San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council c/o Kings County Association of 339 West D Street, Suite B Lemoore, CA 93245 Phone: 559-852-2654 FAX: 559-924-5632 Chair Supervisor Allen Ishida Tulare County Vice-Chair Mayor Robert Poythress City of Madera Fresno Council of Kern Council of Kings County Association of Meeting Agenda Friday, October 11, 2013 Time: 1:30 p.m. Meeting Location: San Joaquin Valley Fall Policy Conference University Plaza Waterfront Hotel, Directors Room 1 110 West Fremont Street Stockton, California 95202 Toll Free Number: 1-800-325-1307 Participant Code: 243245 ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR APPROVAL OF MINUTES Enclosure þ 1. June 21, 2013 Regional Policy Council Meeting Madera County Transportation Commission Merced County Association of DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS 2. Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies for the San Joaquin Valley Update and Discussion 3. California Association of Council of (CALCOG) San Joaquin Council of Stanislaus Council of Terri King Bill Higgins Update on Statewide Initiatives 4. San Joaquin JPA for Passenger Rail Dan Leavitt Update and Discussion 5. San Joaquin Valley Goods Movement Plan Sup. Ishida California Freight Advisory Committee Update and Discussion Tulare County Association of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District www.sjvcogs.org 6. Valley Legislative Affairs Committee Terri King þ Roy Wasden þ Discuss Follow Up Items from Valley Voice D.C. 2013 7. Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process Support Recommended Change in State Law to Designate COGs as Lead in Preparing County Projections
Enclosure 8. Strategic Growth Council, Planning Grant Program Staff þ Receive Update on Proposed Valleywide Round III Funding Application(s) 9. Cap and Trade SJV Coalition for Disadvantaged Communities Staff Update and Discussion INFORMATIONAL ITEMS The following items are for informational purposes and require no action or vote. A member of the public or Regional Policy Council member may request that any informational item be pulled for further discussion. Written summaries of Informational Items are included in the agenda packet. þ 10. SR 99/Caltrans Report C. Bowen/S. Ehlert 11. Short Haul Rail (SB 325) T. Smalley 12. High Speed Rail D. Gomez 13. Proposition 84/Blueprint/Greenprint R. Terry 14. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley M. Dozier 15. SJV Regional Energy Planning M. Sigala OTHER ITEMS 16. Executive Director s Report T. King 17. Member Comments 18. Public Presentation for Items Not on Agenda This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on items within its jurisdiction but NOT on this agenda. Unscheduled comments may be limited to 3 minutes. Note: The general public may comment on listed agenda items as they are considered. Next Regional Policy Council Meeting: Friday, December 13, 2013 (Location TBD) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodations The meeting location and restrooms are ADA accessible. Representatives or individuals with disabilities should contact the SJV Regional Planning Agencies at 559.266.6222, at least 3 days in advance, to request auxiliary aids and/or translation services necessary to participate in the public meeting.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council c/o Kings County Association of 339 West D Street, Suite B Lemoore CA 93245 Phone: 559-852-2654 FAX: 559-924-5632 Chair Supervisor Allen Ishida Tulare County Vice-Chair Mayor Robert Poythress Tulare County Fresno Council of Kern Council of Regional Policy Council Meeting Friday, June 21, 2013 Time: 10:00 a.m. Meeting Location: Fresno Council of Sequoia Room 2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201 Fresno, California 93721 ITEM 1 Kings County Association of Madera County Transportation Commission Merced County Association of San Joaquin Council of Stanislaus Council Of Executive Minutes Members Attending: Allen Ishida, Supervisor, County of Tulare, TCAG Chair Gary Yep, Mayor, City of Kerman, Fresno County (via phone) Amarpreet Dhaliwal, Mayor, City of San Joaquin Cheryl Wegman, Kern COG, Councilmember, City of Wasco (via phone) Tom Wheeler, Madera CTC, Supervisor, Madera County Charles Goeken, Mayor, City of Waterford, Stanislaus County John Pedrozo, MCAG, Supervisor, Merced County (via phone) Joe Oliveira, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Gustine, Merced County Chuck Winn, San Joaquin COG, Councilmember, City of Ripon Luis Molina, Mayor, City of Patterson (via phone) Charles Goeken, Mayor, City of Waterford (via phone) Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Others: See Appendix A for list of others attending Tulare County Association of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. March 22, 2013 Regional Policy Council Meeting (enclosure) Supervisor Tom Wheeler motion for approval, seconded by Seyed Sadredin. Mayor Amarpreet Dhaliwal abstained. Motion approved.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS (Discussion/Actions items were not presented in order) 3. Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Patricia Taylor Community Strategies for the San Joaquin Valley Update and Discussion Patricia Taylor reported: Staffs of all agencies are working together and moving forward on the regional transportation plans, SCSs, and EIR reports. There was a staff call on May 29, 2013 that confirmed all MPOs are on track and moving forward. At the Directors meeting in May the consensus was to move the adoption date from December to April 1, 2014. Technical work is still being completed; technical analysis will be completed from July thru September with our draft documents prepared in October for a November public release date. There will be a public outreach effort with hopes that all MPOs will be adopting by the March deadline for submittal by April 1, 2014 (except Kings County). No comments or questions. 