[0:04] like to call to order the meeting of the Alameda County

[0:06] Board of Supervisors Transportation Planning

[0:08] Committee.

[0:08] This is Monday August 3rd.

[0:10] Please call the roll.

[0:12] I'd like to recognize and thank members of the public who

[0:15] are in the room and online.

[0:18] Your participation in the public process is appreciated

[0:21] and if you would like to speak to an item

[0:23] please fill out a speaker card.

[0:26] If you are participating online you

[0:29] may do so as well, through Zoom.

[0:35] Supervisor Miley, we have two items.

[0:40] We have three.

[0:41] Public comment.

[0:43] Two informational items here.

[0:45] I'd like to take the second one first

[0:47] because we have members of the public in the audience.

[0:49] I've asked staff if that would be okay with them

[0:52] and they said yes.

[0:53] Would that be agreeable to you?

[0:56] Thank you very much.

[0:58] Seeing that we will proceed with the second item.

[1:02] Item number two.

[1:03] The Tri-Valley multi use information center land

[1:11] transfer.

[1:12] I will just say I don't know if we have any staff words to say

[1:15] before we get into it.

[1:17] I have met with this organization

[1:19] on numerous occasions.

[1:20] I'm excited to see their presentation today

[1:23] to put it on the record.

[1:25] I will welcome the applicants to make

[1:28] a presentation which I think we also have paper copies.

[1:34] Of their Powerpoint slides but now would be the time for the --

[1:40] I said applicant but you are not really applying for anything

[1:43] but you are the presenters.

[1:46] Today's presenters to come up and make your presentation.

[1:48] After which we will have public comment and deliberation

[1:53] by our board members.

[2:00] >> Good morning, supervisors.

[2:03] My name is Tracy Farhad and I am the president and CEO

[2:08] of Visit Tri-Valley and with me today for our presentation

[2:12] is Dan Fenton with JLL Hospitality Advisors.

[2:17] He's the managing director and then

[2:21] I also have in the audience with me

[2:23] our VP of Sales and Sports, our board

[2:28] member Mr. Bill Wheeler and I know we have

[2:30] a few folks watching online.

[2:32] We're excited to be able to present this to you today

[2:36] and we have a few asks let me introduce and bring up

[2:39] to the podium Mr. Dan Fenton.

[2:42] >> Thanks, Tracy.

[2:44] Thank you supervisors for the opportunity.

[2:47] We wanted to take a moment today to do two things.

[2:50] One, just a couple of minutes on the background related

[2:55] to this multi use venue.

[2:57] I know we've had the opportunity with both supervisors

[2:59] to have some time to brief you as

[3:02] to where we are in the process but let's Go to our first slide

[3:08] here.

[3:13] It's always nice if you click the right arrow.

[3:17] There we go.

[3:19] So just a quick reminder here and again, a lot of us

[3:24] know this but sort of a history of how this venue really

[3:28] came to life and how we began the discussions.

[3:31] This came out of a year long process

[3:35] of really looking at where there were opportunities in our region

[3:39] to take advantage of demand that we were seeing as part

[3:44] of the process that we went through

[3:46] as part of our strategic planning process.

[3:48] If you notice, there were three areas

[3:53] that surfaced in that process where we saw opportunity.

[3:56] The first one on the left is an important one.

[3:59] Sometimes we don't spend enough time here

[4:01] but if you look at the one on the left,

[4:03] we have talked to terminate organizers.

[4:07] Both youth and amateur tournament organizers

[4:12] across a myriad of different indoor sports

[4:14] and gotten a huge sense from them of the interest in a venue

[4:19] like this that can provide the type of flexibility

[4:22] and if you will, that you see here

[4:27] in terms of its size per the sizing

[4:29] is specifically tied to what those organizers need

[4:32] to be able to put on a regional tournament that really will make

[4:37] a big part of the impact that you

[4:38] are going to see on the next slide related to the venue.

[4:40] One of the things we felt was important in the visioning

[4:45] here was to make sure that this venue had

[4:47] multi-use capabilities.

[4:50] In doing so we also took a look at the entertainment landscape.

[4:54] If you look at the middle column here,

[4:57] this venue is designed so it can also

[5:00] convert into a competitive entertainment

[5:03] and performing arts venue that can seat somewhere between 3000

[5:07] and 5000 attendees.

[5:08] We have met with members of the broader entertainment

[5:13] community about that size of venue

[5:15] and gotten a lot of strong feedback

[5:18] about the need for this size venue in our region.

[5:23] Again the kind of quality that we are talking about --

[5:27] we're going to show you a couple of renderings and on the right

[5:31] we spend time talking to the corporate community

[5:34] in the Valley.

[5:36] I've met with a lot of companies that all of us

[5:38] know with a lot of people within those companies that

[5:43] bring meetings, that bring things to our area and again,

[5:48] a lot of interest in the ability of this venue

[5:56] to be able to accommodate their needs.

[5:58] So the reason we show you these three pieces

[6:01] is that these are the areas of focus

[6:03] the original design envisioning around the venue

[6:06] is designed to deliver.

[6:07] One of the things important in the multi-use space

[6:09] is to make sure we can do each one of these with quality

[6:12] so that they can essentially compete

[6:14] in each one of these spaces with the particular users that

[6:19] would be there.

[6:20] So this is a big part of what has driven the financial pro

[6:25] forma .

[6:28] You will see in the staff memo we've

[6:30] talked about that pro forma that we feel is positive.

[6:33] One of the other features that is

[6:34] important in any kind of public assembly venue

[6:37] is to try to create a pro forma where

[6:39] we are confident that the venue will not need ongoing subsidies,

[6:47] as you sometimes hear about when it comes to public assembly

[6:50] venues.

[6:50] Part of the goal with the multi-use aspect and part

[6:53] of what you will see in the staff memo

[6:55] is a breakdown of the pro forma that

[6:57] shows the fact that we believe this will always

[6:59] be a very positive financial performing venue for the region.

[7:03] If you go to the next slide, A couple of things.

[7:43] Sorry about this.

[7:50] What you are going to see in a second that is also

[7:54] in the handout -- we also looked at the economic impact

[7:58] of the venue and there is a couple of key stats that you

[8:01] will see here that we think are important when it comes

[8:03] to the economic impact.

[8:05] One is the incremental overnight stays

[8:08] that will be generated from this venue.

[8:13] This is an important piece because the nature of a venue

[8:16] like this and the kind of work that we have done with

[8:18] the tournament organizers and other decision makers really has

[8:23] demonstrated that there are roughly 60,000 incremental hotel

[8:27] rooms or hotel room night stays on an annual basis that would be

[8:32] generated because of this venue.

[8:35] One of the things that is important about that statistic

[8:39] is these are new to the region.

[8:41] These are overnight stays that could not occur today

[8:45] because essentially we don't have a facility that

[8:47] can house the types of events that we are talking about.

[8:52] The second one you will see here is the number of annual

[8:56] attendees, so about 320,000 attendees over the course

[9:02] of the year based on our projections we'll basically

[9:05] utilize, enjoy the venue.

[9:10] Remember the three uses that we talked about.

[9:12] Whether it is youth sports tournaments,

[9:16] entertainment or corporate meetings,

[9:18] those are what make up the 380 000 plus.

[9:23] The other piece is job creation.

[9:25] If you look at the right hand side

[9:28] obviously there is a lot of jobs that

[9:29] are created in the construction phase

[9:31] but this is also ongoing permanent jobs

[9:34] that are created because of the size of the venue, the nature

[9:41] of the operation and if you look at the upper left hand quadrant

[9:45] here, this takes all of that and says how

[9:48] much annual economic impact.

[9:50] And the way we define economic impact is direct spending.

[9:54] So this is how many dollars those 318,500 attendees will put

[10:00] into our economy, whether it is through retail dining or other

[10:06] activities that they will do.

[10:07] So this is a key snapshot of the incremental value

[10:11] of what the venue will do.

[10:14] The reason why this slide is also important

[10:17] is because it speaks to part of the financing structure of this

[10:21] that you will see in the staff memo

[10:23] about how we have sort of composed the approach to funding

[10:28] the venue.

