san$joaquin$valley$regional$planning$agencies’$directors ... · meeting’minutes’...

San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee

Meeting Agenda Thursday, June 6, 2019

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Meeting Host and Location: Stanislaus Council of Governments

1111 “I” Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354

Teleconference Number: 1-‐515-‐604-‐9094

Participant Code: 432-‐600-‐639 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Enclosure

1. May 2, 2019 Directors’ Meeting R. Park þ

DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:

2. RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategies/Air Quality R. Niblock Update and Discussion

3. Valley Voice M. Sigala A) Discuss Planning Items for DC visit B) Review Sacramento Trip Summary from Gus Khouri þ

4. I-‐5 Self-‐Driving Truck Study A. Hakimi Discuss Preliminary Scope, and Funding Opportunities

5. California Transportation Funding R. Park Program and Project Funding Updates:

§ Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (SJCOG & MCAG) § Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (Fresno COG) § ITIP (TCAG & StanCOG)

Enclosure

6. California’s Economic Summit, November 2019 I. Herrera þ Discuss and Receive Input for the Regional Economic Development Implementation Plan

7. Governor’s Housing Trailer Bill for Planning M. Sigala/ þ Receive Update, and Review and Approve Critical Next Steps R. Phipps

8. Regional Policy Council M. Sigala Discuss Agenda Items for June 14, 2019 Meeting in Merced

9. Rural Transit Alternative Implementation C. Rodier Valley Flex and Valley Go Update, and Future Funding Opportunities

10. Administrative M. Sigala þ Review and Approve Meeting Calendar for FY 2019-‐20

11. Annual Policy Conference, May 8-‐10 in Lemoore T. King Post Conference Update

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS þ The following items are for informational purposes and require no action or vote. Written summaries of Informational Items are included in the agenda packet. 12. Caltrans Directors’ Report S. Ehlert/D. McElhinney

13. San Joaquin JPA for Passenger Rail D. Leavitt

14. California High Speed Rail D. Gomez

15. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley I. Herrera OTHER ITEMS 16. Director Items 17. 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. The public may

comment on listed agenda items as they are considered. ADJOURN MEETING. Directors Only Closed Session:

Valley Voice Sacramento SB 152 (ATP Reform) Local Partnership Program

Next Directors’ Meeting: Thursday, July 11, 2019 (Madera) TENTATIVE

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, May 2, 2019

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Meeting Location: Madera County Transportation Commission

2001 Howard Road, Suite 201 Madera, CA 93637

Directors MPO Rosa Park Stanislaus Council of Governments Tony Boren Fresno Council of Governments Not Present Merced County Association of Governments Ben Kimball for Ted Smalley Tulare County Association of Governments Ahron Hakimi Kern Council of Governments Terri King Kings County Association of Governments Patricia Taylor Madera County Transportation Commission Andrew Chesley San Joaquin Council of Governments

Please see Appendix A for a list of other attendees APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. April 12, 2019 Directors’ Meeting R. Park There was a motion to approve the April 12, 2019 Directors Committee Minutes. First Motion: Andrew Chesley Second Motion: Ahron Hakimi Motion Carried

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

ITEM 1

2

DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:

2. Guest Speaker: Egon Terplan, Governor’s Office Economic Strategy for Inland California Egon Terplan, Senior Advisor on Economic Development and Transportation at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, expressed that the Governor’s Office has great interest in understanding the issues, needs, and opportunities in inland California and the San Joaquin Valley, and what the State can do to help uplift these communities from an economic perspective. He announced that a series of listening sessions will be held throughout the summer in different geographies throughout inland California and the San Joaquin Valley. Mr. Terplan asked the Directors to share key priorities by their respective counties, as well as across the entire San Joaquin Valley. Discussions on transportation, goods movement, housing, and employment ensued.

3. RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategies/Air Quality R. Niblock

Update and Discussion Ryan Niblock announced that there will be an upcoming CTC workshop in San Diego where Andrew Chesley has been asked to speak on the impact of the loss of the CA waiver on our region. Additionally, Mr. Niblock noted that the SCS guidelines were meant to be finalized in April, however, he now expects this to happen June. Mr. Niblock stated that it seems very unlikely that a fundamental shift in what the guidelines are trying to accomplish will happen and suggested shifting the focus to can be achieved out of discussions with ARB and CTC staff. Mr. Niblock recommended a few discussion items for the Directors to consider.

4. Valley Voice D.C. 2019 M. Sigala

Discuss Options and Potential Dates Michael Sigala requested input on potential dates for the trip. Directors recommended exploring dates in either the first or second week of September.

5. California Transportation Funding R. Park

Program and Project Funding Updates • Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (SJCOG & MCAG)

No update was provided. • Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (Fresno COG) – Discuss Most Congested

Portions of SR 99 for Potential Project(s) Tony Boren reiterated the importance for the Valley to submit a project. At the next Directors meeting, he will provide the data from Caltrans D10 and D6 staff that identifies the most congested piece of SR 99 in the Valley for a viable project submittal.

• ITIP (TCAG & StanCOG) StanCOG is working on SR 132 in their north county quarter to hopefully include it in the ITSP.

6. California’s Economic Summit, November 2019 I. Herrera

Discuss and Receive Input for the Regional Economic Development Implementation Plan This item was moved to the next Directors meeting.

7. FY 2019-‐20 Valleywide Overall Work Program M. Sigala

a) Discuss and Consider Approving Michael Sigala briefly reviewed the Overall Work Program, and noted a few suggested changes to the document from Terri King. There was a motion to approve the FY 2019-‐20 Valleywide Overall Work Program subject to the minor changes noted.

