[0:01] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[0:03] chair: good morning everyone.

[0:03] before I call the meeting to

[0:05] order I want to say that plane

[0:08] behind me is probably one of the

[0:10] only air force planes that alix

[0:14] bockelman's dad hasn't flown.

[0:16] for you historians you probably

[0:20] associate the name of this plane

[0:23] it's frances gary powers. You

[0:27] all know enough about the

[0:28] historical significance. I

[0:31] would like to call the joint mtc

[0:31] planning committee with the abag

[0:32] administrative

[0:34] committee to order. We'll call

[0:38] mtc quorum and consent calendar

[0:41] then turn to you for yours and

[0:46] abag announcements.

[0:46] >>jesse arreguin, abag

[0:47] administrative chair:

[0:48] absolutely.

[0:49] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[0:50] chair: with that if we could

[0:51] take the roll call for the mtc

[0:54] planning committee.

[0:55] >>clerk of the board: we will

[0:55] do after the broadcast team

[0:58] rolls the announcement.

[0:58] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[0:59] chair: thank you. I'm sorry.

[1:01] [recorded meeting procedures

[1:02] announcement]

[1:10] due to covid-19, this meeting

[1:11] will be conducted as a zoom

[1:11] webinar pursuant to the

[1:12] provisions of

[1:12] assembly bill 361 which suspends

[1:13] certain requirements of the

[1:14] brown act.

[1:14] this meeting is being webcast on

[1:15] the mtc website.

[1:15] the chair will call upon

[1:16] commissioners, presenters,

[1:16] staff, and other speakers, by

[1:17] name, and ask that they speak

[1:18] clearly and state their names

[1:18] before giving comments or

[1:19] remarks.

[1:19] persons participating via

[1:20] webcast and zoom, with their

[1:21] cameras enabled, are reminded

[1:21] that their activities are

[1:22] visible to viewers.

[1:22] commissioners and members of the

[1:23] public participation by zoom,

[1:24] wishing to speak, should use the

[1:24] raise hand feature or dial star

[1:25] 9, and the chair will call upon

[1:26] them at the appropriate time.

[1:27] teleconference attendees will be

[1:27] called upon by the last four

[1:28] digits of their phone number.

[1:29] it is requested that public

[1:29] speakers state their names and

[1:30] organization, but, providing

[1:31] such information is voluntary.

[1:31] written public comments received

[1:32] at infoatbayareametro.gov by 5

[1:33] p.m., yesterday, will be posted

[1:33] to the online agenda and entered

[1:34] into the record, but will not be

[1:35] read out loud.

[1:35] if authors of the written

[1:36] correspondence would like to

[1:36] speak, they are free to do so.

[1:37] they should raise their hand and

[1:38] the chair will call upon them at

[1:39] the appropriate time.

[1:39] a roll call vote will be taken

[1:40] for all action items.

[1:40] panelists and attendees should

[1:41] note that the chat feature is

[1:42] not active.

[1:42] in order to get the full zoom

[1:43] experience, please make sure

[1:43] your application is up to date.

[2:44] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[2:45] chair: roll call.

[2:47] >>clerk of the board: spering?

[2:47] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[2:48] chair: present.

[2:48] >>clerk of the board: ahn?

[2:49] >>eddie ahn: present.

[2:51] >>clerk of the board: canepa?

[2:52] connoly?

[2:53] >>damon connolly: here.

[2:55] >>clerk of the board:

[2:55] commissioner dutra-vernaci?

[2:58] >>carol dutra-vernaci: here.

[2:59] >>clerk of the board: fleming?

[3:00] >>victoria fleming: here.

[3:01] >>clerk of the board: giocapini

[3:03] non-voting?

[3:04] >>dorene m. Giacopini: here.

[3:05] >>clerk of the board: liccardo?

[3:06] commissioner schaff?

[3:11] we have a quorum.

[3:11] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[3:12] chair: okay. I see mayor

[3:14] schaff is with us. So, she

[3:16] hasn't learned how to unmute

[3:19] yet. We're going to send a

[3:21] technical staff over to help her

[3:23] do that.

[3:25] >>libby schaaf: you can not

[3:25] hear me now.

[3:26] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[3:26] chair: I hear you.

[3:28] >>libby schaaf: okay.

[3:29] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[3:30] chair: [laughter]

[3:30] >>karen mitchoff: martha did

[3:32] you call me?

[3:32] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[3:33] chair: this is mtc.

[3:35] >>karen mitchoff: okay.

[3:36] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[3:37] chair: with that we do have a

[3:38] quorum. Mtc commissioners,

[3:41] we'll entertain a motion to

[3:43] approve the mtc consent

[3:44] calendar.

[3:47] >>carol dutra-vernaci: mtc

[3:50] approval.

[3:52] >>libby schaaf: second.

[3:52] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[3:53] chair: motion and second.

[3:55] is there any written

[3:56] correspondence or anyone that

[3:57] wants to speak on consent?

[3:59] martha?

[4:00] >>clerk of the board: there are

[4:01] no members of the public with

[4:02] their hand raised, and there was

[4:02] no public comment submitted on

[4:03] this item.

[4:03] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[4:04] chair: okay. Motion and

[4:05] seconds. Could you take the

[4:05] roll, please?

[4:07] >>clerk of the board: chair

[4:08] spering?

[4:08] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[4:09] chair: yes.

[4:09] >>clerk of the board: vice

[4:10] chair ahn?

[4:11] >>eddie ahn, v. Chair: aye.

[4:12] >>clerk of the board: vice

[4:14] chair canepa?

[4:16] >>david canepa: aye.

[4:18] >>clerk of the board: connoly?

[4:19] >>damon connolly: aye.

[4:20] >>clerk of the board: er and

[4:24] fleming?

[4:25] >>victoria fleming: yes.

[4:26] >>clerk of the board: schaff?

[4:27] >>libby schaaf: yes.

[4:28] >>clerk of the board: passes

[4:29] unanimously by all members

[4:30] present.

[4:30] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[4:31] chair: thank you. Mayor

[4:31] arreguin, I'll turn it over to

[4:32] you.

[4:32] >>jesse arreguin, abag

[4:33] administrative chair: okay.

[4:33] thank you so much. I would like

[4:34] to ask the abag clerk of the

[4:36] board to conduct roll call to

[4:39] confirm whether quorum of the

[4:42] administrative committee is

[4:43] present.

[4:44] >>clerk of the board: mayor

[4:45] eklund?

[4:47] >>pat ecklund: here.

[4:47] >>clerk of the board: fligor?

[4:49] >>neysa fligor: here.

[4:50] >>clerk of the board: hudson?

[4:51] >>david e. Hudson: here.

[4:51] >>clerk of the board: lee?

[4:56] mandelman? Absent.

[5:00] some mitchoff? Supervisor

[5:07] mitchoff, I see you are here.

[5:11] councilmember peralez is absent.

[5:13] the supervisor rabbit?

[5:15] >>david rabbit: here.

[5:15] >>clerk of the board:

[5:16] supervisor ramos?

[5:17] >>belia ramos: here.

[5:18] >>clerk of the board:

[5:18] councilmember romero?

[5:22] >>carlos romero: here.

[5:23] >>clerk of the board: mayor

[5:23] wilson is absent. One more time

[5:26] for supervisor lee? Supervisor

[5:29] lee is absent. Quorum is

[5:30] present.

[5:32] >>karen mitchoff: fred, I'm so

[5:33] sorry. You have got me?

[5:35] >>clerk of the board: yes,

[5:36] ma'am.

[5:37] >>karen mitchoff: thank you.

[5:37] >>jesse arreguin, abag

[5:38] administrative chair: thank

[5:39] you. Quorum is present. Item

[5:41] two, abag compensation

[5:43] announcement. I'll ask the

[5:45] clerk to read the compensation

[5:50] announcement for the record.

[5:53] >>clerk of the board: according

[5:54] to state law I am making the

[5:55] following announcement, the

[5:55] members of the abag board in

[5:56] attendance at this meeting are

[5:57] entitled to receive per diem an

[5:57] amount of $500 as a result of

[5:58] convening a meeting for which

[5:59] each member is entitled to

[6:05] collect per diem. Thank you.

[6:06] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[6:06] chair: item three abag consent

[6:08] calendar minutes of

[6:10] december 10th, 2021. Motion to

[6:13] approve the minutes?

[6:18] >>speaker: motion.

[6:20] >>pat ecklund: second.

[6:21] >>jesse arreguin, abag

[6:21] administrative chair: motion

[6:22] and second. Any public comment

[6:23] on this item? Written comment

[6:26] received on this item?

[6:28] >>clerk of the board: there are

[6:28] no members of the public with

[6:29] their hand raised, and there was

[6:30] no public comment submitted on

[6:30] this item.

[6:31] >>jesse arreguin, abag

[6:31] administrative chair: okay.

[6:32] that brings us to roll call vote

[6:33] on the item.

[6:35] >>clerk of the board: mayor

[6:36] arreguin?

[6:36] >>jesse arreguin, abag

[6:37] administrative chair: yes.

[6:39] >>clerk of the board: eklund?

[6:45] >>pat ecklund: aye.

[6:47] >>clerk of the board: fligor?

[6:48] >>neysa fligor: yes.

[6:49] >>clerk of the board: thank

[6:50] you.

[6:52] mayor hudson?

[6:53] >>david e. Hudson: yes.

[6:54] >>clerk of the board:

[6:54] supervisor lee?

[6:57] >>otto lee: yes.

[6:59] >>clerk of the board: thank

[6:59] you, sir.

[7:00] supervisor mandelman? Absent.

[7:06] mitchoff?

[7:07] >>karen mitchoff: yes.

[7:08] >>clerk of the board:

[7:08] councilmember peralez is absent.

[7:16] supervisor rabbit?

[7:17] >>david rabbit: yes.

[7:18] >>clerk of the board: peralez?

[7:19] absent. Romero?

[7:21] >>carlos romero: yes.

[7:23] >>clerk of the board: mayor

[7:24] wilson is absent. Passes

[7:25] unanimously by all members

[7:29] present.

[7:30] >>jesse arreguin, abag

[7:30] administrative chair: thank you

[7:31] very much. Back to mtc chair

[7:34] spering.

[7:34] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[7:35] chair: this item is sea level

[7:37] rise funding investment

[7:39] framework. Matt you're going to

[7:43] introduce and rachel it carry

[7:45] from there.

[7:48] >>matt maloney: matt maloney

[7:50] regional planning director for

[7:52] mtc and abag we have two items

[7:54] on the agenda today first one is

[7:55] sea level rise funding and

[7:57] investment framework we're

[7:59] returning to you today with this

[8:00] item. If you recall we

[8:02] presented to this committee back

[8:04] in july and since that time, we

[8:06] have worked to refine the scope

[8:09] of the effort in partnership

[8:10] with bcdc. And just as a

[8:13] reminder, you know, everything

[8:15] we do is related, of course, to

[8:17] planned bay area 2050, and that

[8:20] plan estimated a nearly

[8:22] $20 billion need to address sea

[8:24] level rise adaptation.

[8:26] and the implementation plan

[8:28] really identified the need for

[8:30] this study.

[8:32] and the purpose of it is really

[8:34] to improve the regional

[8:35] accounting of sea level rise

[8:37] costs and potential future

[8:39] revenue sources.

[8:41] we think this effort is very

[8:42] timely, given new actions by the

[8:44] state legislature, which has

[8:46] identified new funding for

[8:49] resilience. And we do believe

[8:50] that the state bears significant

[8:53] responsibility for ultimately

[8:54] funding these types of projects.

[8:56] and you know, most importantly,

[8:58] I think today we just want to

[9:01] formalize this partnership with

[9:02] bcdc today. We are continuing

[9:05] to use the joint committee of

[9:07] mtc and abag to showcase our

[9:09] work but we're also planning to

[9:11] provide updates on this study

[9:12] through bcdc committees as well

[9:15] as the barc governing board

[9:17] throughout the next year. And

[9:18] we have a number of staff here

[9:20] today, from both bcdc and mtc

[9:24] and on the mtc side, rachel

[9:28] hartofelis is here. She'll be

[9:29] giving a presentation on behalf

[9:31] of mtc, also michael germeraad,

[9:34] and dave vautin, of course, who

[9:36] you know very well. And on the

[9:39] bcdc side, nicholas sander is

[9:42] here who will also be presenting

[9:44] with rachel. I believe bcdc

[9:47] director larry goldzband is

[9:48] here, as well as planning

[9:50] director of bcdc, jessica. We

[9:56] have numerous partnerships here

[9:58] to answer any of your questions.

[10:00] with that I'll pass it over to

[10:02] nicholas from bcdc, I think, is

[10:05] going to kickoff the

[10:06] presentation.

[10:12] >>nicholas sander: thank you

[10:16] very much. Good morning

[10:18] everyone. I'm nicholas sander

[10:20] from bcdc here with rachel

[10:24] hartofelis, mtc and abag we want

[10:25] to discuss a joint effort to

[10:31] discuss sea level rise funding

[10:34] investment framework. We'll

[10:37] walk throughout context of sea

[10:40] level rise funding efforts,

[10:43] regional overview of funding

[10:44] framework and next steps for

[10:46] joint work. The framework will

[10:50] prepare for adaptation in

[10:52] two-ways competitiveness with a

[10:54] clear understanding for

[10:56] adaptation cost and needs and

[10:58] explore how we can augment state

[11:01] and federal needs for funding

[11:06] sources. Graphic illustrates

[11:12] how sea level rise has been

[11:16] addressed in the region. Mtc

[11:19] abag plan 2050 and the estuary

[11:23] blueprint update, bay adapt

[11:25] adopted by bcdc commission in

[11:29] october has addressed priority

[11:31] actions against long-term sea

[11:33] level rise, the priority is

[11:38] identifying steps for

[11:39] implementation.

[11:40] planned bay area adopted on the

[11:41] same day as the joint platform

[11:43] in october is a multifaceted

[11:46] regional plan that addresses

[11:47] housing, transportation,

[11:48] economic, and environmental

[11:49] conditions. Adapting to sea

[11:51] level rise is 1 of 35 strategies

[11:53] in the plan.

[11:54] meanwhile the sf estuary

[11:56] partnership is including an

[11:58] update to the estuary blueprint

[12:00] a regional plan to achieve a

[12:01] healthy and resilience san

[12:04] francisco estuary through each

[12:05] planning processes staff at all

[12:08] agencies have worked closely to

[12:09] align all three efforts.

[12:15] planned bay area 2050 included

[12:17] environmental elements to

[12:18] address environmental priorities

[12:20] throughout the region adapting

[12:21] to sea level rise strategy

[12:23] included a range of adaptation

[12:26] actions across the region to

[12:28] address first two feet of

[12:31] permanent sea level rise part of

[12:33] the planning process assessment

[12:37] was developed. A $19 billion

[12:41] need to address a segment of

[12:44] shoreline, resulting in a

[12:48] $60 billion gap. Critically as

[12:50] part of the process we did not

[12:52] study sea level rise specific

[12:55] revenue measures to address the

[12:56] funding gap filling the gap will

[12:58] require a mix of funding state

[12:59] and federal opportunities that

[13:00] have emerged in the last six

[13:02] months have provided opportunity

[13:03] to spring board action

[13:06] resilience framework will

[13:07] account for these new revenues

[13:09] and will be used to support

[13:12] near-term action to compete for

[13:15] existing funding for framework.

[13:18] opportunity will explore pros

[13:19] and cons of funding sources that

[13:21] will be needed to support state

[13:23] and federal investment and

[13:24] increase competitive edge for

[13:28] state and federal funding. Next

[13:30] slide please. Bcdc completed

[13:33] funding analysis for funding and

[13:34] finance white paper summarizing

[13:36] sea level rise damage to the

[13:39] rest of the region comparison

[13:45] including information around sea

[13:47] level rise water ecosystem

[13:49] impact and policy changes.

[13:51] costs were compared with funding

[13:53] needs estimated by planned bay

[13:55] area 2050 as well as uc berkeley

[13:57] study compared with estimated

[13:59] regional funding supply based on

[14:02] jurisdictional financial data

[14:04] analysis resulted in estimated

[14:06] regional gap expressed per

[14:09] capita per household per parcel

[14:11] as percentage of gdp analysis by

[14:14] mtc and abag the white paper did

[14:17] not study measures to fill

[14:19] potential funding gaps. Next

[14:20] slide please.

[14:23] as we have previously referenced

[14:25] near-term funding opportunities

[14:27] have developed at state level

[14:29] 2021 budget act approved by

[14:30] state legislators identified

[14:33] $15 billion in funding

[14:36] throughout the next few years

[14:40] $3.86 billion identified for

[14:41] climate resilience a portion of

[14:44] funding revenue is likely to be

[14:45] distributed across the state to

[14:47] address a variety of hazards

[14:49] funding may be able to fund

[14:51] critical near-term sea level

[14:53] rise priorities such as shovel

[14:57] ready projects as well as

[15:00] regional planning adaptation

[15:01] planning in the bay area.

[15:02] however there is a substantial

[15:05] funding gap for sea level rise

[15:06] adaptation underscoring the need

[15:08] for to research additional

[15:09] revenue sources for sea level

[15:11] rise adaptation in the years

[15:13] ahead preparing for near-term

[15:15] state and funding opportunities

[15:17] improving advocacy for

[15:18] additional state and federal

[15:19] resources and inform longer term

[15:22] approach for local and regional

[15:25] action to augment state and

[15:30] federal funds. Actions needed

[15:33] to prepare for sea level rise

[15:35] identifying similar actions for

[15:37] regional funding plans to

[15:38] identify funding needs and

[15:40] establish funding approaches.

[15:44] in the platform 6.1 and 6.2 call

[15:48] to expand understanding of

[15:49] financial cost revenues

[15:51] associated with adaptation and

[15:53] establish framework for funding

[15:55] plans and projects. Adaptation

[15:59] to funding sea level rise in the

[16:01] next five years and blueprint

[16:03] currently includes option to

[16:05] develop sea level rise funding

[16:07] investment framework in the next

[16:08] five years. I'll hand it over

[16:10] to my colleague rachel

[16:13] hartofelis to address the

[16:15] framework.

[16:16] >>rachael hartofelis: thank

[16:17] you, nick. In september 2021

[16:18] the barc governing board

[16:20] approved the joint -- excuse me

[16:21] -- next slide --

[16:23] thank you.

[16:25] so in september the barc

[16:28] governing board approved the

[16:29] joint resolution to address

[16:31] climate change which included

[16:32] creation of a shared work plan.

[16:34] the shared work plan will

[16:36] advance strategic coordinated

[16:37] implementation of high priority

[16:39] actions identified in regional

[16:40] agency plans and platforms over

[16:42] the next 1 to 5 years.

[16:45] developing a sea level rise

[16:47] adaptation funding investment

[16:49] framework is an example of how

[16:51] high priority implementation

[16:53] actions identify in these

[16:55] adopted agency plans can be

[16:56] implemented and coordinated in a

[16:58] single shared approach. After

[17:00] presenting to this committee

[17:01] last july the concept of

[17:03] framework has been adjusted in

[17:05] its scope sea level rise

[17:07] adaptation funding and

[17:10] investment framework will be

[17:11] colead by mtc and bcdc for work

[17:15] to become a resource for local

[17:16] governments and advocates

[17:18] pursuing sea level rise funding

[17:20] throughout the region.