[10:29] Part of it has to do with its impact,

[10:33] not only in direct spending but also

[10:35] its impact on property value.

[10:37] We believe that if you are a landowner in close proximity

[10:42] of this venue, you will be positively impacted by the venue

[10:47] being in place.

[10:48] The second thing it speaks to is the businesses

[10:51] that are also in close proximity or in a certain proximity

[10:55] of the venue.

[10:56] We also believe that those businesses will be positively

[11:00] impacted and you will see in the staff memo

[11:03] that we are beginning a process of reaching out

[11:07] to those businesses to talk about engagement,

[11:10] and we will get to this in a second in terms of the financing

[11:16] plan.

[11:16] So this data is not only important for purposes

[11:19] of information but to really see how

[11:21] it's going to impact not only our economy but some

[11:24] of the key business and community partners

[11:26] that will be part of the success of the venue.

[11:29] If you go to the next slide , the question is,

[11:39] we did a very thorough work in the region looking around

[11:43] at different sites.

[11:45] We looked at several sites in the area

[11:47] and really came to the site that you see here

[11:50] as being the one that we think, based on both transportation,

[11:56] location and walkability in terms of things proposed

[12:00] to be around the site is how we determined

[12:03] that the Site on Martinelli Way / Arnold Road in Dublin

[12:11] was really the preferred site.

[12:13] I think both supervisors know this and the staff

[12:18] know that actually is currently under surplus land

[12:21] authority is the current ownership of the site.

[12:23] You will see what one of the requests

[12:26] that we are making today in terms

[12:28] of being able to continue to move our process forward.

[12:31] You can also see that currently we are here

[12:33] today to talk about what we think

[12:36] are some innovative thinking around how to engage

[12:40] the site in the project, and also just wanted you

[12:45] to know that this is the site.

[12:47] This is the area that we are focused on

[12:49] and we will go ahead and go to the next slide.

[12:52] So today if you look at the staff memo,

[12:56] there are basically five different specific areas

[12:58] that we want to discuss today and talk about.

[13:01] Happy to first get feedback from supervisors

[13:04] in terms of questions.

[13:06] But the first one has to do with the land acquisition process.

[13:09] We have talked through a lot of potential models

[13:13] as it relates to how the land could be secured

[13:16] and I use the word secured in quotes for purposes

[13:20] of developing the venue and we've

[13:22] come upon an approach of proposing from a lot of input

[13:28] through a lot of the leadership at the county level of having

[13:30] a 99 year ground lease as a way to secure the land for purposes

[13:35] of developing the venue.

[13:36] If you think about both private or public involvement,

[13:42] we think 99 years is the right length.

[13:45] So as we think about final financing approaches,

[13:49] that's going to give us the ability

[13:51] with both private and public investors

[13:53] to really have enough span of time for this to work.

[13:57] We also think if you look at the staff memo, one

[14:00] of the things it does is also essentially

[14:03] is a part of how the county invests in this project

[14:09] because the land has value and so

[14:11] when we think about the final financing plan

[14:14] and having this 99 year lease we think it gives us

[14:20] an efficient way to secure the land also recognizing a roughly

[14:24] 20 plus million dollar value of county

[14:27] investment in the project.

[14:28] So this is one of the requests we are making today.

[14:32] Really having the committee give us

[14:34] the guidance to continue the process of investigating this

[14:38] with their support of this conceptually

[14:42] while we get into some of the details that are going

[14:44] to be needed in terms of moving this through the actual surplus

[14:47] land acts and other things that are going to be needed.

[14:50] So that is one key piece of today in terms

[14:53] of what we are asking for.

[14:55] The second piece is, as you go through this process there

[15:00] are steps along the way where you

[15:02] need to end up with funding to try

[15:04] to do some additional due diligence that will bring

[15:08] some key answers to the table.

[15:10] So we are making a request for $350,000 in reimbursable seed

[15:16] capital.

[15:16] The reason reimbursable is important

[15:20] as any of the funding that goes into the project today

[15:23] will be reimbursed out of the proceeds of the final financing

[15:28] plan.

[15:28] A couple of key things, and the staff memo details this,

[15:36] we are trying to accomplish a couple of things.

[15:38] One is digging into the site deeper from a civil perspective

[15:41] and from a viability standpoint.

[15:44] We also believe that there may be opportunities

[15:47] on this site with some additional design work

[15:50] to think about more than just the venue

[15:53] as an asset on the site.

[15:55] So the potential to actually have

[15:58] the ability for even some private development on the site

[16:01] based on being able to work together

[16:04] on parking and a couple of other opportunities.

[16:06] So we really have asked for these dollars

[16:10] to be able to do some additional work validating the site,

[16:14] validating what is possible and really making

[16:18] sure there aren't any other civil issues on the site as part

[16:22] of what we are talking about.

[16:23] Obviously what we would do is report

[16:25] back to this committee and other key stakeholders

[16:27] about the findings that have come from that as it relates

[16:31] to continuing to move the process forward

[16:33] but we think this is a critical junction.

[16:36] The other big piece of the 350 000 is,

[16:41] we have order of magnitude costs right now for the development.

[16:44] This will give us some funding to work with some of our design

[16:49] partners on really getting into the cost even further.

[16:53] So we will have another round of understanding

[16:55] what are the developing costs of the project.

[16:58] That has been a key point of discussion

[17:00] over the course of the last year of working through this.

[17:04] So that is the second area of request.

[17:08] The third area is one of the financing mechanisms

[17:11] that we have proposed and worked with others

[17:14] on is the development of a tax increment financing district

[17:19] and specifically, looking at that increment that would

[17:23] be delivered from the project.

[17:24] So the purpose of the project coming in

[17:27] is how it increases land value and then being able to partner

[17:31] with the county on the portion of that increment

[17:33] that the county would receive as part of our financing plan.

[17:39] It is important to note that this is still

[17:42] a shared piece here, so there still

[17:46] is revenue that would go to the county outside of what we were

[17:51] proposing, but we are proposing a share of the proceeds

[17:55] or the increment would be generated from the district

[17:58] to be supported by the county.

[17:59] So that is the third area of request today.

[18:04] If you go to the next slide, the fourth area

[18:10] is that we have done a lot of work

[18:13] and conferred with a lot of people

[18:15] on what is the right governance.

[18:17] And I really should say ownership model,

[18:21] as it relates to the venue.

[18:23] One of the things that we have come upon is the ability

[18:26] to develop a JPA .

[18:30] And so the request today is to give

[18:32] us guidance to continue to look at the county being

[18:36] a participant in that JPA.

[18:38] One of the things I think is important here

[18:42] as we are doing a lot of research

[18:46] on how to mitigate risk when it comes to participation.

[18:52] One of the things we have talked about

[18:55] are things like very significant reserve strategies, ways

[19:00] to really create opportunities for collateralization that also

[19:06] mitigates risk to participants.

[19:07] So when we think about Jpa's and think about other JPAs that

[19:16] have occurred in our county we've

[19:18] all learned from some of those.

[19:19] So how do we create this in a way where

[19:21] it creates the autonomy that we want

[19:23] and the nimbleness that we want from an ownership perspective

[19:26] but also works very closely with members in terms

[19:29] of their roles in the JPA, and how we can make sure

[19:34] that membership is also supported by ways to mitigate

[19:38] risk as part of participation.

[19:40] In the staff memo you will see a little bit more detail here.

[19:43] We do not yet have finalization on who all the members would be.

[19:49] What we are asking for today from the county perspective

[19:52] is essentially to say continue on this process

[19:55] and based on a suitable outcome, the county's interest

[20:01] in being a member of the JPA.

[20:03] The next area we want to bring up today and get hopefully

[20:08] some guidance on and some positive requests

[20:10] from the county here is if you look at the finance outline that

[20:15] is in the staff memo, you will see one of the lines

[20:20] in that is an essentially new or enhanced tourism improvement

[20:26] district, and one of the unique features

[20:29] of what we are proposing is a tourism improvement district

[20:34] that is more than just hotels.

[20:35] So it also includes the retail industry and other sort

[20:38] of related industries in this.