3

First Motion: Ahron Hakimi Second Motion: Tony Boren Motion Carried

b) Considering Approving Valleywide Coordinator Contract with Sigala Inc. for FY 2019-‐20 There was a motion to approve the Valleywide coordinator contract with Sigala Inc. for FY 2019-‐20 First Motion: Ahron Hakimi Second Motion: Ben Kimball Motion Carried

8. Annual Policy Conference, May 8-‐10 in Lemoore M. Sigala Receive Update Michael Sigala reviewed the draft program. He noted the strong sponsorships this year.

INFORMATIONAL ITIEMS

9. Caltrans Directors’ Report S. Ehlert/D. McElhinney Ken Baxter reported that there is $100m available for existing ITIP projects.

10. San Joaquin JPA for Passenger Rail D. Leavitt Dan Leavitt provided an update on the progress of SB 742. The next JPA board meeting is May 31st in Sacramento. Mr. Leavitt noted that a key action item on the agenda will be asking the board to approve the Madera relocated station contract.

11. California High Speed Rail D. Gomez No update was provided.

12. Rural Transit Alternatives Implementation (Valley GO & Valley FLEX) M. Sigala

Valley GO now has six EVs through CalVans. Two EVs will be showcased at the Policy Conference. The Valley FLEX technology platform is still being testing before being introduced to the public.

13. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley F. Cardoza Blueprint awardees have been announced. The next partnership board meeting will be in Kings County on June 23rd. A San Joaquin Valley Housing Collaborative workshop on opportunity and investment in the San Joaquin Valley will be on June 12th in Fresno. The Affordable Housing Summit will be on September 19th in Visalia. Registrations for both the San Joaquin Valley Housing Collaborative workshop and the Affordable Housing Summit are now open.

OTHER ITIEMS 14. Director Items

15. Public Presentations for Items not on Agenda

Meeting Adjourned at Approximately 12:00 P.M.

Next Directors’ Meeting: Thursday, June 6, 2019 (Visalia, later changed to Modesto)

4

Appendix A – Additional Meeting Attendees

In Attendance: Individual(s) Organization(s) Michael Sigala Valleywide Coordinator, Sigala Inc Ryan Niblock San Joaquin Council of Governments Elisabeth Hahn Stanislaus Council of Governments Dan Leavitt (ph) San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Kristine Cai Fresno Council of Governments Becky Napier (ph) Kern Council of Governments Rob Ball (ph) Kern Council of Governments Linda Urata (ph) Kern Council of Governments Frida Cardoza (ph) Fresno State Office of Community and Economic Development Ken Baxter Caltrans D10 Egon Terplan Governor’s Office Scott Carson (ph) Federal Highway Administration

1

May 21, 2019 TO: Members, San Joaquin Valley Policy Council FROM: Gus Khouri, Principal Khouri Consulting RE: 2019 VALLEY VOICE TRIP SUMMARY AND RECOMMEDATIONS On April 3, 25 members of the eight-county San Joaquin Valley Policy Council (SJVPC) traveled to Sacramento to participate in the 11th Annual Valley Voice Trip. The all-day event featured meetings with key transportation officials, staff and Central Valley legislative delegation members. The following is summary of the meetings and information exchanged between our group and list of guests. The SJVPC’s robust 2019 Legislative Platform focused on several items including: protecting local streets and roads funding from being withheld through the Governor’s affordable housing zoning and production proposal;; aggressively pursuing SB 1 competitive grant funding;; improving air quality by acquiring funding to meet PM 2.5 Attainment Plan Goals and investments into expanding passenger rail;; and advocating for clean and reliable water for Valley residents, among other items. Per the COG Directors, our focus this year was on securing meetings with Governor Newsom, Democratic members, including our new representatives Senators Caballero and Hurtado, as well as the California Air Resources Board, California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), Senator Jim Chair, Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, and California Transportation Commission. We were disappointed that we were unable to meet with several of our appointments including Senator Caballero (who had to present bills in two policy committees but sent her Chief of Staff Reggie Fair), Senator Hurtado (also in committee) and Governor Newsom (decided the Monday night before to go through with a trip to Central America). The meeting with Assembly Member Gray was also shorter than planned as he arrived late and joined the Governor’s staff, which got pulled away by the Governor’s Chief of Staff 20 minutes into the discussion. Assembly Member Gray expressed a desire to assist with delivering on the Valley’s priority water issues and hesitated in supporting the Governor proposal to tie affordable housing production to the receipt of local streets and roads funding. The Governor’s staff, namely Ronda Paschal and Mark Tollefeson