6. Cap and Trade, AB 32 Seyed Sadredin Update and Discussion Seyed Sadredin reported that ARB has come up with their spending for allocating the funds. He added that the government borrowed $500 million dollars from the early auction revenues with the intent to pay back with no specific timeline or payment plan laid out. This has not been received well from environmental organizations or the legislature. Mr. Sadredin continued to add that they were able to include a target for areas such as the San Joaquin Valley which are highly impacted by air pollution which is related to green house gases. Mr. Sadredin s concerns is with the transportation coalition that has been formed and he doesn t believe the valley is doing what they need to do by way of unifying, forming a coalition in an organized fashion. Mr. Sadredin motioned to officially designate Michael Sigala and Tom Jordan to lead the effort with respect to a coalition with guidance from the Policy Council. Allen Ishida added that he would like Tom Jordan to approach the board of supervisors for each county to include resolutions from those boards. Amarpreet Dhaliwal directed a question if the governors partnership is also engaged in this process. Mr. Sadredin responded he doesn t believe so and added that for the valley to have a meaningful result (receive share of funds), the valley needs to be better organized. Tom Wheeler commented that he shares Mr. Sadredin s position that the valley needs to come together. Mr. Wheeler seconds Mr. Sadredin s motion. Mr. Dhaliwal suggested that we include someone from the partnership. Ms. Taylor added to Mr. Sadredin s motion, that the directors at their next meeting (July) would like to discuss further and added this is an opportunity for the group to work in parallel with the transportation coalition in order to ensure that the valley receives funding based on the valley s need related to cap and trade. Mr. Sadredin added that obviously the COG director s participation is vital but waiting until July s meeting along with the legislative season moving forward will be a constraint in terms of timing and suggested for any concerns to be raised. Mr. Ishida reiterated the first (Seyed Sadredin) and second (Tom Wheeler) motion on the floor. Motioned carried. No further comments or questions. 5. California High Speed Rail Diana Gomez Update and Discussion 2
Diana Gomez reported on construction project 1 (CP1) and received approval from their board to award the contract to Tutor Perini Corporation. They also were given clearance from the Surface Transportation Board exempting the project permitting approval for construction. They are in the process of purchasing right away and are seeking to give notice to proceed with the contractor in late July or early August. On the section from Fresno to Bakersfield, they are making significant progress and are planning to have a preferred alignment by a fall timeframe and have an EIR by end of the year or early next year. The RFQ for CP2 and CP3 for the section beginning at American Avenue (Fresno County) thru Wasco (just north of Wasco) will be released late July early August. Ms. Gomez also mentioned the Y-section in Chowchilla/Fairmead. They have done community outreach with stakeholders, farm bureaus, city council and the community to obtain input on the alignment. EIR clearance is expected by early spring next year (2014). Mr. Ishida directed a question regarding reading in the newspaper that there are potential problems with the alignment in Kings County due to the water table. Ms. Gomez responded they are continuing to study both alignments (Hanford west and Hanford east) along with reviewing information obtained from the city concerning a low water table. Tony Boren asked if there will be a formal ground breaking event. Ms. Gomez replied there are working with the contractors on a timeframe when work is slated to begin and are anticipating a ground breaking for mid August. No further comments or questions. 2. PRESENTATION: San Joaquin Valley Interregional Sophie Hartshorn Goods Movement Plan Receive and Approve Draft Final Report Sophie Hartshorn, Cambridge Systematics, gave a synopsis (power point presentation) of the work done to date on the Goods Movement Plan Draft Final Report and outlined project outcomes: A six step, data driven process to select and prioritize project. A multimodal priority list that represents the regional Stakeholders combined vision Efficiency/Economy/Environment (48 projects). Strategies that build on regional strengths/address regional competitiveness needs Funding and implementing strategy. Mr. Sadredin queried about last mile projects and some of the policy issues considered. Carlos Yamzon added that there are corrections that need to be addressed concerning projects and the counties they are located in. Ms. Hartshorn acknowledged the comment. Mr. Boren commented if there was a discussion regarding individual owner/operators truck drivers and the lack of availability of designated parking. Ms. Hartshorn indicated this was a good point that was not highlighted in the study and will go back and examine it further. Mr. Ishida mentioned that he attended the California Freight Advisory Meeting and added that the Valley is leading most areas with this study (Goods Movement Plan). Although what is lacking Mr. Ishida points out is short rail. There needs to be projects identified that we want to accomplish on the short rail line and layout a map of priorities on how the valley wants to move forward with the short rail program. Mr. Ishida added that he would like to expand that section generating a working plan that involves all the counties that rail runs through and ask for plans for use of this rail, creating a list of rail projects (like the road plan before us) in order to present this on behalf of the eight counties to the state group. Mr. Ishida also commented that Rail America was purchased by Genesee & Wyoming who have expressed in meetings a desire to increase business on that rail line. He added that this is an opportunity to partner with that they have not been able to address in the past. A conversation ensued with comments of support of expanding the short haul rail portion of the study along with the logistics of creating a master list of projects (rail) as the initial starting point. 3
