Tonight on State of the Bay, we’ll discuss the potential Oakland A’s move to Las Vegas with the “Bay Area Sports guy,” Steve Berman of The Athletic. He’ll also share his latest analysis of the Warriors/Kings playoff series, the state of the Giants, and more.
Plus, we’ll talk about a new report on preparing the Bay Area for rising sea levels, with an estimate that it will cost a staggering one hundred and ten billion dollars. We’ll dig into the feasibility of this. Guests will include:
- Dana Brechwald, Assistant Planning Director for Climate Adaptation at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, or, BCDC.
- Adrian Covert, Senior Vice President of Public Policy for the Bay Area Council, or BAC.
Finally, we’ll start our series “Have you met”…where we talk to Bay Area folks that we think you should know. So have you met Chris Chatmon? Find out why you should.
What would you like to ask our guests? Post a comment here, tweet us @StateofBay, send an email to stateofthebay@kalw.org or leave a voicemail at (415) 580-0718.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. You can also call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show.
A major new piece of housing and climate legislation was introduced in California this month, and it’s been a long time coming. AB 68 (Ward) finally sets forth a powerful template for where the state should encourage new housing and where it should avoid planning for more, based on climate and environmental hazards. It represents the culmination of a long-sought alliance between major housing advocates like California YIMBY and conservation groups like The Nature Conservancy.
So where should the state build more housing, according to AB 68? It defines those places in the following “climate smart” ways:
- In a high or moderate income area, as defined by state affordable housing tax credit maps, to prioritize more housing in high-opportunity and well-resourced areas and minimize displacement of low-income renters
- Within 1/2 mile of major transit or an area where residents drive below-average distances on a per capita average, in order to reduce overall driving miles in the state
- Within a mile of a cluster of at least six types of locations like restaurants, bars, coffee shops, supermarkets, parks and hardware stores, among others, to ensure rural and exurban infill areas aren’t left out, as well as places without access to transit.
If a housing development is proposed in these areas, the project gets “ministerial” approval (i.e. exempt from environmental review), and a local government cannot limit the development beyond any of the following:
- Setback greater than four feet from any side
- Height limit less than 50 feet
- Maximum lot coverage of less than 60 percent
- Minimum parking requirement
- Floor area ratios (i.e. the building’s total floor area in relation to the size of the lot/parcel, indicating overall density) less than 1.0. to 1.5, depending on criteria met
There are additional requirements to protect existing affordable housing and ensure consistency with SB 375 plans, among others.
And where should planning for denser development in the state be limited? AB 68 describes these “climate risk lands” as within high-severity wildfire and flood zones, or having a sea level rise risk according to the latest science. They also must be not currently zoned for housing or have existing urbanized communities on them.
In these areas, local governments cannot increase existing housing densities or allow subdivisions, and they cannot approve any extension of water or sewer services, unless certain exceptions can be met, such as an approved housing element and a statement of housing necessity, among other conditions.
In short, AB 68 finally provides the much-needed, legislatively endorsed map for where the state should grow and where it should avoid putting more people into harm’s way. If successful, AB 68 will arguably be the single biggest climate bill that the state has passed in over a decade, given the centrality of land use and housing to meeting our climate goals. The fight to pass it will not be easy, but AB 68 has a powerful coalition to support it, along with a well-conceived solution to the state’s urgent and related challenges of climate and housing.
LA Metro Rail — the sprawling network of light rail and subway lines criss-crossing Los Angeles County since the first line opened in 1993 — is facing an existential challenge. Just like other transit agencies around the country, ridership since the pandemic has plummeted, still around just two-thirds of its pre-COVID peak.
What can be done to fix it? In my new Los Angeles Times op-ed today, I offer a number of fixes. Most of it involves building more apartments and compact housing within walking distance of the Metro Rail stations, which would ensure the system isn’t reliant just on white collar office workers who are unlikely to return to work full time.
