Brentwood City Hall

Our home pageContact UsPrevious Page

Central Park Gazebo


Meeting Date: October 9, 2001

Subject/Title: Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding regarding a Cooperative Jobs Opportunity Zone between the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood.

Submitted by: Howard Sword, Economic Development Director

Approved by: Jon Elam, City Manager

Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding regarding a Cooperative Jobs Opportunity Zone between the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood.

Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with McGill Martin Self, Inc. (MMS) not to exceed $45,000 to assist the City in the preparation of an application to the Inter-Regional Partnership (IRP) for designation as an Opportunity Zone.

The City of Brentwood is preparing an application to the Inter-Regional Partnership (IRP), created by AB 2864, for designation as an Opportunity Zone in our Northwest Quadrant with Antioch in their Future Urban Area II. A second application is being prepared for Antioch’s East Eighteenth Street Specific Plan Area and Oakley’s DuPont Site. Both of these applications are mutually supportive and will each seek $2.5M of the $5M allotted for Contra Costa County. The budget for both applications involves three consultants and is not to exceed $90,000. Brentwood is providing the primary Project Management for the general process although our financial commitment will only be approximately $25,000 due to our pro rata share of the total acreage. 

Please find attached for your information (1) proposed Jobs / Opportunity Zone map for Antioch / Brentwood and (2) Inter-Regional Partnership Proposal. This material illustrates our direction toward the October 26, 2001 submittal deadline. There is significant progress on the draft text of the Application. Due to the competitive nature of the proposals, however, this information must remain proprietary until the submittal is made.

Please find attached the proposed Memorandum of Understanding between Antioch and Brentwood (MOU). This MOU has been reviewed by our City Attorney and Economic Development Sub Committee and revised to reflect their comments. The City of Antioch approved the MOU at their September 25, 2001 City Council Meeting. The basic purpose of the MOU is two-fold. First it adds immeasurable credibility to our Application. Second, it begins to anticipate and suggest an Operating Procedure if we are successful in the Application. Staff requests that the City Council review and consider approving the MOU.


Inter-Regional Partnership
Proposal Outline

· Cover

· Cover Letter
 Why this project
· Location, location, location
· Impact on regional transportation
· Impact on jobs/housing balance
· Benefit of Jobs Opportunity Zone selection
· Impact statement

· Proposal Team
  Description of participants and roles
· City
· Developer
o Benefit each participant brings to carry the project through to success

· Local Incentives (10 Points)
o Summary table of incentives
o Detailed description of incentives
o Benefit of local incentives
· How they will increase the speed of development/jobs creation

· Zone Characteristics (15 Points)
o Regional location map
o General Plan map (County or regional)
o Zoning map (County or regional)
o Project specific existing land use and zoning map
o Summary table of existing project area
· Total acreage
· Percent of vacant land
· Percent of underutilized land
· Percent of land zoned for urban use
o Regional population/urbanization map
· Highlight key distances to project
o Proposed zoning/annexation map
o Proposed development plan
o Summary table of proposed development
· Percent of land utilized
· Types of land uses
· Number of jobs created
· Higher uses obtained
o Constraints/hurdles discussion with action plan to overcome them

· Existing Jobs/Housing Imbalance (10 Points)
o Summary table of jobs/housing information
· Jobs in the area by broad category and median wage
· Number of dwelling units by type and median price
· Ratio of jobs to houses
· Percent of working population commuting outside the area
o Summary table of impact of the existing jobs housing condition
· Commute/traffic
· Average hours on the road of local residents
· Other commuting impacts
o Describe why this project location is IDEAL for the proposed Zone
· How this designation and the project will affect the above conditions
· Regional benefits

· Development Proposal (15 Points)
o Overall development plan map
o Phasing plan maps
o Graphical project/Zone time line
o Proposed tentative maps
o Existing regional transit services map
o Planned regional transit services map
· Include indications of timing of improvements
o Describe transit services and their ability to service the proposed zone
o Describe how development within the Zone will incorporate and enhance public transportation in the jurisdiction
o Infrastructure maps including existing and proposed infrastructure
· Roadways
· Water
· Sewer
· Storm drainage
o Describe benefit of zone designation as it relates to leveraging existing dollars for infrastructure development
· Benefit of grant to reduce infrastructure costs
· Benefit of tax increment financing 
§ Acceleration of project pace
§ Reduction of infrastructure costs
o Describe how the proposed Zone and development within the Zone relate to the local capital improvement programs (CIPs).

