Transformative 30-Year Bay Area Planning And Transportation Plan Gains Approval

An opponent of Plan Bay Area speaks before the joint meeting of regional government bodies in charge of implementing the 30-year planning initiative approved Thursday night in Oakland.
PHOTO/Steven Tavares

PLAN BAY AREA | After years of discussion and fiery dissent from Bay Area conservatives, a regional housing and transportation project, both massive in scope and funding, was passed Thursday night in a marathon meeting lasting into the early morning hours.

The Plan Bay Area project hopes to transform cities in its nine counties over the next 30 years into a more environmentally-friendly, transit-oriented region featuring high-density housing closer to urban center. Opponents of the plan have consistently argued the regional government bodies in charge of implementing the initiative—the Association of bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)—have attempted to limit dissent and presented a one-sided version of the plans benefits and shortcomings.

Another opponent who earlier serenaded officials
with an anti-government song again registers her
protest of Plan Bay Area. PHOTO/Steven Tavares

In the East Bay, only Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty and Pleasanton Mayor Jerry Thorne, both who represent the Tri Valley, voted against Plan Bay Area. Thorne was elected last year primarily on his vociferous opposition to the plan, while Haggerty has advocated putting the issue to voters.

Thursday night’s meeting in downtown Oakland featured nearly 200 public speakers who packed the large ballroom at the Oakland Convention Center. Many jeered public officials for their support of the plan. Former congressional candidate Chris Pareja and others organized caravans from different points of the Bay Area Thursday to speak out against Plan Bay Area.

Roberta Allen, one of those who bused in highlighted a common refrain by some conservative speakers who believe Plan Bay Area will infringe on their right to live in single-family dwellings and commute however and whenever they please. “We chose to live in certain areas for certain reasons,” she said. “I don’t want to live in stack-and-pack housing. I want my garden and my car.”

Ezra Rapport, the executive director of ABAG, and others, says the plan does none of those things and denies it amounts to some type of grand social experiment in the Bay Area, as some contend. “The plan is not radical. It is incremental,” Rapport said Thursday, while admitting he hopes to achieve greater consensus on the plan as it evolves in the future.

Housing and transportation advocates in the Greater Bay Area, however, laud the plan for attempting to limit sprawl and getting residents out of their cars and onto public transportation.

Stephanie Reyes told ABAG/MTC commissioners she recently moved into new high-density housing at the former Bay Meadows Racetrack in San Mateo and looks forward to riding the train to work. David Pepper, who described himself as a public health advocate in Alameda County said residents need to eschew cars and fight the growing problem of obesity. “We’re fat. We’re lazy and we are suffering the ravages,” he said to guffaws from opponents in the audience.

The final resolution adopted Thursday night includes goals for improving the region’s transportation systems and locating areas to increase housing densities to accommodate the Bay Area’s growing population by 2040. It hopes to lower greenhouse emissions 7 percent by 2020 and 15 percent by 2035. Most importantly, it will center 80 percent of the region’s new housing be located in centrally-located transportation hubs and two-thirds of job growth through 2040.

Some commissioners from outlying and more conservative areas of the Bay Area had received pressure from constituents to clearly define the plan not supersede local general plans and land use policies. Those concerns were included in the final legislation. An amendment offered by San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener and minutely discussed and approved as the clock passed midnight will also allocate 80 percent of the state’s potential proceeds from cap-and-trade into the plan.

Although many opponents of Plan Bay Area were not optimistic the plan would be rejected Thursday, a nascent, but unfunded drive to potentially file a lawsuit against Plan Bay Area is still being quietly planned.

Categories: affordable housing, Bay Area, environment, Ezra Rapport, high density housing, Jerry Thorne, MTC, Oakland, Plan Bay Area, planning, Pleasanton, Scott Haggerty, transportation

11 replies

  1. Love the plan!


  2. Agree. No concerns here. Im happy they at least have a plan. Where will we put all these people in the future with TOD planning? Shame on Haggerty for pandering.


  3. Sorry. Without planning.


  4. Sounds like the Tri-Valley is scared to live with “those people.”


  5. Regional Plans which appear to ignore the realties of local govt. control over zoning and land use will not result in the types of TOD influenced project approvals needed to implement the plan. The ideas incorporated are not new but restatements of ideas promulgated in the 70's and 80's. Higher density/mixed uses and infill has taken hold in some communities (Oakland, Walnut Creek, SF, San Jose) to mention a few, but the need and desire for SFR should not be ignored. We are more than young childless, high income professionals in the bay area.


  6. Based on my knowledge of MTC, political appointees, with and few people of color or folks who represent the broad cultural and economic spectrum of the bay area were an active part of the planning process. It would be great if the process had been more inclusive. The process was flawed and should have represented more than the philosophical bent of the elitist traditional bay area planner (young, white, middle class, Berkeley graduate).


  7. Is there really any such a thing as private property anymore? With so much public regulation there's nothing private about it. If existing regulations don't outright dictate what a property owner must do with their land, the economic burdens these regulations create do. The costs associated with existing land development/building regulations make it impractical to build a single family home on a traditional 5000-sq-ft lot in this area anymore. You won't find any developer wanting to do this these days. Developers who want to turn a profit want to develop as densely as they can get away with. So why the need for this plan? It's to further justify the taking of private properties that are deemed underutilized. Eventually everyone here will wind up only “owning” air space ruled by some association that'll control everything down to the color of your walls. All hail Big Brother.


  8. A little wager: this never comes to fruition-may pass, but never implemented-a joke my good buddies-Tony Santos


  9. This is TOD strategy–I love it.


  10. Funny how San Leandro's TOD strategy page showed existing single family residences.

    Not anymore. Ha!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: