San Joaquin Valley Regional - Stanislaus County Council of ...€¦ · • Efforts on RTPs and SCSs...

Meeting Agenda Thursday, January 9, 2014

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Meeting Location: Tulare County Association of Governments

210 N. Church Street, Suite B Visalia, CA 93291

Toll Free Number: 1-866-906-7447

Participant Code: 5139581 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Enclosure

1. December 5, 2013 Directors’ Meeting T. King þ

DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: 2. RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategies/Air Quality Update and Discussion T. Taylor 3. San Joaquin JPA for Passenger Rail D. Leavitt Update and Discussion 4. State Route 99 Bond Savings Program C. Yamzon Status of Project Programming 5. Strategic Growth Council, Planning Grant Program Round III R. Terry þ Receive and Approve Valleywide SCS Implementation Grant Application Materials 6. Caltrans Partnership Planning Grant for Sustainable Transportation M. Sigala þ

Discuss and Approve Proposed Valleywide Funding R. Terry Applications for the FY 2014-15 Grant Cycle 7. Valley Legislative Affairs Committee (VLAC) T. King þ

Update and Discussion Regarding Sacramento Valley Voice 2014, and Approve Draft Legislative Platform 8. SJV Clean Cities Coalition (Kern COG) L. Urata þ

Receive and Approve Proposed Funding Application to the California Energy Commission’s Public Opportunity Notice #603 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness Plan, and Receive Update for Additional 2014 Planned Activities

Kings County Association of Governments Terri King Chair Kern Council of Governments Ahron Hakimi Vice Chair Fresno Council of Governments Tony Boren Madera County Transportation Commission Patricia Taylor Merced County Association of Governments Marjie Kirn San Joaquin Council of Governments Andrew Chesley Stanislaus Council of Governments Carlos Yamzon Tulare County Association of Governments Ted Smalley

San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee

c/o Kings County Association of Governments – 339 West D Street, Suite B – Lemoore CA 93245 Phone: 559-852-2654 – FAX: 559-924-5632

Enclosure 9. Cap and Trade – SJV Coalition for Disadvantaged Communities T. Jordan/ Update and Discussion M. Sigala 10. California Transportation Foundation A. Chesley Receive Update for 2014 Planned Activities 11. Regional Policy Council T. King Discuss Future Meeting Dates INFORMATIONAL ITEMS þ 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. 12. High Speed Rail D. Gomez 13. Caltrans Directors Report C.Bowen/S.Ehlert 14. Implementation of the San Joaquin Rail Authority (SB 325) T. Smalley 15. SJV Interregional Goods Movement Plan M. Sigala 16. Proposition 84/Blueprint/Greenprint R. Terry 17. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley J. Waters 18. Regional Energy Planning M. Sigala OTHER ITEMS 19. Director Items 20. 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.

Next Directors’ Meeting: Thursday, February 6, 2014 in Fresno (Fresno COG)

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.

Meeting Minutes: Thursday, December 5, 2013

9:00 a.m.

Meeting Location: Kern Council of Governments

1401 19th Street, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301

Members Attending:

Terri King, KCAG Marjie Kirn, MCAG Ahron Hakimi, Kern COG Patricia Taylor, MCTC (via phone) Tony Boren, Fresno COG Carlos Yamzon, Stan COG Diane Nyguen for Andy Chesley, SJCOG Ted Smalley, TCAG

Others: See Appendix A for List of Others Attending

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 7, 2013 Directors’ Meeting Mr. Smalley identified corrections on page 5, discussion/agenda item 5: State Route 99 Savings Bond Program end of the paragraph a statement in parenthesis reading, “to agree to give money back that is needed.” The statement should read “to agree to give money back if needed.” Mr. Hakimi made a motion to approve the minutes with the noted changes identified by Mr. Smalley, seconded by Mr. Yamzon. Motion carried.

Kings County Association of Governments Terri King Chair Kern Council of Governments Ahron Hakimi Vice Chair Fresno Council of Governments Tony Boren Madera County Transportation Commission Patricia Taylor Merced County Association of Governments Marjie Kirn San Joaquin Council of Governments Andrew Chesley Stanislaus Council of Governments Carlos Yamzon Tulare County Association of Governments Ted Smalley


c/o Kings County Association of Governments – 339 West D Street, Suite B – Lemoore CA 93245

Phone: 559-852-2654 – FAX: 559-924-5632

ITEM 1

2

DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: 2. RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategies/Air Quality Update and Discussion T. Taylor Ms. Tanisha Taylor reported:

• Efforts on RTPs and SCSs are ongoing and on schedule as of today. • Several boards have taken action and cautioned the MPOs that their processes will be measured

against each other across the valley. o Questions being raised

§ Development of strategies § Public outreach

• Email concerning a meeting with ARB (Air Resources Board) management o No definitive information about the meeting o Did request information about the meeting to discuss with the Directors o The meeting might pertain to the Valleywide targets

• Confirmed a meeting date with ARB for Wednesday, December 11, 2013 (10 a.m. – 11 a.m.). o ARB identified that Friday’s are no longer an option for meeting dates.

Ms. Tanisha Taylor opened the forum to each of the Directors to report actions taken concerning their RTP and SCS: Mr. Hakimi reported for Kern COG:

• Will take before their boards January (2014). o Was approved by the Advisory Committee yesterday (Wednesday, December 4, 2013).

Mr. Ball added:

• NOx for 8-hour ozone was more difficult than the CO2 number • Approved the four alternatives that will be included in the environmental document:

1. Old Plan 2. Preliminary Plan

§ Considered the preferred scenario 3. Intensified Alternative 4. No-Build

Mr. Yamzon reported for StanCOG:

• Staff recommended Alternative 2. • The board took action on Alternative 3 (moderate change). • Recently closed the comment period on the RHNA methodology. • The Valley Visions Stanislaus Committee changed the recommendation and supported another

methodology. • Will be presenting the staff methodology to the board for their consideration and action.

Mr. Yamzon pondered on RHNA efforts from other directors. Ms. King reported for KCAG:

• No numbers to report yet. • In regards to their RTP

o Started their outreach efforts o Presented to each of the city councils and board of supervisors an overview of the process

and where they can attain information (schedule and timelines). o Begin public workshops on Monday, December 9, 2013

§ City of Hanford (Monday) § Kettleman City (Tuesday) § City of Lemoore (Wednesday)

3

o Consultant will be meeting with rotary clubs, Chamber of Commerce, and other stakeholders.

Mr. Boren reported for Fresno COG:

• Last month Policy Board adopted Scenario B. o Current Planning concept o Set direction for COG staff to form a Regional Transportation/Land Use discussion group

led by all city managers. Mr. Chesley reported for SJCOG:

• Board took action to move forward in their draft RTP with Scenario C. • Are in the process of modifying their Alternative Modes Scenarios. • Administrative draft plan should be available in January and are on schedule for a June date. • In terms of RHNA:

o Have completed preliminary work. Mr. Hakimi posed a comment concerning density versus congestion. Mr. Chesley responded that one of the challenges is concerning sensitivity (not receiving sensitivity among the alternatives). Ms. Tanisha Taylor added that other MPOs are dealing with this issue and that there is a tipping point when you start to increase GHG when you get too dense in some cases. Mr. Smalley reported for TCAG:

• RHNA methodology will be presented to their board on Monday, December 9, 3013. • SCS committee will select recommended scenario on Wednesday, December 11, 2013. • All scenarios will be very close but will meet the targets.

Ms. Kirn reported for MCAG:

• Scenarios were similar although none will make the targets. • Governing board chose existing general plans (unanimous)

o Public input also coincided with the governing board • Staff recommended the middle of the road alternative (not approved) • In terms of RHNA:

o Methodology will be presented before the board next month (January 2014). Mr. Fell added that final numbers have not been reported yet. Mr. Winning reported for MCTC:

• In the process of developing scenarios. o Will be based on the Blueprint

• Have recently changed back to UPlan, redeveloping different tool scenarios. • In their testing:

o Moving beyond the adopted Blueprint to achieve a five and ten percent. § Board directed twice to do so

• Roundtable committee o Open round table

§ Open to anyone interested in becoming a member • Developing a web-base tool

o To allow individuals to become informed about the process o To give input on which scenario they would prefer o Goal is to have approximately 2-5 thousand individuals participate from now until June

(2014) • Will use what they refer to as Hybrid/Urban Scenarios focusing on the City of Madera and their

new town Rio Mesa area and set five and ten percent to attain optimal results. Mr. Chesley commented on:

1. The upcoming meeting with ARB.

4

o The question concerning taking a Valleywide target and apply it to essentially cover Merced.

§ Mr. Chesley’s understanding is that ARB at the state level is questioning whether this can be done. At this point in time ARB has generally said it was ok but that perspective may change. If this is the case and it changes then essentially we are all on our own. We need to decide how strongly we want to argue for being able to have a Valleywide target.

2. The message that Merced is sending and for this reason advocates for a Valleywide target available for situations such as Merced’s.

o If the message perceived is we (Merced) will not make extraordinary efforts to meet our target, then the question is how strongly we want to be perceived as going along with this message by having a Valleywide target.

Ms. King commented that a Valleywide target was developed in 2010 as a way to balance out the diversity in the valley and MPOs were left with the discretion on how to meet their individual targets. KCAG has been striving to meet the five and ten targets individually and respectfully acknowledged that reverting to an individual targets is belatedly. Ms. Tanisha Taylor acknowledged Ms. King’s comments and added that:

• ARB (Air Resources Board) may deviate in terms of what the Valleywide target is and isn’t and how it should be documented.

• The indication of what was provided in 2012 in terms of the weighted average and requirement to provide “more” in terms of central policies. The discussion of what should be that “more” and the question of what that “more” is may dictate whether it becomes an individual target outside of what the directors have done or whether it may change the Valleywide target. This may be potentially the discussion that ARB (Air Resources Board) will be discussing with the directors on Wednesday, December 11, 2013.

• Is pessimistic about the meeting with ARB (Air Resources Board) and believes the discussion point will pertain to the language in SB 375 that states that the valley MPOs may coordinate on an SCS and that the fact that it is silent on a Valleywide target may bring a Valleywide SCS to the forefront of the discussion and what that becomes.

Mr. Boren commented that in regards to its largest member agency (City of Fresno) what would happen if they would to go in a different direction from the general plan because of internal issues, politics, etc.. they in turn would go back to the drawing board—will be very challenging to get all MPOs on Valleywide SCS. Mr. Chesley commented on a few viewpoints drawing attention to the San Joaquin Valley:

1. A number of MPOs effortlessly were able to meet the target largely due to: a. In large part as a result of the modeling exercises, and the b. Discounting that goes in the IX and XX trips

2. The variation (reductions) between all MPOs are significant 3. Merced’s inability to achieve targets

a. May be due impart to our three county model Mr. Chesley continued to express:

• There are things that we may argue to ARB (Air Resources Board) that they need to adopt some guidance for the MPOs that band the MPOs together at a coordinated approach.

