Regional Remembering New Solano

Transit Victory! Mark County Housing

Weinberger Report
PAGE 1 PAGE 2 PAGE 4

PROTECTING OPEN SPACE AND PROMOTING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

T H E B AY A R E A’ S L A N D C O N S E RVAT I O N A N D U R B A N P L A N N I N G N O N P R O F I T SAN FRANCISCO ■ FA I R F I E L D ■ SAN JOSE ■ S A N TA R O S A ■ WA L N U T C R E E K FA L L 2 0 0 5

VOTE NO ON SPRAWL
Sprawl initiatives on November ballot
JEREMY MADSEN
the Castle Companies, Discov-
FIELD DIRECTOR
ery Builders owned by Pitts-
burg’s Seeno family, and the

T
he November 8th elec-
tion is just around the
corner. Unfortunately,
sprawl developers and oppo-
nents of smart growth have
gone on the offensive this
year. Four ballot measures in
the East Bay aim to open up
thousands of acres of currently
protected land to sprawl devel-
opment. In the South Bay, in
a misguided attempt to “pre-
serve” the character of the city
of Cupertino, three measures
are on the ballot that would
seriously impede attempts to
do smart, attractive develop-
ment in Cupertino.
For those who oppose sprawl
and support smart growth,
November 2005 is the election
to simply vote NO.
PITTSBURG, ANTIOCH,
AND BRENTWOOD
Greenbelt Alliance is urg-
ing voters to vote NO on Mea-
sure P in Pittsburg, Measure
K in Antioch, and Measure L
in Brentwood. Together, these
measures would give sprawl
LIVERMORE
developers access to approxi-
Nunn family of developers.
Earlier this year, negotia-
tions to establish a new Contra
Costa County −wide growth
boundary broke down because
these sprawl developers, and
their allies on several City
Councils, insisted on opening
up thousands of acres of pro-
tected farmland and hillsides to
development. In the wake of the
failed negotiations, the sprawl
developers drew up individual
UGBs for Antioch, Brentwood,
and Pittsburg that would give
them access to the land they are
after. The developers then hired Sprawl is on this November’s ballot: in Antioch, Pittsburg, Brentwood, and Livermore, sprawl developers are trying to
paid signature gatherers to col- expand Urban Growth Boundaries so they can pave over currently protected farmland, hillsides, and habitat.
lect the signatures required to
get the measures on the ballot
and had their friends on each
City Council voted the proposed
UGB into law. The UGB prevents Investing in Good
Growth: A Victory for
City Council rush the certifica- Livermore from expanding north
tion of the initiatives to ensure of Interstate 580.
each measure would be on To convince local voters to
November’s ballot.
If passed, the three measures
vote for the sprawl proposal that
it calls “Livermore Trails,” Pardee Effective Transit and
will mean the irreversible loss
of working farms and natural
areas—and far worse traffic for
Homes has already spent well
over $2 million and will likely
spend hundreds of thousands
Vibrant Communities
KATE O’HARA
all of Contra Costa County. more before election day.
REGIONAL ISSUES ORGANIZER
CUPERTINO

O
Livermore voters shouldn’t
mately 5,000 acres of farmlands Cupertino voters should vote ver the next 25 years, the Bay Area will grow by 1.7 million
be fooled by the deceptive
and hillsides in eastern Contra NO on Measures A, B, and C. people. Our quality of life in 2030 will depend on how we
claims made by Pardee
Costa County that are currently Measures A, B, and C would have plan for growth today.
Homes and should vote NO
off-limits to development. a chilling effect on compact,
on Measure D. Measure D is
Measures P, K, and L are attractive, smart growth devel- TRANSIT VILLAGES
being sold to voters as Urban
an attempt by Pardee Homes opment in Cupertino. The mea- One effective way to accommodate new growth is by creating
Growth Boundary (UGB) mea-
to get the voters of Livermore sures would, respectively, limit transit villages. Transit villages are vibrant, compact communities
sures. But unlike the numer-
to allow a subdivision of 2,450 building density to no more than with homes and shops near bus stops and train stations. Building
ous UGB measures around the
tract homes to be built outside 15 homes per acre, set a new these communities helps create homes for more people without
region that citizen activists have
the City’s UGB, on rolling hills limit on building heights of 36 paving the greenbelt.
worked hard to pass over the
and rare plant habitat north of feet, and require new buildings Building these communities also strengthens the transit sys-
last decade, these three mea-
Livermore. to be set back 35 feet from the tem. When it’s easy to walk to a bus or train, more people will take
sures are entirely the work of
This proposal comes less than street. These measures would in transit. According to a 2004 Caltrans study, people who live within
sprawl developers—including
three years after over 10,000 Liver- effect require new development a half-mile of transit stations are five times more likely to ride
more residents in Cupertino to be sprawl-style than people living farther away. More riders means more fares,
VOTE ON NOVEMBER 8TH! signed a petition
supporting the
development. and more fares means more frequent and reliable service—which
in turn encourages more people to ride.
City Measure Vote establishment These initiatives have the Unfortunately, transit stations are too often surrounded by
Antioch K No of a UGB for the potential to set a profoundly spread-out homes, seas of parking lots, and big-box stores. This
city. Because of negative precedent for how the type of land use wastes space and forces more development into
Brentwood L No the overwhelm- Bay Area grows. Fortunately, the greenbelt. It also wastes public funding, as it discourages
Cupertino A, B, C No ing support from voters in these cities can stop people from using transit, so more taxpayer dollars end up serv-
Livermore D No residents, in these greenbelt-gobbling mea- ing fewer people.
Pittsburg P No December 2002 sures in their tracks by voting
the Livermore NO on sprawl this fall. ■ continued on page 2