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

ITEM 3.b

2

stated that funding would only be held in the most egregious circumstances where a local municipality failed to make an effort to zone for affordable housing. The meeting with CTC Commissioner Paul Von Konynenberg and CTC Executive Director Susan Bransen seemed productive as we discussed the threats posed by CARB to get involved in transportation funding decisions and opportunities to acquire more SB 1 funding in the Valley. CalSTA Secretary Brian Annis reiterated the commitment to look for opportunities to continue investments into the Valley. We ended the day with Senator Beall who asked for support on his SB 5, a bill intended to promote more transit-oriented development and housing production. Assessment of Valley Voice Trip As part of our engagement, it was requested that we provide an assessment of the trip and recommendations for next year. In short, this was by far the worst trip for a variety of reasons: 1. Date Selection. For a decade, we have always been proud of being able to nail down an itinerary that secures key meetings to help SJVPC meeting its objective of conveying issues of importance. The focus had always been to schedule meetings with at least one delegation member for each county while also allowing time for meetings with other key officials primarily on transportation, but occasionally on water issues. We had a more focused approach for 2019 in order to establish a rapport with the Valley’s new representatives, Senator Caballero and Hurtado, and a new gubernatorial administration. The trip has traditionally been targeted for early to mid-March in order to avoid conflicts with policy committee hearings. We had warned that the selection of the April 3 date presented a major challenge. The Governor’s trip to Central America was an anomaly. He would have attended had he been in town as he did for several of our clients just a few weeks prior. CARB members had conflicts, and several had already meet with SJVPC. Chair Mendoza had suggested a dinner the night before our event with our legislative delegation, much like what occurs in Washington DC, in order to help build relationships. We would be happy to help coordinate a date to help maximize the prospects of securing your desired meetings. 2. Greater Participation. We appreciate the time commitment by those that travel to Sacramento for the trip. While we have traditionally selected speakers for each issue area, the flow of a meeting tends to work best when other engage and share their perspective. It is great to appoint someone to kick off the conversation, but even better to have others join in the discussion. With the exception of lunch with the CTC, most attendees outside of the Chair, did not speak. Our intention is to create a natural flow that increases the comfort level of those that participate and makes things more tangible to everyone involved and, hopefully, more enjoyable. The trip is your one shot to make an impression and convey the needs in your communities. We would encourage others to speak, including staff, where appropriate. The CARB meeting was especially painful.

3

3. Have an Ask. For some items, such as affordable housing and passenger rail, the“ask” was well defined. On other items such as Acquiring SB 1 funds or Categorical Exclusion for Projects of Limited Federal Assistance, it was not clear what we wanted members to do. They seemed more like an information item. Ideally, having a draft letter to ask them to sign onto would make the inclusion of the item and discussion more beneficial. 4. Lunch was Noisy. The surrounding area near the Capitol does not offer many choices that accommodate large groups that also serve good food. We hope that most enjoyed Ella, but the ambient noise may have made it difficult for folks to listen or partake in conversations with the CTC. We will try out the Diplomat, which is the former Chops that we previously had booked, for next year. Chair Mendoza had recommended a boxed lunch in our conference room as an alternative. 5. Follow Up, Accountability, and Maintaining A Presence. It is impressive that all eight counties choose to work collaboratively to highlight the needs of the Valley. While the trip does leave an impression on our delegation, it is only a one-day event. Who follows up assisting your delegation to effectively represent your interests? On requests to sign and distribute letters? To testify in committee? To work with other legislators, coalitions, or regions to achieve your goals? The lack of a sustained presence in Sacramento puts the Valley at a considerable disadvantage to other regions. Other regions, such as the Bay Area, Central Coast and Los Angeles, have a pronounced presence because they maintain a line of communication with their delegation, keeping them accountable and engaged, to leverage policy and fiscal decisions to their advantage. Plenty of opportunities exist for the Valley to parlay its considerable influence. It is a proven fact that your delegation cannot be effective however without a sustained presence.

CREATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTION PLANS The California Stewardship Network will partner with the Brookings Institution to create a set of actionable regional economic development implementation plans or “punch lists” for the diverse economic regions of California. These lists will inform the early stages of the work of the Newsom Administration including state agencies such as the Governor’s Office of Economic and Business Development. The activity will also feed into a broader process to refresh a truly “regions up” triple bottom line statewide economic development strategy that incorporates the interests and economic realities of the different areas of the state. This “Roadmap to Shared Prosperity,” published annually by California Forward, will continue to be informed by all of the activities associated with the California Economic Summit that it hosts in partnership with the California Stewardship Network. Identify Priority Actions for Economic Development These punch lists will be generated by the members of the California Stewardship Network with the Bay Area Council Economic Institute acting as the backbone organization for purposes of coordination and administration. The Brookings Institution will provide input into of the project, leveraging its experience including assistance in the creation of the statewide economic development strategy issued by then Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom in 2013 as well as ongoing work developing inclusive economic development strategies through California, the nation, and the world. California Forward staff will provide oversight to ensure that the process is aligned with the broader work of creating a regions up statewide economic development plan. Different regions are at different places in terms of the extent to which they have well developed strategic plans for inclusive and environmentally sustainable economic growth that are the result of a process with cross sector buy-‐in. In regions such as Los Angeles with its Propel LA effort, these punch lists may be able to be generated quickly with minimal staff effort or may already exist in a near actionable form. In other regions, the project leads may have to do more work to engage with local economic development leaders to create, refine or update plans with the understanding that this is informed by broader ongoing efforts. It is a particular priority for the Newsom Administration that state action focus on areas such as the Central Valley outside of economic hubs such as the Bay Area, so this project will bring a special focus to those areas. These punch lists will include 8-‐10 priority actions gathered from regions that the state can take to assist these areas in executing on their economic development strategies. These punch lists have three goals in mind:

1) the priorities should be regionally generated; 2) they should have cross-‐sector buy-‐in; and 3) they should clearly articulate what action or actions are needed from which levels of government, with a particular focus on state action

Some of these priority actions, particularly involving regionally overlapping transportation networks, might appear on multiple implementation action lists.

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

ITEM 6

Examples of types of items that could be including in punch lists:

• The Governor has identified creating 750,000 internships as a priority for his administration. The manufacturing sector is a key economic driver in the Central Valley, and manufacturing internships would help improve the talent pipeline for these businesses. However, these companies are not able to add these interns to their standard insurance policies. The state therefore could be asked to produce an insurance pool for manufacturing interns to support this economic development priority.

