VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 21 CATEGORY: Business POSTED ON: 11/5/2010
California Regulations Regarding Grant Funds document sample
California Regulations Regarding Grant Funds document sample
Proposition 84 Planning Grants Combined list/summary of Questions/Comments from email, calls, mail, etc. Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 11/18/09 Krista Monterey Air District Gene Wanted to know if it was safe to assume the timeline for applications is yet to be determined. 11/18/09 Krista Shasta County RTPA Dan Wayne Wanted to know if timeline for grant award is set in stone. Has some ideas for project and wanted to know if timing coincided with their proposed projects. 11/19/09 Email City of Yucaipa Mary Petite "I have noticed that an application for an Economic Development Plan is an eligible activity of the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentives Program. The City of Yucaipa may be interested in submitting a proposal to prepare a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS) plan as a pre-requisite to making application for Economic Development Assistance Programs. Please advise whether a CEDS falls under the category of eligible proposals." 11/24/09 Krista City of Paso Robles Susan D. Carly Caller did not see a timeline for submittal of applications. 11/24/09 Krista County of Santa Clara Steve Ross Do we give examples of projects we have in mind? If so, he would like them Planning Office 408-299-5791 included in the final RFP. Are we affiliated with the California Vision Process firstname.lastname@example.org which also received Prop 84 dollars? cgov.org 12/1/09 Krista City of Los Angeles Planning Naomi Guth Thinking about attending Burbank workshop on 12/7. Will it be a Office naomi.guth@lacit presentation on the RFP and opportunity to learn more about what we are y.org looking for or just going over public comments to be entered into the record? Will there be more than one funding round? Will we accept more than one application per city for different projects? 12/2/09 12/2 What's the relationship between SB 375 and AB 32? work- shop Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/2/09 12/2 Focus the $ on making infill easier to accomplish--reduce logjams. work- Sustainable benefits will be reaped & be complimentary to the goals of shop SB375. Use these $'s for specific area plans. Ability for these funds to result in short-term real benefits not just revamping or amending a general plan. Suggesting 80% to LG. 12/2/09 12/2 Attorney Bob Joenhk Verbal: Match requirement is unrealistic when targeting disadvantaged work- communities. 15% withhold of contract=counter-productive for shop & disadvantaged and rural communities. Healthcare guidelines are way too Letter general to be helpful. Rural comm's need more detail than this. No explicit recognition for job creation or job retention. In rural comm's this is extremely important--more so than larger ci/co's. Should be more explicit (economic). Letter: There is no statutory requirement that requires the awarding of 5 possible points for an application "supplemented with additional funds." It does not makes sense to require "disadvantaged communities" to have to provide a "match." Prop 84 allowed such "matches" to be waived for these types of communities. This would also then eliminate references to them found on pages: 7, 14, 34, and possibly the modification of item 4 in proposed "certification" resolution on pg 37. Withholding 15% of invoiced amounts is counter-productive esp when dealing w/rural or disadvantaged communities. State only requires 10% retention of public works. Perhaps providing 5-10% retention of final amounts to be paid under the contract until SGC is satisfied that all work called for in agreement has been satisfactorily completed. Provisions of the G&A dealing w/public health (p.31) not useful or helpful. They currently overlap concerns (parks & rec, housing, transportation) that are the provenance of other categories under the proposed G&A. They also don't really address "planning" for health facilities, clinic distributions, attracting general medical practitioners to locate in rural areas. SGC should be explicit in addressing the importance of economic development and job retention. "Community" needs clarification. Too much diversity of disadvantaged/advantaged communities w/in one county even. Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/2/09 12/2 Associate Director of ABAG Henry Gardner We cannot address ALL these efforts at once. We need to focus and build work- upon efforts we have already started. We are already asking ci/co's to do so shop much, w/shorter staff and larger populations. Need for updating general plans is huge and this money is not enough. Link the regional measures w/local measures. Remember who it is you represent when you leave here. Remember what it is. We need to be strategic and focus. 12/2/09 12/2 Carey Knecht Verbal: Primary litmus test should be likelihood of resulting in near-term work- (Greenbelt physical change that improves the lives of Californians consistent w/Prop shop & Alliance), Mary 84. Reduce typical logjams of development and protection of open spaces Letter Elana Burstein and farmland. Focus on specific plans, neighborhood, master plans and (Environment ordinance and zoning changes not general plans. Only award funds to Now), Judy General Plans that include updated zoning. Only release final grant payment Corbett (LG when adopted plan is certain to be implemented. Leverage other regional Commission), planning funding and complement the process between local and regional Amanda Eaken efforts. Letter: 1) Prioritize plans that result in real on-the-ground change in (Natural local communities. 