like to call to order the meeting of the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors Transportation Planning
Committee.
This is Monday August 3rd.
Please call the roll.
I'd like to recognize and thank members of the public who
are in the room and online.
Your participation in the public process is appreciated
and if you would like to speak to an item
please fill out a speaker card.
If you are participating online you
may do so as well, through Zoom.
Supervisor Miley, we have two items.
We have three.
Public comment.
Two informational items here.
I'd like to take the second one first
because we have members of the public in the audience.
I've asked staff if that would be okay with them
and they said yes.
Would that be agreeable to you?
Thank you very much.
Seeing that we will proceed with the second item.
Item number two.
The Tri-Valley multi use information center land
transfer.
I will just say I don't know if we have any staff words to say
before we get into it.
I have met with this organization
on numerous occasions.
I'm excited to see their presentation today
to put it on the record.
I will welcome the applicants to make
a presentation which I think we also have paper copies.
Of their Powerpoint slides but now would be the time for the --
I said applicant but you are not really applying for anything
but you are the presenters.
Today's presenters to come up and make your presentation.
After which we will have public comment and deliberation
by our board members.
>> Good morning, supervisors.
My name is Tracy Farhad and I am the president and CEO
of Visit Tri-Valley and with me today for our presentation
is Dan Fenton with JLL Hospitality Advisors.
He's the managing director and then
I also have in the audience with me
our VP of Sales and Sports, our board
member Mr. Bill Wheeler and I know we have
a few folks watching online.
We're excited to be able to present this to you today
and we have a few asks let me introduce and bring up
to the podium Mr. Dan Fenton.
>> Thanks, Tracy.
Thank you supervisors for the opportunity.
We wanted to take a moment today to do two things.
One, just a couple of minutes on the background related
to this multi use venue.
I know we've had the opportunity with both supervisors
to have some time to brief you as
to where we are in the process but let's Go to our first slide
here.
It's always nice if you click the right arrow.
There we go.
So just a quick reminder here and again, a lot of us
know this but sort of a history of how this venue really
came to life and how we began the discussions.
This came out of a year long process
of really looking at where there were opportunities in our region
to take advantage of demand that we were seeing as part
of the process that we went through
as part of our strategic planning process.
If you notice, there were three areas
that surfaced in that process where we saw opportunity.
The first one on the left is an important one.
Sometimes we don't spend enough time here
but if you look at the one on the left,
we have talked to terminate organizers.
Both youth and amateur tournament organizers
across a myriad of different indoor sports
and gotten a huge sense from them of the interest in a venue
like this that can provide the type of flexibility
and if you will, that you see here
in terms of its size per the sizing
is specifically tied to what those organizers need
to be able to put on a regional tournament that really will make
a big part of the impact that you
are going to see on the next slide related to the venue.
One of the things we felt was important in the visioning
here was to make sure that this venue had
multi-use capabilities.
In doing so we also took a look at the entertainment landscape.
If you look at the middle column here,
this venue is designed so it can also
convert into a competitive entertainment
and performing arts venue that can seat somewhere between 3000
and 5000 attendees.
We have met with members of the broader entertainment
community about that size of venue
and gotten a lot of strong feedback
about the need for this size venue in our region.
Again the kind of quality that we are talking about --
we're going to show you a couple of renderings and on the right
we spend time talking to the corporate community
in the Valley.
I've met with a lot of companies that all of us
know with a lot of people within those companies that
bring meetings, that bring things to our area and again,
a lot of interest in the ability of this venue
to be able to accommodate their needs.
So the reason we show you these three pieces
is that these are the areas of focus
the original design envisioning around the venue
is designed to deliver.
One of the things important in the multi-use space
is to make sure we can do each one of these with quality
so that they can essentially compete
in each one of these spaces with the particular users that
would be there.
So this is a big part of what has driven the financial pro
forma .
You will see in the staff memo we've
talked about that pro forma that we feel is positive.
One of the other features that is
important in any kind of public assembly venue
is to try to create a pro forma where
we are confident that the venue will not need ongoing subsidies,
as you sometimes hear about when it comes to public assembly
venues.
Part of the goal with the multi-use aspect and part
of what you will see in the staff memo
is a breakdown of the pro forma that
shows the fact that we believe this will always
be a very positive financial performing venue for the region.
If you go to the next slide, A couple of things.
Sorry about this.
What you are going to see in a second that is also
in the handout -- we also looked at the economic impact
of the venue and there is a couple of key stats that you
will see here that we think are important when it comes
to the economic impact.
One is the incremental overnight stays
that will be generated from this venue.
This is an important piece because the nature of a venue
like this and the kind of work that we have done with
the tournament organizers and other decision makers really has
demonstrated that there are roughly 60,000 incremental hotel
rooms or hotel room night stays on an annual basis that would be
generated because of this venue.
One of the things that is important about that statistic
is these are new to the region.
These are overnight stays that could not occur today
because essentially we don't have a facility that
can house the types of events that we are talking about.
The second one you will see here is the number of annual
attendees, so about 320,000 attendees over the course
of the year based on our projections we'll basically
utilize, enjoy the venue.
Remember the three uses that we talked about.
Whether it is youth sports tournaments,
entertainment or corporate meetings,
those are what make up the 380 000 plus.
The other piece is job creation.
If you look at the right hand side
obviously there is a lot of jobs that
are created in the construction phase
but this is also ongoing permanent jobs
that are created because of the size of the venue, the nature
of the operation and if you look at the upper left hand quadrant
here, this takes all of that and says how
much annual economic impact.
And the way we define economic impact is direct spending.
So this is how many dollars those 318,500 attendees will put
into our economy, whether it is through retail dining or other
activities that they will do.
So this is a key snapshot of the incremental value
of what the venue will do.