• The Governor has made housing a priority and has proposed to spend new state funds on housing production. In the North Bay region, local leaders, having identified increasing supply of homes as a critical have created a new Joint Powers Authority, currently between the County of Sonoma and the City of Santa Rosa, to spur development. The state could therefore be asked to spend proposed money through this JPA to incentivize housing production that is consistent with regionally determined goals and processes and to encourage regional collaboration.

A draft of these lists will be completed by April 30. Throughout the month of April, drafts will be circulated to refine the details. Throughout this project, regional leaders will be asked to provide feedback on the proposed lists and the project team will work to make sure the lists are comparable across regions and are actionable through private effort and public policy. The goal of this phase of the project is a set of working documents – completed before June 30 – that spring from and complement publicly published economic strategies. These documents will serve a basis for a briefing to the Newsom Administration and will be a part of the process leading up to the California Economic Summit and the new iteration of the Roadmap to Shared Prosperity.

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

TRAILER BILL OVERVIEW AND POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS

Housing Planning and Production Grants to MPOs

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

draft – subject to revisions or elimination depending on legislative action

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

ITEM 7

Planning Grants

§ Administered by Housing and Community Development§ $250m to jurisdictions and regions (MPOs)§ $125m to MPOs§ $20.3m (estimated) to San Joaquin Valley multi-agency working group:

§ Fresno Council of Governments§ Kern Council of Governments§ Kings County Association of Governments§ Madera County Transportation Commission§ Merced County Association of Governments§ San Joaquin Association of Governments§ Stanislaus Council of Governments§ Tulare County Association of Governments

Funds to be used for technical assistance, preparation and adoptions of planning documents, and process improvements to accelerate housing production and facilitate compliance to implement the Sixth Cycle of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


Immediate Next Steps

1. Form Regional Working Group (by November 30, 2019)Per County:§ One County Representative§ One large city Representative § One small city Representative

At least one member per county must serve on COG board. City Selection Committees are to be used for city representatives.

Recommendation: Use the Regional Policy Council as the backbone (i.e. Regional Working Group is a Standing Committee of the Policy Council)

2. Notify all member cities and counties

3. Select a COG to be fiscal Agent

Recommendation: Fresno COG

Ø Beginning September 15, 2019 (thru January 31, 2020)Request 50% of funding from HCD

Begin work on developing an Action Plan by the Regional Working Group

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


Action Plan

Ø Beginning January 2020 (thru December 31, 2020)§ Regions must submit an Action Plan to the Department. The Action Plan

must include the following components:§ General overview of housing issues§ Budget for the planning funds§ Identification of best practices in the region§ Mechanism to report successes in the region§ Amounts of planning funding retained by region and sub-allocations to

jurisdictions

§ Request remaining 50% of funding upon submitting the Action Plan to HCD

§ Action Plan requires 90 day public review process, including outreach to local agencies, prior to submittal to HCD.

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


Action Plan Implementation

Ø Once HCD approves Action Plan, work begins on implementation of Action Plan

Expenditures shall be limited to housing-related planning activities:§ Technical assistance in improving housing permitting processes, tracking systems, and planning tools

§ Facilitating technical assistance between jurisdictions

§ Establishing regional housing trust funds

§ Developing local or regional policies to link transportation funds to housing outcomes

§ Performing infrastructure planning, including sewers, water systems, transit, roads, or other public facilities necessary to support new housing and new residents

§ Performing feasibility studies to determine the most efficient locations to site housing

§ Performing feasibility studies for affordable housing projects on surplus properties owned by school districts or county offices of education

§ Other

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


Infill Infrastructure Grant Program(post planning grant allocations)

§ $500m allocated to the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program as a continuation of the planning grant program.

§ Qualifying infill area or qualifying infill project must:§ Be located in a city and/or county that has a compliant housing element

§ Be located in a city and/or county that has submitted its annual progress reports for 2018 through the most recently required annual progress reports

§ Be a joint application between a city and/or county and a developer for mixed income housing

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


Timelines

Ø Beginning September 15, 2019 (HCD will issue NOFA August 15, 2019)§ Working Group Formation and scoping of Action Plan

Ø Once HCD approves Action Plan (by December 31, 2020) work begins on implementation of Action Plan

Ø January 1, 2022: Deadline to expend planning grant funds

Ø By December 31, 2022: Regions submit report on status of plans and use of planning grant funds

Ø By March 1, 2022 (and every year thereafter) regions shall complete an evaluation of progress made

Ø Beginning July 1, 2023, penalties for non housing element compliance

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


2

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY NEEDS25,489 MORE AFFORDABLE

RENTAL HOMES

Shortfall

Very Low Income

Extremely Low Income

RenterHouseholds

Aordableand AvailableRental Homes

Source: NLIHC analysis of 2017 PUMS data.

Source: NLIHC analysis of 2017 PUMS data.*Cost burdened households spend 30% or more of their income towards housing costs. Severely cost burdened households spend more than 50%.

0%

20%

10%

40%

30%

60%

50%

80%

70%

90%

100%

ExtremelyLow Income

Very LowIncome

LowIncome

ModerateIncome

AboveModerateIncome

76%

93%

48%

84%

10%

60%

13%

33%

3% 1%

SeverelyCost Burdened*

Cost Burdened*

LOWEST INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY AND

SEVERELY COST BURDENED

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY LOST 59% OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HOUSING PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION FROM FY 2008-09 TO FY 2017-18

Source: California Housing Partnership analysis of 2008-2009 annual Redevelopment Housing Activities Report; 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 Annual HCD Financial Assistance Programs Reports; 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 HUD CPD Appropriations Budget Reports.*FY 2017-2018 does not include No Place Like Home Funding (NPLH) and no funds for the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program were awarded.

