidelines for agencies administering GGRF appropriations to ensure the requirements of the GGRF Program are met. ARB anticipates presenting the Funding Guidelines for Board approval on September 24, 2015. These AHSC Guidelines may be revised to be consistent with the Final Funding Guidelines. The Draft Guidelines do not consider issues related to geographic distribution of AHSC funds. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The 201415 AHSC applications received reflected challenges in aligning transportation and transit capital projects with those of affordable housing developments. While the SGC recognizes that such alignment and partnerships occur over time, we have incorporated the following considerations to encourage a stronger balance of housing, transportation, and transit investments. Refinement of TOD and ICP Project Area Types TransitOriented Development (TOD) Project Areas. The Draft Guidelines acknowledges that some TOD areas have already (and recently) made significant investments in transportation and transit infrastructure. For TOD Project Areas, the Guidelines propose that transportation infrastructure is no longer required, but is an eligible cost. (p 8) Integrated Connectivity Project (ICP) Areas. All ICP projects are required to include Sustainable Transportation Improvements (STI), defined as transportation and transit capital costs which directly result in mode shift from passenger vehicles. (p 10) Clarity on Transportation Capital Improvements To ensure more meaningful transportation investments, the Draft Guidelines distinguishes what was Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure (STI) and TransportationRelated Amenities (TRAs). The STI category was created to support capital projects that result in mode shift from passenger vehicles to lowcarbon transportation options such as transit, walking, and bicycling. TRAs support these mode shifts by providing amenities to accommodate these modes. (p. 1415)

September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 201516 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines Emphasis on Transportation and Housing Partnerships Recognizing that planning and development of housing and transportation capital projects do not necessarily align to similar timeframes or processes, the Draft Guidelines provide greater flexibility with regard to coordination of capital costs. However, in order to encourage development of integrated projects, the Draft Guidelines encourage meaningful partnerships between transportation and transit projects and housing development through scored criteria. (p 39) CONSIDERATION OF BROADER POLICY GOALS Geographic Concerns Eliminates the Jurisdictional Cap for localities. Creation of New Project Area Type: Rural Innovation Project Areas o In consideration of the unique characteristics of rural communities and the roles they play in greenhouse gas emissions reduction, a new project area has been created to support innovative housing and transportation projects: Rural Innovation Project Areas (RIPAs). These projects will compete separately from other TOD and ICP projects, but must meet the same criteria as those required in an ICP Area. (p 610) o A rural community is defined based on Health & Safety Code 50199.21, and clarified here: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/2015/methodology.pdf o A target goal of 10 percent of AHSC funds would be invested in Rural Innovation Project Areas, but if insufficient eligible applications are received, funds would roll over to fund additional applications in other Project Area types. (p 610) Supplemental Strategies for GHG Reductions Active Transportation. The Draft Guidelines consider the cobenefits achieved from active transportation improvements supporting walking and bicycling, and provide additional points for clearly articulated purpose and need for such investments, as well as how the proposed improvements address the purpose and need. (p 3435) Urban Greening, Green Building, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy. Identified in the Draft urban greening, lowimpact design, site development and energy efficiency standards, and onsite renewable energy generation, in most cases to exceed current or pending building code standards. (p 3537) Incentives to Encourage Use of 4% Low Income Tax Credit Program Increases loan limits per unit of $50,000 (from $30,000) per restricted unit for the purposes of loan limit calculations. (p 17) 9% tax credit reservations must have a tax credit reservation in hand from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) to be considered an Enforceable Funding Commitment. (p A2) 4