2) Leverage other regional planning funding. 3) Promote Resource local and regional collaboration. Defense Council), Elyse Lowe (Move San Diego), Elizabeth O'Donohue (The Nature Conservancy), Robin Salsburg (Public Health Law & Policy), Julie Sniyder (Housing CA) Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/2/09 12/2 Comfort Homesake Marliyn Ababio Verbal: Regional approach is very beneficial for cities. Guidelines need to work- Homecare & Hospice 510-839-6120 ask "what is the impact of this plan on low-income, minority…" The answer shop & should be provided in the plan. Email: Are there any barriers to EJ Email community participation in Planning Grants and Incentive Programs to promote sustainable land use practices? Comfort Homesake suggests the Council base its decision on how well planners answer the environmental justice question. "How will this project impact low income, racial or culturally minority groups and/or linguistically isolated populations who live around the project site?" 12/2/09 12/2 GreenBelt Alliance, VP of Jake Mackenzie In agreement with the ABAG letter.Tension exists between ci/co's. work- Public Policy; Elected Official shop for Rohnert Park 12/2/09 12/2 Chico Builder & Developer John Anderson Finds himself stuck between regional planning and logistics as well as work- supporting 375. Look favorably on grant funds for LG partnering w/MPO on shop the development of catalyst projects. MPO's can be the authors of the new codes. Reform of zoning ordinances to remove barriers. Specific regulation supercedes their efforts in Butte County. 12/2/09 12/2 League of Cities Bill Higgins Cities believe it should be a 20/80 split b/c they are the ones who will work- actually be making the changes. Guidelines are too broad, some are shop duplicative and go beyond the statute. Thinks we will see 10-20 times the $ in apps. Money has already dwindled to $65m w/o $1 going out to ci/co's yet. 12/2/09 12/2 Ted Pause In agreement with the ABAG letter. We don't talk enough about time and the work- 2020 timeline is fast closing. We have not made enough progress. It is the shop worst time to try to implement SB 375 and it is a Herculean effort. If all these efforts are a priority, then nothing is a priority. Fiscal scarcity, imperativity of Climate Change. Need clearer strategic priorities or there will be a result in a peanut scramble in awarding these grants. Smaller grants will be spread so thin that nothing will be accomplished. Urges SGC to be very careful in spending this $. 12/2/09 12/2 Senator Steinberg Bill Craven, Good start, but RFP should focus on planning that achieves state climate work- Consultant, focus; not just planning as usual. Don't need two sets of guidelines. Use SB shop Senate Natural 732 to fund SB 375 priorities - more prominent - RFP and keep other Resources Council requirements. Don't break fund into pots; it's a competitive process; Committee Award to best, whether proposal is a regional or local proposal. Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/2/09 12/2 High Speed Rail Authority Eric Fredericks No mention of high speed rail. Make planning around hi-speed train stations work- a priority. Specific plans that can actually be implemented and over-coming shop barriers. Committed to higher density around stations. Critical to begin planning for the area around stations now to begin feeder stations and ultimately more sustainable cities. Has asked for funding to provide grants to cities itself to promote high speed rail stations. Would be willing to partner with the SGC. 12/2/09 12/2 Mayor of Oakdale Michael Brennan Small cities should be given higher priority and state should be accountable work- for the reduction of $90m down to $65m. This is a lot of money for rural city shop or county. 12/2/09 12/2 Fisher Communications Bobby Fisher (?) Public Health should be given higher priority. Make section more specific work- and require more detail. shop 12/2/09 12/2 Law Office for Low Income Brian Augusta Equitable distribution focusing on rural and low-income communities. work- and Rural Areas Broader housing and planning goals that end in real results. Several pockets shop of poverty that are commonly ignored (lack of sidewalks, adequate drinking water, paved roads, sewage). The communities need their planning and housing deficits met. Funds should "incentivize" the type of growth that has not been happening. Increase density and housing affordability, infrastructure deficit and access to transit. $ could make the most difference in these communities. 12/2/09 12/2 City of Fresno Kathy Van Osten, Verbal: Can't expect one project to transform a community. Fresno is work- Rose & Kindell assuming a more broad-based approach already. Letter: Major portions of shop & Associates Prop 84 funds should be available for updating General Plans to meet and Letter exceed SB 375 requirements; and for innovative initiatives such as the "Sustainable Fresno" program our city is undertaking. 12/2/09 12/2 Does not support the split but would support a letter from the other work- region/city. A split is too limiting at least for the first round of funding. shop 12/2/09 12/2 Local Government Judy Corbett Don't have the staff to respond to the complicated RFP--can't hire a work- Commission (LGC) consultant. Would like to work with RFP writers to make it more user-friendly. shop 12/2/09 12/2 The Nature Conservancy Julia Garner Natural resources should receive a higher score and define "protect, work- (TNC) enhance, natural resources…" shop Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/2/09 12/2 What is "implementation?" maybe it needs to be more specific to planning work- w/such limited funds available. Consideration for those already struggling to shop implement blueprint planning. 