FUNDING SOURCE

Redevelopment

FY2017-18

FY 2008-09

% CHANGE

State Housing Bonds and HousingPrograms

HUD

TOTAL

$12,352 $0 -100%

-59%$4,020

$11,679 $9,883 -15%

$28,051 $11,542 -59%

(In thousands)

2008-2009 2017-2018$0

$5

$10

$15

State Funding*

HUD

Redevelopment

(IN

MIL

LIO

NS

) $20

$30

$25

$1,659

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

California Housing Partnership and California Coalition for Rural Housing May 29, 2019 report.

2

0

5,000

10,000

20,000

25,000

15,000

STANISLAUS COUNTY NEEDS15,142 MORE AFFORDABLE

RENTAL HOMES

Shortfall

Very Low Income


RenterHouseholds




0%

20%

10%

40%

30%

60%

50%

80%

70%

90%

100%

ExtremelyLow Income

Very LowIncome

LowIncome

ModerateIncome

AboveModerateIncome

75%

90%

42%

81%

12%

60%

7%

18%

1%


Cost Burdened*



STANISLAUS COUNTY LOST 65% OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HOUSING PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION FROM FY 2008-09 TO FY 2017-18


FUNDING SOURCE

Redevelopment

FY2017-18

FY 2008-09

% CHANGE


HUD

TOTAL

$7,887 $0 -100%

-84%$9,000

$9,527 $7,753 -19%

$26,413 $9,180 -65%

(In thousands)

2008-2009 2017-2018$0

$5

$10

$15

State Funding*

HUD

Redevelopment

(IN

MIL

LIO

NS

) $20

$30

$25

$1,427

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


2

0

4,000

8,000

14,000

2,000

6,000

10,000

12,000

16,000

MERCED COUNTY NEEDS8,281 MORE AFFORDABLE

RENTAL HOMES

Shortfall

Very Low Income

Extremely Low Income*

RenterHouseholds


Source: California Housing Partnership's analysis of 2016-2017 PUMS data using adapted NLIHC methodology.*ELI is equilvalent to the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.

Source: California Housing Partnership's analysis of 2016-2017 PUMS data using adapted NLIHC methodology.*Cost burdened households spend 30% or more of their income towards housing costs. Severely cost burdened households spend more than 50%.

0%

20%

10%

40%

30%

60%

50%

80%

70%

90%

100%

ExtremelyLow Income

Very LowIncome

LowIncome

ModerateIncome

AboveModerateIncome

74%

94%

34%

73%

5%

49%

18%

3% 4%


Cost Burdened*



MERCED COUNTY LOST 61% OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HOUSING PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION FROM FY 2008-09 TO FY 2017-18


FUNDING SOURCE

Redevelopment

FY2017-18

FY 2008-09

% CHANGE


HUD

TOTAL

$3,186 $0 -100%

-61%$3,187

$1,932 $2,019 5%

$8,304 $3,274 -61%

(In thousands)

2008-2009 2017-2018$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$6 State Funding*

HUD

Redevelopment

(IN

MIL

LIO

NS

)

$5

$7

$8

$9

$1,255

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


2

0

2,000

4,000

7,000

9,000

1,000

3,000

5,000

6,000

8,000

MADERA COUNTY NEEDS5,952 MORE AFFORDABLE

RENTAL HOMES

Shortfall

Very Low Income


RenterHouseholds


Source: California Housing Partnership's analysis of 2016-2017 PUMS data using adapted NLIHC methodology.


0%

20%

10%

40%

30%

60%

50%

80%

70%

90%

100%

ExtremelyLow Income

Very LowIncome

LowIncome

ModerateIncome

AboveModerateIncome

74%

93%

37%

82%

7%

59%

16%

3% 1%4%


Cost Burdened*



MADERA COUNTY LOST 73% OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HOUSING PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION FROM FY 2008-09 TO FY 2017-18


FUNDING SOURCE

Redevelopment

FY2017-18

FY 2008-09

% CHANGE


HUD

TOTAL

$2,623 $0 -100%

43%$251

$4,908 $1,771 -64%

$7,781 $2,129 -73%

(In thousands)

2008-2009 2017-2018$0

$2

$4

$6State Funding*

HUD

Redevelopment

(IN

MIL

LIO

NS

)

$8

$358

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


2

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

FRESNO COUNTY NEEDS35,380 MORE AFFORDABLE

RENTAL HOMES

Shortfall

Very Low Income


RenterHouseholds




0%

20%

10%

40%

30%

60%

50%

80%

70%

90%

100%

ExtremelyLow Income

Very LowIncome

LowIncome

ModerateIncome

AboveModerateIncome

72%

89%

43%

81%

14%

62%

10%

32%

2% 2%


Cost Burdened*



FRESNO COUNTY LOST 62% OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HOUSING PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION FROM FY 2008-09 TO FY 2017-18


FUNDING SOURCE

Redevelopment

FY2017-18

FY 2008-09

% CHANGE


HUD

TOTAL

$9,564 $0 -100%

-86%$12,526

$22,045 $14,843 -33%

$44,135 $16,589 -62%

(In thousands)

2008-2009 2017-2018$0

$10

$20

$30 State Funding*

HUD

Redevelopment

(IN

MIL

LIO

NS

)

$40

$50

$1,746

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


2

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

KINGS COUNTY NEEDS3,669 MORE AFFORDABLE

RENTAL HOMES

Shortfall

Very Low Income


RenterHouseholds


Source: California Housing Partnership's analysis of 2016-2017 PUMS data using adapted NLIHC methodology.