OTHER PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 201516 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines Planning Costs are no longer standalone Eligible Costs, and has been incorporated into soft costs associated with Affordable Housing Development, HousingRelated Infrastructure, Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure, and TransportationRelated Amenities. (p 11, 13, 15, 16, 19) Requires all AHSCfunded Affordable Housing Developments to provide at least one secure overnight bicycle parking for every two units. This may be funded by AHSC funds, but does not count toward required Project Area components. (p 12) Exempts Acquisition and Substantial Rehabilitation projects from minimum density requirements. (p 12) Limits the amount of AHSC funds allowed for parking, with the intent to phase out parking as an allowable cost altogether in future funding rounds. (p 1314) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: CALCULATIONS AND REFINEMENT OF METHODOLOGY Calculation of GHG Reductions Scores and Binning. The GHG Quantifications Methodology scoring criteria focus on two components of GHG reductions: GHG Component Calculation Total Points Possible Increment of Points/Bin 1) Total Reductions Total GHGs Reduced 15 3 2) Cost Efficiency of Reductions Total Project GHG Reductions AHSC $ Requested 15 3 Each of these components results in a total maximum score of 15 points. Each component will be ranked from highest to lowest and be assigned an incremental point value based on reductions associated with the application. occur in increments of three points and are designed to award points to projects with similar GHG emissions reductions. Diversification of GHG Reductions Score. The Total GHG Reductions Score, including the GHG Quantifications Methodology (30 points) and Supplemental Strategies (20 points) respond to the Year 1 concerns related to: 1) Year 1 increments/bins being too large (11 points), and 2) the priority of points on the GHG reductions, based only on cost efficiency weighing too heavily (55 of 100 total points). The 201516 Draft Guidelines attempt to better balance the GHG Quantifications Methodology with other Supplemental Strategies, including Active Transportation and Water Energy and Greening, and adjust bin score increments, addressing some of the concerns around the potential unevenness of this scoring criterion. (p 3234) ARB is preparing updates to the Quantification Methodology to provide increased usability to applicants, incorporate feedback from the July SGC Lessons Learned workshops, and provide greater consistency to approach (instead of the FY 2014 to estimate GHG reductions. The Quantification Methodology will be consistent w 5

September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 201516 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines Communities Program (AHSC) Guidelines for FY 20152016. ARB anticipates the draft will be available for public comment at AHSC workshops in October 2015. SGC and ARB staff are working with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) to identify updates to CalEEMod, and to determine whether the updated model will be available for the FY 1516 AHSC Program. CAPCOA, which owns and maintains CalEEMod, is currently updating the model to include model and data refinements, some of which are in response to comments received through the AHSC Program last year. Peer review is pending on new research regarding depth of affordability and GHG reductions. SGC staff plan on putting together an independent blind peer review of the Center for Neighborhood as a Climate GHG quantification methodologies. ELIGIBILITY AND APPLICANT LIMITS AND THRESHOLDS Increases the Developer Cap from $15 million to $40 million per developer per NOFA cycle. (p 17) Minimum and maximum award amounts (p 17): Minimum Maximum 201415 Round 201516 Proposed Guidelines for both TODs and ICPs $500,000 (ICP) $1 million (TOD) $8 million (ICP) $15 million (TOD) $1 million $20 million Clarifies joint and several liability for joint applicants. (p 20) Clarifies threshold requirements for environmental clearances (CEQA and NEPA). (p 26) Strengthens threshold requirements related to no net loss of housing units for AHSCfunded projects. (p 28) 6

APPLICATION SCORING AND SCREENING CRITERIA Screening of Applicants at Concept September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 201516 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines To the extent that the number of applications received exceed that of 200% of the total amount available in the Notice of Funding Availability, applicants meeting all threshold requirements will be invited to submit a full application based on the following filter (p 21): Demonstration of the level of Enforceable Funding Commitments (EFCs) calculated as follows: AHSC Funds Requested + EFCs Deferred Costs Total Development Cost Invites to Full Application will include up to 200% of the respective targets within each Project Area category and statutory setaside (affordable housing and disadvantaged communities), based on the total amount available designated in the Notice of Funding Availability. (p 21) At least one concept proposal from each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) jurisdiction will be invited to submit a full application, provided it meets all threshold requirements. (p 21) Scoring Criteria at Full Application The proposed scoring criteria for the 201516 Draft AHSC Guidelines is provided in Table 1. In addition to some of the changes mentioned above, a few changes of note: Housing and Transportation Collaboration. To allow for greater flexibility and reward more meaningful coordination, the 201516 AHSC Draft Guidelines do not require Housing and Transportation Capital Projects in any project prototypes. However, coordination between housing and transportation infrastructure is still a policy goal of the Program. This category encourages collaboration between housing, transportation, and transit partners by incentivizing joint applications and coordinated investments in both housing and transportation capital projects. (p. 3940) Community Benefit and Engagement. This category refines and captures the objectives of meaningful public engagement and direct implementation of community benefits that reflect community needs and interests. Cobenefits of GHG reduction will continue to be tracked and measured, per ARB Guidance. (p 4042) Access to Destinations. This category replaces the Accessibility to Employment and some components of the 201415 Walking and Biking Criteria, using Walkscore and Bikescore to estimate accessibility and proximity of services and key destinations, as well as bike infrastructure to address location efficiency with regard to the Project. (p 42) Depth and Level of Housing Affordability. Points for this criterion have been increased to 10 points in the 201516 Draft Guidelines. The 201415 Guidelines awarded up to 6.5 points for this criterion. (p 37 39) 7

