Agenda Packet - Fresno Council of Governments

San Joaquin Valley Regional
Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee
c/o San Joaquin Council of Governments – 555 East Weber Ave. – Stockton, CA 95202
Phone: 209-235-0600 – FAX: 209-235-0438
San Joaquin
Council of
Governments
Andrew Chesley
Chair
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Tulare County
Association of
Governments
Ted Smalley
Vice Chair
Meeting Host:
Merced County Association of Governments
Meeting Location:
Tenaya Lodge at Yosemite
Board Room
1122 Highway 41
Fish Camp, CA 93623
Fresno
Council of
Governments
Tony Boren
Kern
Council of
Governments
Ahron Hakimi
Teleconference Number: 1-712-432-1212
Participant Code: 432-600-639
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. September 3, 2015 Directors’ Meeting
Kings County
Association of
Governments
Terri King
Madera County
Transportation
Commission
Patricia Taylor
Enclosure
A. Chesley
þ
A. Chesley
þ
R. Phipps
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. Discuss Proposed Guideline Changes (full guidelines)
b. Discuss Technical Assistance to Valley Applicants
4. Valley Legislative Affairs Committee (VLAC)
Follow Up Discussion Regarding Valley Voice D.C.
Merced County
Association of
Governments
Marjie Kirn
5. San Joaquin Valley Goods Movement
6. SHOPP Funding
Stanislaus
Council of
Governments
Rosa Park
M. Sigala
a. I-5/SR 99 Goods Movement Corridor Study Update
b. SJV Goods Movement Sustainable Implementation Plan Update
Receive Caltrans Update
K. Baxter
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.
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
14. Regional Energy Planning
M. Sigala
þ
þ
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 Governments – 555 East Weber Ave. – Stockton, CA 95202
Phone: 209-235-0600 – FAX: 209-235-0438
ITEM 1
San Joaquin
Council of
Governments
Andrew Chesley
Chair
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Meeting Host:
Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County
Association of
Governments
Ted Smalley
Vice Chair
Fresno
Council of
Governments
Tony Boren
Kern
Council of
Governments
Ahron Hakimi
Kings County
Association of
Governments
Terri King
Madera County
Transportation
Commission
Patricia Taylor
Merced County
Association of
Governments
Marjie Kirn
Stanislaus
Council of
Governments
Rosa Park
Meeting Location:
Professional Development Center
4031 W. Noble
Visalia, CA 93277
Members Attending:
Director(s)
MPO(s)
Andrew Chesley via phone
San Joaquin Council of Governments
Ted Smalley
Tulare County Association of Governments
Tony Boren
Fresno Council of Governments
Robert Phipps in lieu of Ahron Hakimi
Kern Council of Governments
Terri King
Kings County Association of Governments
Patricia Taylor
Madera County Transportation Commission
Marjie Kirn
Merced County Association of Governments
Rosa Park
Stanislaus Council of Governments
Others:
See Appendix A for List of Others Attending
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
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
2. RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategies/Air Quality
Update and Discussion
T. Taylor
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 22nd or 23rd 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Maximize economic, environmental, and public health benefits to the State
Foster job creation by promoting in-State greenhouse gas emission reduction projects carried out by
California workers and businesses
Compliment efforts to improve air quality
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
Provide opportunities for businesses, public agencies, nonprofits, and other community institutions
to participate in and benefit from statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
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
Follow Up Discussion Pertaining to the August 2015 Meeting
With Strategic Growth Council Executive Director Winston
A. Chesley
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)
a. Discuss Recent Federal and State Proposed Legislation
R. Phipps
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
Discuss “Swap Meet” Activities Related to the 2016 STIP and Beyond
D. Nguyen
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
a. I-5/SR 99 Goods Movement Corridor Study Update
M. Sigala
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
Receive Update
S. Dabbs
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 Governments
Kern Council of Governments
Merced County Association of Governments
Stanislaus Council of Governments
Tulare Council of Governments
San Joaquin Valley Coordinator
Sigala Inc
On the phone:
Individual(s)
Robert Ball
Chris Lehn
Stacie Dabbs
Jeff Findley
Diane Nyguen
Tanisha Taylor
David Ripperda
Melody Lin
Dennis Agar
Ken Baxter
Joanne Striebich
Organization(s)
Kern Council of Governments
Kings County Association of Governments
Merced County Association of Governments
Madera County Transportation Commission
San Joaquin Council of Governments
San Joaquin Council of Governments
San Joaquin Council of Governments
San Joaquin Council of Governments
Caltrans, District 10
Caltrans, District 10
Caltrans, District 6
Appendix B: List of Acronyms that may have been used in the minutes.