0%

20%

10%

40%

30%

60%

50%

80%

70%

90%

100%

ExtremelyLow Income

Very LowIncome

LowIncome

ModerateIncome

AboveModerateIncome

66%

88%

47%

90%

4%

49%

0%11%

2%


Cost Burdened*



KINGS COUNTY LOST 57% OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HOUSING PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION FROM FY 2008-09 TO FY 2017-18


FUNDING SOURCE

Redevelopment

FY2017-18

FY 2008-09

% CHANGE


HUD

TOTAL

$2,714 $0 -100%

-100%$3,300

$8,033 $6,091 -24%

$14,047 $6,091 -57%

(In thousands)

2008-2009 2017-2018$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$12State Funding*

HUD

Redevelopment

(IN

MIL

LIO

NS

)

$10

$14

$16

$0

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


2

0

5,000

10,000

20,000

25,000

15,000

TULARE COUNTY NEEDS17,139 MORE AFFORDABLE

RENTAL HOMES

Shortfall

Very Low Income


RenterHouseholds




0%

20%

10%

40%

30%

60%

50%

80%

70%

90%

100%

ExtremelyLow Income

Very LowIncome

LowIncome

ModerateIncome

AboveModerateIncome

72%

93%

53%

86%

12%

64%

10%

42%

0.2%7%


Cost Burdened*



TULARE COUNTY LOST 72% OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HOUSING PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION FROM FY 2008-09 TO FY 2017-18


FUNDING SOURCE

Redevelopment

FY2017-18

FY 2008-09

% CHANGE


HUD

TOTAL

$6,105 $0 -100%

-91%$16,599

$11,148 $7,862 -29%

$33,852 $9,421 -72%

(In thousands)

2008-2009 2017-2018$0

$5

$10

$15

State Funding*

HUD

Redevelopment

(IN

MIL

LIO

NS

)

$20

$30

$25

$40

$35

$1,559

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


2

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

KERN COUNTY NEEDS26,203 MORE AFFORDABLE

RENTAL HOMES

Shortfall

Very Low Income


RenterHouseholds




0%

20%

10%

40%

30%

60%

50%

80%

70%

90%

100%

ExtremelyLow Income

Very LowIncome

LowIncome

ModerateIncome

AboveModerateIncome

75%

94%

38%

79%

17%

69%

11%

31%

2% 0.9%


Cost Burdened*



KERN COUNTY LOST 73% OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HOUSING PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION FROM FY 2008-09 TO FY 2017-18


FUNDING SOURCE

Redevelopment

FY2017-18

FY 2008-09

% CHANGE


HUD

TOTAL

$8,999 $0 -100%

-96%$23,895

$14,678 $11,958 -19%

$47,572 $12,958 -73%

(In thousands)

2008-2009 2017-2018$0

$10

$20

$30 State Funding*

HUD

Redevelopment

(IN

MIL

LIO

NS

)

$40

$50

$1,000

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text


Source: Zillow Median Sale Price

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Median Home Price

California Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metro San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metro Stanislaus County

San Joaquin County Merced County Madera County Fresno County

Tulare County Kings County Kern County

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019California $263,000 $256,000 $247,000 $310,000 $366,000 $384,000 $413,000 $422,000 $469,000 $484,000Stanislaus County $139,000 $135,000 $133,000 $154,000 $199,000 $224,000 $244,000 $270,000 $294,000 $305,000San Joaquin County $165,000 $157,000 $148,000 $178,000 $230,000 $248,000 $277,000 $307,000 $347,000 $352,000Merced County $111,000 $114,000 $132,000 $165,000 $179,000 $210,000 $227,000 $268,000 $270,000Madera County $140,000 $139,000 $123,000 $140,000 $173,000 $198,000 $201,000 $210,000 $243,000 $268,000Fresno County $149,000 $140,000 $133,000 $151,000 $185,000 $198,000 $215,000 $230,000 $256,000 $256,000Tulare County $131,000 $115,000 $112,000 $129,000 $151,000 $166,000 $171,000 $200,000 $210,000 $226,000Kings County $149,000 $145,000 $131,000 $139,000 $168,000 $168,000 $181,000 $199,000 $225,000 $228,000Kern County $121,000 $115,000 $116,000 $135,000 $164,000 $177,000 $193,000 $207,000 $228,000 $229,000

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metro $370,000 $361,000 $332,000 $398,000 $454,000 $479,000 $518,000 $531,000 $597,000 $628,000San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metro $422,000 $412,000 $380,000 $497,000 $592,000 $584,000 $651,000 $676,000 $743,000 $785,000Source: Zillow Median Sale Price

Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter

California 21,097,790 14,712,803 20,983,089 15,160,926 20,805,932 15,698,633 20,691,648 16,151,707 20,664,063 16,587,347 20,695,882 16,908,728 20,736,799 17,101,422 21,102,459 17,066,023Stanislaus County 313,807 188,141 306,766 198,821 298,238 210,212 293,256 218,720 291,804 225,067 293,002 228,806 294,987 230,043 299,949 230,358San Joaquin County 402,138 252,054 398,013 264,929 388,839 281,577 385,753 290,486 379,992 305,099 386,119 306,882 382,962 316,735 390,628 318,002Merced County 137,088 110,063 136,183 113,580 134,033 118,104 131,236 122,463 130,119 126,122 127,763 130,354 129,494 129,255 130,153 131,132Madera County 81,370 57,346 80,794 59,797 79,872 61,959 80,278 63,020 81,221 62,706 82,150 62,240 83,007 62,318 86,256 60,175Fresno County 486,004 404,573 488,358 413,530 481,971 429,970 481,197 440,102 480,269 450,662 481,592 457,197 485,614 460,222 498,702 456,089Tulare County 246,378 177,693 246,972 183,458 247,586 188,427 245,359 195,492 245,540 199,810 245,571 202,686 245,694 204,463 248,631 204,732Kings County 72,200 61,681 72,600 62,803 69,937 64,436 69,692 64,229 68,525 64,807 67,927 64,690 66,992 66,182 69,510 65,081Kern County 472,285 306,657 470,127 322,840 466,132 338,601 461,003 353,942 457,768 367,307 462,381 371,955 467,834 371,888 475,343 372,045