[17:21] framework presented to barc last

[17:22] month and we'll continue to

[17:24] share updates with the governing

[17:25] board as the project develops

[17:27] throughout 2022 for additional

[17:29] feedback and collaboration mtc

[17:31] and abag and bcdc will bring

[17:35] updates to staff as needed.

[17:37] next slide please.

[17:40] mtc abag and bcdc have

[17:43] collaboratively developed a

[17:45] concept of sea level rise and

[17:48] adaptation investment framework

[17:50] build off prior research and

[17:52] analysis to advance our regional

[17:53] understanding of what it will

[17:54] cost the region to adapt to sea

[17:56] level rise as well as to explore

[17:57] the most equitable means to

[17:59] raise new revenues to address

[18:01] the funding gap. As part of

[18:03] this work plan we started by

[18:05] identifying a number of goals

[18:06] for the framework and will

[18:07] discuss three overarching goals

[18:09] of the work for you today.

[18:11] first goal is to update and

[18:13] improve the regional accounting

[18:14] of sea level rise adaptation

[18:16] projects creating a version 2.0

[18:19] of the previous regional

[18:20] analysis done by mtc abag and

[18:23] bcdc. With a refined

[18:25] understanding of what it may

[18:26] cost the region to adapt to sea

[18:29] level rise we can better

[18:30] advocate for regional adaptation

[18:32] needs at state and federal level

[18:34] this research will also improve

[18:36] our region's estimates on the

[18:37] cost of adaptation across the

[18:39] region and it will refine how

[18:41] much revenue from existing sea

[18:43] level rise funding sources we

[18:44] can anticipate to do this we

[18:45] will engage closely with local

[18:47] governments and partners to

[18:49] understand the status of local

[18:50] adaptation plans strategies and

[18:51] projects to update prior

[18:53] regional analysis. Helping to

[18:55] identify areas with or without

[18:57] known plans for shoreline

[18:59] adaptation: this accounting

[19:01] will be used directly for the

[19:02] framework analysis and it will

[19:03] also be shared and maintained as

[19:05] a resource for local government

[19:07] planning.

[19:07] it will also be used to support

[19:09] future regional advocacy for new

[19:11] state and federal adaptation.

[19:15] next slide please.

[19:18] second goal explores how new

[19:20] local and regional revenues for

[19:23] sea level rise adaptation can be

[19:25] raised more equitably. The

[19:28] region has many priorities and

[19:29] existing revenue sources are

[19:31] unlikely to be able to support

[19:32] the region's shoreline

[19:35] adaptation needs near-term state

[19:37] and federal funding

[19:38] opportunities will help the

[19:39] region but we can't count on

[19:41] sacramento to pay for 100% of

[19:43] this weather raising funds to

[19:46] match federal and state dollars

[19:47] or raising additional revenues

[19:49] beyond what the state and

[19:50] federal government offer to help

[19:52] inform local and regional

[19:54] measures to augment adaptation

[19:57] funding in the near-term. Meant

[19:58] recent studies have identified

[20:00] potential tools for adaptation

[20:02] including by design and legacy

[20:05] funds even with previous

[20:07] analysis done by mtc and abag as

[20:10] mentioned previously there is

[20:11] not yet an applied analysis of

[20:13] potential new funding source for

[20:15] the bay area.

[20:17] the framework will fill this

[20:19] existing research gap to analyze

[20:21] a range of additional revenue

[20:23] measures at different scales to

[20:25] identify approaches to build the

[20:28] funding gap more equitably. The

[20:30] bay area shoreline is buried and

[20:32] the timing of flooding, the land

[20:33] use characteristic around the

[20:36] shoreline and location of

[20:37] communities and resources can

[20:38] all impact how we will raise new

[20:40] revenue. Staff will work with

[20:42] stakeholders to visualize the

[20:44] equity outcomes of different

[20:45] approaches before publically

[20:47] sharing results throughout the

[20:49] region this result in analysis

[20:50] will support future advocacy in

[20:54] support suggest new revenue

[20:56] local and regional revenue

[20:58] measures to support long-term

[21:01] shoreline adaptation. Next

[21:02] slide please.

[21:04] the final major project goal is

[21:07] to determine possible mechanisms

[21:09] to distribute new fund for

[21:10] adaptation. Plans review

[21:13] existing local and regional

[21:14] funding mechanisms that maybe

[21:16] applicable for sea level rise

[21:17] projects. We also want to

[21:19] identify opportunities for how

[21:20] new revenue measures can best be

[21:23] designed to fill anticipated

[21:24] funding gaps across the region

[21:26] for a diverse range of

[21:29] adaptation project needs.

[21:31] framework will build on the

[21:32] distribution of near-term state

[21:33] and federal funding measures as

[21:34] well as the preparation for the

[21:36] long-term by understanding

[21:38] funding mechanisms at the local

[21:40] or regional level.

[21:43] these recommendations will be

[21:45] reviewed by local and community

[21:46] stakeholders before publically

[21:48] sharing these results throughout

[21:50] the region. And as with the

[21:51] results of the second goal the

[21:53] outcome of this research may be

[21:54] used to inform future advocacy

[21:56] bringing revenues. Next slide

[21:58] please.

[22:01] we have identified a number of

[22:03] ways to move forward on this

[22:04] work in the coming months. We

[22:06] plan to kickoff the framework by

[22:08] setting sea level rise and data

[22:10] assumptions maintain a technical

[22:11] working group and by working

[22:13] with local partners to update

[22:15] our understanding of local

[22:16] adaptation projects. Staff will

[22:18] also continue to align this

[22:20] project with the barc shared

[22:22] work plan as it develops as well

[22:24] as other bay adapt joint

[22:26] platform actions. Updates on

[22:29] the framework will continue to

[22:30] be brought to mtc abag as well

[22:32] as to the barc governing board

[22:34] and bcdc throughout 2022. Next

[22:36] slide please.

[22:41] thank you. So, we are looking

[22:43] forward to the ways that the

[22:45] framework will help to prepare

[22:47] the region to tackle this

[22:48] climate crisis with new

[22:50] adaptation measures becoming

[22:52] available at the state and

[22:53] federal level this research will

[22:54] improve our competitiveness

[22:56] while identifying ways to

[22:57] augment near-term funding

[22:59] opportunities on the local and

[23:00] regional levels. So we would

[23:02] like to thank you for your time

[23:03] and attention today as we

[23:04] introduce this upcoming work and

[23:06] we'll open it up now for any

[23:08] potential questions or

[23:09] discussion.

[23:10] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[23:10] chair: okay. Thank you. Good

[23:12] report. Larry goldzband is with

[23:16] us. Larry, did you have any

[23:18] comments before I go to the

[23:20] commissioners or board members?

[23:24] >>larry goldzband: pardon me,

[23:25] as I put on my video. I think

[23:28] they did a great job. But what

[23:30] can you expect from two great

[23:33] staffers.

[23:33] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[23:34] chair: okay. Thank you, larry.

[23:36] one question is, are we making

[23:39] the case that, of what the cost

[23:42] will be if we do nothing? Is

[23:44] that case being made?

[23:46] rachel?

[23:49] >>rachael hartofelis: so, as a

[23:50] part of this analysis, we will

[23:52] be looking at the vulnerability

[23:54] of the region, and a big part of

[23:56] this work will be understanding

[23:58] where we have plans for the

[24:00] region and where there are not

[24:03] yet plans. So I think that will

[24:05] really help to illustrate how

[24:07] prepared the region may be for

[24:11] adaptation in the future. It's

[24:12] unclear if we'll be able to

[24:14] identify the cost of inaction,

[24:16] but we will identify a much more

[24:19] robust sense of regional need to

[24:22] understand what that deficit is,

[24:24] and what the funding gap is to

[24:27] adapt to the region for, you

[24:30] know, what we can expect in the

[24:32] future.

[24:32] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[24:33] chair: I just think it's

[24:34] important with the tremendous

[24:35] shortfalls we have, we're going

[24:37] to need public support. And the

[24:39] public needs to understand the

[24:41] importance of this. So I hope

[24:42] we don't overlook, you know,

[24:45] that public outreach, and really

[24:46] building the case for the

[24:48] funding supports to address this

[24:49] issue.

[24:51] gina, I see you have your hand

[24:53] up?

[24:54] >>gina papan: thank you,

[24:55] mr. Chair. And thank you,

[24:56] staff. Great report. I just

[24:58] want to make sure we're

[25:00] inclusive. Didn't

[25:01] jurisdictions, like, we have our

[25:03] own sea level rise group. So I

[25:06] want to make sure it's totally

[25:08] inclusive as we move forward

[25:10] here. And then additional

[25:12] partners, because, sadly, my

[25:14] city had a real tragic incident

[25:17] where two people drowned.

[25:20] sudden sea level rise. Pumps

[25:22] and everything were working.

[25:24] and part of our system is

[25:26] connected to sfo, and they need

[25:27] to clear out a canal. So I

[25:30] don't know if we're actually

[25:32] including those partners, but

[25:34] this -- these deaths are still a

[25:36] mystery, and we're investigating

[25:38] it all, but we need to include

[25:40] those partners, as well.

[25:42] thank you, mr. Chair.

[25:43] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[25:44] chair: okay. Thank you. Pat

[25:45] eklund. Pat? And then eddie.

[25:50] >>pat ecklund: actually, chair

[25:52] spering, eddie had his hand up

[25:55] before me. To be fair.

[25:56] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[25:58] chair: okay. Go ahead eddie.

[26:03] >>eddie ahn: I'll go quickly.

[26:05] I am interested in following

[26:06] this because I serve both

[26:08] commissions mtc and bcdc. I

[26:11] think for future presentations,

[26:12] too, it would be helpful to

[26:14] understand, probably a priority

[26:17] list of infrastructure we're

[26:18] going to shore up in

[26:20] anticipation of adapting to

[26:21] climate change. Especially if

[26:22] -- I did back of the napkin math

[26:25] right now but it looks like we

[26:27] have over 80% to go in terms of

[26:30] trying to fund-raise the entire

[26:33] amount of adapting to rising sea

[26:35] levels so with that in mind just

[26:37] knowing which piece of

[26:39] infrastructure is most important

[26:39] so that the bay area region

[26:41] functions I think would be good.

[26:44] and second small thing is just

[26:45] to hopefully include, in the

[26:47] future, san francisco

[26:49] stakeholders, such as our office

[26:51] of resilience and capital

[26:53] planning and make sure to follow

[26:54] up with staff to ensure that the

[26:57] right san francisco agencies are

[26:59] included. Thank you.

[26:59] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[27:00] chair: very good comments,

[27:02] eddie. Thank you.

[27:04] pat?

[27:06] >>pat ecklund: thank you very

[27:06] much, chair spering.

[27:08] first of all, I did want to say

[27:10] great presentation by the staff.

[27:12] and it's wonderful to see that

[27:14] the regional organizations are

[27:16] working together on an issue

[27:18] that affects all of us.

[27:24] I, too, serve on the bay

[27:26] conservation and development

[27:27] commission, which is truly an

[27:29] honor. I want to thank

[27:31] president arreguin, again, for

[27:33] selecting me to serve on that

[27:34] commission. After having worked

[27:36] for the u.s. Environmental

[27:40] protection agency for over 35

[27:42] years and the u.s. Army corp of

[27:45] engineers for eight, I have

[27:46] focused primarily my whole

[27:48] federal career on environmental

[27:51] issues related to san francisco

[27:53] bay and others.

[27:55] but at the december meeting of

[27:56] the bcdc commission, we did

[28:00] adopt the sea level rise

[28:05] adaptation progress gaps and

[28:07] needs. And as part that

[28:09] document that we adopted, they

[28:12] identified that there were 45%

[28:14] of the jurisdictions around san

[28:17] francisco bay that do not have

[28:18] an adaptation plan. The second

[28:20] thing is that in bridging the

[28:23] gap document that bcdc also

[28:29] adopted, it's clear -- it's on

[28:34] page 21, and I would encourage

[28:36] people to look at this -- on the

[28:38] cost estimates for dealing with

[28:40] sea level rise, they looked at

[28:42] two feet, 2.3 feet, and 6.6 feet

[28:48] and the different funding

[28:49] adaptation costs associated with

[28:51] that, and the three agencies, I

[28:55] believe, picked the two feet,

[28:57] which includes a seven feet of

[29:00] sea level rise, plus two feet of

[29:03] free board and extra head room.

[29:06] but, what is not included in

[29:08] here, in these costs, is

[29:11] environmental mitigation, land

[29:13] acquisition, utility relocation,

[29:17] and maintenance cost. And those

[29:19] costs, a lot are -- a lot --

[29:25] local governments are very

[29:26] involved in, like, utilities,

[29:29] like sanitary sewers, or

[29:35] environmental mitigation, local

[29:37] governments are very involved in

[29:39] that. So I really think that

[29:40] any funding request that we

[29:42] make, we need to add some

[29:46] funding for local governments to

[29:48] be able to fine-tune, or to

[29:55] develop their adaptation plans.

[29:57] because local governments have

[29:58] to be involved every step of the

[30:01] way. And we have not really had

[30:03] an active engagement with the

[30:06] regulatory agencies.

[30:08] and I think bcdc has emphasized

[30:13] at least in the two meetings

[30:15] that I have attended, since I

[30:17] was appointed, the need to

[30:19] really reach out to local

[30:21] governments. The marin county

[30:24] mayors and council members, we

[30:25] have a climate change

[30:26] subcommittee composed of a

[30:29] representative -- elected

[30:30] representative -- of each of the

[30:33] cities and we are going to be

[30:36] bringing bcdc mayors and council

[30:46] members conference in july so

[30:48] they will be talking to all

[30:50] elected official in marin county

[30:51] in february about this issue. I

[30:54] really think that mtc and bcdc

[30:57] and san francisco bay

[30:59] restoration authority really

[31:00] need to advocate for, number

[31:01] one, funding for cities and

[31:03] counties to do an adaptation

[31:06] plan, and to identify their

[31:09] financial needs, and to

[31:13] identify, specifically, what

[31:18] should be funded to help bridge

[31:21] the gap so that we can make sure

[31:25] that estimates that we're using,

[31:31] which is 19 billion, which is a

[31:33] minimum, that it also include

[31:35] what local governments need to

[31:37] do their fair share of it.

[31:39] so, anyways, so I agree that the

[31:42] state needs to fund this. Local

[31:44] governments, in my opinion,

[31:46] cannot.

[31:48] we're having a tough time just

[31:50] doing what we need to do. And

[31:52] especially for those local

[31:54] governments who are poor

[31:55] property tax cities, like the

[31:58] city of novato, where we only

[32:00] get $0.07 on the dollar, most

[32:04] cities get 23 to $0.26 on the

[32:08] dollar. So, anyway, comments

[32:09] from marin, and the north bay, I

[32:12] think that we really need to

[32:14] make a concerted effort to

[32:16] include some cost estimates for

[32:20] cities when we go to the state

[32:23] legislature or other funding

[32:26] opportunities.

[32:27] so, thank you.

[32:27] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[32:28] chair: thank you, pat.

[32:31] I don't see any other committee

[32:33] members hands up.

[32:35] and, so, is there any public

[32:39] comments?

[32:42] >>clerk of the board: yes.

[32:42] there was no written

[32:44] correspondence received on this

[32:45] item, and there is one member of

[32:47] the public with their hand

[32:48] raised.

[32:51] rich.

[32:52] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[32:53] chair: okay.

[32:54] >>clerk of the board: rich, go

[32:55] ahead and unmute yourself.

[32:57] >>richard hedges: thank you

[32:58] chair spering.

[32:59] I want to raise a couple of

[33:01] issues. First I want to

[33:02] acknowledge that I agree with

[33:06] commissioner papan. But I want

[33:08] to add some things. We need to

[33:13] really look at private public

[33:16] project partnerships coordinated

[33:18] throughout bay area just a few

[33:20] in the county where I live in,

[33:21] we have meta with gilead,

[33:30] alumina, which is a company that

[33:32] just built five story buildings

[33:35] right next to the bay visa's

[33:39] world headquarters, and sony

[33:40] playstation most of these are

[33:42] within a 1 to 10 block walk from

[33:45] my housing they really do share

[33:47] these problems and should help

[33:49] fund them. I could go on,

[33:51] throughout the county with roach

[33:53] in san francisco and many other

[33:55] companies within that area with

[33:58] biotech. So I just look forward

[34:00] to us including that section. I

[34:03] think they have been included in

[34:05] our county plan. I am sure that

[34:07] commissioner papan could better

[34:11] inform than I can. But let's go

[34:13] forward looking at sources of

[34:15] people that have the same thing

[34:16] to lose as our residents, who

[34:18] are paying the taxes. Thank

[34:20] you.

[34:21] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[34:22] chair: okay. Thank you.

[34:24] carlos, did you have your hand

[34:26] up? Did you want to speak?

[34:29] >>carlos romero: I do. Thank

[34:31] you, chair.

[34:32] I, too, am in particular in

[34:36] support of the fact that we're

[34:38] trying to address sea level rise

[34:39] and the other environmental

[34:41] issues that we are incurring

[34:44] based on our rise in fossil fuel

[34:49] consumption. And, again, coming

[34:51] from a county where we do have a

[34:53] local agency recently formed to

[34:55] work on this, as well as coming

[34:57] from a city, that because there

[35:00] has not been a lot of other

[35:02] federal state money, have

[35:04] actually, in a very relatively

[35:06] poor city, have approximately

[35:09] poured in $10 million of our own

[35:11] general fund money to begin to

[35:13] advance to address the issue of

[35:16] flooding by sea level rise. We

[35:21] all need to look at existing

[35:23] efforts around the bay area and

[35:24] I think commissioner papan

[35:26] mentioned that. But I also

[35:27] think it's extremely important

[35:29] for all of us to collaborate

[35:31] collectively. We are a regional

[35:33] body, probably the

[35:35] prioritization of projects,

[35:37] which commissioner ahn talked

[35:38] about will be a critical

[35:40] discussion for all of us to

[35:41] have, within the context. I

[35:43] know the presenters used the

[35:45] term equity several times, and

[35:48] to the extent that that can

[35:52] actually be more fully fleshed

[35:54] out what is meant by equity, as

[35:58] everybody gets their

[36:00] proportional fair share, or

[36:03] examples of other places where

[36:05] we have low-income folks that

[36:07] will be impacted and will not

[36:08] have the capacity to do their

[36:09] own lifting of homes or

[36:12] whatever, that we would look at

[36:13] an equity definition that not

[36:16] just addresses a fair

[36:19] apportionment based on

[36:21] population but also on impact

[36:23] and addressing, perhaps, past

[36:26] neglect of some of those coastal

[36:30] or, you know, bay fronting

[36:34] communities that are more

[36:36] low-income. Again, thank you

[36:37] for the great work. And I hope

[36:38] we can have those considerations

[36:40] discussed in the future.

[36:41] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[36:42] chair: thank you, carlos.

[36:43] amy, did you want to comment?

[36:45] >>amy r. Worth: thank you

[36:46] mr. Chair. I apologize I tried

[36:48] to get my hand up earlier, but I

[36:50] wasn't fast enough. I just want

[36:52] to share the comments that have

[36:54] been made about the importance

[36:55] of this effort and the

[36:56] importance of collaboration.

