[0:01] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[0:03] chair: good morning everyone.
[0:03] before I call the meeting to
[0:05] order I want to say that plane
[0:08] behind me is probably one of the
[0:10] only air force planes that alix
[0:14] bockelman's dad hasn't flown.
[0:16] for you historians you probably
[0:20] associate the name of this plane
[0:23] it's frances gary powers. You
[0:27] all know enough about the
[0:28] historical significance. I
[0:31] would like to call the joint mtc
[0:31] planning committee with the abag
[0:32] administrative
[0:34] committee to order. We'll call
[0:38] mtc quorum and consent calendar
[0:41] then turn to you for yours and
[0:46] abag announcements.
[0:46] >>jesse arreguin, abag
[0:47] administrative chair:
[0:48] absolutely.
[0:49] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[0:50] chair: with that if we could
[0:51] take the roll call for the mtc
[0:54] planning committee.
[0:55] >>clerk of the board: we will
[0:55] do after the broadcast team
[0:58] rolls the announcement.
[0:58] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[0:59] chair: thank you. I'm sorry.
[1:01] [recorded meeting procedures
[1:02] announcement]
[1:10] due to covid-19, this meeting
[1:11] will be conducted as a zoom
[1:11] webinar pursuant to the
[1:12] provisions of
[1:12] assembly bill 361 which suspends
[1:13] certain requirements of the
[1:14] brown act.
[1:14] this meeting is being webcast on
[1:15] the mtc website.
[1:15] the chair will call upon
[1:16] commissioners, presenters,
[1:16] staff, and other speakers, by
[1:17] name, and ask that they speak
[1:18] clearly and state their names
[1:18] before giving comments or
[1:19] remarks.
[1:19] persons participating via
[1:20] webcast and zoom, with their
[1:21] cameras enabled, are reminded
[1:21] that their activities are
[1:22] visible to viewers.
[1:22] commissioners and members of the
[1:23] public participation by zoom,
[1:24] wishing to speak, should use the
[1:24] raise hand feature or dial star
[1:25] 9, and the chair will call upon
[1:26] them at the appropriate time.
[1:27] teleconference attendees will be
[1:27] called upon by the last four
[1:28] digits of their phone number.
[1:29] it is requested that public
[1:29] speakers state their names and
[1:30] organization, but, providing
[1:31] such information is voluntary.
[1:31] written public comments received
[1:32] at infoatbayareametro.gov by 5
[1:33] p.m., yesterday, will be posted
[1:33] to the online agenda and entered
[1:34] into the record, but will not be
[1:35] read out loud.
[1:35] if authors of the written
[1:36] correspondence would like to
[1:36] speak, they are free to do so.
[1:37] they should raise their hand and
[1:38] the chair will call upon them at
[1:39] the appropriate time.
[1:39] a roll call vote will be taken
[1:40] for all action items.
[1:40] panelists and attendees should
[1:41] note that the chat feature is
[1:42] not active.
[1:42] in order to get the full zoom
[1:43] experience, please make sure
[1:43] your application is up to date.
[2:44] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[2:45] chair: roll call.
[2:47] >>clerk of the board: spering?
[2:47] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[2:48] chair: present.
[2:48] >>clerk of the board: ahn?
[2:49] >>eddie ahn: present.
[2:51] >>clerk of the board: canepa?
[2:52] connoly?
[2:53] >>damon connolly: here.
[2:55] >>clerk of the board:
[2:55] commissioner dutra-vernaci?
[2:58] >>carol dutra-vernaci: here.
[2:59] >>clerk of the board: fleming?
[3:00] >>victoria fleming: here.
[3:01] >>clerk of the board: giocapini
[3:03] non-voting?
[3:04] >>dorene m. Giacopini: here.
[3:05] >>clerk of the board: liccardo?
[3:06] commissioner schaff?
[3:11] we have a quorum.
[3:11] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[3:12] chair: okay. I see mayor
[3:14] schaff is with us. So, she
[3:16] hasn't learned how to unmute
[3:19] yet. We're going to send a
[3:21] technical staff over to help her
[3:23] do that.
[3:25] >>libby schaaf: you can not
[3:25] hear me now.
[3:26] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[3:26] chair: I hear you.
[3:28] >>libby schaaf: okay.
[3:29] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[3:30] chair: [laughter]
[3:30] >>karen mitchoff: martha did
[3:32] you call me?
[3:32] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[3:33] chair: this is mtc.
[3:35] >>karen mitchoff: okay.
[3:36] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[3:37] chair: with that we do have a
[3:38] quorum. Mtc commissioners,
[3:41] we'll entertain a motion to
[3:43] approve the mtc consent
[3:44] calendar.
[3:47] >>carol dutra-vernaci: mtc
[3:50] approval.
[3:52] >>libby schaaf: second.
[3:52] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[3:53] chair: motion and second.
[3:55] is there any written
[3:56] correspondence or anyone that
[3:57] wants to speak on consent?
[3:59] martha?
[4:00] >>clerk of the board: there are
[4:01] no members of the public with
[4:02] their hand raised, and there was
[4:02] no public comment submitted on
[4:03] this item.
[4:03] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[4:04] chair: okay. Motion and
[4:05] seconds. Could you take the
[4:05] roll, please?
[4:07] >>clerk of the board: chair
[4:08] spering?
[4:08] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[4:09] chair: yes.
[4:09] >>clerk of the board: vice
[4:10] chair ahn?
[4:11] >>eddie ahn, v. Chair: aye.
[4:12] >>clerk of the board: vice
[4:14] chair canepa?
[4:16] >>david canepa: aye.
[4:18] >>clerk of the board: connoly?
[4:19] >>damon connolly: aye.
[4:20] >>clerk of the board: er and
[4:24] fleming?
[4:25] >>victoria fleming: yes.
[4:26] >>clerk of the board: schaff?
[4:27] >>libby schaaf: yes.
[4:28] >>clerk of the board: passes
[4:29] unanimously by all members
[4:30] present.
[4:30] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[4:31] chair: thank you. Mayor
[4:31] arreguin, I'll turn it over to
[4:32] you.
[4:32] >>jesse arreguin, abag
[4:33] administrative chair: okay.
[4:33] thank you so much. I would like
[4:34] to ask the abag clerk of the
[4:36] board to conduct roll call to
[4:39] confirm whether quorum of the
[4:42] administrative committee is
[4:43] present.
[4:44] >>clerk of the board: mayor
[4:45] eklund?
[4:47] >>pat ecklund: here.
[4:47] >>clerk of the board: fligor?
[4:49] >>neysa fligor: here.
[4:50] >>clerk of the board: hudson?
[4:51] >>david e. Hudson: here.
[4:51] >>clerk of the board: lee?
[4:56] mandelman? Absent.
[5:00] some mitchoff? Supervisor
[5:07] mitchoff, I see you are here.
[5:11] councilmember peralez is absent.
[5:13] the supervisor rabbit?
[5:15] >>david rabbit: here.
[5:15] >>clerk of the board:
[5:16] supervisor ramos?
[5:17] >>belia ramos: here.
[5:18] >>clerk of the board:
[5:18] councilmember romero?
[5:22] >>carlos romero: here.
[5:23] >>clerk of the board: mayor
[5:23] wilson is absent. One more time
[5:26] for supervisor lee? Supervisor
[5:29] lee is absent. Quorum is
[5:30] present.
[5:32] >>karen mitchoff: fred, I'm so
[5:33] sorry. You have got me?
[5:35] >>clerk of the board: yes,
[5:36] ma'am.
[5:37] >>karen mitchoff: thank you.
[5:37] >>jesse arreguin, abag
[5:38] administrative chair: thank
[5:39] you. Quorum is present. Item
[5:41] two, abag compensation
[5:43] announcement. I'll ask the
[5:45] clerk to read the compensation
[5:50] announcement for the record.
[5:53] >>clerk of the board: according
[5:54] to state law I am making the
[5:55] following announcement, the
[5:55] members of the abag board in
[5:56] attendance at this meeting are
[5:57] entitled to receive per diem an
[5:57] amount of $500 as a result of
[5:58] convening a meeting for which
[5:59] each member is entitled to
[6:05] collect per diem. Thank you.
[6:06] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[6:06] chair: item three abag consent
[6:08] calendar minutes of
[6:10] december 10th, 2021. Motion to
[6:13] approve the minutes?
[6:18] >>speaker: motion.
[6:20] >>pat ecklund: second.
[6:21] >>jesse arreguin, abag
[6:21] administrative chair: motion
[6:22] and second. Any public comment
[6:23] on this item? Written comment
[6:26] received on this item?
[6:28] >>clerk of the board: there are
[6:28] no members of the public with
[6:29] their hand raised, and there was
[6:30] no public comment submitted on
[6:30] this item.
[6:31] >>jesse arreguin, abag
[6:31] administrative chair: okay.
[6:32] that brings us to roll call vote
[6:33] on the item.
[6:35] >>clerk of the board: mayor
[6:36] arreguin?
[6:36] >>jesse arreguin, abag
[6:37] administrative chair: yes.
[6:39] >>clerk of the board: eklund?
[6:45] >>pat ecklund: aye.
[6:47] >>clerk of the board: fligor?
[6:48] >>neysa fligor: yes.
[6:49] >>clerk of the board: thank
[6:50] you.
[6:52] mayor hudson?
[6:53] >>david e. Hudson: yes.
[6:54] >>clerk of the board:
[6:54] supervisor lee?
[6:57] >>otto lee: yes.
[6:59] >>clerk of the board: thank
[6:59] you, sir.
[7:00] supervisor mandelman? Absent.
[7:06] mitchoff?
[7:07] >>karen mitchoff: yes.
[7:08] >>clerk of the board:
[7:08] councilmember peralez is absent.
[7:16] supervisor rabbit?
[7:17] >>david rabbit: yes.
[7:18] >>clerk of the board: peralez?
[7:19] absent. Romero?
[7:21] >>carlos romero: yes.
[7:23] >>clerk of the board: mayor
[7:24] wilson is absent. Passes
[7:25] unanimously by all members
[7:29] present.
[7:30] >>jesse arreguin, abag
[7:30] administrative chair: thank you
[7:31] very much. Back to mtc chair
[7:34] spering.
[7:34] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[7:35] chair: this item is sea level
[7:37] rise funding investment
[7:39] framework. Matt you're going to
[7:43] introduce and rachel it carry
[7:45] from there.
[7:48] >>matt maloney: matt maloney
[7:50] regional planning director for
[7:52] mtc and abag we have two items
[7:54] on the agenda today first one is
[7:55] sea level rise funding and
[7:57] investment framework we're
[7:59] returning to you today with this
[8:00] item. If you recall we
[8:02] presented to this committee back
[8:04] in july and since that time, we
[8:06] have worked to refine the scope
[8:09] of the effort in partnership
[8:10] with bcdc. And just as a
[8:13] reminder, you know, everything
[8:15] we do is related, of course, to
[8:17] planned bay area 2050, and that
[8:20] plan estimated a nearly
[8:22] $20 billion need to address sea
[8:24] level rise adaptation.
[8:26] and the implementation plan
[8:28] really identified the need for
[8:30] this study.
[8:32] and the purpose of it is really
[8:34] to improve the regional
[8:35] accounting of sea level rise
[8:37] costs and potential future
[8:39] revenue sources.
[8:41] we think this effort is very
[8:42] timely, given new actions by the
[8:44] state legislature, which has
[8:46] identified new funding for
[8:49] resilience. And we do believe
[8:50] that the state bears significant
[8:53] responsibility for ultimately
[8:54] funding these types of projects.
[8:56] and you know, most importantly,
[8:58] I think today we just want to
[9:01] formalize this partnership with
[9:02] bcdc today. We are continuing
[9:05] to use the joint committee of
[9:07] mtc and abag to showcase our
[9:09] work but we're also planning to
[9:11] provide updates on this study
[9:12] through bcdc committees as well
[9:15] as the barc governing board
[9:17] throughout the next year. And
[9:18] we have a number of staff here
[9:20] today, from both bcdc and mtc
[9:24] and on the mtc side, rachel
[9:28] hartofelis is here. She'll be
[9:29] giving a presentation on behalf
[9:31] of mtc, also michael germeraad,
[9:34] and dave vautin, of course, who
[9:36] you know very well. And on the
[9:39] bcdc side, nicholas sander is
[9:42] here who will also be presenting
[9:44] with rachel. I believe bcdc
[9:47] director larry goldzband is
[9:48] here, as well as planning
[9:50] director of bcdc, jessica. We
[9:56] have numerous partnerships here
[9:58] to answer any of your questions.
[10:00] with that I'll pass it over to
[10:02] nicholas from bcdc, I think, is
[10:05] going to kickoff the
[10:06] presentation.
[10:12] >>nicholas sander: thank you
[10:16] very much. Good morning
[10:18] everyone. I'm nicholas sander
[10:20] from bcdc here with rachel
[10:24] hartofelis, mtc and abag we want
[10:25] to discuss a joint effort to
[10:31] discuss sea level rise funding
[10:34] investment framework. We'll
[10:37] walk throughout context of sea
[10:40] level rise funding efforts,
[10:43] regional overview of funding
[10:44] framework and next steps for
[10:46] joint work. The framework will
[10:50] prepare for adaptation in
[10:52] two-ways competitiveness with a
[10:54] clear understanding for
[10:56] adaptation cost and needs and
[10:58] explore how we can augment state
[11:01] and federal needs for funding
[11:06] sources. Graphic illustrates
[11:12] how sea level rise has been
[11:16] addressed in the region. Mtc
[11:19] abag plan 2050 and the estuary
[11:23] blueprint update, bay adapt
[11:25] adopted by bcdc commission in
[11:29] october has addressed priority
[11:31] actions against long-term sea
[11:33] level rise, the priority is
[11:38] identifying steps for
[11:39] implementation.
[11:40] planned bay area adopted on the
[11:41] same day as the joint platform
[11:43] in october is a multifaceted
[11:46] regional plan that addresses
[11:47] housing, transportation,
[11:48] economic, and environmental
[11:49] conditions. Adapting to sea
[11:51] level rise is 1 of 35 strategies
[11:53] in the plan.
[11:54] meanwhile the sf estuary
[11:56] partnership is including an
[11:58] update to the estuary blueprint
[12:00] a regional plan to achieve a
[12:01] healthy and resilience san
[12:04] francisco estuary through each
[12:05] planning processes staff at all
[12:08] agencies have worked closely to
[12:09] align all three efforts.
[12:15] planned bay area 2050 included
[12:17] environmental elements to
[12:18] address environmental priorities
[12:20] throughout the region adapting
[12:21] to sea level rise strategy
[12:23] included a range of adaptation
[12:26] actions across the region to
[12:28] address first two feet of
[12:31] permanent sea level rise part of
[12:33] the planning process assessment
[12:37] was developed. A $19 billion
[12:41] need to address a segment of
[12:44] shoreline, resulting in a
[12:48] $60 billion gap. Critically as
[12:50] part of the process we did not
[12:52] study sea level rise specific
[12:55] revenue measures to address the
[12:56] funding gap filling the gap will
[12:58] require a mix of funding state
[12:59] and federal opportunities that
[13:00] have emerged in the last six
[13:02] months have provided opportunity
[13:03] to spring board action
[13:06] resilience framework will
[13:07] account for these new revenues
[13:09] and will be used to support
[13:12] near-term action to compete for
[13:15] existing funding for framework.
[13:18] opportunity will explore pros
[13:19] and cons of funding sources that
[13:21] will be needed to support state
[13:23] and federal investment and
[13:24] increase competitive edge for
[13:28] state and federal funding. Next
[13:30] slide please. Bcdc completed
[13:33] funding analysis for funding and
[13:34] finance white paper summarizing
[13:36] sea level rise damage to the
[13:39] rest of the region comparison
[13:45] including information around sea
[13:47] level rise water ecosystem
[13:49] impact and policy changes.
[13:51] costs were compared with funding
[13:53] needs estimated by planned bay
[13:55] area 2050 as well as uc berkeley
[13:57] study compared with estimated
[13:59] regional funding supply based on
[14:02] jurisdictional financial data
[14:04] analysis resulted in estimated
[14:06] regional gap expressed per
[14:09] capita per household per parcel
[14:11] as percentage of gdp analysis by
[14:14] mtc and abag the white paper did
[14:17] not study measures to fill
[14:19] potential funding gaps. Next
[14:20] slide please.
[14:23] as we have previously referenced
[14:25] near-term funding opportunities
[14:27] have developed at state level
[14:29] 2021 budget act approved by
[14:30] state legislators identified
[14:33] $15 billion in funding
[14:36] throughout the next few years
[14:40] $3.86 billion identified for
[14:41] climate resilience a portion of
[14:44] funding revenue is likely to be
[14:45] distributed across the state to
[14:47] address a variety of hazards
[14:49] funding may be able to fund
[14:51] critical near-term sea level
[14:53] rise priorities such as shovel
[14:57] ready projects as well as
[15:00] regional planning adaptation
[15:01] planning in the bay area.
[15:02] however there is a substantial
[15:05] funding gap for sea level rise
[15:06] adaptation underscoring the need
[15:08] for to research additional
[15:09] revenue sources for sea level
[15:11] rise adaptation in the years
[15:13] ahead preparing for near-term
[15:15] state and funding opportunities
[15:17] improving advocacy for
[15:18] additional state and federal
[15:19] resources and inform longer term
[15:22] approach for local and regional
[15:25] action to augment state and
[15:30] federal funds. Actions needed
[15:33] to prepare for sea level rise
[15:35] identifying similar actions for
[15:37] regional funding plans to
[15:38] identify funding needs and
[15:40] establish funding approaches.
[15:44] in the platform 6.1 and 6.2 call
[15:48] to expand understanding of
[15:49] financial cost revenues
[15:51] associated with adaptation and
[15:53] establish framework for funding
[15:55] plans and projects. Adaptation
[15:59] to funding sea level rise in the
[16:01] next five years and blueprint
[16:03] currently includes option to
[16:05] develop sea level rise funding
[16:07] investment framework in the next
[16:08] five years. I'll hand it over
[16:10] to my colleague rachel
[16:13] hartofelis to address the
[16:15] framework.
[16:16] >>rachael hartofelis: thank
[16:17] you, nick. In september 2021
[16:18] the barc governing board
[16:20] approved the joint -- excuse me
[16:21] -- next slide --
[16:23] thank you.
[16:25] so in september the barc
[16:28] governing board approved the
[16:29] joint resolution to address
[16:31] climate change which included
[16:32] creation of a shared work plan.
[16:34] the shared work plan will
[16:36] advance strategic coordinated
[16:37] implementation of high priority
[16:39] actions identified in regional
[16:40] agency plans and platforms over
[16:42] the next 1 to 5 years.
[16:45] developing a sea level rise
[16:47] adaptation funding investment
[16:49] framework is an example of how
[16:51] high priority implementation
[16:53] actions identify in these
[16:55] adopted agency plans can be
[16:56] implemented and coordinated in a
[16:58] single shared approach. After
[17:00] presenting to this committee
[17:01] last july the concept of
[17:03] framework has been adjusted in
[17:05] its scope sea level rise
[17:07] adaptation funding and
[17:10] investment framework will be
[17:11] colead by mtc and bcdc for work
[17:15] to become a resource for local
[17:16] governments and advocates
[17:18] pursuing sea level rise funding
[17:20] throughout the region.