[20:40] So really what we are asking for today

[20:42] is support for this conceptually so

[20:45] that we can go out and spend time confirming

[20:50] the interest of our regional business community

[20:53] and their participation.

[20:55] This is an important part of the overall financing plan.

[20:58] The good news here is there are other examples

[21:01] in the state where this expansion of tourism improvement

[21:05] districts beyond hotels have gone on.

[21:07] So there is precedent here as well as

[21:11] an ability to assess and understand

[21:13] the interests of the business community within our region.

[21:17] The last one really --

[21:21] I want to publicly thank both of you because we've had a chance

[21:25] to talk to both of you and it is just to really ask for that

[21:29] ongoing support and the ongoing interest in --

[21:32] a project like this has a lot of complexities to it.

[21:37] It is obviously a public private significant project

[21:40] for the region and the continued support

[21:43] to keep the due diligence process moving, if you will.

[21:49] Because you can see that we are still

[21:51] at a relatively early stage.

[21:53] We think we have some important things that

[21:56] have been developed in terms of how

[21:58] to ultimately finance the project

[22:02] and sort of continue its movement.

[22:03] But we still have a lot to do in terms

[22:06] of gaining collaborative support and making sure

[22:09] that we have a strong coalition and we just

[22:12] want to continue to publicly thank the county for really

[22:14] helping us think this through.

[22:16] Let me just go to a couple other points here then

[22:19] we will stop and ask for questions.

[22:25] With just a couple of things, we will just do this quickly.

[22:32] These are examples of other tourism business improvement

[22:35] districts that have expanded beyond hotels.

[22:43] We just wanted to remind you of this.

[22:47] And remember that at this stage it's interesting.

[22:50] We talk about improving our development costs.

[22:55] This is at this point really an image and this image

[22:58] was generated from people in our early stages

[23:03] that said to us, if we're going to develop something,

[23:07] let's do something where we as a community

[23:12] can be proud whatever the outcome is architecturally

[23:15] and whatever the look and feel is.

[23:17] So not necessarily to get caught up

[23:18] in this exact design but the reason we are asking

[23:21] for the additional funding is to take this imaging

[23:24] and go further with the true cost of development.

[23:26] What are the implications of this kind of architecture

[23:30] on a venue like this?

[23:31] So this really will get us further along

[23:34] in terms of thinking of what the final venue may

[23:38] look like or feel like and what those options are together.

[23:41] If you go to the next slide, what you can see here

[23:47] is this is a depiction of the multi-use piece.

[23:49] So you can see in this rendering when

[23:51] we ask our partners to help us with visualization,

[23:55] you can see with each one of these that the goal is quality,

[24:02] so that we can deliver for the youth sports world inequality

[24:07] way.

[24:08] If you look at the upper right hand side

[24:10] that is a corporate general session.

[24:13] So again if you look at that you can

[24:15] see that the interior design and all of that

[24:17] is critical to be able to deliver for that audience.

[24:20] If you look at the lower right, that is the building converted

[24:26] into a performance venue, and as part of continuing through

[24:31] with each one of these with designers

[24:33] we would continue to refine each one of those experiences

[24:35] so we know they can compete in terms

[24:38] of who the decision makers are in those areas for so I'll

[24:41] stop there.

[24:42] Again just want to publicly thank

[24:45] everybody who has been involved to get us this far

[24:48] and there is a lot of people that everybody here

[24:50] knows that has been part of giving this input to get to here

[24:54] and we continue to look forward to working with everyone that

[24:58] is really part of the greater if you want to call it

[25:02] consortium of both public and private entities

[25:04] that will ultimately be involved in this

[25:07] and have been involved with it so far.

[25:11] So supervisors , I'll stop there.

[25:19] >> I will take public comment and then we will ask questions

[25:22] of our staff and maybe even invite you back up for questions

[25:26] and answers.

[25:28] The clerk will now call any members of the public

[25:31] either in person or online who would like to weigh in.

[25:41] >> (Indistinct)

[25:44] >> Good morning, chair and members of the Transportation

[25:47] and Planning Committee.

[25:48] My name is Bill Wheeler founder and CEO

[25:50] of Black Tie Transportation located in Pleasanton.

[25:56] We've provided professional transportation for corporations

[26:00] government schools and major events across the Bay area.

[26:04] We employ 60 people, down from 110

[26:09] before COVID with nearly 10 million in annual sales.

[26:13] The event and group travel are essential to our recovery

[26:16] and for the regional visitor economy.

[26:18] I'm here today to speak as a board

[26:22] member of Visit Tri-Valley.

[26:24] I also serve as Pleasanton Chamber Board and Chair

[26:29] of Economic Development and Government Affairs Committee.

[26:34] I serve on the Alameda County Fair Association and Foundation

[26:40] Boards.

[26:40] I've spent my career in regional economic development.

[26:45] This is not a theoretical situation.

[26:47] I see it working today.

[26:50] Today and to all of this week black tie

[26:53] is transporting the International Little League team

[26:56] from SFO to Tri-Valley hotels games and restaurants.

[27:01] While their families at room nights and local spending.

[27:07] The Good Guys car and event visitors

[27:08] create the same ripple effect.

[27:10] Hotel restaurants transportation providers

[27:12] employees and cities and taxpayers all benefit.

[27:16] Since 2018 and even through the pandemic the Tri-Valley has

[27:20] attracted more than 133 000 sports and entertainment

[27:24] attendees.

[27:25] Over 41,000 hotel room nights without the centralized facility

[27:31] yet we lose an estimated 40% of high impact events we cannot

[27:36] accommodate.

[27:37] A multi-use center lets us expand

[27:41] this proven model regionally projected at more than 120

[27:45] million annually and 500 jobs.

[27:48] Just as important the county's risk is limited.

[27:55] The county retains land through a 99 year lease.

[27:58] The $350,000 in pre-development funding is reimbursable with

[28:02] the first bond issuance.

[28:04] The JPA protects agency General funds

[28:07] while ongoing support comes from visitor revenue,

[28:14] TIFMT I'd operations and naming rights.

[28:18] New resident tax for ongoing general fund subsidy.

[28:22] Timing matters.

[28:23] Tournament organizers but 2 or 3 years ahead.

[28:26] Every delay risks another booking cycle and millions

[28:29] in regional spending.

[28:31] Moving now keeps the opportunity within reach.

[28:35] Visit Tri-Valley has proven again and again --

[28:42] >> If you could wrap up we've exceeded our time.

[28:47] >> Regional strategy while an experienced professional

[28:50] operator manages the facility and now it knows how to turn

[28:54] events into room nights and regional spending.

[28:57] On behalf of Black Tie our employees our clients

[29:00] and your constituents and visit Tri-Valley

[29:02] we support Visit Tri-Valley Multi-Use Center.

[29:05] Thank you.

[29:06] >> Thank you very much.

[29:07] Next speaker.

[29:10] >> Caller, you are on the line.

[29:14] You have two minutes.

[29:16] Unmute your microphone.

[29:23] Caller, you are on the line.

[29:30] You have two minutes.

[29:31] Joe.

[29:32] >> Yes.

[29:32] Thank you.

[29:33] Do you hear Me?

[29:35] Thank you very much.

[29:44] >> Joe.

[29:45] Thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee

[29:49] this morning.

[29:50] Just had an opportunity to read the memo

[29:52] and wanted to comment briefly because as we move forward

[29:57] with this thing, with this project

[29:59] there seems to be an increasing focus on Dublin and Pleasanton

[30:03] in particular.

[30:04] The proposed JPA includes the use of tax increment financing

[30:08] which if I'm reading it correctly,

[30:13] potentially would capture about $1.6 million a year

[30:16] from the city of Pleasanton as part of the financing.

[30:19] You may be aware that the city is currently operating out

[30:23] of structural budget deficit and so at this point,

[30:29] financing for a $365 million event

[30:33] center that would be operated by a private entity

[30:36] is not something that is a priority for the city.

[30:40] Our city council has never had an opportunity

[30:44] to discuss or support or endorse this plan,

[30:51] so I just wanted to weigh in, let

[30:55] you know that the city is currently focused on a TOT

[30:59] increase that will be on the ballot here in November

[31:03] to help address the structural deficit that we are currently

[31:07] dealing with.