The reason why this slide is also important
is because it speaks to part of the financing structure of this
that you will see in the staff memo
about how we have sort of composed the approach to funding
the venue.
Part of it has to do with its impact,
not only in direct spending but also
its impact on property value.
We believe that if you are a landowner in close proximity
of this venue, you will be positively impacted by the venue
being in place.
The second thing it speaks to is the businesses
that are also in close proximity or in a certain proximity
of the venue.
We also believe that those businesses will be positively
impacted and you will see in the staff memo
that we are beginning a process of reaching out
to those businesses to talk about engagement,
and we will get to this in a second in terms of the financing
plan.
So this data is not only important for purposes
of information but to really see how
it's going to impact not only our economy but some
of the key business and community partners
that will be part of the success of the venue.
If you go to the next slide , the question is,
we did a very thorough work in the region looking around
at different sites.
We looked at several sites in the area
and really came to the site that you see here
as being the one that we think, based on both transportation,
location and walkability in terms of things proposed
to be around the site is how we determined
that the Site on Martinelli Way / Arnold Road in Dublin
was really the preferred site.
I think both supervisors know this and the staff
know that actually is currently under surplus land
authority is the current ownership of the site.
You will see what one of the requests
that we are making today in terms
of being able to continue to move our process forward.
You can also see that currently we are here
today to talk about what we think
are some innovative thinking around how to engage
the site in the project, and also just wanted you
to know that this is the site.
This is the area that we are focused on
and we will go ahead and go to the next slide.
So today if you look at the staff memo,
there are basically five different specific areas
that we want to discuss today and talk about.
Happy to first get feedback from supervisors
in terms of questions.
But the first one has to do with the land acquisition process.
We have talked through a lot of potential models
as it relates to how the land could be secured
and I use the word secured in quotes for purposes
of developing the venue and we've
come upon an approach of proposing from a lot of input
through a lot of the leadership at the county level of having
a 99 year ground lease as a way to secure the land for purposes
of developing the venue.
If you think about both private or public involvement,
we think 99 years is the right length.
So as we think about final financing approaches,
that's going to give us the ability
with both private and public investors
to really have enough span of time for this to work.
We also think if you look at the staff memo, one
of the things it does is also essentially
is a part of how the county invests in this project
because the land has value and so
when we think about the final financing plan
and having this 99 year lease we think it gives us
an efficient way to secure the land also recognizing a roughly
20 plus million dollar value of county
investment in the project.
So this is one of the requests we are making today.
Really having the committee give us
the guidance to continue the process of investigating this
with their support of this conceptually
while we get into some of the details that are going
to be needed in terms of moving this through the actual surplus
land acts and other things that are going to be needed.
So that is one key piece of today in terms
of what we are asking for.
The second piece is, as you go through this process there
are steps along the way where you
need to end up with funding to try
to do some additional due diligence that will bring
some key answers to the table.
So we are making a request for $350,000 in reimbursable seed
capital.
The reason reimbursable is important
as any of the funding that goes into the project today
will be reimbursed out of the proceeds of the final financing
plan.
A couple of key things, and the staff memo details this,
we are trying to accomplish a couple of things.
One is digging into the site deeper from a civil perspective
and from a viability standpoint.
We also believe that there may be opportunities
on this site with some additional design work
to think about more than just the venue
as an asset on the site.
So the potential to actually have
the ability for even some private development on the site
based on being able to work together
on parking and a couple of other opportunities.
So we really have asked for these dollars
to be able to do some additional work validating the site,
validating what is possible and really making
sure there aren't any other civil issues on the site as part
of what we are talking about.
Obviously what we would do is report
back to this committee and other key stakeholders
about the findings that have come from that as it relates
to continuing to move the process forward
but we think this is a critical junction.
The other big piece of the 350 000 is,
we have order of magnitude costs right now for the development.
This will give us some funding to work with some of our design
partners on really getting into the cost even further.
So we will have another round of understanding
what are the developing costs of the project.
That has been a key point of discussion
over the course of the last year of working through this.
So that is the second area of request.
The third area is one of the financing mechanisms
that we have proposed and worked with others
on is the development of a tax increment financing district
and specifically, looking at that increment that would
be delivered from the project.
So the purpose of the project coming in
is how it increases land value and then being able to partner
with the county on the portion of that increment
that the county would receive as part of our financing plan.
It is important to note that this is still
a shared piece here, so there still
is revenue that would go to the county outside of what we were
proposing, but we are proposing a share of the proceeds
or the increment would be generated from the district
to be supported by the county.
So that is the third area of request today.
If you go to the next slide, the fourth area
is that we have done a lot of work
and conferred with a lot of people
on what is the right governance.
And I really should say ownership model,
as it relates to the venue.
One of the things that we have come upon is the ability
to develop a JPA .
And so the request today is to give
us guidance to continue to look at the county being
a participant in that JPA.
One of the things I think is important here
as we are doing a lot of research
on how to mitigate risk when it comes to participation.
One of the things we have talked about
are things like very significant reserve strategies, ways
to really create opportunities for collateralization that also
mitigates risk to participants.
So when we think about Jpa's and think about other JPAs that
have occurred in our county we've
all learned from some of those.
So how do we create this in a way where
it creates the autonomy that we want
and the nimbleness that we want from an ownership perspective
but also works very closely with members in terms
of their roles in the JPA, and how we can make sure
that membership is also supported by ways to mitigate
risk as part of participation.
In the staff memo you will see a little bit more detail here.
We do not yet have finalization on who all the members would be.
What we are asking for today from the county perspective
is essentially to say continue on this process
and based on a suitable outcome, the county's interest
in being a member of the JPA.