[17:21] framework presented to barc last
[17:22] month and we'll continue to
[17:24] share updates with the governing
[17:25] board as the project develops
[17:27] throughout 2022 for additional
[17:29] feedback and collaboration mtc
[17:31] and abag and bcdc will bring
[17:35] updates to staff as needed.
[17:37] next slide please.
[17:40] mtc abag and bcdc have
[17:43] collaboratively developed a
[17:45] concept of sea level rise and
[17:48] adaptation investment framework
[17:50] build off prior research and
[17:52] analysis to advance our regional
[17:53] understanding of what it will
[17:54] cost the region to adapt to sea
[17:56] level rise as well as to explore
[17:57] the most equitable means to
[17:59] raise new revenues to address
[18:01] the funding gap. As part of
[18:03] this work plan we started by
[18:05] identifying a number of goals
[18:06] for the framework and will
[18:07] discuss three overarching goals
[18:09] of the work for you today.
[18:11] first goal is to update and
[18:13] improve the regional accounting
[18:14] of sea level rise adaptation
[18:16] projects creating a version 2.0
[18:19] of the previous regional
[18:20] analysis done by mtc abag and
[18:23] bcdc. With a refined
[18:25] understanding of what it may
[18:26] cost the region to adapt to sea
[18:29] level rise we can better
[18:30] advocate for regional adaptation
[18:32] needs at state and federal level
[18:34] this research will also improve
[18:36] our region's estimates on the
[18:37] cost of adaptation across the
[18:39] region and it will refine how
[18:41] much revenue from existing sea
[18:43] level rise funding sources we
[18:44] can anticipate to do this we
[18:45] will engage closely with local
[18:47] governments and partners to
[18:49] understand the status of local
[18:50] adaptation plans strategies and
[18:51] projects to update prior
[18:53] regional analysis. Helping to
[18:55] identify areas with or without
[18:57] known plans for shoreline
[18:59] adaptation: this accounting
[19:01] will be used directly for the
[19:02] framework analysis and it will
[19:03] also be shared and maintained as
[19:05] a resource for local government
[19:07] planning.
[19:07] it will also be used to support
[19:09] future regional advocacy for new
[19:11] state and federal adaptation.
[19:15] next slide please.
[19:18] second goal explores how new
[19:20] local and regional revenues for
[19:23] sea level rise adaptation can be
[19:25] raised more equitably. The
[19:28] region has many priorities and
[19:29] existing revenue sources are
[19:31] unlikely to be able to support
[19:32] the region's shoreline
[19:35] adaptation needs near-term state
[19:37] and federal funding
[19:38] opportunities will help the
[19:39] region but we can't count on
[19:41] sacramento to pay for 100% of
[19:43] this weather raising funds to
[19:46] match federal and state dollars
[19:47] or raising additional revenues
[19:49] beyond what the state and
[19:50] federal government offer to help
[19:52] inform local and regional
[19:54] measures to augment adaptation
[19:57] funding in the near-term. Meant
[19:58] recent studies have identified
[20:00] potential tools for adaptation
[20:02] including by design and legacy
[20:05] funds even with previous
[20:07] analysis done by mtc and abag as
[20:10] mentioned previously there is
[20:11] not yet an applied analysis of
[20:13] potential new funding source for
[20:15] the bay area.
[20:17] the framework will fill this
[20:19] existing research gap to analyze
[20:21] a range of additional revenue
[20:23] measures at different scales to
[20:25] identify approaches to build the
[20:28] funding gap more equitably. The
[20:30] bay area shoreline is buried and
[20:32] the timing of flooding, the land
[20:33] use characteristic around the
[20:36] shoreline and location of
[20:37] communities and resources can
[20:38] all impact how we will raise new
[20:40] revenue. Staff will work with
[20:42] stakeholders to visualize the
[20:44] equity outcomes of different
[20:45] approaches before publically
[20:47] sharing results throughout the
[20:49] region this result in analysis
[20:50] will support future advocacy in
[20:54] support suggest new revenue
[20:56] local and regional revenue
[20:58] measures to support long-term
[21:01] shoreline adaptation. Next
[21:02] slide please.
[21:04] the final major project goal is
[21:07] to determine possible mechanisms
[21:09] to distribute new fund for
[21:10] adaptation. Plans review
[21:13] existing local and regional
[21:14] funding mechanisms that maybe
[21:16] applicable for sea level rise
[21:17] projects. We also want to
[21:19] identify opportunities for how
[21:20] new revenue measures can best be
[21:23] designed to fill anticipated
[21:24] funding gaps across the region
[21:26] for a diverse range of
[21:29] adaptation project needs.
[21:31] framework will build on the
[21:32] distribution of near-term state
[21:33] and federal funding measures as
[21:34] well as the preparation for the
[21:36] long-term by understanding
[21:38] funding mechanisms at the local
[21:40] or regional level.
[21:43] these recommendations will be
[21:45] reviewed by local and community
[21:46] stakeholders before publically
[21:48] sharing these results throughout
[21:50] the region. And as with the
[21:51] results of the second goal the
[21:53] outcome of this research may be
[21:54] used to inform future advocacy
[21:56] bringing revenues. Next slide
[21:58] please.
[22:01] we have identified a number of
[22:03] ways to move forward on this
[22:04] work in the coming months. We
[22:06] plan to kickoff the framework by
[22:08] setting sea level rise and data
[22:10] assumptions maintain a technical
[22:11] working group and by working
[22:13] with local partners to update
[22:15] our understanding of local
[22:16] adaptation projects. Staff will
[22:18] also continue to align this
[22:20] project with the barc shared
[22:22] work plan as it develops as well
[22:24] as other bay adapt joint
[22:26] platform actions. Updates on
[22:29] the framework will continue to
[22:30] be brought to mtc abag as well
[22:32] as to the barc governing board
[22:34] and bcdc throughout 2022. Next
[22:36] slide please.
[22:41] thank you. So, we are looking
[22:43] forward to the ways that the
[22:45] framework will help to prepare
[22:47] the region to tackle this
[22:48] climate crisis with new
[22:50] adaptation measures becoming
[22:52] available at the state and
[22:53] federal level this research will
[22:54] improve our competitiveness
[22:56] while identifying ways to
[22:57] augment near-term funding
[22:59] opportunities on the local and
[23:00] regional levels. So we would
[23:02] like to thank you for your time
[23:03] and attention today as we
[23:04] introduce this upcoming work and
[23:06] we'll open it up now for any
[23:08] potential questions or
[23:09] discussion.
[23:10] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[23:10] chair: okay. Thank you. Good
[23:12] report. Larry goldzband is with
[23:16] us. Larry, did you have any
[23:18] comments before I go to the
[23:20] commissioners or board members?
[23:24] >>larry goldzband: pardon me,
[23:25] as I put on my video. I think
[23:28] they did a great job. But what
[23:30] can you expect from two great
[23:33] staffers.
[23:33] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[23:34] chair: okay. Thank you, larry.
[23:36] one question is, are we making
[23:39] the case that, of what the cost
[23:42] will be if we do nothing? Is
[23:44] that case being made?
[23:46] rachel?
[23:49] >>rachael hartofelis: so, as a
[23:50] part of this analysis, we will
[23:52] be looking at the vulnerability
[23:54] of the region, and a big part of
[23:56] this work will be understanding
[23:58] where we have plans for the
[24:00] region and where there are not
[24:03] yet plans. So I think that will
[24:05] really help to illustrate how
[24:07] prepared the region may be for
[24:11] adaptation in the future. It's
[24:12] unclear if we'll be able to
[24:14] identify the cost of inaction,
[24:16] but we will identify a much more
[24:19] robust sense of regional need to
[24:22] understand what that deficit is,
[24:24] and what the funding gap is to
[24:27] adapt to the region for, you
[24:30] know, what we can expect in the
[24:32] future.
[24:32] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[24:33] chair: I just think it's
[24:34] important with the tremendous
[24:35] shortfalls we have, we're going
[24:37] to need public support. And the
[24:39] public needs to understand the
[24:41] importance of this. So I hope
[24:42] we don't overlook, you know,
[24:45] that public outreach, and really
[24:46] building the case for the
[24:48] funding supports to address this
[24:49] issue.
[24:51] gina, I see you have your hand
[24:53] up?
[24:54] >>gina papan: thank you,
[24:55] mr. Chair. And thank you,
[24:56] staff. Great report. I just
[24:58] want to make sure we're
[25:00] inclusive. Didn't
[25:01] jurisdictions, like, we have our
[25:03] own sea level rise group. So I
[25:06] want to make sure it's totally
[25:08] inclusive as we move forward
[25:10] here. And then additional
[25:12] partners, because, sadly, my
[25:14] city had a real tragic incident
[25:17] where two people drowned.
[25:20] sudden sea level rise. Pumps
[25:22] and everything were working.
[25:24] and part of our system is
[25:26] connected to sfo, and they need
[25:27] to clear out a canal. So I
[25:30] don't know if we're actually
[25:32] including those partners, but
[25:34] this -- these deaths are still a
[25:36] mystery, and we're investigating
[25:38] it all, but we need to include
[25:40] those partners, as well.
[25:42] thank you, mr. Chair.
[25:43] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[25:44] chair: okay. Thank you. Pat
[25:45] eklund. Pat? And then eddie.
[25:50] >>pat ecklund: actually, chair
[25:52] spering, eddie had his hand up
[25:55] before me. To be fair.
[25:56] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[25:58] chair: okay. Go ahead eddie.
[26:03] >>eddie ahn: I'll go quickly.
[26:05] I am interested in following
[26:06] this because I serve both
[26:08] commissions mtc and bcdc. I
[26:11] think for future presentations,
[26:12] too, it would be helpful to
[26:14] understand, probably a priority
[26:17] list of infrastructure we're
[26:18] going to shore up in
[26:20] anticipation of adapting to
[26:21] climate change. Especially if
[26:22] -- I did back of the napkin math
[26:25] right now but it looks like we
[26:27] have over 80% to go in terms of
[26:30] trying to fund-raise the entire
[26:33] amount of adapting to rising sea
[26:35] levels so with that in mind just
[26:37] knowing which piece of
[26:39] infrastructure is most important
[26:39] so that the bay area region
[26:41] functions I think would be good.
[26:44] and second small thing is just
[26:45] to hopefully include, in the
[26:47] future, san francisco
[26:49] stakeholders, such as our office
[26:51] of resilience and capital
[26:53] planning and make sure to follow
[26:54] up with staff to ensure that the
[26:57] right san francisco agencies are
[26:59] included. Thank you.
[26:59] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[27:00] chair: very good comments,
[27:02] eddie. Thank you.
[27:04] pat?
[27:06] >>pat ecklund: thank you very
[27:06] much, chair spering.
[27:08] first of all, I did want to say
[27:10] great presentation by the staff.
[27:12] and it's wonderful to see that
[27:14] the regional organizations are
[27:16] working together on an issue
[27:18] that affects all of us.
[27:24] I, too, serve on the bay
[27:26] conservation and development
[27:27] commission, which is truly an
[27:29] honor. I want to thank
[27:31] president arreguin, again, for
[27:33] selecting me to serve on that
[27:34] commission. After having worked
[27:36] for the u.s. Environmental
[27:40] protection agency for over 35
[27:42] years and the u.s. Army corp of
[27:45] engineers for eight, I have
[27:46] focused primarily my whole
[27:48] federal career on environmental
[27:51] issues related to san francisco
[27:53] bay and others.
[27:55] but at the december meeting of
[27:56] the bcdc commission, we did
[28:00] adopt the sea level rise
[28:05] adaptation progress gaps and
[28:07] needs. And as part that
[28:09] document that we adopted, they
[28:12] identified that there were 45%
[28:14] of the jurisdictions around san
[28:17] francisco bay that do not have
[28:18] an adaptation plan. The second
[28:20] thing is that in bridging the
[28:23] gap document that bcdc also
[28:29] adopted, it's clear -- it's on
[28:34] page 21, and I would encourage
[28:36] people to look at this -- on the
[28:38] cost estimates for dealing with
[28:40] sea level rise, they looked at
[28:42] two feet, 2.3 feet, and 6.6 feet
[28:48] and the different funding
[28:49] adaptation costs associated with
[28:51] that, and the three agencies, I
[28:55] believe, picked the two feet,
[28:57] which includes a seven feet of
[29:00] sea level rise, plus two feet of
[29:03] free board and extra head room.
[29:06] but, what is not included in
[29:08] here, in these costs, is
[29:11] environmental mitigation, land
[29:13] acquisition, utility relocation,
[29:17] and maintenance cost. And those
[29:19] costs, a lot are -- a lot --
[29:25] local governments are very
[29:26] involved in, like, utilities,
[29:29] like sanitary sewers, or
[29:35] environmental mitigation, local
[29:37] governments are very involved in
[29:39] that. So I really think that
[29:40] any funding request that we
[29:42] make, we need to add some
[29:46] funding for local governments to
[29:48] be able to fine-tune, or to
[29:55] develop their adaptation plans.
[29:57] because local governments have
[29:58] to be involved every step of the
[30:01] way. And we have not really had
[30:03] an active engagement with the
[30:06] regulatory agencies.
[30:08] and I think bcdc has emphasized
[30:13] at least in the two meetings
[30:15] that I have attended, since I
[30:17] was appointed, the need to
[30:19] really reach out to local
[30:21] governments. The marin county
[30:24] mayors and council members, we
[30:25] have a climate change
[30:26] subcommittee composed of a
[30:29] representative -- elected
[30:30] representative -- of each of the
[30:33] cities and we are going to be
[30:36] bringing bcdc mayors and council
[30:46] members conference in july so
[30:48] they will be talking to all
[30:50] elected official in marin county
[30:51] in february about this issue. I
[30:54] really think that mtc and bcdc
[30:57] and san francisco bay
[30:59] restoration authority really
[31:00] need to advocate for, number
[31:01] one, funding for cities and
[31:03] counties to do an adaptation
[31:06] plan, and to identify their
[31:09] financial needs, and to
[31:13] identify, specifically, what
[31:18] should be funded to help bridge
[31:21] the gap so that we can make sure
[31:25] that estimates that we're using,
[31:31] which is 19 billion, which is a
[31:33] minimum, that it also include
[31:35] what local governments need to
[31:37] do their fair share of it.
[31:39] so, anyways, so I agree that the
[31:42] state needs to fund this. Local
[31:44] governments, in my opinion,
[31:46] cannot.
[31:48] we're having a tough time just
[31:50] doing what we need to do. And
[31:52] especially for those local
[31:54] governments who are poor
[31:55] property tax cities, like the
[31:58] city of novato, where we only
[32:00] get $0.07 on the dollar, most
[32:04] cities get 23 to $0.26 on the
[32:08] dollar. So, anyway, comments
[32:09] from marin, and the north bay, I
[32:12] think that we really need to
[32:14] make a concerted effort to
[32:16] include some cost estimates for
[32:20] cities when we go to the state
[32:23] legislature or other funding
[32:26] opportunities.
[32:27] so, thank you.
[32:27] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[32:28] chair: thank you, pat.
[32:31] I don't see any other committee
[32:33] members hands up.
[32:35] and, so, is there any public
[32:39] comments?
[32:42] >>clerk of the board: yes.
[32:42] there was no written
[32:44] correspondence received on this
[32:45] item, and there is one member of
[32:47] the public with their hand
[32:48] raised.
[32:51] rich.
[32:52] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[32:53] chair: okay.
[32:54] >>clerk of the board: rich, go
[32:55] ahead and unmute yourself.
[32:57] >>richard hedges: thank you
[32:58] chair spering.
[32:59] I want to raise a couple of
[33:01] issues. First I want to
[33:02] acknowledge that I agree with
[33:06] commissioner papan. But I want
[33:08] to add some things. We need to
[33:13] really look at private public
[33:16] project partnerships coordinated
[33:18] throughout bay area just a few
[33:20] in the county where I live in,
[33:21] we have meta with gilead,
[33:30] alumina, which is a company that
[33:32] just built five story buildings
[33:35] right next to the bay visa's
[33:39] world headquarters, and sony
[33:40] playstation most of these are
[33:42] within a 1 to 10 block walk from
[33:45] my housing they really do share
[33:47] these problems and should help
[33:49] fund them. I could go on,
[33:51] throughout the county with roach
[33:53] in san francisco and many other
[33:55] companies within that area with
[33:58] biotech. So I just look forward
[34:00] to us including that section. I
[34:03] think they have been included in
[34:05] our county plan. I am sure that
[34:07] commissioner papan could better
[34:11] inform than I can. But let's go
[34:13] forward looking at sources of
[34:15] people that have the same thing
[34:16] to lose as our residents, who
[34:18] are paying the taxes. Thank
[34:20] you.
[34:21] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[34:22] chair: okay. Thank you.
[34:24] carlos, did you have your hand
[34:26] up? Did you want to speak?
[34:29] >>carlos romero: I do. Thank
[34:31] you, chair.
[34:32] I, too, am in particular in
[34:36] support of the fact that we're
[34:38] trying to address sea level rise
[34:39] and the other environmental
[34:41] issues that we are incurring
[34:44] based on our rise in fossil fuel
[34:49] consumption. And, again, coming
[34:51] from a county where we do have a
[34:53] local agency recently formed to
[34:55] work on this, as well as coming
[34:57] from a city, that because there
[35:00] has not been a lot of other
[35:02] federal state money, have
[35:04] actually, in a very relatively
[35:06] poor city, have approximately
[35:09] poured in $10 million of our own
[35:11] general fund money to begin to
[35:13] advance to address the issue of
[35:16] flooding by sea level rise. We
[35:21] all need to look at existing
[35:23] efforts around the bay area and
[35:24] I think commissioner papan
[35:26] mentioned that. But I also
[35:27] think it's extremely important
[35:29] for all of us to collaborate
[35:31] collectively. We are a regional
[35:33] body, probably the
[35:35] prioritization of projects,
[35:37] which commissioner ahn talked
[35:38] about will be a critical
[35:40] discussion for all of us to
[35:41] have, within the context. I
[35:43] know the presenters used the
[35:45] term equity several times, and
[35:48] to the extent that that can
[35:52] actually be more fully fleshed
[35:54] out what is meant by equity, as
[35:58] everybody gets their
[36:00] proportional fair share, or
[36:03] examples of other places where
[36:05] we have low-income folks that
[36:07] will be impacted and will not
[36:08] have the capacity to do their
[36:09] own lifting of homes or
[36:12] whatever, that we would look at
[36:13] an equity definition that not
[36:16] just addresses a fair
[36:19] apportionment based on
[36:21] population but also on impact
[36:23] and addressing, perhaps, past
[36:26] neglect of some of those coastal
[36:30] or, you know, bay fronting
[36:34] communities that are more
[36:36] low-income. Again, thank you
[36:37] for the great work. And I hope
[36:38] we can have those considerations
[36:40] discussed in the future.
[36:41] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[36:42] chair: thank you, carlos.
[36:43] amy, did you want to comment?
[36:45] >>amy r. Worth: thank you
[36:46] mr. Chair. I apologize I tried
[36:48] to get my hand up earlier, but I
[36:50] wasn't fast enough. I just want
[36:52] to share the comments that have
[36:54] been made about the importance
[36:55] of this effort and the
[36:56] importance of collaboration.
