The Marin IJ has some great articles today 5/26/2013

I thought I would condense all of the great 'stuff' in today's Marin IJ.

---

1.

 

---

2.Report: Plan Bay Area would reduce Bay Area's greenhouse gas emissions, but alternative would cut even more -

By Richard Halstead
Marin Independent Journal

The Bay Area will be spewing an additional 1.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2040 if opponents of a new long-range land-use blueprint for the Bay Area get their way. View Full Story

3. Marin Voice: Plan Bay Area means big changes for Marin

marinij.com

MARIN COUNTY is about to embark on the biggest high-density housing explosion in its history. It's called Plan Bay Area.

Yet most residents remain in the dark.

Plan Bay Area sounds good on paper. It aims to reduce Greenhouse Gases (GHG) by building high-density housing near mass transit, claiming it doesn't usurp local zoning control. But the facts tell a different story.

Local city Housing Elements must comply with the Association of Bay Area Government Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

SB375 requires RHNA be consistent with Plan Bay Area's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).

So local governments are compelled to select RHNA sites near mass transit and allow for compact, high-density, mixed-use development at state-mandated housing sites.

Residents need look no further than the high density housing policies being crafted locally to see Plan Bay Area's influence over local control. Add SB375's streamlining of environmental protection regulations, and Plan Bay Area could give the keys to your neighborhood's open space to big development.

Plan Bay Area also promises to reduce GHGs.

Unfortunately, the plan is based on questionable assumptions regarding job and population growth, and environmental impacts.

For example, the plan's draft EIR doesn't consider California's new "Pavley" higher miles-per-gallon standards or the new federal environmental standards (e.g. 54.5 mpg for cars and light trucks), which will reduce car and light truck emissions more than any of Plan Bay Area's alternatives, even if we do nothing.

The DEIR also uses outdated 2005 GHG emissions data.

Plan Bay Area fails to assess water supply and waste treatment systems required for the thousands of new homes planned.

Further, it fails to assess the risks to endangered and protected habitats, such as creek, bay, and wetlands damage from water diversions and drawdowns needed to accommodate the massive development.

The plan's high-density Priority Development Areas border sensitive eco-habitats near neighborhoods with antiquated storm drain, road and sewer infrastructure, high traffic congestion and rising sea levels.

What cumulative impact will water diversions have on wildlife? How will existing water resources supply proposed development? Without considering Marin's water constraints, how can anyone predict the magnitude of adverse impacts of Plan Bay Area?

Plan Bay Area says high density housing projects will have individual EIRs, providing sufficient environmental impact analyses. But EIRs are not required for individual city housing elements, despite constraints like traffic congestion, threatened species, sea level rise and crumbling infrastructure.

And the plan "streamlines" state environmental requirements for PDA developments, so by the time we know the impacts it will be too late.

The plan's projected growth rates for Marin County are unrealistic.

The state Department of Finance projects much lower job and population growth. And the Pitkin-Myers University of Southern California report notes, —... much lower population growth is foreseen" than state population projections.

The plan's GHG projections are flawed.

Research by the Australian Conservation Foundation indicates that the type of development proposed by Plan Bay Area will increase, not decrease. Plan Bay Area's proposed "solutions" for Marin County could produce 2.5 times the GHG emissions of single family home development and three times the GHG emissions of attached, townhouse development.

The plan's conclusion that Transit Oriented Development (TOD) reduces GHG emissions is questionable.

The methodologies used in the draft EIR should be reviewed independently. What primary research on real-world TOD projects, as opposed to simulated scenarios and computer models based on assumptions, were used to assess the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the draft EIR conclusions?

As presented, Plan Bay Area and its environmental review fail to inform the public, elected leaders and key decisions-makers as to Plan Bay Area's true economic, social, and environmental impacts.

Residents have been bombarded with pro-Plan Bay Area material. I encourage residents to read the "other side" at www.CitizenMarin.org

Linda Pfeifer is a member of the Sausalito City Council.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Good reason for questions

It is interesting that the city of San Rafael is questioning past decisions made regarding their two Priority Development Areas.

At the May 6 City Council meeting, Mayor Gary Phillips asked city planning chief Paul Jensen how the PDAs were selected in 2008 because he (Phillips) and three of the council members were not in office at that time.

Jensen said he didn't know either because he wasn't the planner, but he did state that the city saw an opportunity to obtain grant money and so designated those two sites as PDAs.

The mayor directed staff to form an ad hoc committee to revisit these PDAs, particularly the one at the Civic Center to make sure they still make sense.

Perhaps the county needs to do the same and revisit the "potential" PDAs, particularly for Marinwood, before they are moved into final "planned" status, especially due to the recent concerns of the residents regarding the potential negative impacts on the schools and traffic from the future Marinwood Village high-density housing project.

However, the county will tell everyone not to worry because: no developer has submitted an application for a project at Marinwood Plaza, and because there isn't a PDA in this area.

County officials can try to hide behind their technicalities but everyone knows that non-profit Bridge Housing is on the verge of submitting an application for a high-density — 100 units — housing project and if you look at the websites for the Association of Bay Area Governments and the county, you will clearly see the outlined PDA for Marinwood.

As soon as this PDA is moved to "planned" status, then the carrot of the grant money will kick in to further urbanize a once quiet suburban community.

Carol Brandt, San Rafael

5. Second halfof 5/26 column by Dick Spotswood


LAST WEEK, I reported about the ongoing war between New York's Westchester County and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It's centered on a voluntary compliance agreement that Westchester's prior and now-defeated county executive inked after

HUD filed suit, claiming the county's zoning practices were racially discriminatory.


The column referenced concerns that Marin could be the "next Westchester" to face a similar "enforcement" action. Some claim that HUD's strategy is an attempt to effectively federalize local zoning to meet its social goals.

To understand the linkage, go back to Nov. 29, 2010. On that afternoon, Judy Arnold, in her capacity as president of Marin's Board of Supervisors, appeared at the IJ editorial board to first inform the paper that within 24 hours county supervisors intended to sign their own voluntary compliance agreement with HUD.

It's likely that Marin brought HUD's attention on itself for failure to adhere to HUD's then-reasonable guidelines to "affirmatively promote fair housing."

Eager to get the issue behind them, Marin supervisors, with the bare minimum legal notice, unanimously approved the settlement agreement with HUD.

Officially, HUD's San Francisco regional office says such concerns over mandated zoning changes are premature.

Like Westchester, the county is currently working with HUD to complete an "Analysis of Impediments" of those issues, including residential zoning that might obstruct HUD's demands that Marin and its 11 cities "affirmatively" pursue the agency's new and far more aggressive definition of "fair housing."

Readers should form their own conclusions by reading details of the Marin-HUD compliance agreement.


Columnist Dick Spotswood of Mill Valley now shares his views on local politics twice weekly in the IJ. His email address is spotswood@comcast.net. Read his musings at http://blogs.marinij.com/spotswood