12/2/09 Email City of San Luis Obispo Kim Murray On page 8 of the draft guidelines, under VIII. Examples of Ineligible Proposals, it states that the grant funds cannot be used to fund the development of an EIR. Does this mean that the grant if proposed for development of a Comprehensive General Plan or update of a General Plan 805-781-7274 Element cannot be used to help fund the associated EIR required to email@example.com evaluate the General Plan revision? Please clarify. Thank you in advance g for your help! 12/2/09 12/2 City of Ventura Kaizer Ranwala Local development regulations are significant barriers to smart growth. This work- money should go to remove those barriers by funding the development of shop Form Based Codes. 12/2/09 12/2 AECOM Mathew Gerken The draft guidelines note that funding may NOT be applied to the work- preparation on an EIR. However, as CEQA Section Guidelines 15166 allows shop EIR requirement to be met w/in a General Plan. Is this approach--integrating environmental analysis w/in the general plan itself--OK? We see an EIR is not fundable. However, would an Initial Study/Mitigated Neg Dec on a sustainability plan be fundable under this program? 12/2/09 12/2 Town Green Steve Coyle Verbal: Maximum focus on municipal and county code upgrades, specifically work- in the creation of form and function-based codes…the general plan is not shop & where implementation lies, and we need action." Email: I respectfully Email recommend that grants include funding for recognition/incentive programs that reward the achievement of SGC goals. For example, municipal and county's that develop sustainability plans, comprehensive climate action plans, and significant code reform, that meet or exceed state, regional, and local targets should be recognized by the State as exemplars and given priority for additional grants and resources as they become available through the State and other agencies and organizations. 12/2/09 12/2 AECOM Jeff Henderson suggests using a Letter of Interest process work- shop 12/2/09 12/2 North Fork Associates Eileen Shaw EIRs NOT eligible--but CEQA likely required for these plans. work- shop Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/2/09 12/2 Natural Resources Defence Amanda Eagen SB 375 should be the spine (backbone) for everything we do. Should be two work- Council (NRDC) pots of funding: regional and locals. Leverage 375 implementation. Should shop prioritize "on the ground" changes - zoning ordinances. 12/3/09 Email University Associates, Silicon Cindy Rubin Is it possible that a limited liability corp, established by public education Valley LLC institutions, for the purpose of furthering public goals of education and research, could be eligible? See proposed project attached to email. 12/2/09 City of Sacramento Steve Cohn, Need planning dollars and analyses for ordinances, plans so we don't Council Member subsidize developers. 12/2/09 Cal State Assn of Counties DeAnn Baker Will send comment letter. Implementation too open. Money goes farther in (CSAC) rural areas, should be set aside for rural areas. Also should be discretion of funds (80/20 split proposal) because some areas need more funds than others. 12/2/09 City of Sacramento Tom Pace, Agreed with John Anderson (Chico). Way to coordinate between city and Senior Planner MPO is COG review (advisory) to SGC, but don't increase time for approval. Increase monies to cities and counties. Focus on growth, areas of greatest need for regional plans (target monies to region). Maybe tiered approach. Matching funds is a burden. 12/7/09 12/7 Climate Plan Beth S??? More specificity for proposals, for quick implementation. Specific plans, work- TOD overlays. City of LA has updated General Plan but developers want shop urban design around station, maximum parking. Add more transportation opportunities, income mix, etc. 12/7/09 12/7 Cal COG Jerry Jaffe More strategically focused proposals. Split funds into two pots: 80/20 work- (Cities, Counties/MPOs). Rural areas should receive 5 to 10% of funds. shop Add SB 375 to RFP. SCS should be funded first. 18 MPOs get funds; RTPA apply directly to SGC. 12/7/09 12/7 City of Fullerton heather Allen Clarify disadvantaged communities. Does it mean area served or must it be work- firstname.lastname@example.org a geographic region that meets definition? Might want to use AB 32 shop ton.ca.us (714) definition of census tract. 738-6884 12/7/09 12/7 Santa Barbara County COG Kim ??? How will the proposal be monitored? work- shop 12/7/09 12/7 City of Glendale Want to submit proposal for General Plan Update and Zoning changes; work- three year period for grant may not be long enough to do both. Can funds be shop used for city staff? Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/7/09 12/7 Can funds be received "up front"? Why reimbursement basis? work- shop 12/7/09 12/7 City of Los Angeles Jane Blumenfeld, $1 million limit per application will limit City of Los Angeles which has larger work- Planning Dept area/needs. shop jane.blumenfeld@ lacity.org 213-978-1272 12/7/09 12/7 City of Los Angeles What does two or more entities mean? Can it be two departments within a work- city? shop 12/7/09 Email Chris Castorena The first bullet under Section IX - Grant Selection Process - reads in castorenac@sacc parenthesis that one application per entity. Does that mean a local city or ounty.net county can apply only for one grant under the guidelines, or does it mean a department within a city or county can apply only for one grant application. Please specify the meaning one application per entity. 