[36:58] and I know a number of you may
[36:59] know that this has been in a
[37:02] number of forefront bay area
[37:05] regional collaboration work it
[37:08] involves all of the regions,
[37:11] agencies, plus the two relevant
[37:13] state agencies, tri-state
[37:17] agencies caltrans coastal
[37:19] conservancy and water quality
[37:22] control board the goal and
[37:25] development, bcdc has been doing
[37:29] the heavy lifting in the
[37:31] developing of the plan, and
[37:32] second, advocacy for the efforts
[37:34] of funding for these plans this
[37:37] is going to take state and
[37:39] federal dollars to supplement
[37:41] local government and we need to
[37:44] look to the corporations, land
[37:47] owners, to help support this.
[37:48] and I want to thank bcdc for
[37:51] going around to all the mayor's
[37:53] conferences. In our
[37:54] conversations in the past around
[37:56] the plan and building regional
[37:58] awareness of it that was one of
[37:59] the priorities that we all had
[38:01] identified together and I know
[38:02] that our county was really
[38:04] grateful, our mayors and council
[38:06] members were really grateful to
[38:07] have the opportunity to hear,
[38:09] you know, directly about the
[38:12] plan, and recognizing that
[38:14] these, you know, those -- bay
[38:17] rise, is, you know, we're unique
[38:19] in california, because of the
[38:21] tremendous resource of the bay
[38:23] and the fact that all of our
[38:25] counties are impacted and cities
[38:27] are. So, thank you very, very
[38:30] much, and we'll continue to
[38:32] discuss this at barc and to
[38:34] ensure that all of our agencies
[38:36] are continually working
[38:38] together. And I really also
[38:40] want to thank the executive
[38:42] directors of all the regional
[38:43] agencies. Because from that
[38:45] executive perspective, this has
[38:46] been a real priority in terms of
[38:48] coming together and identifying
[38:49] how we can all work together and
[38:51] be one voice when we advocate
[38:53] and go to sacramento for these
[38:56] funds and also to the federal
[38:58] advocacy. So, thank you.
[39:00] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[39:01] chair: okay. Thank you.
[39:02] seeing no other hands. Rachel
[39:04] and nicholas, thank you for the
[39:05] presentation. I want to thank
[39:07] all the bcdc staff. I see
[39:09] there's a bunch of you on here,
[39:11] for all your good work, and
[39:13] thank you, larry, for jumping in
[39:16] on this meeting. Thank you
[39:18] everyone for this presentation.
[39:20] >>larry goldzband: thank you.
[39:20] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[39:21] chair: let's move on to
[39:21] something that's a little less
[39:24] controversial than sea level
[39:25] rise. This is going to our
[39:27] transit oriented communities. I
[39:30] believe, therese, you're going
[39:31] to give an introduction and kick
[39:33] this off, and after therese
[39:35] we're going to turn it over to
[39:37] staff. They're going to do the
[39:39] presentation, and committee
[39:39] members I would like to get your
[39:41] comments then move into public
[39:43] comments and either other
[39:44] members of mtc or abag want that
[39:48] to comment. With that, therese.
[39:50] give us the introduction.
[39:52] >>therese mcmillan: okay.
[39:54] thanks so much chair spering.
[39:56] and I appreciate having a couple
[39:57] of minutes to set some context
[39:59] for this item, which, upon
[40:01] review did not leap off of the
[40:05] page of the page they sent to
[40:11] you. And it's really important
[40:14] to framing this discussion they
[40:16] would like to have with
[40:17] commissioners and executive
[40:19] director items. At the end of
[40:22] 2021 the commission and
[40:24] executive board took action on
[40:27] two extraordinary efforts,
[40:29] planned bay area 2050 and rhna
[40:31] cycle six and both efforts
[40:32] stretched the region beyond any
[40:34] previous planning mandates we
[40:36] had. It resulted in 35
[40:39] ambitious strategies in
[40:40] transportation, housing, the
[40:41] economy, and the environment
[40:43] under planned bay area 2050 that
[40:45] had to, among other things, meet
[40:48] an exceedingly tough ghg
[40:51] reduction target.
[40:53] and with rhna, we had to assign
[40:55] regional targets that had never
[40:57] been higher, reflecting the
[41:04] undisputed housing crisis across
[41:07] california and in parallel we
[41:09] wanted to develop tools to help
[41:10] our jurisdictions plan for those
[41:12] targets. In addition, mtc and
[41:14] abag, last year, assumed the new
[41:17] authorities and responsibilities
[41:18] under the legislative mantle of
[41:20] the bay area housing financing
[41:22] authority to lead advances in
[41:25] housing production, preservation
[41:27] and protection for those that
[41:32] seek to live in this region in
[41:34] affordable places benefitting
[41:37] inclusive communities that
[41:38] should be -- that everyone
[41:39] should be able to call home.
[41:41] and, you, as our board members,
[41:45] stepped forward to adopt and
[41:47] embrace planned bay area 2050,
[41:50] rhna six, and the bahfa
[41:53] directives. But in doing so, I
[41:54] think we all collectively new
[41:57] that carrying out these
[41:59] objectives was going to be
[42:01] really hard.
[42:03] and would require finding
[42:06] intersections with many
[42:07] different policies to achieve
[42:09] those objectives.
[42:11] the proposed -- bold --
[42:16] underlined -- proposed toc
[42:19] policy that we have before you
[42:21] today is a critical opportunity
[42:22] to find those reinforcing
[42:25] intersections, and staff took an
[42:28] admittedly bold move up from the
[42:30] current toc policy in framing
[42:32] the draft that we put before
[42:34] you.
[42:35] now, this is not the only
[42:37] intersection where planned bay
[42:38] area 2050, rhna, and bahfa goals
[42:41] need to meet, but it is a timely
[42:44] one that staff will explain in
[42:46] our presentation.
[42:48] that said, as the toc policy
[42:53] parameters emerge, there are
[42:55] essential considerations to
[42:57] ensure that they can be carried
[42:59] out successfully.
[43:01] a few to keep in mind at the
[43:04] outset: this policy will not be
[43:08] done tomorrow, nor in a very
[43:11] short time frame. Much like the
[43:15] existing toc policy, it is
[43:18] expected to guide multiple years
[43:19] of transportation and land use
[43:21] coordination and necessarily
[43:23] needs to be implemented in
[43:24] stages.
[43:25] it needs, also, to be able to
[43:27] overlay and adapt to legislative
[43:30] requirements that may come in
[43:33] current or future legislation,
[43:36] both in transportation and
[43:37] housing that may impact the
[43:39] boundaries of the policy as its
[43:42] ultimately framed. It does not
[43:45] assume that all existing
[43:46] planning efforts, especially
[43:48] those under our pda program are
[43:52] stripped down to the studs, to
[43:55] use a housing analogy. We need
[44:01] a thoughtful transition plan to
[44:03] help guide today to where we're
[44:07] going to go with a new key
[44:09] policy structure that's going to
[44:11] go to an essential element of
[44:13] implementation consideration.
[44:14] and finally, and certainly not
[44:16] the least, flexibility is key.
[44:18] and staff seeks to build factors
[44:20] into the new policy that allows
[44:22] for the successful application
[44:24] of indifferent environs
[44:32] throughout this region. With
[44:34] that important context, I would
[44:35] like to turn it over to matt
[44:39] maloney to begin the
[44:40] presentation. Thank you.
[44:40] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[44:42] chair: thank you. Matt?
[44:44] >>matt maloney: thanks therese.
[44:46] I don't have a whole lot in to
[44:48] add. Therese covered it well.
[44:52] planned bay area 2050 forecasted
[44:55] 82% of all future household
[44:57] growth. And 63% of all future
[45:02] job growth really in this these
[45:06] rich areas. Many of which are
[45:08] also priority development areas.
[45:09] and as therese mentioned that's
[45:11] really the focal point and
[45:13] driving force of how we tamp
[45:14] down on rising vehicle miles
[45:16] traveled and also reduce ghg.
[45:18] and so these areas, transit-rich
[45:21] areas, is really the focus of
[45:22] this presentation today. And I
[45:23] just want to kind of underscore
[45:25] that it's those areas that we're
[45:28] focused on. You know, it is
[45:31] bold, as therese mentioned, and,
[45:34] you know, we have come a long
[45:36] ways since 2005, which is the
[45:39] last time we did this strategy.
[45:41] we have a broader application
[45:43] here looking at both existing
[45:45] corridors, as well as new
[45:46] corridors, and, but therese
[45:49] mentioned also the flexibility
[45:50] as well that's inherent in the
[45:52] policy looking at not just
[45:54] residential but also commercial
[45:56] and job growth, as well.
[45:58] you know, and as well as the
[46:00] three ps of housing, which you
[46:02] will notice are, also, kind of
[46:06] interwoven into this policy
[46:07] update today. And that's just
[46:09] really to ensure that when we
[46:10] make major changes or plan for
[46:12] major changes in these station
[46:14] areas, that we ensure that these
[46:16] are places for people of all
[46:19] income levels.
[46:20] so, you know, totally agree with
[46:22] the phase-in period. Really
[46:24] want to take your temperature on
[46:26] the policy itself today, and
[46:27] then really return and get
[46:29] commission direction on kind of
[46:30] how it gets phased in and
[46:32] really, just the timing for all
[46:34] of that.
[46:35] today, on the staffing, we have
[46:39] got kara vuicich. Project
[46:42] manager on the study who will
[46:44] give the presentation, theresa
[46:46] is also here who is our director
[46:48] of mobility. I will pass it to
[46:52] kara to get the ball rolling.
[46:56] >>kara vuicich: thank you. If
[46:57] we could bring up the
[46:59] presentation. Good morning.
[46:59] it's still morning, committee
[47:01] members. And, as matt said,
[47:04] this is an information item that
[47:06] provides an overview of the very
[47:07] initial draft proposal for a
[47:11] transit oriented communities
[47:13] policy, the approach and
[47:15] requirements. And this would
[47:17] replace the 2005 resolution 3434
[47:20] transit oriented development
[47:22] policy.
[47:23] and a quick note on the name
[47:25] change, or the proposed name
[47:27] changer. So in order to
[47:29] emphasize the importance of
[47:31] broader transit oriented
[47:32] communities versus individual
[47:34] development projects at transit
[47:36] stations and along transit
[47:38] corridors the proposal changes
[47:40] the policies name from transit
[47:42] oriented development or tod to
[47:45] transit oriented communities or
[47:47] toc. Last we presented to the
[47:50] committee in spring of 2020 so
[47:52] it's been little while and
[47:57] provided you a summary timeline
[47:59] and process for stakeholder
[48:01] engagement. Since that time we
[48:02] have convened a technical
[48:05] advisory committee that includes
[48:07] representatives from transit
[48:08] agencies, local jurisdictions,
[48:10] county transportation agencies,
[48:11] as well as from other
[48:12] transportation and housing
[48:13] organizations.
[48:14] the toc has already provide
[48:19] feedback on elements of the
[48:22] draft policy proposal and I have
[48:24] included some of that in the
[48:25] presentation today. And we'll
[48:26] be continuing to work with the
[48:29] toc members as well as
[48:32] stakeholders as we move forward
[48:35] with further refining and
[48:37] revising the draft that we're
[48:38] going to present. Next slide
[48:40] please.
[48:47] as you know planned bay area
[48:49] 2050 was adopted a few months
[48:52] ago it provides the basis for
[48:53] the trance atlantic policy draft
[48:57] policy proposal addresses
[48:59] multiple strategies from all
[49:01] elements of the plan including
[49:03] transportation housing economic
[49:04] and environmental strategies for
[49:05] key focus of the policy
[49:08] implementing the plan strategies
[49:10] that will increase the number of
[49:11] households and jobs near the
[49:13] region's rail, ferry and
[49:15] frequent bus stops in stations
[49:17] implementation of these
[49:18] strategies is projected to
[49:19] result in an additional
[49:21] 1.1 million households and about
[49:24] 900,000 jobs located in these
[49:26] areas by 2050 and is a key
[49:28] component of meeting the plan's
[49:30] greenhouse gas reduction
[49:31] targets. Next slide please.
[49:33] so like the original transit
[49:36] oriented development policy the
[49:37] proposed transit oriented
[49:39] communities policy focuses on
[49:40] areas where transit investments
[49:42] in high quality transit, namely
[49:44] this is rail, ferry, and
[49:46] frequent bus services or plans
[49:48] and it ties implementation of
[49:51] various strategies particularly
[49:52] focused on increasing
[49:54] residential commercial densities
[49:55] in transit-rich areas to
[49:57] implementation of bay area
[49:59] transit investments four
[50:01] proposed toc policy goals on the
[50:05] left side first increase density
[50:08] for new residential development
[50:09] and prioritize affordable
[50:10] housing in transit-rich areas
[50:12] which are locations within one
[50:14] half mile of transit stops or
[50:16] stations that provide ferry rail
[50:19] or frequent bus service second
[50:22] increase densities for
[50:30] commercial development hubs
[50:32] serving multiple transit
[50:33] provides 30 gold complements
[50:36] first two goals which seek to
[50:38] locate more housing in
[50:40] transit-rich areas typically
[50:43] with then minute walks and
[50:45] finally goals for continuing
[50:47] regional support facilitation
[50:49] partnerships and implement toc
[50:51] policies to create equitable
[50:52] transit oriented communities
[50:55] within our region next provide
[50:57] be detail on proposed toc policy
[51:00] applications to areas where
[51:02] investments in rail, ferry and
[51:04] frequent bus transit are
[51:05] planned. Next slide. Again
[51:06] we're propose that the policy
[51:08] apply to priority development
[51:09] areas or transit-rich areas
[51:12] where planned bay area
[51:14] investments and rail fore and
[51:16] frequent bus service are
[51:17] planned. This would include
[51:19] transit-rich priority
[51:20] development areas as well as
[51:22] existing or future transit-rich
[51:24] areas where a pda has not yet
[51:27] been designated what this means
[51:28] or what this would potentially
[51:30] look like is that transit-rich
[51:31] pdas that do not currently
[51:34] comply with the toc policy
[51:36] requirements may need to update
[51:37] or adopt plans or ordinances in
[51:39] order to comply. Those that
[51:41] already comply would not need to
[51:43] take any further action for
[51:45] locations where a transit-rich
[51:47] pda has not been designated a
[51:49] local jurisdiction would still
[51:51] need to comply with the toc
[51:53] policy requirements. Mtc would
[51:55] strongly encourage that a pda be
[51:59] designated in those locations
[52:00] but a decision of pda would not
[52:03] be required in order to comply
[52:04] with a toc policy. I want to
[52:07] emphasize that we anticipate
[52:09] implementation of the toc policy
[52:10] in these areas would happen over
[52:13] multiple years and again would
[52:14] be coordinated with planned
[52:16] transit investments. Next slide
[52:17] please.
[52:20] so as discussed on the previous
[52:22] slide, the toc policy, again,
[52:26] would apply to location where is
[52:27] we're making investment in rail,
[52:29] ferry and frequent bus service
[52:32] includes areas where new
[52:33] stations would be created as a
[52:35] result of expansion or extension
[52:36] projects as well as existing
[52:38] stops and stations where major
[52:40] improvements or enhancements to
[52:42] existing transit service plans.
[52:46] new stations along transit
[52:48] expansions or extensions
[52:49] proposed policy would require
[52:50] all policy requirements be met
[52:52] by local jurisdictions before
[52:54] discretionary funds are
[52:55] programmed for construction of
[52:56] the transit project or before
[52:58] mtc would provide endorsement
[53:00] for project funding similar to
[53:02] the approach from the original
[53:04] 2005tod policy and seeks to
[53:07] support planning and zoning are
[53:09] in place before transit
[53:11] expansion or extension becomes
[53:12] operational for transit
[53:14] enhancement or improvement
[53:16] projects where transit are
[53:18] already operating transit
[53:20] project funding would not be
[53:21] tied to policy compliance
[53:23] instead focus would be on
[53:24] providing planning and technical
[53:26] assistance initially as part of
[53:28] obag 3 and reap 2.0 to assist
[53:30] with compliance in coordination
[53:31] with near-term transit
[53:33] enhancements and improvement
[53:35] projects that said staff is
[53:37] proposing that a
[53:38] jurisdictional's eligibility for
[53:40] future cycles obag four even
[53:44] later cycles would be contingent
[53:46] upon toc policy compliance we
[53:48] anticipate toc policy
[53:50] implementation will be phased
[53:51] over multiple years in
[53:54] coordination with transit
[53:55] improvements. Next several
[53:56] slides discuss key differences
[53:58] between 2005toc policy and draft
[54:02] toc policy proposal. Next slide
[54:06] please. Thank you. In short
[54:08] the proposed toc policy would
[54:10] apply much more broadly than the
[54:14] 2005tod policy. The 2005tod
[54:18] policy only applied to specific
[54:20] named transit expansion projects
[54:22] that were included in mtc
[54:24] resolution 3434. Requiring a
[54:26] minimum number of housing units
[54:28] either be zoned or built within
[54:30] a half mile of new stations
[54:33] along the transit corridor in
[54:35] contrast the communities policy
[54:37] would apply to all stops and
[54:39] stations affected by planned bay
[54:41] area investments in rail, ferry
[54:43] and frequent bus service
[54:45] including extensions or
[54:46] expansions as well as stations
[54:47] or stops affected by major
[54:49] transit improvements
[54:55] enhancements. Next slide
[54:56] please. I'm going to present
[54:57] the proposed toc policy
[54:59] requirement in more detail later
[55:01] in the presentation but this
[55:03] slide provides an overview and
[55:07] comparison between requirements
[55:09] from the transit orient the
[55:11] development policy and toc
[55:12] policy. The 2005tod policy set
[55:16] minimum thresholds for existing
[55:18] housing units along certain
[55:20] transit expansion corridors
[55:22] based on type of service
[55:24] provided affordable housing
[55:25] units were given extra weight in
[55:28] terms of meeting thresholds toc
[55:31] policy requirements build from
[55:33] complemented priority
[55:34] development areas guidelines
[55:36] focusing on key elements from
[55:38] the guidelines that will be
[55:39] required to implement planned
[55:41] bay area consequently proposed
[55:42] toc policy requirements address
[55:45] residential commercial density
[55:46] around transit stops and
[55:47] stations affordable housing in
[55:49] know anti-displacement policies
[55:51] parking management station
[55:52] access and circulation including
[55:55] connectivity to adjacent equity
[55:58] priority communities that remain
[56:01] outside the half mile station
[56:03] area. Next slide please. Like
[56:05] the 2005tod policy the proposed
[56:09] toc policy would condition
[56:11] discretionary project funding as
[56:13] well as funding endorsements for
[56:15] transit expansions and
[56:17] enhancements on whether a
[56:19] jurisdiction has met policy
[56:20] requirements key difference is
[56:22] proposed toc policy would also
[56:24] apply to areas around existing
[56:26] stations where major transit
[56:29] enhancements improvements are
[56:31] planned local jurisdictions
[56:33] eligibility future regional
[56:34] discretionary transportation you
[56:35] funds you such as future cycles
[56:36] and later conditioned on
[56:39] compliance with policy
[56:41] requirement difference between
[56:45] the 2005 policy and toc policy
[56:48] and further detail proposed
[56:52] requirements. The toc policy
[56:55] requirements not only address
[56:57] residential density around
[56:58] transit stops and stations but
[57:00] also commercial density for
[57:01] office space requiring minimum
[57:04] residential and commercial
[57:06] densities for development in
[57:07] transit-rich or pda or major
[57:10] transit investments where pdas
[57:12] are planned table shown on based
[57:16] minimum densities at which new
[57:19] development would need to be
[57:20] built in order to implement the
[57:23] plan. Based on transit service
[57:25] that would be available with
[57:27] highest densities required at
[57:29] regional rail hubs served by
[57:31] multiple bart lines bart and
[57:33] caltrain I want to note this
[57:34] requirement is not seeking to
[57:35] specify one land use versus
[57:37] another in a station area rather
[57:40] to ensure average density of any
[57:42] new residential or commercial
[57:43] development is built at or above
[57:46] specified minimums. Existing
[57:49] plans we took an initial look at
[57:51] some existing plans and our
[57:55] review indicates that the
[57:57] proposed density ranges are
[57:59] feasible however there can be
[58:00] significant variation in both
[58:02] land use types and intensities
[58:05] within stations within a
[58:08] surrounding area transit stop or
[58:11] station we're continuing to work
[58:12] with stakeholders including
[58:14] local jurisdictions and planning
[58:16] staff to further refine the
[58:18] proposed requirement to provide
[58:20] official specificity as well as
[58:23] flexibility in order to
[58:24] accommodate diversity throughout
[58:26] the region as well as
[58:27] significant land use within a
[58:31] situation station area next
[58:33] slide shows commercial projects
[58:35] from around the bay area that
[58:38] indicate the range of density.