ACRONYMS
APS
ARB
ATP
CalEEMod
CALCOG
CalSTA
CEQA
CIPR
CMAQ
COG
CTA
CTC
FHWA
FTA
GHG
GSC
MPO
PM2.5
RFP
RHNA
RPC
RSTP
RTIP
RTP
RTPA
SGC
SIP
SJJPA
SJV
STIP
STP
TERMS
Alternative Planning Strategy
Air Resource Board
Active Transportation Program
California Emissions Estimator Model
California Association of Council of Governments
California State Transportation Agency
California Environmental Quality Act
California Intercity Passenger Rail
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Council of Governments
California Transit Association
California Transportation Commission
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Green House Gas
Greenprint Steering Committee
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Particle Matter 2.5
Request for Proposal
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Regional Policy Council
Regional Surface Transportation Program
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Regional Transportation Plan
Regional Transportation Planning Agency
Strategic Growth Council
State Implementation Plan
San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority
San Joaquin Valley
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
Surface Transportation Program
6
ITEM 3.a
Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: RE: September 17, 2015 Interested Stakeholders Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Staff Updates: 2015-­‐16 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 2015-­‐16 SGC AHSC Program Guidelines. Public Review Draft Guidelines The 2015-­‐16 Draft Guidelines reflect the robust feedback received on the first year of SGC͛Ɛ 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, transit-­‐oriented 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: [email protected] 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 2015-­‐16 AHSC Guidelines at its December 17, 2015 meeting. September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 2015-­‐16 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines Other Updates x
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 2015-­‐16 SALC Program Guidelines at its December 17, 2015 meeting. x
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 2014-­‐15 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. x
2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO 2015-­‐16 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 2014-­‐15 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 -­‐
-­‐
Transit-­‐Oriented 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 ĨŽƌŵĞƌůLJĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ͞dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ-­‐ZĞůĂƚĞĚ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͟ŝŶƚǁŽĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ͗Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure (STI) and Transportation-­‐Related Amenities (TRAs). The STI category was created to support capital projects that result in mode shift from passenger vehicles to low-­‐carbon transportation options such as transit, walking, and bicycling. TRAs support these mode shifts by providing amenities to accommodate these modes. (p. 14-­‐15) September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 2015-­‐16 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 6-­‐10) 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 6-­‐10) Supplemental Strategies for GHG Reductions -­‐
-­‐
Active Transportation. The Draft Guidelines consider the co-­‐benefits 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 34-­‐35) Urban Greening, Green Building, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy. Identified in the Draft 'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐĂƐƚŚĞ͞tĂƚĞƌ͕ŶĞƌŐLJ͕ĂŶĚ'ƌĞĞŶŝŶŐ͟ƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚŝƐĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞ
urban greening, low-­‐impact design, site development and energy efficiency standards, and on-­‐site renewable energy generation, in most cases to exceed current or pending building code standards. (p 35-­‐37) 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 A-­‐2) 4 September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 2015-­‐16 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines OTHER PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
Planning Costs are no longer standalone Eligible Costs, and has been incorporated into soft costs associated with Affordable Housing Development, Housing-­‐Related Infrastructure, Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure, and Transportation-­‐Related Amenities. (p 11, 13, 15, 16, 19) Requires all AHSC-­‐funded 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 13-­‐14) 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: 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 GHG Component Each of these components results in a total maximum score of 15 points. Each component will be ranked from highest to lowest ʹ and be assigned an incremental point value based on reductions associated with the application. dŚĞƐĞ͞ďŝŶƐ͟ 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 2015-­‐16 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 32-­‐34) 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 ǁŝƚŚŽƚŚĞƌƋƵĂŶƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŵĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŶŐĂ͞tĞůů-­‐to-­‐tŚĞĞůƐ͟ƋƵĂŶƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ
approach (instead of the FY 2014-­‐ϮϬϭϱ͞dĂŶŬ-­‐to-­‐tŚĞĞůƐ͟ͿƚŽ estimate GHG reductions. The Quantification Methodology will be consistent wŝƚŚ^'͛ƐĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ
5 September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 2015-­‐16 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines -­‐
-­‐
Communities Program (AHSC) Guidelines for FY 2015-­‐2016. 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 15-­‐16 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 dĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJ͛ƐƌĞĐĞŶƚƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶ͞/ŶĐŽŵĞ͕>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ͕ĂŶĚsDd͗ĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐas a Climate ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐLJ͘͟WĞŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƐŽĨƚŚĞƌĞƉŽƌƚ͛ƐƉĞĞƌƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƐŵĂLJďĞŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŽĨƵƚƵƌĞ
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 2014-­‐15 Round $500,000 (ICP) $1 million (TOD) $8 million (ICP) $15 million (TOD) $1 million $20 million 2015-­‐16 Proposed Guidelines for both TODs and ICPs -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
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 AHSC-­‐funded projects. (p 28) 6 September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 2015-­‐16 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines APPLICATION SCORING AND SCREENING CRITERIA Screening of Applicants at Concept -­‐
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 ʹ 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 set-­‐aside (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 2015-­‐16 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 2015-­‐16 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. 39-­‐40) 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. Co-­‐benefits of GHG reduction will continue to be tracked and measured, per ARB Guidance. (p 40-­‐42) Access to Destinations. This category replaces the Accessibility to Employment and some components of the 2014-­‐15 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 2015-­‐16 Draft Guidelines. The 2014-­‐15 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 2015-­‐16 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines -­‐
-­‐
Funds Leveraged. Focuses on capital project and program activities leveraged by other Enforceable Funding Commitments. (p 42-­‐43) Anti-­‐Displacement. The Draft Guidelines provide additional points for demonstration of policies, strategies, or programs designed to avoid both physical and economic displacement of low-­‐income residents and businesses of the Project Area. (p 43-­‐44) Table 1 Proposed Scoring Criteria for 2015-­‐16 AHSC Program GHG Reductions
GHG Quantification Methodology (CalEEMod and Transportation and
Connectivity (TAC))
x Total Project GHG Reductions
x Efficiency of Reductions (Total Project GHG Reductions/AHSC $
Request)
Supplemental Strategies
x Active Transportation Improvements
x Water, Energy, and Greening
GHG REDUCTIONS SUBTOTAL
POINTS
15
15
10
10
50
Policy Objectives
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Depth and Level of Housing Affordability
Housing and Transportation Collaboration
Community Benefit and Engagement
Access to Destinations
Funds Leveraged
Anti-Displacement Strategies
Program Need and Readiness
Implementation of Planning Efforts
POLICY OBJECTIVES SUBTOTAL
TOTAL POINTS
10
10
8
8
5
4
3
2
50
100
8 September 17, 2015 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Update of AHSC Activities and Summary of 2015-­‐16 Draft AHSC Program Guidelines CONSIDERATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES In its first year, the AHSC Program ĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚĂƚĞ͛ƐϭϴMetropolitan 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 region͛Ɛ
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 -­‐ Topic-­‐specific 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 regionally-­‐adopted 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 consensus-­‐based approach to determine final score. 9 ITEM 4
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: [email protected]
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Melissa Garza
FROM:
Len Simon
Jen Covino
SUBJECT:
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) 2334148 Ext. 203 or via email at [email protected].
•
(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 [email protected].
•
(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) 2334148 Ext. 222 or via email at [email protected].
13. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley
J. Chilingerian
th
Information on the 4 Annual SJV Affordable Housing Summit is attached.
Jenna Chilingerian, Program Director, can be reached at 599.278.0721 or via email:
[email protected]
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 [email protected] 559-­‐278-­‐6119 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 Governments
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
[email protected]
Jenna Chilingerian
Community and Economic Development at Fresno State
[email protected]
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