>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: good morning everyone.
before I call the meeting to
order I want to say that plane
behind me is probably one of the
only air force planes that alix
bockelman's dad hasn't flown.
for you historians you probably
associate the name of this plane
it's frances gary powers. You
all know enough about the
historical significance. I
would like to call the joint mtc
planning committee with the abag
administrative
committee to order. We'll call
mtc quorum and consent calendar
then turn to you for yours and
abag announcements.
>>jesse arreguin, abag
administrative chair:
absolutely.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: with that if we could
take the roll call for the mtc
planning committee.
>>clerk of the board: we will
do after the broadcast team
rolls the announcement.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you. I'm sorry.
[recorded meeting procedures
announcement]
due to covid-19, this meeting
will be conducted as a zoom
webinar pursuant to the
provisions of
assembly bill 361 which suspends
certain requirements of the
brown act.
this meeting is being webcast on
the mtc website.
the chair will call upon
commissioners, presenters,
staff, and other speakers, by
name, and ask that they speak
clearly and state their names
before giving comments or
remarks.
persons participating via
webcast and zoom, with their
cameras enabled, are reminded
that their activities are
visible to viewers.
commissioners and members of the
public participation by zoom,
wishing to speak, should use the
raise hand feature or dial star
9, and the chair will call upon
them at the appropriate time.
teleconference attendees will be
called upon by the last four
digits of their phone number.
it is requested that public
speakers state their names and
organization, but, providing
such information is voluntary.
written public comments received
at infoatbayareametro.gov by 5
p.m., yesterday, will be posted
to the online agenda and entered
into the record, but will not be
read out loud.
if authors of the written
correspondence would like to
speak, they are free to do so.
they should raise their hand and
the chair will call upon them at
the appropriate time.
a roll call vote will be taken
for all action items.
panelists and attendees should
note that the chat feature is
not active.
in order to get the full zoom
experience, please make sure
your application is up to date.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: roll call.
>>clerk of the board: spering?
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: present.
>>clerk of the board: ahn?
>>eddie ahn: present.
>>clerk of the board: canepa?
connoly?
>>damon connolly: here.
>>clerk of the board:
commissioner dutra-vernaci?
>>carol dutra-vernaci: here.
>>clerk of the board: fleming?
>>victoria fleming: here.
>>clerk of the board: giocapini
non-voting?
>>dorene m. Giacopini: here.
>>clerk of the board: liccardo?
commissioner schaff?
we have a quorum.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay. I see mayor
schaff is with us. So, she
hasn't learned how to unmute
yet. We're going to send a
technical staff over to help her
do that.
>>libby schaaf: you can not
hear me now.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: I hear you.
>>libby schaaf: okay.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: [laughter]
>>karen mitchoff: martha did
you call me?
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: this is mtc.
>>karen mitchoff: okay.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: with that we do have a
quorum. Mtc commissioners,
we'll entertain a motion to
approve the mtc consent
calendar.
>>carol dutra-vernaci: mtc
approval.
>>libby schaaf: second.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: motion and second.
is there any written
correspondence or anyone that
wants to speak on consent?
martha?
>>clerk of the board: there are
no members of the public with
their hand raised, and there was
no public comment submitted on
this item.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay. Motion and
seconds. Could you take the
roll, please?
>>clerk of the board: chair
spering?
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: yes.
>>clerk of the board: vice
chair ahn?
>>eddie ahn, v. Chair: aye.
>>clerk of the board: vice
chair canepa?
>>david canepa: aye.
>>clerk of the board: connoly?
>>damon connolly: aye.
>>clerk of the board: er and
fleming?
>>victoria fleming: yes.
>>clerk of the board: schaff?
>>libby schaaf: yes.
>>clerk of the board: passes
unanimously by all members
present.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you. Mayor
arreguin, I'll turn it over to
you.
>>jesse arreguin, abag
administrative chair: okay.
thank you so much. I would like
to ask the abag clerk of the
board to conduct roll call to
confirm whether quorum of the
administrative committee is
present.
>>clerk of the board: mayor
eklund?
>>pat ecklund: here.
>>clerk of the board: fligor?
>>neysa fligor: here.
>>clerk of the board: hudson?
>>david e. Hudson: here.
>>clerk of the board: lee?
mandelman? Absent.
some mitchoff? Supervisor
mitchoff, I see you are here.
councilmember peralez is absent.
the supervisor rabbit?
>>david rabbit: here.
>>clerk of the board:
supervisor ramos?
>>belia ramos: here.
>>clerk of the board:
councilmember romero?
>>carlos romero: here.
>>clerk of the board: mayor
wilson is absent. One more time
for supervisor lee? Supervisor
lee is absent. Quorum is
present.
>>karen mitchoff: fred, I'm so
sorry. You have got me?
>>clerk of the board: yes,
ma'am.
>>karen mitchoff: thank you.
>>jesse arreguin, abag
administrative chair: thank
you. Quorum is present. Item
two, abag compensation
announcement. I'll ask the
clerk to read the compensation
announcement for the record.
>>clerk of the board: according
to state law I am making the
following announcement, the
members of the abag board in
attendance at this meeting are
entitled to receive per diem an
amount of $500 as a result of
convening a meeting for which
each member is entitled to
collect per diem. Thank you.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: item three abag consent
calendar minutes of
december 10th, 2021. Motion to
approve the minutes?
>>speaker: motion.
>>pat ecklund: second.
>>jesse arreguin, abag
administrative chair: motion
and second. Any public comment
on this item? Written comment
received on this item?
>>clerk of the board: there are
no members of the public with
their hand raised, and there was
no public comment submitted on
this item.
>>jesse arreguin, abag
administrative chair: okay.
that brings us to roll call vote
on the item.
>>clerk of the board: mayor
arreguin?
>>jesse arreguin, abag
administrative chair: yes.
>>clerk of the board: eklund?
>>pat ecklund: aye.
>>clerk of the board: fligor?
>>neysa fligor: yes.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you.
mayor hudson?
>>david e. Hudson: yes.
>>clerk of the board:
supervisor lee?
>>otto lee: yes.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you, sir.
supervisor mandelman? Absent.
mitchoff?
>>karen mitchoff: yes.
>>clerk of the board:
councilmember peralez is absent.
supervisor rabbit?
>>david rabbit: yes.
>>clerk of the board: peralez?
absent. Romero?
>>carlos romero: yes.
>>clerk of the board: mayor
wilson is absent. Passes
unanimously by all members
present.
>>jesse arreguin, abag
administrative chair: thank you
very much. Back to mtc chair
spering.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: this item is sea level
rise funding investment
framework. Matt you're going to
introduce and rachel it carry
from there.
>>matt maloney: matt maloney
regional planning director for
mtc and abag we have two items
on the agenda today first one is
sea level rise funding and
investment framework we're
returning to you today with this
item. If you recall we
presented to this committee back
in july and since that time, we
have worked to refine the scope
of the effort in partnership
with bcdc. And just as a
reminder, you know, everything
we do is related, of course, to
planned bay area 2050, and that
plan estimated a nearly
$20 billion need to address sea
level rise adaptation.
and the implementation plan
really identified the need for
this study.
and the purpose of it is really
to improve the regional
accounting of sea level rise
costs and potential future
revenue sources.
we think this effort is very
timely, given new actions by the
state legislature, which has
identified new funding for
resilience. And we do believe
that the state bears significant
responsibility for ultimately
funding these types of projects.
and you know, most importantly,
I think today we just want to
formalize this partnership with
bcdc today. We are continuing
to use the joint committee of
mtc and abag to showcase our
work but we're also planning to
provide updates on this study
through bcdc committees as well
as the barc governing board
throughout the next year. And
we have a number of staff here
today, from both bcdc and mtc
and on the mtc side, rachel
hartofelis is here. She'll be
giving a presentation on behalf
of mtc, also michael germeraad,
and dave vautin, of course, who
you know very well. And on the
bcdc side, nicholas sander is
here who will also be presenting
with rachel. I believe bcdc
director larry goldzband is
here, as well as planning
director of bcdc, jessica. We
have numerous partnerships here
to answer any of your questions.
with that I'll pass it over to
nicholas from bcdc, I think, is
going to kickoff the
presentation.
>>nicholas sander: thank you
very much. Good morning
everyone. I'm nicholas sander
from bcdc here with rachel
hartofelis, mtc and abag we want
to discuss a joint effort to
discuss sea level rise funding
investment framework. We'll
walk throughout context of sea
level rise funding efforts,
regional overview of funding
framework and next steps for
joint work. The framework will
prepare for adaptation in
two-ways competitiveness with a
clear understanding for
adaptation cost and needs and
explore how we can augment state
and federal needs for funding
sources. Graphic illustrates
how sea level rise has been
addressed in the region. Mtc
abag plan 2050 and the estuary
blueprint update, bay adapt
adopted by bcdc commission in
october has addressed priority
actions against long-term sea
level rise, the priority is
identifying steps for
implementation.
planned bay area adopted on the
same day as the joint platform
in october is a multifaceted
regional plan that addresses
housing, transportation,
economic, and environmental
conditions. Adapting to sea
level rise is 1 of 35 strategies
in the plan.
meanwhile the sf estuary
partnership is including an
update to the estuary blueprint
a regional plan to achieve a
healthy and resilience san
francisco estuary through each
planning processes staff at all
agencies have worked closely to
align all three efforts.
planned bay area 2050 included
environmental elements to
address environmental priorities
throughout the region adapting
to sea level rise strategy
included a range of adaptation
actions across the region to
address first two feet of
permanent sea level rise part of
the planning process assessment
was developed. A $19 billion
need to address a segment of
shoreline, resulting in a
$60 billion gap. Critically as
part of the process we did not
study sea level rise specific
revenue measures to address the
funding gap filling the gap will
require a mix of funding state
and federal opportunities that
have emerged in the last six
months have provided opportunity
to spring board action
resilience framework will
account for these new revenues
and will be used to support
near-term action to compete for
existing funding for framework.
opportunity will explore pros
and cons of funding sources that
will be needed to support state
and federal investment and
increase competitive edge for
state and federal funding. Next
slide please. Bcdc completed
funding analysis for funding and
finance white paper summarizing
sea level rise damage to the
rest of the region comparison
including information around sea
level rise water ecosystem
impact and policy changes.
costs were compared with funding
needs estimated by planned bay
area 2050 as well as uc berkeley
study compared with estimated
regional funding supply based on
jurisdictional financial data
analysis resulted in estimated
regional gap expressed per
capita per household per parcel
as percentage of gdp analysis by
mtc and abag the white paper did
not study measures to fill
potential funding gaps. Next
slide please.
as we have previously referenced
near-term funding opportunities
have developed at state level
2021 budget act approved by
state legislators identified
$15 billion in funding
throughout the next few years
$3.86 billion identified for
climate resilience a portion of
funding revenue is likely to be
distributed across the state to
address a variety of hazards
funding may be able to fund
critical near-term sea level
rise priorities such as shovel
ready projects as well as
regional planning adaptation
planning in the bay area.
however there is a substantial
funding gap for sea level rise
adaptation underscoring the need
for to research additional
revenue sources for sea level
rise adaptation in the years
ahead preparing for near-term
state and funding opportunities
improving advocacy for
additional state and federal
resources and inform longer term
approach for local and regional
action to augment state and
federal funds. Actions needed
to prepare for sea level rise
identifying similar actions for
regional funding plans to
identify funding needs and
establish funding approaches.
in the platform 6.1 and 6.2 call
to expand understanding of
financial cost revenues
associated with adaptation and
establish framework for funding
plans and projects. Adaptation
to funding sea level rise in the
next five years and blueprint
currently includes option to
develop sea level rise funding
investment framework in the next
five years. I'll hand it over
to my colleague rachel
hartofelis to address the
framework.