September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 201516 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines Funds Leveraged. Focuses on capital project and program activities leveraged by other Enforceable Funding Commitments. (p 4243) AntiDisplacement. The Draft Guidelines provide additional points for demonstration of policies, strategies, or programs designed to avoid both physical and economic displacement of lowincome residents and businesses of the Project Area. (p 4344) Table 1 Proposed Scoring Criteria for 201516 AHSC Program GHG Reductions GHG Quantification Methodology (CalEEMod and Transportation and POINTS Connectivity (TAC)) Total Project GHG Reductions 15 Efficiency of Reductions (Total Project GHG Reductions/AHSC $ 15 Request) Supplemental Strategies Active Transportation Improvements 10 Water, Energy, and Greening 10 GHG REDUCTIONS SUBTOTAL 50 Policy Objectives Depth and Level of Housing Affordability 10 Housing and Transportation Collaboration 10 Community Benefit and Engagement 8 Access to Destinations 8 Funds Leveraged 5 Anti-Displacement Strategies 4 Program Need and Readiness 3 Implementation of Planning Efforts 2 POLICY OBJECTIVES SUBTOTAL 50 TOTAL POINTS 100 8

September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 201516 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines CONSIDERATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES In its first year, the AHSC Program Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to disseminate information about the program, convene workshops, and provide initial technical assistance to applicants. As appropriate, MPO staff also served as reviewers of AHSC applications at concept and full application, providing insight into applicant implementation of applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and in some cases, provided recommendations based on criteria adopted by the respective region. In this second year of the AHSC Program, we look forward to ongoing coordination between the State and MPOs to continue to inform the updated AHSC Program Guidelines and provide closer alignment of state and regional objectives. We envision this occurring in four categories, to be developed with consideration for each region unique needs and capacity. The following provides examples of potential partnerships, which may include other public, private, or nonprofit partners. Additional details are being developed, and will be brought forward prior to Council adoption of the guidelines. Table 2 Possible Options for MPO Engagement and Input Regional/Local Capacity Building Outreach and Information Sharing Application Development and Assistance Application Review and Recommendations Examples/Options Identifying pipeline projects, leveraging past regional planning grants, SGC Prop 84 recipients, etc. Identifying and developing partnership opportunities between housing, transportation, transit partners, and other public, nonprofit, community stakeholders Determining local capacity needs for future applications Regional informational workshops Topicspecific workshops Presentations to local boards, groups Development of resource material Grant writing assistance GHG quantification Partnership development Data, GIS assistance At Concept: o Review of applications for consistency with SCS At Full Application: o MPO review of Full Applications, using regionallyadopted criteria. Recommendations provided to the State for consideration. o MPO staff reviews regional applications along with other interagency State reviewers. Major differences in scores discussed through consensusbased approach to determine final score. 9