[58:40] next slide. These are the
[58:42] minimum densities proposed for
[58:44] regional rail hubs the
[58:46] residential projects that you
[58:47] see on your right are from
[58:50] downtown oakland and the
[58:51] commercial projects on the left
[58:53] -- sorry -- residential projects
[58:55] on the left, commercial projects
[58:57] on the right, are from downtown
[58:59] oakland and downtown san
[59:00] francisco.
[59:01] next slide, please.
[59:04] so for tier two this would
[59:07] include regional rail such as
[59:09] bart and caltrain light rail
[59:11] transit bus rapid transit and
[59:13] what you see are a project from
[59:18] san jose near downtown. On the
[59:20] residential side. And then
[59:22] another project from downtown --
[59:26] the downtown south san francisco
[59:28] pda. The commercial projects on
[59:31] the right of the slide are from
[59:33] the eastern neighborhoods pda in
[59:36] san francisco and from the el
[59:39] camino real pda in burlingame.
[59:42] next slide please. Lastly, for
[59:44] our examples, the residential
[59:48] examples are from the greater
[59:51] downtown pda in san jose for the
[59:54] example on the top and then from
[59:58] the pda in fremont on the bottom
[1:00:04] level and then on the right we
[1:00:07] have a project from san mateo
[1:00:09] from their rail corridor pda,
[1:00:13] and then on the bottom, from the
[1:00:16] downtown redwood city pda. Next
[1:00:18] slide please.
[1:00:21] so this -- the proposed
[1:00:24] requirements for affordable
[1:00:25] housing and anti-displacement
[1:00:28] focus on production,
[1:00:30] preservation and protection of
[1:00:31] affordable housing in
[1:00:32] transit-rich areas.
[1:00:34] this requirement supports
[1:00:35] several planned bay area housing
[1:00:36] strategies which are listed on
[1:00:38] the right side of the slide, as
[1:00:39] well as implementation of the
[1:00:41] regional housing needs
[1:00:42] allocation. Given the range of
[1:00:45] land use and housing market
[1:00:47] context throughout the region
[1:00:50] proposal for this requirement
[1:00:51] takes a menu approach. There is
[1:00:54] a list of policies and what's
[1:00:56] being proposed is that a
[1:00:58] jurisdiction would adopt two out
[1:01:00] of three or two out of four.
[1:01:04] from the stakeholders we have
[1:01:07] adopted it should be in some
[1:01:11] cases less constrained in terms
[1:01:13] of optional and should further
[1:01:17] guidance specification on what
[1:01:21] housing policies should address
[1:01:23] requirement that is meaningful
[1:01:25] in terms of planned bay area
[1:01:26] implementation providing
[1:01:27] flexibility needed to address
[1:01:30] housing market context in the
[1:01:32] region and working with
[1:01:35] stakeholders as well as housing
[1:01:38] and local program staff to
[1:01:39] address comments and questions
[1:01:41] received to ensure consistency
[1:01:42] regarding regional guidelines on
[1:01:44] housing policies. This provides
[1:01:46] a high-level summary of proposed
[1:01:49] policy on parking requirements
[1:01:53] parking management requirements
[1:01:54] detailed in the attachment.
[1:01:59] addressed by bart's zoning
[1:02:02] guidance as well as park policy
[1:02:05] playbook there is a solid body
[1:02:07] of research at this time on the
[1:02:09] critical role effective parking
[1:02:11] management plays on reducing
[1:02:18] automobile trips and parking,
[1:02:20] right size parking enables high
[1:02:23] density and development near
[1:02:24] transit and reduce per unit
[1:02:27] development cost our technical
[1:02:30] advisory committee members
[1:02:31] supported elimination of minimum
[1:02:33] parking requirements in
[1:02:35] transit-rich areas and there is
[1:02:39] debate about potentially having
[1:02:41] parking maximums with proposed
[1:02:43] areas for regional rail service
[1:02:45] such as bart, caltrain and light
[1:02:49] rail and rapid transit I not
[1:02:54] including parking maximum for
[1:02:57] areas that are only served by
[1:02:59] ferry, commuter rail or frequent
[1:03:01] bus service. We're working with
[1:03:02] our stakeholders including local
[1:03:02] jurisdiction planning staff on
[1:03:06] further refining this
[1:03:06] requirement with regard to
[1:03:07] parking maximum providing
[1:03:09] further specificity regarding
[1:03:12] what requirements transportation
[1:03:15] demand management measures might
[1:03:17] be. Focused on the half mile
[1:03:20] area around transit stops and
[1:03:22] stations requirements for
[1:03:23] transit station access
[1:03:25] circulation also address
[1:03:27] improvements that would enable
[1:03:29] people outside the area
[1:03:33] including buses shuttles and
[1:03:37] active transportation. First
[1:03:38] two components in the outline
[1:03:42] include complete streets update
[1:03:44] as well as regional investment
[1:03:46] mobility hubs third bullet
[1:03:49] requires completion of specific
[1:03:53] gap analysis several recent
[1:03:55] station areas have included this
[1:03:57] analysis and it's been effective
[1:03:58] in identifying projects that
[1:04:00] improve multi-modal transit
[1:04:02] access. Requirements working to
[1:04:06] address comments and feedback.
[1:04:08] and we very much look forward to
[1:04:11] feedback from committee members
[1:04:12] today including how
[1:04:14] jurisdictions should address
[1:04:16] equity priority communities
[1:04:18] located farther than a half mile
[1:04:21] from transit stops and stations.
[1:04:23] next slide please. I want to
[1:04:26] conclude this portion of the
[1:04:27] presentation talking about how
[1:04:28] local jurisdictions will comply
[1:04:30] with the proposed toc policy
[1:04:32] requirements that I have
[1:04:33] outlined. We anticipate that.
[1:04:34] oc policy implementation will be
[1:04:36] phased over multiple years in
[1:04:38] coordination with transit
[1:04:39] improvements and that it will
[1:04:40] take time and financial support
[1:04:41] to assist jurisdictions with toc
[1:04:43] policy compliance in some cases
[1:04:46] already adopted plans or zoning
[1:04:48] may need to be amended to comply
[1:04:50] with the policy but it's
[1:04:51] important to note that even an
[1:04:52] amendment to an existing plan
[1:04:53] can take several years to
[1:04:55] complete if adopted one of the
[1:04:58] first implementation steps will
[1:04:59] toll address compliance
[1:05:03] locations for major transit
[1:05:04] improvements planned in the
[1:05:05] near-term enabling us to
[1:05:07] identify prioritization
[1:05:09] resources that will be needed to
[1:05:11] support policy implementation
[1:05:12] and coordination implementation
[1:05:16] for transit investment. Focus
[1:05:19] of today's presentation has been
[1:05:20] to provide you with a general
[1:05:23] overview of draft proposal for
[1:05:24] the toc approach and policy
[1:05:27] requirements and get your
[1:05:28] feedback on overall direction
[1:05:30] for policy development. There
[1:05:31] is still a lot of work to be
[1:05:33] done as we move forward with
[1:05:35] developing the draft final
[1:05:37] policy there are several key
[1:05:38] issues that we want to in
[1:05:39] particular bring to your
[1:05:40] attention as I mentioned earlier
[1:05:41] the toc policy would not only
[1:05:44] apply to transit expansions but
[1:05:45] to major transit improvements as
[1:05:47] well which is a significant
[1:05:48] change from the 2005tod policy
[1:05:51] and while the focus is on
[1:05:52] providing planning and technical
[1:05:55] assistance to jurisdictions to
[1:05:56] assist with policy compliance
[1:05:58] staff is propose that ultimately
[1:06:00] compliance could be a condition
[1:06:02] of future obag cycles, obag four
[1:06:05] or beyond. And next as we move
[1:06:07] forward with refining the policy
[1:06:10] requirements a key issue will be
[1:06:12] balancing effectiveness and ease
[1:06:13] of implementation with both the
[1:06:14] diversity and complexity of
[1:06:16] different land use and
[1:06:17] transportation contexts
[1:06:18] throughout the region and in
[1:06:19] some cases even within a single
[1:06:21] station area. And then lastly,
[1:06:24] policy implementation will
[1:06:25] likely require additional
[1:06:26] resources for planning and
[1:06:28] technical assistance as well as
[1:06:29] for assessing compliance. And
[1:06:31] we expect implementation of the
[1:06:33] policy to be phased over time
[1:06:34] and, again, coordinated with
[1:06:36] transit project funding and
[1:06:38] delivery.
[1:06:39] and, my last slide, please.
[1:06:40] [laughter]
[1:06:43] so, in conclusion, our next
[1:06:44] steps are to work with our
[1:06:46] technical advisory committee and
[1:06:47] other stakeholders on developing
[1:06:49] a final draft policy that we
[1:06:51] anticipate bringing back to this
[1:06:53] committee for action later this
[1:06:55] spring.
[1:06:56] again, this is an information
[1:06:57] item. And no action is being
[1:06:59] requested today. But we are
[1:07:01] very happy to answer any
[1:07:02] questions. And definitely want
[1:07:05] to receive your feedback and
[1:07:05] direction on the general policy
[1:07:08] approach and requirements. So,
[1:07:09] thank you very much.
[1:07:15] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:07:15] chair: matt, does that conclude
[1:07:17] the staff presentation?
[1:07:19] >>matt maloney: yes it does.
[1:07:20] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:07:21] chair: before I take questions
[1:07:22] from the committee members, you
[1:07:24] know, I just -- you know, I
[1:07:26] don't think I have received as
[1:07:28] many phone calls in a while,
[1:07:30] ever since our telecommute
[1:07:32] policy and planned bay area 2050
[1:07:35] stirred a lot of interest. You
[1:07:37] know, as this policy has been
[1:07:39] released, it has stirred a lot
[1:07:41] of interest. And I think staff
[1:07:43] knows that. First I want to say
[1:07:45] that, you know, staff has not
[1:07:48] presented anything in this
[1:07:49] proposal that isn't in planned
[1:07:53] bay area 2050. I think what got
[1:07:55] everybody's attention is, this
[1:07:56] is a 30-year plan. The way that
[1:07:59] this presentation was presented,
[1:08:01] it looked like our staff was
[1:08:02] trying to implement it in the
[1:08:04] first year. And that was not
[1:08:05] the intent. And therese really
[1:08:07] made that clear that there is a
[1:08:09] lot of work to be done. There
[1:08:10] is a lot more analysis. It
[1:08:12] doesn't mean all of these
[1:08:13] strategies are going to be
[1:08:14] included. Because there might
[1:08:15] be a better place to put some of
[1:08:17] those strategies. Local
[1:08:18] jurisdictions, and you know, we
[1:08:19] need to look at, you know, are
[1:08:21] these incentives that are put n
[1:08:23] and how we're going to approach
[1:08:25] t so I just want to just caution
[1:08:28] everybody before we circle the
[1:08:30] wagons or anything that there is
[1:08:32] a lot in analysis, a lot more
[1:08:34] discussion. But staff is
[1:08:35] bringing forward the strategies
[1:08:36] that we have all adopted, and
[1:08:39] most of them, we were hoping
[1:08:41] would be adopted over a period
[1:08:42] of time. A number of years.
[1:08:44] and, we are certainly going to
[1:08:47] have to figure out who is the
[1:08:50] best person to implement many of
[1:08:51] these strategies. And so I
[1:08:52] just, you know, the speakers,
[1:08:54] and committee members, you know,
[1:08:57] it would just -- it would be
[1:08:58] good to hear from you on what
[1:09:00] issues you're concerned about.
[1:09:04] there is plenty of time for
[1:09:07] everybody to look at this policy
[1:09:08] look at how it's going to impact
[1:09:10] their projects, if it's going to
[1:09:13] hinder those projects or
[1:09:15] accelerate them. It's going to
[1:09:16] be good to hear that information
[1:09:19] from you. The intent is not to
[1:09:22] dismantle anybody's zoning or
[1:09:24] pda plan that's not the intent
[1:09:27] of this. A lot of this work is
[1:09:29] going to continue and mtc staff
[1:09:31] is going to help with
[1:09:32] implementation and delivery of
[1:09:35] those projects. I want to set
[1:09:38] context. There is a lot more
[1:09:40] discussion. We all need to work
[1:09:41] together. We have a common
[1:09:43] goal. And that all of these
[1:09:45] strategies, as I said, that has
[1:09:48] had a lot of discussion over the
[1:09:51] past several years, as we have
[1:09:53] brought planned bay area 2050
[1:09:55] forward. And so, in my
[1:09:57] conversations with therese and
[1:09:58] matt, you know, at a couple of
[1:10:02] meetings prior to this meeting,
[1:10:04] they're assuring me that there
[1:10:05] is a lot of opportunity to have
[1:10:07] meaningful discussions, to get
[1:10:10] the stakeholders that are
[1:10:11] involved in these various areas,
[1:10:13] and really talk about a strategy
[1:10:14] that's going to work. And a toc
[1:10:17] program that we can deliver.
[1:10:19] you know, I was chair of mtc
[1:10:21] when we introduced the original
[1:10:24] toc program, transportation for
[1:10:29] livable -- tlc -- there was
[1:10:33] controversy there, but that has
[1:10:35] served as well, and I think this
[1:10:38] toc is going to do the same
[1:10:40] thing. It's how and when we
[1:10:42] implement it that's going to be
[1:10:44] the issue here and who delivers.
[1:10:48] that said I'm going to go to my
[1:10:50] commissioners and board members
[1:10:51] and we'll take comments.
[1:10:54] dave hudson, I think you're
[1:10:55] first, then carol dutra-vernaci.
[1:10:57] you will be second.
[1:10:59] go ahead, dave, kick us off
[1:11:03] >>david e. Hudson: apparently,
[1:11:03] I must have missed something.
[1:11:07] mine is a clarifying question.
[1:11:09] don't have anybody angry yet. I
[1:11:11] asked a question during our
[1:11:13] appeals process on what
[1:11:14] something actually meant so this
[1:11:16] time I'm going to ask it again
[1:11:18] this has to do with item five,
[1:11:21] attachment a, it's two
[1:11:25] questions. Bottom of first
[1:11:30] paragraph, "adding affordable
[1:11:32] homes close to region's major
[1:11:35] transit investment." the
[1:11:37] question is does region mean bay
[1:11:42] area there, and,
[1:11:43] second "proposed affordable
[1:11:47] housing and anti-displacement
[1:11:48] policies like would be
[1:11:50] implemented jurisdiction wide"
[1:11:53] is jurisdiction wide also the
[1:11:55] bay area. I'll wait to get an
[1:11:57] answer.
[1:12:01] >>matt maloney: I'll leap in on
[1:12:03] this one. Yes. When we say the
[1:12:06] region's major transit
[1:12:08] investments we're talking about
[1:12:09] the nine-county bay area. When
[1:12:11] we're talking about
[1:12:13] jurisdiction-wide in terms of
[1:12:15] adopting certain policies we're
[1:12:16] talking local jurisdictions in
[1:12:18] that case.
[1:12:20] >>david e. Hudson: okay. Well
[1:12:21] where I got surprised before
[1:12:23] was "intraregional relationship"
[1:12:27] and I thought that meant, like,
[1:12:28] a couple of jurisdictions coming
[1:12:30] together on something only to
[1:12:31] find out that meant the entire
[1:12:33] bay area.
[1:12:34] I'll leave it at that.
[1:12:35] everybody can judge for
[1:12:36] themselves.
[1:12:37] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:12:38] chair: yeah. Staff, I think it
[1:12:39] would be best if we try and get
[1:12:41] all the questions in. And if
[1:12:43] you guys can write them down as
[1:12:45] we go. Because if we're going
[1:12:47] to respond to everything we'll
[1:12:50] be here for a long period of
[1:12:51] time. But we have to address
[1:12:53] the questions people are
[1:12:55] raising. Matt you can guys take
[1:12:57] notes and answer the questions.
[1:12:58] but I would like to get as many
[1:13:00] of the questions in front of us
[1:13:01] as we can and that will help
[1:13:03] stop repeating a lot of
[1:13:05] information. With that, carol
[1:13:06] and victoria?
[1:13:09] >>carol dutra-vernaci: yes.
[1:13:10] and thank you chair spering.
[1:13:11] my thought on this item is that,
[1:13:14] obviously, whatever politics we
[1:13:16] end upcoming up with, we want
[1:13:17] the cities to be compliant. So,
[1:13:23] because this is going to be a
[1:13:25] phased project, cities are going
[1:13:28] to keep ongoing with their
[1:13:29] development plans as time goes
[1:13:31] on, and as we're phasing this
[1:13:33] in, in pieces, I'm afraid we're
[1:13:36] going to end up having an r
[1:13:43] jurisdiction that might not be
[1:13:45] consistent with putting in the
[1:13:46] policies that we're concerned b
[1:13:47] so I would like to request that
[1:13:50] we do an assessment of our
[1:13:52] transit-rich areas and see where
[1:13:56] the alignment is that we're
[1:13:57] thinking about, and where the
[1:13:58] gaps are so there can be
[1:14:00] communication. I did hear you
[1:14:01] say, chair spering, about the
[1:14:03] stakeholders. Because if
[1:14:05] they're aware of what's going
[1:14:06] on, then that will inform them,
[1:14:09] as they're trying to move
[1:14:11] forward in their projects. So,
[1:14:12] thank you for entertaining those
[1:14:14] comments.
[1:14:16] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:14:17] chair: thank you, carol.
[1:14:18] victoria?
[1:14:20] >>victoria fleming: thank you,
[1:14:21] chair spering.
[1:14:23] my comments -- you know, I take
[1:14:25] the chair's comments in stride,
[1:14:26] and thank staff for a really
[1:14:28] comprehensive and well-thought
[1:14:30] out introduction to a really
[1:14:32] difficult implementation plan.
