Land Use

Club supports East Bay plan for fire management and native restoration

May 25, 2013 Leave a Comment

Since the 1991 Oakland Hills fire, public agencies with large open-space areas (about 20,000 acres) along the Richmond-Berkeley-Oakland hills have been studying how to prevent future fires. In 1995 the East Bay Regional Park District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, University of California, and Oakland began a planning process, and the Sierra Club, along with the California Native Plant Society and Golden Gate Audubon, began meeting with them.

Environmentalists have three major concerns:

preventing fire;
restoring native vegetation and habitat types–both for their environmental value and because they are much more fire-resistant;
finance: the plans must be cost-effective and provide for long-term maintenance.

We want to avoid past mistakes, when agencies simply stripped off vegetation and then walked away, leaving the land clear for exotic and even more-flammable vegetation.

The Club helped the East Bay Regional Park District to get funding for fire management through the passage of Measure CC in 2004, and to put together its vegetation management program (see “Park District plan could deal well with both vegetation and fire“, October-November-December 2009 Yodeler, page 7). The Park District is now implementing that program, and we are monitoring the progress.

In the meantime, the various agencies applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for funding to assist in their vegetation management work. FEMA has released for public comment an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on these plans. The preferred alternative focuses on removal of fire-dangerous trees (particularly eucalyptus and other non-natives) and other vegetation and their replacement with native habitat.

Long-term fire safety and native restoration both require cutting of all eucalyptus in these areas. The preferred alternative involves application of the herbicide glyphosate (trade name Roundup) to the stumps to prevent re-sprouting. There is no practical way to eliminate eucalyptus infestations without herbicide, and glyphosate is relatively low in toxicity. The EIS finds that the plan will not have significant adverse environmental impact on flora or fauna. Another key aspect of the plan is that removal of the trees will be staggered over many years and closely integrated with the replanting of native species. The agencies must closely monitor to make sure their actions are working.

The Draft EIS is very comprehensive, and as a result the Club is able to support the plan.

Norman La Force, chair, East Bay Public Lands Committee

Filed Under: Land Use, Parks and Open Space

Is SF getting ahead of itself on Warriors’ proposal?

May 23, 2013 Leave a Comment

Former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos calls this “the most beautiful spot on the waterfront”. Should this land be used for the Warriors’ sports arena or for better public access to the shoreline? Photo courtesy San Francisco Waterfront Alliance.

San Francisco has been barreling ahead on the Golden Gate Warriors’ proposal for an event center and multi-use development at Piers 30 – 32 (see April-May Yodeler, page 7). In October the city issued “Findings of Fiscal Responsibility and Feasibility” prepared by Economic and Planning Systems. This report was accepted by the Board of Supervisors. At the request of the city, Assemblymember Phil Ting has introduced AB 1273 which would declare a multi-use development to conform to the Public Trust, even though his district does not include the proposed project.

On May 1, AB 1273 passed out of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on a 7 – 2 vote (Nancy Skinner and Mark Stone voting no) despite the opposition of Save the Bay, San Francisco Baykeeper, the San Francisco Waterfront Alliance, Sierra Club California, and the mayors of four East Bay cities (Tom Bates of Berkeley, Stephen Cassidy of San Leandro, Gayle McLaughlin of Richmond, and Jean Quan of Oakland). As the mayors’ letter stated, AB 1273 would diminish the authority of the State Lands Commission and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in the project approval process. The bill moved to Local Government, where it passed unanimously. Next it goes to Assembly Appropriations.

This project has moved so quickly that the San Francisco Planning Department issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft Environmental Impact Report before the Planning Department had received project designs and building models. The Citizens’ Advisory Committee and its subcommittees have had to cancel meetings for lack of project information. Upcoming hearings before the San Francisco Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee, and BCDC will require the plans.

BCDC is clearly prepared to do its important job here. Its comments responding to the NOP were detailed, quoting the McAteer-Petris Act and the criteria of the Port’s Special Area Plan (SAP) for allowable development: “The SAP (p. 20) characterizes the Northeastern Waterfront which includes Piers 30 – 32, as a ‘regional recreation and scenic resource.’ Generally, the SAP provides that waterfront development should provide maximum feasible public access—of which visual access is a ‘critical part’ (p. 32), preserve important Bay views and have a low scale height and bulk.”