[31:08] That is where the focus is, and we

[31:13] will continue to follow this project, this effort as it

[31:20] continues to move forward.

[31:39] >> Caller, you are on the line.

[31:44] >> Good morning president and members of the board.

[31:46] My name is Kelly and I'm not a resident of Tri-Valley

[31:49] but I am a resident of Alameda County

[31:51] and though I live outside the Tri-Valley

[31:53] I am concerned as a taxpayer out here about the general County

[32:00] revenue contribution or tax contribution.

[32:03] The County General Fund could be asked

[32:06] to pay into this and also as a quick aside,

[32:11] I'd like to thank the taxpayers of Dublin and Pleasanton

[32:15] for their generous contribution of the total of a combined

[32:18] $3 million a year taken out of their city funds

[32:21] and put into this project.

[32:23] Also on the capital cost of this,

[32:26] this is a very high end facility.

[32:29] If you look at the capital cost of other projects $300 million

[32:33] or $360 million is just a really luxurious facility.

[32:37] You are going to have the very finest of concert hall amenities

[32:43] and quality acoustics.

[32:44] Everything.

[32:46] And the county is being asked to give up $20 million

[32:51] worth of real estate and put that in for 100 years

[32:55] and a lot of the money might be coming from a $10 million a year

[33:03] diversion from the County General fund

[33:04] in the form of that tax increment finance district.

[33:08] That looks like something that the Board of Supervisors

[33:13] and taxpayers of Alameda County should

[33:15] be looking at very carefully.

[33:18] I'm also concerned about how this treats Danville.

[33:22] The packet names Danville as a jurisdiction that's

[33:26] going to be paying in taxes but is not

[33:28] getting the full representation on the Political Joint Powers

[33:34] Authority.

[33:34] So yeah.

[33:36] Also you might think about giving everybody equal time.

[33:40] Thank you.

[33:48] >> Caller, you are on the line.

[33:51] You have two minutes.

[34:00] >> Yee.

[34:00] I like special events and I think this event center is fun.

[34:05] Yay. (Indistinct) we need more special events cinders.

[34:11] People in Dublin and Pleasanton can eat my poopie (Indistinct)

[34:19] yay.

[34:33] >> Caller, you are on the line you have two minutes.

[34:36] >> Hi.

[34:37] My name is Jim McDonald.

[34:38] I own two restaurants in Pleasanton

[34:41] and employ just slightly under 50 people.

[34:44] I'm a former board member of Tri-Valley

[34:46] and served for a number of years as board chair.

[34:48] I can certainly attest to the quality of the organization.

[34:51] You have Tracy and Todd in the room

[34:53] there with you but just outstanding work.

[34:54] I think if any organization can get this

[34:57] done this is the one to do it.

[34:58] Am really excited about the multi-use aspect of this

[35:01] and the fact that we can support youth sports

[35:04] events, entertainment and corporate events I think

[35:07] is amazing and we'll bring in a broad range of people

[35:09] to the region and extra spend.

[35:11] Certainly I expect as a small business owner

[35:13] to benefit from that and have people

[35:15] coming to visit my restaurants.

[35:16] I think many other small businesses will similarly

[35:19] benefit so I think this will be an amazing asset to the region

[35:24] but also be a big economic benefit to small business

[35:26] owners like myself.

[35:28] So thank you for the time and appreciate

[35:30] your support of this initiative so thank you.

[35:37] >> We have no additional speakers for item two.

[35:39] >> Thank you very much.

[35:40] I would like to --

[35:44] I think staff is looking for direction on this presentation

[35:48] and the request of staff is to refer this

[35:52] to the surplus Authority ad hoc committee for deeper

[35:56] consideration.

[35:57] Is that right?

[36:01] >> Correct.

[36:02] Sandy Rivera Community Development Agency director.

[36:05] Appreciate the presentation and vision

[36:07] that these folks have but there is a lot of information

[36:10] that they provided with regard to taxing increment.

[36:13] Can involves surplus property lands as well as JPA

[36:17] so there's a number of things we need to review

[36:20] and we would like to spend the staff time

[36:22] and to bring it to the surplus property ad hoc.

[36:26] >> So the process would be staff would work with presenters

[36:33] to understand more deeply and verify and validate the items

[36:38] presented today, to digest and absorb that and understand it

[36:43] and then present it to the ad hoc committee?

[36:45] >> True.

[36:46] But we also have to have discussions

[36:48] with council and other county departments

[36:50] to evaluate what they are presenting here.

[36:54] >> Sure.

[36:54] And would you then also talk with --

[36:56] we had for example the interim city manager of Pleasanton.

[37:00] Would you talk with other agencies

[37:02] like the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin

[37:04] and the other entities?

[37:08] >> I don't know that we would get that far yet but we tend

[37:10] to do that in our network but as it relates to the impact

[37:13] on the county is what we would initially start with.

[37:17] >> Okay.

[37:17] I guess it is a project that includes all of us

[37:22] so To the extent that you come to the ad hoc committee,

[37:28] you would have our skin in the game so to speak

[37:31] but also I would hope you would validate the entire project so

[37:33] that we could understand it from a then

[37:36] from that standpoint, the surplus lands

[37:40] ad hoc committee could then refer it

[37:41] to the full board for further discussion and or approval?

[37:48] >> To the Surplus Property Authority which is the full

[37:50] board.

[37:51] >> To the Surplus Property Authority which is the full

[37:54] board.

[37:54] Would it then have to go to the full board I guess?

[37:57] Layers and layers of presentations?

[38:01] >> In terms of what were the next steps?

[38:03] Depending on what the outcomes are of those meetings.

[38:07] >> Sure.

[38:08] Everything dependent upon the outcome of meetings

[38:10] at each step along the way.

[38:11] I understand.

[38:11] And then just so I'm clear, it comes to us

[38:17] to give that direction.

[38:19] Thus far you've had somewhat limited discussion

[38:21] with the presenters.

[38:27] >> Correct.

[38:27] >> Okay.

[38:28] Some but not enough to know everything..

[38:31] My feedback today I think is going

[38:36] to be very consistent with feedback

[38:38] that I've given along the way.

[38:41] This is a very exciting project.

[38:45] It is certainly very ambitious.

[38:49] It's worthy of continued discussion in my opinion

[38:54] and I say that and I have some questions of staff

[39:00] that I would want to make sure are included

[39:01] in the analysis of this.

[39:03] Because on its surface, some might

[39:07] say you are asking for a bunch of money or value

[39:10] from the county.

[39:11] The land is worth a lot.

[39:13] We don't give up the land but we give it up for 99 years.

[39:18] The land has been sitting there for at least 30 years vacant,

[39:24] not generating much of anything.

[39:28] If we did this 30 years ago we would already

[39:30] be done with the tax increment.

[39:32] Taxes are something, an increment

[39:35] is something that only happens if you generate something.

[39:38] You're not taking away from the general fund

[39:41] nothing of which you haven't added to the general fund.

[39:43] We've had zero for so many years.

[39:46] For the next 30 years we could have something

[39:48] that we then make money on in the future

[39:51] after that because the Tid I think only lasts for 30 years.

[39:58] So the questions that I have are,

[40:00] and I lived through some of this as Mayor

[40:04] of Dublin but Supervisor Miley, you lived for a lot longer

[40:10] of it.

[40:10] Alameda County has been able to monetize

[40:15] acres and acres and acres of former camp parks facility.

[40:23] I don't know how many that is.

[40:25] We've been able to generate millions and millions of dollars

[40:28] which is now in an Emerald fund.

[40:30] I think it is now $307 million.

[40:34] I would like to understand that.

[40:35] The funding that comes off of the Emerald Fund generated

[40:40] through partnership of the City of Dublin goes to create

[40:46] a positive bond rating for the County ,

[40:55] reducing our cost of bonding for many other projects.

[40:58] The interest from the Emerald Fund capital

[41:01] projects in the county, I think at least one

[41:06] of which is the entire debt service of our juvenile hall

[41:09] facility located in San Leandro and so I

[41:11] would like to understand the requests that were being made

[41:16] of in the totality of the entire partnership over the last 30, 40

[41:25] years with the City of Dublin.