• There needs to be a conversation about how we are going to respond to ARB (Air Resources Board) in a proactive way with changes in how we are doing our modeling and the IX and XX trips.

• As a result Mr. Chesley had a conversation with Ms. Tanisha Taylor regarding contracting Jerry Walters to specifically look at this issue and help craft a set of discussion points (e.g. a white paper with a set of recommendations) at the SJCOG level or for all MPOs as a whole.

• Mr. Chesley apologized for singling out Merced and their board’s decision/action but from a message perspective of continuing with the status quo questioned whether or not this is a message

5

we should be sending ARB (Air Resources Board). Could this also be an issue for the policy board (Policy Council) to talk about?

o What is the message we want to send as a valley, not just to ARB (Air Resources Board) but also the attorney general’s office, other stakeholders like Climate Plan or even those groups seeking judicial grievances (prospect of suing one or several MPOs).

A conversation ensued regarding the Valleywide targets and the feasibility for each MPO in meeting their individual targets with respect to planning and modeling tools. Comments were also raised concerning Merced County Association of Governments and their struggles in meeting the five and ten percent targets. Ms. Kirn addressed the concerns raised regarding Merced’s potential inability to meet the five and ten percent targets. She added that Merced has taken action and has been active in promoting transit programs:

• Countywide transit system operating seven days a week (7am to 10pm) • 30 minute headways on most routes • Vanpool programming • Ridesharing programs • Most CMAC dollars spent on bicycle projects • Los Banos Bypass

Ms. Kirn also addressed the lack of recognition for efforts made to date but did state that the problems may be impart due to modeling and will continue to look at different modeling tools to have Merced meet the five and ten targets. Ms. Tanisha Taylor acknowledged Ms. Kirn’s remarks and added that one of the issues she is hearing from the directors is that of the messaging. She believes there is still an opportunity to create a message; a scenario was chosen but hasn’t created the story or the message explaining what that scenario is about. Ms. Tanisha Taylor concurred with Mr. Chesley in developing the message and what that message is. A conversation ensued concerning moving forward on this issue and whether or not to introduce this item at the policy council meeting. Ms. Kirn expressed concerns and recommended not bringing this forward to the policy council. Ms. King added that she would likely not have a policy council member attend the meeting. Mr. Chesley reiterated his position on performing individual targets as well as having a Valleywide targets for circumstances that Merced is experiencing and for this reason recommends contracting Jerry Walters. He also restated the importance the message the Merced’s board is sending that potentially it could be a cause for concern. Mr. Boren offered some insight into Fresno’s challenges in getting GHG reductions. Their VMT (vehicles miles traveled) were approximately twenty million. A one percent reduction would be estimated at about two hundred thousand miles a day that has to be alleviated in order to achieve the one percent. Mr. Boren stated that mathematically it would be unfeasible to achieve such targets. Ms. King reverted back to the conversation involving Jerry Walters’s participation and coming up with a solution. She inquired on an estimate for his services. Ms. Tanisha Taylor responded there are opportunities:

• The contract with Sierra Research that begins January 1, 2014, they do have Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants as a subcontractor and have the ability to negotiate that cost into the contract.

• Anything prior to that Ms. Tanisha Taylor can work with Alexandra Marcucci (Project Manager, Sierra Research) to see if we can add Jerry Walters and Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants as a subcontractor to the existing contract.

• Will provide an update within the following week or so. Mr. Chesley volunteered San Joaquin Council of Governments to initiate this process before January 1, 2014.

6

Mr. Winning thanked Mr. Chesley for being the leader on this issue and for continuing to consistently send a positive message. Ms. King reiterated the recommendation:

• Using Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants as a sub consultant with the San Joaquin Council of Governments being the lead agency.

Mr. Smalley made a motion to approve the recommendation, seconded by Mr. Chesley. Motion carried. No further comments or questions. 3. San Joaquin JPA for Passenger Rail D. Leavitt Update and Discussion Mr. Leavitt reported:

• JPA meeting in the City of Martinez was successful except for major exception: o An unfortunate incident involving the train hitting a pedestrian, caused delay.

• Next board meeting: o Scheduled for January 24, 2014 in Stockton at 12:00 p.m. o Location: San Joaquin Council of Governments

• On schedule to have Business Plan completed by March 28,2014 • Present another seven or eight chapter of the Business Plan • Working group meeting on December 20, 2013 bat the SJRRC (call in information will be provided

to those individuals part of the working group) to provide more opportunity for Board, agency and public input.

• Working in cooperation with Caltrans for data needed for the Interagency Transfer Agreement (ITA) and for completion of the Business Plan.

• Recently Governor Brown appointed Chad Edison as deputy secretary for transportation at the California State Transportation Agency, which will be seen as a positive step in moving forward.

Comments were made by several directors concerning the Comet Cars:

• Spacious • Challenging to board • Difficulty opening the doors between cars • Lighting was bright

Mr. Chesley raised the question regarding discussions pertaining to these comments since the trains have been in operation. Mr. Leavitt responded it’s still early. Operations were started late October and currently what they are discovering is the trains are on average eleven minutes late as compared to bi-level carts. They were concerned about the challenge of boarding the train particularly for people who have difficulties or heavy luggage. We will know more information within a month or two. We will be asking Caltrans not to deploy the second Comet Car train set and wait until we have more information in order to determine how this is impacting the service. No further comments or questions. 4. SJV Interregional Goods Movement M. Sigala a. Proposed National Freight Network Mr. Sigala reported

• The feds released the National Freight Network. o Have a primary network of 27,000 centerline miles associated with it. o I-5, SR 99, SR58, SR120 and SR4 are on the 27,000-mile list along with Fresno’s TOPC

Rail Yard (as a facility).

7

• Deadline extended to January 17, 2014 to provide feedback to FHWA. • California Freight Advisory Committee is holding a special conference call tomorrow (Friday,

December 6, 2013) at 1:00 p.m. examining the state of California response to the National Freight Network.

Mr. Chesley commented that there were state modifications to the National Freight Network that were proposed. Mr. Sigala stated that he believed Bruce De Terra compiled a list that he would like to be reconsidered as part of that. One of that is probably increasing our share of it, which is about ten percent currently. A conversation ensued regarding the national freight network map, the concern of only having SR99 and I-5 freight networks illustrating an apparent vulnerability with lack of east-west networks (north of Bakersfield and south of Stockton). Mr. Sigala will inquire concerning the lack of not including an east-west network on the national freight network map. No further comments or questions. b. Caltrans Partnership Planning Grant for Sustainable Transportation Mr. Sigala included this item to inform the directors of possible additional steps that can be taken on the goods movement planning effort on the implementation side of it. The review in the executive summary provided by Cambridge pointed out possible next steps and areas of future studies:

• The potential for short line or short haul rail. • The use of natural gas or other alternative, cleaner fuels for goods movement purposes. • Potential for zero emissions or near zero emission technologies for use in goods movement

applications. • Truck routing and parking needs ongoing study. • Further study to understand the region’s future air cargo needs and the roles that its multiple

airports can play in meeting those needs. • Continue to identify “last mile” connectors to better understand their role in regional goods

movement. Mr. Sigala stated the application deadline is February 3, 2014 at 10am and added that he would return in January with ideas and timelines entailing the process for applying for this grant. Mr. Chesley invited a conversation concerning modeling and modelers. Ideas generated included:

• The challenge of training existing modeling staff • Developing modeling staff through educational opportunities in the valley • Valley office for modeling responsible for providing to all MPOs a high level and day to day level

modeling service. • Needing education for current and future modelers • Meeting with a modelers users group at regular interval meetings • Setting the ground work for moving to an activities based modeling • An institute of training/ modeling center/ training camp • Developing a pool of people who have specific skill sets • Partnership between universities (training center and incubator to contact universities)

Mr. Yamzon proposed to work with Mr. Sigala in terms of submitting a grant. Mr. Sigala added that he did have a conversation with Andre Boutros (CTC) who commented the plan was good and would like to see it move forward in terms of performance measures and economic development linkages as part of it as well. Mr. Yamzon also added that Caltrans would be rolling out their statewide model (a group of state wide modelers).

8

Mr. Sigala reiterated: • Moving forward with the Caltrans planning grant (with ideas and timelines entailing the process in

applying for this grant) • Mr. Sigala and Mr. Yamzon will work together submitting a grant to Caltrans regarding

modeling/modelers. No further comments or questions. 5. State Route 99 Bond Savings Program C. Yamzon Status of Project Programming Mr. Yamzon had no update and differed to Mr. Smalley. Mr. Smalley added that they will be on the January agenda with the possibility of going out to bid February no later than early March. A discussion ensued regarding post project list finalization and the possibility of a surplus of SR99 bond money and how this money will be spent. The discussion included:

• Operational improvements (easily implemented projects) and creating a pool of these types of projects from a cost/benefit perspective

• Continuing efforts in widening SR 99 towards Kern County • SHOPP projects • Having a pool of ten projects with a good cost/benefit ratio instead of one grand project. • Having a list of shelf ready projects • Advocating for more than just SR99 Bond/ setting up for other funding sources

The conclusion of the conversation led to Kern taking the lead in initiating a meeting with district directors of Caltrans (Sharri Bender Ehlert) tentatively scheduled for February 2014 to discuss further action in moving forward. No further comments or questions. 6. Strategic Growth Council, Planning Grant Program R. Terry Receive Update on Proposed Valleywide SCS Implementation Applications M. Sigala Ms. King reported announcements will come out tomorrow (Friday, December 6, 2013) with application due at the end of February, 2014. Mr. Terry reported that the two main topics raised are SCS integration and Greenprint

• SCS Integration o Local agency assistance seemed to be the highest desire o Due to the eight individual SCSs myriad of different programs and policy differences that

are present among the eight MPOs, forming one singular valleywide implementation program can really fail to provide the best implementation benefit for the various local agencies throughout the valley.

o The concept of creating a valleywide set of guidelines for how the grant dollars usage will be spent and reported is being considered.

§ Although allocating the dollars themselves to each COG based upon their population (using the Planning Center Demographic Study) would allow for independent use for implementation efforts at each COG level with their local member agencies to match what those implementation efforts might need to be coming from your specific SCS and matching your policies and programs.

o This method would require each COG to have a designated project manager for the grant. § Would be responsible for understanding the guidelines § How the valley has decided on how to spend the dollars § Reporting the activities in line with the guidelines to the Valleywide grant

manager which would be Fresno COG § Hold responsibility for reporting all the activities back to the Valleywide grant

manager during which Fresno COG would take the information and compile it

9

and report that back to the SGC or the Department of Conservation for the funding.

o The SGC is very specific about wanting to see actual activities, projects or programs that are resulting directly in the GHG reductions.