12/7/09 Email City of Pasadena Alice Sterling Potentially thousands of toilets in Pasadena are destined for the landfill. This could be addressed with a replicable pilot program for local communities whereby 1) areas are designated for replaced toilets to be dropped off, 2) toilets are crushed, 3) local sources for the crushed porcelain such as trails, asphalt admixture for streets, drainage medium in trenches, etc. are identified, and 4) green jobs are created to run the program. This closed- loop program would also assist in reducing greenhouse gases associated with water conveyance and truck trips to landfill, and it supports the state’s Zero Waste Goal through diversion. We think there is a tremendous opportunity with this type of program. In concept, would such a program qualify for a sustainable communities planning grant? If not, are there other grants available for a toilet replacement and reuse program? Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/7/09 Email City of Encinitas Patrick Murphy 1) We feel grants should focus on planning docs (General Plans/Specific Plan Updates, Climate Action Plans) that address long-range policies and regs for GHG reduction and meeting state targets. 2) we are opposed to the CalCOG recommendation to set aside $20 million for regional govts/ regional govts are required to develop regional sustainability plans and such are underway. Local govts need incentives to implement regional sustainability plans. Directing funds to local govt (city or county) to prepare long-range planning docs is critical to ensure consistency w/regional plans. 3) Planning funds should be allocated directly to local agency requesting funds not through COGs. We are concerned the COGs will incorporate additional requirements and/or evaluation criteria. 12/7/09 Email California Conference of Edward Moreno We urge the Council to retain the public health requirements including Local Health Officers consulting w/local public health officers in finalizing the application for these funds. 1) pg 5: Please add "promote equity." 2) pg 6-7: the multiple categories of additional requirements and priority considerations and scoring there-of is confusing. 3) pg 12: we strongly support the inclusion of these requirements under "promote public health"; it would be helpful to refer to the glossary that contains info on Local Health Officers. 4) pg 19: should read "Local Health Officers." 12/10/09 Krista- Amador County Neil Peacock Verbal: Is urban greening funding part of the sustainable planning grant Call & Transportation Commission 209-267-2282 guidelines $90 million. A one time award was mentioned, yet the guidelines Letter neil@actc- state possible multiple funding cycles. Which is accurate? If multiple cycles, amador.org will Council accept multiple apps from same entity (1/per cycle)? Will the Council consider funding projects over a multi-year timeframe, such as a 2- yr project? A planning phase and an implementation phase? The guidelines make no mention of schedule of projects. Also, MPOs have requested an additional 1/3 of the money to what they are already being given. What is the staff's response to that? Letter: 1) There should not be a set-aside in the Planning Grant Program for MPOs. 2) The proposed $1 million funding cap on awards should remain and no allowance should be made to increase awards beyond this for any reason. 3) Applications from MPOs should be cross-referenced w/awards made under the Modeling incentive Program to ensure duplicative awards are not made. 4) MPOs should not be allowed to rank any applications submitted. 5) Consistency w/SB 375 goals and existing blueprint documents should not be used as evaluation criterion when ranking proposals. 6) Do not establish criterion that would Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/10/09 Letter Sacramento Metropolitan Air Larry Greene 1) Need for collaboration. MPOs should prove collaboration in applications. Quality Management District Extra points should be given for collaborating. 2) Overreaching. Guidelines are calling for too broad of projects. Sample projects (pg 8) contain items ie Economic Development Plan and Community Action Plan which may not be an effectinve use of funding. The sample list should be revised in compliance with SB 375. Catalyst projects should get extra points. 12/10/09 Letter County of Contra Costa, John W. Dept. of Conservation & Cunningham Development 12/10/09 Letter California State Association DeAnn Baker 1) Support Allocation of funding 80% to cities and counties and 20% to of Counties (CSAC) regions. 2) Support various planning and implementation efforts at local level. 3) Support set-aside for planning efforts in 26 regions outside of the 18 MPOs. 12/10/09 Letter San Francisco Planning Dept. John Rahaim, To be consistent w.Prop 84, it must reflect and reward smart growth- Doug particularly those already developed & successful structures. Currently, Shoemaker, guidelines ignore the importance of regional planning and local cooperation Nathaniel Ford toward sustainable, well-used transit system. 12/10/09 Letter California Association of Jon Edney, Art 1) Guidelines need more focus. Should be more closely linked to each Councils of Governments Brown, Henry region's Blueprint or SCS approach. MPOs should be given first priority for (CALCOG) Gardner, Rusty funding and sufficient funds set aside. 2) Funding for all regions should be Selix, Tony $20 million w/recognition that it could cost more. Some of remaining funds Boren, Rob should be held until this has been determined. 3) One-third of funds should Brummett, Will go to regions and two-thirds to local governments. 4) SGC should recognize Kempton, Mike that some rural agencies are not required to implement SB 375, but may McKeever, wish to voluntarily implement portions of it. Council should develop some Ronald DeCarli, criteria for evaluating those apps. 5) Regions should be assured reasonable Jim Kemp, Daniel amount of funds but be subject to state standards. 