>>rachael hartofelis: thank
you, nick. In september 2021
the barc governing board
approved the joint -- excuse me
-- next slide --
thank you.
so in september the barc
governing board approved the
joint resolution to address
climate change which included
creation of a shared work plan.
the shared work plan will
advance strategic coordinated
implementation of high priority
actions identified in regional
agency plans and platforms over
the next 1 to 5 years.
developing a sea level rise
adaptation funding investment
framework is an example of how
high priority implementation
actions identify in these
adopted agency plans can be
implemented and coordinated in a
single shared approach. After
presenting to this committee
last july the concept of
framework has been adjusted in
its scope sea level rise
adaptation funding and
investment framework will be
colead by mtc and bcdc for work
to become a resource for local
governments and advocates
pursuing sea level rise funding
throughout the region.
framework presented to barc last
month and we'll continue to
share updates with the governing
board as the project develops
throughout 2022 for additional
feedback and collaboration mtc
and abag and bcdc will bring
updates to staff as needed.
next slide please.
mtc abag and bcdc have
collaboratively developed a
concept of sea level rise and
adaptation investment framework
build off prior research and
analysis to advance our regional
understanding of what it will
cost the region to adapt to sea
level rise as well as to explore
the most equitable means to
raise new revenues to address
the funding gap. As part of
this work plan we started by
identifying a number of goals
for the framework and will
discuss three overarching goals
of the work for you today.
first goal is to update and
improve the regional accounting
of sea level rise adaptation
projects creating a version 2.0
of the previous regional
analysis done by mtc abag and
bcdc. With a refined
understanding of what it may
cost the region to adapt to sea
level rise we can better
advocate for regional adaptation
needs at state and federal level
this research will also improve
our region's estimates on the
cost of adaptation across the
region and it will refine how
much revenue from existing sea
level rise funding sources we
can anticipate to do this we
will engage closely with local
governments and partners to
understand the status of local
adaptation plans strategies and
projects to update prior
regional analysis. Helping to
identify areas with or without
known plans for shoreline
adaptation: this accounting
will be used directly for the
framework analysis and it will
also be shared and maintained as
a resource for local government
planning.
it will also be used to support
future regional advocacy for new
state and federal adaptation.
next slide please.
second goal explores how new
local and regional revenues for
sea level rise adaptation can be
raised more equitably. The
region has many priorities and
existing revenue sources are
unlikely to be able to support
the region's shoreline
adaptation needs near-term state
and federal funding
opportunities will help the
region but we can't count on
sacramento to pay for 100% of
this weather raising funds to
match federal and state dollars
or raising additional revenues
beyond what the state and
federal government offer to help
inform local and regional
measures to augment adaptation
funding in the near-term. Meant
recent studies have identified
potential tools for adaptation
including by design and legacy
funds even with previous
analysis done by mtc and abag as
mentioned previously there is
not yet an applied analysis of
potential new funding source for
the bay area.
the framework will fill this
existing research gap to analyze
a range of additional revenue
measures at different scales to
identify approaches to build the
funding gap more equitably. The
bay area shoreline is buried and
the timing of flooding, the land
use characteristic around the
shoreline and location of
communities and resources can
all impact how we will raise new
revenue. Staff will work with
stakeholders to visualize the
equity outcomes of different
approaches before publically
sharing results throughout the
region this result in analysis
will support future advocacy in
support suggest new revenue
local and regional revenue
measures to support long-term
shoreline adaptation. Next
slide please.
the final major project goal is
to determine possible mechanisms
to distribute new fund for
adaptation. Plans review
existing local and regional
funding mechanisms that maybe
applicable for sea level rise
projects. We also want to
identify opportunities for how
new revenue measures can best be
designed to fill anticipated
funding gaps across the region
for a diverse range of
adaptation project needs.
framework will build on the
distribution of near-term state
and federal funding measures as
well as the preparation for the
long-term by understanding
funding mechanisms at the local
or regional level.
these recommendations will be
reviewed by local and community
stakeholders before publically
sharing these results throughout
the region. And as with the
results of the second goal the
outcome of this research may be
used to inform future advocacy
bringing revenues. Next slide
please.
we have identified a number of
ways to move forward on this
work in the coming months. We
plan to kickoff the framework by
setting sea level rise and data
assumptions maintain a technical
working group and by working
with local partners to update
our understanding of local
adaptation projects. Staff will
also continue to align this
project with the barc shared
work plan as it develops as well
as other bay adapt joint
platform actions. Updates on
the framework will continue to
be brought to mtc abag as well
as to the barc governing board
and bcdc throughout 2022. Next
slide please.
thank you. So, we are looking
forward to the ways that the
framework will help to prepare
the region to tackle this
climate crisis with new
adaptation measures becoming
available at the state and
federal level this research will
improve our competitiveness
while identifying ways to
augment near-term funding
opportunities on the local and
regional levels. So we would
like to thank you for your time
and attention today as we
introduce this upcoming work and
we'll open it up now for any
potential questions or
discussion.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay. Thank you. Good
report. Larry goldzband is with
us. Larry, did you have any
comments before I go to the
commissioners or board members?
>>larry goldzband: pardon me,
as I put on my video. I think
they did a great job. But what
can you expect from two great
staffers.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay. Thank you, larry.
one question is, are we making
the case that, of what the cost
will be if we do nothing? Is
that case being made?
rachel?
>>rachael hartofelis: so, as a
part of this analysis, we will
be looking at the vulnerability
of the region, and a big part of
this work will be understanding
where we have plans for the
region and where there are not
yet plans. So I think that will
really help to illustrate how
prepared the region may be for
adaptation in the future. It's
unclear if we'll be able to
identify the cost of inaction,
but we will identify a much more
robust sense of regional need to
understand what that deficit is,
and what the funding gap is to
adapt to the region for, you
know, what we can expect in the
future.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: I just think it's
important with the tremendous
shortfalls we have, we're going
to need public support. And the
public needs to understand the
importance of this. So I hope
we don't overlook, you know,
that public outreach, and really
building the case for the
funding supports to address this
issue.
gina, I see you have your hand
up?
>>gina papan: thank you,
mr. Chair. And thank you,
staff. Great report. I just
want to make sure we're
inclusive. Didn't
jurisdictions, like, we have our
own sea level rise group. So I
want to make sure it's totally
inclusive as we move forward
here. And then additional
partners, because, sadly, my
city had a real tragic incident
where two people drowned.
sudden sea level rise. Pumps
and everything were working.
and part of our system is
connected to sfo, and they need
to clear out a canal. So I
don't know if we're actually
including those partners, but
this -- these deaths are still a
mystery, and we're investigating
it all, but we need to include
those partners, as well.
thank you, mr. Chair.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay. Thank you. Pat
eklund. Pat? And then eddie.
>>pat ecklund: actually, chair
spering, eddie had his hand up
before me. To be fair.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay. Go ahead eddie.
>>eddie ahn: I'll go quickly.
I am interested in following
this because I serve both
commissions mtc and bcdc. I
think for future presentations,
too, it would be helpful to
understand, probably a priority
list of infrastructure we're
going to shore up in
anticipation of adapting to
climate change. Especially if
-- I did back of the napkin math
right now but it looks like we
have over 80% to go in terms of
trying to fund-raise the entire
amount of adapting to rising sea
levels so with that in mind just
knowing which piece of
infrastructure is most important
so that the bay area region
functions I think would be good.
and second small thing is just
to hopefully include, in the
future, san francisco
stakeholders, such as our office
of resilience and capital
planning and make sure to follow
up with staff to ensure that the
right san francisco agencies are
included. Thank you.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: very good comments,
eddie. Thank you.
pat?
>>pat ecklund: thank you very
much, chair spering.
first of all, I did want to say
great presentation by the staff.
and it's wonderful to see that
the regional organizations are
working together on an issue
that affects all of us.
I, too, serve on the bay
conservation and development
commission, which is truly an
honor. I want to thank
president arreguin, again, for
selecting me to serve on that
commission. After having worked
for the u.s. Environmental
protection agency for over 35
years and the u.s. Army corp of
engineers for eight, I have
focused primarily my whole
federal career on environmental
issues related to san francisco
bay and others.
but at the december meeting of
the bcdc commission, we did
adopt the sea level rise
adaptation progress gaps and
needs. And as part that
document that we adopted, they
identified that there were 45%
of the jurisdictions around san
francisco bay that do not have
an adaptation plan. The second
thing is that in bridging the
gap document that bcdc also
adopted, it's clear -- it's on
page 21, and I would encourage
people to look at this -- on the
cost estimates for dealing with
sea level rise, they looked at
two feet, 2.3 feet, and 6.6 feet
and the different funding
adaptation costs associated with
that, and the three agencies, I
believe, picked the two feet,
which includes a seven feet of
sea level rise, plus two feet of
free board and extra head room.
but, what is not included in
here, in these costs, is
environmental mitigation, land
acquisition, utility relocation,
and maintenance cost. And those
costs, a lot are -- a lot --
local governments are very
involved in, like, utilities,
like sanitary sewers, or
environmental mitigation, local
governments are very involved in
that. So I really think that
any funding request that we
make, we need to add some
funding for local governments to
be able to fine-tune, or to
develop their adaptation plans.
because local governments have
to be involved every step of the
way. And we have not really had
an active engagement with the
regulatory agencies.
and I think bcdc has emphasized
at least in the two meetings
that I have attended, since I
was appointed, the need to
really reach out to local
governments. The marin county
mayors and council members, we
have a climate change
subcommittee composed of a
representative -- elected
representative -- of each of the
cities and we are going to be
bringing bcdc mayors and council
members conference in july so
they will be talking to all
elected official in marin county
in february about this issue. I
really think that mtc and bcdc
and san francisco bay
restoration authority really
need to advocate for, number
one, funding for cities and
counties to do an adaptation
plan, and to identify their
financial needs, and to
identify, specifically, what
should be funded to help bridge
the gap so that we can make sure
that estimates that we're using,
which is 19 billion, which is a
minimum, that it also include
what local governments need to
do their fair share of it.
so, anyways, so I agree that the
state needs to fund this. Local
governments, in my opinion,
cannot.
we're having a tough time just
doing what we need to do. And
especially for those local
governments who are poor
property tax cities, like the
city of novato, where we only
get $0.07 on the dollar, most
cities get 23 to $0.26 on the
dollar. So, anyway, comments
from marin, and the north bay, I
think that we really need to
make a concerted effort to
include some cost estimates for
cities when we go to the state
legislature or other funding
opportunities.
so, thank you.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you, pat.
I don't see any other committee
members hands up.
and, so, is there any public
comments?
>>clerk of the board: yes.
there was no written
correspondence received on this
item, and there is one member of
the public with their hand
raised.
rich.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay.
>>clerk of the board: rich, go
ahead and unmute yourself.
>>richard hedges: thank you
chair spering.
I want to raise a couple of
issues. First I want to
acknowledge that I agree with
commissioner papan. But I want
to add some things. We need to
really look at private public
project partnerships coordinated
throughout bay area just a few
in the county where I live in,
we have meta with gilead,
alumina, which is a company that
just built five story buildings
right next to the bay visa's
world headquarters, and sony
playstation most of these are
within a 1 to 10 block walk from
my housing they really do share
these problems and should help
fund them. I could go on,
throughout the county with roach
in san francisco and many other
companies within that area with
biotech. So I just look forward
to us including that section. I
think they have been included in
our county plan. I am sure that
commissioner papan could better
inform than I can. But let's go
forward looking at sources of
people that have the same thing
to lose as our residents, who
are paying the taxes. Thank
you.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay. Thank you.
carlos, did you have your hand
up? Did you want to speak?