• Greenprint o Round 2 activities are starting to take shape o Not fully known what type of activities they may need or may even be appropriate for the

Round 3 application o Do know that integration efforts whether pilot projects/programs or something of this

nature will most likely be the desired activity Mr. Terry requested action from the directors to continue to move in the direction staff has been discussing or a specific direction of looking at this in a different light and hear the items that we would prefer you to look at as opposed to what has been brought before your today. Mr. Smalley favored ideas that would allow for implementation and would prefer that the bulk of the money go to SCS. Mr. Terry added that has been the discussion among the project managers regarding allocation of the money and what percent should go to SCS and Greenprint. The breakdown of the funds has not been identified but the bulk of the funds seem to be leveraged to SCS. Following Mr. Terry’s comment Mr. Smalley expressed his opinion that he would not like to see money go into the Greenprint for this round and would favor for funds to be allocated for implementation and see projects be built. Mr. Chesley also concurred with Mr. Smalley. The consensus among the directors sided with this sentiment also. No further comments or questions. 7. Valley Legislative Affairs Committee (VLAC) T. King a. Selection of Sacramento Valley Voice Hotel Ms. King reported:

• Preference was selecting the Hyatt Regency Sacramento ($184/night) whom they have a draft contract with.

o The draft contract states that if full occupancy is not reached subsequent remainder rooms will be invoiced at $150 dollars per room.

§ 15 rooms reserved for the first night § 25 reserved on the following night

• Because of the peak time period the rates for Holiday Inn and Residence Inn exceeded those of the Hyatt Regency Sacramento and were not considered.

• Sacramento Valley Voice trip dates are scheduled for March 4-6, 2014 o March 4—travel date o March 5—full day meetings o March 6—half day meetings

Consensus among the directors was selecting the Hyatt Regency Hotel for their hotel accommodations. No further comments or questions. b. Valley Voice State Legislative Platform Mr. Phipps reported:

• Recommended utilizing last year’s Sacramento platform in which there was a separate federal platform.

• Tentative Platforms for the Sacramento Valley Voice trip: o Supporting legislation lowering the 55 percent threshold to pass transportation initiatives o Goods Movement (very broadly) o Support for the California Alliance for Jobs

10

o Transportation California initiative one percent for vehicle registration fee for maintenance

o MAP 21 o Amtrak San Joaquin Line

• Under specific requests: o CEQA ?? o No other requests have been made

Mr. Phipps stated that are looking for directions on:

• Specific funding or policy requests • Looking to meet in addition to the legislative delegation with different agencies including:

o Strategic Growth Council (SGC) o Air Resources Board (ARB) o Transportation Agency o Caltrans (State Rail Plan)

A discussion ensued on the addition of water to the platform and the logistics of key information to focus on:

• Water bond the supports water storage • Water quality for disadvantaged communities • Delta fix • A partnership with the San Joaquin Valley Partnership

Mr. Boren expressed his concerned regarding water and a position on water that all directors can agree upon. Mr. Chesley expressed that storage is one place where there has been language that everyone has some common ground. Mr. Phipps again posed the question if:

• Discussion needs to continue? • Adding water? • Not adding water?

Mr. Chesley responded by saying “water is a good thing to discuss.” Mr. Boren raised the question if there is support for a water bond? There was difference of opinions stated. Mr. Phipps again reiterated:

• VLAC is having trouble articulating a particular request o Funding request o Developing language for any kind of bill that we might want to insert o Sponsoring a bill o Inserting language into an existing legislation such as:

§ CEQA reform concept o Change the nature of the trips entirely (better use of time)

§ Spending less time with legislators and more time with the agencies Mr. Boren along with Ms. King reaffirmed that it would be more valuable to meet with staff. Mr. Phipps stated if this is the direction, then is a lobbyist needed? (The need for a lobbyist was discussed at the last directors meeting: Consensus was to appoint Fresno Council of Governments “sole source” administrative function to hire Mr. Gus Khouri as the lobbyist with all COGs agreeing to share the expense.) Mr. Boren reported that Fresno COG reached out to Mr. Gus Khouri who expressed a desire to work with the directors for a $15,000 fee (but that Fresno COG would work on lowering fee amount).

11

Mr. Smalley identified key issues for this trip: 1. The valleys position on the one percent deals as far as revenues (having a highway trust fund deal). 2. Are we going to be prepared to have our folks talk with ARB?

Mr. Boren and Mr. Hakimi supported Mr. Smalley’s key issues. Mr. Phipps asked if specifically you want to embellish further on funding:

• Cap and trade • New revenues or existing revenues

Mr. Smalley responded it could be a number of things:

1. I don’t know where cap and trade will be but we need to be prepared. a. Talk about different positions that favor us in the valley and be prepared to carry those

forward. 2. One percent maintenance dedicated to predominantly maintenance and some transit.

Mr. Boren raised his concern for the one percent for maintenance and posed the question to all the directors whether this proposal will have to go before their individual boards for support. Mr. Phipps agreed with Mr. Boren on the implications (future sales tax altering consumer decisions) but did state that he believes Mr. Mark Watts (who will be presenting this proposal at the Policy Council meeting) will state that this will be a tool that doesn’t necessarily have to be used. It is something that they are considering and positioning themselves for. Mr. Smalley added that although a decision is not ready on what the directors can support the VLAC can begin work on the documentation of why we do need money and how far behind we are. This would be a telling statistic. Some directors expressed inviting Mr. Watts or Will Kempton to their board meeting and giving a presentation on the vehicle registration proposal. Ms. King commented on cap and trade that we are assuming SGC would be getting that money and they would have to develop guidelines letting them know what our needs are to influence those guidelines. Mr. Smalley suggested meeting with all the chief of staff’s together and voice the valley’s concerns. Mr. Boren concurred. No further comments or questions. c. Valley Voice State Lobbyist Update This item was combined with the previous item. d. Receive “Highway Trust Fund Revenue Options” R. Phipps Mr. Phipps detailed that Attachment (memo) that was included in the agenda packet. Mr. Hakimi made a motion to receive the report, seconded by Mr. Chesley. No further comments or questions. 8. SJV Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Strategic Deployment Plan T. Smalley Discuss Updating the 2001 Plan Mr. Smalley commented that FHWA was probing on when the ITS system will be updated. Mr. Smalley inquired from other COGs that were potentially thinking of updating their system and whether there would be interest in coming together for this update for potentially next month.

12

Ms. King stated that Kern County was the lead on the valleywide ITS. Ms. Pacheco acknowledged that they were the lead but currently they are the Maintenance Manager. Ms. Pacheco reported:

• Back in April this group reaffirmed the consistency of the 2001 Plan and therefore determined not to update it as a valley.

• Every RTP cycle we examine our plan to determine if meets the needs of the valley. • Fresno COG was selected by FHWA as the testing facility to update their ITS.

o Fresno tentatively is looking to complete their update by 2015 • FHWA has informed Kern County that they will follow suite and use Fresno COG as a template to

perform Kern County’s update followed with performing the valleywide update. Mr. Smalley was reaffirmed that FHWA participated in the discussions and are aware of the approach that Ms. Pacheco mentioned concerning Fresno COG being selected first followed by Kern COG, then the valley. Ms. Pacheco also responded to Mr. Boren’s question concerning funding and stated that in the past a state planning and research grant was used for the valley. No further comments or questions. 9. Cap and Trade – SJV Coalition for Disadvantaged Communities T. Jordan/M. Sigala Update and Discussion, Approve Draft Policy Position Mr. Jordan reported that he will be presenting this draft to the San Joaquin Valley Partnership board tomorrow (Friday, December 6, 3013). Mr. Jordan also stated he received a call from the newly appointed member to the California Air Resources Board John Eisenhut who expressed curiosity and would like to be supportive but is in the process of gathering more information. This was positive news that the valley is taking a position in coming together in a unified perspective. Currently things are quite but after the first of the year you will see a lot of activity on this front between the governor’s budget proposal and the deadline to introduce new bills in the legislature. Having a position before things start moving forward is a valuable thing and recommends approving the policy position before you today. Mr. Hakimi made a motion to approve the recommendation, seconded by Mr. Chesley. Motion carried. Mr. Chesley inquired about the nature of the political changes and how the 25 percent is derived. Mr. Jordan regrettable had no information on this but did state that he is familiar with the model that was used for identifying the environmental justice community (the CalEnviro Screen Model) and stated there have been some changes in that tool. There also have been some valley concerns on how that tool is being used and one of the things they have encouraged for state policy makers is that this should be used as a tool to obtain additional resources to these communities and not additional enforcement type actions. No further comments or questions. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 10. High Speed Rail D. Gomez No update. 11. Caltrans Directors Report C.Bowen/S.Ehlert No update. 12. Implementation of the San Joaquin Rail Authority (SB 325) T. Smalley No update. 13. Proposition 84/Blueprint/Greenprint R. Terry

13

No update. 14. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley J. Waters Mr. Waters provided a few updates:

• San Joaquin Valley Partnership meeting is tomorrow (Friday, December 6, 2013). • Will have a RHNA item on the agenda.

o HCD representative is scheduled to attend Mr. Yamzon directed a question concerning who will be representing HCD at the meeting. Due to technical difficulties the conference call line was disconnected and reconnected. Difficulties ensued and the line was disconnected. No further comments or questions. 15. Regional Energy Planning M. Sigala No update. OTHER ITEMS 16. Director Items Ms. King commented on the timing of preparing for the Valley Voice Trip isn’t efficient for approving and reviewing the platform for the Regional Policy Council. The feeling is they meet to early and too late for input. A request is made to rearrange the meeting to allow for adequate time to produce a platform. The ARB (Air Resources Board) discussion for the policy council will be an update/discussion item. 17. Public Presentations for Items Not on Agenda. No public presentations.

Motion to adjourn by Mr. Hakimi, seconded by Ms. Kirn

Meeting adjourned at approximately 11:58 a.m.