[1:14:33] so, thank you, sincerely.
[1:14:35] my concerns are that, as we
[1:14:39] implement so many of these
[1:14:40] fantastic strategies, that I
[1:14:42] can't see one of these
[1:14:44] strategies that I can't see
[1:14:45] starting and that I don't want
[1:14:46] agree with. I think they're all
[1:14:50] really wonderful, and I think
[1:14:51] they're, in time, carrots to
[1:14:54] sticks, and really putting some
[1:14:57] teeth behind our goals and at
[1:14:59] the same time ask for careful
[1:15:07] consideration of the smaller
[1:15:08] communities in the north bay.
[1:15:10] these projects are great goals
[1:15:13] because many of our
[1:15:14] jurisdictions just aren't there
[1:15:15] yet. I look forward to careful
[1:15:17] and you thoughtful discussions
[1:15:19] with our county transportation
[1:15:21] authorities and our stakeholders
[1:15:22] to make sure this is phased in a
[1:15:25] way that doesn't leave our
[1:15:26] smaller communities behind and
[1:15:29] make sure the funding is
[1:15:31] distributed in a way that makes
[1:15:32] the whole entire nine bay area
[1:15:34] county system work well
[1:15:36] together. Thank you.
[1:15:36] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:15:37] chair: thank you, victoria.
[1:15:44] pat eklund, then neysa fligor.
[1:15:47] >>pat ecklund: thank you chair
[1:15:48] spering. I also want to thank
[1:15:50] you for your preliminary
[1:15:53] comments. Because this document
[1:15:55] scared the bejesus out of me,
[1:16:01] actually, just saying that
[1:16:03] directly. I think right off the
[1:16:06] bat, we need to get a revised
[1:16:08] timeline. I think one of -- for
[1:16:10] implementation of any type of
[1:16:11] policy like this, I really think
[1:16:14] that, number one, we need to
[1:16:17] send out a draft policy,
[1:16:21] whichever one we get close to --
[1:16:24] I think this is far from where
[1:16:25] we need to be -- to each city
[1:16:28] for review and comment.
[1:16:30] because, basically, what we're
[1:16:33] doing is we're changing the
[1:16:36] concept of transit-rich areas to
[1:16:38] be a mandatory designation. In
[1:16:47] the past, pdas actually had to
[1:16:50] apply for it. Transit-rich
[1:16:51] areas was a designation that was
[1:16:53] made by abag and mtc, but it
[1:16:56] wasn't something that the cities
[1:16:58] really had to adhere to.
[1:17:00] so, I have a major issue about
[1:17:04] this being applied to tras.
[1:17:07] especially in the more rural
[1:17:11] areas, like novato or san
[1:17:15] rafael, is not anything like a
[1:17:17] fremont or san jose.
[1:17:19] and before we do anything, I
[1:17:21] think we need to have a better
[1:17:23] understanding of which cities
[1:17:26] are not in compliance with the
[1:17:31] proposed policies that we're
[1:17:32] doing. And do we necessarily
[1:17:35] want them to be? Because there
[1:17:37] is some that just don't lend
[1:17:42] itself, and, plus, requiring a
[1:17:48] commercial density and
[1:17:50] residential density -- we are
[1:17:52] still in a pandemic and there is
[1:17:54] a lot of discussion, the bay
[1:17:55] area council just came out with
[1:17:58] a thing that said 40% of their
[1:18:00] employees are not going to be
[1:18:01] coming back to work in a
[1:18:03] building. Most of them are
[1:18:04] going be -- and there is some
[1:18:07] debate as to what percentage.
[1:18:08] some say 15%, some are saying
[1:18:12] 40%. But I firmly believe that
[1:18:14] the way that we work, the way
[1:18:16] that we move people to and from
[1:18:18] work is fundamentally changed as
[1:18:20] a result of this pandemic. And
[1:18:22] we haven't really assessed that,
[1:18:25] or even factored that into some
[1:18:27] of our thinking here.
[1:18:30] so we're just assuming that
[1:18:32] we're going to have to have
[1:18:33] residential densities and
[1:18:34] commercial densities around
[1:18:36] transit-rich areas when, in fact
[1:18:42] that may not be the case.
[1:18:44] people may not be needing
[1:18:46] transit to get to work, because
[1:18:50] they're not necessarily going to
[1:18:51] be going back to work. The
[1:18:52] council said they may be going
[1:18:54] into the office maybe three days
[1:18:56] a week, not five. Transit is
[1:18:58] based on five days a week. So,
[1:19:00] you know, I'm not an expert in
[1:19:02] this, but, so, I have a real
[1:19:04] issue with this being applied to
[1:19:09] transit-rich areas. I don't
[1:19:11] think that we should be
[1:19:12] mandating commercial and
[1:19:13] residential densities. I think
[1:19:16] that the affordable housing and
[1:19:23] anti-displacement policies,
[1:19:24] cities don't necessarily have
[1:19:26] the money to adopt these
[1:19:27] policies and or implement them.
[1:19:35] most cities don't have a housing
[1:19:39] fund. So I have -- you know
[1:19:41] there, is no definition of a
[1:19:42] major transit investment,
[1:19:44] whether it's planned, or
[1:19:46] developed.
[1:19:48] there is just a lot of
[1:19:51] uncertainties in this thing.
[1:19:52] and I think that we really need
[1:19:53] to make sure that the planners
[1:19:57] and the elected official in each
[1:19:59] city, in this region, have input
[1:20:02] into this.
[1:20:04] and, so, I have a lot more
[1:20:07] comments that, basically, I
[1:20:09] think that we need to have a
[1:20:15] little bit more definition and a
[1:20:17] better understanding of who this
[1:20:18] is going to apply to and what
[1:20:20] does it mean for each of the
[1:20:22] cities before we even think any
[1:20:26] adopting something like this.
[1:20:41] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:20:41] chair: thank you, pat.
[1:20:44] >>neysa fligor: pat covered
[1:20:46] everything on my list. And in
[1:20:48] the opening, chair spering,
[1:20:49] thank you for that it's the
[1:20:51] message I will take back we're
[1:20:54] early in the process and I
[1:20:56] appreciate you saying that at
[1:20:57] the beginning. I won't repeat
[1:20:59] everything that pat said, but
[1:21:01] similar concerns and questions,
[1:21:02] how it will be deployed,
[1:21:04] applied, application, to non-pda
[1:21:07] areas, what does that mean for
[1:21:09] different cities, and so because
[1:21:11] we're at the early stage of this
[1:21:14] policy process, I do appreciate
[1:21:19] the fact that we will have time
[1:21:22] to delve deeper and solicit
[1:21:25] feedback from our individual
[1:21:28] cities and county jurisdictions.
[1:21:29] so I won't go into the list.
[1:21:32] thank you very much.
[1:21:32] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:21:33] chair: thank you for those
[1:21:33] comments. Carlos and then
[1:21:36] alfredo, our chair.
[1:21:39] >>carlos romero: thank you. I
[1:21:41] am actually quite pleasantly
[1:21:43] surprised at the work both staff
[1:21:46] and our executive staff have
[1:21:49] done in trying to improve our
[1:21:51] former tod policy. I know we
[1:21:53] have had many a discussion in
[1:21:55] the past, some actually led by
[1:21:57] the chair about how effective
[1:21:59] these policies have been, are we
[1:22:01] getting what we need in terms of
[1:22:03] the development that's required
[1:22:04] to make the bay area more
[1:22:06] livable and equitable. And I
[1:22:11] believe this draft is certainly
[1:22:13] moving in that direction. And I
[1:22:15] want to thank you therese for
[1:22:18] supporting her staff to make
[1:22:21] some of these suggestions on
[1:22:23] policies and changes to the tod.
[1:22:25] I do want to point out that many
[1:22:27] of the items that are discussed
[1:22:28] here don't require a deep or any
[1:22:32] cost to implement, particularly
[1:22:34] when it comes to some of the
[1:22:37] policies around preservation and
[1:22:39] displacement, it's something
[1:22:41] that our previous tod policy
[1:22:43] never address said. So just
[1:22:45] cause eviction, you could put in
[1:22:47] place protection that is
[1:22:49] discussed there, and indeed
[1:22:51] those aren't going to cost you
[1:22:52] anything but they certainly will
[1:22:54] be protecting communities of
[1:22:56] concern communities of color,
[1:22:58] communities that certainly
[1:22:59] require a type of protection.
[1:23:00] and I would like to even
[1:23:01] possibly even see that
[1:23:03] strengthened, perhaps even
[1:23:05] thinking of a first right of
[1:23:06] return policy on displacement.
[1:23:09] certainly, I want to comment
[1:23:10] really quickly on the parking
[1:23:12] issue. I think it makes a lot
[1:23:14] of sense to look at parking and
[1:23:17] reducing that parking. But
[1:23:18] let's keep in mind that a
[1:23:19] reduction in parking to a
[1:23:20] developer, or what he has to
[1:23:24] produce saves that developer 30
[1:23:28] to $45,000 for a parking space
[1:23:32] and there's an ability to
[1:23:34] recapture that 15 to 20 to 30%
[1:23:37] is a savings to a developer, to
[1:23:40] do a 1.5 or two car per unit
[1:23:43] parking renovation I think is,
[1:23:47] would be some public recapturing
[1:23:52] of that. Proposed densities on
[1:23:55] page 22
[1:23:56] [audio difficulties]
[1:23:56] I kind of want to record and
[1:24:00] understand -- and we'll get to
[1:24:02] this later --
[1:24:03] [audio difficulties]
[1:24:06] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:24:07] chair: carlos, you're dropping
[1:24:08] out. We couldn't hear you.
[1:24:20] I think we may have lost him.
[1:24:23] carlos? Okay. I'll come back
[1:24:25] to him. I'll go to chair
[1:24:27] pedroza then vice chair
[1:24:29] josefowitz will be next.
[1:24:32] >>alfredo pedroza: thank you
[1:24:33] chair spering. Your comments
[1:24:34] you made earlier --
[1:24:37] >>carlos romero: I believe page
[1:24:39] --
[1:24:40] >>alfredo pedroza: carlos, you
[1:24:41] were kind of going in and out.
[1:24:42] are you in a good spot now? You
[1:24:45] want to come back in?
[1:24:48] >>carlos romero:
[1:24:49] [audio difficulties]
[1:24:50] -- let me see --
[1:24:53] >>alfredo pedroza: you're
[1:24:55] reception wasn't that good
[1:24:57] carlos.
[1:24:58] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:24:59] chair: carlos we're going to
[1:25:00] come back to you. We'll go
[1:25:01] ahead with the other speakers
[1:25:04] and come back to you.
[1:25:06] >>alfredo pedroza: thank you.
[1:25:07] comments were spot o and therese
[1:25:09] response to making those opening
[1:25:11] statements. Those goals are
[1:25:13] good and consistent in terms of
[1:25:14] what we have been talking about
[1:25:16] in socializing with bay area in
[1:25:20] terms of what I'm looking for in
[1:25:22] direction is looking to work
[1:25:24] with flexibility is key
[1:25:25] acknowledging the differences
[1:25:26] between urban and rural
[1:25:30] communities commissioner fleming
[1:25:32] had a great statements about
[1:25:36] flexibility it's going to be
[1:25:38] critical in this analysis and in
[1:25:40] terms of tying to funding
[1:25:41] sources. I can support
[1:25:44] conditioning but we have to make
[1:25:45] sure we have a policy that there
[1:25:47] is consensus on and that we're
[1:25:50] recognizing uniquenesses between
[1:25:51] rural and urban counties before
[1:25:54] we start talking about
[1:25:56] reconditioning and tying in
[1:26:00] differences. With the concept
[1:26:02] of analysis, I grate goals are
[1:26:05] good. Thank you.
[1:26:05] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:26:06] chair: thank you. Vice chair
[1:26:07] josefowitz. Nick?
[1:26:10] >>nick josefowitz: thank you.
[1:26:11] I think this policy is really
[1:26:14] just has so many things to like
[1:26:17] about it. I think it's
[1:26:19] terrific. This is grounded in
[1:26:21] planned bay area. That was a
[1:26:23] document that has done so much
[1:26:25] public outreach. I can't
[1:26:28] remember the numbers, but what
[1:26:29] was it? 10,000 conversations,
[1:26:32] four years of discussions, you
[1:26:33] know, voted on by so many -- by
[1:26:37] abag and mtc and gone through so
[1:26:40] many committees, and it's just
[1:26:42] great -- I think the packet that
[1:26:43] this kind of builds on that and
[1:26:45] is really an out -- it's so
[1:26:47] important for the success of
[1:26:48] this policy.
[1:26:50] I think it's also great to see
[1:26:52] how, like with planned bay area,
[1:26:56] this is really grounded in the,
[1:26:58] sort of, best practice for how
[1:27:00] to reduce the number and
[1:27:01] distance of trips taken, driving
[1:27:02] alone and how to increase
[1:27:04] transit ridership, and that
[1:27:05] we're moving to, sort of, really
[1:27:07] incorporate our, sort of, a best
[1:27:10] understanding of, sort of, the
[1:27:11] densities and parking and tdm
[1:27:15] requirements and not just
[1:27:16] residential but also the needs
[1:27:19] of commercial and the importance
[1:27:20] of kind of taking into account,
[1:27:23] sort of, equity.
[1:27:24] and I think the main change just
[1:27:26] really resonates with me we're
[1:27:30] moving from the idea of how to
[1:27:31] build to create and preserving
[1:27:34] communities and, sort of, moving
[1:27:36] from housing to people with this
[1:27:38] policy and I think that makes
[1:27:39] such a difference.
[1:27:41] I also wanted to say, I think it
[1:27:43] is really powerful that this
[1:27:45] policy is going to be tied to
[1:27:47] funding. And that might be one
[1:27:49] of the ways, and I think that
[1:27:51] might be another way to build in
[1:27:55] flexibility here. Because I
[1:27:57] certainly acknowledge, and I
[1:27:59] think it's important to have a
[1:28:00] distinction between kind of
[1:28:02] urban and rural places. I'm
[1:28:06] sure we'll hear a lot of, sort
[1:28:09] of, comments that we shouldn't
[1:28:10] have one size fits all, and I
[1:28:12] agree with that.
[1:28:13] but, I do think that in whatever
[1:28:17] place we're looking at f this
[1:28:19] region is making a significant
[1:28:22] investment in transit service,
[1:28:23] or in transit expansion, that
[1:28:26] there have to be -- there has to
[1:28:29] be, sort of, a commence or
[1:28:31] expectation for making the, sort
[1:28:33] of, land uses making the, sort
[1:28:35] of, work around that investment
[1:28:38] so maybe one of the ways of
[1:28:41] phasing this policy this is
[1:28:44] around the investment going into
[1:28:46] these communities overlaid with
[1:28:48] the kind of rural fabric I think
[1:28:51] that's incredibly important.
[1:28:53] and the other element of
[1:28:55] funding, we didn't hear it today
[1:28:58] but we heard it in a
[1:29:00] presentation on wednesday which
[1:29:01] wasn't a joint abag
[1:29:02] presentation, but there is so
[1:29:04] much new planning money coming
[1:29:05] to this region and I think that
[1:29:07] is going to be essential that
[1:29:08] that planning money is, sort of,
[1:29:10] tied up with, sort of, the
[1:29:13] expectations in this toc policy.
[1:29:15] so that those communities who
[1:29:18] have expectations of kind of
[1:29:22] being the first movers are also
[1:29:25] teed up to be able to get the
[1:29:33] planning money to support that
[1:29:35] movement and that work. And
[1:29:36] this is comprehensive in
[1:29:39] communicating that to us and
[1:29:40] other stakeholders about the
[1:29:43] planning funding availability
[1:29:44] that's coming down and how
[1:29:45] you're going to coordinate that.
[1:29:48] and then, you know, finally on
[1:29:51] the, you know, the -- and I
[1:29:58] agree with -- and I appreciate
[1:30:02] commissioner spering and
[1:30:03] director mcmillan's comments
[1:30:05] that this isn't all going happen
[1:30:08] at once. I realize there is a
[1:30:12] real emergency, planned bay area
[1:30:15] has this region building 32,000
[1:30:18] homes in transit-rich areas and
[1:30:22] creating 25,000 new jobs in
[1:30:25] transit-rich areas ever year
[1:30:27] from now until 2050. 32,000
[1:30:31] homes a year from now every year
[1:30:36] from now until 2050 and every
[1:30:40] year we're not doing that, that
[1:30:43] moons we have to build more the
[1:30:45] year after and more the year
[1:30:47] after. We can face this in a
[1:30:51] way that jump starts the,
[1:30:57] achieving the goals we have laid
[1:30:58] out in planned bay area but is
[1:31:00] so important to make this region
[1:31:03] affordable and to kind of come
[1:31:04] to grips with the drivers of
[1:31:06] climate change. Thank you.
[1:31:07] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:31:08] chair: okay. Thank you.
[1:31:09] president arreguin and then
[1:31:12] damon connolly. Jesse, you're
[1:31:14] up.
[1:31:14] >>jesse arreguin, abag
[1:31:15] administrative chair: thank
[1:31:16] you, mr. Chair. I agree with
[1:31:19] your comments. I kind of frame
[1:31:21] the discussion which is that
[1:31:23] this policy is a critical step
[1:31:24] to implement planned bay area
[1:31:26] but it's not all going to be
[1:31:28] done at once and I think there
[1:31:29] is a lot to consider. Not just
[1:31:31] how local governments will have
[1:31:33] to comply with these
[1:31:35] requirements so that they can be
[1:31:39] competitive for regional
[1:31:41] discretionary funds how this
[1:31:42] will impact the eligibility of
[1:31:44] transit projects because transit
[1:31:45] agencies don't have control over
[1:31:47] local land use planning. That
[1:31:50] is something that is dedicated
[1:31:51] to local governments. But I see
[1:31:53] this as the rubber really
[1:31:55] meeting the road. Where if we
[1:31:58] aren't as, as vice chair
[1:31:59] josefowitz said, meeting the
[1:32:02] targets that we set out in
[1:32:03] planned bay area to achieve the
[1:32:05] certain number of unit in our
[1:32:07] region over the next 30 years f
[1:32:09] we're going to implement many of
[1:32:11] the housing policies that we
[1:32:12] have outlined we need to have
[1:32:14] incentives for people to comply
[1:32:16] and if local governments are not
[1:32:18] going to meet those benchmarks
[1:32:20] then other communities that are,
[1:32:22] are going to be awarded and are
[1:32:24] going to be eligible for these
[1:32:25] funds. I would say as president
[1:32:27] of abag I appreciate all the
[1:32:29] work that's being done this is a
[1:32:31] critical implementation action
[1:32:33] to help us realize the goals of
[1:32:35] planned bay area. And to that I
[1:32:36] want to make a request to the
[1:32:38] executive director while abag
[1:32:40] has a no vote on this, I think
[1:32:41] our feedback could be helpful to
[1:32:43] staff at the mtc commission, as
[1:32:46] mtc is evaluating this policy
[1:32:48] and I want to respectful of
[1:32:50] request to ms. Mcmillan if we
[1:32:52] could get a presentation of to
[1:32:56] the executive board and the
[1:32:58] executive board can provide
[1:32:58] whatever comments to staff to
[1:33:00] share with the mtc commission.