>>carlos romero: I do. Thank
you, chair.
I, too, am in particular in
support of the fact that we're
trying to address sea level rise
and the other environmental
issues that we are incurring
based on our rise in fossil fuel
consumption. And, again, coming
from a county where we do have a
local agency recently formed to
work on this, as well as coming
from a city, that because there
has not been a lot of other
federal state money, have
actually, in a very relatively
poor city, have approximately
poured in $10 million of our own
general fund money to begin to
advance to address the issue of
flooding by sea level rise. We
all need to look at existing
efforts around the bay area and
I think commissioner papan
mentioned that. But I also
think it's extremely important
for all of us to collaborate
collectively. We are a regional
body, probably the
prioritization of projects,
which commissioner ahn talked
about will be a critical
discussion for all of us to
have, within the context. I
know the presenters used the
term equity several times, and
to the extent that that can
actually be more fully fleshed
out what is meant by equity, as
everybody gets their
proportional fair share, or
examples of other places where
we have low-income folks that
will be impacted and will not
have the capacity to do their
own lifting of homes or
whatever, that we would look at
an equity definition that not
just addresses a fair
apportionment based on
population but also on impact
and addressing, perhaps, past
neglect of some of those coastal
or, you know, bay fronting
communities that are more
low-income. Again, thank you
for the great work. And I hope
we can have those considerations
discussed in the future.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you, carlos.
amy, did you want to comment?
>>amy r. Worth: thank you
mr. Chair. I apologize I tried
to get my hand up earlier, but I
wasn't fast enough. I just want
to share the comments that have
been made about the importance
of this effort and the
importance of collaboration.
and I know a number of you may
know that this has been in a
number of forefront bay area
regional collaboration work it
involves all of the regions,
agencies, plus the two relevant
state agencies, tri-state
agencies caltrans coastal
conservancy and water quality
control board the goal and
development, bcdc has been doing
the heavy lifting in the
developing of the plan, and
second, advocacy for the efforts
of funding for these plans this
is going to take state and
federal dollars to supplement
local government and we need to
look to the corporations, land
owners, to help support this.
and I want to thank bcdc for
going around to all the mayor's
conferences. In our
conversations in the past around
the plan and building regional
awareness of it that was one of
the priorities that we all had
identified together and I know
that our county was really
grateful, our mayors and council
members were really grateful to
have the opportunity to hear,
you know, directly about the
plan, and recognizing that
these, you know, those -- bay
rise, is, you know, we're unique
in california, because of the
tremendous resource of the bay
and the fact that all of our
counties are impacted and cities
are. So, thank you very, very
much, and we'll continue to
discuss this at barc and to
ensure that all of our agencies
are continually working
together. And I really also
want to thank the executive
directors of all the regional
agencies. Because from that
executive perspective, this has
been a real priority in terms of
coming together and identifying
how we can all work together and
be one voice when we advocate
and go to sacramento for these
funds and also to the federal
advocacy. So, thank you.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay. Thank you.
seeing no other hands. Rachel
and nicholas, thank you for the
presentation. I want to thank
all the bcdc staff. I see
there's a bunch of you on here,
for all your good work, and
thank you, larry, for jumping in
on this meeting. Thank you
everyone for this presentation.
>>larry goldzband: thank you.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: let's move on to
something that's a little less
controversial than sea level
rise. This is going to our
transit oriented communities. I
believe, therese, you're going
to give an introduction and kick
this off, and after therese
we're going to turn it over to
staff. They're going to do the
presentation, and committee
members I would like to get your
comments then move into public
comments and either other
members of mtc or abag want that
to comment. With that, therese.
give us the introduction.
>>therese mcmillan: okay.
thanks so much chair spering.
and I appreciate having a couple
of minutes to set some context
for this item, which, upon
review did not leap off of the
page of the page they sent to
you. And it's really important
to framing this discussion they
would like to have with
commissioners and executive
director items. At the end of
2021 the commission and
executive board took action on
two extraordinary efforts,
planned bay area 2050 and rhna
cycle six and both efforts
stretched the region beyond any
previous planning mandates we
had. It resulted in 35
ambitious strategies in
transportation, housing, the
economy, and the environment
under planned bay area 2050 that
had to, among other things, meet
an exceedingly tough ghg
reduction target.
and with rhna, we had to assign
regional targets that had never
been higher, reflecting the
undisputed housing crisis across
california and in parallel we
wanted to develop tools to help
our jurisdictions plan for those
targets. In addition, mtc and
abag, last year, assumed the new
authorities and responsibilities
under the legislative mantle of
the bay area housing financing
authority to lead advances in
housing production, preservation
and protection for those that
seek to live in this region in
affordable places benefitting
inclusive communities that
should be -- that everyone
should be able to call home.
and, you, as our board members,
stepped forward to adopt and
embrace planned bay area 2050,
rhna six, and the bahfa
directives. But in doing so, I
think we all collectively new
that carrying out these
objectives was going to be
really hard.
and would require finding
intersections with many
different policies to achieve
those objectives.
the proposed -- bold --
underlined -- proposed toc
policy that we have before you
today is a critical opportunity
to find those reinforcing
intersections, and staff took an
admittedly bold move up from the
current toc policy in framing
the draft that we put before
you.
now, this is not the only
intersection where planned bay
area 2050, rhna, and bahfa goals
need to meet, but it is a timely
one that staff will explain in
our presentation.
that said, as the toc policy
parameters emerge, there are
essential considerations to
ensure that they can be carried
out successfully.
a few to keep in mind at the
outset: this policy will not be
done tomorrow, nor in a very
short time frame. Much like the
existing toc policy, it is
expected to guide multiple years
of transportation and land use
coordination and necessarily
needs to be implemented in
stages.
it needs, also, to be able to
overlay and adapt to legislative
requirements that may come in
current or future legislation,
both in transportation and
housing that may impact the
boundaries of the policy as its
ultimately framed. It does not
assume that all existing
planning efforts, especially
those under our pda program are
stripped down to the studs, to
use a housing analogy. We need
a thoughtful transition plan to
help guide today to where we're
going to go with a new key
policy structure that's going to
go to an essential element of
implementation consideration.
and finally, and certainly not
the least, flexibility is key.
and staff seeks to build factors
into the new policy that allows
for the successful application
of indifferent environs
throughout this region. With
that important context, I would
like to turn it over to matt
maloney to begin the
presentation. Thank you.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you. Matt?
>>matt maloney: thanks therese.
I don't have a whole lot in to
add. Therese covered it well.
planned bay area 2050 forecasted
82% of all future household
growth. And 63% of all future
job growth really in this these
rich areas. Many of which are
also priority development areas.
and as therese mentioned that's
really the focal point and
driving force of how we tamp
down on rising vehicle miles
traveled and also reduce ghg.
and so these areas, transit-rich
areas, is really the focus of
this presentation today. And I
just want to kind of underscore
that it's those areas that we're
focused on. You know, it is
bold, as therese mentioned, and,
you know, we have come a long
ways since 2005, which is the
last time we did this strategy.
we have a broader application
here looking at both existing
corridors, as well as new
corridors, and, but therese
mentioned also the flexibility
as well that's inherent in the
policy looking at not just
residential but also commercial
and job growth, as well.
you know, and as well as the
three ps of housing, which you
will notice are, also, kind of
interwoven into this policy
update today. And that's just
really to ensure that when we
make major changes or plan for
major changes in these station
areas, that we ensure that these
are places for people of all
income levels.
so, you know, totally agree with
the phase-in period. Really
want to take your temperature on
the policy itself today, and
then really return and get
commission direction on kind of
how it gets phased in and
really, just the timing for all
of that.
today, on the staffing, we have
got kara vuicich. Project
manager on the study who will
give the presentation, theresa
is also here who is our director
of mobility. I will pass it to
kara to get the ball rolling.
>>kara vuicich: thank you. If
we could bring up the
presentation. Good morning.
it's still morning, committee
members. And, as matt said,
this is an information item that
provides an overview of the very
initial draft proposal for a
transit oriented communities
policy, the approach and
requirements. And this would
replace the 2005 resolution 3434
transit oriented development
policy.
and a quick note on the name
change, or the proposed name
changer. So in order to
emphasize the importance of
broader transit oriented
communities versus individual
development projects at transit
stations and along transit
corridors the proposal changes
the policies name from transit
oriented development or tod to
transit oriented communities or
toc. Last we presented to the
committee in spring of 2020 so
it's been little while and
provided you a summary timeline
and process for stakeholder
engagement. Since that time we
have convened a technical
advisory committee that includes
representatives from transit
agencies, local jurisdictions,
county transportation agencies,
as well as from other
transportation and housing
organizations.
the toc has already provide
feedback on elements of the
draft policy proposal and I have
included some of that in the
presentation today. And we'll
be continuing to work with the
toc members as well as
stakeholders as we move forward
with further refining and
revising the draft that we're
going to present. Next slide
please.
as you know planned bay area
2050 was adopted a few months
ago it provides the basis for
the trance atlantic policy draft
policy proposal addresses
multiple strategies from all
elements of the plan including
transportation housing economic
and environmental strategies for
key focus of the policy
implementing the plan strategies
that will increase the number of
households and jobs near the
region's rail, ferry and
frequent bus stops in stations
implementation of these
strategies is projected to
result in an additional
1.1 million households and about
900,000 jobs located in these
areas by 2050 and is a key
component of meeting the plan's
greenhouse gas reduction
targets. Next slide please.
so like the original transit
oriented development policy the
proposed transit oriented
communities policy focuses on
areas where transit investments
in high quality transit, namely
this is rail, ferry, and
frequent bus services or plans
and it ties implementation of
various strategies particularly
focused on increasing
residential commercial densities
in transit-rich areas to
implementation of bay area
transit investments four
proposed toc policy goals on the
left side first increase density
for new residential development
and prioritize affordable
housing in transit-rich areas
which are locations within one
half mile of transit stops or
stations that provide ferry rail
or frequent bus service second
increase densities for
commercial development hubs
serving multiple transit
provides 30 gold complements
first two goals which seek to
locate more housing in
transit-rich areas typically
with then minute walks and
finally goals for continuing
regional support facilitation
partnerships and implement toc
policies to create equitable
transit oriented communities
within our region next provide
be detail on proposed toc policy
applications to areas where
investments in rail, ferry and
frequent bus transit are
planned. Next slide. Again
we're propose that the policy
apply to priority development
areas or transit-rich areas
where planned bay area
investments and rail fore and
frequent bus service are
planned. This would include
transit-rich priority
development areas as well as
existing or future transit-rich
areas where a pda has not yet
been designated what this means
or what this would potentially
look like is that transit-rich
pdas that do not currently
comply with the toc policy
requirements may need to update
or adopt plans or ordinances in
order to comply. Those that
already comply would not need to
take any further action for
locations where a transit-rich
pda has not been designated a
local jurisdiction would still
need to comply with the toc
policy requirements. Mtc would
strongly encourage that a pda be
designated in those locations
but a decision of pda would not
be required in order to comply
with a toc policy. I want to
emphasize that we anticipate
implementation of the toc policy
in these areas would happen over
multiple years and again would
be coordinated with planned
transit investments. Next slide
please.