[41:27] Order of magnitude.

[41:28] So I would like to really understand

[41:30] how that has evolved over the years

[41:34] and just how much of an order of magnitude

[41:37] this request is out of that.

[41:39] Because I think the City of Dublin

[41:41] has been a very good partner, allowing for units of housing,

[41:49] affordable units of housing, sale of surplus lands.

[41:54] Millions of dollars of interest to fund other projects

[41:58] and to me, this could be a way to give back.

[42:06] To give back something that we don't give back.

[42:09] Whether we allow it to happen.

[42:10] That said, also I have questions about our involvement.

[42:15] Everyone knows we are getting out of the sports business,

[42:19] trying desperately to get out of the professional sports

[42:23] business.

[42:23] The professional sports business where

[42:26] we lease a sports facility, losing

[42:32] millions of dollars every year.

[42:36] Millions of dollars every year.

[42:39] Dealing with professional sports organizations

[42:41] and sometimes being sued by one another and a lot

[42:47] of different things.

[42:48] This cannot be a repeat of that and I don't see that it is but I

[42:53] compare this somewhat to what we've done in other parts

[42:58] of the county on a much smaller basis with much less --

[43:08] I'm hoping that we need to validate that.

[43:10] We can't get into a repeat of a mistake.

[43:13] We're not getting back into the professional sports

[43:15] business with this but we could perhaps

[43:18] participate with a long term lease and some guidance

[43:21] as a member of a JPA possibly.

[43:24] And then I will end with the caller.

[43:29] Very important.

[43:31] Have to get everybody.

[43:33] This plan has a lot of pieces.

[43:35] It's got to work for everyone and so

[43:39] this is by no means a we are going to do this approval.

[43:44] I can only be one board member but I am cautiously optimistic,

[43:49] as I have been all along.

[43:52] This can be a good thing for the Tri-Valley.

[43:54] It can be a good thing for the region

[43:57] and it can be a good thing for Alameda County.

[44:00] So that is my thoughts on it and I'd

[44:04] be interested to see what our staff says

[44:06] and so I am supportive of referring this

[44:10] to staff to work on but then for them to bring back

[44:14] to the surplus authority ad hoc subcommittee, which would then

[44:21] have to go to the Surplus Authority full board, which

[44:25] is our board.

[44:27] So we are still at the beginning.

[44:30] We are not at the beginning but we are past the embryonic stage,

[44:34] I would say.

[44:36] But we are not fully baked there.

[44:39] Supervisor Miley, you have been through these kind

[44:42] of partnerships and lived through --

[44:44] you had Dublin in your district for many years.

[44:46] You lived through the Emerald Fund and the surplus land

[44:49] history so I would love your --

[44:52] I can only give you my thoughts.

[44:53] I'd love your thoughts.

[45:00] >> Before I say anything, does staff have any reaction

[45:04] to anything you've heard?

[45:06] >> There has been other activity with our ad hoc Surplus Property

[45:09] Authority with regard to property D2,

[45:15] and Eileen Dalton can refresh some supervisor's memory what

[45:19] the next steps were that we were going to take with regard to D2.

[45:22] Then we would have to also have some guidance

[45:25] from your committee as it relates

[45:28] to that prior direction from surplus Property Authority

[45:33] ad hoc committee.

[45:35] >> So before I make any comments.

[45:38] >> Sure.

[45:39] Happy to address the Surplus Land Act.

[45:43] The terms get confused so just a reminder that property

[45:47] is owned by the county surplus Property Authority

[45:49] and it is a 12 acre site that was previously

[45:53] under contract for a hotel for about half the site

[45:57] and that project didn't go forward.

[46:01] Previously, half of the parcel was

[46:04] cleared from the state's surplus Land Act

[46:06] so any property that the county or public agency owns

[46:09] has to be cleared through this process where the obligation is

[46:13] to put it forth.

[46:15] If it is surplus property you put it forth to be available

[46:19] to potentially affordable housing developers.

[46:21] You are obligated to negotiate in good faith.

[46:24] You are not obligated to sell but you

[46:26] have to go through the process.

[46:28] The recommendation that I made that I am moving forward with

[46:32] unless I hear otherwise is to bring an item on the September

[46:36] 15th Board of Supervisors sitting as the Surplus Property

[46:40] Authority, a recommendation to declare that remainder part

[46:44] of D2 as surplus.

[46:45] I would then send out a notice, receive comments back and engage

[46:52] in negotiation potentially and then

[46:53] come back to the board to discuss the results of that.

[46:56] So I just want to let you know that was the direction that we

[47:00] decided to pursue because everything else that we own

[47:03] has been cleared from the Surplus Lands Act

[47:06] except for that seven acre piece of D2.

[47:09] So it's a little complicated because it's half the parcel.

[47:14] The recommendation in the memo was

[47:16] to declare the property exempt from the Surplus Land Act,

[47:22] potentially.

[47:23] What we are proposing is to just declare it surplus

[47:26] and clear it so that we have the full range of options

[47:29] as the owner when we are done.

[47:31] So we have one little step.

[47:34] >> Have we ever requested exemption?

[47:37] >> We have for properties where we are pursuing an affordable

[47:41] housing development.

[47:42] So the Broadway properties.

[47:43] We have properties where we have the Lorenzo Theater we just

[47:49] declared surplus.

[47:50] >> What is the process for that?

[47:51] We just request exemption?

[47:53] Does the state have to grant a?

[47:56] >> There is a state process.

[47:57] It is a very prescribed process.

[47:59] Everyone has to follow.

[48:01] We have a notification period.

[48:03] We have to mail out notices.

[48:05] It's posted.

[48:06] We get the results and then it's certified and put

[48:09] on the >> Is there a downside to requesting exemption and seeing

[48:14] what the yield is if nobody has a problem with it?

[48:17] We could just be exempt?

[48:18] What would be the downside of that?

[48:21] Timing?

[48:22] >> I can let our county council maybe address the differences

[48:25] but in my mind, if we declare the property surplus and we go

[48:29] through the process then we are clear to do really anything we

[48:32] want to do.

[48:33] We would be obligated to negotiate

[48:36] with affordable housing developers if they show interest

[48:39] but they would have to pay fair market value.

[48:41] We are not offering it for no cost.

[48:47] >> Supervisor Haubert, if you recall if we don't go through

[48:51] the process we could end up in someone suing us like they did

[48:54] relative to the transfer of our rights with the Coliseum Way

[49:00] partners.

[49:02] >> Just to clarify, if we go through the process

[49:06] of requesting exemption and we receive exemption would we then

[49:09] be subject to legal liabilities down the road?

[49:13] >> Supervisor, the initial step that has to be taken is

[49:18] a determination by your board of what declaration you are going

[49:22] to make.

[49:22] You can declare the property as surplus and that initiates one

[49:26] process or you declare it as surplus exempt and that

[49:30] has a different path that you go forward with the state HCD who

[49:35] makes the final determination of whether or not

[49:37] your declaration is acceptable and whether you've

[49:40] complied with the processes.

[49:42] For the surplus exempt, there has

[49:46] to be a public use at the end of the day.

[49:48] So you have to be mindful.

[49:49] And as I am hearing this request it's

[49:51] asking for a private partnership so

[49:53] whether it would qualify as something

[49:55] we would have to evaluate.

[49:57] >> Yeah.

[49:58] I guess I would like staff's thoughts on that.

[50:03] So.

[50:03] I would like to understand that before it

[50:07] comes to us as a board.

[50:09] And maybe there is a way in which

[50:12] they are planning to structure not understanding

[50:17] how that would impact the surplus lands exemption,

[50:24] that maybe they would want to consider

[50:27] a different way to structure so that it allows us to comply

[50:32] with an exemption application.

[50:34] I guess it is six of one half dozen of the other.

[50:37] They seem like very similar processes.

[50:39] State HCD is involved.

[50:42] We have to in one sense solicit bidders but I see the benefit

[50:47] for us .

[50:49] The benefit for us is using this occasion

[50:52] to have the property surplus And give us options.