[36:58] and I know a number of you may

[36:59] know that this has been in a

[37:02] number of forefront bay area

[37:05] regional collaboration work it

[37:08] involves all of the regions,

[37:11] agencies, plus the two relevant

[37:13] state agencies, tri-state

[37:17] agencies caltrans coastal

[37:19] conservancy and water quality

[37:22] control board the goal and

[37:25] development, bcdc has been doing

[37:29] the heavy lifting in the

[37:31] developing of the plan, and

[37:32] second, advocacy for the efforts

[37:34] of funding for these plans this

[37:37] is going to take state and

[37:39] federal dollars to supplement

[37:41] local government and we need to

[37:44] look to the corporations, land

[37:47] owners, to help support this.

[37:48] and I want to thank bcdc for

[37:51] going around to all the mayor's

[37:53] conferences. In our

[37:54] conversations in the past around

[37:56] the plan and building regional

[37:58] awareness of it that was one of

[37:59] the priorities that we all had

[38:01] identified together and I know

[38:02] that our county was really

[38:04] grateful, our mayors and council

[38:06] members were really grateful to

[38:07] have the opportunity to hear,

[38:09] you know, directly about the

[38:12] plan, and recognizing that

[38:14] these, you know, those -- bay

[38:17] rise, is, you know, we're unique

[38:19] in california, because of the

[38:21] tremendous resource of the bay

[38:23] and the fact that all of our

[38:25] counties are impacted and cities

[38:27] are. So, thank you very, very

[38:30] much, and we'll continue to

[38:32] discuss this at barc and to

[38:34] ensure that all of our agencies

[38:36] are continually working

[38:38] together. And I really also

[38:40] want to thank the executive

[38:42] directors of all the regional

[38:43] agencies. Because from that

[38:45] executive perspective, this has

[38:46] been a real priority in terms of

[38:48] coming together and identifying

[38:49] how we can all work together and

[38:51] be one voice when we advocate

[38:53] and go to sacramento for these

[38:56] funds and also to the federal

[38:58] advocacy. So, thank you.

[39:00] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[39:01] chair: okay. Thank you.

[39:02] seeing no other hands. Rachel

[39:04] and nicholas, thank you for the

[39:05] presentation. I want to thank

[39:07] all the bcdc staff. I see

[39:09] there's a bunch of you on here,

[39:11] for all your good work, and

[39:13] thank you, larry, for jumping in

[39:16] on this meeting. Thank you

[39:18] everyone for this presentation.

[39:20] >>larry goldzband: thank you.

[39:20] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[39:21] chair: let's move on to

[39:21] something that's a little less

[39:24] controversial than sea level

[39:25] rise. This is going to our

[39:27] transit oriented communities. I

[39:30] believe, therese, you're going

[39:31] to give an introduction and kick

[39:33] this off, and after therese

[39:35] we're going to turn it over to

[39:37] staff. They're going to do the

[39:39] presentation, and committee

[39:39] members I would like to get your

[39:41] comments then move into public

[39:43] comments and either other

[39:44] members of mtc or abag want that

[39:48] to comment. With that, therese.

[39:50] give us the introduction.

[39:52] >>therese mcmillan: okay.

[39:54] thanks so much chair spering.

[39:56] and I appreciate having a couple

[39:57] of minutes to set some context

[39:59] for this item, which, upon

[40:01] review did not leap off of the

[40:05] page of the page they sent to

[40:11] you. And it's really important

[40:14] to framing this discussion they

[40:16] would like to have with

[40:17] commissioners and executive

[40:19] director items. At the end of

[40:22] 2021 the commission and

[40:24] executive board took action on

[40:27] two extraordinary efforts,

[40:29] planned bay area 2050 and rhna

[40:31] cycle six and both efforts

[40:32] stretched the region beyond any

[40:34] previous planning mandates we

[40:36] had. It resulted in 35

[40:39] ambitious strategies in

[40:40] transportation, housing, the

[40:41] economy, and the environment

[40:43] under planned bay area 2050 that

[40:45] had to, among other things, meet

[40:48] an exceedingly tough ghg

[40:51] reduction target.

[40:53] and with rhna, we had to assign

[40:55] regional targets that had never

[40:57] been higher, reflecting the

[41:04] undisputed housing crisis across

[41:07] california and in parallel we

[41:09] wanted to develop tools to help

[41:10] our jurisdictions plan for those

[41:12] targets. In addition, mtc and

[41:14] abag, last year, assumed the new

[41:17] authorities and responsibilities

[41:18] under the legislative mantle of

[41:20] the bay area housing financing

[41:22] authority to lead advances in

[41:25] housing production, preservation

[41:27] and protection for those that

[41:32] seek to live in this region in

[41:34] affordable places benefitting

[41:37] inclusive communities that

[41:38] should be -- that everyone

[41:39] should be able to call home.

[41:41] and, you, as our board members,

[41:45] stepped forward to adopt and

[41:47] embrace planned bay area 2050,

[41:50] rhna six, and the bahfa

[41:53] directives. But in doing so, I

[41:54] think we all collectively new

[41:57] that carrying out these

[41:59] objectives was going to be

[42:01] really hard.

[42:03] and would require finding

[42:06] intersections with many

[42:07] different policies to achieve

[42:09] those objectives.

[42:11] the proposed -- bold --

[42:16] underlined -- proposed toc

[42:19] policy that we have before you

[42:21] today is a critical opportunity

[42:22] to find those reinforcing

[42:25] intersections, and staff took an

[42:28] admittedly bold move up from the

[42:30] current toc policy in framing

[42:32] the draft that we put before

[42:34] you.

[42:35] now, this is not the only

[42:37] intersection where planned bay

[42:38] area 2050, rhna, and bahfa goals

[42:41] need to meet, but it is a timely

[42:44] one that staff will explain in

[42:46] our presentation.

[42:48] that said, as the toc policy

[42:53] parameters emerge, there are

[42:55] essential considerations to

[42:57] ensure that they can be carried

[42:59] out successfully.

[43:01] a few to keep in mind at the

[43:04] outset: this policy will not be

[43:08] done tomorrow, nor in a very

[43:11] short time frame. Much like the

[43:15] existing toc policy, it is

[43:18] expected to guide multiple years

[43:19] of transportation and land use

[43:21] coordination and necessarily

[43:23] needs to be implemented in

[43:24] stages.

[43:25] it needs, also, to be able to

[43:27] overlay and adapt to legislative

[43:30] requirements that may come in

[43:33] current or future legislation,

[43:36] both in transportation and

[43:37] housing that may impact the

[43:39] boundaries of the policy as its

[43:42] ultimately framed. It does not

[43:45] assume that all existing

[43:46] planning efforts, especially

[43:48] those under our pda program are

[43:52] stripped down to the studs, to

[43:55] use a housing analogy. We need

[44:01] a thoughtful transition plan to

[44:03] help guide today to where we're

[44:07] going to go with a new key

[44:09] policy structure that's going to

[44:11] go to an essential element of

[44:13] implementation consideration.

[44:14] and finally, and certainly not

[44:16] the least, flexibility is key.

[44:18] and staff seeks to build factors

[44:20] into the new policy that allows

[44:22] for the successful application

[44:24] of indifferent environs

[44:32] throughout this region. With

[44:34] that important context, I would

[44:35] like to turn it over to matt

[44:39] maloney to begin the

[44:40] presentation. Thank you.

[44:40] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[44:42] chair: thank you. Matt?

[44:44] >>matt maloney: thanks therese.

[44:46] I don't have a whole lot in to

[44:48] add. Therese covered it well.

[44:52] planned bay area 2050 forecasted

[44:55] 82% of all future household

[44:57] growth. And 63% of all future

[45:02] job growth really in this these

[45:06] rich areas. Many of which are

[45:08] also priority development areas.

[45:09] and as therese mentioned that's

[45:11] really the focal point and

[45:13] driving force of how we tamp

[45:14] down on rising vehicle miles

[45:16] traveled and also reduce ghg.

[45:18] and so these areas, transit-rich

[45:21] areas, is really the focus of

[45:22] this presentation today. And I

[45:23] just want to kind of underscore

[45:25] that it's those areas that we're

[45:28] focused on. You know, it is

[45:31] bold, as therese mentioned, and,

[45:34] you know, we have come a long

[45:36] ways since 2005, which is the

[45:39] last time we did this strategy.

[45:41] we have a broader application

[45:43] here looking at both existing

[45:45] corridors, as well as new

[45:46] corridors, and, but therese

[45:49] mentioned also the flexibility

[45:50] as well that's inherent in the

[45:52] policy looking at not just

[45:54] residential but also commercial

[45:56] and job growth, as well.

[45:58] you know, and as well as the

[46:00] three ps of housing, which you

[46:02] will notice are, also, kind of

[46:06] interwoven into this policy

[46:07] update today. And that's just

[46:09] really to ensure that when we

[46:10] make major changes or plan for

[46:12] major changes in these station

[46:14] areas, that we ensure that these

[46:16] are places for people of all

[46:19] income levels.

[46:20] so, you know, totally agree with

[46:22] the phase-in period. Really

[46:24] want to take your temperature on

[46:26] the policy itself today, and

[46:27] then really return and get

[46:29] commission direction on kind of

[46:30] how it gets phased in and

[46:32] really, just the timing for all

[46:34] of that.

[46:35] today, on the staffing, we have

[46:39] got kara vuicich. Project

[46:42] manager on the study who will

[46:44] give the presentation, theresa

[46:46] is also here who is our director

[46:48] of mobility. I will pass it to

[46:52] kara to get the ball rolling.

[46:56] >>kara vuicich: thank you. If

[46:57] we could bring up the

[46:59] presentation. Good morning.

[46:59] it's still morning, committee

[47:01] members. And, as matt said,

[47:04] this is an information item that

[47:06] provides an overview of the very

[47:07] initial draft proposal for a

[47:11] transit oriented communities

[47:13] policy, the approach and

[47:15] requirements. And this would

[47:17] replace the 2005 resolution 3434

[47:20] transit oriented development

[47:22] policy.

[47:23] and a quick note on the name

[47:25] change, or the proposed name

[47:27] changer. So in order to

[47:29] emphasize the importance of

[47:31] broader transit oriented

[47:32] communities versus individual

[47:34] development projects at transit

[47:36] stations and along transit

[47:38] corridors the proposal changes

[47:40] the policies name from transit

[47:42] oriented development or tod to

[47:45] transit oriented communities or

[47:47] toc. Last we presented to the

[47:50] committee in spring of 2020 so

[47:52] it's been little while and

[47:57] provided you a summary timeline

[47:59] and process for stakeholder

[48:01] engagement. Since that time we

[48:02] have convened a technical

[48:05] advisory committee that includes

[48:07] representatives from transit

[48:08] agencies, local jurisdictions,

[48:10] county transportation agencies,

[48:11] as well as from other

[48:12] transportation and housing

[48:13] organizations.

[48:14] the toc has already provide

[48:19] feedback on elements of the

[48:22] draft policy proposal and I have

[48:24] included some of that in the

[48:25] presentation today. And we'll

[48:26] be continuing to work with the

[48:29] toc members as well as

[48:32] stakeholders as we move forward

[48:35] with further refining and

[48:37] revising the draft that we're

[48:38] going to present. Next slide

[48:40] please.

[48:47] as you know planned bay area

[48:49] 2050 was adopted a few months

[48:52] ago it provides the basis for

[48:53] the trance atlantic policy draft

[48:57] policy proposal addresses

[48:59] multiple strategies from all

[49:01] elements of the plan including

[49:03] transportation housing economic

[49:04] and environmental strategies for

[49:05] key focus of the policy

[49:08] implementing the plan strategies

[49:10] that will increase the number of

[49:11] households and jobs near the

[49:13] region's rail, ferry and

[49:15] frequent bus stops in stations

[49:17] implementation of these

[49:18] strategies is projected to

[49:19] result in an additional

[49:21] 1.1 million households and about

[49:24] 900,000 jobs located in these

[49:26] areas by 2050 and is a key

[49:28] component of meeting the plan's

[49:30] greenhouse gas reduction

[49:31] targets. Next slide please.

[49:33] so like the original transit

[49:36] oriented development policy the

[49:37] proposed transit oriented

[49:39] communities policy focuses on

[49:40] areas where transit investments

[49:42] in high quality transit, namely

[49:44] this is rail, ferry, and

[49:46] frequent bus services or plans

[49:48] and it ties implementation of

[49:51] various strategies particularly

[49:52] focused on increasing

[49:54] residential commercial densities

[49:55] in transit-rich areas to

[49:57] implementation of bay area

[49:59] transit investments four

[50:01] proposed toc policy goals on the

[50:05] left side first increase density

[50:08] for new residential development

[50:09] and prioritize affordable

[50:10] housing in transit-rich areas

[50:12] which are locations within one

[50:14] half mile of transit stops or

[50:16] stations that provide ferry rail

[50:19] or frequent bus service second

[50:22] increase densities for

[50:30] commercial development hubs

[50:32] serving multiple transit

[50:33] provides 30 gold complements

[50:36] first two goals which seek to

[50:38] locate more housing in

[50:40] transit-rich areas typically

[50:43] with then minute walks and

[50:45] finally goals for continuing

[50:47] regional support facilitation

[50:49] partnerships and implement toc

[50:51] policies to create equitable

[50:52] transit oriented communities

[50:55] within our region next provide

[50:57] be detail on proposed toc policy

[51:00] applications to areas where

[51:02] investments in rail, ferry and

[51:04] frequent bus transit are

[51:05] planned. Next slide. Again

[51:06] we're propose that the policy

[51:08] apply to priority development

[51:09] areas or transit-rich areas

[51:12] where planned bay area

[51:14] investments and rail fore and

[51:16] frequent bus service are

[51:17] planned. This would include

[51:19] transit-rich priority

[51:20] development areas as well as

[51:22] existing or future transit-rich

[51:24] areas where a pda has not yet

[51:27] been designated what this means

[51:28] or what this would potentially

[51:30] look like is that transit-rich

[51:31] pdas that do not currently

[51:34] comply with the toc policy

[51:36] requirements may need to update

[51:37] or adopt plans or ordinances in

[51:39] order to comply. Those that

[51:41] already comply would not need to

[51:43] take any further action for

[51:45] locations where a transit-rich

[51:47] pda has not been designated a

[51:49] local jurisdiction would still

[51:51] need to comply with the toc

[51:53] policy requirements. Mtc would

[51:55] strongly encourage that a pda be

[51:59] designated in those locations

[52:00] but a decision of pda would not

[52:03] be required in order to comply

[52:04] with a toc policy. I want to

[52:07] emphasize that we anticipate

[52:09] implementation of the toc policy

[52:10] in these areas would happen over

[52:13] multiple years and again would

[52:14] be coordinated with planned

[52:16] transit investments. Next slide

[52:17] please.

[52:20] so as discussed on the previous

[52:22] slide, the toc policy, again,

[52:26] would apply to location where is

[52:27] we're making investment in rail,

[52:29] ferry and frequent bus service

[52:32] includes areas where new

[52:33] stations would be created as a

[52:35] result of expansion or extension

[52:36] projects as well as existing

[52:38] stops and stations where major

[52:40] improvements or enhancements to

[52:42] existing transit service plans.

[52:46] new stations along transit

[52:48] expansions or extensions

[52:49] proposed policy would require

[52:50] all policy requirements be met

[52:52] by local jurisdictions before

[52:54] discretionary funds are

[52:55] programmed for construction of

[52:56] the transit project or before

[52:58] mtc would provide endorsement

[53:00] for project funding similar to

[53:02] the approach from the original

[53:04] 2005tod policy and seeks to

[53:07] support planning and zoning are

[53:09] in place before transit

[53:11] expansion or extension becomes

[53:12] operational for transit

[53:14] enhancement or improvement

[53:16] projects where transit are

[53:18] already operating transit

[53:20] project funding would not be

[53:21] tied to policy compliance

[53:23] instead focus would be on

[53:24] providing planning and technical

[53:26] assistance initially as part of

[53:28] obag 3 and reap 2.0 to assist

[53:30] with compliance in coordination

[53:31] with near-term transit

[53:33] enhancements and improvement

[53:35] projects that said staff is

[53:37] proposing that a

[53:38] jurisdictional's eligibility for

[53:40] future cycles obag four even

[53:44] later cycles would be contingent

[53:46] upon toc policy compliance we

[53:48] anticipate toc policy

[53:50] implementation will be phased

[53:51] over multiple years in

[53:54] coordination with transit

[53:55] improvements. Next several

[53:56] slides discuss key differences

[53:58] between 2005toc policy and draft

[54:02] toc policy proposal. Next slide

[54:06] please. Thank you. In short

[54:08] the proposed toc policy would

[54:10] apply much more broadly than the

[54:14] 2005tod policy. The 2005tod

[54:18] policy only applied to specific

[54:20] named transit expansion projects

[54:22] that were included in mtc

[54:24] resolution 3434. Requiring a

[54:26] minimum number of housing units

[54:28] either be zoned or built within

[54:30] a half mile of new stations

[54:33] along the transit corridor in

[54:35] contrast the communities policy

[54:37] would apply to all stops and

[54:39] stations affected by planned bay

[54:41] area investments in rail, ferry

[54:43] and frequent bus service

[54:45] including extensions or

[54:46] expansions as well as stations

[54:47] or stops affected by major

[54:49] transit improvements

[54:55] enhancements. Next slide

[54:56] please. I'm going to present

[54:57] the proposed toc policy

[54:59] requirement in more detail later

[55:01] in the presentation but this

[55:03] slide provides an overview and

[55:07] comparison between requirements

[55:09] from the transit orient the

[55:11] development policy and toc

[55:12] policy. The 2005tod policy set

[55:16] minimum thresholds for existing

[55:18] housing units along certain

[55:20] transit expansion corridors

[55:22] based on type of service

[55:24] provided affordable housing

[55:25] units were given extra weight in

[55:28] terms of meeting thresholds toc

[55:31] policy requirements build from

[55:33] complemented priority

[55:34] development areas guidelines

[55:36] focusing on key elements from

[55:38] the guidelines that will be

[55:39] required to implement planned

[55:41] bay area consequently proposed

[55:42] toc policy requirements address

[55:45] residential commercial density

[55:46] around transit stops and

[55:47] stations affordable housing in

[55:49] know anti-displacement policies

[55:51] parking management station

[55:52] access and circulation including

[55:55] connectivity to adjacent equity

[55:58] priority communities that remain

[56:01] outside the half mile station

[56:03] area. Next slide please. Like

[56:05] the 2005tod policy the proposed

[56:09] toc policy would condition

[56:11] discretionary project funding as

[56:13] well as funding endorsements for

[56:15] transit expansions and

[56:17] enhancements on whether a

[56:19] jurisdiction has met policy

[56:20] requirements key difference is

[56:22] proposed toc policy would also

[56:24] apply to areas around existing

[56:26] stations where major transit

[56:29] enhancements improvements are

[56:31] planned local jurisdictions

[56:33] eligibility future regional

[56:34] discretionary transportation you

[56:35] funds you such as future cycles

[56:36] and later conditioned on

[56:39] compliance with policy

[56:41] requirement difference between

[56:45] the 2005 policy and toc policy

[56:48] and further detail proposed

[56:52] requirements. The toc policy

[56:55] requirements not only address

[56:57] residential density around

[56:58] transit stops and stations but

[57:00] also commercial density for

[57:01] office space requiring minimum

[57:04] residential and commercial

[57:06] densities for development in

[57:07] transit-rich or pda or major

[57:10] transit investments where pdas

[57:12] are planned table shown on based

[57:16] minimum densities at which new

[57:19] development would need to be

[57:20] built in order to implement the

[57:23] plan. Based on transit service

[57:25] that would be available with

[57:27] highest densities required at

[57:29] regional rail hubs served by

[57:31] multiple bart lines bart and

[57:33] caltrain I want to note this

[57:34] requirement is not seeking to

[57:35] specify one land use versus

[57:37] another in a station area rather

[57:40] to ensure average density of any

[57:42] new residential or commercial

[57:43] development is built at or above

[57:46] specified minimums. Existing

[57:49] plans we took an initial look at

[57:51] some existing plans and our

[57:55] review indicates that the

[57:57] proposed density ranges are

[57:59] feasible however there can be

[58:00] significant variation in both

[58:02] land use types and intensities

[58:05] within stations within a

[58:08] surrounding area transit stop or

[58:11] station we're continuing to work

[58:12] with stakeholders including

[58:14] local jurisdictions and planning

[58:16] staff to further refine the

[58:18] proposed requirement to provide

[58:20] official specificity as well as

[58:23] flexibility in order to

[58:24] accommodate diversity throughout

[58:26] the region as well as

[58:27] significant land use within a

[58:31] situation station area next

[58:33] slide shows commercial projects

[58:35] from around the bay area that

[58:38] indicate the range of density.