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metro 2,055,136 2,196,359 2,071,774 2,216,200 2,065,358 2,250,279 2,058,153 1,691,781 2,105,484 2,243,059San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metro 886,449 768,105 886,304 779,621 903,500 786,407 906,858 784,923 925,772 768,590Source: U.S. Census Bureau

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019California $2,400 $1,850 $1,750 $1,900 $2,100 $2,300 $2,400 $2,600 $2,750Stanislaus County $1,040 $1,050 $1,050 $1,100 $1,200 $1,290 $1,400 $1,500 $1,550San Joaquin County $1,040 $1,250 $1,250 $1,200 $1,300 $1,400 $1,500 $1,700 $1,800 $1,900Merced County $1,050 $900 $900 $950 $950 $1,100 $1,200 $1,350 $1,400Madera County $1,200 $1,250 $1,300Fresno County $730 $900 $1,100 $1,000 $1,150 $1,250 $1,350 $1,500Tulare County $1,250 $1,030 $1,100 $1,100 $1,190 $1,200 $1,250 $1,280Kings County $1,050 $1,100 $1,200 $1,250 $1,350 $1,300 $1,350Kern County $1,250 $1,000 $1,100 $1,100 $1,200 $1,300 $1,300 $1,350 $1,360

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metro $2,180 $2,500 $2,300 $2,200 $2,400 $2,650 $2,800 $2,850 $3,000 $3,000San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metro $2,250 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,300 $2,700 $3,200 $3,000 $3,200 $3,300Source: Zillow Median Rent List Price

Median Rent

2016 2017

Median Home Price

Owner vs. Renter - Occupied Housing Units 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

California 37,253,956 37,594,781 37,971,427 38,321,459 38,622,301 38,952,462 39,214,803 39,504,609 39,740,508 39,927,315Stanislaus County 514,453 518,916 523,395 527,250 530,834 535,651 541,553 549,897 554,108 558,972 San Joaquin County 685,306 693,114 700,519 706,418 713,315 724,859 736,027 747,579 757,279 770,385 Merced County 255,793 259,297 262,738 264,933 266,814 269,299 271,629 275,009 279,424 282,928 Madera County 150,865 151,458 151,753 151,626 153,376 154,900 154,849 156,794 158,328 159,536 Fresno County 930,450 939,813 949,819 958,127 965,933 976,153 985,571 995,922 1,007,252 1,018,241 Tulare County 442,179 446,322 451,744 456,036 459,434 462,510 467,010 470,705 475,346 479,112 Kings County 152,982 151,557 151,710 150,791 149,921 149,890 149,868 149,630 151,776 153,710 Kern County 839,631 847,237 856,092 865,688 872,936 881,167 886,695 896,031 906,563 916,464

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metro 4,591,143 4,629,354 4,676,465 4,719,307 4,751,419 4,784,695 4,812,292 4,849,280 4,873,000 4,874,431San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metro 1,340,145 1,358,125 1,377,184 1,403,071 1,417,030 1,433,653 1,448,956 1,462,124 1,471,046 1,476,199Source: California Department of Finance

Housing Growth (Units) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

California 13,670,304 13,704,840 13,740,505 13,786,000 13,845,509 13,915,037 13,982,851 13,982,851 14,157,605 14,235,093Stanislaus County 179,503 179,649 179,745 179,908 180,165 180,418 180,777 181,374 181,916 182,514San Joaquin County 233,755 234,343 234,992 235,906 236,943 237,905 239,405 241,021 243,420 246,521Merced County 83,698 83,856 83,979 84,122 84,298 84,407 84,660 85,168 85,927 86,955Madera County 49,140 49,244 49,334 49,476 49,584 49,752 49,978 50,125 50,315 50,496Fresno County 315,531 317,057 318,755 320,643 322,489 324,941 327,579 329,736 332,051 334,239Tulare County 141,696 142,436 143,297 143,991 144,870 145,903 146,949 148,089 149,342 150,622Kings County 43,867 44,093 44,181 44,429 44,647 44,888 45,276 45,866 46,170 46,414Kern County 284,367 285,714 287,169 288,624 290,706 292,774 294,401 296,594 298,299 299,674

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metro 4,522,461 4,554,759 4,585,390 4,610,932 4,644,923San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metro 1,756,717 1,771,685 1,782,375 1,792,249 1,808,895Source: U.S. Census Bureau

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017California $57,708 $57,287 $58,328 $60,190 $61,933 $64,500 $67,739 $71,805Stanislaus County $48,044 $44,076 $46,405 $47,962 $51,084 $52,363 $54,305 $59,514San Joaquin County $50,011 $50,853 $50,722 $51,432 $51,659 $53,705 $59,518 $61,164Merced County $42,449 $40,055 $43,597 $40,687 $44,084 $41,997 $47,739 $47,735Madera County $48,268 $46,570 $42,039 $39,758 $42,433 $47,150 $51,657 $51,283Fresno County $45,221 $42,807 $41,627 $43,925 $43,423 $46,949 $48,715 $51,800Tulare County $43,397 $41,167 $40,302 $39,422 $42,611 $42,413 $45,881 $46,266Kings County $44,609 $50,345 $45,935 $45,774 $42,784 $45,746 $53,234 $57,555Kern County $45,524 $45,224 $45,910 $46,879 $47,644 $51,342 $49,903 $49,854