so as discussed on the previous
slide, the toc policy, again,
would apply to location where is
we're making investment in rail,
ferry and frequent bus service
includes areas where new
stations would be created as a
result of expansion or extension
projects as well as existing
stops and stations where major
improvements or enhancements to
existing transit service plans.
new stations along transit
expansions or extensions
proposed policy would require
all policy requirements be met
by local jurisdictions before
discretionary funds are
programmed for construction of
the transit project or before
mtc would provide endorsement
for project funding similar to
the approach from the original
2005tod policy and seeks to
support planning and zoning are
in place before transit
expansion or extension becomes
operational for transit
enhancement or improvement
projects where transit are
already operating transit
project funding would not be
tied to policy compliance
instead focus would be on
providing planning and technical
assistance initially as part of
obag 3 and reap 2.0 to assist
with compliance in coordination
with near-term transit
enhancements and improvement
projects that said staff is
proposing that a
jurisdictional's eligibility for
future cycles obag four even
later cycles would be contingent
upon toc policy compliance we
anticipate toc policy
implementation will be phased
over multiple years in
coordination with transit
improvements. Next several
slides discuss key differences
between 2005toc policy and draft
toc policy proposal. Next slide
please. Thank you. In short
the proposed toc policy would
apply much more broadly than the
2005tod policy. The 2005tod
policy only applied to specific
named transit expansion projects
that were included in mtc
resolution 3434. Requiring a
minimum number of housing units
either be zoned or built within
a half mile of new stations
along the transit corridor in
contrast the communities policy
would apply to all stops and
stations affected by planned bay
area investments in rail, ferry
and frequent bus service
including extensions or
expansions as well as stations
or stops affected by major
transit improvements
enhancements. Next slide
please. I'm going to present
the proposed toc policy
requirement in more detail later
in the presentation but this
slide provides an overview and
comparison between requirements
from the transit orient the
development policy and toc
policy. The 2005tod policy set
minimum thresholds for existing
housing units along certain
transit expansion corridors
based on type of service
provided affordable housing
units were given extra weight in
terms of meeting thresholds toc
policy requirements build from
complemented priority
development areas guidelines
focusing on key elements from
the guidelines that will be
required to implement planned
bay area consequently proposed
toc policy requirements address
residential commercial density
around transit stops and
stations affordable housing in
know anti-displacement policies
parking management station
access and circulation including
connectivity to adjacent equity
priority communities that remain
outside the half mile station
area. Next slide please. Like
the 2005tod policy the proposed
toc policy would condition
discretionary project funding as
well as funding endorsements for
transit expansions and
enhancements on whether a
jurisdiction has met policy
requirements key difference is
proposed toc policy would also
apply to areas around existing
stations where major transit
enhancements improvements are
planned local jurisdictions
eligibility future regional
discretionary transportation you
funds you such as future cycles
and later conditioned on
compliance with policy
requirement difference between
the 2005 policy and toc policy
and further detail proposed
requirements. The toc policy
requirements not only address
residential density around
transit stops and stations but
also commercial density for
office space requiring minimum
residential and commercial
densities for development in
transit-rich or pda or major
transit investments where pdas
are planned table shown on based
minimum densities at which new
development would need to be
built in order to implement the
plan. Based on transit service
that would be available with
highest densities required at
regional rail hubs served by
multiple bart lines bart and
caltrain I want to note this
requirement is not seeking to
specify one land use versus
another in a station area rather
to ensure average density of any
new residential or commercial
development is built at or above
specified minimums. Existing
plans we took an initial look at
some existing plans and our
review indicates that the
proposed density ranges are
feasible however there can be
significant variation in both
land use types and intensities
within stations within a
surrounding area transit stop or
station we're continuing to work
with stakeholders including
local jurisdictions and planning
staff to further refine the
proposed requirement to provide
official specificity as well as
flexibility in order to
accommodate diversity throughout
the region as well as
significant land use within a
situation station area next
slide shows commercial projects
from around the bay area that
indicate the range of density.
next slide. These are the
minimum densities proposed for
regional rail hubs the
residential projects that you
see on your right are from
downtown oakland and the
commercial projects on the left
-- sorry -- residential projects
on the left, commercial projects
on the right, are from downtown
oakland and downtown san
francisco.
next slide, please.
so for tier two this would
include regional rail such as
bart and caltrain light rail
transit bus rapid transit and
what you see are a project from
san jose near downtown. On the
residential side. And then
another project from downtown --
the downtown south san francisco
pda. The commercial projects on
the right of the slide are from
the eastern neighborhoods pda in
san francisco and from the el
camino real pda in burlingame.
next slide please. Lastly, for
our examples, the residential
examples are from the greater
downtown pda in san jose for the
example on the top and then from
the pda in fremont on the bottom
level and then on the right we
have a project from san mateo
from their rail corridor pda,
and then on the bottom, from the
downtown redwood city pda. Next
slide please.
so this -- the proposed
requirements for affordable
housing and anti-displacement
focus on production,
preservation and protection of
affordable housing in
transit-rich areas.
this requirement supports
several planned bay area housing
strategies which are listed on
the right side of the slide, as
well as implementation of the
regional housing needs
allocation. Given the range of
land use and housing market
context throughout the region
proposal for this requirement
takes a menu approach. There is
a list of policies and what's
being proposed is that a
jurisdiction would adopt two out
of three or two out of four.
from the stakeholders we have
adopted it should be in some
cases less constrained in terms
of optional and should further
guidance specification on what
housing policies should address
requirement that is meaningful
in terms of planned bay area
implementation providing
flexibility needed to address
housing market context in the
region and working with
stakeholders as well as housing
and local program staff to
address comments and questions
received to ensure consistency
regarding regional guidelines on
housing policies. This provides
a high-level summary of proposed
policy on parking requirements
parking management requirements
detailed in the attachment.
addressed by bart's zoning
guidance as well as park policy
playbook there is a solid body
of research at this time on the
critical role effective parking
management plays on reducing
automobile trips and parking,
right size parking enables high
density and development near
transit and reduce per unit
development cost our technical
advisory committee members
supported elimination of minimum
parking requirements in
transit-rich areas and there is
debate about potentially having
parking maximums with proposed
areas for regional rail service
such as bart, caltrain and light
rail and rapid transit I not
including parking maximum for
areas that are only served by
ferry, commuter rail or frequent
bus service. We're working with
our stakeholders including local
jurisdiction planning staff on
further refining this
requirement with regard to
parking maximum providing
further specificity regarding
what requirements transportation
demand management measures might
be. Focused on the half mile
area around transit stops and
stations requirements for
transit station access
circulation also address
improvements that would enable
people outside the area
including buses shuttles and
active transportation. First
two components in the outline
include complete streets update
as well as regional investment
mobility hubs third bullet
requires completion of specific
gap analysis several recent
station areas have included this
analysis and it's been effective
in identifying projects that
improve multi-modal transit
access. Requirements working to
address comments and feedback.
and we very much look forward to
feedback from committee members
today including how
jurisdictions should address
equity priority communities
located farther than a half mile
from transit stops and stations.
next slide please. I want to
conclude this portion of the
presentation talking about how
local jurisdictions will comply
with the proposed toc policy
requirements that I have
outlined. We anticipate that.
oc policy implementation will be
phased over multiple years in
coordination with transit
improvements and that it will
take time and financial support
to assist jurisdictions with toc
policy compliance in some cases
already adopted plans or zoning
may need to be amended to comply
with the policy but it's
important to note that even an
amendment to an existing plan
can take several years to
complete if adopted one of the
first implementation steps will
toll address compliance
locations for major transit
improvements planned in the
near-term enabling us to
identify prioritization
resources that will be needed to
support policy implementation
and coordination implementation
for transit investment. Focus
of today's presentation has been
to provide you with a general
overview of draft proposal for
the toc approach and policy
requirements and get your
feedback on overall direction
for policy development. There
is still a lot of work to be
done as we move forward with
developing the draft final
policy there are several key
issues that we want to in
particular bring to your
attention as I mentioned earlier
the toc policy would not only
apply to transit expansions but
to major transit improvements as
well which is a significant
change from the 2005tod policy
and while the focus is on
providing planning and technical
assistance to jurisdictions to
assist with policy compliance
staff is propose that ultimately
compliance could be a condition
of future obag cycles, obag four
or beyond. And next as we move
forward with refining the policy
requirements a key issue will be
balancing effectiveness and ease
of implementation with both the
diversity and complexity of
different land use and
transportation contexts
throughout the region and in
some cases even within a single
station area. And then lastly,
policy implementation will
likely require additional
resources for planning and
technical assistance as well as
for assessing compliance. And
we expect implementation of the
policy to be phased over time
and, again, coordinated with
transit project funding and
delivery.
and, my last slide, please.
[laughter]
so, in conclusion, our next
steps are to work with our
technical advisory committee and
other stakeholders on developing
a final draft policy that we
anticipate bringing back to this
committee for action later this
spring.
again, this is an information
item. And no action is being
requested today. But we are
very happy to answer any
questions. And definitely want
to receive your feedback and
direction on the general policy
approach and requirements. So,
thank you very much.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: matt, does that conclude
the staff presentation?
>>matt maloney: yes it does.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: before I take questions
from the committee members, you
know, I just -- you know, I
don't think I have received as
many phone calls in a while,
ever since our telecommute
policy and planned bay area 2050
stirred a lot of interest. You
know, as this policy has been
released, it has stirred a lot
of interest. And I think staff
knows that. First I want to say
that, you know, staff has not
presented anything in this
proposal that isn't in planned
bay area 2050. I think what got
everybody's attention is, this
is a 30-year plan. The way that
this presentation was presented,
it looked like our staff was
trying to implement it in the
first year. And that was not
the intent. And therese really
made that clear that there is a
lot of work to be done. There
is a lot more analysis. It
doesn't mean all of these
strategies are going to be
included. Because there might
be a better place to put some of
those strategies. Local
jurisdictions, and you know, we
need to look at, you know, are
these incentives that are put n
and how we're going to approach
t so I just want to just caution
everybody before we circle the
wagons or anything that there is
a lot in analysis, a lot more
discussion. But staff is
bringing forward the strategies
that we have all adopted, and
most of them, we were hoping
would be adopted over a period
of time. A number of years.
and, we are certainly going to
have to figure out who is the
best person to implement many of
these strategies. And so I
just, you know, the speakers,
and committee members, you know,
it would just -- it would be
good to hear from you on what
issues you're concerned about.
there is plenty of time for
everybody to look at this policy
look at how it's going to impact
their projects, if it's going to
hinder those projects or
accelerate them. It's going to
be good to hear that information
from you. The intent is not to
dismantle anybody's zoning or
pda plan that's not the intent
of this. A lot of this work is
going to continue and mtc staff
is going to help with
implementation and delivery of
those projects. I want to set
context. There is a lot more
discussion. We all need to work
together. We have a common
goal. And that all of these
strategies, as I said, that has
had a lot of discussion over the
past several years, as we have
brought planned bay area 2050
forward. And so, in my
conversations with therese and
matt, you know, at a couple of
meetings prior to this meeting,
they're assuring me that there
is a lot of opportunity to have
meaningful discussions, to get
the stakeholders that are
involved in these various areas,
and really talk about a strategy
that's going to work. And a toc
program that we can deliver.
you know, I was chair of mtc
when we introduced the original
toc program, transportation for
livable -- tlc -- there was
controversy there, but that has
served as well, and I think this
toc is going to do the same
thing. It's how and when we
implement it that's going to be
the issue here and who delivers.
that said I'm going to go to my
commissioners and board members
and we'll take comments.
dave hudson, I think you're
first, then carol dutra-vernaci.
you will be second.
go ahead, dave, kick us off
>>david e. Hudson: apparently,
I must have missed something.
mine is a clarifying question.
don't have anybody angry yet. I
asked a question during our
appeals process on what
something actually meant so this
time I'm going to ask it again
this has to do with item five,
attachment a, it's two
questions. Bottom of first
paragraph, "adding affordable
homes close to region's major
transit investment." the
question is does region mean bay
area there, and,
second "proposed affordable
housing and anti-displacement
policies like would be
implemented jurisdiction wide"
is jurisdiction wide also the
bay area. I'll wait to get an
answer.