[58:40] next slide. These are the

[58:42] minimum densities proposed for

[58:44] regional rail hubs the

[58:46] residential projects that you

[58:47] see on your right are from

[58:50] downtown oakland and the

[58:51] commercial projects on the left

[58:53] -- sorry -- residential projects

[58:55] on the left, commercial projects

[58:57] on the right, are from downtown

[58:59] oakland and downtown san

[59:00] francisco.

[59:01] next slide, please.

[59:04] so for tier two this would

[59:07] include regional rail such as

[59:09] bart and caltrain light rail

[59:11] transit bus rapid transit and

[59:13] what you see are a project from

[59:18] san jose near downtown. On the

[59:20] residential side. And then

[59:22] another project from downtown --

[59:26] the downtown south san francisco

[59:28] pda. The commercial projects on

[59:31] the right of the slide are from

[59:33] the eastern neighborhoods pda in

[59:36] san francisco and from the el

[59:39] camino real pda in burlingame.

[59:42] next slide please. Lastly, for

[59:44] our examples, the residential

[59:48] examples are from the greater

[59:51] downtown pda in san jose for the

[59:54] example on the top and then from

[59:58] the pda in fremont on the bottom

[1:00:04] level and then on the right we

[1:00:07] have a project from san mateo

[1:00:09] from their rail corridor pda,

[1:00:13] and then on the bottom, from the

[1:00:16] downtown redwood city pda. Next

[1:00:18] slide please.

[1:00:21] so this -- the proposed

[1:00:24] requirements for affordable

[1:00:25] housing and anti-displacement

[1:00:28] focus on production,

[1:00:30] preservation and protection of

[1:00:31] affordable housing in

[1:00:32] transit-rich areas.

[1:00:34] this requirement supports

[1:00:35] several planned bay area housing

[1:00:36] strategies which are listed on

[1:00:38] the right side of the slide, as

[1:00:39] well as implementation of the

[1:00:41] regional housing needs

[1:00:42] allocation. Given the range of

[1:00:45] land use and housing market

[1:00:47] context throughout the region

[1:00:50] proposal for this requirement

[1:00:51] takes a menu approach. There is

[1:00:54] a list of policies and what's

[1:00:56] being proposed is that a

[1:00:58] jurisdiction would adopt two out

[1:01:00] of three or two out of four.

[1:01:04] from the stakeholders we have

[1:01:07] adopted it should be in some

[1:01:11] cases less constrained in terms

[1:01:13] of optional and should further

[1:01:17] guidance specification on what

[1:01:21] housing policies should address

[1:01:23] requirement that is meaningful

[1:01:25] in terms of planned bay area

[1:01:26] implementation providing

[1:01:27] flexibility needed to address

[1:01:30] housing market context in the

[1:01:32] region and working with

[1:01:35] stakeholders as well as housing

[1:01:38] and local program staff to

[1:01:39] address comments and questions

[1:01:41] received to ensure consistency

[1:01:42] regarding regional guidelines on

[1:01:44] housing policies. This provides

[1:01:46] a high-level summary of proposed

[1:01:49] policy on parking requirements

[1:01:53] parking management requirements

[1:01:54] detailed in the attachment.

[1:01:59] addressed by bart's zoning

[1:02:02] guidance as well as park policy

[1:02:05] playbook there is a solid body

[1:02:07] of research at this time on the

[1:02:09] critical role effective parking

[1:02:11] management plays on reducing

[1:02:18] automobile trips and parking,

[1:02:20] right size parking enables high

[1:02:23] density and development near

[1:02:24] transit and reduce per unit

[1:02:27] development cost our technical

[1:02:30] advisory committee members

[1:02:31] supported elimination of minimum

[1:02:33] parking requirements in

[1:02:35] transit-rich areas and there is

[1:02:39] debate about potentially having

[1:02:41] parking maximums with proposed

[1:02:43] areas for regional rail service

[1:02:45] such as bart, caltrain and light

[1:02:49] rail and rapid transit I not

[1:02:54] including parking maximum for

[1:02:57] areas that are only served by

[1:02:59] ferry, commuter rail or frequent

[1:03:01] bus service. We're working with

[1:03:02] our stakeholders including local

[1:03:02] jurisdiction planning staff on

[1:03:06] further refining this

[1:03:06] requirement with regard to

[1:03:07] parking maximum providing

[1:03:09] further specificity regarding

[1:03:12] what requirements transportation

[1:03:15] demand management measures might

[1:03:17] be. Focused on the half mile

[1:03:20] area around transit stops and

[1:03:22] stations requirements for

[1:03:23] transit station access

[1:03:25] circulation also address

[1:03:27] improvements that would enable

[1:03:29] people outside the area

[1:03:33] including buses shuttles and

[1:03:37] active transportation. First

[1:03:38] two components in the outline

[1:03:42] include complete streets update

[1:03:44] as well as regional investment

[1:03:46] mobility hubs third bullet

[1:03:49] requires completion of specific

[1:03:53] gap analysis several recent

[1:03:55] station areas have included this

[1:03:57] analysis and it's been effective

[1:03:58] in identifying projects that

[1:04:00] improve multi-modal transit

[1:04:02] access. Requirements working to

[1:04:06] address comments and feedback.

[1:04:08] and we very much look forward to

[1:04:11] feedback from committee members

[1:04:12] today including how

[1:04:14] jurisdictions should address

[1:04:16] equity priority communities

[1:04:18] located farther than a half mile

[1:04:21] from transit stops and stations.

[1:04:23] next slide please. I want to

[1:04:26] conclude this portion of the

[1:04:27] presentation talking about how

[1:04:28] local jurisdictions will comply

[1:04:30] with the proposed toc policy

[1:04:32] requirements that I have

[1:04:33] outlined. We anticipate that.

[1:04:34] oc policy implementation will be

[1:04:36] phased over multiple years in

[1:04:38] coordination with transit

[1:04:39] improvements and that it will

[1:04:40] take time and financial support

[1:04:41] to assist jurisdictions with toc

[1:04:43] policy compliance in some cases

[1:04:46] already adopted plans or zoning

[1:04:48] may need to be amended to comply

[1:04:50] with the policy but it's

[1:04:51] important to note that even an

[1:04:52] amendment to an existing plan

[1:04:53] can take several years to

[1:04:55] complete if adopted one of the

[1:04:58] first implementation steps will

[1:04:59] toll address compliance

[1:05:03] locations for major transit

[1:05:04] improvements planned in the

[1:05:05] near-term enabling us to

[1:05:07] identify prioritization

[1:05:09] resources that will be needed to

[1:05:11] support policy implementation

[1:05:12] and coordination implementation

[1:05:16] for transit investment. Focus

[1:05:19] of today's presentation has been

[1:05:20] to provide you with a general

[1:05:23] overview of draft proposal for

[1:05:24] the toc approach and policy

[1:05:27] requirements and get your

[1:05:28] feedback on overall direction

[1:05:30] for policy development. There

[1:05:31] is still a lot of work to be

[1:05:33] done as we move forward with

[1:05:35] developing the draft final

[1:05:37] policy there are several key

[1:05:38] issues that we want to in

[1:05:39] particular bring to your

[1:05:40] attention as I mentioned earlier

[1:05:41] the toc policy would not only

[1:05:44] apply to transit expansions but

[1:05:45] to major transit improvements as

[1:05:47] well which is a significant

[1:05:48] change from the 2005tod policy

[1:05:51] and while the focus is on

[1:05:52] providing planning and technical

[1:05:55] assistance to jurisdictions to

[1:05:56] assist with policy compliance

[1:05:58] staff is propose that ultimately

[1:06:00] compliance could be a condition

[1:06:02] of future obag cycles, obag four

[1:06:05] or beyond. And next as we move

[1:06:07] forward with refining the policy

[1:06:10] requirements a key issue will be

[1:06:12] balancing effectiveness and ease

[1:06:13] of implementation with both the

[1:06:14] diversity and complexity of

[1:06:16] different land use and

[1:06:17] transportation contexts

[1:06:18] throughout the region and in

[1:06:19] some cases even within a single

[1:06:21] station area. And then lastly,

[1:06:24] policy implementation will

[1:06:25] likely require additional

[1:06:26] resources for planning and

[1:06:28] technical assistance as well as

[1:06:29] for assessing compliance. And

[1:06:31] we expect implementation of the

[1:06:33] policy to be phased over time

[1:06:34] and, again, coordinated with

[1:06:36] transit project funding and

[1:06:38] delivery.

[1:06:39] and, my last slide, please.

[1:06:40] [laughter]

[1:06:43] so, in conclusion, our next

[1:06:44] steps are to work with our

[1:06:46] technical advisory committee and

[1:06:47] other stakeholders on developing

[1:06:49] a final draft policy that we

[1:06:51] anticipate bringing back to this

[1:06:53] committee for action later this

[1:06:55] spring.

[1:06:56] again, this is an information

[1:06:57] item. And no action is being

[1:06:59] requested today. But we are

[1:07:01] very happy to answer any

[1:07:02] questions. And definitely want

[1:07:05] to receive your feedback and

[1:07:05] direction on the general policy

[1:07:08] approach and requirements. So,

[1:07:09] thank you very much.

[1:07:15] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:07:15] chair: matt, does that conclude

[1:07:17] the staff presentation?

[1:07:19] >>matt maloney: yes it does.

[1:07:20] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:07:21] chair: before I take questions

[1:07:22] from the committee members, you

[1:07:24] know, I just -- you know, I

[1:07:26] don't think I have received as

[1:07:28] many phone calls in a while,

[1:07:30] ever since our telecommute

[1:07:32] policy and planned bay area 2050

[1:07:35] stirred a lot of interest. You

[1:07:37] know, as this policy has been

[1:07:39] released, it has stirred a lot

[1:07:41] of interest. And I think staff

[1:07:43] knows that. First I want to say

[1:07:45] that, you know, staff has not

[1:07:48] presented anything in this

[1:07:49] proposal that isn't in planned

[1:07:53] bay area 2050. I think what got

[1:07:55] everybody's attention is, this

[1:07:56] is a 30-year plan. The way that

[1:07:59] this presentation was presented,

[1:08:01] it looked like our staff was

[1:08:02] trying to implement it in the

[1:08:04] first year. And that was not

[1:08:05] the intent. And therese really

[1:08:07] made that clear that there is a

[1:08:09] lot of work to be done. There

[1:08:10] is a lot more analysis. It

[1:08:12] doesn't mean all of these

[1:08:13] strategies are going to be

[1:08:14] included. Because there might

[1:08:15] be a better place to put some of

[1:08:17] those strategies. Local

[1:08:18] jurisdictions, and you know, we

[1:08:19] need to look at, you know, are

[1:08:21] these incentives that are put n

[1:08:23] and how we're going to approach

[1:08:25] t so I just want to just caution

[1:08:28] everybody before we circle the

[1:08:30] wagons or anything that there is

[1:08:32] a lot in analysis, a lot more

[1:08:34] discussion. But staff is

[1:08:35] bringing forward the strategies

[1:08:36] that we have all adopted, and

[1:08:39] most of them, we were hoping

[1:08:41] would be adopted over a period

[1:08:42] of time. A number of years.

[1:08:44] and, we are certainly going to

[1:08:47] have to figure out who is the

[1:08:50] best person to implement many of

[1:08:51] these strategies. And so I

[1:08:52] just, you know, the speakers,

[1:08:54] and committee members, you know,

[1:08:57] it would just -- it would be

[1:08:58] good to hear from you on what

[1:09:00] issues you're concerned about.

[1:09:04] there is plenty of time for

[1:09:07] everybody to look at this policy

[1:09:08] look at how it's going to impact

[1:09:10] their projects, if it's going to

[1:09:13] hinder those projects or

[1:09:15] accelerate them. It's going to

[1:09:16] be good to hear that information

[1:09:19] from you. The intent is not to

[1:09:22] dismantle anybody's zoning or

[1:09:24] pda plan that's not the intent

[1:09:27] of this. A lot of this work is

[1:09:29] going to continue and mtc staff

[1:09:31] is going to help with

[1:09:32] implementation and delivery of

[1:09:35] those projects. I want to set

[1:09:38] context. There is a lot more

[1:09:40] discussion. We all need to work

[1:09:41] together. We have a common

[1:09:43] goal. And that all of these

[1:09:45] strategies, as I said, that has

[1:09:48] had a lot of discussion over the

[1:09:51] past several years, as we have

[1:09:53] brought planned bay area 2050

[1:09:55] forward. And so, in my

[1:09:57] conversations with therese and

[1:09:58] matt, you know, at a couple of

[1:10:02] meetings prior to this meeting,

[1:10:04] they're assuring me that there

[1:10:05] is a lot of opportunity to have

[1:10:07] meaningful discussions, to get

[1:10:10] the stakeholders that are

[1:10:11] involved in these various areas,

[1:10:13] and really talk about a strategy

[1:10:14] that's going to work. And a toc

[1:10:17] program that we can deliver.

[1:10:19] you know, I was chair of mtc

[1:10:21] when we introduced the original

[1:10:24] toc program, transportation for

[1:10:29] livable -- tlc -- there was

[1:10:33] controversy there, but that has

[1:10:35] served as well, and I think this

[1:10:38] toc is going to do the same

[1:10:40] thing. It's how and when we

[1:10:42] implement it that's going to be

[1:10:44] the issue here and who delivers.

[1:10:48] that said I'm going to go to my

[1:10:50] commissioners and board members

[1:10:51] and we'll take comments.

[1:10:54] dave hudson, I think you're

[1:10:55] first, then carol dutra-vernaci.

[1:10:57] you will be second.

[1:10:59] go ahead, dave, kick us off

[1:11:03] >>david e. Hudson: apparently,

[1:11:03] I must have missed something.

[1:11:07] mine is a clarifying question.

[1:11:09] don't have anybody angry yet. I

[1:11:11] asked a question during our

[1:11:13] appeals process on what

[1:11:14] something actually meant so this

[1:11:16] time I'm going to ask it again

[1:11:18] this has to do with item five,

[1:11:21] attachment a, it's two

[1:11:25] questions. Bottom of first

[1:11:30] paragraph, "adding affordable

[1:11:32] homes close to region's major

[1:11:35] transit investment." the

[1:11:37] question is does region mean bay

[1:11:42] area there, and,

[1:11:43] second "proposed affordable

[1:11:47] housing and anti-displacement

[1:11:48] policies like would be

[1:11:50] implemented jurisdiction wide"

[1:11:53] is jurisdiction wide also the

[1:11:55] bay area. I'll wait to get an

[1:11:57] answer.

[1:12:01] >>matt maloney: I'll leap in on

[1:12:03] this one. Yes. When we say the

[1:12:06] region's major transit

[1:12:08] investments we're talking about

[1:12:09] the nine-county bay area. When

[1:12:11] we're talking about

[1:12:13] jurisdiction-wide in terms of

[1:12:15] adopting certain policies we're

[1:12:16] talking local jurisdictions in

[1:12:18] that case.

[1:12:20] >>david e. Hudson: okay. Well

[1:12:21] where I got surprised before

[1:12:23] was "intraregional relationship"

[1:12:27] and I thought that meant, like,

[1:12:28] a couple of jurisdictions coming

[1:12:30] together on something only to

[1:12:31] find out that meant the entire

[1:12:33] bay area.

[1:12:34] I'll leave it at that.

[1:12:35] everybody can judge for

[1:12:36] themselves.

[1:12:37] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:12:38] chair: yeah. Staff, I think it

[1:12:39] would be best if we try and get

[1:12:41] all the questions in. And if

[1:12:43] you guys can write them down as

[1:12:45] we go. Because if we're going

[1:12:47] to respond to everything we'll

[1:12:50] be here for a long period of

[1:12:51] time. But we have to address

[1:12:53] the questions people are

[1:12:55] raising. Matt you can guys take

[1:12:57] notes and answer the questions.

[1:12:58] but I would like to get as many

[1:13:00] of the questions in front of us

[1:13:01] as we can and that will help

[1:13:03] stop repeating a lot of

[1:13:05] information. With that, carol

[1:13:06] and victoria?

[1:13:09] >>carol dutra-vernaci: yes.

[1:13:10] and thank you chair spering.

[1:13:11] my thought on this item is that,

[1:13:14] obviously, whatever politics we

[1:13:16] end upcoming up with, we want

[1:13:17] the cities to be compliant. So,

[1:13:23] because this is going to be a

[1:13:25] phased project, cities are going

[1:13:28] to keep ongoing with their

[1:13:29] development plans as time goes

[1:13:31] on, and as we're phasing this

[1:13:33] in, in pieces, I'm afraid we're

[1:13:36] going to end up having an r

[1:13:43] jurisdiction that might not be

[1:13:45] consistent with putting in the

[1:13:46] policies that we're concerned b

[1:13:47] so I would like to request that

[1:13:50] we do an assessment of our

[1:13:52] transit-rich areas and see where

[1:13:56] the alignment is that we're

[1:13:57] thinking about, and where the

[1:13:58] gaps are so there can be

[1:14:00] communication. I did hear you

[1:14:01] say, chair spering, about the

[1:14:03] stakeholders. Because if

[1:14:05] they're aware of what's going

[1:14:06] on, then that will inform them,

[1:14:09] as they're trying to move

[1:14:11] forward in their projects. So,

[1:14:12] thank you for entertaining those

[1:14:14] comments.

[1:14:16] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:14:17] chair: thank you, carol.

[1:14:18] victoria?

[1:14:20] >>victoria fleming: thank you,

[1:14:21] chair spering.

[1:14:23] my comments -- you know, I take

[1:14:25] the chair's comments in stride,

[1:14:26] and thank staff for a really

[1:14:28] comprehensive and well-thought

[1:14:30] out introduction to a really

[1:14:32] difficult implementation plan.

[1:14:33] so, thank you, sincerely.