Next Directors’ Meeting: Thursday, January 9, 2014 in Visalia (TCAG)

Appendix A: List of Others Attending

Robert Ball, Kern COG On the phone: Robert Phipps, Kern COG Rob Terry, Fresno COG Raquel Pacheco, Kern COG Chris Lehn, KCAG Linda Urata, Kern COG Mat Fell, MCAG Derek Winning, MCTC Jeff Findley, MCTC Tanisha Taylor, SJCOG Ben Kimball, TCAG Rosa Park, Stan COG Roberto Brady, TCAG Roberto Brady, TCAG Gail Miller, Caltrans, District 6 Michael Sigala, Valleywide Coordinator for MPOs Ken Baxter, Caltrans, District 10 Jose Ramirez, Sigala Inc. Dan Leavitt, Regional Rail Commission Robert Ball, Kern COG Stacie Dabbs, CA Partnership for the SJV

Jason Waters, CA Partnership for the SJV

January 9, 2014 Mike McCoy Executive Director Strategic Growth Council 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. McCoy: Re: Proposition 84 – San Joaquin Valley Sustainable Communities Round 3 Planning Grant Application Please accept this letter of support from The San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee in relation to the San Joaquin Valley Sustainable Communities Round 3 Planning Grant application being submitted by the Fresno Council of Governments in behalf of the eight (8) San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). We continue to be very supportive of the Strategic Growth Council’s mandate to coordinate the activities of State agencies to improve air and water quality, promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment and promote healthy, safe communities by assisting local governments in meeting the challenges of adopting plans and integrating strategies that are consistent with AB32 and SB 375. Our valley partners, both public and private, have greatly increased over the years as we have created a solid track record of open communication and collaboration, which was greatly assisted through Round’s 1 and 2 of the Strategic Growth Council’s Planning Grant program. We look forward to further strengthening our collaboration and progress in achieving the mandates set forth by the Strategic Growth Council. Through this collaborative grant effort, the San Joaquin Valley MPOs (Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare) will continue their coordinated efforts to improve water and air quality, promote public health, increase housing affordability and promote infill and compact development by laboring to transform communities and creating long term prosperity by integrating Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) principles and programs, consistent with the intent of AB 32 and SB 375, into the general plans of cities within the Central Valley; and through protecting natural resources and agricultural lands by delivering locally utilized tools designed to assist with the integration of the Valley Greenprint plan. Your sincere consideration for awarding Round 3 Planning Grant funds to the Fresno Council of Governments, in behalf of all eight of the Valley MPOs, to allow for the continued collaborative work of improving and protecting this vital valley is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Terri King, Executive Director, Kings County Association of Governments Chair, San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee

Kings County Association of Governments Terri King Chair Kern Council of Governments Ahron Hakimi Vice Chair Fresno Council of Governments Tony Boren Madera County Transportation Commission Patricia Taylor Merced County Association of Governments Marjorie Kirn San Joaquin Council of Governments Andrew Chesley Stanislaus Council of Governments Carlos Yamzon Tulare County Association of Governments Ted Smalley


c/o Kings County Association of Governments – 339 West D Street, Suite B – Lemoore CA 93245

Phone: 559-852-2654 – FAX: 559-924-5632

ITEM 5

San Joaquin Valley Prop 84 Round 3 Application - Budget Details

Prop 84 Rd 3Grant 1,000,000$ Required Match 100,000$ Total Budget 1,100,000$

CountyPopulation (2014 SJV Estimates*)

% of SJ Valley pop by

county

Estimated Funding

Allocation by Population

Total Local Match Share

(%Pop)

Local Match Cash Min.(5% of match total)

Grant share Less local

match

Fresno 995,868 23.50% $258,539 $23,504 $11,752 $235,036Kern 907,502 21.42% $235,598 $21,418 $10,709 $214,180Kings 164,291 3.88% $42,652 $3,877 $1,939 $38,774Madera 164,714 3.89% $42,762 $3,887 $1,944 $38,874Merced 271,651 6.41% $70,524 $6,411 $3,206 $64,113San Joaquin 730,119 17.23% $189,547 $17,232 $8,616 $172,316Stanislaus 543,172 12.82% $141,014 $12,819 $6,410 $128,194Tulare 459,779 10.85% $119,364 $10,851 $5,426 $108,513Total 4,237,096 100.00% $1,100,000 $100,000 $50,000 $1,000,000*Figures utilized from the San Joaquin Valley Demographic Forecast, completed by the Planning Center in March 2012; accepted by the COG Director's April 5, 2012

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

ITEM 5

San Joaquin Valley Goods Movement Plan – Next Phase Partnership Planning for Sustainable Transportation, Caltrans FY 2014-‐2015 Planning Grant Intro and Background. The San Joaquin Valley (SJV) has always been California’s geographic and agricultural production center generating more than $35 billion every year in nuts, lettuce, tomatoes, wine, and other grains and agricultural products. It also plays a major role in the national and international distribution of processed foods and energy products, and has a burgeoning logistics and distribution industry. The region has relatively inexpensive land and low cost labor, good access to the national rail and interstate highway networks, connections to major deep-‐water ports in Oakland, Los Angeles, and Long Beach, and proximity to major consumer markets in Southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area. Recognizing the importance of goods movement to the region, the eight San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies and Caltrans commissioned the San Joaquin Valley Interregional Goods Movement Plan completed in 2013. The Goods Movement Plan (Plan) builds upon recent traffic, logistics, and long-‐term infrastructure improvement planning efforts throughout the region. Building on these prior efforts and new analysis, the Plan developed a comprehensive list of prioritized multi-‐modal projects, strategic programs, and policies that will guide future goods movement investments and policy. The Plan concludes with a discussion of funding and implementation strategies so the SJV Regional Planning Agencies can move forward with next steps to realize the vision embodied in the Plan. Proposed Scope of Work. One of the strategies identified in the Plan in particular that will require further analysis and study is the issue of “Last Mile” Connectivity. The proposed application concept from the Valley Regional Planning Agencies for the FY 2014-‐15 Caltrans Partnership Planning for Sustainable Transportation grant program focuses on the “Last Mile” Connectivity issue along with the other related work items: 1) “Last Mile” Connectivity. Many of the Valley’s agriculture and industrial facilities are located in rural regions, dispersed throughout the entire San Joaquin Valley. These industries rely heavily on intra-‐regional trucking for their day-‐to-‐day business activities. In fact, of the 180 million total tons of agricultural material moved by truck throughout the Valley, 110 million tons make intra-‐regional (county to county) moves within the San Joaquin Valley. Therefore, trucks associated with agriculture and industrial activities rely on many different types of roads, including connector roads between rural facilities that are not designed to carry heavy vehicle traffic. This creates issues of “last mile” connectivity, where access to individual sites are under-‐maintained, capacity constrained, or unsafe. This lack of connectivity represents a major local and regional economic development constraint for the San Joaquin Valley.

A high level assessment of the San Joaquin Valley goods movement needs identified “Last Mile” Connectivity as a critical issue requiring additional investigation. Building upon the existing analysis in the Plan, the next phase of the analysis would conduct a comprehensive identification of the highest priority last mile connectors and economic activities they support. As well as an identification of near and long term improvements to these connectors. The more comprehensive assessment will make recommendations for capacity, operational, and maintenance needs on the high priority connectors including ITS improvements as appropriate and identification of truck parking needs along or nearby connectors. This will also include

ITEM 6.a

recommendations on changes in designation of terminal access routes as part of the state’s STAA truck route system and will build on similar efforts recently conducted by San Joaquin County COG and Sacramento Area COG. Since most of the critical connectors are city or county roads but are still important elements of the Valley’s goods movement system, the investigation will also look at funding needs and options for implementing the recommended strategies. This effort comes at an important time as the Federal Highway Administration is planning to re-‐examine National Highway System (NHS) connector designations sometime during the next year and the issue of funding for these connectors may be discussed as part of the next Federal surface transportation bill reauthorization. 2) Truck Routing and Parking Needs. Truck routing and truck parking are long-‐term priorities to ensure the safe and efficient movement of goods by truck through SJV communities. The truck routing study by SJ COG and SACOG may provide a starting point, but much work remains to be done on the local regional planning levels. Large fleet owners have different routing and parking needs than owner operators, and local route truckers have different routing and parking needs than long-‐haul truckload carriers. The next phase of the analysis will identify key areas of concern and related policy recommendations for addressing this issue on the regional and local level. Issues that will addressed will include coordination of truck routes across jurisdictional boundaries to develop a more integrated system, development of guidelines and design standards for truck routes in different types of developments and land uses, an inventory of existing truck parking in the Valley along with the potential application of truck GPS data sets to identify areas of greatest parking need, and potential application of ITS technologies to track and manage truck parking, especially in urban areas of the Valley. 3) Rural Priority Corridors. A majority of the “raw” agricultural product of the Valley is initially transported by truck along rural corridors to manufacturing, processing or retail outlets. Part of the California statewide goods movement planning effort as directed by MAP 21, requires each state department of transportation to identify priority rural corridors. This next phase of the analysis will identify, by utilizing existing economic and traffic data, and prioritize the regions most critical rural corridors. 4) “Modeling Institute” and Performance Measurement Framework Development. To support these previous work items, existing truck and other models and methodologies for assessing project priorities would be utilized and built upon to develop an enhanced performance measuring system. This would include developing the infrastructure to support ongoing sustainable modeling efforts across and within each of the eight Valley regional planning agencies. A pilot project mirroring a “modeling institute” would be developed to support the ongoing analysis and evaluation of the Valley’s goods movement system and transportation network. This work item would include but is not limited to: integrating the Valley’s truck model into the eight county model improvement program (MIP); integrating the SJV goods movement model into the statewide goods movement modeling effort; incorporating new Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) data from FHWA to update the SJV goods movement model; institutionalizing modeling into our ongoing business efforts; providing and developing training, programming, and processes for staff to be able to continually update the model to minimize the need to hire

outside consultants; and, developing regional eight-‐county transportation and economic development performance measures for the Valleys goods movement system. 5) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Integration. Identification of last mile connectors, parking needs, rural corridors and developing a pilot modeling institute framework will need to be developed in concert with the state mandated sustainable communities strategies to ensure that potential conflicts with transportation policies, existing and planned land uses, housing and other policies to reduce green house gas emissions are mitigated and that planning guidance is developed to deal with these potential conflicts. Scope items one thru four will provide a technical foundation for obliging to our ongoing SCS implementation efforts that are unfunded at the federal level. Study Approach. It is anticipated the proposed planning effort will mirror and serve as a continuation to the recent good movement Plan. The $300,000 planning grant, if secured, will be matched with a local in-‐kind contribution of 20 percent ($60,000) from the Valley Regional Planning Agencies.