SIMON AND COMPANY INCORPORATED Intergovernmental Relations and Federal Affairs 1660 L Street, NW Suite 501 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 659-2229 Fax (202) 659-5234 e-mail: len.simon@simoncompany.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Melissa Garza Len Simon Jen Covino 2015 San Joaquin Valley Voice: Observations and Recommendations DATE: September 19, 2015 Thanks again for the opportunity to work with the 2015 San Joaquin Valley Voice delegation. In addition to our September 19 Meeting Summary memo, we are pleased to provide these Observations and Recommendations to help guide 2016 planning. (1) Meeting Locations. Our 122 Cannon location was comfortable and convenient to congressional speakers, guests and One Voice delegates. All our six House members (seven if you count leader McCarthy s staff) invited were on time this year possibly because 122 Cannon is close to their offices compared to the Congressional Visitors Center, which is more difficult to get to quickly and sometimes hard to navigate. Our three invited federal agencies and NARC speaker also found 122 easily. We are grateful to Rep. Nunes for reserving 122. We recommend 122 Cannon or comparable House office building space next year. (2) Valley Voice Dates. Having the meeting start one day after Congress comes back from its August recess worked fine this year. It would be equally workable to move it forward one week. Members of Congress seemed very engaged and eager to discuss their agendas following the long summer recess. We recommend this date or a week later for 2016. (3) Priorities and Briefing Materials. The presentation of Valley Voice project and policy priorities was targeted and effective. During the next Valley Voice meeting, it is likely that Congress and the Administration will continue to be working on these issues. The streamlined briefing packet was excellent and should be continued. One suggestion consider further distinction between freight and goods movement in the presentations. Specific federal grants which align to policy priorities should also be identified and legislative or regulatory language suggestions would be welcomed by federal policy makers where appropriate. Finally, it might also be helpful to finalize the policy document after Congress

leaves for its August recess in order to reflect its latest developments before coming back after Labor Day. (4) A Wrap-Up Session. Our speakers provided so much information and insight and the interaction was so detailed with delegates that we think it might be useful to set aside 30 minutes at the conclusion of the meeting for a wrap-up session focusing on next steps. We recommend that the agenda be structured so that the last 30 minutes can be a delegates and staff discussion on Wrap-Up- What We Learned and Next Action Steps. (5) Delegates Meetings and Lunch. There is a certain impact as delegates disperse to the cafeterias for much needed lunch and refreshments. Happily, all come back, but not everyone at once! We recommend that Valley Voice explore the possibility of boxed lunches for the delegates, which would add to meeting cohesion and might even permit adding an additional speaker or two to the agenda. In additional many delegates quite appropriately have other meetings or travel plans connected to the Washington trip. It might be useful to schedule the agenda with those in mind. We hope this is helpful as you begin planning Valley Voice 2016. Congratulations on a successful 2015 effort the Valley Voice delegates represented the region in a very effective manner and made good progress on advancing their federal priorities. Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can help in any other way. We look forward to talking with you soon.

San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Directors Committee INFORMATIONAL ITEMS October 6, 2015 8. RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategies/AQ Update Tanisha Taylor may provide additional information for subject matters not covered under Item 2 on the agenda. 9. Caltrans Directors Report S. Ehlert/D. Agar Sharri Ehlert (District 6 Director) and Dennis T. Agar (District 10 Director), or their representatives, may be in attendance to provide an update and answer any questions. 10. San Joaquin JPA for Passenger Rail D. Leavitt Dan Leavitt, Manager of Regional Initiatives, or his representative may be in attendance to provide an update and answer any questions. 11. High Speed Rail D. Gomez Diana Gomez, Central Valley Regional Director, or her representative may be in attendance to provide an update and answer any questions. 12. Proposition 84/Blueprint/Greenprint R. Terry Prop 84, Round 2. Following is a brief report on the status of Round 2 activities: (Task 1) Greenprint: The Management Committee had its most recent conference call on Friday, September 25. The purpose of the call was twofold; first, to solidify the project schedule going forward and second, to finalize a new direction to the expert panels task. With regard to the schedule, the major milestone now is the release of the Request for Proposals for Demonstration Projects (formerly referred to as Pilot Projects) the first week of January. The work of the expert panels will feed into the RFP, as noted below, and must, therefore, be completed by mid-december. The focus now with the expert panels and other stakeholders is to identify and come to agreement on the major topical issues affecting the non-urban lands of the Valley that correspond to the Greenprint themes of water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy, and the Valley s rural economy. Input will be solicited from the experts and also the County Planning Directors, the COGs (because of their responsibility to develop Sustainable Community Strategies), the Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley and its relevant workgroups, and other stakeholder agencies and organizations (particularly state and federal agencies). A report will be prepared detailing the results of this input, which will be used as the basis for the Demonstration Projects. Demonstration Projects should be able to use the Greenprint resources developed in Phase I to map and analyze an issue, and identify synergies or conflicts among resources and other uses. For any questions regarding the Greenprint, please contact Clark Thompson at (559) 233-4148 Ext. 203 or via email at clarkt@fresnocog.org. (Task 2) Model Land-Use Revalidation activities (Model Improvement Program Phase 2) have been ongoing since January 2014. Fehr and Peers, as the selected consultant, is conducting activities associated with the project, including data collection and processing, refinement of model input data; and model estimation, calibration, validation, evaluation and associated training activities. In addition, the consultant is overseeing all project management and information sharing details.

