|Though "Plan Bay Area" is constantly telling us
that local governments will not be forced to accept regional
dictates - it will be open day for apartment developers to sue local
governments if we don't.
gas emission targets) contains 2 private courses of
1. A lawsuit can be brought to require a local government to change
2. Suing to allow development when zoning does not meet the Plan.
( see debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOE7Hyd5B40&feature=youtu.be at 0:49
) The burden of proof falls to the city.
So local governments are
compelled to select Planned Development Areas near mass transit
and only develop compact, high-density, mixed-use housing else be sued
and not receive any of the $57 billion.
SB375 allows private developers, who have an interest
in a property (i.e. an option to purchase), to "assume" the zoning they
need for "qualifying" project proposals (49 percent affordable), then
sue the county for that zoning if it's not automatically granted. And in
a reversal of centuries old real estate law, rather than the developer
having to argue why his project should be approved under local
regulations, the burden of proof (and legal cost) is now placed upon the
county (the taxpayers) to make the case for why it shouldn't.
SB226,(CEQA Streamlining for Infill Projects) CEQA is waived
entirely for qualifying "infill" projects near public transportation.
Add to that the potential financial incentives, One Bay Area (OBAG)
grants 1. and
Regional Housing Needs Allocation -
very low and low income housing needs -(RHNA)2. , and Housing
Element in the County Plan, and SB375 and a great deal of individual
control over our own zoning is already long gone.
at least 70% of the
One Bay Area (OBAG) funds must go
toward projects that support Priority Development Areas, PDAs
(e.g. transit-oriented development).
Using transportation dollars to reward jurisdictions that
accept the Regional Housing Need
Allocation (RHNA) .
MTC created OBAG
Transportation Expert (Wendell Cox) on Plan Bay Area: (enable bookmarks - click icon on the
- "Between 1985 and 2010, transit service levels were increased 46
percent in the Bay Area. However, ridership declined "
- "Plan should be withdrawn, since the No Project Alternative
(essentially "doing nothing") achieves the required greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions reduction objectives."
- "does not consider strategies that would materially improve
mobility for low income households."
- "does not apply cost effectiveness"
- "would result in only
two percent less driving volume than in the No Project Alternative.
Travel by passenger vehicles would increase 18 percent"
- "negative health impacts "
- "inhibiting economic growth "
Planners want to herd millions into densely packed
urban corridors. It won't save the planet and will make traffic even
---- Transit would increase its share of travel to a measly 4% from its
current tiny 2%.
---- Unaffordable housing could become even more unaffordable.
---- Additional households in the future will continue to use their cars
for most trips.
---- It is better to raise children with backyards than on condominium
citizens face-off against planners
Plan Bay Area Stack
& Pack Unhealthy-4-22-13
What is the
relationship between SB 375 and AB 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act
Richard Hall ·
The spin that the plan
reduces greenhouse gases is incredibly dangerous and is based on
politicized science and flawed logic:
- greenhouse gases will likely be caused to increase as the plan fails
to consider that transit emits more GHG per mile than cars with the
newly enabled CARB/Pavley 2 legislation
- the "no project" alternative was conveniently handicapped by omitting
consideration of the existing MTC Climate Change initiative
- the plan invokes/induces congestion by over-investing in transit
(which historically has led to diminished per capita ridership) and
underinvesting in highways (44% of highway miles will now be distressed)
so between this and all the affordable new residents we can look forward
to lots more 101 traffic jams and pollution
This was all discussed and settled in the Plan Bay Area Debate where
plan proponents solidly failed to make the
case for the plan:
The passing of a plan by 2 of 3 of our Marin representatives, when 85%
are either against it, unaware of it, and the 15% who approved the
"politicized science" demonstrates the headlock that special interests
have over the process - unions, housing advocates...
The blank check has now be signed for us by Kinsey and Rice. Affordable
housing will now be coming to Marin in sizable numbers and we don't yet
know the cost whether it is:
- sizable increases to sales and property tax (we're almost already the
highest sales tax in the US). In some cases this is to subsidize new
incoming residents on 250% of median income (this is Robin Hood in
- imposition of 5 story high density housing in our neighborhoods
- more investment in positively the least economical transportation
projects that are the least flexible, transport the fewest people and
cost the post (SMART) and diminished investment in highways
The affordable housing goes to people who likely earn more than existing
"Supervisor Mark Farrell's initial proposal was that the money should be
eligible to workers making up to 250 percent of the area median income -
or $250,000 for a family of four."
My current understanding is that to qualify for affordable housing you
can be on 120% of median income. So look for your taxes to increase to
subsidize many who are better off than you. And remember affordable
housing cannot filter applicants by their home or work location - so it
will likely result in people working in Alameda, Contra Costa or SF to
live in Marin and add to 101 traffic. EPIC FAIL!
Kinsey - you completely failed to defend this plan at the debate, now
you are one of the voices that pass it. You are exposed - the emperor
has no clothes.
The SB375 / Local Housing Element Nexus - Bob
SB375 and California Housing Element Law require that
cities craft their Housing Elements
in compliance with all state legislation in order to receive
certification from the
Department of Housing and Community Development in Sacramento.
Without the state’s certification a city is vulnerable to private party
lawsuits for violation of state law.
However, a city’s Housing Element (its growth plan to meet the state’s
RHNA quota) is a part of a city’s General Plan.