1
 MISSION
Remembering Mark Weinberger: To make the nine-county San

A Legacy of Land Protection

Francisco Bay Area a better
place to live by protecting the
region’s greenbelt and improv-
ing the livability of its cities and
ELIZABETH STAMPE nently protected;
towns. We work through public
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR defending West
policy development, advocacy,
Marin’s 60-acre

M
and education, in partnership
ark Weinberger, a San Francisco attorney who was a tireless minimum parcel
with diverse coalitions.
community and environmental advocate, and a good friend size, which helps
of Greenbelt Alliance, died recently at the age of 57. keep farming CENTRAL OFFICE
Mark’s career began 30 years ago with the California state viable; limiting
631 Howard Street, Suite 510
attorney general’s environmental unit. When that department development in
San Francisco, CA 94105
was eliminated, he and two co-workers started a new law firm Contra Costa
415-543-6771
together, based on a new idea—that it was possible to make a County’s Dough-
info@greenbelt.org
living representing communities and the environment instead e r t y Va l l e y ;
www.greenbelt.org
of representing sprawl developers. Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger keeping sprawl
continues to follow that principle today, helping Greenbelt Alli- development off SONOMA-MARIN OFFICE
ance to protect open space and promote livable communities lands near the 50 Santa Rosa Ave., Suite 307
throughout the Bay Area. Carmel River;

Photo: Liza Heider

Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Greenbelt Alliance had the opportunity to work with Mark Wein- and winning an 707-575-3661
berger on several campaigns to protect land around the region. agreement that daisypl@greenbelt.org
Several of these involved significant areas in the East Bay. In the resulted in the
early 1980s, Mark successfully halted a “clustering” policy in Alameda creation of the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park in Orange County. SOUTH BAY OFFICE
County, which would have allowed the subdivision of ranchlands. In Mark Weinberger’s legacy is inspiring. Greenbelt Alliance is grate- 1922 The Alameda, Suite 213
the mid-1980s, Mark won a lawsuit against the Hacienda Business ful to have had the opportunity to work with Mark, and is committed San Jose, CA 95126
Park in Pleasanton, and in 1991, he helped Greenbelt Alliance to win to continuing the work he was so passionate about. 408-983-0856
a lawsuit that ultimately kept sprawl development off scenic Pleas- For that reason, Greenbelt Alliance has created a Mark Wein- mbeasley@greenbelt.org
anton Ridge. In the early 1990s, Mark stopped developers’ efforts to berger Endowment Fund. This new fund will provide a long-term,
prevent a measure to protect Contra Costa County ridgelines from stable resource for the organization over the coming years. It will EAST BAY OFFICE
going on the ballot. Later, along with Greenbelt Alliance, he helped help ensure that Greenbelt Alliance can continue Mark Weinberger’s 1601 North Main St., Suite 105
with the creation of an Urban Growth Boundary in Livermore to legacy as a strong voice for the future of the Bay Area’s communities, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
protect farmland to the city’s south. working farms, and spectacular landscapes. 925-932-7776
Mark Weinberger won many other environmental victories over If you are interested in donating to the Mark Weinberger dreid@greenbelt.org
the years. These included preventing logging in an old-growth red- Endowment Fund, please contact Steve Van Landingham at
wood grove near Nicasio in Marin County, which was later perma- svanlandingham@greenbelt.org or 415-543-6771. ■ SOLANO-NAPA OFFICE
725 Texas Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
Effective Transit and Vibrant Communities CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 707-427-2308
info@greenbelt.org
With all the growth
expected in the Bay FUNDING FIRST CITIES TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Area, it makes sense TRANSIT PROJECTS UNDER NEW FROM MTC RECEIVE STATION
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT POLICY (MILLIONS) AREA PLAN FUNDING Officers
to start investing in a Michelle Yesney, President
solution to two of the Cities in eastern Zach Cowan, Vice President
BART: East Contra Costa Rail Extension (eBART) $390
region’s biggest chal- Contra Costa County Margaret Spaulding,
lenges—housing and Vice President
BART: Downtown Fremont to Warm Springs $678
transportation. And Betsy York, Vice President
that’s just what a new David Azevedo,
BART: Warm Springs to San Jose and Santa Clara $4,149 Santa Clara
Bay Area regional policy Secretary-Treasurer
will do. A campaign by AC Transit: Bus Rapid Transit through Berkeley, Oakland, and Nancy Adler • W. Anderson (Andy)
$167 San Leandro
Greenbelt Alliance, in San Leandro Barnes • Bob Berman • David
partnership with the Bomberger • Janet Byron • John
Caltrain: Downtown Extension and rebuilding Transbay Terminal $1,817 Chapman • Kristen Clements •
Transportation and
Land Use Coalition and Peter Cohen • Tina Duong • Volker
MUNI: 3rd Street Light Rail Phase 2, New Central Subway $694 Eisele • William D. Evers, Jr. • Mort
the Non-Profit Housing
Fleishhacker • Bud Johns • Robert
Association of Northern
Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit: Sonoma-Marin Rail $288 Santa Rosa E. Johnson • Vivian Kahn • Jon
California, has helped Kannegaard • Duane Kromm • Jake
to win approval of a Mackenzie • Jean McCown • Vicki
San Mateo County Transportation Authority: Dumbarton Rail $300 Menlo Park
cutting-edge new policy Moore • Cindy Rubin • Michele
that links transit funds Expanded Ferry Service 1: Berkeley, Alameda/Oakland/Harbor Stratton • Dee Swanhuyser • Laney
with local land-use $100 Thornton • George D. Tuttle •
Bay; South San Francisco to San Francisco
planning. Gary Zimmerman
Expanded Ferry Service 2: Alameda to South San Francisco;
Hercules, Antioch, Treasure Island, Redwood City, and Rich- $139 Staff
FUNDS FOR GOOD
mond to San Francisco Tom Steinbach, Executive Director
PLANNING
• Michele Beasley, South Bay Field
In July, the Metro- TOTAL $8,722 Representative • Chuck Binckley,
politan Transportation
Systems Coordinator • Julie
Commission (MTC),
Cummins, Education Program
the Bay Area’s regional transportation agency, create incentives for good local land-use plan- borhoods around stations. In the Bay Area, we
Coordinator • Natalie DuMont, Office
voted to use $8.7 billion in transit money to ning. To do this, MTC adopted a Regional haven’t connected transit and land use like
Manager • Miriam Kronberg, Director
Transit-Oriented Develop- this before; we’ve paid a heavy price for that
of Finance and Administration •
ment Policy (TOD). The mistake, because transit agencies need more
Photo by Evelyn Johnson, used with permission of the Fruitvale Development Corporation.