RJ Cervantes complimented the study, the list of projects and list of strategic programs that they have no issues with. He commented that the CTA (CA Trucking Association) is pushing the Freight Advisory Council for the recognition on the trucking community s effort in terms of air quality. From now to 2023 will be spending a billion annually. By 2023 all Class 7 and Class 8 trucks will be 2010 or newer engines. o 90 percent reduction in particular matter and NOx on a statewide basis. Mr. Cervantes encouraged this plan to recognize the trucking community s efforts in terms of air quality. Mr. Cervantes added the CTA is supportive of a Diesel Excise Tax increase on a statewide basis to fund maintenance and rehabilitation including goods movement efficiency projects. Finally Mr. Cervantes added that they are monitoring constitutional amendments that are being considered in the legislature. Michael Sigala suggested receiving this final report that has been released to the public and are still taking comments on thru the end of July. Mr. Sigala requested for a motion on the Draft Final Report. Motion made by Mr. Wheeler, seconded by Mr. Dhaliwal (contingent on further corrections or additions). Motion carried. Mr. Ishida again reiterated the importance on the California perspective that we have rail projects that have been identified to put into the state rail plan. No further comments or questions. 4. San Joaquin JPA for Passenger Rail Dan Leavitt Update and Discussion Dan Leavitt reported They now have 10 member agencies that are part of the JPA. Kings County Association of was the last member agency to join out of the eleven potential agencies with Kern Council of being the remainder. Only six member agencies were needed to form the JPA. First board meeting Merced County Supervisor John Pedrozo was selected as chairperson. Fresno County Supervisor Henry Perea and Sacramento City Council Steve Cohn were selected as vicechairs. Two board meeting have been held: o March 22, 2013 (proceeded the Regional Policy Council Meeting) Election of officers Action to approve by-laws Approve letter supporting CA Intercity Passenger Rail Program Funding Approve comment letter for Draft State Rail Plan o May 24, 2013 Approve managing agency process and criteria Board directed staff to set up meetings with the officers of the JPA with CA High Speed Rail Authority to discuss their upcoming business plan Meet with Caltrans leadership to discuss deployment of the Comet Cars o Next board meeting July 26, 2013 Approve managing agency Agenda items with progress being made for CA High Speed Rail Authority and with Caltrans regarding Comet Cars. o Managing Agency elements Three year term Handle all staffing needs (administrative, management, financial and legal) Request for Proposals was released June 1, 2013 Deadline July 15, 2013 Interviews on July 18, 2013 Recommendation and expected approval July 26, 2013 (at board meeting in Fresno) JPA has been working in partnership with others promoting the CA Initiative Rail Program including the Capital Corridor JPA, the LOSSAN board, as well as others. Met with members of the legislature and their staffs and discussed the importance and benefits of the rail program. Reported that the governor s budget will have an addition $18 million dollars to cover loss of federal funds. Next steps: o Assemblymember Dickenson (from Sacramento) will take the lead in help making the rail program a higher priority in the legislature. 4
o Put together a joint statement of support with partners to support receiving additional money in this year s budget. o Will be holding meeting with the chairs and vice-chairs of various partner agencies on July 18-19, 2013 to advocate for the services. Announce the first field work event taking place in Hanford with more details at the next board meeting. JPA will effectively take over the management and administrative services of the San Joaquin Service by June 30, 2014. Mr. Ishida inquired about the communication between the Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley and the JPA. Mr. Leavitt responded at this point they have not sat down for further discussions with the Partnership, although he added that the Partnership has been one of the long time supporters of the JPA who have also participated in the JPA board meetings. No further comments or questions. 7. Valley Legislative Affairs Committee Jeff Findley a. Approve Federal Platform for Valley Voice D.C. (Sep. 11-12) Jeff Findley announced that included in the agenda packet is the draft 2013 Federal Legislative Platform for the Valley Voice D.C. trip that was approved by directors in their last meeting and VLAC is seeking further consideration and approval by the Policy Council. Mr. Wheeler motioned to approve, seconded by Mr. Dhaliwal. Motioned carried. No comments or questions. b. Legislative Support for Pending Bills There was no discussion for support on pending bills. No comment or questions. 8. Regional Policy Council Meeting Calendar FY 2013-14 Michael Sigala Approve Mr. Sigala commented that there was one update in terms of the directors meeting that needs editing and added that all dates referring to the Policy Council are correct. Mr. Wheeler motioned to approve, seconded by Mr. Sadredin. Motion carried. No comment or questions. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 9. SR 99 / Caltrans Report C. Bowen/S. Ehlert No update. No comment or questions. 10. Short Haul Rail (SB 325) T. Smalley Ted Smalley commented on the switch of ownership from Rail America being purchased by Genesee & Wyoming. Mr. Smalley added this will be a great opportunity for air quality and economic development in the valley. Mr. Ishida added that over 40 percent of our potential industrial users that are looking in the valley (Tulare County) want rail. No further comments or questions. 11. Proposition 84/Blueprint R. Terry 5