Other state law requires that a city’s Housing Element and General Plan
be in “conformance,”
legally with regard to its policies, wording, and terminology. So in
practice the Housing Element drives the General Plan, not vice verse. So
the crafting of a certifiable Housing Element is the local housing
policy leader with regard to zoning and planning.
Each city’s General Plan has no choice but to adapt where it must.
The second aspect of this nexus is the so-called
“Builder’s Remedy.” Under SB375, any developer (nonprofit or for profit)
who proposes to build a "qualifying" project (at least 49 percent of the
units are “affordable units”) can assume the zoning he needs, even if
the land is not presently zoned, and sue the city if they refuse to
grant it. And it is now the city’s legal burden to prove why the project
should not be approved, rather than the traditional situation where the
developer has to prove why his project should be approved.
Adding to this loss of local planning control are
provisions for CEQA streamlining found in both SB375 and SB226. A
qualified project can receive streamlining benefits (be exempt from
certain CEQA criteria and studies) or be exempted entirely from CEQA
requirements if it is categorized as “infill” and in proximity to a
“quality transit corridor” (near a bus stop where a bus runs every 20
And up till August of 2013 the PLAN has been allowed to ignore the
air quality of those people they will
be trying to house next to freeways.
Until a judge finally reinstated the
Bay Area Air Quality (BAAQMD) Guidlines for "Thresholds of
Significance" to include Estimating the Community Risks and Hazards of
living within 1,000 feet of a freeway.
As in Marin, daily freeway traffic exceeds 100,000 vehicles for most of
the Bay's freeways and puts building next to freeways unacceptably
hazerdous to a person's health.
PAGE 47: chart:
If there is any roadway within 1000 feet Particlate Matter or Toxic Air
Contaminants (TAC) Analysis is recommended.
CEQA Guidelines UPDATE: April 13, 2012
The majority of funding in the Plan ($232
billion, or 80%) is already committed for specific purposes.
The remaining $57 billion in revenues are available for assignment
through the plan.
(Notice how spending on Freeway is bundled with Transit
so you don't know how close to 0% it is).
More Details on the $232 and
$57 billion spending (enable bookmarks - click
icon on the left)
$209 million to
Expand and enhance the SMART commuter rail system (Phase II) by
constructing a one- station extension from San Rafael to Larkspur,
constructing a one-station extension from North Santa Rosa to Windsor,
implementing capacity improvements along the Initial Operating Segment
(Sonoma County only),
and completing the multi-use pathway from Larkspur to Cloverdale.
For $57 billion you can
cover all 2.5 million homes in the Bay with solar panels
( $20,000 each)
Or for the $57 billion to be spent on Plan Bay Area -
you can cover half of the 2.5 million homes in
with solar panels and give free electric cars to half as well !
Or means-test-subsidise each home from 25% to 85% discount
for each home to have
both an electric car and 2.5kw of solar panels
Reducing Green House gas Emission to one hundredth of the Plan and
preparing us for a REALISTIC future.
(where the majority of the Plan's transit becomes obsolete).
The EEJ Alternative that was NOT implemented in the Plan, (yet):
EEJ Alternative to
MTC’s portion of the Plan would have:
12.5% more transit service (bus and
more BART service
Wouldn’t spend – $2.5 billion – on building highway expansions
Spend 5% more on
operations expand transit service over the coming decades
Further encourage Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
Encourage high density development around and on top of
Smaller cities forced to take on a share of the region’s
growth in the Plan and be held accountable if they do not.
Move 5% of the housing growth from
low-income communities (mainly in San Francisco, Oakland and San
to transit-connected suburban job centers,
13% more express bus service
stands for "Equity,
Environment and Jobs")
Diane Furst ·This is
how Alameda Supervisor Scott Haggerty described Plan Bay Area:
“This thing (Plan Bay Area) screws the suburbs and the rural areas. If
you are in an urban area, be happy.
You’re getting it all.”
Supervisor Haggerty sits on 6 ABAG committees and 3 MTC committees.
I would think he is pretty well informed about the plan.
Here is the video where
Scott Haggerty talks about the vote and the effect
on suburb and rural towns (00:35)
Jody Morales Kinsey says his yes vote protects
“Marin’s agricultural and open space
while encouraging limited new development along transit corridors.”
Translation: My wealthy rancher-supporters will love this.
Rice says her yes vote doesn’t actually change a thing – more or less.
Translation: Rice bought into the talking points and showed no concern
for her constituents or any capacity for independent thought.
Conclusion: Marin needs Supervisors Furst, Pfeifer, Brandt and Shroyer.
Someone needs to step up for Rice’s seat.
Aaron Lee There is ONE electric car charging
station at the Civic Center.
We are literally 15 years away from a giant switch to all electric
vehicles (and even more efficient solar power).
How can the BOS even PRETEND to care about CO2 emissions when my grocery
twice as many EV charging stations? You can lease a Nissan Leaf for 150
bucks a month after taxes.
Is there a reason that ANY and ALL car allowances paid to County
employees are not restricted to electric vehicles?
I mean seriously. ONE EV CHARGING STATION at the County seat! Perhaps
the BOS should look in their own front yard.
I mean seriously, do they really think families of nurses, teachers, and
firefighters are going to live in high density condos?
Is it even a good idea?
SB628 multi-million dollar 30-year Bonds for Transit and TOD without the
usually required taxpayer vote !
create a SPECIAL TAX (that used to need a 2/3 majority) may pass with only
a 55% majority