· Jobs Impact (40 Points)
o Summary table of existing and projected jobs/employment data
· Jobs by broad category and median wage
· Employment needs for the area
o Summary Table of employment data for the proposed development within the zone
· Mix of business types
· Jobs by broad category and median wage
· Percent increase of jobs by category
· Percent increase in median wage
o Describe how the development within the zone addresses the existing and projected employment needs of the residents in the area
o Discuss relationship between the proposed zone development and existing economic development plans
o Describe the mix of business types and clusters

· Incentives requested/needed to develop the Jobs Opportunity Zone
o Summary table of requested/needed incentives
· Tax increment financing
· First priority on State Infrastructure Bank Loans
· Other Incentives
o Describe how these incentives significantly improve the viability, schedule, and quality of the development within the zones and creation of jobs
o Marketing data demonstrating how the various incentives, including the cash incentive, reduce the cost of infrastructure born by the end user to allow a much more attractive destination compared to competing locations

· Existing Commitments (5 Points)
o Describe political commitments (MOU) 
o Describe planning/entitlement commitments
o Describe financial commitments
· CIP funds
· State/Regional Highway Funds
· Redevelopment Funds (Oakley)

· Experience in Administration/Implementation (5 Points)
o Program administration 
· Who is assigned to manage/advocate the Zone
· How will City treat the Zone and finance against it
o Development project experience
o Job creation experience

· Performance measurement
o Graphical project timeline
o Summary table of project planning/construction milestones
o Summary of job creation milestones
o Performance measured against the project milestones for planning, construction, and job creation
o Comparison of project schedule with the Zone versus without the Zone

· Other Information
o Community enhancement features in addition to transportation and jobs

· GIS analysis (25 Points)
o Base analysis by ABAG
o Modified analysis table by applicant
· Demonstrate the deficiencies in the ABAG model and indicate the proper scoring of the GIS model for the specific project
o Discussion of the ABAG model, associated variances, and the basis for using revised scoring

Based on our conversations with ABAG, the majority of the GIS analysis is being performed by ABAG itself. They have backed off of some of the more site-specific requirements that only the applicant would know and are staying with the bigger picture planning approach demonstrated in the last IRP meeting. Based on a review of the IRP criteria used in the ABAG GIS model, there will likely need to be adjustments made to the IRP model to properly apply their scoring to the individual project site proposed. Also, based on our discussions, these adjustments will most likely not be made by ABAG. Therefore, this section of the proposal will basically reiterate the ABAG scoring system with the proper factors applied to the project.


THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into this _____ day of _____________, 2001 by and between the cities of ANTIOCH and BRENTWOOD collectively referred to as “CITIES”).

Section 1. Intent and Purpose.

A. The CITIES wish to consider the formation and management of a Jobs Opportunity Zone (“Zone”) as authorized by AB 2864 and administered by the Inter-Regional Partnership, a group of elected officials from Bay Area counties.

B.The purposes of the Zone program include:

•Achieving a more equitable jobs/housing balance in the region;
•Improving regional transportation and air quality;
•Enhancing the quality of life throughout the inter-regional area;
•Pursuing inter-regional economic development opportunities;
• Establishing more sustainable methods of moving people between their homes and distant jobs.

C.Specific objectives of the CITIES in establishing, planning and managing the Zone include:

• To provide a more competitive project for potential selection as one of the Jobs/housing Opportunity Zones under the Inter-Regional Partnership Program;
• To work together to make the Jobs Opportunity Zone successful by coordinating actions and incentives that will attract new employers to the Zone;
• To operate and administer the Zone more effectively and efficiently by combining resources and sharing administrative staff. All revenues and expenditures, however, shall be accounted for separately for each jurisdiction. Notwithstanding any other terms of this MOU, this MOU shall not be interpreted as providing any tax-sharing arrangement;
• To generally improve the coordination and working relationship between the CITIES;
• To improve area infrastructure and transit, both within the Zone and the CITIES as well as the region.

D.It is the intent of the CITIES, if successful with its application to the Inter-Regional Partnership Program, to establish a Management Arrangement (“Management Arrangement”) or other legal entity or arrangement, for the formation, planning and administration of the Zone. This Memorandum of Understanding is intended as a guideline for the creation of such a Management Arrangement. It is also the intent of the parties, even if unsuccessful with the application, to pursue inter-agency cooperation for economic development.

Section 2. General Provisions.

2.1. Effective Date. This MOU shall become effective immediately upon its approval by the city councils of both CITIES.

2.2. Term. The term of this MOU shall commence upon the Effective Date, which shall be for administrative convenience the date first above written, and shall extend until any of the following:

• Replacement of this MOU by the formation of a Management Arrangement;
• The fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, subject to the periodic review provisions of §2.4 and termination provisions of §2.5. Following expiration, this MOU shall be terminated and be of no further force or effect; however, nothing shall prevent the CITIES from mutually agreeing in writing to extend the term.

2.3. Amendment of MOU. This MOU may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the CITIES.

2.4. Periodic Review. Annually in October, each City shall review the provisions of this MOU. Based upon this review, either City may request that an amendment(s) be made, or terminate the MOU.

2.5. Termination. If either City wishes to terminate the MOU, its City Council shall conduct the following proceedings:

a. Adopt by resolution a Notice of Intention to Terminate, containing the reasons that the City believes the MOU should be terminated;
b. Notify the other City of the Notice of Intention to Terminate;
c. Conduct a hearing at least 14 calendar days following the Notice of Intent to Terminate to consider the termination, notice of which shall be provided to the other City.