San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Directors Committee INFORMATIONAL ITEMS October 6, 2015 For any questions regarding Model Land-Use Revalidation efforts, please contact Mike Bitner at (559) 233-4148 Ext. 216 or via email at mbitner@fresnocog.org. (Task 3) Due to the completion of several anticipated Round 2 activities within Round 1, DOC representatives approved the re-allocation of line item funds to increase the amount of funding for both SCS printing/duplication for outreach and public involvement, as well as the amount available to assist with RHNA coordination. A total of $55,000 for RHNA coordination and $88,674 for SCS printing/duplication reflect the new line items. These amounts are to be allocated to each COG based upon population percentages (utilizing the Planning Center data), similar to other valley activities in the recent past. Below is a chart showing the breakdown of such allocations: Population % of Valley Population % of SCS $ % of RHNA $ Fresno* 995,868 24% $20,841.54 $13,200.00 Kern 907,502 21% $18,992.21 $11,550.00 Kings* 164,291 4% $3,438.28 $2,200.00 Madera* 164,714 4% $3,447.14 $2,200.00 Merced* 271,651 6% $5,685.12 $3,300.00 San Joaquin* 730,119 17% $15,279.94 $9,350.00 Stanislaus* 543,172 13% $11,367.51 $7,150.00 Tulare 459,779 11% $9,622.26 $6,050.00 TOTAL 4,237,096 100% $88,674 $55,000 *Indicates agencies that have recently billed All Round 2 activities must be completed by 9/30/16, in accordance with the 3-year DOC grant period. All billing for fiscal year 2014/15 was due by Tuesday, August 11, 2015. All submitted bills beyond this date must be for fiscal year activities in 2015/16. For any questions regarding SCS Implementation activities, please contact Rob Terry at (559) 233-4148 Ext. 222 or via email at rterry@fresnocog.org. 13. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley J. Chilingerian Information on the 4 th Annual SJV Affordable Housing Summit is attached. Jenna Chilingerian, Program Director, can be reached at 599.278.0721 or via email: jennac@csufresno.edu 14. Regional Energy Planning M. Sigala Sustainable Energy Roadmap for the San Joaquin Valley (Strategic Growth Council). Jurisdictional outreach to Valley cities and counties is ongoing and will continue for the next several months. To date, the cities of Visalia, Fresno, Avenal, Firebaugh, Kingsburg, Mendota, Orange Cove, San Joaquin, Sanger, Kerman, Corcoran and Huron have executed a program agreement. The cities of Parlier and Farmersville are pending. Work on the individual city roadmaps has started for those cities that are under contract. The initial phase includes a survey of existing renewable energy policies and programs.