The next area we want to bring up today and get hopefully
some guidance on and some positive requests
from the county here is if you look at the finance outline that
is in the staff memo, you will see one of the lines
in that is an essentially new or enhanced tourism improvement
district, and one of the unique features
of what we are proposing is a tourism improvement district
that is more than just hotels.
So it also includes the retail industry and other sort
of related industries in this.
So really what we are asking for today
is support for this conceptually so
that we can go out and spend time confirming
the interest of our regional business community
and their participation.
This is an important part of the overall financing plan.
The good news here is there are other examples
in the state where this expansion of tourism improvement
districts beyond hotels have gone on.
So there is precedent here as well as
an ability to assess and understand
the interests of the business community within our region.
The last one really --
I want to publicly thank both of you because we've had a chance
to talk to both of you and it is just to really ask for that
ongoing support and the ongoing interest in --
a project like this has a lot of complexities to it.
It is obviously a public private significant project
for the region and the continued support
to keep the due diligence process moving, if you will.
Because you can see that we are still
at a relatively early stage.
We think we have some important things that
have been developed in terms of how
to ultimately finance the project
and sort of continue its movement.
But we still have a lot to do in terms
of gaining collaborative support and making sure
that we have a strong coalition and we just
want to continue to publicly thank the county for really
helping us think this through.
Let me just go to a couple other points here then
we will stop and ask for questions.
With just a couple of things, we will just do this quickly.
These are examples of other tourism business improvement
districts that have expanded beyond hotels.
We just wanted to remind you of this.
And remember that at this stage it's interesting.
We talk about improving our development costs.
This is at this point really an image and this image
was generated from people in our early stages
that said to us, if we're going to develop something,
let's do something where we as a community
can be proud whatever the outcome is architecturally
and whatever the look and feel is.
So not necessarily to get caught up
in this exact design but the reason we are asking
for the additional funding is to take this imaging
and go further with the true cost of development.
What are the implications of this kind of architecture
on a venue like this?
So this really will get us further along
in terms of thinking of what the final venue may
look like or feel like and what those options are together.
If you go to the next slide, what you can see here
is this is a depiction of the multi-use piece.
So you can see in this rendering when
we ask our partners to help us with visualization,
you can see with each one of these that the goal is quality,
so that we can deliver for the youth sports world inequality
way.
If you look at the upper right hand side
that is a corporate general session.
So again if you look at that you can
see that the interior design and all of that
is critical to be able to deliver for that audience.
If you look at the lower right, that is the building converted
into a performance venue, and as part of continuing through
with each one of these with designers
we would continue to refine each one of those experiences
so we know they can compete in terms
of who the decision makers are in those areas for so I'll
stop there.
Again just want to publicly thank
everybody who has been involved to get us this far
and there is a lot of people that everybody here
knows that has been part of giving this input to get to here
and we continue to look forward to working with everyone that
is really part of the greater if you want to call it
consortium of both public and private entities
that will ultimately be involved in this
and have been involved with it so far.
So supervisors , I'll stop there.
>> I will take public comment and then we will ask questions
of our staff and maybe even invite you back up for questions
and answers.
The clerk will now call any members of the public
either in person or online who would like to weigh in.
>> (Indistinct)
>> Good morning, chair and members of the Transportation
and Planning Committee.
My name is Bill Wheeler founder and CEO
of Black Tie Transportation located in Pleasanton.
We've provided professional transportation for corporations
government schools and major events across the Bay area.
We employ 60 people, down from 110
before COVID with nearly 10 million in annual sales.
The event and group travel are essential to our recovery
and for the regional visitor economy.
I'm here today to speak as a board
member of Visit Tri-Valley.
I also serve as Pleasanton Chamber Board and Chair
of Economic Development and Government Affairs Committee.
I serve on the Alameda County Fair Association and Foundation
Boards.
I've spent my career in regional economic development.
This is not a theoretical situation.
I see it working today.
Today and to all of this week black tie
is transporting the International Little League team
from SFO to Tri-Valley hotels games and restaurants.
While their families at room nights and local spending.
The Good Guys car and event visitors
create the same ripple effect.
Hotel restaurants transportation providers
employees and cities and taxpayers all benefit.
Since 2018 and even through the pandemic the Tri-Valley has
attracted more than 133 000 sports and entertainment
attendees.
Over 41,000 hotel room nights without the centralized facility
yet we lose an estimated 40% of high impact events we cannot
accommodate.
A multi-use center lets us expand
this proven model regionally projected at more than 120
million annually and 500 jobs.
Just as important the county's risk is limited.
The county retains land through a 99 year lease.
The $350,000 in pre-development funding is reimbursable with
the first bond issuance.
The JPA protects agency General funds
while ongoing support comes from visitor revenue,
TIFMT I'd operations and naming rights.
New resident tax for ongoing general fund subsidy.
Timing matters.
Tournament organizers but 2 or 3 years ahead.
Every delay risks another booking cycle and millions
in regional spending.
Moving now keeps the opportunity within reach.
Visit Tri-Valley has proven again and again --
>> If you could wrap up we've exceeded our time.
>> Regional strategy while an experienced professional
operator manages the facility and now it knows how to turn
events into room nights and regional spending.
On behalf of Black Tie our employees our clients
and your constituents and visit Tri-Valley
we support Visit Tri-Valley Multi-Use Center.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Next speaker.
>> Caller, you are on the line.
You have two minutes.
Unmute your microphone.
Caller, you are on the line.
You have two minutes.
Joe.
>> Yes.
Thank you.
Do you hear Me?
Thank you very much.
>> Joe.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee
this morning.
Just had an opportunity to read the memo
and wanted to comment briefly because as we move forward
with this thing, with this project
there seems to be an increasing focus on Dublin and Pleasanton
in particular.
The proposed JPA includes the use of tax increment financing
which if I'm reading it correctly,
potentially would capture about $1.6 million a year
from the city of Pleasanton as part of the financing.
