ABAG/MTC

Drawing of a proposed string of high-density, bike- friendly, mass transit-oriented developments along a stretch of El Camino Real between Daly City and San Jose.

A sweeping “green” vision for the future of transit and housing in the Bay Area inched a step closer to realization in Oakland last night.

Officials from the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission voted on portions of Plan Bay Area, a 25-year strategy for land use and transportation for the Bay Area’s growing population, which is expected to surpass nine million by 2040.

The plan also proposes ways to meet the state’s greenhouse gas reduction target of 15% by 2035 outlined under SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act – namely by encouraging high-density housing near transit hubs and along corridors.

“What this strategy is about is trying to be more efficient in our use of land,” MTC executive director Steve Heminger told KQED’s Cy Musiker before the meeting, “and also trying to be more cost-effective with our transit investment. As repeated studies have shown, if people live near BART they’re much more likely to use it than if they have to drive a long distance to get there.”

But the meeting was not without its share of contention. Some in attendance viewed the plan as an example of bureaucratic overreach. One resident called the document a “utopian masterplan.” Another said it was “quasi-dictatorial” and “collectivist.”

Others in attendance, such as Carl Anthony, co-founder of Oakland-based Breakthrough Communities, said the plan does not go far enough to address long-standing historical inequality in housing and access to transit across the region. His group was part of a larger coalition of social and environmental justice groups in attendance called Six Wins for Social Equity.

“Many people are very disappointed,” Anthony told me. A high-profile figure in the Bay Area environmental justice movement, Anthony said that among other things, the current version of the plan does not take public health into consideration, nor does it ensure that proposed investments in high-density housing won’t displace poor communities near transit hubs.

“We want to make sure the public participation we’ve invested for the last 18 months means something,” he said.

A 2011 analysis of the goals of SB 375 by the Public Policy Institute of California suggested that policy should make driving more expensive to get people out of their cars, and that it’s just as important to co-locate transit with jobs, as with housing.

A final draft of the Bay Area plan is expected later this summer, said Napa County commissioner and president of the Association of Bay Area Governments, Mark Luce. From there, he said, completion of the Environmental Impact Report is expected to take about six months.

Former military housing would be demolished to make way for an ambitious makeover of Treasure Island. (Photo: Alison Hawkes)

The massive redevelopment of Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay has cleared all regulatory hurdles and is now officially green-lighted for construction as early as next year. But the project’s eco-credentials are still in dispute.

As San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee signed off on the project last week, environmental groups were pondering a lawsuit. They’re calling the $1.5 billion project to remake the former military base too car-centric to be labeled “sustainable.” And they say housing as many as 19,000 people on bay fill is too risky with the triple threat of earthquakes, tsunamis, and sea level rise.

“We should rename this not ‘Treasure Island’ but ‘Fantasy Island’,” said former San Francisco supervisor Aaron Peskin on a recent episode of KQED’s Forum.

Peskin joined environmental groups — the Sierra Club, Wild Equity Institute, Golden Gate Audubon, and Arc Ecology – and island resident Kenneth Masters to call for further environmental review. They claim that city officials violated the California Environmental Quality Act because the project description lacked enough details for a thorough review of environmental impacts, among other complaints. The city contends otherwise.

To assuage critics about traffic, city officials and the project developer, Lennar Corp., lowered the number of parking spaces on the island by 470. But critics still complain that 10,680 spaces – one per household, which is more than San Francisco – is still too many.

“Cars are so 20^th Century,” said Rebecca Evans of the Sierra Club at recent packed meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. “We really haven’t gotten away from automobiles.”

The environmental groups say that all those cars will jam an already congested Bay Bridge and prevent public buses from achieving speedy service for island commuters. The major public transit feature, a high-speed ferry to downtown San Francisco, will run every 50 minutes — far too infrequently for busy commuters, critics contend. Roughly half the island residents are expected to commute by car.

Photo: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP

The project still has plenty of supporters because other aspects read like a laundry list in sustainable design: solar power, plenty of open space, an organic farm, cluster development, and energy efficiency. For those groups opposed, taking the city to court may be the only other option for a do-over.

“We are fundamentally interested in litigating this issue,” said Saul Bloom, executive director of Arc Ecology, one of the groups that was party to the appeal. “Nothing is off the table.”

But for cash-strapped non-profits going to court is a tough choice. They have 30 days from the time of city approval to make a decision.