Comment Log Display

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**