Also threatening open spaces on the waterfront is the Port’s proposal to turn the plaza behind the Ferry Building into a parking lot. The Waterfront Land Use Plan designates this plaza as open space. Parking over water is prohibited by the Waterfront Land Use Plan, San Francisco’s General Plan, and the BCDC Special Area Plan. The plaza is over water, as is the Ferry Building itself.

WhatYouCanDo

To be alerted when it is time to speak up against this and other outrageous waterfront proposals, make sure that you are signed up to receive the Sierra Club Bay Chapter’s updates and alerts.

Or to get involved now, please contact conservation organizer Jess Dervin-Ackerman at (510)848-0800, ext. 304, or jess@sfbaysc.org.

Becky Evans, chair, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Front Page Feature, Land Use

The Warriors Project and the Public Trust

May 23, 2013 Leave a Comment

California’s Public Trust doctrine has long been a key tool for protecting San Francisco’s shoreline. The doctrine reserves the shoreline for maritime uses, water-related activities, public access, and environmental protections (see “The best things in life deserve legal protection: the shoreline and the Public Trust” from September-October 2005, page 6). The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the State Lands Commission (SLC) were created largely to protect this public interest. In 1969 the Burton Act gave the Port of San Francisco jurisdiction over previously state-controlled tidal lands, specifically on the condition that they be administered in conformity with the Public Trust. AB 1273, however, introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting to help ease the Warriors’ proposed project through the regulatory hoops, represents (among other mischief) a serious attack on the Public Trust doctrine, with potential consequences extending well beyond its stated purposes (see “Is SF getting ahead of itself on Warriors’ proposal?”).

When the mayor’s office and the Port endorsed conceptual plans for the Warriors’ proposal, they realized that it was not particularly waterfront-related, and was potentially in conflict with BCDC guidelines—which allow only projects with a waterfront-related and trust-compliant primary use. The Port and city then had two options. They could have set up a complex land-barter agreement like those which have already given private interests vast swaths of San Francisco’s shoreline. Or they could ask the legislature to decree Public Trust compliance by fiat.

The bill (as amended April 24) reads : “Any legislative or regulatory requirement for findings of consistency with the public trust doctrine or the Burton Act trust under the Special Area Plan, the Bay Plan, or any other applicable statute, regulation, or plan shall be deemed satisfied if the Port has made a finding that the Pier 30 – 32 development is consistent with the requirements of this act.” And what are those “requirements”? Here, the genesis of the bill becomes even more murky, the result of closed door-negotiations among the Warriors, the Port, the mayor’s office, and presumably representatives from BCDC and SLC. The bill purports to lay out minimum requirements for the project—including a deep-water-vessel berthing area, a relocated fire-boat station, and public access along the perimeter of the structure. It would also nip the 630-car pier-side garage down to 500 spaces (none of which are for trust uses). It would limit office space to 70,000 square feet (a slight restriction) and mandate at least 15 days of “Public Trust-consistent” programming a year (whatever that means).

The bill declares that if these minimal “requirements” are met, the primary purpose of the development does not have to be maritime-related, but the project would still be deemed compliant with the Public Trust. AB 1273 would thus neutralize the authority of the State Land Commission and greatly reduce the clout of BCDC over the project. While the bill’s purview is restricted to Seawall 330 and Piers 30 – 32, it establishes a dangerous precedent. If San Francisco can get its shoreline exempted from the oversight of the SLC and BCDC and the protections of the Public Trust, what’s to stop other municipalities from doing the same? Is this such a wonderful project that it deserves a blanket exemption from existing law?

Further resources

The Public Trust Doctrine and the Modern Waterfront, introduction to the Public Trust Doctrine was developed by the staff of the California State Lands Commission in 2007

The Public Trust Doctrine–San Francisco’s waterfront, the November 1999 issue of the SPUR newsletter.