[1:33:02] because I think this is really
[1:33:03] important. And it does actually
[1:33:05] help us realize the goals and
[1:33:09] requirements of the regional
[1:33:10] housing needs allocation, which
[1:33:12] as we know are very different
[1:33:15] from previous rhna cycles was
[1:33:17] not just limited to focusing on
[1:33:19] priority development areas but
[1:33:20] looked at transit-rich areas and
[1:33:23] high-resource areas as where
[1:33:24] additional housing could be
[1:33:26] accommodated.
[1:33:27] and I think if local governments
[1:33:28] are going to have to meet those
[1:33:30] rhna requirements, and are going
[1:33:32] to have to rezone sites, they
[1:33:35] should be rewarded for their
[1:33:36] work with potential planning
[1:33:39] grants or other discretionary
[1:33:40] funds.
[1:33:42] that's how we are going to get
[1:33:44] local governments to not only
[1:33:46] implement those requirements,
[1:33:48] but also to build the housing,
[1:33:51] quickly, affordable housing that
[1:33:53] we need in our region. But
[1:33:55] there is a lot to consider.
[1:33:56] there are communities that are
[1:33:57] not ready to implement this.
[1:33:59] and so what are we going to do
[1:34:01] to help work with them providing
[1:34:06] resources and technical
[1:34:08] assistance that they can be in a
[1:34:10] position to be able to be
[1:34:12] competitive. That's going to be
[1:34:13] part of the phasing
[1:34:16] conversation. But I think the
[1:34:17] goals of this policy are good.
[1:34:19] they're critical for us to
[1:34:21] achieve our greenhouse gas
[1:34:22] reduction goals to achieve our
[1:34:24] affordability goals. And make
[1:34:26] the transportation funding
[1:34:28] investments in areas where we
[1:34:29] have good densities, good
[1:34:36] population density, and we are
[1:34:37] -- and we have good transit
[1:34:40] connectivity as well. So, thank
[1:34:41] you to staff for all your work.
[1:34:44] look forward to a presentation
[1:34:45] at abag. We look forward to
[1:34:47] providing our feedback for the
[1:34:49] commission to consider. This is
[1:34:51] very important. And I think if
[1:34:55] done right could have a really
[1:34:58] transformative impact on our
[1:34:59] region. Thank you
[1:34:59] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:35:00] chair: thanks jesse. Damon
[1:35:03] connolly, then one of my
[1:35:05] favorite mayors, mayor schaff.
[1:35:08] damon?
[1:35:12] >>damon connolly: appreciate
[1:35:12] the discussion and goals that
[1:35:14] we're trying to achieve. We're
[1:35:16] starting to get questions
[1:35:17] locally, so really appreciate
[1:35:19] the signal that this is the
[1:35:21] start of a conversation and
[1:35:25] we'll be bringing localities to
[1:35:33] the calling of the conversation.
[1:35:35] I want to bring back a point, I
[1:35:37] think it was by commissioner
[1:35:40] fleming, about situations in the
[1:35:43] north bay, for example, where
[1:35:44] you have a larger regional
[1:35:46] transit center serving multiple
[1:35:49] communities, at the same time,
[1:35:53] being adjacent to smaller towns
[1:35:55] or cities, so, the juxtaposition
[1:36:00] of finding for that center or
[1:36:02] increased service that are being
[1:36:04] tied to planning decisions going
[1:36:06] on a hyper-local basis. So, the
[1:36:11] question is, kind of, will
[1:36:16] whatever we ultimately adopt
[1:36:18] actually incentivize transit
[1:36:22] improvements and the concern
[1:36:23] about holding regional projects
[1:36:25] or regional funding accountable,
[1:36:29] if you will, to, really,
[1:36:33] hyper-local planning
[1:36:35] decision-making. It's something
[1:36:36] that we need to, at least, work
[1:36:39] through. What sorts of funds
[1:36:41] will be affected. That needs to
[1:36:43] continued to be worked through.
[1:36:45] I am reminded that we did have a
[1:36:47] robust discussion as a
[1:36:49] commission about the issue of
[1:36:51] conditioning. I think we landed
[1:36:52] in some solid places on that.
[1:36:56] so, keeping that in mind, and of
[1:36:59] course, flexibility, as folks
[1:37:01] have noted. And then I'm also
[1:37:04] hearing the question that has
[1:37:05] been teed up today about what
[1:37:07] potential areas are we talking
[1:37:08] about beyond pdas in terms of
[1:37:14] the approaches here. And of
[1:37:15] course, heavy-duty coordination
[1:37:17] with local transit operators and
[1:37:20] communities. Thanks.
[1:37:23] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:37:24] chair: thank you, damon.
[1:37:26] and after mayor schaff will be
[1:37:28] amy worth.
[1:37:30] mayor schaff?
[1:37:31] >>libby schaaf: thank you,
[1:37:32] chair spering. My favorite
[1:37:34] chair.
[1:37:34] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:37:36] chair: [laughter]
[1:37:37] >>libby schaaf: well, I want to
[1:37:39] commend staff. I think they
[1:37:40] have done an amazing job. And I
[1:37:43] know that now is the time, or
[1:37:48] the devil is in the details, and
[1:37:50] I encourage you to continue
[1:37:52] working with the technical
[1:37:53] advisory committee. I do have
[1:37:54] one question. You don't have to
[1:37:56] answer it, but just for your
[1:37:58] consideration, I saw, kind
[1:38:00] of, "credit" for having, sort
[1:38:05] of, inclusionary zoning
[1:38:06] policies, but I did not see
[1:38:09] mention of affordable housing
[1:38:10] impact fees. In oakland we have
[1:38:12] affordable housing impact fees
[1:38:14] with an in lieu option to
[1:38:17] include the unit in the project.
[1:38:19] so it's almost the same thing as
[1:38:22] inclusionary with an in lieu fee
[1:38:24] option. We just did it the
[1:38:27] other way for several reasons.
[1:38:29] so if you could look into that,
[1:38:31] it's one of those details. I
[1:38:33] want to echo a little bit of
[1:38:35] what some of my colleagues have
[1:38:38] said. You know, the time to be
[1:38:41] scared or have the bejeebers
[1:38:48] scared out of you is past. We
[1:38:50] already did the big bold thing
[1:38:52] and adopted planned bay area.
[1:38:53] and remember that the modeling
[1:38:55] in that plan respond to state of
[1:38:59] california mandated greenhouse
[1:39:01] gas reductions.
[1:39:02] this is not an option. We are
[1:39:05] responding to a state mandate.
[1:39:08] if you need to blame someone
[1:39:10] besides mtc or abag. We already
[1:39:13] agreed to these densities. This
[1:39:15] is now, actually, making that
[1:39:18] commitment real by putting an
[1:39:22] implementation plan around t we
[1:39:23] will not be able to reach the
[1:39:25] goals that we committed to in
[1:39:27] the plan without this policy. I
[1:39:30] am convinced of that.
[1:39:34] leadership is about making
[1:39:36] people unemployment. But it's
[1:39:39] because we are the only ones who
[1:39:42] are equipped with the damage and
[1:39:44] the tools, the actual authority,
[1:39:47] to future-proof our beloved
[1:39:52] communities. So think of this
[1:39:53] as an act of love. Because the
[1:39:55] future is depending on it.
[1:39:57] I want to, also, specifically,
[1:40:02] appreciate that all three p's
[1:40:07] are covered in this plan,
[1:40:09] production, preservation, and
[1:40:12] protection. The bay area has
[1:40:14] strong affordable housing and
[1:40:16] anti-displacement goals. These
[1:40:17] are in the plan and these
[1:40:19] policies are important to
[1:40:20] achieving the goal's plan. And
[1:40:23] I can just become oakland's
[1:40:25] experience, having these types
[1:40:26] of policies has not discouraged
[1:40:29] development, certainly, in our
[1:40:32] city. We have seen the largest
[1:40:34] development boom, we believe,
[1:40:36] since the 1906 earthquake, we
[1:40:39] have added 17,000 new units of
[1:40:42] housing to our city in the last
[1:40:44] seven years. It's pretty
[1:40:46] phenomenal. And so, that is, at
[1:40:51] least, a proof point.
[1:40:54] I just want to, again, end by
[1:40:57] saying that, personally, I love
[1:40:59] the boldness, but I want to
[1:41:02] assure you, I will listen to my
[1:41:06] colleagues. I will do my best
[1:41:08] to keep an open mind to a well
[1:41:14] justified recommendations, to
[1:41:15] phase this implementation plan
[1:41:17] in over time. But, I do caution
[1:41:21] us that time is of the essence.
[1:41:25] climate change will not wait for
[1:41:26] any of us. And I also want to
[1:41:28] mention that many of us are
[1:41:30] updating our housing elements
[1:41:32] right now. So, it's a perfect
[1:41:34] time to incorporate this
[1:41:36] implementation plan so that it
[1:41:38] can actually make it into the
[1:41:40] work that we're each doing with
[1:41:42] our housing elements.
[1:41:44] so, those are my thoughts. But
[1:41:47] that is also my commitment to
[1:41:49] keep an open mind to phasing.
[1:41:52] and I look forward to working
[1:41:53] through this leadership
[1:41:54] challenge that has been given to
[1:41:56] each and every one of us, as we
[1:42:00] future-proof our beloved
[1:42:05] communities.
[1:42:05] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:42:06] chair: thank you, mayor schaff.
[1:42:07] your open-mindedness has been
[1:42:17] respective.
[1:42:23] commissioner worth?
[1:42:23] >>amy r. Worth:
[1:42:28] open-mindedness, I don't think
[1:42:30] there is anybody who is more
[1:42:32] passionate about producing
[1:42:34] housing and our obligation to
[1:42:36] doing that. You're representing
[1:42:40] 19 cities of diverse sizes, and
[1:42:44] there is a lot in this plan that
[1:42:47] can be implemented and
[1:42:49] benefitted in light of the fact
[1:42:51] that all of our cities are
[1:42:52] undertaking the rhna process.
[1:42:55] with that being said, what I'm
[1:42:57] concerned about, as we look at
[1:42:59] this plan and we move forward,
[1:43:02] that we want to make sure that
[1:43:04] the incorporation of a lot of
[1:43:06] these policies, one includes the
[1:43:09] active engagement of our city
[1:43:12] planning directors. I know that
[1:43:14] most directors, this is now
[1:43:15] coming on their radar screens,
[1:43:18] it has not been on their radar
[1:43:20] screens, they have been
[1:43:22] grappling with rhna, and I
[1:43:24] appreciate the funding that abag
[1:43:26] has provided through the reap
[1:43:29] program for cities to do the
[1:43:30] kinds of planning needed to
[1:43:32] accommodate these significantly
[1:43:36] larger rhna numbers. So, cities
[1:43:38] are going to be planning and
[1:43:40] zoning for significant changes
[1:43:42] over the next year. But I think
[1:43:46] it's really important that any
[1:43:47] of -- the policies that we
[1:43:50] eventually adopt do not either
[1:43:53] prevent the development of
[1:43:54] housing, or put cities in a
[1:43:58] position where they are
[1:44:00] implementing their rhna
[1:44:01] requirement, but because they
[1:44:02] don't cross the t's and dot the
[1:44:09] ayes you're going to be seeing
[1:44:13] significant increase in housing
[1:44:14] densities without dollars to
[1:44:18] provide the transportation
[1:44:25] infrastructure needed to
[1:44:26] accommodate those. We have been
[1:44:35] grappling with the housing
[1:44:39] challenges and surplus capacity
[1:44:48] inclusionary density is a goal
[1:44:50] we all want to have happen, but
[1:44:54] at some points the projects
[1:44:56] don't pencil. I am particularly
[1:44:58] concerned about that. And
[1:45:00] recognizing that one size does
[1:45:01] not fit all in these density
[1:45:04] requirements, that are outlined,
[1:45:06] so, I really think that the city
[1:45:09] planning directors who are
[1:45:11] grappling right now with this
[1:45:12] very issue of how do we -- you
[1:45:15] know, what do we need to
[1:45:16] incorporate these planning goals
[1:45:17] in our community and what it's
[1:45:19] going to look like. And so I
[1:45:22] really appreciate the
[1:45:23] perspective of our executive
[1:45:25] director and our chair,
[1:45:27] outlining the fact that this is
[1:45:29] the beginning of a discussion
[1:45:30] about these policies. And the
[1:45:38] pda and obag policies have
[1:45:40] really positioned our region
[1:45:43] really well. But I also think
[1:45:44] that it's very important that
[1:45:46] we're able to meet these housing
[1:45:48] goals. And in our county we
[1:45:50] have cities that have entitled
[1:45:52] projects, multi-family housing
[1:45:53] project that are not being built
[1:45:55] because they cannot pencil s I
[1:45:58] really think we need to be
[1:46:00] mindful as we look into these
[1:46:02] policies, what fits within our
[1:46:04] communities, but also how do we
[1:46:07] achieve the goal of actually
[1:46:08] producing the housing that is
[1:46:10] desperately needed. Final
[1:46:12] piece. And then I'll conclude I
[1:46:15] appreciate the element in this
[1:46:16] that talk about providing and
[1:46:18] encouraging the movement of jobs
[1:46:21] throughout the region. And I
[1:46:22] think that this is one of the
[1:46:24] huge challenges that we should
[1:46:26] have for our greenhouse gas
[1:46:28] targets is that we have people
[1:46:31] traveling long distances from
[1:46:33] home to jobs and if we can move
[1:46:37] more jobs into more counties
[1:46:38] where we have population centers
[1:46:40] and a workforce that is there to
[1:46:44] fill those jobs, I think that
[1:46:46] can go a long way, also. So, in
[1:46:49] achieving these greenhouse gas
[1:46:50] targets. So I look forward to
[1:46:52] conversations, and I look
[1:46:54] forward to the opportunity for
[1:46:55] not only the n that chart, not
[1:46:57] only this county transportation
[1:46:59] authority's planning directors
[1:47:01] engage, but I really think that
[1:47:03] the city planning directors also
[1:47:05] can provide really important
[1:47:07] input in terms of how these
[1:47:10] policies can be -- how they
[1:47:13] impact our ability to produce
[1:47:14] housing that is so much needed.
[1:47:16] thank you very much.
[1:47:27] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:47:27] chair: thank you. Amy. Gina
[1:47:31] your out last comment.
[1:47:34] >>gina papan: thank you to
[1:47:40] staff. The question is how we
[1:47:42] get there and how it actually
[1:47:45] works. I cannot emphasize
[1:47:46] enough including in your tech
[1:47:49] advisory committee some of the
[1:47:51] jurisdictions that have already
[1:47:51] been put through some of this.
[1:47:53] because what this policy does
[1:47:55] is, it does not hold the transit
[1:47:58] operators accountable. So, I
[1:48:00] think I individuals before, I
[1:48:01] mean, in my jurisdiction -- and
[1:48:03] thank you for putting up
[1:48:05] pictures from three different
[1:48:06] cities in my jurisdiction, you
[1:48:08] can see we're trying to
[1:48:09] accommodate. We are building.
[1:48:11] but, right now, we're being
[1:48:15] interfered with by high speed
[1:48:17] rail and some other transit
[1:48:19] operators. So they are not
[1:48:20] necessarily our friends. There
[1:48:22] is an existing transit-rich
[1:48:24] area. We get that. That's
[1:48:26] wonderful.
[1:48:27] but they're not helpful. You
[1:48:29] have a portion that says access.
[1:48:34] again, the transit operators are
[1:48:37] not concerned with access.
[1:48:40] parking, if you cannot park at a
[1:48:43] major modal center, you are not
[1:48:47] going to take transit. This is
[1:48:49] problematic. And you can look,
[1:48:51] right now, at the bart
[1:48:53] development in my city, the fact
[1:48:56] that there is no parking for the
[1:48:57] commercial part is really
[1:48:59] becoming difficult. It's a
[1:49:01] beautiful commercial area there,
[1:49:04] in addition to the housing, but
[1:49:07] the businesses, like a
[1:49:09] restaurant won't go in there
[1:49:12] because their customers can't
[1:49:13] park. And no, you can't park at
[1:49:16] bart unless you go into the bart
[1:49:18] station, getting parking thing
[1:49:19] from there, so, these are the
[1:49:21] kind of nuances that need to be
[1:49:23] worked out. And we need your
[1:49:25] help, mtc, in helping us build
[1:49:28] more, and not, kind of,
[1:49:31] strangleholding us, which some
[1:49:32] of this appears to be. Planned
[1:49:34] bay area is great. I think some
[1:49:36] of it is already out of date.
[1:49:40] there is a lot of housing laws
[1:49:42] that were just put into place
[1:49:44] that are impacting our abilities
[1:49:46] to build housing, to be
[1:49:50] sustainable, all kinds of stuff.
[1:49:52] we have upzoned. We will
[1:49:54] continue to upzone. Don't think
[1:49:56] we're not; we are doing that.
[1:49:58] but when you add in here rent
[1:50:01] stabilization, just cause
[1:50:03] evictions, tenant-right
[1:50:05] councils. I believe the
[1:50:07] legislature has already weighed
[1:50:09] in on that. So it seems like
[1:50:10] we're telling them, no, you
[1:50:12] didn't do it right, and now you
[1:50:14] have got to do this. It was
[1:50:16] pointed out by another speaker
[1:50:17] that we don't have the ability
[1:50:19] -- some of us smaller
[1:50:21] jurisdictions -- to do that.
[1:50:23] so, when you have your
[1:50:24] affordable protection and
[1:50:26] neighborhood stabilization
[1:50:27] portion in there, and you're
[1:50:28] going to condition funding on
[1:50:30] every single -- I represent 20
[1:50:33] cities -- if we don't have that,
[1:50:35] we're not eligible for the
[1:50:37] entire electrification of
[1:50:39] caltrain within our
[1:50:40] jurisdiction? I mean, that is
[1:50:42] -- that's not going to let us
[1:50:44] achieve the goals we want. We
[1:50:46] want to built. We want to make
[1:50:48] all this happen. We need your
[1:50:50] help. So I'm kind of looking
[1:50:52] for more policy or portions of
[1:50:58] this that actually help us get
[1:51:00] to building more and not
[1:51:03] interfere with what's currently
[1:51:04] happening here. So, you know,
[1:51:06] if you had something in
[1:51:10] thereabout high speed rail not
[1:51:11] stealing the land which we have
[1:51:13] already approved for 488 housing
[1:51:15] units for street level parking,
[1:51:17] I got no problem with that.
[1:51:19] that's wonderful. Tell them.
[1:51:21] that's impossible, and I can go
[1:51:25] ahead with ten stories, 48488
[1:51:32] housing units. We want to
[1:51:34] build. So, please, I think you
[1:51:36] need to bring in the local
[1:51:38] jurisdictions. Some of us have
[1:51:39] the experience to say this is
[1:51:41] what works, this is what doesn't
[1:51:43] work. Because let me tell you
[1:51:45] right now, a person trying to
[1:51:47] get a loan, a developer for a
[1:51:50] commercial/housing I don't think
[1:51:53] they can get the loan unless it
[1:51:55] includes some parking and you're
[1:51:57] saying, no. Nothing. We can
[1:52:01] transition out. [indiscernible]
[1:52:04] is great, they're building a big
[1:52:06] parking structure, but with the
[1:52:07] future of transforming that, so
[1:52:09] we can make all the
[1:52:10] transportation elements work,
[1:52:12] those are the type of things
[1:52:13] here that I would love to see.