ITEM 13 For Immediate Release: September 24, 2015 Contact: Jenna Chilingerian Community and Regional Planning Center Office of Community and Economic Development, Fresno State jennac@csufresno.edu 5592786119 2015 San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Awards Honoring Valley Projects and People that reflect the Blueprint Principles M erced- The following San Joaquin Valley Blueprint awards will be presented by the Community & Regional Planning Center at the 11th Annual San Joaquin Valley Fall Policy Conference on October 8, 2015, to be held at the Tenaya Lodge at Yosemite. The purpose of the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Awards program is to encourage quality in planning and development by recognizing outstanding achievements and practices in the built environment. In recognizing and celebrating projects that reflect the Blueprint Principles, we hope to provide visual examples of attractive, functional and environmentally friendly projects that could have relevance throughout the Valley. Nominations were solicited from throughout the San Joaquin Valley. A selection committee reviewed the nominations and selected submittals for recognition. We are pleased to announce the following 2015 Blueprint Awards recipients: MIXED USE PROJECTS Award of Excellence The City of Bakersfield, Community Development Department 1612 City Lofts (Bakersfield, CA) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Award of Excellence The City of Turlock and EAH Housing Avena Bella (Turlock, CA) Award of Merit The California State University, Bakersfield Student Housing Complex (Bakersfield, CA) DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PROJECTS Award of Excellence Granville Homes Brio on Broadway (Fresno, CA) Award of Merit The Newberry Building Ten Space (Stockton, CA) TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Award of Excellence The City of Clovis Dry Creek Trailhead (Clovis, CA) Award of Merit Caltrans Bradley Overhead on Highway 140 (Merced, CA) DARREL HILDEBRAND BLUEPRINT LEADERSHIP AWARD San Joaquin Sustainable Communities Coalition (San Joaquin County) Office of Community & Economic Development California State University, Fresno Student Recreation Center Lyles Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship 5010 N. Woodrow Avenue Suite 200, M/S WC142 Fresno, California 93740 P 559.294.6021 F 559.294.6024 www.fresnostate.edu/oced ADMINISTERED BY

Blueprint Awards Background and Criteria On April 1, 2009, the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council adopted a list of 12 Smart Growth Principles ( Blueprint Principles ) to be used as the basis of Blueprint planning in the San Joaquin Valley. The Valley s eight regional transportation planning agencies created an awards program in 2010 specifically designed to recognize Sustainable Development Projects in six subcategories: residential, commercial, mixed use, historic district, downtown revitalization, and transportation enhancement. Nominations are solicited for projects that are Blueprint friendly and incorporate the principles outlined below. 1. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices 2. Create walkable neighborhoods 3. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration 4. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place 5. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective 6. Mix land uses 7. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices 9. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities 10. Take advantage of compact building design 11. Enhance the economic vitality of the region 12. Support actions that encourage environmental resource management Criteria for the Darrel Hildebrand Blueprint Leadership Award include support and effectiveness of Blueprint planning concepts and implementation. Past award recipients include: Barbara Steck, Executive Director (Retired), Fresno Council of John Wright, Chairman, Valley Planner s Network Carol Ornelas, CEO, Visionary Home Builders Law Nelson, Public Works Director, City of Tulare Bill Spriggs, Past Chairman, SJV Regional Policy Council The Blueprint awards program is sponsored by the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council, the Central Section of Cal Chapter APA, Association of Environmental Professionals Central Chapter, and the Community and Regional Planning Center at Fresno State. PAGE 2 OF 2

4th Annual San Joaquin Valley Affordable Housing Summit Bakersfield Marriott at the Convention Center 801 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield The Affordable Housing Summit brings together community development professionals from across the state, to bolster advocacy and promote efforts working toward improving access to affordable housing in the San Joaquin Valley. CALL FOR NOMINATIONS 2015 AHS Sponsorship Packet and Form Alicia Sebastian California Coalition for Rural Housing alicia@calruralhousing.org Jenna Chilingerian Community and Economic Development at Fresno State jennac@csufresno.edu brought to you by Affordable Housing Developers Financial Institutions and Lenders City/County/State Staff Community Advocates Health Professionals Architecture and Real Estate Professionals Housing Counselors Service Groups REGISTER HERE! in partnership with