News


Bay Area leaders adopt regional plan to accommodate future population growth

Bus loads of protesters fail to block approval of 'Plan Bay Area'

A coalition of Bay Area leaders late Thursday night approved a long-term regional plan meant to accommodate population growth over the next few decades while meeting state mandates for cutting air pollution and improving access to public transportation.

The final vote on Plan Bay Area came during a marathon joint meeting of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) at the Oakland Marriott.

The two groups are made up of 21 Bay Area county supervisors, mayors and other local leaders.

Several hundred people, many who boarded buses from Marin and Santa Clara counties, packed a Marriott ballroom to protest the plan, voicing concerns that it will bring overcrowded housing developments and will bypass local control over development.

Hundreds of attendees from groups such as Discontent with Plan Bay Area said they believe such a plan should be subject to a public vote and toted signs and chanted "Let us vote!" or "MTC, don't speak for me!"

Several dozen others from Oakland-based public transit advocacy group TransForm carried yellow signs expressing support for alternatives to the plan under the slogan "Equity Environment and Jobs" or EEJ.

According to the MTC, the plan is a "work in progress" that continues earlier efforts to "develop an efficient transportation network and grow in a financially and environmentally responsible way."

Created by several agencies including MTC and ABAG, Plan Bay Area comes up with blueprints for the region's nine counties to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by the year 2040, as required under state Senate Bill 375. The plan also focuses on providing housing for all residents of all income levels near transportation hubs, according to MTC and ABAG officials.

The federal government requires the agencies to update the plan every four years to keep up with shifting demographics and new data, MTC spokesman John Goodwin said.

"There are no easy solutions in this plan but ... this plan creates a way for the residents of the Bay Area to discuss our future openly," said ABAG Executive Director Ezra Rapport.

But many of the Bay Area residents who spoke at the meeting said they either did not feel included in the planning process or felt that requests for public input were disingenuous and that board members had already made up their minds to approve the plan.

Some speakers also voiced concerns that the plan would give the government undue authority to dictate where and how communities are allowed to develop housing.

"It's clearly a social engineering experiment," Fairfax resident Kevin Krick said during the public hearing.

Dozens of people said they would support the plan as long as it included amendments to increase funding under the plan for affordable housing and public transit options -- amendments that were adopted later in the meeting.

Some speakers praised the plan as it was originally presented, expressing hope that it will provide a wider variety of alternatives to congested Bay Area roadways and prevent the displacement of low-income residents as rents throughout the region soar.

"I'm really glad to see the region take this pioneering step," said Adina Levin of Menlo Park.

The Bay Area is among the state's 18 regions tasked with creating a vision for meeting mandated emissions reduction targets and implementing transit and housing solutions.

Thursday night's vote came at the end of a three-year planning process involving the MTC, ABAG, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and local communities and agencies.

A meeting in Walnut Creek in the spring drew a few angry Danville residents vociferous in their belief that it was a plot to force low-income housing on wealthy communities.

Heather Gass, a Danville realtor, carried a sign that said, "ABAG and MTC don't speak for me. This is a rigged meeting."

"Stop lying to the public. This is about socially engineering our lives," Gass told the panel of MTC and ABAG representatives.

She was one of four with Danville connections who spoke at the meeting.

Terry Thompson of Alamo also spoke.

"This is all about central planning. It didn't work in the Soviet Union and it won't work here," he said. "There's no such thing as regional government."

Laura Dixon. Bay City News, contributed to this report.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Carol
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jul 22, 2013 at 11:19 am

The Bay Area Plan is one of many mandated by social activists and special interesr groups in control.of the state legislature. Next is SB 1 that will authorize the creation of un-elected local boards to tax, borrow and take private property for various purposes including spurring economic growth. Will.Governor Jerry Brown go along? You bet.


Like this comment
Posted by JT
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2013 at 3:17 pm

The only way to fix freeway traffic congestion is if you transfer building from the central valley to the bay area. That is not being done. We are going to be building more, and the central valley will continue to develop. This will be adding to the problem. People I know who have moved to the central valley is because they can get a bigger house for their 'investment'. By forcing all this high-density housing to go in here, you are now forcing people more people to move to the central valley if they want a larger house, thus increasing the traffic, because there will be less larger houses and more apartment/multi-family units.

It is possible that this plan is going to raise the prices of single-family homes even more, which I guess is a good thing for those of us who have one. This looks almost like a moratorium on single family houses with yards if the cities are forced to build multi-family on the remaining land. That will make the single-family homes with yards worth even more because we will not be building new ones. I believe this is the intention of our elected officials as they will need more property taxes from the existing housing stock to pay for the services for the subsidized housing going on.


Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Jul 22, 2013 at 3:40 pm

(Post makes no sense and has been removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff.)


Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Jul 22, 2013 at 3:45 pm

(Post makes no sense and has been removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff.)


Like this comment
Posted by The other paper
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 26, 2013 at 10:43 pm

I read in the Independent that Mr Mayor Thorne voted to support our RHNA numbers for apartments! Is that right? He wants even more apartments?

What the HEL* is he thinking?!?

He is supposed to stand up for our City!


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.