>>matt maloney: I'll leap in on
this one. Yes. When we say the
region's major transit
investments we're talking about
the nine-county bay area. When
we're talking about
jurisdiction-wide in terms of
adopting certain policies we're
talking local jurisdictions in
that case.
>>david e. Hudson: okay. Well
where I got surprised before
was "intraregional relationship"
and I thought that meant, like,
a couple of jurisdictions coming
together on something only to
find out that meant the entire
bay area.
I'll leave it at that.
everybody can judge for
themselves.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: yeah. Staff, I think it
would be best if we try and get
all the questions in. And if
you guys can write them down as
we go. Because if we're going
to respond to everything we'll
be here for a long period of
time. But we have to address
the questions people are
raising. Matt you can guys take
notes and answer the questions.
but I would like to get as many
of the questions in front of us
as we can and that will help
stop repeating a lot of
information. With that, carol
and victoria?
>>carol dutra-vernaci: yes.
and thank you chair spering.
my thought on this item is that,
obviously, whatever politics we
end upcoming up with, we want
the cities to be compliant. So,
because this is going to be a
phased project, cities are going
to keep ongoing with their
development plans as time goes
on, and as we're phasing this
in, in pieces, I'm afraid we're
going to end up having an r
jurisdiction that might not be
consistent with putting in the
policies that we're concerned b
so I would like to request that
we do an assessment of our
transit-rich areas and see where
the alignment is that we're
thinking about, and where the
gaps are so there can be
communication. I did hear you
say, chair spering, about the
stakeholders. Because if
they're aware of what's going
on, then that will inform them,
as they're trying to move
forward in their projects. So,
thank you for entertaining those
comments.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you, carol.
victoria?
>>victoria fleming: thank you,
chair spering.
my comments -- you know, I take
the chair's comments in stride,
and thank staff for a really
comprehensive and well-thought
out introduction to a really
difficult implementation plan.
so, thank you, sincerely.
my concerns are that, as we
implement so many of these
fantastic strategies, that I
can't see one of these
strategies that I can't see
starting and that I don't want
agree with. I think they're all
really wonderful, and I think
they're, in time, carrots to
sticks, and really putting some
teeth behind our goals and at
the same time ask for careful
consideration of the smaller
communities in the north bay.
these projects are great goals
because many of our
jurisdictions just aren't there
yet. I look forward to careful
and you thoughtful discussions
with our county transportation
authorities and our stakeholders
to make sure this is phased in a
way that doesn't leave our
smaller communities behind and
make sure the funding is
distributed in a way that makes
the whole entire nine bay area
county system work well
together. Thank you.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you, victoria.
pat eklund, then neysa fligor.
>>pat ecklund: thank you chair
spering. I also want to thank
you for your preliminary
comments. Because this document
scared the bejesus out of me,
actually, just saying that
directly. I think right off the
bat, we need to get a revised
timeline. I think one of -- for
implementation of any type of
policy like this, I really think
that, number one, we need to
send out a draft policy,
whichever one we get close to --
I think this is far from where
we need to be -- to each city
for review and comment.
because, basically, what we're
doing is we're changing the
concept of transit-rich areas to
be a mandatory designation. In
the past, pdas actually had to
apply for it. Transit-rich
areas was a designation that was
made by abag and mtc, but it
wasn't something that the cities
really had to adhere to.
so, I have a major issue about
this being applied to tras.
especially in the more rural
areas, like novato or san
rafael, is not anything like a
fremont or san jose.
and before we do anything, I
think we need to have a better
understanding of which cities
are not in compliance with the
proposed policies that we're
doing. And do we necessarily
want them to be? Because there
is some that just don't lend
itself, and, plus, requiring a
commercial density and
residential density -- we are
still in a pandemic and there is
a lot of discussion, the bay
area council just came out with
a thing that said 40% of their
employees are not going to be
coming back to work in a
building. Most of them are
going be -- and there is some
debate as to what percentage.
some say 15%, some are saying
40%. But I firmly believe that
the way that we work, the way
that we move people to and from
work is fundamentally changed as
a result of this pandemic. And
we haven't really assessed that,
or even factored that into some
of our thinking here.
so we're just assuming that
we're going to have to have
residential densities and
commercial densities around
transit-rich areas when, in fact
that may not be the case.
people may not be needing
transit to get to work, because
they're not necessarily going to
be going back to work. The
council said they may be going
into the office maybe three days
a week, not five. Transit is
based on five days a week. So,
you know, I'm not an expert in
this, but, so, I have a real
issue with this being applied to
transit-rich areas. I don't
think that we should be
mandating commercial and
residential densities. I think
that the affordable housing and
anti-displacement policies,
cities don't necessarily have
the money to adopt these
policies and or implement them.
most cities don't have a housing
fund. So I have -- you know
there, is no definition of a
major transit investment,
whether it's planned, or
developed.
there is just a lot of
uncertainties in this thing.
and I think that we really need
to make sure that the planners
and the elected official in each
city, in this region, have input
into this.
and, so, I have a lot more
comments that, basically, I
think that we need to have a
little bit more definition and a
better understanding of who this
is going to apply to and what
does it mean for each of the
cities before we even think any
adopting something like this.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you, pat.
>>neysa fligor: pat covered
everything on my list. And in
the opening, chair spering,
thank you for that it's the
message I will take back we're
early in the process and I
appreciate you saying that at
the beginning. I won't repeat
everything that pat said, but
similar concerns and questions,
how it will be deployed,
applied, application, to non-pda
areas, what does that mean for
different cities, and so because
we're at the early stage of this
policy process, I do appreciate
the fact that we will have time
to delve deeper and solicit
feedback from our individual
cities and county jurisdictions.
so I won't go into the list.
thank you very much.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you for those
comments. Carlos and then
alfredo, our chair.
>>carlos romero: thank you. I
am actually quite pleasantly
surprised at the work both staff
and our executive staff have
done in trying to improve our
former tod policy. I know we
have had many a discussion in
the past, some actually led by
the chair about how effective
these policies have been, are we
getting what we need in terms of
the development that's required
to make the bay area more
livable and equitable. And I
believe this draft is certainly
moving in that direction. And I
want to thank you therese for
supporting her staff to make
some of these suggestions on
policies and changes to the tod.
I do want to point out that many
of the items that are discussed
here don't require a deep or any
cost to implement, particularly
when it comes to some of the
policies around preservation and
displacement, it's something
that our previous tod policy
never address said. So just
cause eviction, you could put in
place protection that is
discussed there, and indeed
those aren't going to cost you
anything but they certainly will
be protecting communities of
concern communities of color,
communities that certainly
require a type of protection.
and I would like to even
possibly even see that
strengthened, perhaps even
thinking of a first right of
return policy on displacement.
certainly, I want to comment
really quickly on the parking
issue. I think it makes a lot
of sense to look at parking and
reducing that parking. But
let's keep in mind that a
reduction in parking to a
developer, or what he has to
produce saves that developer 30
to $45,000 for a parking space
and there's an ability to
recapture that 15 to 20 to 30%
is a savings to a developer, to
do a 1.5 or two car per unit
parking renovation I think is,
would be some public recapturing
of that. Proposed densities on
page 22
[audio difficulties]
I kind of want to record and
understand -- and we'll get to
this later --
[audio difficulties]
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: carlos, you're dropping
out. We couldn't hear you.
I think we may have lost him.
carlos? Okay. I'll come back
to him. I'll go to chair
pedroza then vice chair
josefowitz will be next.
>>alfredo pedroza: thank you
chair spering. Your comments
you made earlier --
>>carlos romero: I believe page
--
>>alfredo pedroza: carlos, you
were kind of going in and out.
are you in a good spot now? You
want to come back in?
>>carlos romero:
[audio difficulties]
-- let me see --
>>alfredo pedroza: you're
reception wasn't that good
carlos.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: carlos we're going to
come back to you. We'll go
ahead with the other speakers
and come back to you.
>>alfredo pedroza: thank you.
comments were spot o and therese
response to making those opening
statements. Those goals are
good and consistent in terms of
what we have been talking about
in socializing with bay area in
terms of what I'm looking for in
direction is looking to work
with flexibility is key
acknowledging the differences
between urban and rural
communities commissioner fleming
had a great statements about
flexibility it's going to be
critical in this analysis and in
terms of tying to funding
sources. I can support
conditioning but we have to make
sure we have a policy that there
is consensus on and that we're
recognizing uniquenesses between
rural and urban counties before
we start talking about
reconditioning and tying in
differences. With the concept
of analysis, I grate goals are
good. Thank you.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you. Vice chair
josefowitz. Nick?
>>nick josefowitz: thank you.
I think this policy is really
just has so many things to like
about it. I think it's
terrific. This is grounded in
planned bay area. That was a
document that has done so much
public outreach. I can't
remember the numbers, but what
was it? 10,000 conversations,
four years of discussions, you
know, voted on by so many -- by
abag and mtc and gone through so
many committees, and it's just
great -- I think the packet that
this kind of builds on that and
is really an out -- it's so
important for the success of
this policy.
I think it's also great to see
how, like with planned bay area,
this is really grounded in the,
sort of, best practice for how
to reduce the number and
distance of trips taken, driving
alone and how to increase
transit ridership, and that
we're moving to, sort of, really
incorporate our, sort of, a best
understanding of, sort of, the
densities and parking and tdm
requirements and not just
residential but also the needs
of commercial and the importance
of kind of taking into account,
sort of, equity.
and I think the main change just
really resonates with me we're
moving from the idea of how to
build to create and preserving
communities and, sort of, moving
from housing to people with this
policy and I think that makes
such a difference.
I also wanted to say, I think it
is really powerful that this
policy is going to be tied to
funding. And that might be one
of the ways, and I think that
might be another way to build in
flexibility here. Because I
certainly acknowledge, and I
think it's important to have a
distinction between kind of
urban and rural places. I'm
sure we'll hear a lot of, sort
of, comments that we shouldn't
have one size fits all, and I
agree with that.
but, I do think that in whatever
place we're looking at f this
region is making a significant
investment in transit service,
or in transit expansion, that
there have to be -- there has to
be, sort of, a commence or
expectation for making the, sort
of, land uses making the, sort
of, work around that investment
so maybe one of the ways of
phasing this policy this is
around the investment going into
these communities overlaid with
the kind of rural fabric I think
that's incredibly important.
and the other element of
funding, we didn't hear it today
but we heard it in a
presentation on wednesday which
wasn't a joint abag
presentation, but there is so
much new planning money coming
to this region and I think that
is going to be essential that
that planning money is, sort of,
tied up with, sort of, the
expectations in this toc policy.
so that those communities who
have expectations of kind of
being the first movers are also
teed up to be able to get the
planning money to support that
movement and that work. And
this is comprehensive in
communicating that to us and
other stakeholders about the
planning funding availability
that's coming down and how
you're going to coordinate that.
and then, you know, finally on
the, you know, the -- and I
agree with -- and I appreciate
commissioner spering and
director mcmillan's comments
that this isn't all going happen
at once. I realize there is a
real emergency, planned bay area
has this region building 32,000
homes in transit-rich areas and
creating 25,000 new jobs in
transit-rich areas ever year
from now until 2050. 32,000
homes a year from now every year
from now until 2050 and every
year we're not doing that, that
moons we have to build more the
year after and more the year
after. We can face this in a
way that jump starts the,
achieving the goals we have laid
out in planned bay area but is
so important to make this region
affordable and to kind of come
to grips with the drivers of
climate change. Thank you.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay. Thank you.
president arreguin and then
damon connolly. Jesse, you're
up.