6) Recognize that SB Little 375 allows Sub Regional strategies w/in the Southern California Assoc of Governments region. Sub Regions should be eligible for this funding. 7) All Councils of Governments and County Transportation Commissions w/in the SCAG region should be eligible to be direct recipients of the funds. 8) State may be able to withhold portion of funds for any region whose plan needs further assistance to meet state requirements--realizing unique Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/10/09 Letter California Rural Legal Brian Augusta & 1) Should go to those communities most in need of planning assistance, Assistance Foundation Martha Guzman, (neglected disadvantaged). Increase points for serving disadvantaged "PolicyLink" Chione Flegel communities, Priorotize funding for planning that will include a focus on connecting low-income people, to education, economic opportunity and services. "Super-infill" communities. 2) Ensure equitable regional and statewide distribution of funding: Establish criteria that ensures equitable funding distribution. Waive or modify the supplemental funds priority for disadvantaged communities. Make GHG reduction a co-equal factor. It's unlikely that rural or small communities will be able to compete on this facto w/larger cities, counties and COGs that have already invested in blue-print planning and GHG reduction modeling. 1) Guidleines should require and encourage public input from grantees prior to their submission of an application. Timelines for the app should accommodate community notice, participation and feedback on proposed actions for the planning. 12/10/09 E-mail San Jose Park, rec & Rajesh Adoni It would be helpful if advance payments could be given. Use state income Neighborhood Services limits which are adjusted for the area median (Income limits pursuant to Title 25 No. 6932 California Code of Regulations). Include outcome measurement as eligible for grant reimbursement. Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/10/09 Letter City of San Jose, Dept of Joseph Horwedel 1) Focus on compact infill development. Currently too broad in scope, Planning, Building and Code Needs to be a strategic focus on linking transportation and land use. SGC Enforcement should set a priority to target grant funds for local governments to plan for and promote compact, infill development that achieves CA's climate objectives, particularly funding for local governmet planning around transit stations that link to regional blueprints. Additional points should be awarded for planning activities that promote collabortaion between regional and local governments and for locan infrastructure planning to support compact, infill development in existing employment and population centers supported by transit. 2) Prioritize local sustainable planning efforts: Guidelines must support local government efforts to promote compact infill development by targeting funds to planning efforts that remove logjams to infill and produce actual change on the ground. The SGC should fund local planning initiatives directed at resolving actual implementation realities that thwart compact, infill development. Guidelines should prioritize funding for local governments to prepare specific or area plans that implement regional blueprint plans. To promote local sustainable planning activities that can and will actually happen in the hear term, the SGC should allocate 90% of grant funds for local governments planning efforst and 10% for regional governments, respectively. SGC should consider regional allocation of grant funding based on population. Should also consider past Regional Housing Needs Allocation persformance as a measure for allocating funds for sustainable planning. Matching funds will be problematic for most communities due to local government budget deficits. Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/10/09 Letter The Nature Conservancy Elizabeth Urge the Council to ensure that proposals emphasize the preservation of O'Donoghue our natural lands and working landscapes receive the highest priority. Ensure that Natural resource protection is emphasized in the grant criteria scoring system. Strengthen the eligibility criteria in draft SGC guideline by providing a definition for "protect, preserve and enhance environmental, agricultural and recreation resources.": On pg 5, eligibility criteria would be strengthened by defining what this means. We recommend this definition include: 1) Areas of importance for the maintenance of endemic, rare, or imperiled plant and animal species and communities. 2) Areas that provide connectivity between natural habitats, especially in areas with high rates of land use conversion, including riparian areas, and areas that have low levels of fragmentation from human land uses and infrastructure. 3) Natural areas adjacent to existing public or privately protected areas that serve to buffer and improve habitat values within the protected area. 4) Areas that can serve to buffer developed areas from natural disturbance such as floodplains or natural fire breaks. 5) Existing farm and ranchland. 6) Natural areas important for the protection of climate benefits (e.g., carbon storage and sequestration). 7) Areas essential for maintaining or improving the integrity of watersheds, and for maintaining or improving the water quality and availability in surface water bodies and groundwater tables. Provide grants for preparing and implementing Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs). 