White paper on compact development economics in the San Joaquin Valley, Implementing the SCS: With the adoption of AB 32 and SB 375 the policy direction of the state has been toward more compact sustainable development. This pattern of development while economically viable in the major coastal areas of the State of California has faces significant development challenges in the San Joaquin Valley, where income levels are much lower than the rest if the state Under the provisions of SB 375 Metropolitan Planning Agencies are required to include in their regional transportation plan (RTP) a sustainable communities strategy (SCS). The objective of the SCS is more compact development to decrease greenhouse gas emissions resulting from new development. The challenge for the San Joaquin Valley is that the available household income for new units does not align with the cost of the proposed compact infill development. Specific site studies have shown that the cost of making infill development economically viable in the San Joaquin valley requires a market subsidy of $40k to $100k per unit. Specific project pro formas were done for sections of Shaw Avenue in the City of Clovis. These project analyses looked at both ownership and rental units of varying sizes and density. The average subsidy just to bring the units to market rate was approximately $80k. In another analysis along the same corridor the conversion of an older shopping center was looked at. Even under a scenario where the land was provided at no cost the project was not economically viable. Even getting the units to work at market rate doesn’t mean affordability for many households. What valley and state policy makers lack is specific and detailed information about the economics of smart growth development in the San Joaquin Valley. The type of development which has worked in the major coastal areas of the State of California is largely not applicable in the San Joaquin Valley. Even within the San Joaquin Valley economic conditions vary significantly. A convening in October 2013, by the infill builders Association, with valley leaders here in Fresno touched on this issue. The discussion included projects that were economically viable in the Sacramento area which were not economically viable in the Fresno area. While infill developments could be sold for two dollars a square foot in Sacramento similar developments in the Fresno could only generate about $.99 a square foot. It is not likely that expedited processing or waiving fees will close the gap between market level economics and the reality of infill development in the San Joaquin Valley. More specific analysis is needed to confirm this disconnect between market economics and infill development. Even where market demand exists for higher density housing within the San Joaquin Valley, the households that desire that type of housing, in many cases lack the resources to afford that housing. There's a significant disparity in household income in the San Joaquin Valley and the major coastal areas the state. This disparity is reflected in the higher unemployment and welfare supported families in the valley. Even assuming the ability to change the model of development toward new infill projects the gap between household income and the likely rental or purchase price for these units will continue to be a major disconnect for the implementation of the sustainable community strategies in the valley. One response is to limit greenfield development. Doing so will add to the overall cost of housing and will further reduce the number of households able to afford market rate housing. Further if these households are not able to afford housing here, where will they be able to find affordable housing? Better information is need about the specifics of this issue and the possible solutions.

ITEM 6.b

The other challenge for higher density infill development in the valley is that the basic pattern of development. Particularly within the small communities of the San Joaquin Valley there is very different pattern of community scale and development than that found in the major metropolitan areas. On its surface the valley does not appear to lack sufficient land to accommodate future growth in the historic pattern of development. While there is a growing understanding of the value of the agricultural and resource lands in the valley there is still significant opposition to shifting to a significantly higher pattern of urban infill development. The valley lacks good relevant examples of higher density/efficient land development. Good examples are a key to changing attitudes about more compact development and therefore the implementation of the SCS’s. With the lack of redevelopment and other community-based resources to close the gap in making these projects economically viable, the building and banking industries will continue to look to proven patterns of land development. There is a path forward for the San Joaquin Valley. The three critical steps necessary to address these issues are:

• First; A more complete analysis of the economics of infill higher density development within the major cities and in the smaller cities of the San Joaquin Valley;

• Second an analysis of patterns for higher density development which are appropriate in the San Joaquin Valley particularly within the small cities in unincorporated communities; and,

• Third and analysis of revenue sources which can be used to close the gap between cost of compact and infill development and what valley households can afford.

The first action proposed is to seek funding for additional analysis of development types and costs. This would include an analysis of infill and higher density projects in both urban areas and in smaller communities. This will provide information on the components of cost and the gap to achieve market viability. Unless this economic reality can be documented and addressed, the valley will not be able to realize the pattern of development that is the basis for compact/infill development in the SCS’s. The second action would be to use this information to explore more compact, valley appropriate development types. This effort would consider the geography of the valley, community size and type, construction methods and affordability of valley households. Elected officials and residents need to see viable patterns of development that can help them achieve the objectives of the SCS’s The third action would be to identify available or possible funding sources to address the affordability gap. It is highly unlikely that market rate developments will be able to meet the housing needs of the valley. We, hopefully, will be able to increase the percentage of households which can afford market rate housing but we will need to provide funding to assist lower income households. Options which need to be explored include indirect source review funds, cap and trade funds, successor redevelopment funds/tools and funding from SB 391, the California Homes and Jobs Act. Other sources will be considered as the project work is carried out. With the support of the Valley Planners Network I would request that the Fresno COG sponsor a request for Partnership Planning for Sustainable Transportation grant for $300,000.

January 7, 2014 Alyssa Begley Chief, Caltrans Office of Community Planning 1120 N Street, MS-‐32 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Begley: Re: 2014 Caltrans Partnership Planning for Sustainable Transportation Grant Application Please accept this letter of support from The San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee in relation to the 2014 Caltrans Partnership Planning for Sustainable Transportation Grant application being submitted by the Fresno Council of Governments in behalf of the eight (8) San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). We continue to be very supportive of the Caltrans’ efforts to encourage coordination of State, regional and local agencies to improve air and water quality, promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment and promote healthy, safe communities by assisting local governments in meeting the challenges of adopting plans and integrating strategies that are consistent with AB32 and SB 375. Our valley partners, both public and private, have greatly increased over the years as we have created a solid track record of open communication and collaboration, which has been greatly assisted through Sustainable Communities Strategies formulation efforts. We look forward to further strengthening our collaboration and progress in achieving the mandates set forth by the State in implementing SCS strategies. Through this collaborative grant effort, the San Joaquin Valley MPOs (Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare) will continue their coordinated efforts to increase housing affordability and promote infill and compact development by laboring to transform communities and creating long term prosperity by specifically identifying challenges and opportunities associated with compact development funding throughout the San Joaquin Valley. These efforts are intended to utilize the findings and reports previously completed for the Valley MPO’s through the Blueprint process, as well as leveraging SCS specific findings and programs. Your sincere consideration for awarding Partnership Planning Grant funds to the Fresno Council of Governments, in behalf of all eight of the Valley MPOs, to allow for the continued collaborative work of improving and protecting this vital valley is greatly appreciated. Respectfully,

Terri King Chair, San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee

ITEM 6.b

of 6

2014 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM Revised January 2, 2014

BACKGROUND The San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies include the San Joaquin Council of Governments, Stanislaus Council of Governments, Merced County Association of Governments, Madera County Transportation Commission, Fresno Council of Governments, Kings County Association of Governments, Tulare County Association of Governments, and Kern Council of Governments. In 2006, the San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies expanded their Memorandum of Understanding to form a Regional Policy Council, comprised of two elected officials from each of the eight Valley counties, to discuss and build consensus on issues of Valleywide importance. The Regional Policy Council, in coordination with the San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies, has established a San Joaquin Valley Legislative Platform that reflects the Regional Policy Council’s priorities in state and federal legislative matters. The Legislative Platform provides guidance to the eight San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies and their lobbying partners when taking action on specific legislative proposals. The platform is intended to provide a unified voice when communicating legislative issues of regional importance to the Valley’s state and federal legislative delegation as well as relevant state and federal agencies. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

§ Protect and enhance current state and federal funding levels for transportation related programs.

§ Continue to advocate as a region to advance common goals for improvements in state and federal legislation and policies.

VALLEY VOICE ADVOCACY EFFORTS Continue to pursue federal and state support for the projects and legislative priorities identified through the Regional Policy Council’s advocacy program called “Valley Voice”

§ TRANSPORTATION FUNDING § TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE VOTER THRESHOLD § CAP AND TRADE FUNDING § GOODS MOVEMENT § SAN JOAQUIN AMTRAK INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL § WATER QUALITY, SUPPLY AND RELIABILITY

Contact Ms. Terri King, Kings County Association of Governments for more information: (559) 852-‐2678 • email: [email protected]

ITEM 7

of 6

2013 VALLEY VOICE REGIONAL PRIORITIES TRANSPORTATION FUNDING:

REQUEST The SJV Policy Council recognizes the significance in preserving existing funding sources and allocating additional transportation related funding sources as they become available. SUMMARY The SJV is California’s fastest growing region, with a population of over 4 million that is anticipated to grow to more than 6 million people by 2035. The SJV has a significant role in the movement of agricultural products and goods, with a heavy burden placed on the existing transportation infrastructure. Investments to preserve the SJV transportation infrastructure have not kept pace with the demand and have led to the deterioration of the usability of the network. § According to the California Transportation Commission 2011 Statewide

Transportation Needs Assessment the San Joaquin Valley would need $3.34 billion for State Route 99 backbone projects and $6.39 billion for priority projects.

§ The SJV has more than 4,000 bridges, with Madera County having the highest percentage of structurally deficient bridges in the state at 34.7%.

SUPPORT LEGISLATION THAT LOWERS THE THRESHOLD REQUIRED TO PASS TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES:

REQUEST The SJV Policy Council requests support for the reduction of the voter threshold for transportation sales tax measures. SUMMARY The reduction of the voter threshold reduces the opportunity for a small minority of voters to control transportation investment decisions that are supported by a large majority of voters. Since 1990, court rulings requiring 2/3 voter approval of special tax measures have made it extremely difficult for counties without an existing program to enact such measures. § Kern, Merced and Stanislaus Counties in their attempts to pass a transportation

sales tax measure have fallen short of the required 2/3 voter by a very small margin.

§ A constitutional amendment would allow a change to the voter-‐approval requirement for special transportation taxes proposed by a local government

of 6

from 2/3 to 55 percent – the same vote threshold required for educational bonds since 2004.

CAP-‐AND-‐TRADE FUNDING:

REQUESTS The SJV Policy Council supports the Transportation Coalition for Livable Communities, which includes the California Transit Association, Transportation California, California Alliance for Jobs, and local and regional government associations in the uniting principle that auction revenues derived from vehicle fuels should be used to fund transportation system needs in a way that achieves AB 32 objectives and builds on the framework of SB 375 and other GHG reduction strategies. 1. Dedicate cap-‐and-‐trade revenues related to fuels to transportation investments. 2. Invest a major portion of fuels-‐related revenues to implement the AB 32

regulatory program by reducing GHG emissions from transportation. 3. Structure the investments to favor integrated transportation and land use

strategies with an emphasis on poor air quality regions, such as the San Joaquin Valley.

4. Cap-‐and-‐trade revenues should achieve greenhouse gas reductions, with priority given to projects that achieve reductions in criteria pollutants.

5. Allow flexibility at the regional and local level to develop the most cost-‐effective ways to meet GHG reduction goals through transportation and land use investments.

6. Provide the incentives and assistance that local governments need to make SB 375 work.

7. Address project-‐funding determinations at the regional level under established statewide criteria to encourage local innovation and flexibility, while addressing the needs and role of disadvantaged communities.

8. Polices and programs funded with cap-‐and-‐trade revenues should meet or exceed the provisions of SB 535 that require a minimum of 25% to be distributed in a manner that benefits disadvantaged communities and that 10% of the revenue be spent in those communities.

SUMMARY Funding revenues should be directed to transit and road operations and maintenance, as well as complete streets infrastructure within existing urban infill and rural communities. These funds must be invested in a way that implements AB 32 using, where applicable, SB 375 implementation strategies. Funds should be allocated to areas that have disadvantaged communities and poor air quality, recognizing that different strategies are needed to achieve GHG reductions in different areas of the state. Additional incentives should be offered to regions with Sustainable Community Strategies that exceed GHG reduction targets, or equivalent

of 6

Blueprint Plans or other regional plans.

GOODS MOVEMENT:

REQUEST The SJV Policy Council distinguishes the need to continue to fund the major regionally significant trade corridors. 1. SJV Interregional Goods Movement Plan: provides a detailed description of the

existing freight infrastructure (including the highways, roadways, rail facilities, intermodal facilities, intermodal centers, connections to inland and marine ports, and air cargo facilities) and provides a foundation for the analysis of existing and future freight capacity.

2. Shortline Rail: During the last two decades over 60 miles of track have been abandoned in the San Joaquin Valley. It is important that these shortline rail corridors are preserved and enhanced to provide a necessary part of goods movement infrastructure within the SJV and to reduce levels of truck VMT.

3. State Route 99 Business Plan: State Route (SR) 99 is a critical artery for goods movement in the State of California and the San Joaquin Valley. The extra stress of the overcapacity on the aged pavement in additional to the lack of adequate funding to reconstruct the pavement is the single most significant factor contributing to the current poor pavement conditions.

SUMMARY The eight San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies continue to work in partnership with Caltrans and key private stakeholders, after developing the San Joaquin Valley Interregional Goods Movement Plan. The Plan, finalized in 2013 provides analysis of the vital goods movement networks of this multi-‐county region. Goods movement is a vital component of the San Joaquin Valley’s diverse internal economy that significantly plays a major role in the distribution of agricultural materials throughout California, the United States, and the world.

SAN JOAQUIN AMTRAK INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL:

REQUEST Support continued and increased funding for state-‐supported Intercity Passenger Rail Services, including the San Joaquin Service. Support for making the transfer of the administrative responsibility of San Joaquin Service to the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) and of the Pacific Surfliner Service to the LOSSAN JPA a priority for CalSTA. 1. A continued commitment in annual operating funds through the Public

Transportation Account (PTA) to meet requirements of federal legislation (PRIIA

of 6

Section 209) – states must finance the operational costs of intercity passenger rail routes of 750 miles or less. Currently this would require an annual PTA allocation of at least $125 million, with an increased allocation necessary to expand operations further.

2. A stable, consistent annual appropriation/ allocation in state capital funds to leverage funds from matching sources (federal, regional, and private). At least $100 million/ year in state capital funds is needed to leverage funding for existing needs, with increases necessary to meet future requirements and further expand the system.

3. Facilitate, expedite, and promote the transfer of administrative responsibility of the San Joaquin and Pacific Surfliner services to the new JPAs – which includes fully defining the on-‐going role for the state with all three state-‐supported intercity passenger rail services.

SUMMARY Since 1990, California has invested more than $1.3 billion in infrastructure and equipment for intercity passenger rail and about $1 billion in operating support. This financial support helped transform the Pacific Surfliner, the Capitol Corridor, and the San Joaquin services into three of the most successful intercity passenger rail services in the nation. With over 5.5 million annual passengers for fiscal year 2012, California has more than 20 percent of all the nation’s intercity riders. The San Joaquin service carried over 1.2 million passengers in FY 13, and had the largest increase in ridership of any intercity service in the nation. Improving California’s Intercity Passenger Rail Program will result in more jobs, improved air quality, less automobile use, enhanced public safety more transportation choices and promotes sustainable development. As a result of the Governor signing AB 1779 on September 29, 2012, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority was established to enable regional governance/management of the San Joaquin intercity passenger rail service. To date, several achievements have been realized and include: • Selection of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission as the Managing Agency • New advocacy efforts for the state-‐supported intercity passenger rail program as

a new partner in the California Intercity Passenger Rail Leadership Coalition (Capitol Corridor JPA, LOSSAN JPA, Coast Rail Coordinating Council, San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee, and SJJPA).

• Leadership efforts in working with Senator Jackson and Assemblymember Olsen to establish Select Committees in the CA Senate and the Assembly for conventional passenger rail.

• The adoption of a Joint Policy Statement between SJJPA, Caltrans and the CA High Speed Rail Authority to ensure SJJPA and local member agencies can participate in any alternatives that might be necessary to utilize San Joaquin

of 6

trains on the First Construction Section of the proposed High Speed Rail Network.

• Two “Local Community Field Work Events” that encourage SJJPA members/staff/affiliates to travel on the San Joaquins to events that showcase various attractions in local communities.

WATER QUALITY, SUPPLY, AND RELIABILITY:

REQUEST The SJV needs a reliable, adequate, quality water supply to sustain a high quality of life and a world-‐class agricultural sector, while protecting and enhancing the environment. SUMMARY The SJV’s growing population and expanding economy require an adequate, quality water supply that is reliable for all sectors and the environment. The current supply is inadequate for the future, and the San Joaquin River is a valuable natural resource that needs to be restored and protected while developing additional water supplies. Water and energy are interdependent resources; with one fifth of the state’s energy being used to pump, transport, and treat water. Strategies must be addressed to maximize both these resources. The California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley has a dedicated core group that continues to work towards these water goals.

January 2, 2014 Terri King, Chair San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Director’s Committee c/o Kings County Association of Governments 339 West D Street, Suite B Lemoore, CA 93245 RE: California Energy Commission Public Opportunity Notice 13-‐603 San Joaquin Valley Alternative Fuel Adoption Project (AFAP)

The San Joaquin Valley Clean Cities Coalition (SJVCC) requests that the eight metropolitan planning organizations consider working with the SJVCCC, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (VAD), and the California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) to create an Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness Plan for the region and to submit an application for $300,000 in funding to the California Energy Commission. The California Energy Commission PON 603 offers a maximum of $300,000 in funding and requires a $60,000 match in order to support regional development of Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness Plans. The VAD, SJVCCC, and CCSE have drafted the following two goals for the AFAP: 1. To accelerate the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) and the installation of alternative fuel

vehicle infrastructure (AFI) in the region while sustaining current alternative fuel vehicle fleet efforts as a long-‐term strategy to meet long-‐term climate and air quality goals;

2. Develop a San Joaquin Valley Alternative Fuel Vehicle Deployment Plan that will assist the region in attaining air quality standards, assist in meeting goals of SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies, and optimize local, State, Federal, and private resources, that will be used by regional fleet operators, local and regional governments and Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure (AFI) industry stakeholders.

The AFAP builds on past and current AFV and AFI planning activities in the San Joaquin Valley. The same partners recently completed a Plug-‐In Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan. California State University, Fresno’s Office of Community and Economic Development leads a project funded by the California Workforce Investment Board to examine the Regional Clusters of Opportunity in the Alternative Fuel Vehicle industry for the San Joaquin Valley. Other projects are directed at expanding awareness of the existing E85 (ethanol) fueling infrastructure and providing training to first responders. In bringing the AFAP to the San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee, the SJVCCC is hopeful that participation from each of the MPOs will reduce planning redundancies, augment your current plans such as Regional Transportation Plans and your efforts to secure planning funds for a Sustainable Transportation Program. The AFAP will assist the region to capitalize on funding opportunities for public and private fleets in order to meet air quality goals.

Designated by the United States Department of Energy in 1994, the goal of the San Joaquin Valley Clean Cities Coalition is to clean the air by reducing petroleum use in the transportation sector throughout eight counties in California’s Central Valley. Our stakeholders develop public/private partnerships to promote alternative fuels and vehicles, fuel blends, fuel economy, hybrid vehicles, and idle reduction technologies. The SJVCCC, CCSE, and VAD request that each MPO consider dedicating a staff person to participate in quarterly meetings, to contribute to and to review work AFAP products, to refer fleets to the project, to provide policy and planning documents to the lead staff as well as using and sharing the resulting SJV Alternative Fuel Readiness Plan. This staff time would be counted toward the $60,000 match on the application. On behalf of our stakeholders, the San Joaquin Valley Clean Cities Coalition, along with the California Center for Sustainable Energy, and the Valley Air District value your participation and appreciate your consideration. We would be happy to attend your February meeting to provide more information or for official action. Sincerely, Linda Urata

Linda Urata, Coordinator San Joaquin Valley Clean Cities Coalition Coordinators

Spencer Schluter

Linda Urata

Executive Committee John Clements

Kendall Cook

City of Clovis

Mark Gilio

A1 Auto Electric

Janice Monroe

A1 Auto Electric

Colby Morrow

Sempra Utilities

Bob Riding

PG&E

Aaron Tarango

Valley Air District

Roger Teschner

Valley Clean Air Now

Project Clean Air Linda Wilbanks

Kern Regional Transit

Brenda Turner

Linda Urata

San Joaqu in Va l l e y C l ean C i t i e s Coa l i t i on

Project Clean Air, Inc. 7850 White Lane, Suite E,

PMB 362 Bakersfield, CA 93309

661-‐342-‐8262 E-‐mail address:

[email protected]

ITEM 8

1 | P a g e

DRAFT – 1/2/2014 The San Joaquin Valley Alternative Fuel Adoption Project (AFAP) Re: California Energy Commission Public Opportunity Notice #603 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness Plans PUBLIC AGENCY A public agency within the San Joaquin Valley will be the lead applicant. REGION The project region will provide services to nine counties in California’s Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. GOALS

1. Sustain the current Alternative Fuel Vehicle fleets and accelerate the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) and the installation of alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure (AFI) in the region as a long-‐term strategy to meet long-‐term climate and air quality goals;

2. Develop a San Joaquin Valley Alternative Fuel Vehicle Deployment Plan that will assist the region in attaining air quality standards, assist in meeting goals of SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies, and optimize local, State, Federal, and private resources, that will be used by regional fleet operators, local and regional governments and Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure (AFI) industry stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES

1. Educate regional fleet operators of the benefits of adopting alternative fuel vehicles; 2. Conduct AFV outreach to regional fleet operators and local government officials; 3. Facilitate procurement process of AFV and AFI between regional fleet operators and fuel providers; 4. Identify and develop near-‐term and long-‐term recommendations for future incentive programs that effectively encourage adoption.

SCOPE OF WORK The San Joaquin Valley Alternative Fuel Adoption Project (AFAP) will consist of three phases: Market and Policy Assessment, Program Development and Plan Development. Phase I will identify existing AFV/AFI levels in the region and market barriers to AFV/AFI deployment in the region, including a review of existing policies, plans, and resources. Phase II will design AVF toolkits that address market barriers, and conduct outreach and trainings to key groups. During the final phase, the San Joaquin Valley Alternative Fuel Vehicle Deployment Plan (the Plan) will be developed. The Plan document will be comprised of the AFV toolkits and resources prepared during the regional trainings. The Plan will also contain a measurement and evaluation report of AFAP program activities and include policy recommendations for future AFV/AFI deployment strategies in the region.

ITEM 8

PROGRAM OPPORTUNITY NOTICE

Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program

Alternative Fuel Readiness Plans

PON-13-603

http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts

State of California

California Energy Commission

August 12, 2013


michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

ITEM 8

8-9-13 Page i PON-13-603 Alternative Fuel Readiness Plans

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE OF SOLICITATION ..................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 1 KEY INITIAL ACTIVITIES AND DATES .......................................................................................... 2 AVAILABLE FUNDING AND HOW AWARD IS DETERMINED ............................................................ 3 PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP ................................................................................................ 4 QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 5 GRANT OFFICER CONTACT INFORMATION................................................................................. 5 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................................ 5

II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 6 ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS .............................................................................................................. 6 ELIGIBLE PROJECTS ................................................................................................................ 6 PROJECTS REQUIRED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW ................................................................... 7 MATCH FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 7

III. APPLICATION FORMAT, REQUIRED DOCUMENTS, AND DELIVERY ............................ 9 ABOUT THIS SECTION .............................................................................................................. 9 REQUIRED FORMAT FOR AN APPLICATION ................................................................................ 9 PAGE LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 9 NUMBER OF COPIES ................................................................................................................ 9 PACKAGING AND LABELING ...................................................................................................... 9 PREFERRED METHOD FOR DELIVERY ..................................................................................... 10 APPLICATION ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................. 11 REQUIRED DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................................ 11

IV. EVALUATION PROCESS AND SCREENING CRITERIA .................................................. 16 ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENING ................................................................................................. 16 TECHNICAL SCREENING ......................................................................................................... 17 GROUNDS TO REJECT AN APPLICATION .................................................................................. 18 NOTICE OF PROPOSED AWARDS (NOPA) ............................................................................... 19 DEBRIEFINGS ........................................................................................................................ 19

V. ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................. 20 DEFINITION OF KEY WORDS ................................................................................................... 20 COST OF DEVELOPING APPLICATION ...................................................................................... 20 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 20 SOLICITATION CANCELLATION AND AMENDMENTS ................................................................... 21 ERRORS ................................................................................................................................ 21 MODIFYING OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION ....................................................................... 21 IMMATERIAL DEFECT ............................................................................................................. 21 DISPOSITION OF APPLICANT’S DOCUMENTS ............................................................................ 21 APPLICANTS’ ADMONISHMENT ................................................................................................ 22 AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................. 22 NO AGREEMENT UNTIL SIGNED AND APPROVED ..................................................................... 23

8-9-13 Page 1 of 23 PON-13-603 Alternative Fuel Readiness Plans

I. Introduction

PURPOSE OF SOLICITATION The California Energy Commission’s (Energy Commission) Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology (ARFVT) Program announces the availability of up to $2,100,000 in grant funds to help prepare California for the increased use of alternative transportation fuels. Grant funds will be awarded on a “first-come, first-served basis” for projects to develop Alternative Fuel Readiness Plans (Plans) that will provide strategies for the deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure (AFI) and encourage the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles (AFV’s).

BACKGROUND Assembly Bill 118 (Nùñez, Chapter 750, Statutes of 2007), created the ARFVT Program. The statute, subsequently amended by AB 109 (Nùñez, Chapter 313, Statutes of 2008), authorizes the Energy Commission to develop and deploy alternative and renewable fuels and advanced transportation technologies to help attain the state’s climate change policies. The Energy Commission has an annual program budget of approximately $100 million and provides financial support for projects that:

• Develop and improve alternative and renewable low-carbon fuels;

• Optimize alternative and renewable fuels for existing and developing engine technologies;

• Produce alternative and renewable low-carbon fuels in California;

• Decrease, on a full fuel cycle basis, the overall impact and carbon footprint of alternative and renewable fuels and increase sustainability;

• Expand fuel infrastructure, fueling stations, and equipment;

• Improve light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicle technologies;

• Retrofit medium- and heavy-duty on-road and non-road vehicle fleets;

• Expand infrastructure connected with existing fleets, public transit, and transportation corridors; and

• Establish workforce training programs, conduct public education and promotion, and create technology centers.

The statute requires the Energy Commission to adopt and update annually an investment plan to determine funding priorities and opportunities and describe how program funding will be used to complement other public and private investments.


On May 9, 2012, the Energy Commission adopted the fiscal year (FY) 2012-13 Investment Plan for the ARFVT Program. Citing the example of the “Regional Plans to Support Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Readiness” grants (PON-10-602), the 2012-2013 Investment Plan Update contains recommendations for the Energy Commission to provide additional funding to support the implementation of PEV readiness plans and address similar needs for other alternative fuels.1

The PEV Readiness grants help develop strategic plans for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, establish “best practices” for PEV‐ready building and public work guidelines, and streamline the processes of charging infrastructure permitting, installation, and inspection.2 Alternative and renewable transportation fuels, in addition to electric vehicle supply equipment, may benefit from similar readiness efforts in the state. The 2012-2013 Investment Plan noted that particularly in early alternative fuel deployment areas, public entities may need support in preparing for the installation of AFI. The readiness of these public entities will help ensure that alternative fueling stations can quickly progress from the planning phase to installation and operation.3 Additionally, the 2012-2013 Investment Plan found that support may also be appropriate for AFV adoption because the readiness activities will help promote outreach and education efforts and coordinate AFI implementation. These efforts can accelerate the commercialization of alternative and renewable fuels from fossil fuel-based vehicles to AFV’s.

KEY INITIAL ACTIVITIES AND DATES Applications are accepted on a first come, first-served basis and may be submitted at any time between the solicitation release date through April 30, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. Note that the Energy Commission will begin accepting Applications immediately once the solicitation is released.

Key initial activities including dates and times for this solicitation are presented below in Table 1. An addendum will be released if the dates change for the asterisked (*) activities. Other dates are anticipated only and may change without notice.

Table 1 refers to initial activities. If questions or clarifications are identified subsequent to the “Deadline for Initial Written Questions”, the Energy Commission may post an addendum that responds to questions with answers and clarifications.

1 California Energy Commission. 2012-2013 Investment Plan Update for the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program, Publication No. CEC-600-2012-001-CMF, May 2012, pp.41 (internal citations omitted), available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-600-2012-001/CEC-600-2012-001-CMF.pdf 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.


Table 1 – Key Initial Activities and Action Dates

ACTIVITY ACTION DATE

Solicitation Release August 12, 2013

Pre-Application Workshop* August 23, 2013

Deadline for Initial Written Questions* August 26, 2013

Distribute Questions/Answers and Addenda (if any) to solicitation September 3, 2013 and updated as needed

Deadline to Submit Applications by 3:00 p.m. Continuous until funds are exhausted or April 30, 2014

Notice of Proposed Award Continuous until funds are exhausted or April 30, 2014

Anticipated Commission Business Meeting Date Various

Anticipated Agreement Start Date Various

Agreement Termination Date Various

AVAILABLE FUNDING AND HOW AWARD IS DETERMINED The total funding available for this solicitation is $2,100,000. The Energy Commission, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to increase or reduce the amount of funds available under this solicitation.

The maximum award per project Application is $300,000.

The minimum funding amount per project Application is $50,000.

First-Come, First-Served: Projects that pass both the administrative and technical screening criteria will be funded on a first-come, first-served basis based on the time their completed Application is received by the Contracts, Grants, and Loans Office at the Energy Commission. Refer to Section IV of this solicitation for additional information about the evaluation process and screening criteria.

If the funds available under this solicitation are insufficient to fully fund a grant Application, the Energy Commission reserves the right to partially fund that Application. In this event, the Proposed Awardee/Applicant and Commission Agreement Manager (CAM) shall meet and reach agreement on a reduced scope of work commensurate with the level of available funding.

Applicants may apply for only one grant agreement at a time under this solicitation. Eligible applicants may apply for additional funding after completion of a grant awarded under this solicitation, if the deadline for submitting proposals has not passed and funds remain available. However the Commission reserves the right to amend the solicitation in the future, to accept more than one application per an applicant, if the solicitation is undersubscribed. An addendum will be issued if this occurs.


Applications addressing the same fuel types or activities within regions previously funded or recommended for funding under this solicitation will be disqualified unless the previously funded or recommended project ended before being completed. The intent of this language is to prevent the Commission from paying for duplicative work.

PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP There will be one Pre-Application Workshop; participation in this meeting is optional but encouraged. The Pre-Application Workshop will be held through in-person participation, WebEx, and conference call at the date, time and location listed below. Please call (916) 654-4381 or refer to the Energy Commission's website at www.energy.ca.gov/contracts to confirm the date and time.

August 23, 2013

10:00 a.m. California Energy Commission

Hearing Room A 1516 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Participation through WebEx

For participation through WebEx, the Energy Commission's on-line meeting service, follow the instructions below:

Computer Logon with a Direct Phone Number:

• Please go to https://energy.webex.com and enter the unique meeting number 926 016 377.

• When prompted, enter your information and the following meeting password (case sensitive): meeting@10.

• After you login, a prompt will appear on-screen for you to provide your phone number. In the Number box, type your area code and phone number and click OK to receive a call back on your phone for the audio of the meeting. International callers can use the "Country/Region" button to help make their connection.

Computer Logon for Callers with an Extension Phone Number, etc.: • Please go to https://energy.webex.com and enter the unique meeting number 926 016

377. • When prompted, enter your information and the following meeting password (case

sensitive): meeting@10. • After you login, a prompt will ask for your phone number. CLICK CANCEL. • Instead call 1-866-469-3239 (toll-free in the U.S. and Canada). When prompted, enter

the meeting number above and your unique Attendee ID number which is listed in the top left area of your screen after you login. International callers can dial in using the "Show all global call-in numbers" link (also in the top left area).

Telephone Only (No Computer Access):

• Call 1-866-469-3239 (toll-free in the U.S. and Canada) and when prompted enter the unique meeting number above. International callers can select their number from https://energy.webex.com/energy/globalcallin.php.


https://energy.webex.com/

https://energy.webex.com/

https://energy.webex.com/energy/globalcallin.php


• If you have difficulty joining the meeting, please call the WebEx Technical Support number at 1-866-229-3239. Please be aware that the meeting's WebEx audio and on screen activity may be recorded.

QUESTIONS During the solicitation process, questions or clarifications about this solicitation must be directed to the Grants Officer listed in the following section. You may ask questions at the Application Workshop, and you may submit written questions via mail, electronic mail, and by FAX. However, all questions must be received by 3:00 pm on the date listed in Table 1 Key Initial Activities and Action Dates, in order to be included in the initial question and answer set.