But the agency also needs to address its crime and personal safety issues, which can be partly helped by having more riders. State leaders should consider these needs if they decide to take action to rescue LA Metro and other California transit agencies facing a “fiscal cliff” as federal COVID funds expire.
I’ve been documenting Metro Rail since before the publication of my book Railtown (UC Press) in 2014. And there’s no doubt that the ridership and fiscal crisis the system now faces is the greatest in its three-decade history. Hopefully these recommendations can help the region make the most of this multi-billion dollar investment, fulfilling the economic, environmental and quality-of-life promise of rail in Los Angeles.
Join us tonight for State of the Bay’s inaugural “climate special.” We’ll hear about new and proposed climate legislation in California, discuss Bay Area cleantech startups and enjoy climate comedy.
First, we’ll talk with State Senator Josh Becker, representing the residents of California’s 13th Senate District, about climate legislation in California.
Then we’ll hear how Bay Area companies are innovating to create a cleaner, greener future for our state and beyond, even as some tech companies are choosing to move away from this region. Joining us will be Lora Kolodny, tech and climate reporter for CNBC, and Abe Yokell, managing partner and co-founder of Congruent Ventures.
And finally, we’ll laugh along with comedians Brad Einstein and Kyle Niemer, members of the inaugural climate comedy cohort created by Generation180 and the Center for Media & Social Impact. They’re goal is to inject humor into the climate change conversation.
What would you like to ask our guests? Post a comment here, tweet us @StateofBay, send an email to stateofthebay@kalw.org or leave a voicemail at (415) 580-0718.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. You can also call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show.
California and other jurisdictions have been moving to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a climate solution. Yet some pro-sprawl interests question whether this is necessary, given the advent of electric vehicles. It’s fair to ask: if all vehicles are “zero emission,” do we really need to care any more about how much driving we do, in terms of the climate impact?
The answer is unequivocally yes, and here are the top five reasons:
- Gas cars will be with us for a long time. As the California Air Resources Board noted in the 2022 scoping plan appendix, even with a goal to have only zero-emission vehicles sold in the state by 2035, approximately 30 percent of light-duty vehicles on the road in 2045 will still burn fossil fuels. The less of that we burn through reduced driving, the better.
- Clean electricity generation still has a carbon cost. Even if we move to 100% electric vehicles, that energy has to come from somewhere. And if it’s large-scale solar or wind facilities, they come with their own energy inputs to manufacture, as well as land use impacts to deploy. For example, some studies conservatively estimate it takes 10 acres of solar panels to generate one megawatt of electricity, an hour of which could potentially power about 3,500 driving miles collectively. Using that land for electricity and not food production, carbon sequestration, or open space comes with significant climate costs.
- Low-VMT development patterns reduce carbon pollution from buildings. As CARB noted, infill development (as opposed to sprawl served by publicly-subsidized highways) uses an estimated 10 to 20 percent less residential energy, due to smaller unit types, sizes, and locations — not to mention reduced water use from less outdoor irrigation requirements, which come with their own energy footprint to ship and treat the water.
- Reducing sprawl and VMT preserves open space and working lands as a carbon sink. To achieve carbon neutrality by mid century or sooner, we’re going to need to bury carbon. Natural and working lands are a key part of that equation, as they provide opportunities to bury carbon in soils through natural processes. Developing these lands instead for high VMT sprawl can permanently foreclose that opportunity.
- Electric vehicles come with their own carbon footprint and pollution costs. While dramatically better for the environment than fossil fuel-powered cars, EVs still require significant energy to manufacture, and their use on the road can create particulate matter pollution through wear on the tires and brakes and by kicking up particulate matter from the road. They also require large-scale mining of lithium, graphite and other minerals, which creates local environmental and energy impacts.
I could also mention non-climate reasons for wanting to reduce VMT, such as the equity benefits of building more housing closer to jobs and services in order to reduce transportation costs that disproportionately hurt low-income residents. But I’ll stick with the climate benefits for now.
Overall, we do need to electrify 100% of our transportation modes from a climate perspective. But we also need to simultaneously reduce the demand for transportation by building better and smarter communities in walkable, affordable, and transit-friendly areas.