12/10/09 Letter City of Sacramento Thomas Pace See Mark-Up 12/10/09 Letter Breeze-Martin Consulting Rick Breeze- See Mark-Up Martin Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/10/09 Letter City of Oakland, Public Robin Salsburg 1) Create a uniform and consistent set of funding priorities and evaluation Health Community criteria between all 3 Prop 84 grants to reinforce the focused goals of achieving actual reduction in GHG emissions while making significant improvements in health and equity outcomes. The language is very broad and does not provide sufficient targeted direction to applicants. Specific recommendations are: Develop a point system that clearly incentivizes the strategies and priorities that achieve the Council's goald and make these required elements in the application. See letter for specific evaluation criteria suggestions. Create a "mandatory requirements" section that sets forth the threshold elements an applicant MUST have. Place significant emphasis in the evaluation criteria on projects that will result in meaningful and actual change. Convene a multi-disciplinary grant review team that consists of representatives with dep-expertise in the application priority areas. Add specificity to the comprehensive description of a Health Community Appendix to enable applicants unfamiliar with public health strategies to better integrate tangible elements into their plans or programs. Integrate 12/10/09 Letter City of Santa Rosa Gillian Hayes Pg 4: Cities need to be able to receive fund directly and not have the additional layer of pass-through at the regional government level. Pg 5: Important not to penalize applicants who are unable to meet all 11 requirements. Very few applications will be able to meet all 11. Consider weighting scoring to applicants who meet 7 or 8 but not losing points. Pg 9: Please allow cities who may not entirely fall under disadvantaged to focus efforts of a potential grant program on portions of our community which do contain a low income neighborhood. Pg 12: Staff finds the categories and listed questions appropriate. 12/10/09 Letter League of California Cities Bill Higgins 1) Immediate funding of Local Planning Grants will further SB 375 Goals. 2) Target support for Local Planning. 3) Set aside for SCS Implementation. 4) Local documentation of Regional Plan consistency. 12/10/09 Letter City of Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin 12/10/09 Letter California Habitat John Hopkins Conservation Planning Coalition 12/10/09 Letter City of Santee Melanie Kush 12/10/09 Letter CEQAmap Don Ritter 12/10/09 Letter City of Santa Clara, Valley Ying Smith Transportation Authority Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 12/10/09 Letter Alias Designs Derek Ryder 12/10/09 Letter City of Los Angeles Jane Blumenfeld 1) Streamilne the application process by establishing a 2-phase process. 2) Establish a "Local" grant program and "Regional" grant program w/in the planning grant program. 3) Reduce the application materials. 4) Clearly state the requirement for consistency with a Regional Plan. 5) Provide guidance to applicants regarding Additional Requirements. 6) Provide guidance to applicants regarding Priority Considerations. 7) Provide guidance to applicants regarding "Community Support" and Organizational Capacity. 8) Provide additional information for some terms in the Glossary. 9) Clearly state all criteria to be used in determining funding awards. 10) Add impact on Reducing GHG as a criterion in making funding decisions. 11) Allow more than one application per entity. 12/10/09 E-Mail City of San Diego Carol Wood 12/10/09 Email City of Glendale Stephanie Reich There should be some recognition of the varying needs throughout North, Central and Southern California, due to geographic conditions and existing governance structure. There should be some recognitions of these different needs within the application, and perhaps a prioritization based on these differences. This type of recognition may precent bias toward one region and not another. 12/11/09 Letter Senator Steinberg Bill Craven, 1. SB 375 should be the backbone of Council grants, along with SB 732 Senate indicia. 2. Add SB 375 to guidelines. Applications should weave specific Consultant planning into grant proposal should score highest. Do not consider applications that have only one or two SB 732 sustainability indicia. 3. Add to proposal scoring: 1) helps achieve GHG targets that will be set by ARB; 2) quantify outcomes to measure achievements of grant; 3) reward applications that propose amibitious working relationships between local government and relevant MPO. (reward regional/LGs that work to achieve SB 375 goals). 4) Consider ways to coordinate Council's grants with other sustainability programs to maximize benefits not only of Council's grants, but efforts of other state department programs. 12/22/09 Email City of El Cerrito Melanie Mintz Will whether a city is awarded a grant within one program affect whether a city would be competitive in another program or a future round? Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 01/04/10 Email McKinleyville Community Norman Shopay We are a Community Serves District (CSD) and are responsible for water, serves District sewer, parks and recreation and street lights. Are we eligible to apply for this funding as a CSD? 01/18/10 Email Wallace Group Nicole L. Smith Is there a percentage that is acceptable for overhead costs (e.g., adminstration, rent, etc)? 10%? 