[1:14:35] my concerns are that, as we

[1:14:39] implement so many of these

[1:14:40] fantastic strategies, that I

[1:14:42] can't see one of these

[1:14:44] strategies that I can't see

[1:14:45] starting and that I don't want

[1:14:46] agree with. I think they're all

[1:14:50] really wonderful, and I think

[1:14:51] they're, in time, carrots to

[1:14:54] sticks, and really putting some

[1:14:57] teeth behind our goals and at

[1:14:59] the same time ask for careful

[1:15:07] consideration of the smaller

[1:15:08] communities in the north bay.

[1:15:10] these projects are great goals

[1:15:13] because many of our

[1:15:14] jurisdictions just aren't there

[1:15:15] yet. I look forward to careful

[1:15:17] and you thoughtful discussions

[1:15:19] with our county transportation

[1:15:21] authorities and our stakeholders

[1:15:22] to make sure this is phased in a

[1:15:25] way that doesn't leave our

[1:15:26] smaller communities behind and

[1:15:29] make sure the funding is

[1:15:31] distributed in a way that makes

[1:15:32] the whole entire nine bay area

[1:15:34] county system work well

[1:15:36] together. Thank you.

[1:15:36] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:15:37] chair: thank you, victoria.

[1:15:44] pat eklund, then neysa fligor.

[1:15:47] >>pat ecklund: thank you chair

[1:15:48] spering. I also want to thank

[1:15:50] you for your preliminary

[1:15:53] comments. Because this document

[1:15:55] scared the bejesus out of me,

[1:16:01] actually, just saying that

[1:16:03] directly. I think right off the

[1:16:06] bat, we need to get a revised

[1:16:08] timeline. I think one of -- for

[1:16:10] implementation of any type of

[1:16:11] policy like this, I really think

[1:16:14] that, number one, we need to

[1:16:17] send out a draft policy,

[1:16:21] whichever one we get close to --

[1:16:24] I think this is far from where

[1:16:25] we need to be -- to each city

[1:16:28] for review and comment.

[1:16:30] because, basically, what we're

[1:16:33] doing is we're changing the

[1:16:36] concept of transit-rich areas to

[1:16:38] be a mandatory designation. In

[1:16:47] the past, pdas actually had to

[1:16:50] apply for it. Transit-rich

[1:16:51] areas was a designation that was

[1:16:53] made by abag and mtc, but it

[1:16:56] wasn't something that the cities

[1:16:58] really had to adhere to.

[1:17:00] so, I have a major issue about

[1:17:04] this being applied to tras.

[1:17:07] especially in the more rural

[1:17:11] areas, like novato or san

[1:17:15] rafael, is not anything like a

[1:17:17] fremont or san jose.

[1:17:19] and before we do anything, I

[1:17:21] think we need to have a better

[1:17:23] understanding of which cities

[1:17:26] are not in compliance with the

[1:17:31] proposed policies that we're

[1:17:32] doing. And do we necessarily

[1:17:35] want them to be? Because there

[1:17:37] is some that just don't lend

[1:17:42] itself, and, plus, requiring a

[1:17:48] commercial density and

[1:17:50] residential density -- we are

[1:17:52] still in a pandemic and there is

[1:17:54] a lot of discussion, the bay

[1:17:55] area council just came out with

[1:17:58] a thing that said 40% of their

[1:18:00] employees are not going to be

[1:18:01] coming back to work in a

[1:18:03] building. Most of them are

[1:18:04] going be -- and there is some

[1:18:07] debate as to what percentage.

[1:18:08] some say 15%, some are saying

[1:18:12] 40%. But I firmly believe that

[1:18:14] the way that we work, the way

[1:18:16] that we move people to and from

[1:18:18] work is fundamentally changed as

[1:18:20] a result of this pandemic. And

[1:18:22] we haven't really assessed that,

[1:18:25] or even factored that into some

[1:18:27] of our thinking here.

[1:18:30] so we're just assuming that

[1:18:32] we're going to have to have

[1:18:33] residential densities and

[1:18:34] commercial densities around

[1:18:36] transit-rich areas when, in fact

[1:18:42] that may not be the case.

[1:18:44] people may not be needing

[1:18:46] transit to get to work, because

[1:18:50] they're not necessarily going to

[1:18:51] be going back to work. The

[1:18:52] council said they may be going

[1:18:54] into the office maybe three days

[1:18:56] a week, not five. Transit is

[1:18:58] based on five days a week. So,

[1:19:00] you know, I'm not an expert in

[1:19:02] this, but, so, I have a real

[1:19:04] issue with this being applied to

[1:19:09] transit-rich areas. I don't

[1:19:11] think that we should be

[1:19:12] mandating commercial and

[1:19:13] residential densities. I think

[1:19:16] that the affordable housing and

[1:19:23] anti-displacement policies,

[1:19:24] cities don't necessarily have

[1:19:26] the money to adopt these

[1:19:27] policies and or implement them.

[1:19:35] most cities don't have a housing

[1:19:39] fund. So I have -- you know

[1:19:41] there, is no definition of a

[1:19:42] major transit investment,

[1:19:44] whether it's planned, or

[1:19:46] developed.

[1:19:48] there is just a lot of

[1:19:51] uncertainties in this thing.

[1:19:52] and I think that we really need

[1:19:53] to make sure that the planners

[1:19:57] and the elected official in each

[1:19:59] city, in this region, have input

[1:20:02] into this.

[1:20:04] and, so, I have a lot more

[1:20:07] comments that, basically, I

[1:20:09] think that we need to have a

[1:20:15] little bit more definition and a

[1:20:17] better understanding of who this

[1:20:18] is going to apply to and what

[1:20:20] does it mean for each of the

[1:20:22] cities before we even think any

[1:20:26] adopting something like this.

[1:20:41] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:20:41] chair: thank you, pat.

[1:20:44] >>neysa fligor: pat covered

[1:20:46] everything on my list. And in

[1:20:48] the opening, chair spering,

[1:20:49] thank you for that it's the

[1:20:51] message I will take back we're

[1:20:54] early in the process and I

[1:20:56] appreciate you saying that at

[1:20:57] the beginning. I won't repeat

[1:20:59] everything that pat said, but

[1:21:01] similar concerns and questions,

[1:21:02] how it will be deployed,

[1:21:04] applied, application, to non-pda

[1:21:07] areas, what does that mean for

[1:21:09] different cities, and so because

[1:21:11] we're at the early stage of this

[1:21:14] policy process, I do appreciate

[1:21:19] the fact that we will have time

[1:21:22] to delve deeper and solicit

[1:21:25] feedback from our individual

[1:21:28] cities and county jurisdictions.

[1:21:29] so I won't go into the list.

[1:21:32] thank you very much.

[1:21:32] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:21:33] chair: thank you for those

[1:21:33] comments. Carlos and then

[1:21:36] alfredo, our chair.

[1:21:39] >>carlos romero: thank you. I

[1:21:41] am actually quite pleasantly

[1:21:43] surprised at the work both staff

[1:21:46] and our executive staff have

[1:21:49] done in trying to improve our

[1:21:51] former tod policy. I know we

[1:21:53] have had many a discussion in

[1:21:55] the past, some actually led by

[1:21:57] the chair about how effective

[1:21:59] these policies have been, are we

[1:22:01] getting what we need in terms of

[1:22:03] the development that's required

[1:22:04] to make the bay area more

[1:22:06] livable and equitable. And I

[1:22:11] believe this draft is certainly

[1:22:13] moving in that direction. And I

[1:22:15] want to thank you therese for

[1:22:18] supporting her staff to make

[1:22:21] some of these suggestions on

[1:22:23] policies and changes to the tod.

[1:22:25] I do want to point out that many

[1:22:27] of the items that are discussed

[1:22:28] here don't require a deep or any

[1:22:32] cost to implement, particularly

[1:22:34] when it comes to some of the

[1:22:37] policies around preservation and

[1:22:39] displacement, it's something

[1:22:41] that our previous tod policy

[1:22:43] never address said. So just

[1:22:45] cause eviction, you could put in

[1:22:47] place protection that is

[1:22:49] discussed there, and indeed

[1:22:51] those aren't going to cost you

[1:22:52] anything but they certainly will

[1:22:54] be protecting communities of

[1:22:56] concern communities of color,

[1:22:58] communities that certainly

[1:22:59] require a type of protection.

[1:23:00] and I would like to even

[1:23:01] possibly even see that

[1:23:03] strengthened, perhaps even

[1:23:05] thinking of a first right of

[1:23:06] return policy on displacement.

[1:23:09] certainly, I want to comment

[1:23:10] really quickly on the parking

[1:23:12] issue. I think it makes a lot

[1:23:14] of sense to look at parking and

[1:23:17] reducing that parking. But

[1:23:18] let's keep in mind that a

[1:23:19] reduction in parking to a

[1:23:20] developer, or what he has to

[1:23:24] produce saves that developer 30

[1:23:28] to $45,000 for a parking space

[1:23:32] and there's an ability to

[1:23:34] recapture that 15 to 20 to 30%

[1:23:37] is a savings to a developer, to

[1:23:40] do a 1.5 or two car per unit

[1:23:43] parking renovation I think is,

[1:23:47] would be some public recapturing

[1:23:52] of that. Proposed densities on

[1:23:55] page 22

[1:23:56] [audio difficulties]

[1:23:56] I kind of want to record and

[1:24:00] understand -- and we'll get to

[1:24:02] this later --

[1:24:03] [audio difficulties]

[1:24:06] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:24:07] chair: carlos, you're dropping

[1:24:08] out. We couldn't hear you.

[1:24:20] I think we may have lost him.

[1:24:23] carlos? Okay. I'll come back

[1:24:25] to him. I'll go to chair

[1:24:27] pedroza then vice chair

[1:24:29] josefowitz will be next.

[1:24:32] >>alfredo pedroza: thank you

[1:24:33] chair spering. Your comments

[1:24:34] you made earlier --

[1:24:37] >>carlos romero: I believe page

[1:24:39] --

[1:24:40] >>alfredo pedroza: carlos, you

[1:24:41] were kind of going in and out.

[1:24:42] are you in a good spot now? You

[1:24:45] want to come back in?

[1:24:48] >>carlos romero:

[1:24:49] [audio difficulties]

[1:24:50] -- let me see --

[1:24:53] >>alfredo pedroza: you're

[1:24:55] reception wasn't that good

[1:24:57] carlos.

[1:24:58] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:24:59] chair: carlos we're going to

[1:25:00] come back to you. We'll go

[1:25:01] ahead with the other speakers

[1:25:04] and come back to you.

[1:25:06] >>alfredo pedroza: thank you.

[1:25:07] comments were spot o and therese

[1:25:09] response to making those opening

[1:25:11] statements. Those goals are

[1:25:13] good and consistent in terms of

[1:25:14] what we have been talking about

[1:25:16] in socializing with bay area in

[1:25:20] terms of what I'm looking for in

[1:25:22] direction is looking to work

[1:25:24] with flexibility is key

[1:25:25] acknowledging the differences

[1:25:26] between urban and rural

[1:25:30] communities commissioner fleming

[1:25:32] had a great statements about

[1:25:36] flexibility it's going to be

[1:25:38] critical in this analysis and in

[1:25:40] terms of tying to funding

[1:25:41] sources. I can support

[1:25:44] conditioning but we have to make

[1:25:45] sure we have a policy that there

[1:25:47] is consensus on and that we're

[1:25:50] recognizing uniquenesses between

[1:25:51] rural and urban counties before

[1:25:54] we start talking about

[1:25:56] reconditioning and tying in

[1:26:00] differences. With the concept

[1:26:02] of analysis, I grate goals are

[1:26:05] good. Thank you.

[1:26:05] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:26:06] chair: thank you. Vice chair

[1:26:07] josefowitz. Nick?

[1:26:10] >>nick josefowitz: thank you.

[1:26:11] I think this policy is really

[1:26:14] just has so many things to like

[1:26:17] about it. I think it's

[1:26:19] terrific. This is grounded in

[1:26:21] planned bay area. That was a

[1:26:23] document that has done so much

[1:26:25] public outreach. I can't

[1:26:28] remember the numbers, but what

[1:26:29] was it? 10,000 conversations,

[1:26:32] four years of discussions, you

[1:26:33] know, voted on by so many -- by

[1:26:37] abag and mtc and gone through so

[1:26:40] many committees, and it's just

[1:26:42] great -- I think the packet that

[1:26:43] this kind of builds on that and

[1:26:45] is really an out -- it's so

[1:26:47] important for the success of

[1:26:48] this policy.

[1:26:50] I think it's also great to see

[1:26:52] how, like with planned bay area,

[1:26:56] this is really grounded in the,

[1:26:58] sort of, best practice for how

[1:27:00] to reduce the number and

[1:27:01] distance of trips taken, driving

[1:27:02] alone and how to increase

[1:27:04] transit ridership, and that

[1:27:05] we're moving to, sort of, really

[1:27:07] incorporate our, sort of, a best

[1:27:10] understanding of, sort of, the

[1:27:11] densities and parking and tdm

[1:27:15] requirements and not just

[1:27:16] residential but also the needs

[1:27:19] of commercial and the importance

[1:27:20] of kind of taking into account,

[1:27:23] sort of, equity.

[1:27:24] and I think the main change just

[1:27:26] really resonates with me we're

[1:27:30] moving from the idea of how to

[1:27:31] build to create and preserving

[1:27:34] communities and, sort of, moving

[1:27:36] from housing to people with this

[1:27:38] policy and I think that makes

[1:27:39] such a difference.

[1:27:41] I also wanted to say, I think it

[1:27:43] is really powerful that this

[1:27:45] policy is going to be tied to

[1:27:47] funding. And that might be one

[1:27:49] of the ways, and I think that

[1:27:51] might be another way to build in

[1:27:55] flexibility here. Because I

[1:27:57] certainly acknowledge, and I

[1:27:59] think it's important to have a

[1:28:00] distinction between kind of

[1:28:02] urban and rural places. I'm

[1:28:06] sure we'll hear a lot of, sort

[1:28:09] of, comments that we shouldn't

[1:28:10] have one size fits all, and I

[1:28:12] agree with that.

[1:28:13] but, I do think that in whatever

[1:28:17] place we're looking at f this

[1:28:19] region is making a significant

[1:28:22] investment in transit service,

[1:28:23] or in transit expansion, that

[1:28:26] there have to be -- there has to

[1:28:29] be, sort of, a commence or

[1:28:31] expectation for making the, sort

[1:28:33] of, land uses making the, sort

[1:28:35] of, work around that investment

[1:28:38] so maybe one of the ways of

[1:28:41] phasing this policy this is

[1:28:44] around the investment going into

[1:28:46] these communities overlaid with

[1:28:48] the kind of rural fabric I think

[1:28:51] that's incredibly important.

[1:28:53] and the other element of

[1:28:55] funding, we didn't hear it today

[1:28:58] but we heard it in a

[1:29:00] presentation on wednesday which

[1:29:01] wasn't a joint abag

[1:29:02] presentation, but there is so

[1:29:04] much new planning money coming

[1:29:05] to this region and I think that

[1:29:07] is going to be essential that

[1:29:08] that planning money is, sort of,

[1:29:10] tied up with, sort of, the

[1:29:13] expectations in this toc policy.

[1:29:15] so that those communities who

[1:29:18] have expectations of kind of

[1:29:22] being the first movers are also

[1:29:25] teed up to be able to get the

[1:29:33] planning money to support that

[1:29:35] movement and that work. And

[1:29:36] this is comprehensive in

[1:29:39] communicating that to us and

[1:29:40] other stakeholders about the

[1:29:43] planning funding availability

[1:29:44] that's coming down and how

[1:29:45] you're going to coordinate that.

[1:29:48] and then, you know, finally on

[1:29:51] the, you know, the -- and I

[1:29:58] agree with -- and I appreciate

[1:30:02] commissioner spering and

[1:30:03] director mcmillan's comments

[1:30:05] that this isn't all going happen

[1:30:08] at once. I realize there is a

[1:30:12] real emergency, planned bay area

[1:30:15] has this region building 32,000

[1:30:18] homes in transit-rich areas and

[1:30:22] creating 25,000 new jobs in

[1:30:25] transit-rich areas ever year

[1:30:27] from now until 2050. 32,000

[1:30:31] homes a year from now every year

[1:30:36] from now until 2050 and every

[1:30:40] year we're not doing that, that

[1:30:43] moons we have to build more the

[1:30:45] year after and more the year

[1:30:47] after. We can face this in a

[1:30:51] way that jump starts the,

[1:30:57] achieving the goals we have laid

[1:30:58] out in planned bay area but is

[1:31:00] so important to make this region

[1:31:03] affordable and to kind of come

[1:31:04] to grips with the drivers of

[1:31:06] climate change. Thank you.

[1:31:07] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:31:08] chair: okay. Thank you.

[1:31:09] president arreguin and then

[1:31:12] damon connolly. Jesse, you're

[1:31:14] up.

[1:31:14] >>jesse arreguin, abag

[1:31:15] administrative chair: thank

[1:31:16] you, mr. Chair. I agree with

[1:31:19] your comments. I kind of frame

[1:31:21] the discussion which is that

[1:31:23] this policy is a critical step

[1:31:24] to implement planned bay area

[1:31:26] but it's not all going to be

[1:31:28] done at once and I think there

[1:31:29] is a lot to consider. Not just

[1:31:31] how local governments will have

[1:31:33] to comply with these

[1:31:35] requirements so that they can be

[1:31:39] competitive for regional

[1:31:41] discretionary funds how this

[1:31:42] will impact the eligibility of

[1:31:44] transit projects because transit

[1:31:45] agencies don't have control over

[1:31:47] local land use planning. That

[1:31:50] is something that is dedicated

[1:31:51] to local governments. But I see

[1:31:53] this as the rubber really

[1:31:55] meeting the road. Where if we

[1:31:58] aren't as, as vice chair

[1:31:59] josefowitz said, meeting the

[1:32:02] targets that we set out in

[1:32:03] planned bay area to achieve the

[1:32:05] certain number of unit in our

[1:32:07] region over the next 30 years f

[1:32:09] we're going to implement many of

[1:32:11] the housing policies that we

[1:32:12] have outlined we need to have

[1:32:14] incentives for people to comply

[1:32:16] and if local governments are not

[1:32:18] going to meet those benchmarks

[1:32:20] then other communities that are,

[1:32:22] are going to be awarded and are

[1:32:24] going to be eligible for these

[1:32:25] funds. I would say as president

[1:32:27] of abag I appreciate all the

[1:32:29] work that's being done this is a

[1:32:31] critical implementation action

[1:32:33] to help us realize the goals of

[1:32:35] planned bay area. And to that I

[1:32:36] want to make a request to the

[1:32:38] executive director while abag

[1:32:40] has a no vote on this, I think

[1:32:41] our feedback could be helpful to

[1:32:43] staff at the mtc commission, as

[1:32:46] mtc is evaluating this policy

[1:32:48] and I want to respectful of

[1:32:50] request to ms. Mcmillan if we

[1:32:52] could get a presentation of to

[1:32:56] the executive board and the

[1:32:58] executive board can provide

[1:32:58] whatever comments to staff to

[1:33:00] share with the mtc commission.