You may be aware that the city is currently operating out
of structural budget deficit and so at this point,
financing for a $365 million event
center that would be operated by a private entity
is not something that is a priority for the city.
Our city council has never had an opportunity
to discuss or support or endorse this plan,
so I just wanted to weigh in, let
you know that the city is currently focused on a TOT
increase that will be on the ballot here in November
to help address the structural deficit that we are currently
dealing with.
That is where the focus is, and we
will continue to follow this project, this effort as it
continues to move forward.
>> Caller, you are on the line.
>> Good morning president and members of the board.
My name is Kelly and I'm not a resident of Tri-Valley
but I am a resident of Alameda County
and though I live outside the Tri-Valley
I am concerned as a taxpayer out here about the general County
revenue contribution or tax contribution.
The County General Fund could be asked
to pay into this and also as a quick aside,
I'd like to thank the taxpayers of Dublin and Pleasanton
for their generous contribution of the total of a combined
$3 million a year taken out of their city funds
and put into this project.
Also on the capital cost of this,
this is a very high end facility.
If you look at the capital cost of other projects $300 million
or $360 million is just a really luxurious facility.
You are going to have the very finest of concert hall amenities
and quality acoustics.
Everything.
And the county is being asked to give up $20 million
worth of real estate and put that in for 100 years
and a lot of the money might be coming from a $10 million a year
diversion from the County General fund
in the form of that tax increment finance district.
That looks like something that the Board of Supervisors
and taxpayers of Alameda County should
be looking at very carefully.
I'm also concerned about how this treats Danville.
The packet names Danville as a jurisdiction that's
going to be paying in taxes but is not
getting the full representation on the Political Joint Powers
Authority.
So yeah.
Also you might think about giving everybody equal time.
Thank you.
>> Caller, you are on the line.
You have two minutes.
>> Yee.
I like special events and I think this event center is fun.
Yay. (Indistinct) we need more special events cinders.
People in Dublin and Pleasanton can eat my poopie (Indistinct)
yay.
>> Caller, you are on the line you have two minutes.
>> Hi.
My name is Jim McDonald.
I own two restaurants in Pleasanton
and employ just slightly under 50 people.
I'm a former board member of Tri-Valley
and served for a number of years as board chair.
I can certainly attest to the quality of the organization.
You have Tracy and Todd in the room
there with you but just outstanding work.
I think if any organization can get this
done this is the one to do it.
Am really excited about the multi-use aspect of this
and the fact that we can support youth sports
events, entertainment and corporate events I think
is amazing and we'll bring in a broad range of people
to the region and extra spend.
Certainly I expect as a small business owner
to benefit from that and have people
coming to visit my restaurants.
I think many other small businesses will similarly
benefit so I think this will be an amazing asset to the region
but also be a big economic benefit to small business
owners like myself.
So thank you for the time and appreciate
your support of this initiative so thank you.
>> We have no additional speakers for item two.
>> Thank you very much.
I would like to --
I think staff is looking for direction on this presentation
and the request of staff is to refer this
to the surplus Authority ad hoc committee for deeper
consideration.
Is that right?
>> Correct.
Sandy Rivera Community Development Agency director.
Appreciate the presentation and vision
that these folks have but there is a lot of information
that they provided with regard to taxing increment.
Can involves surplus property lands as well as JPA
so there's a number of things we need to review
and we would like to spend the staff time
and to bring it to the surplus property ad hoc.
>> So the process would be staff would work with presenters
to understand more deeply and verify and validate the items
presented today, to digest and absorb that and understand it
and then present it to the ad hoc committee?
>> True.
But we also have to have discussions
with council and other county departments
to evaluate what they are presenting here.
>> Sure.
And would you then also talk with --
we had for example the interim city manager of Pleasanton.
Would you talk with other agencies
like the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin
and the other entities?
>> I don't know that we would get that far yet but we tend
to do that in our network but as it relates to the impact
on the county is what we would initially start with.
>> Okay.
I guess it is a project that includes all of us
so To the extent that you come to the ad hoc committee,
you would have our skin in the game so to speak
but also I would hope you would validate the entire project so
that we could understand it from a then
from that standpoint, the surplus lands
ad hoc committee could then refer it
to the full board for further discussion and or approval?
>> To the Surplus Property Authority which is the full
board.
>> To the Surplus Property Authority which is the full
board.
Would it then have to go to the full board I guess?
Layers and layers of presentations?
>> In terms of what were the next steps?
Depending on what the outcomes are of those meetings.
>> Sure.
Everything dependent upon the outcome of meetings
at each step along the way.
I understand.
And then just so I'm clear, it comes to us
to give that direction.
Thus far you've had somewhat limited discussion
with the presenters.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
Some but not enough to know everything..
My feedback today I think is going
to be very consistent with feedback
that I've given along the way.
This is a very exciting project.
It is certainly very ambitious.
It's worthy of continued discussion in my opinion
and I say that and I have some questions of staff
that I would want to make sure are included
in the analysis of this.
Because on its surface, some might
say you are asking for a bunch of money or value
from the county.
The land is worth a lot.
We don't give up the land but we give it up for 99 years.
The land has been sitting there for at least 30 years vacant,
not generating much of anything.
If we did this 30 years ago we would already
be done with the tax increment.
Taxes are something, an increment
is something that only happens if you generate something.
You're not taking away from the general fund
nothing of which you haven't added to the general fund.
We've had zero for so many years.
For the next 30 years we could have something
that we then make money on in the future
after that because the Tid I think only lasts for 30 years.
So the questions that I have are,
and I lived through some of this as Mayor
of Dublin but Supervisor Miley, you lived for a lot longer
of it.