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metro $50,871 $51,407 $50,035 $58,869 $60,514 $62,544 $65,950 $69,992San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metro $60,275 $58,909 $60,598 $79,624 $83,222 $88,518 $96,677 $101,714Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family

California 8,892,430 4,250,315 8,913,648 4,267,602 8,880,006 4,299,918 8,950,390 4,313,095 9,032,651 4,325,900 9,042,285 4,400,728 9,079,853 4,455,877 9,210,270 4,432,413Stanislaus County 143,141 28,046 141,788 30,321 141,739 29,499 139,188 33,326 142,785 30,267 142,817 29,771 145,112 27,602 143,702 29,587San Joaquin County 183,068 42,444 182,338 42,977 183,711 42,726 183,846 42,026 179,373 49,035 186,946 43,844 189,275 43,540 191,290 41,712Merced County 63,649 15,448 61,692 16,172 64,943 13,905 65,489 13,001 64,786 14,767 65,223 13,963 65,585 12,411 65,286 14,794Madera County 40,947 5,977 41,328 3,776 40,709 5,700 40,186 6,688 40,857 5,040 40,805 6,296 40,128 6,165 41,884 5,213Fresno County 221,490 80,136 224,431 80,178 222,446 82,153 221,978 85,426 223,469 86,955 228,754 83,902 228,527 88,484 231,614 87,359Tulare County 110,103 21,014 112,342 20,775 112,992 20,037 111,362 23,079 113,838 20,084 113,453 22,730 116,491 22,339 114,751 25,243Kings County 33,682 8,040 34,881 6,729 32,296 8,932 32,698 10,227 33,375 9,241 32,272 10,515 35,154 9,187 34,891 9,680Kern County 207,035 53,203 210,747 53,425 212,412 53,191 208,730 59,355 213,546 56,996 218,317 54,360 213,078 58,910 219,835 55,686

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metro 2,607,605 1,830,076 2,629,450 1,833,579 2,615,203 1,880,153 2,606,999 1,918,054 2,647,904 1,905,899San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metro 1,033,182 702,530 1,042,793 708,352 1,048,433 713,393 1,053,037 718,163 1,064,452 724,363Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Population Growth

Housing Growth (Units)

Median Household Income

Housing Type2015 2016 20172010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Version: June 6, 2019

Meeting Dates & Locations Fiscal Year 2019 – 2020

All Meetings are on Thursdays at 10 am unless noted

DATE

LOCATION

JULY 11, 2019 MADERA

AUGUST 1, 2019 FRESNO

SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 BAKERSFIELD

OCTOBER 3, 2019 MERCED

NOVEMBER 7, 2019 KINGS COUNTY

DECEMBER 5, 2019 STOCKTON

JANUARY 9, 2020 FRESNO

FEBRUARY 6, 2020 VISALIA

MARCH 5, 2020 MADERA

APRIL 2, 2020 MODESTO

MAY 7, 2020 FRESNO

JUNE 4, 2020 VISALIA

SA

N J

OA

QU

IN V

AL

LEY REGIONAL PLA

NN

ING

AG

EN

CIE

S’

DIR

ECTORS’ COMMITT

EE

San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee

michaelsigala

Typewritten Text

ITEM 10

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 1414 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 2121 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 2828 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 1413 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 2120 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 2827 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 1412 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 2119 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 2826 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 1312 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 2019 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 2726 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30

31

Executive Directors' Committee MeetingsWashington DC Valley Voice (Sep 11-‐12, 2019)Regional Policy Council Meetings (Jan 17, 2020 & June 26, 2020)Pre Valley Voice Phone Conference (Aug 23, 2019 & Feb 28, 2020)Annual Policy Conference (May 13-‐15, 2020, Madera)

Sacramento Valley Voice (March 2020, actual date TBD)

Version: June 6, 2019

Meeting Calendar FY 2019-‐2020

September

October November December

San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council (& RPA Directors' Comm.)

2019

January February2020

April May June

July August

March

July 11 -‐ MaderaAug 1 -‐ FresnoSep 5 -‐ BakersfieldOct 3 -‐ MercedNov 7 -‐ Kings CountyDec 5 -‐ StocktonJan 9 -‐ FresnoFeb 6 -‐ VisaliaMar 5 -‐ MaderaApril 2 -‐ ModestoMay 7 -‐ FresnoJune 4 -‐ Visalia

SA

N J

OA

QU

IN V

AL

LEY REGIONAL PLA

NN

ING

AG

EN

CIE

S’

DIR

ECTORS’ COMMITT

EE

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – June 6, 2019

12. Caltrans Directors’ Report S.Ehlert/D. McElhinney Sharri Ehlert (District 6 Director) and Dan McElhinney (District 10 Director), or their representatives, may be in attendance to provide an update and answer any questions. 13. San Joaquin JPA for Passenger Rail D. Leavitt Dan Leavitt, Manager of Regional Initiatives, or his representative may be in attendance to provide an update and answer any questions. 14. California 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. 15. California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley F. Cardoza Frida Cardoza, Community and Regional Planning Center Coordinator, may be in attendance to provide an update and answer any questions.

san$joaquin$valley$regional$planning$agencies’$directors ... · meeting’minutes’...

Documents