[1:52:15] and we want to get there. We
[1:52:16] want to reduce the greenhouse
[1:52:18] gas. We all have the same goal.
[1:52:19] it's just kind of how the policy
[1:52:23] is currently written here. So,
[1:52:25] I don't think we should be
[1:52:27] contradicting the legislature.
[1:52:29] I'm really -- I think there are
[1:52:30] new ways that we can be bold and
[1:52:33] make all of this happen.
[1:52:34] because what works in a big
[1:52:36] city, like mayor schaff's, or
[1:52:39] san francisco, doesn't
[1:52:41] necessarily work in our cities.
[1:52:44] so, please let us be a part of
[1:52:46] this process. And, really
[1:52:50] making it work in the future,
[1:52:52] here, we really -- I mean, we
[1:52:55] could use legislation that, if
[1:52:56] we have an old building, we can
[1:52:59] -- that was at one time housing,
[1:53:01] but hasn't been for five years,
[1:53:03] if we could count that in our
[1:53:06] rhna numbers. We want to make
[1:53:08] things work here, but they don't
[1:53:09] allow us to do that. So, help
[1:53:11] us. And we can work together.
[1:53:20] I really want to thank
[1:53:22] everybody. I suggest the tech
[1:53:24] advisory committee be expanded
[1:53:26] to some of our local and smaller
[1:53:28] jurisdictions because we don't
[1:53:29] want to repeat the mistakes of
[1:53:31] the past. Thank you, mr. Chair.
[1:53:31] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:53:32] chair: thank you, gina.
[1:53:38] martha, how many speakers do we
[1:53:39] have?
[1:53:40] >>clerk of the board: right now
[1:53:41] we have ten speakers and
[1:53:42] counting. How much time would
[1:53:43] you like to give people?
[1:53:44] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:53:45] chair: well, you know, I would
[1:53:47] like to give people, like, one
[1:53:49] minute, but they can go over a
[1:53:51] little bit. But before we go to
[1:53:54] the public comments -- staff did
[1:53:56] you -- I know mayor schaff had a
[1:53:57] question. There wasn't a lot of
[1:53:59] questions and more statements.
[1:54:01] matt, did you guys have anything
[1:54:03] you want to respond to --
[1:54:06] >>matt maloney: I'm happy to
[1:54:07] give a quick sum up, maybe a
[1:54:09] minute if that's helpful.
[1:54:09] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:54:12] chair: go ahead.
[1:54:14] >>matt maloney: there was a
[1:54:15] question or comment about staff
[1:54:16] doing an assessment of what's
[1:54:19] going on in the transit-rich
[1:54:21] areas and I think that's right
[1:54:22] on the mark and we are planning
[1:54:24] to dig into that more. We have
[1:54:26] got a lot of information out
[1:54:28] there in the existing pdas plans
[1:54:30] we can draw from but woe have to
[1:54:32] do more research on that, that
[1:54:34] is certainly part of our work
[1:54:35] plan. I think on the subject of
[1:54:37] different communities and
[1:54:38] smaller communities around the
[1:54:40] area, and I think it was our
[1:54:42] intent with the different tiers
[1:54:44] that we showed in the
[1:54:45] presentation, tier one, tier
[1:54:46] two, tier three, you know, kind
[1:54:49] of looking at commuter rail
[1:54:51] systems like smart, you know,
[1:54:53] different from heavy rail
[1:54:55] systems like bart and caltrain.
[1:54:57] I think that's all in the mix
[1:54:58] and that's something we can
[1:55:00] continue to play with as we hear
[1:55:01] more comments from all of you.
[1:55:04] I think commissioner josefowitz
[1:55:07] made a point about getting more
[1:55:09] planning money tied to this
[1:55:11] effort. And I think we also
[1:55:12] agree with that, as well. I
[1:55:13] think obag three is an
[1:55:15] opportunity for that. Also
[1:55:17] there is a new version of reap.
[1:55:19] reap 2.0, that I think you have
[1:55:24] all heard about that might be
[1:55:26] opportunity to augment the pda
[1:55:28] planning funds that we have had
[1:55:29] out there in the past and to
[1:55:32] help more jurisdictions. I
[1:55:34] think we totally agree. This is
[1:55:36] focused on tras, right, really,
[1:55:39] those transit-rich areas, as
[1:55:41] well as those transit-rich pdas,
[1:55:43] and there was a question about
[1:55:45] making sure we incentivize
[1:55:46] transit improvements and we
[1:55:48] definitely want to do that. The
[1:55:49] other part of this is we want to
[1:55:51] make sure any improvements that
[1:55:53] we make are effective is high
[1:55:56] ridership and lots of activity.
[1:55:58] I think that's in the mix, as
[1:55:59] well. In terms of mayor
[1:56:01] schaff's question about
[1:56:03] affordable housing impact fees
[1:56:04] with in lieu options, certainly
[1:56:06] something we can investigate is
[1:56:07] perhaps include it as part of
[1:56:09] the menu of options. I think
[1:56:12] that's mostly the sum-up of kind
[1:56:16] of what I heard.
[1:56:17] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:56:18] chair: okay. Good. Thank you.
[1:56:19] good wrap-up.
[1:56:21] martha, if we have ten speakers
[1:56:23] --
[1:56:23] >>clerk of the board: it's up
[1:56:24] to 13 now.
[1:56:24] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:56:25] chair: all right. Give a
[1:56:27] minute and a half. What I would
[1:56:28] like to ask the speakers, if you
[1:56:31] could, be as clear and succinct
[1:56:34] as you can. If there are areas
[1:56:36] that you think more study say
[1:56:38] that, if you think there are
[1:56:39] areas that shouldn't be included
[1:56:41] say that. But just try to get
[1:56:43] to your point so we can get
[1:56:44] through this as quickly as we
[1:56:46] can.
[1:56:47] with that, martha, give the
[1:56:49] speakers a minute and a half.
[1:56:56] go ahead and start the public
[1:56:59] comment.
[1:57:00] >>clerk of the board: we
[1:57:00] received correspondence by the
[1:57:02] deadline, and that from by tim
[1:57:03] sebritini. It was posted online
[1:57:10] and that was distributed to and
[1:57:15] was posted online and
[1:57:17] distributed to committee
[1:57:18] members. First speaker is
[1:57:20] jonathon kass.
[1:57:23] >>jonothon kass: I am the
[1:57:26] transportation policy manager at
[1:57:28] spur and we support the
[1:57:30] direction and unanimously
[1:57:33] approve planned bay area for
[1:57:35] equitable sustainable and
[1:57:36] livable communities around
[1:57:38] transit as a member of the
[1:57:39] technical advisory committee for
[1:57:42] this community alongside many
[1:57:44] local jurisdictions both small
[1:57:46] and large spur has been
[1:57:47] encouraged by mtc staff
[1:57:49] commitment to rhna and planned
[1:57:51] bay area regional growth targets
[1:57:52] as a reminder planned bay area
[1:57:53] just barely met the greenhouse
[1:57:56] gas emissions reduction targets
[1:57:57] set by the state. Target that
[1:57:59] is sure to be more even
[1:58:02] ambitious in the next round. As
[1:58:05] discussed the timing of these
[1:58:10] requirements deserve close
[1:58:12] attention. Waiting to quickly
[1:58:14] will cause us to fall behind on
[1:58:17] housing and jobs goals. At the
[1:58:18] same time growth targets need to
[1:58:21] be realistic and it takes time
[1:58:23] to lay the groundwork for
[1:58:25] growth. We believe the policy
[1:58:27] is off to a great start and
[1:58:30] encourage to you focus on
[1:58:31] detailed changes that are
[1:58:32] necessary to ensure policy
[1:58:35] delivery.
[1:58:36] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[1:58:36] chair: thank you. Next
[1:58:37] speaker. Martha?
[1:58:44] >>clerk of the board: on it.
[1:58:45] next up is anoeil.
[1:58:59] >>speaker: hi I'm a member of
[1:59:00] common ground california focused
[1:59:02] on land use housing transit and
[1:59:05] financing of public services and
[1:59:08] infrastructure through land
[1:59:09] value taxes capture tasteful to
[1:59:16] see mtc putting together policy
[1:59:19] framework we believe will
[1:59:22] incorporate public land
[1:59:24] acquisition and value capture
[1:59:27] taxation such policies allow
[1:59:30] public municipalities to build
[1:59:36] infrastructure spending growing
[1:59:38] economy and increased demand had
[1:59:40] to these areas and public
[1:59:43] acquisition of land will allow
[1:59:45] governments to receive --
[1:59:47] [indiscernible] without a strong
[1:59:48] toc policy there is no hope of
[1:59:51] meeting equity and climate
[1:59:53] goals. As someone going to
[1:59:57] medical school I understand how
[1:59:59] critical housing is to a
[2:00:01] person's physical and mental
[2:00:04] well-being and how access to
[2:00:06] high-resource areas is critical
[2:00:08] to a growing economy. It's
[2:00:11] critical that equity investments
[2:00:13] not only recapture value, but
[2:00:18] recapture stronger communities.
[2:00:22] please add public land
[2:00:25] acquisition and taxation value
[2:00:29] recapture to the toc policy.
[2:00:31] >>clerk of the board: next up
[2:00:32] is justine marcus and then rich
[2:00:37] hedges.
[2:00:38] >>speaker: good afternoon my
[2:00:40] name is justine marcus policy
[2:00:42] director with enterprise
[2:00:43] community partners we're excited
[2:00:45] to see the draft framework
[2:00:47] presented today and want to
[2:00:48] thank staff for their work
[2:00:50] putting it together and having
[2:00:51] the robust engagement with the
[2:00:54] technical advisory committee
[2:00:55] which we serve o we strongly
[2:00:57] support moving forward with a
[2:00:58] policy that will set us on the
[2:01:01] course to implement the goals of
[2:01:02] planned bay area balancing as
[2:01:03] many of you have mentioned the
[2:01:05] urgency of our needs and really
[2:01:07] being realistic about
[2:01:09] implementation. I also want to
[2:01:11] echo the point that mayor
[2:01:13] arreguin brought up which is
[2:01:14] that policy has opportunity to
[2:01:17] support and reward local
[2:01:19] jurisdictions to deliver on
[2:01:20] their rhna goals. I want to
[2:01:22] highlight two aspects of the
[2:01:23] policy for consideration as it
[2:01:25] is further refined. The first
[2:01:27] is really going deep on the
[2:01:30] three ps, the production,
[2:01:33] preservation, and protections
[2:01:34] aspects of the policy with a
[2:01:36] focus on anti-displacement both
[2:01:38] for residents and local small
[2:01:42] businesses. And second is to
[2:01:43] really remain focused on our
[2:01:45] commitments to affirmatively
[2:01:47] furthering fair housing as we go
[2:01:49] about designing the density
[2:01:51] thresholds. Finally we know
[2:01:52] that this policy will need
[2:01:55] complementary funding and our
[2:01:56] organization and bay area
[2:01:57] housing advocates are committed
[2:01:59] to continuing working with you
[2:02:00] all through bahfa and other
[2:02:02] others to secure the necessary
[2:02:03] funds. Thank you very much for
[2:02:04] your time.
[2:02:05] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[2:02:06] chair: thank you.
[2:02:09] >>clerk of the board: rich
[2:02:10] hedges followed by aaron
[2:02:11] eckhouse. Go ahead and unmute
[2:02:15] yourself.
[2:02:16] >>speaker: thank you. I wanted
[2:02:17] to comment just briefly about
[2:02:19] transit oriented communities. I
[2:02:21] grew up in one as a child.
[2:02:23] access to a streetcar half a
[2:02:25] block away. All the possible
[2:02:27] services we needed within
[2:02:28] walking distance and I bring
[2:02:29] this up because it put me in the
[2:02:31] fight to develop it. Ods,
[2:02:33] because I had lived in something
[2:02:35] like a tod. I like our change
[2:02:37] in policy toward transit
[2:02:40] oriented communities. I think
[2:02:41] it will fulfill what we have
[2:02:43] been trying to do.
[2:02:45] but what I want to recommend is,
[2:02:46] if you really want to cut down
[2:02:48] on trips, we have to have these
[2:02:51] services and we have to focus on
[2:02:52] that. Because only a small part
[2:02:54] of getting people out of their
[2:02:56] cars is trips to work and back.
[2:02:59] so, please, look carefully at
[2:03:02] this. I also have a question I
[2:03:03] would like a response to. I
[2:03:05] think that sb10 may help,
[2:03:07] especially with the communities
[2:03:09] where we have 35 to 50% density
[2:03:12] of housing. And maybe not more
[2:03:15] than that. But I would like to
[2:03:17] know how that may affect our
[2:03:19] goals for communities and tocs.
[2:03:23] so, one thing I would like to
[2:03:25] say I think we do have to have
[2:03:27] diverse looks at different
[2:03:29] communities, the rural
[2:03:31] communities do not have the same
[2:03:33] aspects as our more urbanized
[2:03:36] communities and we need to treat
[2:03:37] it as such. And just one last
[2:03:40] comment, really a carrot is best
[2:03:42] used if it's a stick painted
[2:03:44] orange. Thank you.
[2:03:47] >>clerk of the board: thank
[2:03:47] you, rich.
[2:03:48] next up is aaron eckhouse
[2:03:51] followed by derrick sagehorn.
[2:03:54] >>speaker: hello. Thank you.
[2:03:56] my name is aaron eckhouse I'm
[2:03:58] the regional policy manager with
[2:04:00] california yimby, yes in my
[2:04:03] backyard. We are big supporters
[2:04:06] of transit oriented development
[2:04:07] and we appreciate staff is
[2:04:09] moving this forward as well as
[2:04:11] opportunity we have had to
[2:04:12] engage with them on policy
[2:04:13] development. Over the years has
[2:04:15] been a growing recognition for a
[2:04:17] coordinated regional approach on
[2:04:18] housing as well as way in which
[2:04:20] housing policy lands use policy
[2:04:22] and transportation policy are
[2:04:24] all deeply connected which we
[2:04:27] see in planned bay area 2050.
[2:04:29] proposed policy framework
[2:04:32] reflect those in an exciting
[2:04:33] way. Housing crisis in the bay
[2:04:35] area is too big for any city to
[2:04:38] solve alone the transit oriented
[2:04:41] communities is framework
[2:04:42] addressing our housing crisis in
[2:04:44] a necessary scale in a
[2:04:47] comprehensive and equitable way
[2:04:49] it's appropriate wu we're making
[2:04:52] significant regional investment
[2:04:53] in transportation and policies
[2:04:54] in place to ensure success and
[2:04:58] coordination with regional
[2:05:00] policy goals. We cannot afford
[2:05:02] to fail on our housing goals as
[2:05:05] a region the stakes are too
[2:05:07] high. I am encouraged by what
[2:05:09] staff put forward and I hope mtc
[2:05:11] will move forward towards a
[2:05:13] robust transit communities
[2:05:17] program that will ensure we meet
[2:05:19] our goals in the region. Thank
[2:05:21] you.
[2:05:23] >>clerk of the board: derrick
[2:05:24] followed by justin.
[2:05:26] >>speaker: this is derrick
[2:05:27] sagehorn for east bay for
[2:05:29] everyone. I'm calling in
[2:05:31] support of the draft toc policy
[2:05:32] from staff. I think it's really
[2:05:34] important that we align our
[2:05:36] planned bay area goals with our
[2:05:39] -- the funding. You know? Mtc
[2:05:41] having the power of the purse in
[2:05:44] terms of determining
[2:05:47] discretionary grants it's
[2:05:48] important we get our
[2:05:50] transportation planning lined up
[2:05:52] I appreciate the fact of
[2:05:55] distinguishing between different
[2:05:56] levels of intensive of
[2:05:58] transportation and investment
[2:05:59] including parking policy. As
[2:06:02] well as station access that's
[2:06:03] going to be critical. I'll echo
[2:06:05] comments I think it's necessary
[2:06:07] to get out ahead of speculators
[2:06:10] especially with the new transit
[2:06:11] stations I would encourage staff
[2:06:13] to look at some type of
[2:06:15] preservation and public housing
[2:06:17] with public land acquisition is
[2:06:19] making sure tools are available
[2:06:20] for capturing uplift from
[2:06:23] property owners nearby in terms
[2:06:24] of funding both affordability
[2:06:26] and transportation improvements
[2:06:28] and that's not simply through
[2:06:30] value capture for planning but
[2:06:32] also making sure that property
[2:06:33] owners who are simply
[2:06:35] speculating and not developing
[2:06:36] their properties also pay their
[2:06:39] fair share for these public
[2:06:42] critical hours. Thank you.
[2:06:43] >>clerk of the board: thank
[2:06:44] you, derrick. Justin followed
[2:06:47] by lisa. Go ahead.
[2:06:54] >>speaker: good afternoon my
[2:06:55] name is justin wang advocacy
[2:07:00] manager at green compliance
[2:07:03] environmental non-profit
[2:07:04] encouraging open space as well
[2:07:06] as direct involvement with
[2:07:09] growth in the community. A
[2:07:11] strong toc climate smart policy
[2:07:16] is necessary in the bay area to
[2:07:17] meet our housing goals reduce
[2:07:19] greenhouse gas emissions and
[2:07:20] make sure local residents are
[2:07:22] able to grow and thrive in their
[2:07:24] own communities as housing costs
[2:07:26] rise every single bay area
[2:07:28] region must play their part to
[2:07:30] increase housing stock
[2:07:31] particularly affordable housing
[2:07:32] to make sure the workforce can
[2:07:34] afford to live close to jobs
[2:07:36] schools and services this policy
[2:07:38] is a great step if that
[2:07:39] direction especially if local
[2:07:41] jurisdictions are looking to
[2:07:42] update housing elements now to
[2:07:44] achieve goals ideally with an
[2:07:46] eye towards transit orientation.
[2:07:48] as a region we have always led
[2:07:51] the way, we passed planned bay
[2:07:53] area and need a toc policy that
[2:07:56] works to achieve outcomes
[2:07:58] outlined in that plan creating
[2:08:00] the 30 year window the transit
[2:08:03] orient the communities is long.
[2:08:06] mtc should incentivize
[2:08:07] development sooner rather than
[2:08:09] later especially with funding I
[2:08:11] urge to you continue moving in
[2:08:12] the right direction with your
[2:08:13] full support of the toc policy
[2:08:15] before you today. Thank you
[2:08:17] very much for your time.
[2:08:18] >>clerk of the board: thank
[2:08:19] you. Lisa followed by robert
[2:08:20] alan or bob alan.
[2:08:24] lisa go ahead and unmute.