[1:33:02] because I think this is really

[1:33:03] important. And it does actually

[1:33:05] help us realize the goals and

[1:33:09] requirements of the regional

[1:33:10] housing needs allocation, which

[1:33:12] as we know are very different

[1:33:15] from previous rhna cycles was

[1:33:17] not just limited to focusing on

[1:33:19] priority development areas but

[1:33:20] looked at transit-rich areas and

[1:33:23] high-resource areas as where

[1:33:24] additional housing could be

[1:33:26] accommodated.

[1:33:27] and I think if local governments

[1:33:28] are going to have to meet those

[1:33:30] rhna requirements, and are going

[1:33:32] to have to rezone sites, they

[1:33:35] should be rewarded for their

[1:33:36] work with potential planning

[1:33:39] grants or other discretionary

[1:33:40] funds.

[1:33:42] that's how we are going to get

[1:33:44] local governments to not only

[1:33:46] implement those requirements,

[1:33:48] but also to build the housing,

[1:33:51] quickly, affordable housing that

[1:33:53] we need in our region. But

[1:33:55] there is a lot to consider.

[1:33:56] there are communities that are

[1:33:57] not ready to implement this.

[1:33:59] and so what are we going to do

[1:34:01] to help work with them providing

[1:34:06] resources and technical

[1:34:08] assistance that they can be in a

[1:34:10] position to be able to be

[1:34:12] competitive. That's going to be

[1:34:13] part of the phasing

[1:34:16] conversation. But I think the

[1:34:17] goals of this policy are good.

[1:34:19] they're critical for us to

[1:34:21] achieve our greenhouse gas

[1:34:22] reduction goals to achieve our

[1:34:24] affordability goals. And make

[1:34:26] the transportation funding

[1:34:28] investments in areas where we

[1:34:29] have good densities, good

[1:34:36] population density, and we are

[1:34:37] -- and we have good transit

[1:34:40] connectivity as well. So, thank

[1:34:41] you to staff for all your work.

[1:34:44] look forward to a presentation

[1:34:45] at abag. We look forward to

[1:34:47] providing our feedback for the

[1:34:49] commission to consider. This is

[1:34:51] very important. And I think if

[1:34:55] done right could have a really

[1:34:58] transformative impact on our

[1:34:59] region. Thank you

[1:34:59] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:35:00] chair: thanks jesse. Damon

[1:35:03] connolly, then one of my

[1:35:05] favorite mayors, mayor schaff.

[1:35:08] damon?

[1:35:12] >>damon connolly: appreciate

[1:35:12] the discussion and goals that

[1:35:14] we're trying to achieve. We're

[1:35:16] starting to get questions

[1:35:17] locally, so really appreciate

[1:35:19] the signal that this is the

[1:35:21] start of a conversation and

[1:35:25] we'll be bringing localities to

[1:35:33] the calling of the conversation.

[1:35:35] I want to bring back a point, I

[1:35:37] think it was by commissioner

[1:35:40] fleming, about situations in the

[1:35:43] north bay, for example, where

[1:35:44] you have a larger regional

[1:35:46] transit center serving multiple

[1:35:49] communities, at the same time,

[1:35:53] being adjacent to smaller towns

[1:35:55] or cities, so, the juxtaposition

[1:36:00] of finding for that center or

[1:36:02] increased service that are being

[1:36:04] tied to planning decisions going

[1:36:06] on a hyper-local basis. So, the

[1:36:11] question is, kind of, will

[1:36:16] whatever we ultimately adopt

[1:36:18] actually incentivize transit

[1:36:22] improvements and the concern

[1:36:23] about holding regional projects

[1:36:25] or regional funding accountable,

[1:36:29] if you will, to, really,

[1:36:33] hyper-local planning

[1:36:35] decision-making. It's something

[1:36:36] that we need to, at least, work

[1:36:39] through. What sorts of funds

[1:36:41] will be affected. That needs to

[1:36:43] continued to be worked through.

[1:36:45] I am reminded that we did have a

[1:36:47] robust discussion as a

[1:36:49] commission about the issue of

[1:36:51] conditioning. I think we landed

[1:36:52] in some solid places on that.

[1:36:56] so, keeping that in mind, and of

[1:36:59] course, flexibility, as folks

[1:37:01] have noted. And then I'm also

[1:37:04] hearing the question that has

[1:37:05] been teed up today about what

[1:37:07] potential areas are we talking

[1:37:08] about beyond pdas in terms of

[1:37:14] the approaches here. And of

[1:37:15] course, heavy-duty coordination

[1:37:17] with local transit operators and

[1:37:20] communities. Thanks.

[1:37:23] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:37:24] chair: thank you, damon.

[1:37:26] and after mayor schaff will be

[1:37:28] amy worth.

[1:37:30] mayor schaff?

[1:37:31] >>libby schaaf: thank you,

[1:37:32] chair spering. My favorite

[1:37:34] chair.

[1:37:34] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:37:36] chair: [laughter]

[1:37:37] >>libby schaaf: well, I want to

[1:37:39] commend staff. I think they

[1:37:40] have done an amazing job. And I

[1:37:43] know that now is the time, or

[1:37:48] the devil is in the details, and

[1:37:50] I encourage you to continue

[1:37:52] working with the technical

[1:37:53] advisory committee. I do have

[1:37:54] one question. You don't have to

[1:37:56] answer it, but just for your

[1:37:58] consideration, I saw, kind

[1:38:00] of, "credit" for having, sort

[1:38:05] of, inclusionary zoning

[1:38:06] policies, but I did not see

[1:38:09] mention of affordable housing

[1:38:10] impact fees. In oakland we have

[1:38:12] affordable housing impact fees

[1:38:14] with an in lieu option to

[1:38:17] include the unit in the project.

[1:38:19] so it's almost the same thing as

[1:38:22] inclusionary with an in lieu fee

[1:38:24] option. We just did it the

[1:38:27] other way for several reasons.

[1:38:29] so if you could look into that,

[1:38:31] it's one of those details. I

[1:38:33] want to echo a little bit of

[1:38:35] what some of my colleagues have

[1:38:38] said. You know, the time to be

[1:38:41] scared or have the bejeebers

[1:38:48] scared out of you is past. We

[1:38:50] already did the big bold thing

[1:38:52] and adopted planned bay area.

[1:38:53] and remember that the modeling

[1:38:55] in that plan respond to state of

[1:38:59] california mandated greenhouse

[1:39:01] gas reductions.

[1:39:02] this is not an option. We are

[1:39:05] responding to a state mandate.

[1:39:08] if you need to blame someone

[1:39:10] besides mtc or abag. We already

[1:39:13] agreed to these densities. This

[1:39:15] is now, actually, making that

[1:39:18] commitment real by putting an

[1:39:22] implementation plan around t we

[1:39:23] will not be able to reach the

[1:39:25] goals that we committed to in

[1:39:27] the plan without this policy. I

[1:39:30] am convinced of that.

[1:39:34] leadership is about making

[1:39:36] people unemployment. But it's

[1:39:39] because we are the only ones who

[1:39:42] are equipped with the damage and

[1:39:44] the tools, the actual authority,

[1:39:47] to future-proof our beloved

[1:39:52] communities. So think of this

[1:39:53] as an act of love. Because the

[1:39:55] future is depending on it.

[1:39:57] I want to, also, specifically,

[1:40:02] appreciate that all three p's

[1:40:07] are covered in this plan,

[1:40:09] production, preservation, and

[1:40:12] protection. The bay area has

[1:40:14] strong affordable housing and

[1:40:16] anti-displacement goals. These

[1:40:17] are in the plan and these

[1:40:19] policies are important to

[1:40:20] achieving the goal's plan. And

[1:40:23] I can just become oakland's

[1:40:25] experience, having these types

[1:40:26] of policies has not discouraged

[1:40:29] development, certainly, in our

[1:40:32] city. We have seen the largest

[1:40:34] development boom, we believe,

[1:40:36] since the 1906 earthquake, we

[1:40:39] have added 17,000 new units of

[1:40:42] housing to our city in the last

[1:40:44] seven years. It's pretty

[1:40:46] phenomenal. And so, that is, at

[1:40:51] least, a proof point.

[1:40:54] I just want to, again, end by

[1:40:57] saying that, personally, I love

[1:40:59] the boldness, but I want to

[1:41:02] assure you, I will listen to my

[1:41:06] colleagues. I will do my best

[1:41:08] to keep an open mind to a well

[1:41:14] justified recommendations, to

[1:41:15] phase this implementation plan

[1:41:17] in over time. But, I do caution

[1:41:21] us that time is of the essence.

[1:41:25] climate change will not wait for

[1:41:26] any of us. And I also want to

[1:41:28] mention that many of us are

[1:41:30] updating our housing elements

[1:41:32] right now. So, it's a perfect

[1:41:34] time to incorporate this

[1:41:36] implementation plan so that it

[1:41:38] can actually make it into the

[1:41:40] work that we're each doing with

[1:41:42] our housing elements.

[1:41:44] so, those are my thoughts. But

[1:41:47] that is also my commitment to

[1:41:49] keep an open mind to phasing.

[1:41:52] and I look forward to working

[1:41:53] through this leadership

[1:41:54] challenge that has been given to

[1:41:56] each and every one of us, as we

[1:42:00] future-proof our beloved

[1:42:05] communities.

[1:42:05] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:42:06] chair: thank you, mayor schaff.

[1:42:07] your open-mindedness has been

[1:42:17] respective.

[1:42:23] commissioner worth?

[1:42:23] >>amy r. Worth:

[1:42:28] open-mindedness, I don't think

[1:42:30] there is anybody who is more

[1:42:32] passionate about producing

[1:42:34] housing and our obligation to

[1:42:36] doing that. You're representing

[1:42:40] 19 cities of diverse sizes, and

[1:42:44] there is a lot in this plan that

[1:42:47] can be implemented and

[1:42:49] benefitted in light of the fact

[1:42:51] that all of our cities are

[1:42:52] undertaking the rhna process.

[1:42:55] with that being said, what I'm

[1:42:57] concerned about, as we look at

[1:42:59] this plan and we move forward,

[1:43:02] that we want to make sure that

[1:43:04] the incorporation of a lot of

[1:43:06] these policies, one includes the

[1:43:09] active engagement of our city

[1:43:12] planning directors. I know that

[1:43:14] most directors, this is now

[1:43:15] coming on their radar screens,

[1:43:18] it has not been on their radar

[1:43:20] screens, they have been

[1:43:22] grappling with rhna, and I

[1:43:24] appreciate the funding that abag

[1:43:26] has provided through the reap

[1:43:29] program for cities to do the

[1:43:30] kinds of planning needed to

[1:43:32] accommodate these significantly

[1:43:36] larger rhna numbers. So, cities

[1:43:38] are going to be planning and

[1:43:40] zoning for significant changes

[1:43:42] over the next year. But I think

[1:43:46] it's really important that any

[1:43:47] of -- the policies that we

[1:43:50] eventually adopt do not either

[1:43:53] prevent the development of

[1:43:54] housing, or put cities in a

[1:43:58] position where they are

[1:44:00] implementing their rhna

[1:44:01] requirement, but because they

[1:44:02] don't cross the t's and dot the

[1:44:09] ayes you're going to be seeing

[1:44:13] significant increase in housing

[1:44:14] densities without dollars to

[1:44:18] provide the transportation

[1:44:25] infrastructure needed to

[1:44:26] accommodate those. We have been

[1:44:35] grappling with the housing

[1:44:39] challenges and surplus capacity

[1:44:48] inclusionary density is a goal

[1:44:50] we all want to have happen, but

[1:44:54] at some points the projects

[1:44:56] don't pencil. I am particularly

[1:44:58] concerned about that. And

[1:45:00] recognizing that one size does

[1:45:01] not fit all in these density

[1:45:04] requirements, that are outlined,

[1:45:06] so, I really think that the city

[1:45:09] planning directors who are

[1:45:11] grappling right now with this

[1:45:12] very issue of how do we -- you

[1:45:15] know, what do we need to

[1:45:16] incorporate these planning goals

[1:45:17] in our community and what it's

[1:45:19] going to look like. And so I

[1:45:22] really appreciate the

[1:45:23] perspective of our executive

[1:45:25] director and our chair,

[1:45:27] outlining the fact that this is

[1:45:29] the beginning of a discussion

[1:45:30] about these policies. And the

[1:45:38] pda and obag policies have

[1:45:40] really positioned our region

[1:45:43] really well. But I also think

[1:45:44] that it's very important that

[1:45:46] we're able to meet these housing

[1:45:48] goals. And in our county we

[1:45:50] have cities that have entitled

[1:45:52] projects, multi-family housing

[1:45:53] project that are not being built

[1:45:55] because they cannot pencil s I

[1:45:58] really think we need to be

[1:46:00] mindful as we look into these

[1:46:02] policies, what fits within our

[1:46:04] communities, but also how do we

[1:46:07] achieve the goal of actually

[1:46:08] producing the housing that is

[1:46:10] desperately needed. Final

[1:46:12] piece. And then I'll conclude I

[1:46:15] appreciate the element in this

[1:46:16] that talk about providing and

[1:46:18] encouraging the movement of jobs

[1:46:21] throughout the region. And I

[1:46:22] think that this is one of the

[1:46:24] huge challenges that we should

[1:46:26] have for our greenhouse gas

[1:46:28] targets is that we have people

[1:46:31] traveling long distances from

[1:46:33] home to jobs and if we can move

[1:46:37] more jobs into more counties

[1:46:38] where we have population centers

[1:46:40] and a workforce that is there to

[1:46:44] fill those jobs, I think that

[1:46:46] can go a long way, also. So, in

[1:46:49] achieving these greenhouse gas

[1:46:50] targets. So I look forward to

[1:46:52] conversations, and I look

[1:46:54] forward to the opportunity for

[1:46:55] not only the n that chart, not

[1:46:57] only this county transportation

[1:46:59] authority's planning directors

[1:47:01] engage, but I really think that

[1:47:03] the city planning directors also

[1:47:05] can provide really important

[1:47:07] input in terms of how these

[1:47:10] policies can be -- how they

[1:47:13] impact our ability to produce

[1:47:14] housing that is so much needed.

[1:47:16] thank you very much.

[1:47:27] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:47:27] chair: thank you. Amy. Gina

[1:47:31] your out last comment.

[1:47:34] >>gina papan: thank you to

[1:47:40] staff. The question is how we

[1:47:42] get there and how it actually

[1:47:45] works. I cannot emphasize

[1:47:46] enough including in your tech

[1:47:49] advisory committee some of the

[1:47:51] jurisdictions that have already

[1:47:51] been put through some of this.

[1:47:53] because what this policy does

[1:47:55] is, it does not hold the transit

[1:47:58] operators accountable. So, I

[1:48:00] think I individuals before, I

[1:48:01] mean, in my jurisdiction -- and

[1:48:03] thank you for putting up

[1:48:05] pictures from three different

[1:48:06] cities in my jurisdiction, you

[1:48:08] can see we're trying to

[1:48:09] accommodate. We are building.

[1:48:11] but, right now, we're being

[1:48:15] interfered with by high speed

[1:48:17] rail and some other transit

[1:48:19] operators. So they are not

[1:48:20] necessarily our friends. There

[1:48:22] is an existing transit-rich

[1:48:24] area. We get that. That's

[1:48:26] wonderful.

[1:48:27] but they're not helpful. You

[1:48:29] have a portion that says access.

[1:48:34] again, the transit operators are

[1:48:37] not concerned with access.

[1:48:40] parking, if you cannot park at a

[1:48:43] major modal center, you are not

[1:48:47] going to take transit. This is

[1:48:49] problematic. And you can look,

[1:48:51] right now, at the bart

[1:48:53] development in my city, the fact

[1:48:56] that there is no parking for the

[1:48:57] commercial part is really

[1:48:59] becoming difficult. It's a

[1:49:01] beautiful commercial area there,

[1:49:04] in addition to the housing, but

[1:49:07] the businesses, like a

[1:49:09] restaurant won't go in there

[1:49:12] because their customers can't

[1:49:13] park. And no, you can't park at

[1:49:16] bart unless you go into the bart

[1:49:18] station, getting parking thing

[1:49:19] from there, so, these are the

[1:49:21] kind of nuances that need to be

[1:49:23] worked out. And we need your

[1:49:25] help, mtc, in helping us build

[1:49:28] more, and not, kind of,

[1:49:31] strangleholding us, which some

[1:49:32] of this appears to be. Planned

[1:49:34] bay area is great. I think some

[1:49:36] of it is already out of date.

[1:49:40] there is a lot of housing laws

[1:49:42] that were just put into place

[1:49:44] that are impacting our abilities

[1:49:46] to build housing, to be

[1:49:50] sustainable, all kinds of stuff.

[1:49:52] we have upzoned. We will

[1:49:54] continue to upzone. Don't think

[1:49:56] we're not; we are doing that.

[1:49:58] but when you add in here rent

[1:50:01] stabilization, just cause

[1:50:03] evictions, tenant-right

[1:50:05] councils. I believe the

[1:50:07] legislature has already weighed

[1:50:09] in on that. So it seems like

[1:50:10] we're telling them, no, you

[1:50:12] didn't do it right, and now you

[1:50:14] have got to do this. It was

[1:50:16] pointed out by another speaker

[1:50:17] that we don't have the ability

[1:50:19] -- some of us smaller

[1:50:21] jurisdictions -- to do that.

[1:50:23] so, when you have your

[1:50:24] affordable protection and

[1:50:26] neighborhood stabilization

[1:50:27] portion in there, and you're

[1:50:28] going to condition funding on

[1:50:30] every single -- I represent 20

[1:50:33] cities -- if we don't have that,

[1:50:35] we're not eligible for the

[1:50:37] entire electrification of

[1:50:39] caltrain within our

[1:50:40] jurisdiction? I mean, that is

[1:50:42] -- that's not going to let us

[1:50:44] achieve the goals we want. We

[1:50:46] want to built. We want to make

[1:50:48] all this happen. We need your

[1:50:50] help. So I'm kind of looking

[1:50:52] for more policy or portions of

[1:50:58] this that actually help us get

[1:51:00] to building more and not

[1:51:03] interfere with what's currently

[1:51:04] happening here. So, you know,

[1:51:06] if you had something in

[1:51:10] thereabout high speed rail not

[1:51:11] stealing the land which we have

[1:51:13] already approved for 488 housing

[1:51:15] units for street level parking,

[1:51:17] I got no problem with that.

[1:51:19] that's wonderful. Tell them.

[1:51:21] that's impossible, and I can go

[1:51:25] ahead with ten stories, 48488

[1:51:32] housing units. We want to

[1:51:34] build. So, please, I think you

[1:51:36] need to bring in the local

[1:51:38] jurisdictions. Some of us have

[1:51:39] the experience to say this is

[1:51:41] what works, this is what doesn't

[1:51:43] work. Because let me tell you

[1:51:45] right now, a person trying to

[1:51:47] get a loan, a developer for a

[1:51:50] commercial/housing I don't think

[1:51:53] they can get the loan unless it

[1:51:55] includes some parking and you're

[1:51:57] saying, no. Nothing. We can

[1:52:01] transition out. [indiscernible]

[1:52:04] is great, they're building a big

[1:52:06] parking structure, but with the

[1:52:07] future of transforming that, so

[1:52:09] we can make all the

[1:52:10] transportation elements work,

[1:52:12] those are the type of things

[1:52:13] here that I would love to see.

[1:52:15] and we want to get there. We

[1:52:16] want to reduce the greenhouse

[1:52:18] gas. We all have the same goal.

[1:52:19] it's just kind of how the policy

[1:52:23] is currently written here. So,

[1:52:25] I don't think we should be

[1:52:27] contradicting the legislature.

[1:52:29] I'm really -- I think there are

[1:52:30] new ways that we can be bold and

[1:52:33] make all of this happen.

[1:52:34] because what works in a big

[1:52:36] city, like mayor schaff's, or

[1:52:39] san francisco, doesn't

[1:52:41] necessarily work in our cities.

[1:52:44] so, please let us be a part of

[1:52:46] this process. And, really

[1:52:50] making it work in the future,

[1:52:52] here, we really -- I mean, we

[1:52:55] could use legislation that, if

[1:52:56] we have an old building, we can

[1:52:59] -- that was at one time housing,

[1:53:01] but hasn't been for five years,

[1:53:03] if we could count that in our

[1:53:06] rhna numbers. We want to make

[1:53:08] things work here, but they don't

[1:53:09] allow us to do that. So, help

[1:53:11] us. And we can work together.

[1:53:20] I really want to thank

[1:53:22] everybody. I suggest the tech

[1:53:24] advisory committee be expanded

[1:53:26] to some of our local and smaller

[1:53:28] jurisdictions because we don't

[1:53:29] want to repeat the mistakes of

[1:53:31] the past. Thank you, mr. Chair.

[1:53:31] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:53:32] chair: thank you, gina.

[1:53:38] martha, how many speakers do we

[1:53:39] have?

[1:53:40] >>clerk of the board: right now

[1:53:41] we have ten speakers and

[1:53:42] counting. How much time would

[1:53:43] you like to give people?

[1:53:44] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:53:45] chair: well, you know, I would

[1:53:47] like to give people, like, one

[1:53:49] minute, but they can go over a

[1:53:51] little bit. But before we go to

[1:53:54] the public comments -- staff did

[1:53:56] you -- I know mayor schaff had a

[1:53:57] question. There wasn't a lot of

[1:53:59] questions and more statements.

[1:54:01] matt, did you guys have anything

[1:54:03] you want to respond to --

[1:54:06] >>matt maloney: I'm happy to

[1:54:07] give a quick sum up, maybe a

[1:54:09] minute if that's helpful.

[1:54:09] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:54:12] chair: go ahead.

[1:54:14] >>matt maloney: there was a

[1:54:15] question or comment about staff

[1:54:16] doing an assessment of what's

[1:54:19] going on in the transit-rich

[1:54:21] areas and I think that's right

[1:54:22] on the mark and we are planning

[1:54:24] to dig into that more. We have

[1:54:26] got a lot of information out

[1:54:28] there in the existing pdas plans

[1:54:30] we can draw from but woe have to

[1:54:32] do more research on that, that

[1:54:34] is certainly part of our work

[1:54:35] plan. I think on the subject of

[1:54:37] different communities and

[1:54:38] smaller communities around the

[1:54:40] area, and I think it was our

[1:54:42] intent with the different tiers

[1:54:44] that we showed in the

[1:54:45] presentation, tier one, tier

[1:54:46] two, tier three, you know, kind

[1:54:49] of looking at commuter rail

[1:54:51] systems like smart, you know,

[1:54:53] different from heavy rail

[1:54:55] systems like bart and caltrain.

[1:54:57] I think that's all in the mix

[1:54:58] and that's something we can

[1:55:00] continue to play with as we hear

[1:55:01] more comments from all of you.

[1:55:04] I think commissioner josefowitz

[1:55:07] made a point about getting more

[1:55:09] planning money tied to this

[1:55:11] effort. And I think we also

[1:55:12] agree with that, as well. I

[1:55:13] think obag three is an

[1:55:15] opportunity for that. Also

[1:55:17] there is a new version of reap.

[1:55:19] reap 2.0, that I think you have

[1:55:24] all heard about that might be

[1:55:26] opportunity to augment the pda

[1:55:28] planning funds that we have had

[1:55:29] out there in the past and to

[1:55:32] help more jurisdictions. I

[1:55:34] think we totally agree. This is

[1:55:36] focused on tras, right, really,

[1:55:39] those transit-rich areas, as

[1:55:41] well as those transit-rich pdas,

[1:55:43] and there was a question about

[1:55:45] making sure we incentivize

[1:55:46] transit improvements and we

[1:55:48] definitely want to do that. The

[1:55:49] other part of this is we want to

[1:55:51] make sure any improvements that

[1:55:53] we make are effective is high

[1:55:56] ridership and lots of activity.

[1:55:58] I think that's in the mix, as

[1:55:59] well. In terms of mayor

[1:56:01] schaff's question about

[1:56:03] affordable housing impact fees

[1:56:04] with in lieu options, certainly

[1:56:06] something we can investigate is

[1:56:07] perhaps include it as part of

[1:56:09] the menu of options. I think

[1:56:12] that's mostly the sum-up of kind

[1:56:16] of what I heard.

[1:56:17] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:56:18] chair: okay. Good. Thank you.

[1:56:19] good wrap-up.

[1:56:21] martha, if we have ten speakers

[1:56:23] --

[1:56:23] >>clerk of the board: it's up

[1:56:24] to 13 now.

[1:56:24] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:56:25] chair: all right. Give a

[1:56:27] minute and a half. What I would

[1:56:28] like to ask the speakers, if you

[1:56:31] could, be as clear and succinct

[1:56:34] as you can. If there are areas

[1:56:36] that you think more study say

[1:56:38] that, if you think there are

[1:56:39] areas that shouldn't be included

[1:56:41] say that. But just try to get

[1:56:43] to your point so we can get

[1:56:44] through this as quickly as we

[1:56:46] can.

[1:56:47] with that, martha, give the

[1:56:49] speakers a minute and a half.

[1:56:56] go ahead and start the public

[1:56:59] comment.

[1:57:00] >>clerk of the board: we

[1:57:00] received correspondence by the

[1:57:02] deadline, and that from by tim

[1:57:03] sebritini. It was posted online

[1:57:10] and that was distributed to and

[1:57:15] was posted online and

[1:57:17] distributed to committee

[1:57:18] members. First speaker is

[1:57:20] jonathon kass.

[1:57:23] >>jonothon kass: I am the

[1:57:26] transportation policy manager at

[1:57:28] spur and we support the

[1:57:30] direction and unanimously

[1:57:33] approve planned bay area for

[1:57:35] equitable sustainable and

[1:57:36] livable communities around

[1:57:38] transit as a member of the

[1:57:39] technical advisory committee for

[1:57:42] this community alongside many

[1:57:44] local jurisdictions both small

[1:57:46] and large spur has been

[1:57:47] encouraged by mtc staff

[1:57:49] commitment to rhna and planned

[1:57:51] bay area regional growth targets

[1:57:52] as a reminder planned bay area

[1:57:53] just barely met the greenhouse

[1:57:56] gas emissions reduction targets

[1:57:57] set by the state. Target that

[1:57:59] is sure to be more even

[1:58:02] ambitious in the next round. As

[1:58:05] discussed the timing of these

[1:58:10] requirements deserve close

[1:58:12] attention. Waiting to quickly

[1:58:14] will cause us to fall behind on

[1:58:17] housing and jobs goals. At the

[1:58:18] same time growth targets need to

[1:58:21] be realistic and it takes time

[1:58:23] to lay the groundwork for

[1:58:25] growth. We believe the policy

[1:58:27] is off to a great start and

[1:58:30] encourage to you focus on

[1:58:31] detailed changes that are

[1:58:32] necessary to ensure policy

[1:58:35] delivery.

[1:58:36] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[1:58:36] chair: thank you. Next

[1:58:37] speaker. Martha?

[1:58:44] >>clerk of the board: on it.

[1:58:45] next up is anoeil.

[1:58:59] >>speaker: hi I'm a member of

[1:59:00] common ground california focused

[1:59:02] on land use housing transit and

[1:59:05] financing of public services and

[1:59:08] infrastructure through land

[1:59:09] value taxes capture tasteful to

[1:59:16] see mtc putting together policy

[1:59:19] framework we believe will

[1:59:22] incorporate public land

[1:59:24] acquisition and value capture

[1:59:27] taxation such policies allow

[1:59:30] public municipalities to build

[1:59:36] infrastructure spending growing

[1:59:38] economy and increased demand had

[1:59:40] to these areas and public

[1:59:43] acquisition of land will allow

[1:59:45] governments to receive --

[1:59:47] [indiscernible] without a strong

[1:59:48] toc policy there is no hope of

[1:59:51] meeting equity and climate

[1:59:53] goals. As someone going to

[1:59:57] medical school I understand how

[1:59:59] critical housing is to a

[2:00:01] person's physical and mental

[2:00:04] well-being and how access to

[2:00:06] high-resource areas is critical

[2:00:08] to a growing economy. It's

[2:00:11] critical that equity investments

[2:00:13] not only recapture value, but

[2:00:18] recapture stronger communities.

[2:00:22] please add public land

[2:00:25] acquisition and taxation value

[2:00:29] recapture to the toc policy.

[2:00:31] >>clerk of the board: next up

[2:00:32] is justine marcus and then rich

[2:00:37] hedges.

[2:00:38] >>speaker: good afternoon my

[2:00:40] name is justine marcus policy

[2:00:42] director with enterprise

[2:00:43] community partners we're excited

[2:00:45] to see the draft framework

[2:00:47] presented today and want to

[2:00:48] thank staff for their work

[2:00:50] putting it together and having

[2:00:51] the robust engagement with the

[2:00:54] technical advisory committee

[2:00:55] which we serve o we strongly

[2:00:57] support moving forward with a

[2:00:58] policy that will set us on the

[2:01:01] course to implement the goals of

[2:01:02] planned bay area balancing as

[2:01:03] many of you have mentioned the

[2:01:05] urgency of our needs and really

[2:01:07] being realistic about

[2:01:09] implementation. I also want to

[2:01:11] echo the point that mayor

[2:01:13] arreguin brought up which is

[2:01:14] that policy has opportunity to

[2:01:17] support and reward local

[2:01:19] jurisdictions to deliver on

[2:01:20] their rhna goals. I want to

[2:01:22] highlight two aspects of the

[2:01:23] policy for consideration as it

[2:01:25] is further refined. The first

[2:01:27] is really going deep on the

[2:01:30] three ps, the production,

[2:01:33] preservation, and protections

[2:01:34] aspects of the policy with a

[2:01:36] focus on anti-displacement both

[2:01:38] for residents and local small

[2:01:42] businesses. And second is to

[2:01:43] really remain focused on our

[2:01:45] commitments to affirmatively

[2:01:47] furthering fair housing as we go

[2:01:49] about designing the density

[2:01:51] thresholds. Finally we know

[2:01:52] that this policy will need

[2:01:55] complementary funding and our

[2:01:56] organization and bay area

[2:01:57] housing advocates are committed

[2:01:59] to continuing working with you

[2:02:00] all through bahfa and other

[2:02:02] others to secure the necessary

[2:02:03] funds. Thank you very much for

[2:02:04] your time.

[2:02:05] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[2:02:06] chair: thank you.

[2:02:09] >>clerk of the board: rich

[2:02:10] hedges followed by aaron

[2:02:11] eckhouse. Go ahead and unmute

[2:02:15] yourself.

[2:02:16] >>speaker: thank you. I wanted

[2:02:17] to comment just briefly about

[2:02:19] transit oriented communities. I

[2:02:21] grew up in one as a child.

[2:02:23] access to a streetcar half a

[2:02:25] block away. All the possible

[2:02:27] services we needed within

[2:02:28] walking distance and I bring

[2:02:29] this up because it put me in the

[2:02:31] fight to develop it. Ods,

[2:02:33] because I had lived in something

[2:02:35] like a tod. I like our change

[2:02:37] in policy toward transit

[2:02:40] oriented communities. I think

[2:02:41] it will fulfill what we have

[2:02:43] been trying to do.

[2:02:45] but what I want to recommend is,

[2:02:46] if you really want to cut down

[2:02:48] on trips, we have to have these

[2:02:51] services and we have to focus on

[2:02:52] that. Because only a small part

[2:02:54] of getting people out of their

[2:02:56] cars is trips to work and back.

[2:02:59] so, please, look carefully at

[2:03:02] this. I also have a question I

[2:03:03] would like a response to. I

[2:03:05] think that sb10 may help,

[2:03:07] especially with the communities

[2:03:09] where we have 35 to 50% density

[2:03:12] of housing. And maybe not more

[2:03:15] than that. But I would like to

[2:03:17] know how that may affect our

[2:03:19] goals for communities and tocs.

[2:03:23] so, one thing I would like to

[2:03:25] say I think we do have to have

[2:03:27] diverse looks at different

[2:03:29] communities, the rural

[2:03:31] communities do not have the same

[2:03:33] aspects as our more urbanized

[2:03:36] communities and we need to treat

[2:03:37] it as such. And just one last

[2:03:40] comment, really a carrot is best

[2:03:42] used if it's a stick painted

[2:03:44] orange. Thank you.

[2:03:47] >>clerk of the board: thank

[2:03:47] you, rich.

[2:03:48] next up is aaron eckhouse

[2:03:51] followed by derrick sagehorn.

[2:03:54] >>speaker: hello. Thank you.

[2:03:56] my name is aaron eckhouse I'm

[2:03:58] the regional policy manager with

[2:04:00] california yimby, yes in my

[2:04:03] backyard. We are big supporters

[2:04:06] of transit oriented development

[2:04:07] and we appreciate staff is

[2:04:09] moving this forward as well as

[2:04:11] opportunity we have had to

[2:04:12] engage with them on policy

[2:04:13] development. Over the years has

[2:04:15] been a growing recognition for a

[2:04:17] coordinated regional approach on

[2:04:18] housing as well as way in which

[2:04:20] housing policy lands use policy

[2:04:22] and transportation policy are

[2:04:24] all deeply connected which we

[2:04:27] see in planned bay area 2050.

[2:04:29] proposed policy framework

[2:04:32] reflect those in an exciting

[2:04:33] way. Housing crisis in the bay

[2:04:35] area is too big for any city to

[2:04:38] solve alone the transit oriented

[2:04:41] communities is framework

[2:04:42] addressing our housing crisis in

[2:04:44] a necessary scale in a

[2:04:47] comprehensive and equitable way

[2:04:49] it's appropriate wu we're making

[2:04:52] significant regional investment

[2:04:53] in transportation and policies

[2:04:54] in place to ensure success and

[2:04:58] coordination with regional

[2:05:00] policy goals. We cannot afford

[2:05:02] to fail on our housing goals as

[2:05:05] a region the stakes are too

[2:05:07] high. I am encouraged by what

[2:05:09] staff put forward and I hope mtc

[2:05:11] will move forward towards a

[2:05:13] robust transit communities

[2:05:17] program that will ensure we meet

[2:05:19] our goals in the region. Thank

[2:05:21] you.

[2:05:23] >>clerk of the board: derrick

[2:05:24] followed by justin.

[2:05:26] >>speaker: this is derrick

[2:05:27] sagehorn for east bay for

[2:05:29] everyone. I'm calling in

[2:05:31] support of the draft toc policy

[2:05:32] from staff. I think it's really

[2:05:34] important that we align our

[2:05:36] planned bay area goals with our

[2:05:39] -- the funding. You know? Mtc

[2:05:41] having the power of the purse in

[2:05:44] terms of determining

[2:05:47] discretionary grants it's

[2:05:48] important we get our

[2:05:50] transportation planning lined up

[2:05:52] I appreciate the fact of

[2:05:55] distinguishing between different

[2:05:56] levels of intensive of

[2:05:58] transportation and investment

[2:05:59] including parking policy. As

[2:06:02] well as station access that's

[2:06:03] going to be critical. I'll echo

[2:06:05] comments I think it's necessary

[2:06:07] to get out ahead of speculators

[2:06:10] especially with the new transit

[2:06:11] stations I would encourage staff

[2:06:13] to look at some type of

[2:06:15] preservation and public housing

[2:06:17] with public land acquisition is

[2:06:19] making sure tools are available

[2:06:20] for capturing uplift from

[2:06:23] property owners nearby in terms

[2:06:24] of funding both affordability

[2:06:26] and transportation improvements

[2:06:28] and that's not simply through

[2:06:30] value capture for planning but

[2:06:32] also making sure that property

[2:06:33] owners who are simply

[2:06:35] speculating and not developing

[2:06:36] their properties also pay their

[2:06:39] fair share for these public

[2:06:42] critical hours. Thank you.

[2:06:43] >>clerk of the board: thank

[2:06:44] you, derrick. Justin followed

[2:06:47] by lisa. Go ahead.

[2:06:54] >>speaker: good afternoon my

[2:06:55] name is justin wang advocacy

[2:07:00] manager at green compliance

[2:07:03] environmental non-profit

[2:07:04] encouraging open space as well

[2:07:06] as direct involvement with

[2:07:09] growth in the community. A

[2:07:11] strong toc climate smart policy

[2:07:16] is necessary in the bay area to

[2:07:17] meet our housing goals reduce

[2:07:19] greenhouse gas emissions and

[2:07:20] make sure local residents are

[2:07:22] able to grow and thrive in their

[2:07:24] own communities as housing costs

[2:07:26] rise every single bay area

[2:07:28] region must play their part to

[2:07:30] increase housing stock

[2:07:31] particularly affordable housing

[2:07:32] to make sure the workforce can

[2:07:34] afford to live close to jobs

[2:07:36] schools and services this policy

[2:07:38] is a great step if that

[2:07:39] direction especially if local

[2:07:41] jurisdictions are looking to

[2:07:42] update housing elements now to

[2:07:44] achieve goals ideally with an

[2:07:46] eye towards transit orientation.

[2:07:48] as a region we have always led

[2:07:51] the way, we passed planned bay

[2:07:53] area and need a toc policy that

[2:07:56] works to achieve outcomes

[2:07:58] outlined in that plan creating

[2:08:00] the 30 year window the transit

[2:08:03] orient the communities is long.

[2:08:06] mtc should incentivize

[2:08:07] development sooner rather than

[2:08:09] later especially with funding I

[2:08:11] urge to you continue moving in

[2:08:12] the right direction with your

[2:08:13] full support of the toc policy

[2:08:15] before you today. Thank you

[2:08:17] very much for your time.

[2:08:18] >>clerk of the board: thank

[2:08:19] you. Lisa followed by robert

[2:08:20] alan or bob alan.

[2:08:24] lisa go ahead and unmute.