[51:05] Is that right?

[51:07] >> Yes and I think it gives us the most options because then

[51:10] we're clear of having to do any other kind of negotiation with

[51:13] any other affordable housing partner.

[51:15] >> If you choose surplus exempt, your options are not as open

[51:21] and available to you as they are with a regular surplus property

[51:25] approach.

[51:26] And just to clarify, there are a lot

[51:30] of steps to be involved with here starting with the fact

[51:32] that the county does not own the real property.

[51:34] Technically, the surplus Property Authority

[51:38] is a separate legal entity with its own statutory rules

[51:41] that govern how it uses the property

[51:43] and then your Emerald Fund has separate rules about how

[51:46] you expend or handle any revenues that they generate.

[51:50] So a lot of steps.

[51:52] Is the county going to acquire the property from the SPA?

[51:56] What is that approach going to be?

[52:02] Is the county going to set up this as a separate JPA?

[52:09] How is that going to be handled?

[52:10] A lot of questions and the first question I have,

[52:15] is this request coming from visit Tri-Valley

[52:18] and what is JLL's relationship?

[52:22] Are they contracted by visit Tri-Valley

[52:25] or what is their role altogether?

[52:26] Where we communicating with?

[52:28] Who are we working with in this project?

[52:32] >> I guess we could ask either them to answer that or we could

[52:35] direct staff to figure that out before it comes to the surplus.

[52:41] Supervisor >> Thanks.

[52:47] I do think it's probably a more cautious path

[52:53] to get surplus because clearly if we don't get it surplus

[52:58] then we go the exemption route, we could go down that route

[53:03] and end up being challenged legally somewhere down the road

[53:06] and that would complicate things and to make

[53:09] the process even lengthier.

[53:11] So just my $0.02 worth.

[53:14] Yeah.

[53:14] I'm neutral on all of this.

[53:16] I do think it is appropriate that it be explored.

[53:20] I'm curious why it came to this committee

[53:24] and didn't go to the Surplus Property Authority.

[53:26] It began with the JPA, the ad hoc committee

[53:31] because there is a lot here.

[53:34] The recommendation just seems to be --

[53:38] and this is a real estate deal?

[53:40] A development deal?

[53:42] >> So it is a real estate deal for the surplus Property

[53:45] authority.

[53:45] It is not a real estate deal for the county

[53:48] because we do not own the property.

[53:50] >> Okay.

[53:50] So it's a real estate deal in the surplus property

[53:53] ad hoc committee.

[53:54] That is not a public committee.

[53:56] Right?

[53:57] >> Yes.

[54:00] >> Okay so you'll do your due diligence analysis then you will

[54:03] come to the committee so we can discuss this kind

[54:08] of confidentially?

[54:09] Yes?

[54:10] Okay.

[54:10] There is just a lot of questions here.

[54:13] I don't even want to get into the multitude of questions

[54:16] but I just wanted to kind of get a sense of the process going

[54:21] forward.

[54:25] >> Let me clarify that last comment.

[54:27] It would potentially qualify for a real estate closed session

[54:30] for the Board of Supervisors if you

[54:31] are going to acquire the property as a real estate

[54:35] transaction from the SPA.

[54:36] That is the only instance when it would qualify.

[54:41] >> I'm just saying the ad hoc committee is Supervisor Haubert

[54:49] and myself in the county administrator.

[54:52] Right?

[54:55] >> Supervisor I thank you for your comments.

[54:58] Staff, with that said I will thank the presenters.

[55:01] We will have staff get in touch with you

[55:04] and bring it to the ad hoc committee

[55:06] at some point in the future.

[55:08] With that, we will proceed to the first item

[55:13] on our agenda going back to item one and informational item

[55:16] A regional Housing policy update on transit oriented communities

[55:20] and the one Bay area Grant.

[55:24] We will have Aaron Tiedemann as the Housing

[55:29] and Community Development Specialist for presentation.

[55:33] Aaron, welcome. >> Thank you, board members.

[55:45] I am here to present on the TOC policy

[55:50] from Metropolitan Transportation Commission as well as the one

[55:55] Bay area grant.

[55:56] The Metropolitan Transportation Commission

[55:58] adopted the resolution implementing the TOC policy

[56:02] the transit oriented Communities policy in September of 2022.

[56:06] That policy required compliance by all TOC jurisdictions

[56:10] by early 2026 in order to access OBAG4 funds.

[56:19] I'm going to discuss what all of that It means.

[56:21] But we HD staff presented this policy and the background

[56:24] on it to your board's transportation and Planning

[56:30] Commission in November of 2024.

[56:31] There have been some significant updates to the policy since then

[56:35] so we wanted to come back and discuss some of those updates.

[56:40] The transit oriented Communities policy

[56:42] is really based around the planned Bay area which

[56:46] is MTC is a sort of founding document

[56:49] to guide housing, climate, equity and economic development

[56:57] goals around transit and around the nine county Bay

[57:00] area that is aiming to promote active transportation,

[57:03] shared mobility, access to major transit stations

[57:09] and development and transit rich areas

[57:11] as well as build partnerships to create

[57:13] an equitable transit oriented community across the Bay area.

[57:16] So to have sort of the same standards

[57:18] and encourage the development that we want

[57:20] to see across nine counties.

[57:29] TOC policy is centered around a couple of key areas.

[57:35] The one we are focusing on today is the first one

[57:37] around affordable housing production preservation

[57:39] and protection policies.

[57:41] The TOC policy also covers a couple

[57:45] of different areas mostly focused

[57:47] around station access in those transit rich areas.

[57:50] Parking management, station access and circulation and then

[57:56] zoning density and intensity requirements

[57:58] around commercial offices near those major transit areas.

[58:02] But again, planning and HCD both work on this policy

[58:08] and HCD's main role is around that housing production

[58:12] preservation and protection area.

[58:15] The TOC policy is centered around the designated TOC areas

[58:21] and these are ones near really high quality transit stops.

[58:26] And the unincorporated county we have two such areas that

[58:29] are centered around our two large high quality Bart

[58:34] stations, the Bay Fair and Castro Valley stations and that

[58:37] is really the center of TOC policy

[58:40] so there are some policies under the TOC program

[58:43] that are focused on circulation and things

[58:47] within a half mile of those stations

[58:50] and there are some policies more broadly focused

[58:53] around any jurisdiction that has a TOC area or TOC station in it.

[58:58] A lot of the housing policies are more broadly

[59:02] around the jurisdiction and planning that

[59:05] has those areas in it and those are the ones

[59:08] that we are going to focus on today.

[59:12] As I mentioned, the one Bay area grant

[59:17] is a large part of how TOC was envisioned for implementation.

[59:22] Essentially, compliance with TOC policies

[59:26] was intended to be a condition for the award

[59:28] of a certain amount of one Bay area grant funds.

[59:30] One Bay area grant funds or OBAG funds

[59:35] really provide for transportation infrastructure

[59:38] funding for jurisdictions across the county.

[59:40] Those funds are further split between two main programs

[59:44] in their awards throughout the nine County Bay area.

[59:52] The first is the county program that

[59:54] splits that between the County transportation agencies

[59:57] and funds local priority projects.

[59:59] There is also the regional program

[1:00:01] which implements more large scale initiatives and services

[1:00:04] and also provides local grants to complement the county

[1:00:08] investments.

[1:00:08] So that is larger scale things connecting transit

[1:00:12] is often a big use for these funds with transit systems

[1:00:15] that bridge the gap between several different counties

[1:00:18] as well as putting awards in for individual counties

[1:00:23] and their projects under that regional program.

[1:00:27] As you can see, one Bay area grant funds for rounds one

[1:00:35] through three have provided almost $32 million

[1:00:38] to fund unincorporated county projects.

[1:00:41] Those have included street and road improvements

[1:00:43] and preservation projects, corridor improvements,

[1:00:49] safe and accessible route improvements.

[1:00:52] A variety of transportation infrastructure

[1:00:55] measures and in total, OBAG have provided $215 million

[1:01:01] to transportation projects countywide since 2012.

[1:01:05] So that 32 million is just our unincorporated sector.