Question and answer sets will be e-mailed to all parties who attended the Pre-Application Workshop and provided their contact information on the sign-in sheet. The questions and answers will also be posted on the Energy Commission’s website at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts. The person and organization submitting a question will not be identified.

Any verbal communication with an Energy Commission employee concerning this solicitation is not binding on the State and shall in no way alter a specification, term, or condition of the solicitation. Therefore, all communication must be directed in writing to the Energy Commission’s Grant Officer assigned to the solicitation.

GRANT OFFICER CONTACT INFORMATION Sandra Cushman, Grants Officer

California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS-18

Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 654-4584

FAX: (916) 654-4423 E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Applicants responding to this solicitation may want to familiarize themselves with the following documents:

2012-2013 Investment Plan for the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (CEC-600-2012-001-CMF) [http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011-ALT-1/index.html]

All above reference documents are on display and available for review in the Energy Commission’s Library. Library hours are Monday - Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., closed for lunch 12:00-1:00p.m. The Library is located at: California Energy Commission, 1516 Ninth Street, First Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 654-4292.

Applicants may also reference the US Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center website for the Alternative Fueling Station Locator [http://www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations/]. This tool provides a useful way to find alternative fueling stations. More information can also be found at [http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2012/2028.html]


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011-ALT-1/index.html

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations/

http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2012/2028.html


II. Eligibility Requirements

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS This solicitation is open to California eligible public entities that can meet the requirements of this solicitation. For purposes of this solicitation, eligible public entities includes, but is not limited to, those entities that have a direct role in the development, planning, permitting, or oversight of alternative fuel infrastructure such as cities, counties, air, water, and fire districts, and regional planning entities.

Every eligible public entity that applies under this solicitation must agree to the Terms and Conditions (Exhibit C) and Special Terms and Conditions (Exhibit D). The Energy Commission will not award agreements to non-complying public entities.

ELIGIBLE PROJECTS Grants will be awarded for the development of Plans which must include all of the following activities:

• Analyze existing and potential incentives for increased usage of alternative fuels. • Identify challenges and sharing best practices for planning, permitting, deployment,

maintenance, and inspection of AFI. • Develop or make use of existing training materials or classes for fleet operators,

planners, first responders, and decision-makers regarding AFI development if no training materials are available alternative fuels identified by the Plan. Describe how the materials or classes will support the use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles.

• Develop strategies and best practices to increase procurement and commercialization of alternative fuels, and describe ways to evaluate implementation of potential strategies and how the best practices information will be available to the public.

• Develop marketing analysis, materials, and outreach strategies that communicate the benefits of alternative fuel usage to targeted groups such as fleet owners/operators.

• Develop strategies to assist alternative fuel wholesalers/retailers, with the intent of increasing the availability and/or reducing the cost of alternative fuels.

The applicant must include a description of each activity, how the activity will be accomplished, how the activity will support the use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles, and planned methodologies to evaluate strategies and determine best practices. To address the issues of diverse stakeholders associated with alternative fuel development and usage, the eligible public entity is encouraged to partner with applicable stakeholders to obtain input and feedback for the Applicant during the development of the Plans. All Applications must demonstrate that the proposed project can be completed within 24 months from the agreement execution.


PROJECTS REQUIRED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW Applicants must complete Attachment 11 in order to assist the Energy Commission in complying with the funding restrictions applicable to the ARFVT Program. Note that certain projects may not be eligible for funding.

MATCH FUNDING REQUIREMENTS To be eligible, Applications must include a minimum 20 percent match share from non-California state agency sources. Funds from the Energy Commission (e.g., awards from other Commission programs) cannot count towards the match share requirement. For example, a project receiving a grant of $80,000 funded by the Energy Commission grant must include a minimum match of $16,000 from non-state sources that do not include any grant or contract funds from the California Energy Commission.

“Match funding” or “match share” means cash or in-kind (non-cash) contributions provided by the Applicant/Recipient, subcontractors, or other parties that will be used in performance of the proposed project. Match share percentage is calculated by dividing the total match share contributions by the total allowable project cost. “Total allowable project cost” is the sum of the Energy Commission’s reimbursable share and Recipient’s match share of the project costs. Refer to Attachment 9 ARFVT Program Terms and Conditions (Exhibit C) for match share requirements in addition to the following:

1. All match share expenditures must conform to the requirements in the terms and conditions of the solicitation and the resulting grant agreement. Recipients will be required to document and verify all match share expenditures, and provide a synopsis of project progress in the monthly progress reports and invoices to the Energy Commission after grant execution.

2. Applicants must disclose the source and provide verification and documentation for the match share funding.

3. Match share funding may be in the form of cash and/or in-kind contributions such as donated labor hours, equipment, facilities, and property. Equipment, facilities (e.g., laboratory space), and most property may count as match funds as long as the value of the contribution is based on documented market values or book values, prorated for its value to the project, and depreciated or amortized over the term of the project using standard accounting principles.

4. Other grants or contracts Funding from other non-state government agencies the California Energy Commission may cannot be used as match share.

5. Recipients are allowed to incur match share expenditures only after the Energy Commission notifies the Applicant that its project has been proposed for an award through the release of a Notice of Proposed Awards (NOPA). Match expenditures incurred prior to the full execution of a funding agreement are at the Applicant’s own risk. The Energy Commission is not liable for Applicant’s incurred match share costs if the grant is not approved, if approval is delayed, or if the match share expenditure is not allowable under the terms and conditions of the grant or applicable federal cost principles incorporated by reference into the agreement.

San Joaquin Valley Regional

Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – JANUARY 9, 2014

12. 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. 13. Caltrans Directors Report C. Bowen / S. Ehlert Carrie Bowen, District 10 Director, Amarjeet Benipal (Acting D10 Director), and Sharri Ehlert, District 6 Director, or their representatives may be in attendance to provide an update and answer any questions. 14. SJV Rail Authority (SB 325) T. Smalley Ted Smalley (TCAG) will be available to answer any questions. 15. SJV Interregional Goods Movement Plan M. Sigala A Caltrans Planning Grant application concept is on the agenda (Item 6) for additional and continuation of goods movement planning efforts for the Valley. California Freight Advisory Committee (CFAC): California, led by the Caltrans Office of System, Freight and Rail Planning is leading an effort to provide feedback to DOT/FHWA regarding the National Primary Freight Network (27,000 center lane miles) as part of MAP 21. The Valley RPA Directors have been provided with a draft of the California letter. Final comments were due January 6, 2014. There is no other activity to report. The next CFAC meeting will be held on January 21, 2014 in Sacramento. 16. Proposition 84/Blueprint/Greenprint R. Terry Prop 84 Round 1. Following is a brief report on the status of Round 1 activities:

• (Task 1) Valley-wide SCS Outreach (Valley Visions) continues, with public workshops being conducted on the individual COG level throughout all eight counties in-line with the media outreach plan. Materials related to the outreach campaign have been made available in multiple languages, with consistent efforts to outreach to environmental justice communities throughout the Valley. For any questions regarding Valley-wide SCS Outreach activities, please contact Brenda Veenendaal at (559) 233-4148 Ext. 219 or via email at [email protected].

• (Task 2) Blueprint Integration (BPI) outreach and circuit planning activities to the 46 valley cities with populations under 50,000 concluded in June of 2013. For any questions regarding Blueprint Integration efforts, please contact Rob Terry at (559) 233-4148 Ext. 222 or via email at [email protected].

• (Task 3) Greenprint – The most recent meeting of the Greenprint Steering Committee was held on Tuesday, November 19 in the Fresno COG Sequoia Conference Room. It was noted that the Proposition 84 Round 2 Grant Agreement with the State Department of Conservation, including funding for a Phase II of the Greenprint project, had been executed, with an official start date of September 30, 2013. The Facilitator and Report Editor positions have been selected and “fee for service” contracts with UC Davis will soon be finalized. At this point, a total of two 1-day meetings and one 2-day meeting are contemplated, with locations in the northern, central, and southern San Joaquin Valley. It

San Joaquin Valley Regional

Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – JANUARY 9, 2014

is likely these meetings will occur during the month of February. Phase I of the Greenprint project is now expected to conclude in March or April of 2014. For any questions regarding the Greenprint, please contact Clark Thompson at (559) 233-4148 Ext. 203 or via email at [email protected].

Prop 84 Round 2. COG staff was recently notified that the grant agreement for Round 2 activities has been finalized and signed by the Department of Conservation, effective as of September 30, 2013. Activities may now be charged to this funding source. Round 2 activities are separated into the three task areas of (1) Greenprint Integration ($400,000), (2) Model Land Use Re-validation ($450,000; $150,000 of which is earmarked for TCAG’s Mode Choice Model); and (3) SCS Implementation ($150,000). Fresno COG will serve as the lead agency, similar to the organization of Round 1 activities. For any questions regarding the Blueprint process, please contact Rob Terry at (559) 233-4148 Ext. 222 or via email at [email protected]. Blueprint. During April through June of this year, in conjunction with representatives from SACOG and the Local Government Commission, remaining Blueprint balances at all of the eight Valley COGs/RTPAs were combined to provide for training on the fiscal impact analysis tool IMPACS (created by SACOG as part of their RUCS model). The training activities were very well attended, and provided excellent feedback regarding utilization and additional needs for such tools in the Valley. Originally, Blueprint funding was scheduled to sunset in June of this year; however, CalTrans has graciously approved an extension through June of 2014 to allow for additional training and tool formulation activities to take place. Since the training events, COG staff has been engaged in working with member agencies, as well as AECOM (the developer of the IMPACS tool) to further refine a tool that will provide the greatest benefit to local agencies in determining the fiscal impacts of various land use decisions. Over the coming months, these efforts will continue, as we labor to provide more efficient items to our local member agencies. Staff will keep the Regional Policy Council fully informed as future events are planned, and additional tools may be provided. For any questions regarding the above notated items, please contact Rob Terry at (559) 233-4148 Ext. 222 or via email at [email protected]. 17. CA Partnership for the SJV J. Waters Jason Waters will be available to provide an update. 18. Regional Energy Planning M. Sigala Regional Energy Planning and Economic Development Roundtable members continue to meet and discuss approaches for assessing energy sector growth potential for the Valley. The group is currently preparing the planning grant program application to the Strategic Growth Council (Round III). The next Valleywide roundtable was initially planned for January 2014 but is being rescheduled to March 2014 to allow for our partners to focus on the Strategic Growth Council pending planning grant application.

San Joaquin Valley Regional - Stanislaus County Council of ...€¦ · • Efforts on RTPs and SCSs...

Documents

Transcript of San Joaquin Valley Regional - Stanislaus County Council of ...€¦ · • Efforts on RTPs and SCSs...