>>jesse arreguin, abag
administrative chair: thank
you, mr. Chair. I agree with
your comments. I kind of frame
the discussion which is that
this policy is a critical step
to implement planned bay area
but it's not all going to be
done at once and I think there
is a lot to consider. Not just
how local governments will have
to comply with these
requirements so that they can be
competitive for regional
discretionary funds how this
will impact the eligibility of
transit projects because transit
agencies don't have control over
local land use planning. That
is something that is dedicated
to local governments. But I see
this as the rubber really
meeting the road. Where if we
aren't as, as vice chair
josefowitz said, meeting the
targets that we set out in
planned bay area to achieve the
certain number of unit in our
region over the next 30 years f
we're going to implement many of
the housing policies that we
have outlined we need to have
incentives for people to comply
and if local governments are not
going to meet those benchmarks
then other communities that are,
are going to be awarded and are
going to be eligible for these
funds. I would say as president
of abag I appreciate all the
work that's being done this is a
critical implementation action
to help us realize the goals of
planned bay area. And to that I
want to make a request to the
executive director while abag
has a no vote on this, I think
our feedback could be helpful to
staff at the mtc commission, as
mtc is evaluating this policy
and I want to respectful of
request to ms. Mcmillan if we
could get a presentation of to
the executive board and the
executive board can provide
whatever comments to staff to
share with the mtc commission.
because I think this is really
important. And it does actually
help us realize the goals and
requirements of the regional
housing needs allocation, which
as we know are very different
from previous rhna cycles was
not just limited to focusing on
priority development areas but
looked at transit-rich areas and
high-resource areas as where
additional housing could be
accommodated.
and I think if local governments
are going to have to meet those
rhna requirements, and are going
to have to rezone sites, they
should be rewarded for their
work with potential planning
grants or other discretionary
funds.
that's how we are going to get
local governments to not only
implement those requirements,
but also to build the housing,
quickly, affordable housing that
we need in our region. But
there is a lot to consider.
there are communities that are
not ready to implement this.
and so what are we going to do
to help work with them providing
resources and technical
assistance that they can be in a
position to be able to be
competitive. That's going to be
part of the phasing
conversation. But I think the
goals of this policy are good.
they're critical for us to
achieve our greenhouse gas
reduction goals to achieve our
affordability goals. And make
the transportation funding
investments in areas where we
have good densities, good
population density, and we are
-- and we have good transit
connectivity as well. So, thank
you to staff for all your work.
look forward to a presentation
at abag. We look forward to
providing our feedback for the
commission to consider. This is
very important. And I think if
done right could have a really
transformative impact on our
region. Thank you
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thanks jesse. Damon
connolly, then one of my
favorite mayors, mayor schaff.
damon?
>>damon connolly: appreciate
the discussion and goals that
we're trying to achieve. We're
starting to get questions
locally, so really appreciate
the signal that this is the
start of a conversation and
we'll be bringing localities to
the calling of the conversation.
I want to bring back a point, I
think it was by commissioner
fleming, about situations in the
north bay, for example, where
you have a larger regional
transit center serving multiple
communities, at the same time,
being adjacent to smaller towns
or cities, so, the juxtaposition
of finding for that center or
increased service that are being
tied to planning decisions going
on a hyper-local basis. So, the
question is, kind of, will
whatever we ultimately adopt
actually incentivize transit
improvements and the concern
about holding regional projects
or regional funding accountable,
if you will, to, really,
hyper-local planning
decision-making. It's something
that we need to, at least, work
through. What sorts of funds
will be affected. That needs to
continued to be worked through.
I am reminded that we did have a
robust discussion as a
commission about the issue of
conditioning. I think we landed
in some solid places on that.
so, keeping that in mind, and of
course, flexibility, as folks
have noted. And then I'm also
hearing the question that has
been teed up today about what
potential areas are we talking
about beyond pdas in terms of
the approaches here. And of
course, heavy-duty coordination
with local transit operators and
communities. Thanks.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you, damon.
and after mayor schaff will be
amy worth.
mayor schaff?
>>libby schaaf: thank you,
chair spering. My favorite
chair.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: [laughter]
>>libby schaaf: well, I want to
commend staff. I think they
have done an amazing job. And I
know that now is the time, or
the devil is in the details, and
I encourage you to continue
working with the technical
advisory committee. I do have
one question. You don't have to
answer it, but just for your
consideration, I saw, kind
of, "credit" for having, sort
of, inclusionary zoning
policies, but I did not see
mention of affordable housing
impact fees. In oakland we have
affordable housing impact fees
with an in lieu option to
include the unit in the project.
so it's almost the same thing as
inclusionary with an in lieu fee
option. We just did it the
other way for several reasons.
so if you could look into that,
it's one of those details. I
want to echo a little bit of
what some of my colleagues have
said. You know, the time to be
scared or have the bejeebers
scared out of you is past. We
already did the big bold thing
and adopted planned bay area.
and remember that the modeling
in that plan respond to state of
california mandated greenhouse
gas reductions.
this is not an option. We are
responding to a state mandate.
if you need to blame someone
besides mtc or abag. We already
agreed to these densities. This
is now, actually, making that
commitment real by putting an
implementation plan around t we
will not be able to reach the
goals that we committed to in
the plan without this policy. I
am convinced of that.
leadership is about making
people unemployment. But it's
because we are the only ones who
are equipped with the damage and
the tools, the actual authority,
to future-proof our beloved
communities. So think of this
as an act of love. Because the
future is depending on it.
I want to, also, specifically,
appreciate that all three p's
are covered in this plan,
production, preservation, and
protection. The bay area has
strong affordable housing and
anti-displacement goals. These
are in the plan and these
policies are important to
achieving the goal's plan. And
I can just become oakland's
experience, having these types
of policies has not discouraged
development, certainly, in our
city. We have seen the largest
development boom, we believe,
since the 1906 earthquake, we
have added 17,000 new units of
housing to our city in the last
seven years. It's pretty
phenomenal. And so, that is, at
least, a proof point.
I just want to, again, end by
saying that, personally, I love
the boldness, but I want to
assure you, I will listen to my
colleagues. I will do my best
to keep an open mind to a well
justified recommendations, to
phase this implementation plan
in over time. But, I do caution
us that time is of the essence.
climate change will not wait for
any of us. And I also want to
mention that many of us are
updating our housing elements
right now. So, it's a perfect
time to incorporate this
implementation plan so that it
can actually make it into the
work that we're each doing with
our housing elements.
so, those are my thoughts. But
that is also my commitment to
keep an open mind to phasing.
and I look forward to working
through this leadership
challenge that has been given to
each and every one of us, as we
future-proof our beloved
communities.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you, mayor schaff.
your open-mindedness has been
respective.
commissioner worth?
>>amy r. Worth:
open-mindedness, I don't think
there is anybody who is more
passionate about producing
housing and our obligation to
doing that. You're representing
19 cities of diverse sizes, and
there is a lot in this plan that
can be implemented and
benefitted in light of the fact
that all of our cities are
undertaking the rhna process.
with that being said, what I'm
concerned about, as we look at
this plan and we move forward,
that we want to make sure that
the incorporation of a lot of
these policies, one includes the
active engagement of our city
planning directors. I know that
most directors, this is now
coming on their radar screens,
it has not been on their radar
screens, they have been
grappling with rhna, and I
appreciate the funding that abag
has provided through the reap
program for cities to do the
kinds of planning needed to
accommodate these significantly
larger rhna numbers. So, cities
are going to be planning and
zoning for significant changes
over the next year. But I think
it's really important that any
of -- the policies that we
eventually adopt do not either
prevent the development of
housing, or put cities in a
position where they are
implementing their rhna
requirement, but because they
don't cross the t's and dot the
ayes you're going to be seeing
significant increase in housing
densities without dollars to
provide the transportation
infrastructure needed to
accommodate those. We have been
grappling with the housing
challenges and surplus capacity
inclusionary density is a goal
we all want to have happen, but
at some points the projects
don't pencil. I am particularly
concerned about that. And
recognizing that one size does
not fit all in these density
requirements, that are outlined,
so, I really think that the city
planning directors who are
grappling right now with this
very issue of how do we -- you
know, what do we need to
incorporate these planning goals
in our community and what it's
going to look like. And so I
really appreciate the
perspective of our executive
director and our chair,
outlining the fact that this is
the beginning of a discussion
about these policies. And the
pda and obag policies have
really positioned our region
really well. But I also think
that it's very important that
we're able to meet these housing
goals. And in our county we
have cities that have entitled
projects, multi-family housing
project that are not being built
because they cannot pencil s I
really think we need to be
mindful as we look into these
policies, what fits within our
communities, but also how do we
achieve the goal of actually
producing the housing that is
desperately needed. Final
piece. And then I'll conclude I
appreciate the element in this
that talk about providing and
encouraging the movement of jobs
throughout the region. And I
think that this is one of the
huge challenges that we should
have for our greenhouse gas
targets is that we have people
traveling long distances from
home to jobs and if we can move
more jobs into more counties
where we have population centers
and a workforce that is there to
fill those jobs, I think that
can go a long way, also. So, in
achieving these greenhouse gas
targets. So I look forward to
conversations, and I look
forward to the opportunity for
not only the n that chart, not
only this county transportation
authority's planning directors
engage, but I really think that
the city planning directors also
can provide really important
input in terms of how these
policies can be -- how they
impact our ability to produce
housing that is so much needed.
thank you very much.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you. Amy. Gina
your out last comment.