Mr. Boren reported on the Prop 84 grant (round 1), which resulted in 41 of the 46 cities to participate. They are currently looking at the different fiscal impacts analysis tools and mentioned a workshop that took place at Fresno COG with a special guest Peter Katz who talked about the impacts of growth and development in terms of how to operate a city. No comments or questions. 12. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley M. Dozier No update. No further comment or questions. 13. SJV Regional Energy Planning M. Sigala Mr. Sigala stated they are still continuing to meet with all valley partners looking at economic development and energy for the valley. There was a meeting in April in Tulare and have an upcoming meeting in August tentatively scheduled for in Fresno. No further comment or questions. OTHER ITEMS 14. Executive Director s Report P. Taylor Ms. Taylor reiterated that the VLAC is continuing work on the Valley Voice D.C. trip scheduled for September 10-13, 2013. Stockton and Stanislaus are working on the Fall Policy Conference scheduled for October 10-11, 2013 in the Stockton area. Information will be forthcoming. Mr. Boren inquired about the location of the next directors meeting held in Hanford. Ms. King responded that the location will be the Kings County Office of Education. Mr.Yamzon reported on the 99 Savings Bond that he and part of his elected officials have been attending CTC meetings and mentioned there had been progress with savings and project initiations. Mr. Yamzon stated there is money for allocations and stated that there are two projects to take advantage of this money, the Palendale Interchange and the project in Tulare County. There is one more CTC meeting in San Diego and the following meeting will take place in Modesto. They are hoping by then to receive allocation to fund those two projects. 15. Member Comments No comments. 16. Public Presentation No comments. Next Regional Policy Council Meeting: Friday, October 11, 2013 6
Appendix A: List of Others Attending Patricia Taylor, MCTC, Chair of the Directors Committee Terri King, KCAG Tony Boren, Fresno COG Marjie Kirn, MCAG Carlos Yamzon, Stan COG Ted Smalley, TCAG Ahron Hakimi, Kern COG Ben Kimball, TCAG Rosa Parks, Stan COG Jeff Findley, MCTC Gail Miller, Caltrans, District 6 Dan Leavitt, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Sophie Hartshorn, Cambridge Systematics Michael Sigala, Valleywide Coordinator, Sigala Inc. Jose Ramirez, Sigala Inc. Kerri Timmer, Sierra Business Council RJ Cervantes, California Trucking Association (CTA) Heather Dumais, American Lung Association (CA) On the phone: Leslie Kimura, Air Resources Board 7
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 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Melissa Garza Len Simon Jennifer Covino Valley Voice 2013: Observations and Recommendations DATE: September 30, 2013 Thanks again for the opportunity to assist the San Joaquin Regional Policy Council to coordinate the 2013 Valley Voice trip to Washington, DC. It was great to see everyone and observe the vigorous interaction between the delegates and federal policy makers. As we discussed, we have compiled a list of Observations and Recommendations based on the almost two dozen meetings which took place September 10-12, 2013. (1) Regionalism. The unified approach of the eight counties commands attention before federal policymakers. This approach is commendable and quite effective. Regionalism is a strong point for advocacy, especially as federal funding grows increasingly constrained. We recommend that it be continued. (2) Valley Voice Dates. The Valley Voice delegation came to Washington at a key time just after a long summer Congressional recess and when key decisions needed to be made by Congress and the Administration. We recommend that roughly the same period of time be used for future Valley Voice DC meetings. (3) Valley Voice Duration. We believe that the two-day schedule allowed for sufficient time with each of the participants and enough time to cover the legislative and executive branch bases. Our hats off to the group for their high energy level and diligence in keeping up with the jam-packed two-day schedule, maintaining a high level of energy throughout the meetings. We recommend using the two-day format again next year. (4) Presentations and Projects. Limiting the Valley Voice agenda to four specific priorities was a very constructive approach, particularly given the budgetary situation in Washington and the limited time available for presentations. The presentations were excellent Alignment - making sure that the amount of time each issue is addressed with particularly federal policymakers is proportional to their responsibilities was well done. The session with FHWA s David Kim on Buy America is a good example of this approach working well. Continuing to provide vivid examples of how implementation of Valley Voice priorities helps in real life terms (jobs, environment) could also be helpful. We suggest in the future there be at least one planning session devoted to this alignment and the juxtaposition of real-life vignettes with Valley Voice Priorities.