Section 3. Zone Definition.

The cities have defined a contiguous Cooperative Jobs Opportunity Zone of 500 acres, with an approximate 231 net acre area in Antioch, within the East Lone Tree Specific Plan Area, and a 269 net acre area in Brentwood, within the Northwest Planning Area. Net acreage excludes defined non-developable areas, such as rail lines, highways, drainage facilities, and utility rights-of-way. The proposed Zone is illustrated in Exhibit 1, attached.

Section 4. Management Arrangements.

4.1. The Management Arrangement would include representatives from each City; it is contemplated that there would be two representatives from each City to serve on a Management Board of Directors. The Board would meet on a regular basis, as defined in its Bylaws, to plan and coordinate city actions within the Zone and the powers and authority of the Management Arrangement.

4.2. Each City will plan and manage its own portion of the Zone while coordinating its activities through a Management Arrangement. The Cities will explore joint master planning for the Zone, including environmental document preparation, a specific plan, zoning designations, master use permits, and joint design standards. It is contemplated that each City’s land use body would continue to exercise jurisdiction within the Zone; however, nothing shall prevent the CITIES from exploring and implementing a joint land use body to fulfill designated functions pursuant to the Management Arrangement.

4.3. The Management Arrangement, if formed, shall define and contain specific administrative and financial arrangements, including procedures for notification, coordination and dispute resolution.

4.4. The Management Board of Directors will jointly manage financial resources specific to the Zone program. Funds for the application have already been identified and committed by CITIES. An administrative budget will be developed which provides for separate accounting of all revenues and expenditures for those portions of the Zone within each City. Notwithstanding any other terms of this MOU, this MOU shall not be interpreted as providing any tax-sharing arrangement.

4.5. The Management Board of Directors will jointly promote and publicize the Zone in a coordinated effort.

4.6. The Management Board of Directors will jointly appoint an agent to manage the Zone program. The Management Arrangement will determine the funding for the agent. Duties of the agent will include:

• Promoting the Zone to prospective employers and facilitating coordination with each City’s land use procedures;
• Administering the finances and day-to-day business of the Zone program;
• Coordinating with staff of each City to plan and implement the respective portions of the Zone;
• Acting as a project facilitator on individual project applications;
• Staffing meetings of the Management Arrangement and related support;
• Coordinating with the Inter-Regional Partnership and local, state and federal agencies concerning the program and the Zone;
• Implement those additional Incentive Commitments as listed in the attached Exhibit 2, as further detailed in the final Zone program.

4.7. CITIES will form a voluntary Joint Property Owners Committee for the Zone to facilitate property owner input on planning and implementation of the Zone program.

4.8. CITIES will develop and maintain an accurate GIS for the Zone.

4.9 CITIES are committing not to exceed $45,000 for professional services rendered by McGill•Martin•Self, Inc.; Richard T. Loewke, AICP; and Video Graphic Consultant. Each City’s share of the cost shall be divided on the basis of the acreage in the Zone that is located within each City as identified in Section 3. Funds allocated by each City will be reimbursed from the grant award if approved by the IRP.

Section 5. Incentive Program.

5.1. CITIES understand that to maximize the potential success of the Zone, incentives will be identified and provided to prospective developers with projects located within the Zone.

5.2. CITIES individually and through the Management Arrangement will identify planning and land use incentives, including common and master land use zoning designations and regulations, density bonuses, streamlined project processing, transfer of development rights, and other similar incentives which will truly make the Zone a unique magnet for the type of job-intensive development that both CITIES desire and will result in a positive and real change in the jobs-housing balance within five years of adoption of the Management Arrangement.

5.3. CITIES individually and through the Management Arrangement will identify local fee waivers, tax subsidies, loan funds and other financial incentives that will encourage job-creating development within the Zone.

5.4. Attached as Exhibit 3 are the incentives which are in place or are contemplated by each City to attract job-creating development within the Zone.

5.5. CITIES shall determine, either individually or through the Management Arrangement, the extent to which improvements to area infrastructure and transit can act as an incentive to the Zone project, and require the Agent to make recommendations for implementation of infrastructure and transit improvements.



WHEREAS, The City Council has reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 
Cooperative Jobs Opportunity Zone, Cities of Brentwood and Antioch.

WHEREAS, The City Council approves the appropriation, not to exceed $24,210.

WHEREAS, If the Jobs/Housing Opportunity Zone is approved, the City Manager is 
authorized to enter into and sign the grant agreement and any amendments thereto
for the purpose of creating the Jobs/Housing Opportunity Zone.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The City Manager is hereby authorized and 
directed to act on the City’s behalf in all matters pertaining to the MOU.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council has approved the Memorandum of 
Understanding, Cooperative Jobs Opportunity Zone, Cities of Brentwood and Antioch.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting on the 9th day of October, 2001 by the following vote:

Top of Page