[2:08:27] >>speaker: good afternoon my
[2:08:28] name is lisa borderbrugen
[2:08:35] representing building industry
[2:08:39] association of bay area and I
[2:08:41] appreciate allowing me to serve
[2:08:44] on the technical advisory
[2:08:45] committee through this process
[2:08:47] and working with your talented
[2:08:48] staff. It's a little bit like
[2:08:51] many of you getting a grasp on
[2:08:53] the full stove of what impacts
[2:08:56] would be if and whenever this
[2:08:58] policy is adopted in whatever
[2:09:00] form it comes out in we
[2:09:02] appreciate the comments by jim
[2:09:04] and therese about taking a
[2:09:06] phased approach and analytical
[2:09:08] approach our members are on the
[2:09:10] frontline of delivering the
[2:09:11] housing that many of you are
[2:09:13] planning to build and we can
[2:09:15] speak from experience that bay
[2:09:16] area cities are like snow
[2:09:18] flakes, every single one of them
[2:09:21] is different and trying to work
[2:09:22] within each community and meet
[2:09:24] the needs of each community that
[2:09:26] they're looking for in addition
[2:09:32] regionally is a difficult
[2:09:33] process to navigate. We're
[2:09:35] continuing to work with mtc and
[2:09:37] the toc and helping ensure that
[2:09:40] well-meaning policies don't
[2:09:42] increase the cost of housing or
[2:09:43] make it more costly to build
[2:09:46] housing but actually get us to
[2:09:47] where we want to be in terms of
[2:09:49] increasing the densities around
[2:09:52] transit. Thank you for the
[2:09:54] opportunity to speak this
[2:09:56] afternoon.
[2:09:57] >>clerk of the board: thank
[2:09:57] you.
[2:09:58] robert alan followed by bob bin.
[2:10:02] go ahead and unmute yourself.
[2:10:09] robert alan.
[2:10:11] >>speaker: bob alan from urban
[2:10:15] habitat. I want to comment and
[2:10:17] say this is an important update.
[2:10:24] sorry. I'm not sure what
[2:10:28] happened there.
[2:10:28] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[2:10:29] chair: go ahead robert.
[2:10:31] >>speaker: sorry about that.
[2:10:32] just to emphasize, I think the
[2:10:34] tenant protection and suite of
[2:10:36] community stabilization policies
[2:10:38] far from being an impediment to
[2:10:43] housing production and market
[2:10:45] rate housing production are
[2:10:47] necessary to meet greenhouse gas
[2:10:50] reduction goals of planned bay
[2:10:51] area. We have got to stabilize
[2:10:53] people to build housing working
[2:10:55] to ensure and preserve as much
[2:10:57] housing as possible and robust
[2:11:00] efforts starting with the state
[2:11:01] on social housing I don't think
[2:11:02] the market whether it's
[2:11:05] unconstrained or not is going to
[2:11:07] provide housing for the vast
[2:11:10] majority of the bay area
[2:11:11] residents but community
[2:11:13] stabilization policies and
[2:11:14] keeping as many people in place
[2:11:16] is a critical starting point to
[2:11:19] reliable transit riders who have
[2:11:20] stayed on the system throughout
[2:11:22] the pandemic I want to make that
[2:11:24] point and look heard to engaging
[2:11:26] in the update of the policy as
[2:11:28] we go forward. Thank you.
[2:11:30] >>clerk of the board: thank
[2:11:31] you. Bob vinn followed by laura
[2:11:38] foote.
[2:11:40] >>speaker: I'm bob city
[2:11:42] engineer for the city of
[2:11:44] livermore since valuing stations
[2:11:47] of at the top of the list for
[2:11:49] it. Oc implementation I want to
[2:11:50] talk about the isabel plan
[2:11:52] adopted a little over a year ago
[2:11:54] in november 2020, it was a
[2:11:57] multi-year effort, cost a lot of
[2:11:59] money, had lots of stakeholder
[2:12:01] engagement and resulted in a
[2:12:02] plan the community of livermore
[2:12:04] could support. City council of
[2:12:08] livermore adopted it unanimously
[2:12:11] and it includes the highest
[2:12:13] density in all of livermore the
[2:12:16] tallest buildings lowest parking
[2:12:18] requirement and highest
[2:12:19] affordable housing requirements
[2:12:20] as well. We modeled this after
[2:12:22] the previous -- or the current
[2:12:24] tod policy and resolution 3434
[2:12:28] even though it wasn't clear it
[2:12:30] would apply in fact ur densities
[2:12:35] exceed what would be tier one
[2:12:38] even though valley link is a
[2:12:39] tier three project however at
[2:12:41] first it doesn't appear the
[2:12:43] isabel plan will comply, and
[2:12:46] meanwhile we're taking in
[2:12:47] applications for housing. We
[2:12:48] are working with a large
[2:12:50] development on development
[2:12:53] agreement for most of the vacant
[2:12:55] land and I think if this plan
[2:12:57] has to apply in the isabel area
[2:12:59] it will result in a slowing of
[2:13:01] the housing production. So I
[2:13:03] request that mtc staff please
[2:13:05] reach out to livermore, study
[2:13:07] our plan and meet with us so we
[2:13:10] can talk about what
[2:13:11] implementation would really
[2:13:12] mean. Thank you.
[2:13:14] >>speaker: thank you. Hauscar
[2:13:21] castro.
[2:13:22] >>speaker: hi. Good afternoon
[2:13:25] everyone I'm hauscar associate
[2:13:30] director of housing and
[2:13:32] transportation policy working
[2:13:33] partnership usa thank you staff
[2:13:35] for your work grateful for all
[2:13:37] the work you have done we are
[2:13:41] eager to work together to craft
[2:13:43] the final policy in san jose
[2:13:45] county and santa clara county we
[2:13:47] are advocating day in and day
[2:13:49] out related to housing justice
[2:13:52] and a sustainable economy we are
[2:13:55] pleased to see mtc's efforts to
[2:13:59] offer solutions as the entire
[2:14:00] region continues to grapple with
[2:14:03] various housing challenges we
[2:14:04] look forward to supporting this
[2:14:06] agency on anti-displacement
[2:14:08] issues and preservation efforts.
[2:14:14] emphasizing importance for small
[2:14:16] business protections, in
[2:14:18] particular public markets
[2:14:20] located near or around transit
[2:14:23] stations public markets or flea
[2:14:26] markets that service real
[2:14:29] economic opportunity to
[2:14:30] thousands of vendors throughout
[2:14:33] the region to make a living for
[2:14:35] their families and putting forth
[2:14:38] actions and policies to ensure
[2:14:41] vendors continue to have an
[2:14:43] opportunity as they're out
[2:14:47] there.
[2:14:51] >>clerk of the board: thank
[2:14:51] you. Daryl halls.
[2:14:56] >>daryl halls: daryl halls
[2:14:57] metropolitan transportation
[2:14:58] authority I want to thank
[2:15:00] commissioner spering and north
[2:15:02] and east bay commissioners and
[2:15:03] staff for clarifying our county
[2:15:05] of course say county of mostly
[2:15:07] medium and small sized cities a
[2:15:10] lot are working on pda plans we
[2:15:13] have adopted our rhna numbers we
[2:15:16] have moved forward and have two
[2:15:23] ferry stations and terminals we
[2:15:25] appreciate the general direction
[2:15:27] going forward and we would
[2:15:30] appreciate time to have dialogue
[2:15:32] with staff it would be helpful.
[2:15:35] thank you.
[2:15:37] >>clerk of the board: thank
[2:15:38] you. Next is nico nagle.
[2:15:45] >>speaker: good afternoon
[2:15:45] everyone I'm nico speaking on
[2:15:49] behalf of the housing coalition
[2:15:51] I'll be quick I want to
[2:15:53] reiterate points that have
[2:15:55] already been made. One, thank
[2:15:56] you to mtc staff for the work on
[2:15:59] the toc policy recognizing this
[2:16:03] massive undertaking folks have
[2:16:05] committed lots of time and
[2:16:07] resources to make sure we have a
[2:16:08] plan for a successful future.
[2:16:11] secondly, I want to reiterate
[2:16:14] the idea that meeting the scale
[2:16:17] of this challenge is incredibly
[2:16:19] important moving forward with
[2:16:21] urgency and the toc policy that
[2:16:24] addresses the immense number of
[2:16:27] homes we really need is not only
[2:16:30] important for our shared housing
[2:16:34] situation but in terms of
[2:16:37] building near transit stops,
[2:16:40] it's immensely important for
[2:16:43] meeting our shared climate
[2:16:44] goals. Again, things that have
[2:16:46] already been known. I think
[2:16:48] folks here are -- you know,
[2:16:50] mostly on the same page of these
[2:16:52] things. But moving forward,
[2:16:54] urgently is a priority. I
[2:16:57] appreciate all of your time.
[2:16:58] thank you.
[2:17:00] >>clerk of the board: thank
[2:17:01] you. And last, we have laura.
[2:17:04] go ahead and unmute yourself.
[2:17:07] >>speaker: hi. Laura foote
[2:17:08] from yimby action and speaking
[2:17:10] on behalf of all of our bay area
[2:17:13] chapters. We're obviously
[2:17:14] prohousing and are going to be
[2:17:16] following this policy closely as
[2:17:18] it evolves and love all the work
[2:17:20] staff is putting into it. So
[2:17:22] many great comments have been
[2:17:23] made and sin I'm last I'm not
[2:17:25] going to repeat any of them.
[2:17:27] one very small thing that might
[2:17:29] be worth note suggest we also
[2:17:31] talk about the challenges with
[2:17:33] inclusionary policies with
[2:17:34] putting the inclusionary rate
[2:17:36] too high and that could
[2:17:40] disincentivize housing one thing
[2:17:42] to take into account is giving
[2:17:45] cities credit when they directly
[2:17:47] subsidize housing whether that's
[2:17:49] through land grants or acquiring
[2:17:52] there is a lot to be done to get
[2:17:54] cities more credit when they're
[2:17:55] more directly subsidizing
[2:17:57] housing rather than pursuing
[2:18:00] inclusionary policies which can
[2:18:02] be complicate. Right now this
[2:18:04] is going to be a complicate
[2:18:07] sprawling amazing hopeful
[2:18:09] producing not sprawling policy.
[2:18:13] appreciate all the work and look
[2:18:14] forward to following along as it
[2:18:17] develops.
[2:18:18] >>clerk of the board: thank
[2:18:19] you. Last call please dial star
[2:18:22] nine or use the raised hand
[2:18:24] feature. Jordan grimes.
[2:18:29] >>speaker: my name is jordan
[2:18:30] grimes lead members of the
[2:18:34] peninsula for everyone
[2:18:35] grassroots housing and transit
[2:18:38] advocacy group in san mateo and
[2:18:42] santa clara county really
[2:18:43] appreciate all the comments
[2:18:45] commissioner josefowitz and
[2:18:47] councilmember romero. We're
[2:18:50] excited about how the draft
[2:18:52] framework has turned out and
[2:18:53] support the embrace of this good
[2:18:55] smart and visionary public
[2:18:57] policy which is completely
[2:18:58] necessary for the bay area's
[2:19:00] future. There has been
[2:19:01] significant discussion of cost
[2:19:02] to the municipalities today so I
[2:19:05] want to touch on this quickly we
[2:19:08] need to weigh in and keep at top
[2:19:09] of mind the social and
[2:19:11] environmental cost of not
[2:19:13] embracing and implementing these
[2:19:15] policies. Costs like rising
[2:19:19] seas, raging wildfires and the
[2:19:21] continued out-migration of
[2:19:24] working and middle class
[2:19:25] families from this state and
[2:19:26] from the nine county bay area
[2:19:28] specifically. This framework
[2:19:30] really gives working and middle
[2:19:32] income folks a fighting chance
[2:19:36] at having a future here while I
[2:19:38] understand the importance of
[2:19:40] regional planning I know climate
[2:19:41] change and displacement are not
[2:19:43] taking a phased approach I want
[2:19:45] to encourage us to move forward
[2:19:46] with a sense of urgency that the
[2:19:48] problems we face deserve. Thank
[2:19:51] you very much for your time
[2:19:51] today.
[2:19:52] >>clerk of the board: there are
[2:19:53] no members of the public with
[2:19:54] their hand raised.
[2:19:55] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[2:19:56] chair: okay thank you martha.
[2:20:02] I want to thank all the
[2:20:04] speakers. That was very good
[2:20:06] information in a minute and a
[2:20:08] half we heard all the of you
[2:20:09] loud and clear and the clarity
[2:20:11] of the testimony is very
[2:20:12] helpful. Thank you.
[2:20:13] matt, did you have anything from
[2:20:15] the public comments or
[2:20:17] commissioners that you want to
[2:20:18] respond to before I close this
[2:20:20] up?
[2:20:21] >>matt maloney: no. I just
[2:20:22] agree. I appreciate all of the
[2:20:24] comments and questions today of
[2:20:26] commissioners and board members
[2:20:27] and members of the public it's
[2:20:28] super helpful for us as staff we
[2:20:30] have our work cut out for us
[2:20:32] over the next few months and
[2:20:34] certainly on the engagement
[2:20:35] front we definitely hear you
[2:20:36] about engaging more deeply with
[2:20:38] locality jurisdictions. There
[2:20:39] was a request to go to the full
[2:20:41] abag executive board by the
[2:20:42] chair. We can certainly do
[2:20:44] that. And, also, I think there
[2:20:46] is an opportunity to use the,
[2:20:48] what we have setup through the
[2:20:49] regional housing technical
[2:20:51] assistance process where we have
[2:20:53] just a lot of avenues with local
[2:20:55] planning directors to kind of
[2:20:56] use that as a venue to have more
[2:20:59] active discussion about this
[2:21:00] especially as all the housing
[2:21:02] element work proceeds. So I
[2:21:04] think that's a great ideas.
[2:21:05] those are my take-away's. And
[2:21:07] we'll be back in a few months
[2:21:09] with more.
[2:21:11] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[2:21:11] chair: okay. Just some closing
[2:21:14] observations. And first I want
[2:21:16] to say that this is a first step
[2:21:17] in a long journey that we're
[2:21:19] going to be o but a very
[2:21:20] important step. And I
[2:21:21] appreciate staff bringing all of
[2:21:23] these issues forward. And as I
[2:21:25] said, they're in our plan. They
[2:21:27] all need to have consideration.
[2:21:29] I want to thank president
[2:21:31] arreguin. You know, his
[2:21:34] suggestion of engaging abag is,
[2:21:36] I think, absolutely critical.
[2:21:38] abag touches every city and
[2:21:40] every county and to engage them
[2:21:42] into this process is really
[2:21:44] important. For us to have
[2:21:45] success, we have got to have
[2:21:47] buy-in. So jess thank you for
[2:21:49] that suggestion. That's going
[2:21:51] to be very helpful.
[2:21:53] staff, I would like to at least
[2:21:54] we consider two phases. There
[2:21:56] is so many strategies that need
[2:21:58] to be implemented right away.
[2:22:01] some we have broad consensus, we
[2:22:03] ought to put those in place
[2:22:05] right away, and the second phase
[2:22:08] are probably going to need a
[2:22:10] little bit more analysis and
[2:22:11] discussion and more consensus
[2:22:13] building. So take a look at
[2:22:15] that and maybe give us a
[2:22:17] timeline of how these strategies
[2:22:18] can be implemented. The third
[2:22:20] is that, I think it's very
[2:22:23] important when you come back
[2:22:25] that you identify what funding
[2:22:26] sources we're talking about. If
[2:22:28] there is one question they have
[2:22:29] been asked this past week since
[2:22:31] this has been released is, what
[2:22:34] funding are you guys going to
[2:22:37] condition this to. We need to
[2:22:38] have clarity on that. That's
[2:22:40] very important.
[2:22:41] number four, there is a lot of
[2:22:43] planning money coming into this
[2:22:44] region but with all the cities
[2:22:46] and counties we have done one
[2:22:48] hell of a lot of planning and we
[2:22:49] have got projects that already
[2:22:52] need no be delivered we have got
[2:22:55] to get to the point where we're
[2:22:57] starting to deliver projects we
[2:22:58] can't just be studying and
[2:23:00] planning we have got to have
[2:23:03] delivery on some of these things
[2:23:05] it's really personality. And
[2:23:07] lastly we need to be aware that
[2:23:08] we should do no harm. Talking
[2:23:11] to some of the developers since
[2:23:12] this came out, they have
[2:23:13] increases between 20 and 30% of
[2:23:16] materials. The conditions that
[2:23:18] cities and counties are laying
[2:23:19] on development, we have got to
[2:23:22] be careful that we don't make it
[2:23:24] so difficult that nobody's
[2:23:26] building and especially that
[2:23:27] nobody's building affordable
[2:23:28] housing. We desperately need
[2:23:31] that workforce and affordable
[2:23:32] low-income housing and we need
[2:23:34] to have incentives that really
[2:23:36] help developers and help the
[2:23:39] communities produce that
[2:23:40] housing. Those are my closing
[2:23:42] comments, commissioners and
[2:23:43] board members. I can't thank
[2:23:45] you enough for the input today
[2:23:53] it's very encouraging. Staff
[2:23:55] you got my attention but the way
[2:23:57] this is being brought forward
[2:23:58] and phased and the outreach and
[2:24:02] the willingness to have more
[2:24:03] discussion on this is extremely
[2:24:05] important. People are not going
[2:24:06] to feel threatened by what we're
[2:24:08] trying to do. But this is an
[2:24:10] extremely important first step.
[2:24:12] and to bring all of these issues
[2:24:15] forward and put them in the
[2:24:17] light, I think had to be done.
[2:24:20] and so, staff, thank you for
[2:24:22] that.
[2:24:23] I'm going to be very cautious in
[2:24:25] the future when I ask you to be
[2:24:26] bold and unflinching, that I'm
[2:24:29] going to temper that a little
[2:24:31] bit.
[2:24:31] and therese, I just want to
[2:24:33] thank you, for understanding and
[2:24:36] sensitivity of this, and your
[2:24:37] introduction, I think is
[2:24:39] extremely important. For that,
[2:24:42] thank you.
[2:24:42] with that, unless anybody has
[2:24:44] any last burning comments, I
[2:24:46] think we're at the end of our
[2:24:47] agenda. Martha is that correct?
[2:24:50] >>clerk of the board: that is
[2:24:50] correct. We just need to take
[2:24:52] general public comment.
[2:24:53] >>jesse arreguin, abag
[2:24:56] administrative chair: chair, I
[2:24:56] want to make an announcement for
[2:24:58] the abag members.
[2:24:58] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[2:24:59] chair: oh yeah. I was going to
[2:25:00] ask you about that.
[2:25:01] >>jesse arreguin, abag
[2:25:02] administrative chair: we have
[2:25:02] the advancing california
[2:25:03] financing authority. That
[2:25:04] should be quick then we'll do
[2:25:06] the abag executive board
[2:25:07] meeting. Some people are
[2:25:08] waiting to get into the zoom but
[2:25:10] just wanted to -- as soon as
[2:25:12] we're done with this, to go to
[2:25:15] the zoom link for the abag
[2:25:16] meeting.
[2:25:16] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[2:25:17] chair: thanks jess. I was
[2:25:18] going to ask you about that I'm
[2:25:19] glad you remembered. With that
[2:25:22] do we have public comment?
[2:25:25] >>clerk of the board: there are
[2:25:26] no members of the public with
[2:25:26] their hand raised, and there was
[2:25:27] no public comment submitted on
[2:25:28] this item.
[2:25:28] >>jim spering, mtc planning
[2:25:29] chair: all right. Great. It
[2:25:29] sounds like we did a good job,
[2:25:31] team. So, thank you. So with
[2:25:32] that, you know, keep working and
[2:25:36] monitoring this closely, but I
[2:25:38] think this is a good first step.
[2:25:40] thank you everyone. And this
[2:25:42] meeting is adjourned.
[2:25:42] [adjourned]