(5) Briefing Materials. The binder was concise and effective while the briefing materials had both substance and aesthetic appeal. We think that the supplemental materials, such as the posters and large size maps, facilitated a better understanding of the region and its priorities. Having the materials ready in advance of the trip is helpful for the Congressional staffers who use the information to brief their Members. We recommend continuing to provide materials that are similar to those you had this year. (6) White House Intergovernmental. The White House Intergovernmental team really appreciated the opportunity to meet with the Valley Voice team. We recommend keeping this office on the agenda for future Valley Voice meetings, with the understanding that there will always be a significant interest on their part in discussing Administration priorities as well as hearing about Valley Voice top issues. (7) Meeting Space. It is helpful for most meetings to be held in meeting rooms on Capitol Hill. It helps tremendously by saving the group time in which it would otherwise be travelling to federal agencies and dealing with security issues. We are grateful to Rep. Valadao s staff for obtaining the rooms for Valley. We recommend that future Valley Voice meetings be largely centered in Congressional meeting rooms. (8) House Meetings. We received very positive feedback from Congressional offices on their visits with Valley Voice. We were pleased the dinner with Rep. Valadao and his staff worked so well. We are grateful to them for all for their assistance. We recommend that one evening dinner be set aside for a member next year and that efforts be made to spend sufficient time with the Valley delegation members as done this year. (9) Senators. We had a productive and lengthy meeting with Senator Barbara Boxer and her Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, who are very interested in Valley Voice priorities that relate to transportation and clean air, with MAP-21 reauthorization upcoming. Senator Boxer offered valuable insights on her plans for the legislation and welcomed suggestions from the delegation. They are particularly interested in your views on addressing the revenue question. Senator Dianne Feinstein was unable to join us due to her commitments as Intelligence Chairman with regard to Syria but her staff members was helpful and receptive. We encourage you to pursue meetings with both Senators and their staff members again next year. (10) Allied Organizations. Hearing the perspectives of allied organizations such as the National Association of Regional Councils is a good complement to the federal and executive branch speakers who make up the bulk of the agenda. We recommend that Valley Voice continue to provide allied organizations a place on the agenda. We hope you find these recommendations and observations useful. The 2013 Valley Voice trip effectively communicated the region s top priorities before key stakeholders and policymakers who are undoubtedly better informed of what is happening in the Central Valley and how you work together to address regional needs. Congratulations on your efforts in Washington in 2013. Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can help in any way. We look forward to talking with you soon.
ITEM 6 September 28, 2013 Chair Supervisor Allen Ishida Tulare County Vice-Chair Mayor Robert Poythress City of Madera Fresno Council of Kern Council of Kings County Association of Madera County Transportation Commission Merced County Association of San Joaquin Council of Stanislaus Council of Tulare County Association of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District www.sjvcogs.org David Kim, Associate Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Office of Policy and Government Affairs Southeast Federal Center Building, Room E81-312 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: San Joaquin Valley Input to MAP 21 Buy America Provisions Dear Mr. Kim: Thank you for meeting with the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council on September 12, 2013. The conversation was very informative and we are providing this transmittal as a follow up to our discussion regarding the Buy America provisions of the current transportation bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP- 21). As we discussed, and pursuant to your request, the following information details specific examples of systematic and procedural challenges regarding the Buy America process that delay, and put at risk for defunding, major transportation infrastructure projects in our eight- county region. UTILITY RELOCATIONS Historically, FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) applied Buy America requirements only to construction contracts and not to utility relocation agreements. Since it is now necessary that utility agreements require the Buy America provisions, local jurisdictions are struggling to get agreement approvals from utility agencies. Without these approvals, requests for Authorization to Fund cannot be submitted to the State/FHWA. In addition, obtaining approved utility agreements is a requirement for right of way certification and for authorization of construction funding. The impacts of the Buy America provisions in the Utility Relocation phase poses large damaging rippling effects on immediate and future projects. Water and Gas Transmission Line Valve Replacements. These systems in particular require valves that are predominately manufactured overseas. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has identified these parts to be one of the most common and challenged to meet the Buy America requirements. Currently, there are no foundries in the United States that manufacture water and gas transmission line valves. According to FHWA and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), one company in Texas, Cameron International, has been identified as re- tooling themselves to produce the valves in the near future. The valves come in different sizes and configurations, and therefore the company has stated that the valves will be special ordered and not mass- produced. This is the only company in the United States identified, so far, as being able to produce the valves. The impacts are an c/o Kings County Association of 339 West D Street, Suite B Lemoore CA 93245 Phone: 559-852-2654 Fax: 559-924-5632
expected cost increase of three times the regular cost as well as delays on delivery of 30 plus weeks, per valve order, depending on the uniqueness and quantity ordered. Utility Cover (Manhole) Replacements. Utility covers are usually made of iron and manufactured overseas. A certification for the covers is required prior to construction approval and the steel and iron must meet the Buy America Act. This leads to delays in the project schedule and budget as contractors struggle to find manufacturers that can be certified. The most problematic impact has to do with funding and replacing utility covers when owned by other utility agencies. Replacing these covers owned by utility companies, such as Pacific Bell, for example, is difficult to mandate. The utility companies generally do not have any manufacturers that comply with Buy America requirements. PARTIAL WAIVER PROCESS The partial waiver approval process is unpredictable and leads to project delays, and a potential loss of federal transportation funds to our region. Agencies will submit a partial waiver request to FHWA for alternative fuel vehicles and for projects that contain steel or iron products, which are not produced in the United States. Once submitted, the agency is no longer able to track the processing status of the waiver and has no guidance regarding the waiver s processing schedule or approval. This uncertainty makes it challenging for agencies to determine a planned completion for the project and when funding should be programmed. FHWA GRACE PERIOD Since the Buy America provision has been difficult for utility companies to meet, and because of the lengthy obligation process for right of way funding, FHWA recently allowed a grace period for projects awaiting funding authorization, or in construction, provided that the Utility Agreements are executed prior to December 31, 2013 and that the utility relocation is performed and funded with non- federal dollars. Despite the recent memo from FHWA extending a reasonable amount of time for utilities to comply, there is a fear that the deadline at the end of the year will not address all the concerns including the potential penalty for errors that may result in a loss of project funding eligibility. The implementation of Buy America requirements has created substantial delays to transportation projects and has increased costs for projects across the San Joaquin Valley with adverse effects on jobs and the economy. We believe further action is needed to address systematic and procedural challenges regarding Buy America. We hope the information in this letter provides a context for understating the impacts that this provision is having on local economies like those in the San Joaquin Valley. We appreciate your attention to this matter, and look forward to continue working with you and with the leadership of FHWA to resolve these concerns while fulfilling the goals of the Buy America program. Once again, thank you allowing us to provide these comments. Should you need additional information regarding Buy America issues in the San Joaquin Valley, please contact Terri King at 559.852.2654. Sincerely, Allen Ishida Supervisor, Tulare County Chairman, San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council c/o Kings County Association of 339 West D Street, Suite B Lemoore CA 93245 Phone: 559-852-2654 Fax: 559-924-5632
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION PROCESS Presentation to the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council October 11, 2013 OVERVIEW Provide a local perspective on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process Seek input from the Regional Agencies on a Proposed Amendment to State Housing Law Determine if there is common ground to seek a legislative change 1
REGIONAL HOUSING TARGET Step 1: HCD prepares its projection and provides to the COG for review and comment Step 2: HCD and the COG enter into a negotiation, if there is a disagreement Step 3: HCD issues a Notice of Determination publishing the final countywide housing target Appeal: COG may appeal HCD s determination Final Decision: Made by HCD HCD HOUSING NEED PROJECTIONS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEEDED PRODUCTION 40,000 RHNA vs. Building Permits in StanCOG Region 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2001-2008 RHNA cycle RHNA DOF Units Built (as of 2013) 2007-2014 RHNA cycle 2
PROPOSED CHANGE IN STATE LAW Proposing to designate the COG s as lead in preparing the county projections of housing need used for the RHNA Reasons: COG projections form the basis of all other planning by local agencies COG projections form the basis for transportation construction and finance at State and National Level WHY TURLOCK FEELS STANCOG S FORECAST IS BETTER? StanCOG used linear regression with more than 30 years of data to calculate future households and household size StanCOG normalized the outcome using several approaches While one of the approaches was related to construction trends only, the final number recommended is higher than construction trend by approximately 4,000 households 3
PROJECTION OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS IS RELATED TO PAST TRENDS 250,000 200,000 HCD 150,000 StanCOG Series1 ACTUAL PROJECTION 100,000 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 HOUSEHOLD SIZE IS RELATED TO PAST TRENDS 3.30 Persons per Household 3.20 Persons/HH 3.10 3.00 HCD StanCOG Series2 2.90 2.80 ACTUAL PROJECTION 2.70 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 4
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED TREND COMPARED TO STANCOG S ADOPTED FORECAST 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 StanCOG ConstrucOon 50,000 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATE AND NATIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS Ò Agricultural Preservation Ò Natural Resource Conservation Ò Clean Water Act Ò Federal and California Clean Air Acts Ò SB 375 Ò AB 32 5
AND ADDS TO LOCAL FISCAL CRISIS Ò Housing is necessary to the overall fabric of Valley communities but typically costs more to serve than the revenue collected in taxes Ò State Law limits the amount of revenue local agencies can collect from new development Ò State Law establishes restrictions and requirements that make it difficult to adjust development-related taxing mechanisms REGIONAL AGENCY COORDINATION Ò San Joaquin Valley Policy Committee October 11 Ò San Joaquin Valley Partnership December 6 If the regional agencies support, would like to kick off a discussion at League of Cities and California State Association of Counties 6
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION 7
San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council Item 8 DATE: October 11, 2013 TO: FROM: SJV Regional Policy Council Rob Terry, Fresno COG RE: Strategic Growth Council, Planning Grant Program The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) recently announced proposed changes to the Proposition 84 Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Guidelines, which would be in effect for Round 3 applications. Various valley COG staff attended SGC coordinated workshops in the month of July to discuss these proposed changes. Major changes include the three focus areas (Sustainable Development Implementation, Sustainable Community Planning in Transit Priority Planning Areas, and Collaborative Community Planning in Preparation for High Speed Rail) and their eligible applicants; a greater focus on funding projects for Environmental Justice Communities; and a refined focus on GHG reduction activities and measurements. Final Draft guidelines will become available on October 25, 2013; with SGC approval set for November 5, 2013. Solicitation for Round 3 applications is anticipated to take place shortly thereafter. Attached for additional information are portions of the Draft Program Guidelines. Staff will be discussing this item and possible Valleywide application(s) at the October 9, 2013 Directorsʼ Committee meeting and will bring the highlights of those discussions to the Regional Policy Council meeting as an informational item. Should staff proceed to apply for this grant program, the application(s) will be presented to the Regional Policy Council at their December 2013 meeting. Requested Action: None at this time, staff will provide this item as informational and accept feedback from Policy Council members.