Without that reduced driving, our climate goals will be much harder to achieve.
Climate change news is often quite depressing, with frequent stories on the science and ever-worsening impacts. What gets lost in this otherwise important coverage is the amazing and inspiring tales of innovation and solutions happening all around us, in every sector and walk of life.
That’s why Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE), in partnership with the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, launched the podcast Climate Break, which tells stories of climate solutions in less than two minutes. Climate Break features interviews with compelling scientists, innovators, organizers, and leaders discussing breakthroughs, new approaches, and examples of progress on climate change. And it’s almost entirely student run.
Over the past two years, we have recorded interviews with climate leaders like former California governor Jerry Brown and Arizona governor (and former Homeland Security secretary) Janet Napolitano, youth activists protesting fossil fuels, corporate leaders pushing for proactive climate lobbying, and entrepreneurs building clean energy facilities in tribal communities and retrofitting internal combustion engine vehicles in Egypt into electric models, among many other solutions.
And as of this year, a new episode of the podcast airs every Thursday on NPR-affiliate KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco, offering listeners “climate solutions in a hurry.” In fact, you can tune in or stream live today at 7:19am and 3:48pm PT to hear our newest episode. We hope to expand to more radio stations soon.
For more on the podcast and its origins, Berkeley Law News profiled me and CLEE Project Climate Director Ken Alex, who had the idea for the program. Ken also serves as the show’s executive producer, along with CLEE senior climate fellow Chandra Middleton, who supervises the student team that helps produce the clips and draft additional information on each topic on our website.
So if you’re looking for inspiring solutions to address the climate crisis in less than two minutes, subscribe to Climate Break today on our website or wherever you get your podcasts!
Tonight on State of the Bay, we’ll interview Josh Koehn, senior reporter for the The San Francisco Standard, on the scandal plaguing San Francisco’s homeless services.
Then we’ll chat with Michael Coren, Climate Coach columnist for The Washington Post, about how to live lighter on the planet. Bring us your questions about anything from cloth diapers to green funerals!
Finally, we’ll hear from Joslyn Rose Lyons, director of the documentary film Stand, on the price paid by an NBA player for not standing for the national anthem.
What would you like to ask our guests? Post a comment here, tweet us @StateofBay, send an email to stateofthebay@kalw.org or leave a voicemail at (415) 580-0718.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. You can also call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show.
Trucks are by far the largest source of air pollution from vehicles in California, generating about 80% of carcinogenic diesel soot and 70% of smog-causing pollution, according to the Air Resources Board. And their impacts are unequal: communities of color and low-income communities situated near ports, distribution centers and warehouses — particularly in the Inland Empire — are more likely to bear the health costs.
As part of KQED Forum’s “In Transit” series this morning at 10am PT, I’ll discuss the scope of the problem and new efforts by the state to decarbonize the trucking industry. Joining me on the panel will be:
- Rachel Uranga, reporter covering transportation and mobility, Los Angeles Times
- Amparo Muñoz, former policy director, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) – and co-author of the letter urging Gov. Newsom to “Declare a Public Health State of Emergency in the Inland Empire”
Tune in or stream live!
Tonight on State of the Bay, we’ll talk to Emeryville Mayor John Bauters about how his city is able to meet its housing requirements, as well as about his priorities as chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Board and the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
We’ll also host a debate on whether San Francisco should ban e-collars for dogs. Are they abusive, or do they actually give dogs more freedom? We’ll hear the arguments for and against e-collars with Ren Volpe of Shock Free SF and Founder/CEO of GoDogPro.com and Michael Ellis of Michael Ellis School for Dog Trainers.
Finally, State of the Bay’s guest host Sarah Ladipo Manyika talks about her new book Between Starshine and Clay: Conversations from the African Diaspora.
What would you like to ask our guests? Post a comment here, tweet us @StateofBay, send an email to stateofthebay@kalw.org or leave a voicemail at (415) 580-0718.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. You can also call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show.