>>gina papan: thank you to
staff. The question is how we
get there and how it actually
works. I cannot emphasize
enough including in your tech
advisory committee some of the
jurisdictions that have already
been put through some of this.
because what this policy does
is, it does not hold the transit
operators accountable. So, I
think I individuals before, I
mean, in my jurisdiction -- and
thank you for putting up
pictures from three different
cities in my jurisdiction, you
can see we're trying to
accommodate. We are building.
but, right now, we're being
interfered with by high speed
rail and some other transit
operators. So they are not
necessarily our friends. There
is an existing transit-rich
area. We get that. That's
wonderful.
but they're not helpful. You
have a portion that says access.
again, the transit operators are
not concerned with access.
parking, if you cannot park at a
major modal center, you are not
going to take transit. This is
problematic. And you can look,
right now, at the bart
development in my city, the fact
that there is no parking for the
commercial part is really
becoming difficult. It's a
beautiful commercial area there,
in addition to the housing, but
the businesses, like a
restaurant won't go in there
because their customers can't
park. And no, you can't park at
bart unless you go into the bart
station, getting parking thing
from there, so, these are the
kind of nuances that need to be
worked out. And we need your
help, mtc, in helping us build
more, and not, kind of,
strangleholding us, which some
of this appears to be. Planned
bay area is great. I think some
of it is already out of date.
there is a lot of housing laws
that were just put into place
that are impacting our abilities
to build housing, to be
sustainable, all kinds of stuff.
we have upzoned. We will
continue to upzone. Don't think
we're not; we are doing that.
but when you add in here rent
stabilization, just cause
evictions, tenant-right
councils. I believe the
legislature has already weighed
in on that. So it seems like
we're telling them, no, you
didn't do it right, and now you
have got to do this. It was
pointed out by another speaker
that we don't have the ability
-- some of us smaller
jurisdictions -- to do that.
so, when you have your
affordable protection and
neighborhood stabilization
portion in there, and you're
going to condition funding on
every single -- I represent 20
cities -- if we don't have that,
we're not eligible for the
entire electrification of
caltrain within our
jurisdiction? I mean, that is
-- that's not going to let us
achieve the goals we want. We
want to built. We want to make
all this happen. We need your
help. So I'm kind of looking
for more policy or portions of
this that actually help us get
to building more and not
interfere with what's currently
happening here. So, you know,
if you had something in
thereabout high speed rail not
stealing the land which we have
already approved for 488 housing
units for street level parking,
I got no problem with that.
that's wonderful. Tell them.
that's impossible, and I can go
ahead with ten stories, 48488
housing units. We want to
build. So, please, I think you
need to bring in the local
jurisdictions. Some of us have
the experience to say this is
what works, this is what doesn't
work. Because let me tell you
right now, a person trying to
get a loan, a developer for a
commercial/housing I don't think
they can get the loan unless it
includes some parking and you're
saying, no. Nothing. We can
transition out. [indiscernible]
is great, they're building a big
parking structure, but with the
future of transforming that, so
we can make all the
transportation elements work,
those are the type of things
here that I would love to see.
and we want to get there. We
want to reduce the greenhouse
gas. We all have the same goal.
it's just kind of how the policy
is currently written here. So,
I don't think we should be
contradicting the legislature.
I'm really -- I think there are
new ways that we can be bold and
make all of this happen.
because what works in a big
city, like mayor schaff's, or
san francisco, doesn't
necessarily work in our cities.
so, please let us be a part of
this process. And, really
making it work in the future,
here, we really -- I mean, we
could use legislation that, if
we have an old building, we can
-- that was at one time housing,
but hasn't been for five years,
if we could count that in our
rhna numbers. We want to make
things work here, but they don't
allow us to do that. So, help
us. And we can work together.
I really want to thank
everybody. I suggest the tech
advisory committee be expanded
to some of our local and smaller
jurisdictions because we don't
want to repeat the mistakes of
the past. Thank you, mr. Chair.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you, gina.
martha, how many speakers do we
have?
>>clerk of the board: right now
we have ten speakers and
counting. How much time would
you like to give people?
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: well, you know, I would
like to give people, like, one
minute, but they can go over a
little bit. But before we go to
the public comments -- staff did
you -- I know mayor schaff had a
question. There wasn't a lot of
questions and more statements.
matt, did you guys have anything
you want to respond to --
>>matt maloney: I'm happy to
give a quick sum up, maybe a
minute if that's helpful.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: go ahead.
>>matt maloney: there was a
question or comment about staff
doing an assessment of what's
going on in the transit-rich
areas and I think that's right
on the mark and we are planning
to dig into that more. We have
got a lot of information out
there in the existing pdas plans
we can draw from but woe have to
do more research on that, that
is certainly part of our work
plan. I think on the subject of
different communities and
smaller communities around the
area, and I think it was our
intent with the different tiers
that we showed in the
presentation, tier one, tier
two, tier three, you know, kind
of looking at commuter rail
systems like smart, you know,
different from heavy rail
systems like bart and caltrain.
I think that's all in the mix
and that's something we can
continue to play with as we hear
more comments from all of you.
I think commissioner josefowitz
made a point about getting more
planning money tied to this
effort. And I think we also
agree with that, as well. I
think obag three is an
opportunity for that. Also
there is a new version of reap.
reap 2.0, that I think you have
all heard about that might be
opportunity to augment the pda
planning funds that we have had
out there in the past and to
help more jurisdictions. I
think we totally agree. This is
focused on tras, right, really,
those transit-rich areas, as
well as those transit-rich pdas,
and there was a question about
making sure we incentivize
transit improvements and we
definitely want to do that. The
other part of this is we want to
make sure any improvements that
we make are effective is high
ridership and lots of activity.
I think that's in the mix, as
well. In terms of mayor
schaff's question about
affordable housing impact fees
with in lieu options, certainly
something we can investigate is
perhaps include it as part of
the menu of options. I think
that's mostly the sum-up of kind
of what I heard.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay. Good. Thank you.
good wrap-up.
martha, if we have ten speakers
--
>>clerk of the board: it's up
to 13 now.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: all right. Give a
minute and a half. What I would
like to ask the speakers, if you
could, be as clear and succinct
as you can. If there are areas
that you think more study say
that, if you think there are
areas that shouldn't be included
say that. But just try to get
to your point so we can get
through this as quickly as we
can.
with that, martha, give the
speakers a minute and a half.
go ahead and start the public
comment.
>>clerk of the board: we
received correspondence by the
deadline, and that from by tim
sebritini. It was posted online
and that was distributed to and
was posted online and
distributed to committee
members. First speaker is
jonathon kass.
>>jonothon kass: I am the
transportation policy manager at
spur and we support the
direction and unanimously
approve planned bay area for
equitable sustainable and
livable communities around
transit as a member of the
technical advisory committee for
this community alongside many
local jurisdictions both small
and large spur has been
encouraged by mtc staff
commitment to rhna and planned
bay area regional growth targets
as a reminder planned bay area
just barely met the greenhouse
gas emissions reduction targets
set by the state. Target that
is sure to be more even
ambitious in the next round. As
discussed the timing of these
requirements deserve close
attention. Waiting to quickly
will cause us to fall behind on
housing and jobs goals. At the
same time growth targets need to
be realistic and it takes time
to lay the groundwork for
growth. We believe the policy
is off to a great start and
encourage to you focus on
detailed changes that are
necessary to ensure policy
delivery.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you. Next
speaker. Martha?
>>clerk of the board: on it.
next up is anoeil.
>>speaker: hi I'm a member of
common ground california focused
on land use housing transit and
financing of public services and
infrastructure through land
value taxes capture tasteful to
see mtc putting together policy
framework we believe will
incorporate public land
acquisition and value capture
taxation such policies allow
public municipalities to build
infrastructure spending growing
economy and increased demand had
to these areas and public
acquisition of land will allow
governments to receive --
[indiscernible] without a strong
toc policy there is no hope of
meeting equity and climate
goals. As someone going to
medical school I understand how
critical housing is to a
person's physical and mental
well-being and how access to
high-resource areas is critical
to a growing economy. It's
critical that equity investments
not only recapture value, but
recapture stronger communities.
please add public land
acquisition and taxation value
recapture to the toc policy.
>>clerk of the board: next up
is justine marcus and then rich
hedges.
>>speaker: good afternoon my
name is justine marcus policy
director with enterprise
community partners we're excited
to see the draft framework
presented today and want to
thank staff for their work
putting it together and having
the robust engagement with the
technical advisory committee
which we serve o we strongly
support moving forward with a
policy that will set us on the
course to implement the goals of
planned bay area balancing as
many of you have mentioned the
urgency of our needs and really
being realistic about
implementation. I also want to
echo the point that mayor
arreguin brought up which is
that policy has opportunity to
support and reward local
jurisdictions to deliver on
their rhna goals. I want to
highlight two aspects of the
policy for consideration as it
is further refined. The first
is really going deep on the
three ps, the production,
preservation, and protections
aspects of the policy with a
focus on anti-displacement both
for residents and local small
businesses. And second is to
really remain focused on our
commitments to affirmatively
furthering fair housing as we go
about designing the density
thresholds. Finally we know
that this policy will need
complementary funding and our
organization and bay area
housing advocates are committed
to continuing working with you
all through bahfa and other
others to secure the necessary
funds. Thank you very much for
your time.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thank you.
>>clerk of the board: rich
hedges followed by aaron
eckhouse. Go ahead and unmute
yourself.
>>speaker: thank you. I wanted
to comment just briefly about
transit oriented communities. I
grew up in one as a child.
access to a streetcar half a
block away. All the possible
services we needed within
walking distance and I bring
this up because it put me in the
fight to develop it. Ods,
because I had lived in something
like a tod. I like our change
in policy toward transit
oriented communities. I think
it will fulfill what we have
been trying to do.
but what I want to recommend is,
if you really want to cut down
on trips, we have to have these
services and we have to focus on
that. Because only a small part
of getting people out of their
cars is trips to work and back.
so, please, look carefully at
this. I also have a question I
would like a response to. I
think that sb10 may help,
especially with the communities
where we have 35 to 50% density
of housing. And maybe not more
than that. But I would like to
know how that may affect our
goals for communities and tocs.
so, one thing I would like to
say I think we do have to have
diverse looks at different
communities, the rural
communities do not have the same
aspects as our more urbanized
communities and we need to treat
it as such. And just one last
comment, really a carrot is best
used if it's a stick painted
orange. Thank you.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you, rich.
next up is aaron eckhouse
followed by derrick sagehorn.
>>speaker: hello. Thank you.
my name is aaron eckhouse I'm
the regional policy manager with
california yimby, yes in my
backyard. We are big supporters
of transit oriented development
and we appreciate staff is
moving this forward as well as
opportunity we have had to
engage with them on policy
development. Over the years has
been a growing recognition for a
coordinated regional approach on
housing as well as way in which
housing policy lands use policy
and transportation policy are
all deeply connected which we
see in planned bay area 2050.
proposed policy framework
reflect those in an exciting
way. Housing crisis in the bay
area is too big for any city to
solve alone the transit oriented
communities is framework
addressing our housing crisis in
a necessary scale in a
comprehensive and equitable way
it's appropriate wu we're making
significant regional investment
in transportation and policies
in place to ensure success and
coordination with regional
policy goals. We cannot afford
to fail on our housing goals as
a region the stakes are too
high. I am encouraged by what
staff put forward and I hope mtc
will move forward towards a
robust transit communities
program that will ensure we meet
our goals in the region. Thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: derrick
followed by justin.
>>speaker: this is derrick
sagehorn for east bay for
everyone. I'm calling in
support of the draft toc policy
from staff. I think it's really
important that we align our
planned bay area goals with our
-- the funding. You know? Mtc
having the power of the purse in
terms of determining
discretionary grants it's
important we get our
transportation planning lined up
I appreciate the fact of
distinguishing between different
levels of intensive of
transportation and investment
including parking policy. As
well as station access that's
going to be critical. I'll echo
comments I think it's necessary
to get out ahead of speculators
especially with the new transit
stations I would encourage staff
to look at some type of
preservation and public housing
with public land acquisition is
making sure tools are available
for capturing uplift from
property owners nearby in terms
of funding both affordability
and transportation improvements
and that's not simply through
value capture for planning but
also making sure that property
owners who are simply
speculating and not developing
their properties also pay their
fair share for these public
critical hours. Thank you.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you, derrick. Justin followed
by lisa. Go ahead.
>>speaker: good afternoon my
name is justin wang advocacy
manager at green compliance
environmental non-profit
encouraging open space as well
as direct involvement with
growth in the community. A
strong toc climate smart policy
is necessary in the bay area to
meet our housing goals reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and
make sure local residents are
able to grow and thrive in their
own communities as housing costs
rise every single bay area
region must play their part to
increase housing stock
particularly affordable housing
to make sure the workforce can
afford to live close to jobs
schools and services this policy
is a great step if that
direction especially if local
jurisdictions are looking to
update housing elements now to
achieve goals ideally with an
eye towards transit orientation.
as a region we have always led
the way, we passed planned bay
area and need a toc policy that
works to achieve outcomes
outlined in that plan creating
the 30 year window the transit
orient the communities is long.
mtc should incentivize
development sooner rather than
later especially with funding I
urge to you continue moving in
the right direction with your
full support of the toc policy
before you today. Thank you
very much for your time.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. Lisa followed by robert
alan or bob alan.
lisa go ahead and unmute.
>>speaker: good afternoon my
name is lisa borderbrugen
representing building industry
association of bay area and I
appreciate allowing me to serve
on the technical advisory
committee through this process
and working with your talented
staff. It's a little bit like
many of you getting a grasp on
the full stove of what impacts
would be if and whenever this
policy is adopted in whatever
form it comes out in we
appreciate the comments by jim
and therese about taking a
phased approach and analytical
approach our members are on the
frontline of delivering the
housing that many of you are
planning to build and we can
speak from experience that bay
area cities are like snow
flakes, every single one of them
is different and trying to work
within each community and meet
the needs of each community that
they're looking for in addition
regionally is a difficult
process to navigate. We're
continuing to work with mtc and
the toc and helping ensure that
well-meaning policies don't
increase the cost of housing or
make it more costly to build
housing but actually get us to
where we want to be in terms of
increasing the densities around
transit. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak this
afternoon.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you.
robert alan followed by bob bin.
go ahead and unmute yourself.
robert alan.
>>speaker: bob alan from urban
habitat. I want to comment and
say this is an important update.
sorry. I'm not sure what
happened there.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: go ahead robert.
>>speaker: sorry about that.
just to emphasize, I think the
tenant protection and suite of
community stabilization policies
far from being an impediment to
housing production and market
rate housing production are
necessary to meet greenhouse gas
reduction goals of planned bay
area. We have got to stabilize
people to build housing working
to ensure and preserve as much
housing as possible and robust
efforts starting with the state
on social housing I don't think
the market whether it's
unconstrained or not is going to
provide housing for the vast
majority of the bay area
residents but community
stabilization policies and
keeping as many people in place
is a critical starting point to
reliable transit riders who have
stayed on the system throughout
the pandemic I want to make that
point and look heard to engaging
in the update of the policy as
we go forward. Thank you.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. Bob vinn followed by laura
foote.
>>speaker: I'm bob city
engineer for the city of
livermore since valuing stations
of at the top of the list for
it. Oc implementation I want to
talk about the isabel plan
adopted a little over a year ago
in november 2020, it was a
multi-year effort, cost a lot of
money, had lots of stakeholder
engagement and resulted in a
plan the community of livermore
could support. City council of
livermore adopted it unanimously
and it includes the highest
density in all of livermore the
tallest buildings lowest parking
requirement and highest
affordable housing requirements
as well. We modeled this after
the previous -- or the current
tod policy and resolution 3434
even though it wasn't clear it
would apply in fact ur densities
exceed what would be tier one
even though valley link is a
tier three project however at
first it doesn't appear the
isabel plan will comply, and
meanwhile we're taking in
applications for housing. We
are working with a large
development on development
agreement for most of the vacant
land and I think if this plan
has to apply in the isabel area
it will result in a slowing of
the housing production. So I
request that mtc staff please
reach out to livermore, study
our plan and meet with us so we
can talk about what
implementation would really
mean. Thank you.
>>speaker: thank you. Hauscar
castro.
>>speaker: hi. Good afternoon
everyone I'm hauscar associate
director of housing and
transportation policy working
partnership usa thank you staff
for your work grateful for all
the work you have done we are
eager to work together to craft
the final policy in san jose
county and santa clara county we
are advocating day in and day
out related to housing justice
and a sustainable economy we are
pleased to see mtc's efforts to
offer solutions as the entire
region continues to grapple with
various housing challenges we
look forward to supporting this
agency on anti-displacement
issues and preservation efforts.
emphasizing importance for small
business protections, in
particular public markets
located near or around transit
stations public markets or flea
markets that service real
economic opportunity to
thousands of vendors throughout
the region to make a living for
their families and putting forth
actions and policies to ensure
vendors continue to have an
opportunity as they're out
there.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. Daryl halls.
>>daryl halls: daryl halls
metropolitan transportation
authority I want to thank
commissioner spering and north
and east bay commissioners and
staff for clarifying our county
of course say county of mostly
medium and small sized cities a
lot are working on pda plans we
have adopted our rhna numbers we
have moved forward and have two
ferry stations and terminals we
appreciate the general direction
going forward and we would
appreciate time to have dialogue
with staff it would be helpful.
thank you.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. Next is nico nagle.
>>speaker: good afternoon
everyone I'm nico speaking on
behalf of the housing coalition
I'll be quick I want to
reiterate points that have
already been made. One, thank
you to mtc staff for the work on
the toc policy recognizing this
massive undertaking folks have
committed lots of time and
resources to make sure we have a
plan for a successful future.
secondly, I want to reiterate
the idea that meeting the scale
of this challenge is incredibly
important moving forward with
urgency and the toc policy that
addresses the immense number of
homes we really need is not only
important for our shared housing
situation but in terms of
building near transit stops,
it's immensely important for
meeting our shared climate
goals. Again, things that have
already been known. I think
folks here are -- you know,
mostly on the same page of these
things. But moving forward,
urgently is a priority. I
appreciate all of your time.
thank you.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. And last, we have laura.
go ahead and unmute yourself.
>>speaker: hi. Laura foote
from yimby action and speaking
on behalf of all of our bay area
chapters. We're obviously
prohousing and are going to be
following this policy closely as
it evolves and love all the work
staff is putting into it. So
many great comments have been
made and sin I'm last I'm not
going to repeat any of them.
one very small thing that might
be worth note suggest we also
talk about the challenges with
inclusionary policies with
putting the inclusionary rate
too high and that could
disincentivize housing one thing
to take into account is giving
cities credit when they directly
subsidize housing whether that's
through land grants or acquiring
there is a lot to be done to get
cities more credit when they're
more directly subsidizing
housing rather than pursuing
inclusionary policies which can
be complicate. Right now this
is going to be a complicate
sprawling amazing hopeful
producing not sprawling policy.
appreciate all the work and look
forward to following along as it
develops.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. Last call please dial star
nine or use the raised hand
feature. Jordan grimes.
>>speaker: my name is jordan
grimes lead members of the
peninsula for everyone
grassroots housing and transit
advocacy group in san mateo and
santa clara county really
appreciate all the comments
commissioner josefowitz and
councilmember romero. We're
excited about how the draft
framework has turned out and
support the embrace of this good
smart and visionary public
policy which is completely
necessary for the bay area's
future. There has been
significant discussion of cost
to the municipalities today so I
want to touch on this quickly we
need to weigh in and keep at top
of mind the social and
environmental cost of not
embracing and implementing these
policies. Costs like rising
seas, raging wildfires and the
continued out-migration of
working and middle class
families from this state and
from the nine county bay area
specifically. This framework
really gives working and middle
income folks a fighting chance
at having a future here while I
understand the importance of
regional planning I know climate
change and displacement are not
taking a phased approach I want
to encourage us to move forward
with a sense of urgency that the
problems we face deserve. Thank
you very much for your time
today.
>>clerk of the board: there are
no members of the public with
their hand raised.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay thank you martha.
I want to thank all the
speakers. That was very good
information in a minute and a
half we heard all the of you
loud and clear and the clarity
of the testimony is very
helpful. Thank you.
matt, did you have anything from
the public comments or
commissioners that you want to
respond to before I close this
up?
>>matt maloney: no. I just
agree. I appreciate all of the
comments and questions today of
commissioners and board members
and members of the public it's
super helpful for us as staff we
have our work cut out for us
over the next few months and
certainly on the engagement
front we definitely hear you
about engaging more deeply with
locality jurisdictions. There
was a request to go to the full
abag executive board by the
chair. We can certainly do
that. And, also, I think there
is an opportunity to use the,
what we have setup through the
regional housing technical
assistance process where we have
just a lot of avenues with local
planning directors to kind of
use that as a venue to have more
active discussion about this
especially as all the housing
element work proceeds. So I
think that's a great ideas.
those are my take-away's. And
we'll be back in a few months
with more.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: okay. Just some closing
observations. And first I want
to say that this is a first step
in a long journey that we're
going to be o but a very
important step. And I
appreciate staff bringing all of
these issues forward. And as I
said, they're in our plan. They
all need to have consideration.
I want to thank president
arreguin. You know, his
suggestion of engaging abag is,
I think, absolutely critical.
abag touches every city and
every county and to engage them
into this process is really
important. For us to have
success, we have got to have
buy-in. So jess thank you for
that suggestion. That's going
to be very helpful.
staff, I would like to at least
we consider two phases. There
is so many strategies that need
to be implemented right away.
some we have broad consensus, we
ought to put those in place
right away, and the second phase
are probably going to need a
little bit more analysis and
discussion and more consensus
building. So take a look at
that and maybe give us a
timeline of how these strategies
can be implemented. The third
is that, I think it's very
important when you come back
that you identify what funding
sources we're talking about. If
there is one question they have
been asked this past week since
this has been released is, what
funding are you guys going to
condition this to. We need to
have clarity on that. That's
very important.
number four, there is a lot of
planning money coming into this
region but with all the cities
and counties we have done one
hell of a lot of planning and we
have got projects that already
need no be delivered we have got
to get to the point where we're
starting to deliver projects we
can't just be studying and
planning we have got to have
delivery on some of these things
it's really personality. And
lastly we need to be aware that
we should do no harm. Talking
to some of the developers since
this came out, they have
increases between 20 and 30% of
materials. The conditions that
cities and counties are laying
on development, we have got to
be careful that we don't make it
so difficult that nobody's
building and especially that
nobody's building affordable
housing. We desperately need
that workforce and affordable
low-income housing and we need
to have incentives that really
help developers and help the
communities produce that
housing. Those are my closing
comments, commissioners and
board members. I can't thank
you enough for the input today
it's very encouraging. Staff
you got my attention but the way
this is being brought forward
and phased and the outreach and
the willingness to have more
discussion on this is extremely
important. People are not going
to feel threatened by what we're
trying to do. But this is an
extremely important first step.
and to bring all of these issues
forward and put them in the
light, I think had to be done.
and so, staff, thank you for
that.
I'm going to be very cautious in
the future when I ask you to be
bold and unflinching, that I'm
going to temper that a little
bit.
and therese, I just want to
thank you, for understanding and
sensitivity of this, and your
introduction, I think is
extremely important. For that,
thank you.
with that, unless anybody has
any last burning comments, I
think we're at the end of our
agenda. Martha is that correct?
>>clerk of the board: that is
correct. We just need to take
general public comment.
>>jesse arreguin, abag
administrative chair: chair, I
want to make an announcement for
the abag members.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: oh yeah. I was going to
ask you about that.
>>jesse arreguin, abag
administrative chair: we have
the advancing california
financing authority. That
should be quick then we'll do
the abag executive board
meeting. Some people are
waiting to get into the zoom but
just wanted to -- as soon as
we're done with this, to go to
the zoom link for the abag
meeting.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: thanks jess. I was
going to ask you about that I'm
glad you remembered. With that
do we have public comment?
>>clerk of the board: there are
no members of the public with
their hand raised, and there was
no public comment submitted on
this item.
>>jim spering, mtc planning
chair: all right. Great. It
sounds like we did a good job,
team. So, thank you. So with
that, you know, keep working and
monitoring this closely, but I
think this is a good first step.
thank you everyone. And this
meeting is adjourned.
[adjourned]