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLANNING GRANT AND INCENTIVES PROGRAM GRANT GUIDELINES & APPLICATION FUNDED BY THE SAFE DRINKING WATER, WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY, FLOOD CONTROL, RIVER AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2006 PROPOSITION 84, CHAPTER 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STRATEGIC GROWTH COUNCIL REVISED DRAFT September 18, 2013 GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO SOLICITATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE I Introduction and Program Summary 1 II Threshold Requirements 2 III Focus Areas 3 IV Environmental Justice Set-Aside 5 V Priority Considerations 6 VI Scoring Criteria 7 VII Application Overview 8 VIII Proposal Summary Statement 8 IX Evaluation Questions 8 X Ineligible Proposals 12 XI Reports and Meeting Requirements 13 XII Grant Administration 14 APPENDICES A. Acronym Key A-1 B. Glossary B-1 C. Checklist: What to Include C-1 D. Online Application Tool: FAAST D-1 E. Sample Initial Budget Proposal E-1 F. Sample Initial Work Plan F-1 G. Indicators & Measuring Progress G-1 H. Resources for Effective Public Engagement G-1 I. Required Resolution Language I-1 J. Proposition 84 Text J-1 K. Strategic Growth Council and Climate Change Reduction Statute K-1 L. Climate Adaptation Resources for Local Government L-1 M. State Planning Priorities M-1 N. Healthy Communities Framework N-1 O. Online Resources O-1
I. Introduction and Program Summary The Strategic Growth Council (Council or SGC) requests submittal of proposals for the third round of the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentives Program. These guidelines reflect Council prioritization for this current solicitation, and are subject to change should subsequent funding rounds occur. Purpose, Goal, and Program Objectives The principal goal of this grant program is to fund the development and implementation of plans that lead to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in a manner consistent with the State Planning Priorities, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) and the current Environmental Goals and Policy Report (EGPR), if available. This grant program is meant to foster the development of sustainable communities throughout California. It is designed to help local governments meet the challenges of adopting land use plans and integrating strategies to transform communities and create long-term prosperity. Sustainable communities shall promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment, and promote healthy, safe communities. Funded activities are intended to achieve the following Program Objectives: Improve air and water quality Promote public health Promote equity Increase housing affordability Increase infill and compact development Revitalize urban and community centers Protect natural resources and agricultural lands Reduce automobile usage and fuel consumption Improve infrastructure systems Promote water conservation Promote energy efficiency and conservation Strengthen the economy Fund Source and Statutory Authority The Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentives Program is funded by Proposition 84, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006. It added Division 43 to the Public Resources Code, Chapter 9, Sustainable Communities and Climate Change Reduction Section 75065(a), authorizing the Legislature to appropriate $90 million for planning grants and planning incentives that achieve sustainability objectives (see Appendix J for the text of Proposition 84). SB 732 (Chapter 13, Statutes of 2008) established the Council and added California Government Code Sections 75127 and 75128, which direct the Council to manage and award financial assistance to support the planning and development of sustainable communities that achieve sustainability objectives. Additionally, Gov. Code section 75126 states that these funded activities must be consistent with the State s Planning Priorities. Section 75125 states that the Council shall develop guidelines for awarding financial assistance, including criteria for eligibility and additional consideration. The funded activities must also meet the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with AB 32. Revised Draft Program Guidelines 9/18/13 1 Program Summary and Focus
Eligible Applicants Per California Public Resources Code section 75127, Cities, Counties, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs), Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs), Councils of (COGs), or combinations thereof are eligible to apply. Joint Proposals For the purposes of this solicitation, one or more eligible applicants can submit a joint proposal. For each joint application, a lead applicant and all co-applicants shall be identified, all of which must qualify as an eligible applicant. In addition, the lead applicant and all co-applicants are responsible for addressing objectives of the grant program by responding to evaluation questions as noted in Section IX, as well as in the Initial Work Program and Budget documents. An eligible applicant may also wish to partner with one or more eligble or non-eligible organizations. SGC strongly encourages submittals of joint proposals by multiple eligible applicants. A successful joint proposal should include meaningful, actionable internal and external collaboration and demonstrate a commitment (e.g. match funding, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), etc.) to the joint proposal from each participating eligible organization. Application Funding The minimum grant award is $50,000. The maximum grant award is $500,000, unless the application is a joint proposal (see Appendix B, Glossary), in which case the maximum award is $1 million. Eligible applicants can be included in the proposed budget of a maximum of three proposals, with at least one application meeting the requirements for the Environmental Justice Communities set-aside (see Section IV). If none of the applications qualify for the EJC set-aside, an eligible applicant can be included in up to two proposals. Included in the three proposal maximum, eligible applicants can be the lead applicant on up to two of these proposals: 1) as the lead applicant in on a joint or standard application for the main pool of funding, and 2) as the lead applicant for the Environmental Justice Communities set-aside. Therefore, eligible applicants can apply for up to three grants under the following scenarios: 1. As the lead applicant on a joint or standard proposal 2. As a co-applicant on a joint proposal 3. As the lead applicant on a joint or standard Environmental Justice proposal 4. As a co-applicant on a joint Environmental Justice proposal Grant Application and Administration The Department of Conservation (DOC) administers this grant program on behalf of the SGC. For more information about the administrative process (see Section XII). Grant applications are submitted via the online Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST), which provides specific prompts to which applicants must respond. For more information about the online application, see Appendix D. Sections XI and XII provide information about the requirements for grantee meetings, invoicing, and reporting. Revised Draft Program Guidelines 9/18/13 2 Program Summary and Focus