Warriors on the Waterfront, the Warriors’ own web site on the project

Text of AB 1273

San Francisco Bay Plan of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission

San Francisco Waterfront Alliance web site

“Warriors Arena Would Block Beauty of Bay” by Ann Killion in San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 15, 2013

Steven Chapman, Executive Committee, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Land Use

The perfect unacceptable use

May 23, 2013 Leave a Comment

San Francisco’s Proposition H of 1990, the Waterfront Land Use Plan, reserves the waterfront “for maritime uses, public access, and projects which aid in the preservation and restoration of the environment”. It specifically prohibits hotels, and sets straightforward criteria for defining an “unacceptable” land use:

does it need to be located on the waterfront to serve its basic function?
is it compatible with existing or planned maritime operation on surrounding parcels?
does it provide the maximum feasible public access?
does it improve the ecological balance of San Francisco Bay?
does it protect the waterfront’s architectural heritage?
does it present the best interests of the people of San Francisco?

Do these criteria sound like a description of the Warriors’ proposal?

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Land Use

A long history of protecting SF’s waterfront

May 23, 2013 Leave a Comment

San Francisco has a long history of protecting its waterfront as a public asset.

The front-page lead article of the September 1

970 Yodeler is entitled “Port Commission vs. San Francisco Bay”. At issue was a massive 18.4-acre fill and platform in the water just north of the Ferry Building. This Ferry Port Plaza, which would have included a 1,200-room hotel, a 600-foot-long commercial office building, and a garage for 2,400 cars was not built, thanks to public opposition and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

More positively, we tore down the old Embarcadero Freeway and started on a planning process which limited height and bulk and restricted uses to appropriate maritime activities, opening up San Francisco’s shoreline for all citizens to enjoy. We even voted on legislation to protect the waterfront from inappropriate development (see “The perfect unacceptable use”).

Yet, in recent years, that consensus has been overwhelmed by a series of public-private development proposals, each eying to capitalize on the real-estate potential of the city’s remaining shoreline parcels and undeveloped piers. The Warriors’ proposal is but the latest of the breed, but true to their name, it is perhaps the most aggressive proposal yet.

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Land Use

Prospects good for protecting Doolan Canyon

May 20, 2013 Leave a Comment

Looking south-southeast down Doolan Canyon at the area that Pacific Union Homes wants to develop. Doolan Road is in the middle of the picture. The ridge in the distance is the East Bay Regional Park District’s Ohlone Regional Wilderness containing Rose Peak, the highest peak in Alameda County, just 32 feet lower than Mount Diablo. Photo by Dick Schneider.

With strong local leadership and the backing of a unified environmental community, the prospects look good for stopping the development of Doolan Canyon.

North of I-580 and east of Dublin in eastern Alameda County, Doolan Canyon is a strikingly beautiful habitat for rare and endangered wildlife, and supports ranching and other rural uses. The main part of the canyon is not visible from the freeway and is accessible only by Doolan Road, which deadends at the East Bay Regional Park District’s recently acquired Schmitz Ranch. This property was purchased as the first step in the creation of a future Doolan Canyon-Tassajara Hills Regional Preserve.

As an unincorporated area, the canyon is currently protected by Alameda County Measure D, the voter-approved urban growth boundary (UGB–see “Stopping sprawl: Measure D and an historic victory in the year 2000″). The urban growth boundary prevents the county from approving urban development and commercial uses in the canyon. A proposal has been made, however, by Pacific Union Homes for Dublin to annex the area between the Park District lands and I-580 and approve development of nearly 2,000 senior-housing units (think Rossmoor in Walnut Creek). A subdivision of this magnitude would destroy the area’s natural values.

Over the past two years environmental groups including the Sierra Club have organized to protect the canyon against urban encroachment. The city of Livermore began proceedings to expand its Sphere of Influence to include the canyon for the purpose of maintaining an agricultural and open-space buffer between Livermore and Dublin. That effort is now stalled at the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission while Livermore and Dublin negotiate.

Recently, environmental leaders in Dublin have stepped forward with the idea of drafting a ballot measure to establish a UGB on Dublin’s east side. These leaders are the same folks who successfully ran a UGB initiative (Measure M) to protect the west Dublin hills in 2000. Nevertheless, we can expect strong opposition from the developers who want to carve up the canyon into residential units.

While it’s still early in the current effort to protect Doolan Canyon, it’s important for people interested in helping this campaign to step forward, learn more about the situation, and get involved. If you would like to help, please contact Dick Schneider at richs59354@aol.com or (510)926-0010.

Dick Schneider

Map by Bob Newey.

Filed Under: Land Use, Parks and Open Space

Alameda County Supervisors reject threat to open space

May 9, 2013 3 Comments

Some of the agricultural lands in North Livermore protected by Measure D. Photo by Richard Rollins.