2/01/10 Letter PHLP, Housing California, Brian Augusta, 1) Support focus on greenhouse gas and SB 375; (2) Plans funded by SGC California Rural Legal John Clayburgh, must address the full range of SGC goals, including public health Assistance Foundation, the Judy Corbett, improvement, advancement for disadvantaged communities and natural Nature Conservancy, Policy Amanda Eaken, resource conservation; (3) request for 20 percent set-aside for Link, Sierra Nevada Alliance, Chione Flegel, disadvantaged communities; (4) make a variety of plans eligible as long as Local Government Jermy Madsen, they meet the requirements; (5) focus on successful outcomes and Commission, Greenbelt Liz O'Donoghue, implementation, including strategy and timeline; (6) allow for co-applicants Alliance, American Farmland Robin Salsburg, or sub-recipients to be part of the proposal; (7) allow input during the Trust, NRDC Sharom Sprowls, drafting of revised grant guidelines. Ed Thompson Comments on Proposed Final Guidelines: Posted 2/12/10 2/16/10 email LGC Allow for sub-recipients of the Planning Grant, including: University and Community Colleges, Community-Based Organizations, Non-Profit Paul Zykofsky Organizations (501.C.3) and Public Entities 2/16/10 email/ City of Palo Alto Arundhati Sett (1) Project Scope (a) Provide a complete list of eligible proposals (b) Does phone the project have to be completed in the 3 years? Where mentioned in the proposal (2) Funding (a) must a proposal have a life span of three years to be eligible (b) are appendix L and M estimated dollar amounts and probable start dates and end dates. (3) How often will reimbursements be? (4) Who are eligible for second cycle and when will they be considered by the state? 2/18/10 email NRG Group, Inc. Carol Deaning I am interested in submitting two projects for the Butte County area. Is there a mailing list to get the final draft and proposal dates for the grant application? Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 2/24/10 email Lauren Hilliard (1) There is no mention of SB 391 in the Guidelines (2) pleased with the inclusion of Government Code 65041.1- to achieve equity, strong economy, etc by ensuring that all state agencies specify how infrastructure expenditures are consistent with infill development and redevelopment will play out in other state-level decisions outside of Proposition 84 guidelines? 3/2/10 email County of Sacramento Judy Robinson We are considering an application that would involve analysis of potentially 2-3 sites. Does the grant allow for 1 application to include multiple sites? 3/3/10 workshop Rural Assistance Bryan Agusta Supports Disadvantage Communities set aside ~20% Foundation/Climate Plan 3/3/10 workshop City of San Diego Howard Not clear how the 60 points work. What if proposal is really strong in 1 or 2 Greensteen areas? 3/3/10 workshop ? Question on Can an Urban Greening Plan Proposal be considered under the Planning phone ? Grants? 3/3/10 workshop CSAC Kiana Buss The GHG threshold requirement seems to elevate other types of plans like to reduce VMT and density as opposed to preserving open space. What are the metrics to use to demonstrate this? 3/3/10 workshop CALCOG Rusty Selix 1) Absence of clarity that development of SCS is an eligible use. This is a very conspicuous omission. 2) The collaborative approach is missing with 70% of funds to go to focus area 1. 80% should go to focus area number 2. 3/3/10 workshop City of San Diego While we support our local cog there is concerned to let region control what gets funded 3/3/10 workshop NRDC Amanda Eaken 1) To address "Change on the ground" should link general plan updates to zoning changes 2) Support shift of funds from focus area 1 to focused area 2. Local and regional collaboration in pot two. The collaboration threshold in focus area 1 is low. We agree most of the money should go to local governments 3) Blueprint- why it would be more appropriate to include SCS Things we like: 1) GHG and SPP threshold 2) Support additional points for disadvantaged communities 3) we prefer "actively supports" in stead of "does not conflict with a regional plan" - and that the regional plan should meets all the requirements. 3/3/10 workshop ? guy on phone Are local hazard mitigation plans eligible? all cities and counties doing these now. Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 3/3/10 workshop Nature Conservancy Liz o’donaahue 1) The guidelines should have additional measures for indicators and outcomes. There is some good work being done on that. We will get you some examples of indicators. 2) Add to eligible proposals: conservation greenprints and Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP). 3) We would ask that Urban Greening Plans not be eligible under the Planning Grants 3/3/10 workshop AECOM ? CEQA should be eligible 3/3/10 workshop City of Tracy ? Phone I'm Confused: could one proposal allow both a general plan amendment and zoning code update? 3/10/10 email Policy Link Establish a set-aside that specifically targets disadvantaged communities, similar to the Urban Greening Planning Grant Program: "at least 20 percent of each round of funding shall be prioritized for projects that target EDC." 3/11/10 letter SANDAG Gary Gallegos (1) The draft guidelines should list the RTP under eligible proposals, in addition to the Regional Blueprints and SCS. (2) agree with funding allocation, however, funding priority within the three cycles should be given to Focus Area # 2 (3) Under Focus Area # 2, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be listed under other planning processes. (4) The draft guidelines need to clarify the role of the lead agency. 3/13/10 email Local Government Judy Corbett Encourage that the Planning Grants use the Caltrans provision that limits Commission sub-applicants to educational institutions, MPOs and nonprofits. 3/15/10 email Greenbelt Alliance Jeremy Madsen (1) Shift the majority of funds (roughly 80%) into Focus Area # 2. (2) 20% of the funds from each Focus Area (not a single set aside from all Focus Areas) should be targeted to disadvantaged communities to ensure affordable housing and other needs of low income neighborhoods are addressed via this program (3) Establish an advisory committee to help review applications. The advisory committee could have a makeup similar to the RTAC. Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 3/15/10 email CEQAmp.com Don Ritter Please accept this information as a "place holder" until we can formalize a proposal for Prop 84 funds relating to the 10% set aside for environmental information: initial feasibility, needs determination and algorithms, hardware and software configuration, application development, beta testing, quality assurance/ quality control. The estimated funding request from the 10% of Prop 84 funds is $1.75 - $2.25 million. 3/16/10 email AMBAG Support letter for the Caltrans $2 million request for California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) 3/16/10 email California Council of Land Darla Guenzler Supports the proposal that would provide funding to improve protected Trusts areas data for California. 3/16/10 email Greenbelt Alliance Jeremy Madsen (1) provide local planning funds and link them to SB 375. Local and regional collaboration is essential (2) reserve 20% of funds for disadvantaged communities and social justice efforts. (3) funds should only be used for planning efforts that will make all the changes necessary for homes, jobs, parks and preserves, and complete streets to actually be created. (4) grants should be selected with the help of the public advisory committee that includes expertise in the full range of the Council's goals. (5) Non-profits, universities and COGs should be eligible to co-apply with applicants, but believe that it would be better for cities to select any for-profit partner after grants are awarded, to improve the likelihood that public bidding process would allow us to comment on the teams that a local government might partner with. 3/16/10 email Greenbelt Alliance Stephanie Reyes Support directing grant funds to additional data acquisition projects. Projected lands data is a critical research need for future strategic growth planning for the state. Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question 3/16/10 email NRDC (1) Fund local planning and local-regional collaboration to meet SB 375: focus area # 2 should receive majority of total planning grant funding (~80%), local governments should submit their applications to the state through the MPOs and MPOs will rank, SB 375 (SCS and APS) related planning should be listed as an eligible activity (2) Provide a 20% set aside for disadvantaged communities. (3) No general plan, specific plan or climate action plan should be created or updated without concurrent, consistent changes made to the zoning code, where applicable. (4) Create an advisory committee of stakeholders to review applications. (5) Use Caltrans grant language for sub-recipients that specifies COGs, educations institutions, and nonprofits are the eligible sub-recipients. Support Caltrans request to the SGC for an additional $2 million grant to 3/16/10 email SANDAG Gary Gallegos conduct the 2010/2011 CHTS. Fund the protected lands database, and provide the information to a wide audience so that local and regional entities, joint powers authorities, infrastructure agencies, nongovernmental organizations and private entities Elizabeth will have the opportunity to avoid unnecessary conflicts and enhance 3/16/10 email The Nature Conservancy O'Donoghue conservation. (1) provide local planning funds and link them to SB 375. Local and regional collaboration is essential (2) reserve 20% of funds for disadvantaged communities and social justice efforts. (3) funds should only be used for planning efforts that will make all the changes necessary for homes, jobs, parks and preserves, and complete streets to actually be created. (4) grants should be selected with the help of the public advisory committee that includes expertise in the full range of the Council's goals. (5) Non-profits, universities and COGs should be eligible to co-apply with applicants, but believe that it would be better for cities to select any for-profit partner after grants are awarded, to improve the likelihood that public bidding process would allow us to comment on the teams that a local government might partner with. 3/16/10 email Urban Habitat Vu-Bang Nguyen Organization (contact info Date Staff OK but not necessary) Name Comment/Question (1) provide local planning funds and link them to SB 375. Local and regional collaboration is essential (2) reserve 20% of funds for disadvantaged communities and social justice efforts. (3) funds should only be used for planning efforts that will make all the changes necessary for homes, jobs, parks and preserves, and complete streets to actually be created. (4) grants should be selected with the help of the public advisory committee that includes expertise in the full range of the Council's goals. (5) Non-profits, universities and COGs should be eligible to co-apply with applicants, but believe that it would be better for cities to select any for-profit partner after grants are awarded, to improve the likelihood that public bidding process would allow us to comment on the teams that a local Bonnie Holmes- government might partner with. 3/17/10 email American Lung Association Gen Regional Council of Rural Support the guidelines as is, and the allocation of the majority of funding to 3/17/10 email Counties Mary Pitto Focus Area # 1, the cities and counties. All of these data are needed now to support SGC Local Planning Grants and Urban Greening Projects. The Council should fund all data programs to the 3/17/10 email SACOG Mike McKeever greatest extent possible in 2010.
Pages to are hidden for
"California Regulations Regarding Grant Funds"Please download to view full document