[1:01:10] There has been a lot more money that

[1:01:12] has been directed from OBAG towards all of the jurisdictions

[1:01:16] in the county.

[1:01:17] In the next round of OBAG funding

[1:01:22] MTC estimates Alameda County will receive around 70 million

[1:01:26] so we are on track to receive a comparable amount

[1:01:28] as we have through the previous rounds in the next one.

[1:01:35] One of the large changes that has

[1:01:39] been made that we wanted to update the board on

[1:01:43] was around how OBAG4 funding was being relegated relative

[1:01:51] to OBAG3.

[1:01:53] In January of this year MTC revised their resolution

[1:01:58] about the allocation of OBAG funding

[1:02:02] to move around the funds a little bit.

[1:02:04] There is overall about the same amount

[1:02:06] of funding available total for the county

[1:02:09] but there is an amount that essentially has been taken away

[1:02:13] from that overall punt to support regional transit so that

[1:02:17] is that -100 million and that OBAG-4

[1:02:22] proposed chart on the left you will see.

[1:02:26] The rest of that money is divided

[1:02:27] between the county and regional program that I mentioned.

[1:02:29] 350 million of it will go to county programs awarded

[1:02:33] to County transportation departments and 360 million

[1:02:36] will go to regional program to support larger scale projects.

[1:02:42] Not within that 360 for regional programs

[1:02:46] there is a set aside of 45 million

[1:02:49] reserved for the TOC set aside, which

[1:02:53] I will cover in just a second.

[1:02:56] As part of this action, MTC also set about 5 million

[1:03:02] for the North Bay augmentation in North Bay counties.

[1:03:07] As I said there has been a variety of changes

[1:03:10] in this policy since 2022.

[1:03:13] Was originally implemented.

[1:03:15] They have made a lot of tweaks in the admin guidance,

[1:03:22] implementation policies.

[1:03:24] MTC has been really building up this program

[1:03:29] to give information to jurisdictions like the County.

[1:03:32] We are trying to see compliance.

[1:03:34] The biggest effort there was really

[1:03:38] going from the latter half of last year

[1:03:41] when MTC did a series of workshops and study sessions

[1:03:44] on the proposed changes to TOC and OBAG

[1:03:48] that led up to the resolution I just mentioned from January

[1:03:53] of this year when they passed the OBAG for funding allocation

[1:03:59] framework which itself was in preparation for what they passed

[1:04:02] in February of this year when they passed the updated TOC

[1:04:04] framework.

[1:04:05] That is the framework that really

[1:04:07] decides how the set aside from that OBAG funding allocation

[1:04:12] is awarded.

[1:04:16] The largest change was in that February resolution

[1:04:19] when they changed the TOC requirements.

[1:04:23] The most significant changes that t o c compliance

[1:04:26] is no longer needed in order to be

[1:04:28] eligible for most OBAG-4 funds so those funds in their totality

[1:04:34] are not conditioned on TOC policy compliance anymore.

[1:04:39] Instead, jurisdictions who earn more than 85 points out

[1:04:43] of the total 100 in the TOC framework

[1:04:46] will have access to that set aside of TOC funding

[1:04:49] from the regional allocation of 45 million.

[1:04:52] Depending on the size of those jurisdictions,

[1:04:56] they will be eligible for a different amount of funds

[1:04:59] if they pass that threshold of 85 points.

[1:05:02] And that point system is really broken out

[1:05:05] by a couple different focuses of density, housing, parking

[1:05:12] and station access project so it doesn't really

[1:05:15] matter how a jurisdiction gets to 85 points there

[1:05:18] but if they achieve 85 points across those different

[1:05:21] categories then they get access to that TOC funding.

[1:05:24] That is the largest change from there are a couple others.

[1:05:31] In the initial policy the submission

[1:05:36] was due January of this year.

[1:05:38] With the changes that they were still making at MTC

[1:05:44] they moved that submission deadline

[1:05:45] to be July of next year.

[1:05:47] They also are no longer giving credit

[1:05:50] given for work in progress items from policies

[1:05:53] that jurisdictions may still be working on,

[1:05:57] given that they've moved the deadline out by about a year

[1:06:00] and a half there will be no credit

[1:06:01] given for work in progress in the new framework.

[1:06:05] They also changed the standards around local density

[1:06:08] requirements within a half mile of transit

[1:06:11] given the passage of SB nine, which largely made sure

[1:06:18] that any jurisdiction with a TOC area

[1:06:20] was already compliant with the goals of the TOC here.

[1:06:23] They essentially gave credit for any area subject

[1:06:26] to SB nine zoning as meeting with the goals that

[1:06:30] were originally set out.

[1:06:32] Finally, in the original policy under the protections program

[1:06:37] of largely tenant protections there

[1:06:40] was no credit given for countywide programs,

[1:06:43] jurisdictions that were in a county that had those programs.

[1:06:47] Now one of those two programs that

[1:06:49] are required for full points may be in county wide program.

[1:06:53] For instance, if a city in the county like Fremont

[1:06:58] has access to services through the county

[1:07:01] and the county funds a countywide service

[1:07:04] that is in the TOC policy they could receive credit

[1:07:07] for that in the framework if it meets the funding

[1:07:11] guidelines for that policy.

[1:07:18] Staff at HCD and the Planning Department have been working

[1:07:23] on t o c policy compliance for some time now and I wanted

[1:07:26] to highlight again this is focusing on the housing policies

[1:07:30] so the policies under those £0.03 framework of policy

[1:07:35] preservation and protection.

[1:07:39] Under production we have planned policies

[1:07:43] that we have funding from MTC to pursue inclusionary housing

[1:07:47] and ministerial approval that the Planning Department is

[1:07:50] working on now.

[1:07:51] Under preservation we have an existing policy with the Land

[1:07:55] Trust that meets the standards set by the TOC policy

[1:08:00] and we have a planned policy for our mobile home Park closure

[1:08:04] ordinance that is planning on working under HDC as supporting.

[1:08:08] Under protections we have an existing policy, the just cause

[1:08:14] for evictions ordinance that the board passed meets the standards

[1:08:18] for the TOC's policy.

[1:08:24] And the planned policy we are working on anti-harassment

[1:08:27] and tenant landlord relation ordinance that

[1:08:29] again has the funding support.

[1:08:31] There are certain TOC policies and the framework

[1:08:37] that require a minimum funding commitment to be

[1:08:39] counted as compliant.

[1:08:40] The HCD has requested measure W funds to support

[1:08:44] some of these requirements.

[1:08:45] The main ones are production funding

[1:08:48] for new and affordable housing.

[1:08:50] Basically the TOC policy requires a $1 million

[1:08:56] match annually for four years in the planning

[1:08:59] period and the request for that was about the same.

[1:09:03] Similarly the preservation funding for community Land

[1:09:07] Trust, the required funding for that annually is about $300,000

[1:09:12] per MEC HDD requested more than that million to support that

[1:09:18] work.

[1:09:22] Like I mentioned, we have administrative funds from MTC

[1:09:29] to support a lot of these efforts.

[1:09:30] They provide planning grants to help those local governments

[1:09:33] meet those standards and we have been awarded 2.1 million

[1:09:36] to support that policy development.

[1:09:39] The majority of that, 1.7 million

[1:09:44] is administered by MTC on the county's behalf.

[1:09:47] It largely goes to support some of the plans we

[1:09:49] have to do around station access and the intense work that

[1:09:52] has to be done there.

[1:09:55] Directly administered as that $400,000 for housing policy

[1:09:59] development that covers the items I had covered

[1:10:02] on the previous slide of inclusionary zoning,

[1:10:07] ministerial approval and anti-harassment.

[1:10:09] That work is split between the Planning Department and HCD.

[1:10:12] We are doing it now and are grateful to have that funding

[1:10:15] support.

[1:10:21] This is the work that we are doing,

[1:10:24] now supported by that MTC policy grant funding.

[1:10:28] The inclusionary housing ordinance

[1:10:30] that planning has been working on,

[1:10:32] the ministerial Approval ordinance

[1:10:35] that streamlines project approval

[1:10:37] and the anti-harassment ordinance

[1:10:39] that I mentioned that will look at tenant protection

[1:10:43] policies, current state law and tenant

[1:10:47] needs in the unincorporated county.

[1:10:48] With that we are happy to take questions.

[1:10:52] >> Let's go to public comment.

[1:11:02] >> Caller, you are on the line.

[1:11:06] You have two minutes.

[1:11:07] Kelly.

[1:11:08] >> Yeah.

[1:11:09] I would like to point to OBAG-4 on the upcoming projects,

[1:11:15] the next round of projects that are

[1:11:19] going to be benefiting the Unincorporated and Alameda

[1:11:22] County.

[1:11:23] These transportation projects are very complicated and a lot

[1:11:28] of things can slip through the cracks but one of the smallest

[1:11:33] items that was on the list , in fact the smallest item.

[1:11:42] Only $300,000.

[1:11:43] A tiny item that nobody would notice but it's really

[1:11:46] the most important when it comes to us from the legacy

[1:11:49] of Supervisor Scott Haggerty and the legacy of supervisor

[1:11:54] Richard Valle and that is the Niles Canyon Trail.

[1:11:58] The Niles Canyon Trail hasn't had the Ciclavia, the roll

[1:12:08] and stroll in a couple years.

[1:12:13] But it still is a very important priority

[1:12:17] for the people of Sinall, the people of Pleasanton

[1:12:23] and the people of Fremont.

[1:12:25] We've had non-motorized trails since thousands of years

[1:12:28] ago when the original inhabitants of Alameda County

[1:12:31] were able to walk from Fremont to Pleasanton

[1:12:34] and today they can't walk.

[1:12:37] From Fremont to Pleasanton.

[1:12:40] It's illegal to walk down Niles Canyon Road

[1:12:44] and this project will address that inequity.

[1:12:48] I'd like to call back to the lessons of Supervisor Scott

[1:12:53] Haggerty.

[1:12:54] He taught us that no matter how small, no matter how forgotten,

[1:13:00] that if you fight, that if you focus on our priorities

[1:13:06] and really stay committed and stay over the long term

[1:13:11] we can accomplish a lot.

[1:13:12] Thank you.

[1:13:20] >> I have no additional speakers.

[1:13:22] >> Very good.

[1:13:23] We will close public comment and bring it back

[1:13:26] for discussion and deliberation.

[1:13:29] Supervisor Miley.

[1:13:32] >> I don't think I have any questions.

[1:13:34] I do appreciate this informational update by staff

[1:13:38] since I'm on MTC.

[1:13:39] I was kind of familiar with what took place

[1:13:42] because it did take a lot of discussion and many meetings

[1:13:48] to come up with the TLC policy changes

[1:13:51] because people felt there was too much

[1:13:56] rigidity in the former TOC policies

[1:13:59] and there was quite a lot of back and forth

[1:14:02] through the entire Bay area region.

[1:14:05] I'm just really pleased that once again TLC compliance is not

[1:14:09] needed to be eligible for most OBAG-4 funds

[1:14:17] and that we should be able to adhere to that

[1:14:21] and get the 85 points through the measures

[1:14:25] that we have got underway.

[1:14:27] So I don't have anything to say but I do appreciate

[1:14:31] this update today by staff.

[1:14:34] I just want to have staff keep us

[1:14:39] abreast of where we are going so we can

[1:14:41] continue to get those funds.

[1:14:44] >> Thank you.

[1:14:44] A question I have is around the TOC policies in Alameda County,

[1:14:51] the production.

[1:14:52] We show none existing but two planned inclusionary housing

[1:14:56] administrative approval.

[1:14:58] Where are both of those in the pipeline of being discussed?

[1:15:05] Is it taking a lot to get this done?

[1:15:09] >> I'm going to hand it over to my colleague from >> Good

[1:15:13] morning.

[1:15:14] I am Olivia Ortiz, planner three with the county.

[1:15:17] We are hoping to be on the early October board planning agenda

[1:15:21] to give you an update on those projects.

[1:15:24] We have a lovely consultant team.

[1:15:27] We are going to the Eden Mac in a week

[1:15:30] to begin a road show so we will be providing an update soon

[1:15:33] but I can answer specific questions if you have them.

[1:15:39] >> One thing that comes to mind around a production policy

[1:15:44] in place doesn't mean that we don't already support production

[1:15:48] projects.

[1:15:50] >> 100%.

[1:15:52] >> Okay.

[1:15:54] And I note that under preservation we have mobile home

[1:15:59] and I think mobile home is one that is both preservation --

[1:16:06] the mobile home space one of both preservation in one sense

[1:16:09] and production in another sense because, unless I'm mistaken,

[1:16:16] there is some opportunity.

[1:16:20] Some applicants, some owners would

[1:16:25] like to convert mobile home to hundreds of units and others

[1:16:28] would like to keep mobile home as mobile home.

[1:16:31] They both can exist and creating more units

[1:16:34] would be production permit so I see mobile home

[1:16:38] space as being possibly both preservation and production.

[1:16:46] Am I thinking about that rightly or wrongly?

[1:16:48] >> You are not wrong.

[1:16:50] I don't know if it is in the most recent version

[1:16:53] of administrative guidelines but at least

[1:16:56] previous versions had a mobile home related

[1:16:58] policy in preservation and in production a year and a half

[1:17:02] ago when we were making these decisions.

[1:17:04] We thought because the mobile home ordinance that was already

[1:17:10] under discussion with the Planning Commission, the one

[1:17:14] that I guess will eventually make its way to your board, made

[1:17:18] more sense to keep in the preservation >> I think so too.

[1:17:26] No other questions or comments.

[1:17:28] What is the next step for this?

[1:17:30] It's just information so where will this information go?

[1:17:33] >> This is just information for now but there are a variety

[1:17:36] of policies under this that will be coming to your board or its

[1:17:40] various committees soon.

[1:17:41] You should look forward to those.

[1:17:44] >> Godspeed on the what do you call it.

[1:17:47] Road show.

[1:17:48] Godspeed on the road show.

[1:17:52] >> Thank you.

[1:17:54] >> Thank you.

[1:17:56] With that, we will move to public comment on items

[1:18:00] not on today's agenda but within the purview of this body.

[1:18:04] Public comment, please.

[1:18:08] >> Kelley.

[1:18:09] We are on public comment.

[1:18:10] You have two >> Thank you.

[1:18:14] Yeah this OBAG stuff that just happened

[1:18:20] reminds me of another mandate for the county.

[1:18:24] That is the arena housing numbers which is probably

[1:18:27] tied in very closely with the OBAG

[1:18:29] and if you look at the performance of your planning

[1:18:33] department of Alameda County and you

[1:18:34] look at the performance of every city around in the state

[1:18:38] or in the Bay area, nobody is producing those Rena housing

[1:18:46] production requirements.

[1:18:47] The eight year cycle.

[1:18:49] The last three years out of the eight year cycle

[1:18:54] they've produced on average in the Bay area something

[1:18:56] like 13 or 14% so they are on track to produce

[1:18:59] Bay area wide about 37%.

[1:19:01] On target to produce 37% of the goal which is --

[1:19:07] in other words we are falling far short of the goal and there

[1:19:11] is no penalty for not meeting the goal so a lot of these

[1:19:15] mandates, there is no teeth behind them so we've got to take

[1:19:21] that with a grain of salt and I'm sure that the longest

[1:19:25] serving people on staff and on this board are well aware

[1:19:30] of just how toothless these requirements are and probably

[1:19:35] know how to play this game very well.

[1:19:39] And then also, all the items that came up today,

[1:19:45] it all comes down to the question

[1:19:48] of who do you represent.

[1:19:49] Do you represent one particular constituency?

[1:19:53] Are you working on behalf of a certain geographic subregion

[1:20:01] to bring benefits and bring countywide revenues

[1:20:08] from the 1.6 million people of Alameda County down

[1:20:12] to one small region or do you work for the whole county?

[1:20:16] Thank you.

[1:20:20] >> We have no more speakers for public comment.

[1:20:22] >> Very good.

[1:20:24] With that said, we are adjourned.

Transportation & Planning Committee

Agenda

Transcript