On May 7 the Alameda County Board of Supervisors rebuffed a threat to the county’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).

Measure D, written by Sierra Club members and passed by the voters in 2000, enacted the UGB and established limits to development outside it. One of the limits restricts the proportion of a parcel that can be covered with buildings to 1% of the parcel’s area. This keeps the scale of development commensurate with parcel size and maintains viable habitat and other natural values in rural areas.

At the behest of one Castro Valley landowner, though, an attempt was made to change the floor-area ratio so that his covered arena wouldn’t count (see December 2012-January 2013, page 3). The landowner had bought the property with very large barns already on site. He then illegally covered his arena and then went to the Board to amend Measure D to legalize his act retroactively.

The Club opposed the amendment because policies enacted by voter initiative can only be changed by a subsequent vote of the people. Measure D did not give the Board authority to make this change without a public vote.

The five-member Board deadlocked 2 – 2, thus defeating the change. Supervisors Wilma Chan and Richard Valle voted against the amendment. Supervisor Keith Carson had to leave the meeting early, but would have voted no also, had his vote been necessary. All three supervisors deserve our thanks.

Dick Schneider

Filed Under: Front Page Feature, Land Use, Parks and Open Space

HUD demands civil-rights analysis of Bay Area housing allocation–advocates call on planning agencies to consider alternatives

April 27, 2013 Leave a Comment

On April 9 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a stern rebuke to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), saying ABAG’s draft allocation of the Bay Area’s regional housing need may violate federal civil-rights laws (see “Will regional planning stumble on climate change?”–posted at theYodeler.org on March 23).

ABAG’s draft eight-year Regional Housing Needs Allocation distributes a portion of the region’s projected need for new housing to each city and county in the Bay Area. In contrast to previous cycles, ABAG’s current draft methodology makes local interest in housing development the primary factor in allocating the regional need, resulting in over-concentration of growth in lower-income neighborhoods. That over-concentration of growth also characterizes the draft “Plan Bay Area”, which ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have recently issued for public comment. That plan proposes to assign 95% of housing growth to just 15 of the region’s 109 cities and counties over the next 28 years.

In its letter, HUD expresses serious concerns about the fact that ABAG’s housing plan “is largely based upon its PDA (Priority Development Area) program, which allocates the majority of housing development in areas that local jurisdictions have voluntarily committed for future housing, transit, and job growth.” While concentrating housing growth in the cities that have volunteered for it, ABAG’s allocation limits housing growth in other cities with “neighborhoods comparably suited for the same type of growth.” HUD’s letter expresses concern that this could “limit housing options for low-income families and negatively impact minorities,” in violation of the Fair Housing Act, and other federal civil-rights laws.

“HUD asked ABAG to analyze the civil rights implications of the draft housing allocation last September,” says Sam Tepperman-Gelfant, senior staff attorney with the civil-rights law firm Public Advocates Inc. “That analysis needs to happen right away, before the region adopts a discriminatory housing plan.”

The Public Interest Law Project, California Rural Legal Assistance and other civil-rights advocates joined Public Advocates in first raising these issues with ABAG in October 2011. In a letter released April 17, the group asked ABAG and MTC boardmembers to “direct staff to immediately conduct the analysis that HUD requests.” They also call for a similar analysis of the “Equity, Environment and Jobs” (EEJ) scenario, an alternative plan developed by a broad coalition of community groups and analyzed in the draft Environmental Impact Report for Plan Bay Area.

“The EEJ alternative proposes to create affordable housing near transit and jobs throughout the region, not just in a few volunteer cities,” Richard Marcantonio, managing attorney with Public Advocates, said. “ABAG and MTC’s own environmental analysis concludes that the EEJ alternative is not just more equitable, it’s also environmentally superior.”

References

HUD’s April 9 letter to ABAG

HUD’s September 2012 letter to ABAG

Public Advocates Oct. 26, 2011, letter to ABAG

Public Interest Law Project July 16, 2012 letter to ABAG

Public Advocates blog on the Equity, Environment and Jobs Alternative

Filed Under: Land Use

“Preservation Ranch”–is it preserved?

April 4, 2013 Leave a Comment

Redwood tree. Copyright Sharon Williams, courtesy Sierra Club Library.