[2:08:27] >>speaker: good afternoon my

[2:08:28] name is lisa borderbrugen

[2:08:35] representing building industry

[2:08:39] association of bay area and I

[2:08:41] appreciate allowing me to serve

[2:08:44] on the technical advisory

[2:08:45] committee through this process

[2:08:47] and working with your talented

[2:08:48] staff. It's a little bit like

[2:08:51] many of you getting a grasp on

[2:08:53] the full stove of what impacts

[2:08:56] would be if and whenever this

[2:08:58] policy is adopted in whatever

[2:09:00] form it comes out in we

[2:09:02] appreciate the comments by jim

[2:09:04] and therese about taking a

[2:09:06] phased approach and analytical

[2:09:08] approach our members are on the

[2:09:10] frontline of delivering the

[2:09:11] housing that many of you are

[2:09:13] planning to build and we can

[2:09:15] speak from experience that bay

[2:09:16] area cities are like snow

[2:09:18] flakes, every single one of them

[2:09:21] is different and trying to work

[2:09:22] within each community and meet

[2:09:24] the needs of each community that

[2:09:26] they're looking for in addition

[2:09:32] regionally is a difficult

[2:09:33] process to navigate. We're

[2:09:35] continuing to work with mtc and

[2:09:37] the toc and helping ensure that

[2:09:40] well-meaning policies don't

[2:09:42] increase the cost of housing or

[2:09:43] make it more costly to build

[2:09:46] housing but actually get us to

[2:09:47] where we want to be in terms of

[2:09:49] increasing the densities around

[2:09:52] transit. Thank you for the

[2:09:54] opportunity to speak this

[2:09:56] afternoon.

[2:09:57] >>clerk of the board: thank

[2:09:57] you.

[2:09:58] robert alan followed by bob bin.

[2:10:02] go ahead and unmute yourself.

[2:10:09] robert alan.

[2:10:11] >>speaker: bob alan from urban

[2:10:15] habitat. I want to comment and

[2:10:17] say this is an important update.

[2:10:24] sorry. I'm not sure what

[2:10:28] happened there.

[2:10:28] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[2:10:29] chair: go ahead robert.

[2:10:31] >>speaker: sorry about that.

[2:10:32] just to emphasize, I think the

[2:10:34] tenant protection and suite of

[2:10:36] community stabilization policies

[2:10:38] far from being an impediment to

[2:10:43] housing production and market

[2:10:45] rate housing production are

[2:10:47] necessary to meet greenhouse gas

[2:10:50] reduction goals of planned bay

[2:10:51] area. We have got to stabilize

[2:10:53] people to build housing working

[2:10:55] to ensure and preserve as much

[2:10:57] housing as possible and robust

[2:11:00] efforts starting with the state

[2:11:01] on social housing I don't think

[2:11:02] the market whether it's

[2:11:05] unconstrained or not is going to

[2:11:07] provide housing for the vast

[2:11:10] majority of the bay area

[2:11:11] residents but community

[2:11:13] stabilization policies and

[2:11:14] keeping as many people in place

[2:11:16] is a critical starting point to

[2:11:19] reliable transit riders who have

[2:11:20] stayed on the system throughout

[2:11:22] the pandemic I want to make that

[2:11:24] point and look heard to engaging

[2:11:26] in the update of the policy as

[2:11:28] we go forward. Thank you.

[2:11:30] >>clerk of the board: thank

[2:11:31] you. Bob vinn followed by laura

[2:11:38] foote.

[2:11:40] >>speaker: I'm bob city

[2:11:42] engineer for the city of

[2:11:44] livermore since valuing stations

[2:11:47] of at the top of the list for

[2:11:49] it. Oc implementation I want to

[2:11:50] talk about the isabel plan

[2:11:52] adopted a little over a year ago

[2:11:54] in november 2020, it was a

[2:11:57] multi-year effort, cost a lot of

[2:11:59] money, had lots of stakeholder

[2:12:01] engagement and resulted in a

[2:12:02] plan the community of livermore

[2:12:04] could support. City council of

[2:12:08] livermore adopted it unanimously

[2:12:11] and it includes the highest

[2:12:13] density in all of livermore the

[2:12:16] tallest buildings lowest parking

[2:12:18] requirement and highest

[2:12:19] affordable housing requirements

[2:12:20] as well. We modeled this after

[2:12:22] the previous -- or the current

[2:12:24] tod policy and resolution 3434

[2:12:28] even though it wasn't clear it

[2:12:30] would apply in fact ur densities

[2:12:35] exceed what would be tier one

[2:12:38] even though valley link is a

[2:12:39] tier three project however at

[2:12:41] first it doesn't appear the

[2:12:43] isabel plan will comply, and

[2:12:46] meanwhile we're taking in

[2:12:47] applications for housing. We

[2:12:48] are working with a large

[2:12:50] development on development

[2:12:53] agreement for most of the vacant

[2:12:55] land and I think if this plan

[2:12:57] has to apply in the isabel area

[2:12:59] it will result in a slowing of

[2:13:01] the housing production. So I

[2:13:03] request that mtc staff please

[2:13:05] reach out to livermore, study

[2:13:07] our plan and meet with us so we

[2:13:10] can talk about what

[2:13:11] implementation would really

[2:13:12] mean. Thank you.

[2:13:14] >>speaker: thank you. Hauscar

[2:13:21] castro.

[2:13:22] >>speaker: hi. Good afternoon

[2:13:25] everyone I'm hauscar associate

[2:13:30] director of housing and

[2:13:32] transportation policy working

[2:13:33] partnership usa thank you staff

[2:13:35] for your work grateful for all

[2:13:37] the work you have done we are

[2:13:41] eager to work together to craft

[2:13:43] the final policy in san jose

[2:13:45] county and santa clara county we

[2:13:47] are advocating day in and day

[2:13:49] out related to housing justice

[2:13:52] and a sustainable economy we are

[2:13:55] pleased to see mtc's efforts to

[2:13:59] offer solutions as the entire

[2:14:00] region continues to grapple with

[2:14:03] various housing challenges we

[2:14:04] look forward to supporting this

[2:14:06] agency on anti-displacement

[2:14:08] issues and preservation efforts.

[2:14:14] emphasizing importance for small

[2:14:16] business protections, in

[2:14:18] particular public markets

[2:14:20] located near or around transit

[2:14:23] stations public markets or flea

[2:14:26] markets that service real

[2:14:29] economic opportunity to

[2:14:30] thousands of vendors throughout

[2:14:33] the region to make a living for

[2:14:35] their families and putting forth

[2:14:38] actions and policies to ensure

[2:14:41] vendors continue to have an

[2:14:43] opportunity as they're out

[2:14:47] there.

[2:14:51] >>clerk of the board: thank

[2:14:51] you. Daryl halls.

[2:14:56] >>daryl halls: daryl halls

[2:14:57] metropolitan transportation

[2:14:58] authority I want to thank

[2:15:00] commissioner spering and north

[2:15:02] and east bay commissioners and

[2:15:03] staff for clarifying our county

[2:15:05] of course say county of mostly

[2:15:07] medium and small sized cities a

[2:15:10] lot are working on pda plans we

[2:15:13] have adopted our rhna numbers we

[2:15:16] have moved forward and have two

[2:15:23] ferry stations and terminals we

[2:15:25] appreciate the general direction

[2:15:27] going forward and we would

[2:15:30] appreciate time to have dialogue

[2:15:32] with staff it would be helpful.

[2:15:35] thank you.

[2:15:37] >>clerk of the board: thank

[2:15:38] you. Next is nico nagle.

[2:15:45] >>speaker: good afternoon

[2:15:45] everyone I'm nico speaking on

[2:15:49] behalf of the housing coalition

[2:15:51] I'll be quick I want to

[2:15:53] reiterate points that have

[2:15:55] already been made. One, thank

[2:15:56] you to mtc staff for the work on

[2:15:59] the toc policy recognizing this

[2:16:03] massive undertaking folks have

[2:16:05] committed lots of time and

[2:16:07] resources to make sure we have a

[2:16:08] plan for a successful future.

[2:16:11] secondly, I want to reiterate

[2:16:14] the idea that meeting the scale

[2:16:17] of this challenge is incredibly

[2:16:19] important moving forward with

[2:16:21] urgency and the toc policy that

[2:16:24] addresses the immense number of

[2:16:27] homes we really need is not only

[2:16:30] important for our shared housing

[2:16:34] situation but in terms of

[2:16:37] building near transit stops,

[2:16:40] it's immensely important for

[2:16:43] meeting our shared climate

[2:16:44] goals. Again, things that have

[2:16:46] already been known. I think

[2:16:48] folks here are -- you know,

[2:16:50] mostly on the same page of these

[2:16:52] things. But moving forward,

[2:16:54] urgently is a priority. I

[2:16:57] appreciate all of your time.

[2:16:58] thank you.

[2:17:00] >>clerk of the board: thank

[2:17:01] you. And last, we have laura.

[2:17:04] go ahead and unmute yourself.

[2:17:07] >>speaker: hi. Laura foote

[2:17:08] from yimby action and speaking

[2:17:10] on behalf of all of our bay area

[2:17:13] chapters. We're obviously

[2:17:14] prohousing and are going to be

[2:17:16] following this policy closely as

[2:17:18] it evolves and love all the work

[2:17:20] staff is putting into it. So

[2:17:22] many great comments have been

[2:17:23] made and sin I'm last I'm not

[2:17:25] going to repeat any of them.

[2:17:27] one very small thing that might

[2:17:29] be worth note suggest we also

[2:17:31] talk about the challenges with

[2:17:33] inclusionary policies with

[2:17:34] putting the inclusionary rate

[2:17:36] too high and that could

[2:17:40] disincentivize housing one thing

[2:17:42] to take into account is giving

[2:17:45] cities credit when they directly

[2:17:47] subsidize housing whether that's

[2:17:49] through land grants or acquiring

[2:17:52] there is a lot to be done to get

[2:17:54] cities more credit when they're

[2:17:55] more directly subsidizing

[2:17:57] housing rather than pursuing

[2:18:00] inclusionary policies which can

[2:18:02] be complicate. Right now this

[2:18:04] is going to be a complicate

[2:18:07] sprawling amazing hopeful

[2:18:09] producing not sprawling policy.

[2:18:13] appreciate all the work and look

[2:18:14] forward to following along as it

[2:18:17] develops.

[2:18:18] >>clerk of the board: thank

[2:18:19] you. Last call please dial star

[2:18:22] nine or use the raised hand

[2:18:24] feature. Jordan grimes.

[2:18:29] >>speaker: my name is jordan

[2:18:30] grimes lead members of the

[2:18:34] peninsula for everyone

[2:18:35] grassroots housing and transit

[2:18:38] advocacy group in san mateo and

[2:18:42] santa clara county really

[2:18:43] appreciate all the comments

[2:18:45] commissioner josefowitz and

[2:18:47] councilmember romero. We're

[2:18:50] excited about how the draft

[2:18:52] framework has turned out and

[2:18:53] support the embrace of this good

[2:18:55] smart and visionary public

[2:18:57] policy which is completely

[2:18:58] necessary for the bay area's

[2:19:00] future. There has been

[2:19:01] significant discussion of cost

[2:19:02] to the municipalities today so I

[2:19:05] want to touch on this quickly we

[2:19:08] need to weigh in and keep at top

[2:19:09] of mind the social and

[2:19:11] environmental cost of not

[2:19:13] embracing and implementing these

[2:19:15] policies. Costs like rising

[2:19:19] seas, raging wildfires and the

[2:19:21] continued out-migration of

[2:19:24] working and middle class

[2:19:25] families from this state and

[2:19:26] from the nine county bay area

[2:19:28] specifically. This framework

[2:19:30] really gives working and middle

[2:19:32] income folks a fighting chance

[2:19:36] at having a future here while I

[2:19:38] understand the importance of

[2:19:40] regional planning I know climate

[2:19:41] change and displacement are not

[2:19:43] taking a phased approach I want

[2:19:45] to encourage us to move forward

[2:19:46] with a sense of urgency that the

[2:19:48] problems we face deserve. Thank

[2:19:51] you very much for your time

[2:19:51] today.

[2:19:52] >>clerk of the board: there are

[2:19:53] no members of the public with

[2:19:54] their hand raised.

[2:19:55] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[2:19:56] chair: okay thank you martha.

[2:20:02] I want to thank all the

[2:20:04] speakers. That was very good

[2:20:06] information in a minute and a

[2:20:08] half we heard all the of you

[2:20:09] loud and clear and the clarity

[2:20:11] of the testimony is very

[2:20:12] helpful. Thank you.

[2:20:13] matt, did you have anything from

[2:20:15] the public comments or

[2:20:17] commissioners that you want to

[2:20:18] respond to before I close this

[2:20:20] up?

[2:20:21] >>matt maloney: no. I just

[2:20:22] agree. I appreciate all of the

[2:20:24] comments and questions today of

[2:20:26] commissioners and board members

[2:20:27] and members of the public it's

[2:20:28] super helpful for us as staff we

[2:20:30] have our work cut out for us

[2:20:32] over the next few months and

[2:20:34] certainly on the engagement

[2:20:35] front we definitely hear you

[2:20:36] about engaging more deeply with

[2:20:38] locality jurisdictions. There

[2:20:39] was a request to go to the full

[2:20:41] abag executive board by the

[2:20:42] chair. We can certainly do

[2:20:44] that. And, also, I think there

[2:20:46] is an opportunity to use the,

[2:20:48] what we have setup through the

[2:20:49] regional housing technical

[2:20:51] assistance process where we have

[2:20:53] just a lot of avenues with local

[2:20:55] planning directors to kind of

[2:20:56] use that as a venue to have more

[2:20:59] active discussion about this

[2:21:00] especially as all the housing

[2:21:02] element work proceeds. So I

[2:21:04] think that's a great ideas.

[2:21:05] those are my take-away's. And

[2:21:07] we'll be back in a few months

[2:21:09] with more.

[2:21:11] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[2:21:11] chair: okay. Just some closing

[2:21:14] observations. And first I want

[2:21:16] to say that this is a first step

[2:21:17] in a long journey that we're

[2:21:19] going to be o but a very

[2:21:20] important step. And I

[2:21:21] appreciate staff bringing all of

[2:21:23] these issues forward. And as I

[2:21:25] said, they're in our plan. They

[2:21:27] all need to have consideration.

[2:21:29] I want to thank president

[2:21:31] arreguin. You know, his

[2:21:34] suggestion of engaging abag is,

[2:21:36] I think, absolutely critical.

[2:21:38] abag touches every city and

[2:21:40] every county and to engage them

[2:21:42] into this process is really

[2:21:44] important. For us to have

[2:21:45] success, we have got to have

[2:21:47] buy-in. So jess thank you for

[2:21:49] that suggestion. That's going

[2:21:51] to be very helpful.

[2:21:53] staff, I would like to at least

[2:21:54] we consider two phases. There

[2:21:56] is so many strategies that need

[2:21:58] to be implemented right away.

[2:22:01] some we have broad consensus, we

[2:22:03] ought to put those in place

[2:22:05] right away, and the second phase

[2:22:08] are probably going to need a

[2:22:10] little bit more analysis and

[2:22:11] discussion and more consensus

[2:22:13] building. So take a look at

[2:22:15] that and maybe give us a

[2:22:17] timeline of how these strategies

[2:22:18] can be implemented. The third

[2:22:20] is that, I think it's very

[2:22:23] important when you come back

[2:22:25] that you identify what funding

[2:22:26] sources we're talking about. If

[2:22:28] there is one question they have

[2:22:29] been asked this past week since

[2:22:31] this has been released is, what

[2:22:34] funding are you guys going to

[2:22:37] condition this to. We need to

[2:22:38] have clarity on that. That's

[2:22:40] very important.

[2:22:41] number four, there is a lot of

[2:22:43] planning money coming into this

[2:22:44] region but with all the cities

[2:22:46] and counties we have done one

[2:22:48] hell of a lot of planning and we

[2:22:49] have got projects that already

[2:22:52] need no be delivered we have got

[2:22:55] to get to the point where we're

[2:22:57] starting to deliver projects we

[2:22:58] can't just be studying and

[2:23:00] planning we have got to have

[2:23:03] delivery on some of these things

[2:23:05] it's really personality. And

[2:23:07] lastly we need to be aware that

[2:23:08] we should do no harm. Talking

[2:23:11] to some of the developers since

[2:23:12] this came out, they have

[2:23:13] increases between 20 and 30% of

[2:23:16] materials. The conditions that

[2:23:18] cities and counties are laying

[2:23:19] on development, we have got to

[2:23:22] be careful that we don't make it

[2:23:24] so difficult that nobody's

[2:23:26] building and especially that

[2:23:27] nobody's building affordable

[2:23:28] housing. We desperately need

[2:23:31] that workforce and affordable

[2:23:32] low-income housing and we need

[2:23:34] to have incentives that really

[2:23:36] help developers and help the

[2:23:39] communities produce that

[2:23:40] housing. Those are my closing

[2:23:42] comments, commissioners and

[2:23:43] board members. I can't thank

[2:23:45] you enough for the input today

[2:23:53] it's very encouraging. Staff

[2:23:55] you got my attention but the way

[2:23:57] this is being brought forward

[2:23:58] and phased and the outreach and

[2:24:02] the willingness to have more

[2:24:03] discussion on this is extremely

[2:24:05] important. People are not going

[2:24:06] to feel threatened by what we're

[2:24:08] trying to do. But this is an

[2:24:10] extremely important first step.

[2:24:12] and to bring all of these issues

[2:24:15] forward and put them in the

[2:24:17] light, I think had to be done.

[2:24:20] and so, staff, thank you for

[2:24:22] that.

[2:24:23] I'm going to be very cautious in

[2:24:25] the future when I ask you to be

[2:24:26] bold and unflinching, that I'm

[2:24:29] going to temper that a little

[2:24:31] bit.

[2:24:31] and therese, I just want to

[2:24:33] thank you, for understanding and

[2:24:36] sensitivity of this, and your

[2:24:37] introduction, I think is

[2:24:39] extremely important. For that,

[2:24:42] thank you.

[2:24:42] with that, unless anybody has

[2:24:44] any last burning comments, I

[2:24:46] think we're at the end of our

[2:24:47] agenda. Martha is that correct?

[2:24:50] >>clerk of the board: that is

[2:24:50] correct. We just need to take

[2:24:52] general public comment.

[2:24:53] >>jesse arreguin, abag

[2:24:56] administrative chair: chair, I

[2:24:56] want to make an announcement for

[2:24:58] the abag members.

[2:24:58] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[2:24:59] chair: oh yeah. I was going to

[2:25:00] ask you about that.

[2:25:01] >>jesse arreguin, abag

[2:25:02] administrative chair: we have

[2:25:02] the advancing california

[2:25:03] financing authority. That

[2:25:04] should be quick then we'll do

[2:25:06] the abag executive board

[2:25:07] meeting. Some people are

[2:25:08] waiting to get into the zoom but

[2:25:10] just wanted to -- as soon as

[2:25:12] we're done with this, to go to

[2:25:15] the zoom link for the abag

[2:25:16] meeting.

[2:25:16] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[2:25:17] chair: thanks jess. I was

[2:25:18] going to ask you about that I'm

[2:25:19] glad you remembered. With that

[2:25:22] do we have public comment?

[2:25:25] >>clerk of the board: there are

[2:25:26] no members of the public with

[2:25:26] their hand raised, and there was

[2:25:27] no public comment submitted on

[2:25:28] this item.

[2:25:28] >>jim spering, mtc planning

[2:25:29] chair: all right. Great. It

[2:25:29] sounds like we did a good job,

[2:25:31] team. So, thank you. So with

[2:25:32] that, you know, keep working and

[2:25:36] monitoring this closely, but I

[2:25:38] think this is a good first step.

[2:25:40] thank you everyone. And this

[2:25:42] meeting is adjourned.

[2:25:42] [adjourned]

Joint MTC Planning Committee with the ABAG Administrative Committee on 2022-01-14 9:45 AM

Agenda

Transcript