II. Threshold Requirements III. Proposals must meet the Threshold Requirements below. Proposals that do not meet the following criteria will not be considered eligible for funding. This shall be at the sole discretion of the State. Section IX, Step 1 lists the questions asked of applicants that are the basis for evaluating satisfaction of the Threshold Requirements. 1. Be consistent with the State s Planning Priorities (see Appendix B, Glossary), in summary below, and identified in Section 65041.1 of the Government Code: Promote infill development and invest in existing communities Protect, preserve and enhance environmental and agricultural lands and natural and recreational resources Encourage location- and resource-efficient new development These priorities are intended to promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment, and promote public health and safety in the state, including urban, suburban, and rural communities. 2. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, on as permanent a basis as is feasible, consistent with: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) (Division 25.5, section 38500 et. seq. of the Health and Safety Code) and any applicable regional plan (see Appendix B, Glossary). 3. Connect state policies or programs, regional planning efforts, and local plans through coordination and collaboration. Any proposal from a city or county must demonstrate how its work program is consistent with its region s goals and plans, including approved or adopted Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs)/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCSs) and other existing local government plans and projects that would be affected by the proposal. Any proposal from a regional agency must demonstrate, through collaboration with governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that may be affected by the plans contained in this proposal, that local implementation of the proposed activities can be expected to follow from the work program. 4. Consider and apply State of California best practices for climate change vulnerability assessment, resilience planning, and adaptation to the effects of climate change on the proposed project. (See Appendix L). 5. Include a minimum ten percent (10%) local match. At least five percent (5%) of the requested grant amount must be a cash match; the balance may be in-kind. This requirement is waived for a proposal that qualifies for the Environmental Justice (EJ) set-aside (see Section IV). Focus Areas Coordinated investment in land use planning and transportation infrastructure and operations is needed to implement the goals of regional SCSs and to support sustainable development efforts at the regional and local level. The Focus Areas listed below are intended to support RTP and SCS development processes, the development of local planning efforts to reflect each regional strategy, and the implementation of specific projects at the local and regional levels as identified by the proposed or adopted regional strategy or other plan. The Council will fund proposals that fall within the following three Focus Areas: Focus Area #1: Innovative Incentives for Sustainable Development Implementation Focus Area #2: Sustainable Community Planning near Transit Priority Projects (TPPs) Focus Area #3: Collaborative Community Planning in Preparation for High Speed Rail (HSR) Revised Draft Program Guidelines 9/18/13 3 Program Summary and Focus
Although proposals may correspond to more than one Focus Area, each proposal must apply to one of the above Focus Areas. There is no specific allocation of funding among the three Focus Areas; the ratio of grant funds awarded to each Focus Area will depend on the number and quality of proposals received for each Focus Area. SGC encourages the submittal of multi-organization joint proposals, with one lead applicant organization identified. Focus Area #1: Innovative Incentives for Sustainable Development Implementation Eligible Lead Applicants: Cities, Counties, MPOs, RTPAs, JPAs, and COGs Intent: This Focus Area supports local planning activities that implement a proposed or adopted Regional Transportation Plan, and when applicable, a Sustainable Communities Strategy, or any other local or regional plan, in a way that incentivizes sustainable, infill development, location- and resource-efficient development, or preserves or enhances natural or agricultural lands. Proposals should present innovative implementation activities that reduce GHG emissions, that go beyond the applicant s typical planning activities, and that are capable of replication in other jurisdictions. Examples of eligible proposals include, but are not limited to: Nexus studies for fee reduction programs in infill areas Design guidelines for higher-density, mixed-use development Modifications of parking requirements in infill and transit-rich areas Zoning code updates and amendments promoting infill and affordable development Circulation element update or other planning efforts to incorporate Healthy Community policies and objectives Affordable housing preservation strategies in infill and transit oriented development areas Financing strategies for sustainable development and related infrastructure Regional greenprint development and implementation efforts Priority conservation plans and policy development, or other conservation plans General Plan or Specific Plan updates that incorporate infill goals to meet California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) streamlining opportunities related to SB 226 (Simitian, 2011) Plans, studies and related activities for basic community infrastructure Other innovative local incentive implementation strategies that will reduce GHG emissions and meet Program Objectives Focus Area #2: Sustainable Community Planning for Transit Priority Projects Eligible Lead Applicants: Cities, Counties, MPOs, RTPAs, JPAs, and COGs Intent: This Focus Area supports sustainable community planning near Transit Priority Projects (See Appendix B, Glossary) as identified by a proposed or adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy. Examples of eligible proposals include, but are not limited to: Multimodal or transit station area plans Corridor planning linking Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Zoning and development standards to support TOD Financial feasibility analyses/highest and best use studies to support a mix of uses surrounding transit Regional regranting programs that enhance regional consistency of planning Affordable housing strategies to support preservation and construction near Transit Priority Projects Approaches to supporting sustainable infrastructure, such as water, sewer, and drainage Other sustainable community planning and implementation activity near Transit Priority Projects Revised Draft Program Guidelines 9/18/13 4 Program Summary and Focus