First Name | Michael |
---|---|
Last Name | Rawson |
Email Address | mrawson@pilpca.org |
Affiliation | The Public Interest Law Project |
Subject | PILP Comments on Draft Plan Bay Area |
Comment | Please find summarized below and attached, detailed comments from the Public Interest Law Project on the draft Plan Bay Area. Please contact us with any questions or concerns, either at the e-mail address above, or contact Craig Castellanet at ccastellanet@pilpca.org. Thank you. ----------- June 26, 2013 Clerk of the Board Air Resources Board 1001 I Street Sacramento, California RE: Air Resources Board Hearing on Draft Plan Bay Area Dear Members of the Board: The Public Interest Law Project is a state support center for local legal services programs serving lower income households in California. We write on behalf of individuals in need of affordable housing in the Bay Area in safe, healthy and “high opportunity” neighborhoods with access to affordable transit and proximate to good jobs. The draft Plan Bay Area undermines rather than maximizing social equity by steering of 70% of new residential development to Preferred Development Area’s (PDAs) self-nominated by local governments rather than also to other high opportunity areas with similar access to transportation and employment opportunities. This skewed allocation, drawn from the legally flawed methodology used by ABAG in its proposed Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA), violates state Housing Element Law and state and federal civil rights laws. Its incorporation in the draft Plan deprives the Board of the basic information necessary to approve the Plan. Accordingly, unless ABAG/MTC amends the Plan to incorporate an adequate methodology and adjusted RHNA, the Board must reject the Plan pursuant to Government Code §65080(b)(2)(J)(ii). The Legal Deficiencies Deprive the ARB of the Bases to Accept or Reject the Plan We and several local, regional and state organizations, brought the serious deficiencies to the attention of ABAG, MTC, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) almost a year ago in a detailed letter, and that letter is attached to this submission. Both HCD and HUD responded, notifying ABAG of serious legal inconsistencies of the methodology and allocation. Those letters are also attached to this submission and as established in the most recent letter from HCD—sent to ABAG just last week—ABAG has yet to bring the RHNA allocation into compliance with the law. Government Code §65080(b)(2)(B) provides that an SCS must consider state housing goals, and California’s state housing goals reside in California’s Housing Element Law (Government Code §§65580-65589.8). The Housing Element Law provides that each local government must make adequate provision for its share of the regional housing needs of all economic segments of the community. And it makes clear that the regional Council of Governments (in this case ABAG) must distribute the housing needs according to objective factors and not on local government’s voluntarily electing to accept an allocation. Government Code §65080(b)(2)(J)(ii) in turn establishes that the ARB’s acceptance or rejection of an SCS must be based on a determination that the SCS would achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established by the Board. It is not possible per se for the Board to make this determination when the submitted SCS is predicated on an illegal methodology and regional housing needs allocation. Any determination would necessarily be arbitrary, lacking sufficient basis. **PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED FILE FOR PILP'S COMPLETE COMMENTS** |
Attachment | www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attach/6-abagmtc2013-WipQPwZrVXZXDlU2.pdf |
Original File Name | PILP Comment Ltr- Plan Bay Area 6-26-13.pdf |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2013-06-26 11:05:51 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.