Alameda County has been able to monetize
acres and acres and acres of former camp parks facility.
I don't know how many that is.
We've been able to generate millions and millions of dollars
which is now in an Emerald fund.
I think it is now $307 million.
I would like to understand that.
The funding that comes off of the Emerald Fund generated
through partnership of the City of Dublin goes to create
a positive bond rating for the County ,
reducing our cost of bonding for many other projects.
The interest from the Emerald Fund capital
projects in the county, I think at least one
of which is the entire debt service of our juvenile hall
facility located in San Leandro and so I
would like to understand the requests that were being made
of in the totality of the entire partnership over the last 30, 40
years with the City of Dublin.
Order of magnitude.
So I would like to really understand
how that has evolved over the years
and just how much of an order of magnitude
this request is out of that.
Because I think the City of Dublin
has been a very good partner, allowing for units of housing,
affordable units of housing, sale of surplus lands.
Millions of dollars of interest to fund other projects
and to me, this could be a way to give back.
To give back something that we don't give back.
Whether we allow it to happen.
That said, also I have questions about our involvement.
Everyone knows we are getting out of the sports business,
trying desperately to get out of the professional sports
business.
The professional sports business where
we lease a sports facility, losing
millions of dollars every year.
Millions of dollars every year.
Dealing with professional sports organizations
and sometimes being sued by one another and a lot
of different things.
This cannot be a repeat of that and I don't see that it is but I
compare this somewhat to what we've done in other parts
of the county on a much smaller basis with much less --
I'm hoping that we need to validate that.
We can't get into a repeat of a mistake.
We're not getting back into the professional sports
business with this but we could perhaps
participate with a long term lease and some guidance
as a member of a JPA possibly.
And then I will end with the caller.
Very important.
Have to get everybody.
This plan has a lot of pieces.
It's got to work for everyone and so
this is by no means a we are going to do this approval.
I can only be one board member but I am cautiously optimistic,
as I have been all along.
This can be a good thing for the Tri-Valley.
It can be a good thing for the region
and it can be a good thing for Alameda County.
So that is my thoughts on it and I'd
be interested to see what our staff says
and so I am supportive of referring this
to staff to work on but then for them to bring back
to the surplus authority ad hoc subcommittee, which would then
have to go to the Surplus Authority full board, which
is our board.
So we are still at the beginning.
We are not at the beginning but we are past the embryonic stage,
I would say.
But we are not fully baked there.
Supervisor Miley, you have been through these kind
of partnerships and lived through --
you had Dublin in your district for many years.
You lived through the Emerald Fund and the surplus land
history so I would love your --
I can only give you my thoughts.
I'd love your thoughts.
>> Before I say anything, does staff have any reaction
to anything you've heard?
>> There has been other activity with our ad hoc Surplus Property
Authority with regard to property D2,
and Eileen Dalton can refresh some supervisor's memory what
the next steps were that we were going to take with regard to D2.
Then we would have to also have some guidance
from your committee as it relates
to that prior direction from surplus Property Authority
ad hoc committee.
>> So before I make any comments.
>> Sure.
Happy to address the Surplus Land Act.
The terms get confused so just a reminder that property
is owned by the county surplus Property Authority
and it is a 12 acre site that was previously
under contract for a hotel for about half the site
and that project didn't go forward.
Previously, half of the parcel was
cleared from the state's surplus Land Act
so any property that the county or public agency owns
has to be cleared through this process where the obligation is
to put it forth.
If it is surplus property you put it forth to be available
to potentially affordable housing developers.
You are obligated to negotiate in good faith.
You are not obligated to sell but you
have to go through the process.
The recommendation that I made that I am moving forward with
unless I hear otherwise is to bring an item on the September
15th Board of Supervisors sitting as the Surplus Property
Authority, a recommendation to declare that remainder part
of D2 as surplus.
I would then send out a notice, receive comments back and engage
in negotiation potentially and then
come back to the board to discuss the results of that.
So I just want to let you know that was the direction that we
decided to pursue because everything else that we own
has been cleared from the Surplus Lands Act
except for that seven acre piece of D2.
So it's a little complicated because it's half the parcel.
The recommendation in the memo was
to declare the property exempt from the Surplus Land Act,
potentially.
What we are proposing is to just declare it surplus
and clear it so that we have the full range of options
as the owner when we are done.
So we have one little step.
>> Have we ever requested exemption?
>> We have for properties where we are pursuing an affordable
housing development.
So the Broadway properties.
We have properties where we have the Lorenzo Theater we just
declared surplus.
>> What is the process for that?
We just request exemption?
Does the state have to grant a?
>> There is a state process.
It is a very prescribed process.
Everyone has to follow.
We have a notification period.
We have to mail out notices.
It's posted.
We get the results and then it's certified and put
on the >> Is there a downside to requesting exemption and seeing
what the yield is if nobody has a problem with it?
We could just be exempt?
What would be the downside of that?
Timing?
>> I can let our county council maybe address the differences
but in my mind, if we declare the property surplus and we go
through the process then we are clear to do really anything we
want to do.
We would be obligated to negotiate
with affordable housing developers if they show interest
but they would have to pay fair market value.
We are not offering it for no cost.
>> Supervisor Haubert, if you recall if we don't go through
the process we could end up in someone suing us like they did
relative to the transfer of our rights with the Coliseum Way
partners.
>> Just to clarify, if we go through the process
of requesting exemption and we receive exemption would we then
be subject to legal liabilities down the road?
>> Supervisor, the initial step that has to be taken is
a determination by your board of what declaration you are going
to make.
You can declare the property as surplus and that initiates one
process or you declare it as surplus exempt and that
has a different path that you go forward with the state HCD who
makes the final determination of whether or not
your declaration is acceptable and whether you've
complied with the processes.
