Association of
Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay Conservation and Development Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Preserving the Bay Area's quality
of life through collaborative planning

Final EIR Chapters

0.0  Table of Contents

1.0  Chapter 1 – Introduction

2.0  Chapter 2 –  Revisions to the Draft EIR

3.0  Chapter 3 – Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR (Update)

3.1  Master Responses

3.2  Agency Comments

3.3  Agency Responses

3.4  Organization Comments (Update)

3.5  Organization Responses (Update)

3.6  Individual Comments Part 1

3.6  Individual Comments Part 2

3.6  Individual Comments Part 3

3.7  Individual Responses (Update)

3.8  EIR Hearings Oral Comments

3.9  EIR Hearings Responses

3.10 Plan Hearings Comments on the EIR

3.11 Plan Hearings Responses

3.12 Written Comments Submitted at Plan Hearings on the EIR

3.13 Written Comments Submitted at Plan Hearings Responses

Appendix A Glossary

Appendix B Supplemental Technical Information

Appendix C Attachments from Agency Comments

Appendix D Attachments from Organization Comments

Appendix E Attachments from Individual Comments part 1

Appendix E Attachments from Individual Comments part 2

Appendix E Attachments from Individual Comments part 3

 


 

Draft Environmental Impact Report (Full report, 179 MB)

Draft EIR Chapters

0.0 Cover, Intro and Executive Summary

Part One: Introduction and Study Approach

1.1 Introduction and Study Approach
1.2 Overview of the Proposed Plan Bay Area

Part Two: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

2.0 Introduction and Study Approach
2.1 Transportation
2.2 Air Quality
2.3 Land Use and Physical Development
2.4 Energy
2.5 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
2.6 Noise
2.7 Geology and Seismicity
2.8 Water Resources
2.9 Biological Resources
2.10 Visual Resources
2.11 Cultural Resources
2.12 Public Utilities and Facilities
2.13 Hazards
2.14 Public Services and Recreation

Part Three: Alternative and CEQA-Required Conclusions

3.1 Alternatives to the Proposed Plan
3.2 CEQA Required Conclusions
4 Bibliography and EIR Preparers

Appendices

Appendix A: Notice of Prepartion
Appendix B1: Agency and Public Interest Group Comments
Appendix B2: Citizen Comments
Appendix B3: Comments not on the EIR
Appendix B4: Scoping Meeting Transcripts
Appendix C: Transportation Projects in Each EIR Alternative (Revised 4-10-13)
Appendix D: Scoping Comments on Alternatives
Appendix E: Air Quality Analysis Methodolgy
Appendix F: Geology
Appendix G: Water Resources
Appendix H: Biological Resources Special Status Species Table H-1
Appendix I: Hazards
End Cover

Related Material

April 2013

Presentation from Draft EIR Public Hearings (PDF)

Transcript of 4-16-13 EIR Public Hearing, Oakland (PDF)

Transcript of 4-16-13 EIR Public Hearing, San Rafael (PDF)

Transcript of 4-17-13 EIR Public Hearing, San Jose (PDF)

June 2012

ABAG and MTC are required to analyze the environmental impacts of the land use scenarios and transportation investments that will be considered for Plan Bay Area. The process began with a series of five meetings to gather public input.

Presentation: Plan Bay Area Environmental Impact Report Scoping Meetings (PDF)

Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Plan Bay Area (PDF)

Under the law known as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), MTC and ABAG must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to inform citizens and decision makers of potential environmental impacts that could result from implementing Plan Bay Area. The EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives, identifies the environmentally superior alternative, and recommends measures to mitigate the impacts of the selected alternative.

The EIR process began with a series of public meetings in June 2012 where Bay Area citizens were invited to comment on the scope and content of the environmental information to be evaluated. Discussion topics included:

MTC and ABAG will study five EIR alternatives. These alternatives are defined by explicit land use and transportation policies and will be evaluated using an integrated regional modeling system comprised of the UrbanSim spatial economic/land use model and the MTC travel model.

The five proposed EIR alternatives are as follows:

  1. The No Project alternative begins with the 2010 built environment and assumes, through 2040, the continuation of currently-adopted general plans.  The transportation network adds all committed projects to a representation of the 2010 transportation system.  CEQA requires the examination of a no project alternative.
  2. The Jobs-Housing Connection, or “Project”, alternative pairs a land development pattern in which 80 percent of household growth and 66 percent of the job growth are located in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) with the Preferred Transportation Investment Strategy.  MTC and ABAG approved the land use and transportation element of this scenario in May 2012.  The UrbanSim model will be used to adequately recreate the Jobs-Housing Connection land development pattern through land use policies.
  3. The Transit Priority Focus alternative will evaluate the potential for greater development in Transit Priority Project (TPP) areas and consequently less development intensity in PDAs than Alternative 2. Senate Bill 375 explicitly defines TPPs, which are types and locations of developments that the State would like to see occur.  This scenario includes fees on development in regionally-inefficient locations that would be imposed by other regional agencies or local governments. In addition, this alternative will make adjustments to the transportation network by exchanging funds identified in the Preferred Transportation Investment Strategy for arterial signal coordination and transit capital rehabilitation projects in order to make investments in AC Transit and BART.
  4. The Enhanced Network of Communities alternative is titled and informed by input from the business community. This alternative will be based on the land use pattern previously identified in “Current Regional Plans/Projections 2011.” However, it seeks to eliminate the net daily importing of workers to the region.  Thus, it has a higher number of residents and housing units than the other alternatives. Similar to the Jobs-Housing Connection alternative, it assumes significant land use policies need to be implemented by regional and local authorities, including substantial subsidies in PDAs and other areas (except no new development fees), as well as the Preferred Transportation Investment Strategy. In addition, this alternative would clarify that the OneBayArea Grant funding be conditioned on receiving jurisdiction identifying and eliminating or reducing local regulatory constraints to achieving the jobs and housing development as envisioned in PDAs.
  5. The Environment, Equity, and Jobs alternative is titled and designed with input from Public Advocates, Urban Habitat, and TransForm; this alternative seeks to maximize affordable housing in opportunity areas outside of the PDA framework. It seeks growth in both urban and suburban areas.  The suburban growth is supported by increased transit service to Communities of Concern, which is funded by transferring funds identified in the Preferred Transportation Investment Strategy for arterial signal priority and transit capital rehabilitation projects.

Under SB 375, The California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, parts of Plan Bay Area may be eligible for a streamlined version of the environmental review process. These include projects and programs that are consistent with the land use designation, density, intensity and policies of Plan Bay Area, as well as certain types of development projects as defined by SB 375.