Genuine — not ironic — preservation of our forests, woodlands, and rivers lies at the heart of the Club’s conservation mission, and both the scale of this project and the dismal precedents it would establish have made Preservation Ranch the Redwood Chapter’s number-one priority for years. While readying ourselves to participate in the dialog surrounding its environmental review, we did all we could to raise public awareness of the issues involved (including the filming of a trenchant video under the direction of former Forestry Committee chair Jay Halcomb) and also tried to persuade its primary funder — CalPERS, California’s giant state workers’ pension fund — that its resources would be more responsibly invested elsewhere.

The year 2013 began with the expectation that a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would soon be released for comment, followed by a grueling series of hearings topped off by a contentious debate before the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. Depending on the decision of the Board, the possibility of extended litigation also loomed before us.

Now I am thrilled to be able to announce the possibility that none of those events will take place. Late in February a consortium of conservation buyers led by the Virginia-based Conservation Fund in partnership with the California Coastal Conservancy, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, and Sonoma Land Trust put together a deal to purchase the property for $24.5 million, with the intention of using it for sustainable timber production with a focus on forest health and wildlife habitat restoration. Some form of public recreational access would also be a possibility, as would the generation of income from the sale of carbon credits. If the purchase is finalized, the threat of commercial vineyard development and rural estate subdivision will be taken off the table—permanently!

It’s not quite time to start dancing on the tabletops. Realization of this deal depends on whether the Coastal Conservancy Board accepts staff recommendations to go forward, a decision that will be made at the Conservancy meeting in Santa Barbara on April 18. The Redwood Chapter has written an enthusiastic letter of support, and hopes that individuals will do the same.

WhatYouCanDo

Write to Chair Doug Bosco via e-mail to Karyn Gear at kgear.scc.ca.gov.

Victoria Brandon, chair, Sierra Club Redwood Chapter

reprinted from Redwood Needles, newsletter of the Sierra Club Redwood Chapter

Filed Under: Land Use, Wilderness, Forests, and Wildlife

Will regional planning stumble on climate change?

March 23, 2013 3 Comments

Cleaning up greenhouse-gas emissions should be a major priority for any transportation plan. 580 and I80 Traffic Jam. Photo: Flickr / Walter Parenteau (cc)

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is on the verge of once more releasing a transportation plan that probably won’t take seriously the challenge of tackling climate change.

Every four years MTC revises its long-term Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Bay Area, and the soon-to-be-released revision is supposed to be the first to have climate change as a focus. Under SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, California has introduced a new requirement for transportation planning agencies to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to make sure that RTPs really incorporate the goals for reducing greenhouse gases.

The Bay Area’s combined RTP/SCS will be the blueprint for spending $256 billion through 2040. If it really does address climate change, it could lead to big changes.

Although the draft RTP is not scheduled for release until March 22, previews show no sign that the plan will deal adequately with the climate threat. San Diego’s SANDAG was the first big transportation planning agency in the state to issue an RTP/SCS, which was thrown out in Superior Court for not effectively addressing greenhouse gases. (The case is now on appeal.) MTC’s 2013 RTP risks a similar fate.

SB 375 also requires the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to mesh its eight-year Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA, pronounced REE–nah) with the SCS. According to ABAG, “The consistency of the housing allocation with a development pattern that promotes reductions in greenhouse gases is likely to emphasize compact, mixed-use commercial and residential development with access to transit. Plans for housing must also include sufficient affordable units so that people don’t have to commute from homes outside the Bay Area to jobs within the region. The goal is more livable communities, offering more housing and transportation choices, a higher quality of life and a vibrant economy.” This is fine language, but here too the housing plan as currently drafted may not produce the needed greenhouse-gas reductions.

The biggest problem with the RTP is also the simplest to state: MTC plans to build 300 miles of new freeway lanes. Since 41% of the Bay Area’s greenhouse-gas emissions come from transportation, it will be a remarkable trick if the EIR shows that the freeway lanes might help cut carbon or support the goals of the Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Priority Development Areas

Other problems are more complex to state.

In the Bay Area, the SCS is organized around Priority Development Areas (PDAs). According to an informative memo by planners at ABAG, the PDAs are intended to “accommodate the majority of the region’s population and employment growth.” The 92 PDAs planned when the memo was written will accommodate 32% of the housing growth and 37% of the forecast job growth on “a little over one percent of the land area of the Bay Area”.

But successful PDAs require a supportive transit system. Unfortunately, MTC does not have a good record of getting more people to take transit. There were more transit passengers 30 years ago than today, even as Bay Area population has increased from five to seven million. During the life of the next RTP/SCS, the population is expected to grow by another two million. What can be done to improve MTC’s transit decisions? There already is a shortfall in funding (about $15 billion over the life of the RTP/SCS) to replace existing vehicles and rehabilitate facilities. So far, documents do not indicate that the RTP contains a plan or estimate of the funds needed for transit improvements to make the PDAs work. For example, some of the San Francisco PDAs are in areas where Muni service is already overwhelmed. More money needs to be found and invested wisely. Successful PDAs will also require upgrades to other infrastructure; ABAG planners’ preliminary assessment of this additional financial need is over $14 billion.

Where will the money come from? Should San Francisco and Oakland, which have volunteered to take on tens of thousands of new residents, have to pay to upgrade their sewers and transit systems to handle the population growth, or should all Bay Area cities and counties, including Novato (with no PDAs) and Pleasanton (with a very small one), be financially responsible?

Unfair housing allocations

The PDAs are voluntary, and that leads to troubling housing issues. For instance, Novato will have two SMART rail stations by 2016, but has not volunteered to have any PDAs. According to a letter from the Public Interest Law Project to ABAG, Novato’s RHNA requires only 413 new housing units in the eight-year cycle from 2014 – 2022, despite the city having 15,000 in-commuters each day. In contrast, 24 cities (e.g. Oakland) have volunteered to take on large increases in housing units and population. San Francisco, according to its planning director, is going to allow more than 90,000 new housing units, and its population will grow from 812,000 to more than 960,000 by 2035. The Public Interest Law Project (PILP) notes that “over 80 percent of [the PDA] growth . . . is confined to just 24 jurisdictions, with only 20 percent allotted to the other 54 jurisdictions with PDAs.”

Further, the cities that have not agreed to PDAs, or only to limited ones, tend to be those with smaller minority populations. According to PILP, cities without PDAs average 64% white, versus 41% for places with PDAs; e.g. Novato, 76% white; and Pleasanton, 67% white; in contrast with Oakland, 34% white (numbers from 2010 census). Housing allocations based on PDAs could lead to increased segregation of housing and transportation.

ABAG’s voluntary approach to PDA housing growth has raised concerns at the state and federal levels. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, ABAG adjusted the housing-growth figures “to ensure that no county or city’s proposed growth substantially deviates from local plans.” HCD notes it is “the statutory objective for each local government to share responsibility for addressing regional housing needs in an equitable manner.” Further, “a council of governments [here, ABAG] may not limit its consideration of suitable housing sites or land suitable for urban development based on localities’ existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions.”

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) states in a letter, “If ABAG adopts a housing allocation which is largely contingent on the voluntary PDA designation, efforts should be made to ensure that all jurisdictions with transit-oriented neighborhoods are allocated housing in a manner consistent with fair housing choice.”

PDAs are a key to the RTP/SCS, and there are still a lot of questions ABAG and MTC need to address to make sure that the PDAs help with climate change and that all Bay Area residents are treated fairly. The Sierra Club is working closely with a variety of other organizations including Urban Habitat, Public Advocates, and Greenbelt Alliance to make sure that these questions are addressed.

ABAG and MTC are scheduled to release the Draft Bay Area Plan on March 22, and the companion EIR on March 29. The public-comment period on both will extend until May 16. In accordance with Club “one voice” policy, representatives from the San Francisco Bay, Redwood, and Loma Prieta chapters have been working to provide coordinated comments on both documents.

Matt Williams, co-chair, Sierra Club Bay Chapter Transportation Committee

Links:

The Sustainable Communities Strategy

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission

SB 375

The Association of Bay Area Governments

Regional Housing Needs Allocation—RHNA

Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S–3–05

Filing of the California Attorney General in the SANDAG case

Ruling in SANDAG case (Sierra Club California)

UC Berkeley Professor Andrew Guzman’s Feb. 25 lecture on Climate Change

Bay Chapter list of objectives for the 2013 Regional Transportation Plan