For the surplus exempt, there has
to be a public use at the end of the day.
So you have to be mindful.
And as I am hearing this request it's
asking for a private partnership so
whether it would qualify as something
we would have to evaluate.
>> Yeah.
I guess I would like staff's thoughts on that.
So.
I would like to understand that before it
comes to us as a board.
And maybe there is a way in which
they are planning to structure not understanding
how that would impact the surplus lands exemption,
that maybe they would want to consider
a different way to structure so that it allows us to comply
with an exemption application.
I guess it is six of one half dozen of the other.
They seem like very similar processes.
State HCD is involved.
We have to in one sense solicit bidders but I see the benefit
for us .
The benefit for us is using this occasion
to have the property surplus And give us options.
Is that right?
>> Yes and I think it gives us the most options because then
we're clear of having to do any other kind of negotiation with
any other affordable housing partner.
>> If you choose surplus exempt, your options are not as open
and available to you as they are with a regular surplus property
approach.
And just to clarify, there are a lot
of steps to be involved with here starting with the fact
that the county does not own the real property.
Technically, the surplus Property Authority
is a separate legal entity with its own statutory rules
that govern how it uses the property
and then your Emerald Fund has separate rules about how
you expend or handle any revenues that they generate.
So a lot of steps.
Is the county going to acquire the property from the SPA?
What is that approach going to be?
Is the county going to set up this as a separate JPA?
How is that going to be handled?
A lot of questions and the first question I have,
is this request coming from visit Tri-Valley
and what is JLL's relationship?
Are they contracted by visit Tri-Valley
or what is their role altogether?
Where we communicating with?
Who are we working with in this project?
>> I guess we could ask either them to answer that or we could
direct staff to figure that out before it comes to the surplus.
Supervisor >> Thanks.
I do think it's probably a more cautious path
to get surplus because clearly if we don't get it surplus
then we go the exemption route, we could go down that route
and end up being challenged legally somewhere down the road
and that would complicate things and to make
the process even lengthier.
So just my $0.02 worth.
Yeah.
I'm neutral on all of this.
I do think it is appropriate that it be explored.
I'm curious why it came to this committee
and didn't go to the Surplus Property Authority.
It began with the JPA, the ad hoc committee
because there is a lot here.
The recommendation just seems to be --
and this is a real estate deal?
A development deal?
>> So it is a real estate deal for the surplus Property
authority.
It is not a real estate deal for the county
because we do not own the property.
>> Okay.
So it's a real estate deal in the surplus property
ad hoc committee.
That is not a public committee.
Right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay so you'll do your due diligence analysis then you will
come to the committee so we can discuss this kind
of confidentially?
Yes?
Okay.
There is just a lot of questions here.
I don't even want to get into the multitude of questions
but I just wanted to kind of get a sense of the process going
forward.
>> Let me clarify that last comment.
It would potentially qualify for a real estate closed session
for the Board of Supervisors if you
are going to acquire the property as a real estate
transaction from the SPA.
That is the only instance when it would qualify.
>> I'm just saying the ad hoc committee is Supervisor Haubert
and myself in the county administrator.
Right?
>> Supervisor I thank you for your comments.
Staff, with that said I will thank the presenters.
We will have staff get in touch with you
and bring it to the ad hoc committee
at some point in the future.
With that, we will proceed to the first item
on our agenda going back to item one and informational item
A regional Housing policy update on transit oriented communities
and the one Bay area Grant.
We will have Aaron Tiedemann as the Housing
and Community Development Specialist for presentation.
Aaron, welcome. >> Thank you, board members.
I am here to present on the TOC policy
from Metropolitan Transportation Commission as well as the one
Bay area grant.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
adopted the resolution implementing the TOC policy
the transit oriented Communities policy in September of 2022.
That policy required compliance by all TOC jurisdictions
by early 2026 in order to access OBAG4 funds.
I'm going to discuss what all of that It means.
But we HD staff presented this policy and the background
on it to your board's transportation and Planning
Commission in November of 2024.
There have been some significant updates to the policy since then
so we wanted to come back and discuss some of those updates.
The transit oriented Communities policy
is really based around the planned Bay area which
is MTC is a sort of founding document
to guide housing, climate, equity and economic development
goals around transit and around the nine county Bay
area that is aiming to promote active transportation,
shared mobility, access to major transit stations
and development and transit rich areas
as well as build partnerships to create
an equitable transit oriented community across the Bay area.
So to have sort of the same standards
and encourage the development that we want
to see across nine counties.
TOC policy is centered around a couple of key areas.
The one we are focusing on today is the first one
around affordable housing production preservation
and protection policies.
The TOC policy also covers a couple
of different areas mostly focused
around station access in those transit rich areas.
Parking management, station access and circulation and then
zoning density and intensity requirements
around commercial offices near those major transit areas.
But again, planning and HCD both work on this policy
and HCD's main role is around that housing production
preservation and protection area.
The TOC policy is centered around the designated TOC areas
and these are ones near really high quality transit stops.
And the unincorporated county we have two such areas that
are centered around our two large high quality Bart
stations, the Bay Fair and Castro Valley stations and that
is really the center of TOC policy
so there are some policies under the TOC program
that are focused on circulation and things
within a half mile of those stations
and there are some policies more broadly focused
around any jurisdiction that has a TOC area or TOC station in it.
A lot of the housing policies are more broadly
around the jurisdiction and planning that
has those areas in it and those are the ones
that we are going to focus on today.
As I mentioned, the one Bay area grant
is a large part of how TOC was envisioned for implementation.
Essentially, compliance with TOC policies
was intended to be a condition for the award
of a certain amount of one Bay area grant funds.
One Bay area grant funds or OBAG funds
really provide for transportation infrastructure
funding for jurisdictions across the county.
Those funds are further split between two main programs
in their awards throughout the nine County Bay area.
The first is the county program that
splits that between the County transportation agencies
and funds local priority projects.
There is also the regional program
which implements more large scale initiatives and services
and also provides local grants to complement the county
investments.
So that is larger scale things connecting transit
is often a big use for these funds with transit systems
that bridge the gap between several different counties
as well as putting awards in for individual counties
and their projects under that regional program.
As you can see, one Bay area grant funds for rounds one
through three have provided almost $32 million
to fund unincorporated county projects.
Those have included street and road improvements
and preservation projects, corridor improvements,
safe and accessible route improvements.
A variety of transportation infrastructure
measures and in total, OBAG have provided $215 million
to transportation projects countywide since 2012.
So that 32 million is just our unincorporated sector.
There has been a lot more money that
has been directed from OBAG towards all of the jurisdictions
in the county.
In the next round of OBAG funding
MTC estimates Alameda County will receive around 70 million
so we are on track to receive a comparable amount
as we have through the previous rounds in the next one.
One of the large changes that has
been made that we wanted to update the board on
was around how OBAG4 funding was being relegated relative
to OBAG3.
In January of this year MTC revised their resolution
about the allocation of OBAG funding
to move around the funds a little bit.
There is overall about the same amount
of funding available total for the county
but there is an amount that essentially has been taken away
from that overall punt to support regional transit so that
is that -100 million and that OBAG-4
proposed chart on the left you will see.
The rest of that money is divided
between the county and regional program that I mentioned.
350 million of it will go to county programs awarded
to County transportation departments and 360 million
will go to regional program to support larger scale projects.
Not within that 360 for regional programs
there is a set aside of 45 million
reserved for the TOC set aside, which
I will cover in just a second.
As part of this action, MTC also set about 5 million
for the North Bay augmentation in North Bay counties.
As I said there has been a variety of changes
in this policy since 2022.
Was originally implemented.
They have made a lot of tweaks in the admin guidance,
implementation policies.
MTC has been really building up this program
to give information to jurisdictions like the County.
We are trying to see compliance.
The biggest effort there was really
going from the latter half of last year
when MTC did a series of workshops and study sessions
on the proposed changes to TOC and OBAG
that led up to the resolution I just mentioned from January
of this year when they passed the OBAG for funding allocation
framework which itself was in preparation for what they passed
in February of this year when they passed the updated TOC
framework.
That is the framework that really
decides how the set aside from that OBAG funding allocation
is awarded.
The largest change was in that February resolution
when they changed the TOC requirements.
The most significant changes that t o c compliance
is no longer needed in order to be
eligible for most OBAG-4 funds so those funds in their totality
are not conditioned on TOC policy compliance anymore.
Instead, jurisdictions who earn more than 85 points out
of the total 100 in the TOC framework
will have access to that set aside of TOC funding
from the regional allocation of 45 million.
Depending on the size of those jurisdictions,
they will be eligible for a different amount of funds
if they pass that threshold of 85 points.
And that point system is really broken out
by a couple different focuses of density, housing, parking
and station access project so it doesn't really
matter how a jurisdiction gets to 85 points there
but if they achieve 85 points across those different
categories then they get access to that TOC funding.
That is the largest change from there are a couple others.
In the initial policy the submission
was due January of this year.
With the changes that they were still making at MTC
they moved that submission deadline
to be July of next year.
They also are no longer giving credit
given for work in progress items from policies
that jurisdictions may still be working on,
given that they've moved the deadline out by about a year
and a half there will be no credit
given for work in progress in the new framework.
They also changed the standards around local density
requirements within a half mile of transit
given the passage of SB nine, which largely made sure
that any jurisdiction with a TOC area
was already compliant with the goals of the TOC here.
They essentially gave credit for any area subject
to SB nine zoning as meeting with the goals that
were originally set out.
Finally, in the original policy under the protections program
of largely tenant protections there
was no credit given for countywide programs,
jurisdictions that were in a county that had those programs.
Now one of those two programs that
are required for full points may be in county wide program.
For instance, if a city in the county like Fremont
has access to services through the county
and the county funds a countywide service
that is in the TOC policy they could receive credit
for that in the framework if it meets the funding
guidelines for that policy.
Staff at HCD and the Planning Department have been working
on t o c policy compliance for some time now and I wanted
to highlight again this is focusing on the housing policies
so the policies under those £0.03 framework of policy
preservation and protection.
Under production we have planned policies
that we have funding from MTC to pursue inclusionary housing
and ministerial approval that the Planning Department is
working on now.
Under preservation we have an existing policy with the Land
Trust that meets the standards set by the TOC policy
and we have a planned policy for our mobile home Park closure
ordinance that is planning on working under HDC as supporting.
Under protections we have an existing policy, the just cause
for evictions ordinance that the board passed meets the standards
for the TOC's policy.
And the planned policy we are working on anti-harassment
and tenant landlord relation ordinance that
again has the funding support.
There are certain TOC policies and the framework
that require a minimum funding commitment to be
counted as compliant.
The HCD has requested measure W funds to support
some of these requirements.
The main ones are production funding
for new and affordable housing.
Basically the TOC policy requires a $1 million
match annually for four years in the planning
period and the request for that was about the same.
Similarly the preservation funding for community Land
Trust, the required funding for that annually is about $300,000
per MEC HDD requested more than that million to support that
work.
Like I mentioned, we have administrative funds from MTC
to support a lot of these efforts.
They provide planning grants to help those local governments
meet those standards and we have been awarded 2.1 million
to support that policy development.
The majority of that, 1.7 million
is administered by MTC on the county's behalf.
It largely goes to support some of the plans we
have to do around station access and the intense work that
has to be done there.
Directly administered as that $400,000 for housing policy
development that covers the items I had covered
on the previous slide of inclusionary zoning,
ministerial approval and anti-harassment.
That work is split between the Planning Department and HCD.
We are doing it now and are grateful to have that funding
support.
This is the work that we are doing,
now supported by that MTC policy grant funding.
The inclusionary housing ordinance
that planning has been working on,
the ministerial Approval ordinance
that streamlines project approval
and the anti-harassment ordinance
that I mentioned that will look at tenant protection
policies, current state law and tenant
needs in the unincorporated county.
With that we are happy to take questions.
>> Let's go to public comment.
>> Caller, you are on the line.
You have two minutes.
Kelly.
>> Yeah.
I would like to point to OBAG-4 on the upcoming projects,
the next round of projects that are
going to be benefiting the Unincorporated and Alameda
County.
These transportation projects are very complicated and a lot
of things can slip through the cracks but one of the smallest
items that was on the list , in fact the smallest item.
Only $300,000.
A tiny item that nobody would notice but it's really
the most important when it comes to us from the legacy
of Supervisor Scott Haggerty and the legacy of supervisor
Richard Valle and that is the Niles Canyon Trail.
The Niles Canyon Trail hasn't had the Ciclavia, the roll
and stroll in a couple years.
But it still is a very important priority
for the people of Sinall, the people of Pleasanton
and the people of Fremont.
We've had non-motorized trails since thousands of years
ago when the original inhabitants of Alameda County
were able to walk from Fremont to Pleasanton
and today they can't walk.
From Fremont to Pleasanton.
It's illegal to walk down Niles Canyon Road
and this project will address that inequity.
I'd like to call back to the lessons of Supervisor Scott
Haggerty.
He taught us that no matter how small, no matter how forgotten,
that if you fight, that if you focus on our priorities
and really stay committed and stay over the long term
we can accomplish a lot.
Thank you.
>> I have no additional speakers.
>> Very good.
We will close public comment and bring it back
for discussion and deliberation.
Supervisor Miley.
>> I don't think I have any questions.
I do appreciate this informational update by staff
since I'm on MTC.
I was kind of familiar with what took place
because it did take a lot of discussion and many meetings
to come up with the TLC policy changes
because people felt there was too much
rigidity in the former TOC policies
and there was quite a lot of back and forth
through the entire Bay area region.
I'm just really pleased that once again TLC compliance is not
needed to be eligible for most OBAG-4 funds
and that we should be able to adhere to that
and get the 85 points through the measures
that we have got underway.
So I don't have anything to say but I do appreciate
this update today by staff.
I just want to have staff keep us
abreast of where we are going so we can
continue to get those funds.
>> Thank you.
A question I have is around the TOC policies in Alameda County,
the production.
We show none existing but two planned inclusionary housing
administrative approval.
Where are both of those in the pipeline of being discussed?
Is it taking a lot to get this done?
>> I'm going to hand it over to my colleague from >> Good
morning.
I am Olivia Ortiz, planner three with the county.
We are hoping to be on the early October board planning agenda
to give you an update on those projects.
We have a lovely consultant team.
We are going to the Eden Mac in a week
to begin a road show so we will be providing an update soon
but I can answer specific questions if you have them.
>> One thing that comes to mind around a production policy
in place doesn't mean that we don't already support production
projects.
>> 100%.
>> Okay.
And I note that under preservation we have mobile home
and I think mobile home is one that is both preservation --
the mobile home space one of both preservation in one sense
and production in another sense because, unless I'm mistaken,
there is some opportunity.
Some applicants, some owners would
like to convert mobile home to hundreds of units and others
would like to keep mobile home as mobile home.
They both can exist and creating more units
would be production permit so I see mobile home
space as being possibly both preservation and production.
Am I thinking about that rightly or wrongly?
>> You are not wrong.
I don't know if it is in the most recent version
of administrative guidelines but at least
previous versions had a mobile home related
policy in preservation and in production a year and a half
ago when we were making these decisions.
We thought because the mobile home ordinance that was already
under discussion with the Planning Commission, the one
that I guess will eventually make its way to your board, made
more sense to keep in the preservation >> I think so too.
No other questions or comments.
What is the next step for this?
It's just information so where will this information go?
>> This is just information for now but there are a variety
of policies under this that will be coming to your board or its
various committees soon.
You should look forward to those.
>> Godspeed on the what do you call it.
Road show.
Godspeed on the road show.
>> Thank you.
With that, we will move to public comment on items
not on today's agenda but within the purview of this body.
Public comment, please.
>> Kelley.
We are on public comment.
You have two >> Thank you.
Yeah this OBAG stuff that just happened
reminds me of another mandate for the county.
That is the arena housing numbers which is probably
tied in very closely with the OBAG
and if you look at the performance of your planning
department of Alameda County and you
look at the performance of every city around in the state
or in the Bay area, nobody is producing those Rena housing
production requirements.
The eight year cycle.
The last three years out of the eight year cycle
they've produced on average in the Bay area something
like 13 or 14% so they are on track to produce
Bay area wide about 37%.
On target to produce 37% of the goal which is --
in other words we are falling far short of the goal and there
is no penalty for not meeting the goal so a lot of these
mandates, there is no teeth behind them so we've got to take
that with a grain of salt and I'm sure that the longest
serving people on staff and on this board are well aware
of just how toothless these requirements are and probably
know how to play this game very well.
And then also, all the items that came up today,
it all comes down to the question
of who do you represent.
Do you represent one particular constituency?
Are you working on behalf of a certain geographic subregion
to bring benefits and bring countywide revenues
from the 1.6 million people of Alameda County down
to one small region or do you work for the whole county?
Thank you.
>> We have no more speakers for public comment.
>> Very good.
With that said, we are adjourned.