Anita Lalwani, Membership Assistant

new policy says new transit
projects will not be funded
until cities plan surrounding
neighborhoods that are filled
with homes and designed for
easy and safe walking and
biking. It will also help fund
the process of planning those
neighborhoods, which means
more local people can get
involved.
This policy is groundbreak-
ing because it links regional
transit funds to local land-
New regional investment in good planning around new train stations use plans and because it is
and bus lines will result in vibrant transit villages like this one around accompanied by real funds to
operating subsidies to make up for lost fares.
• Jeremy Madsen, Field Director
Halting the downward spiral of wasted land
• Kate O’Hara, Regional Issues
and wasted funding is an important victory
Organizer • Lopamudra Pal, Major
for the Bay Area’s future.
Gifts Associate • Daisy Pistey-Lyhne,
Sonoma-Marin Field Representative •
HOW IT WORKS
David Reid, East Bay Field Represen-
The new TOD policy will apply to new tran-
tative • Cheryl Scott, Education
sit extensions, which are happening in some
and Volunteer Assistant • Elizabeth
of the fastest-growing parts of the region,
Stampe, Communications Director •
including eastern Contra Costa County. Cit-
Kit Thomas, Bookkeeper • Steve Van
ies will have to create station area plans for
Landingham, Development Director •
the half-mile radius area around new sta-
Melissa Wright, Development Associate
tions before MTC releases regional funding
for building the transit lines. These station Founder:
area plans will have to include a minimum Dorothy Erskine (1896–1982)
PRINTED BY UNION LABOR ON RECYCLED PAPER

the Fruitvale BART station. support planning the neigh- continued on page 4

2
 A R O U N D T H E G R E E N B E LT
Stopping sprawl
and spurring smart
growth throughout
the Bay Area.
Here’s a quick update on the status of projects Green-
belt Alliance is working on throughout the region.
South Bay
(Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties)
MICHELE BEASLEY
SOUTH BAY FIELD REPRESENTATIVE
In San Jose, the planning process
for Coyote Valley, 3,500 acres at
the city’s southern edge, appears
to be going further off track.
Instead of creating a vibrant
new town with a mix of housing
and jobs, those planning Coyote
Valley’s future are now concen-
trating on how to spark any development in the Val-
ley—with sprawl-style housing being the most likely
candidate. Greenbelt Alliance is urging city leaders to
stop and refocus on crafting a smart growth plan.
Sargent Ranch, 6,500 acres of wild-
life habitat and rolling hills
south of Gilroy, is in the news
again. In an effort to develop
Sargent Ranch, the land’s owner
has teamed up with a local Indian
tribe. If the land is recognized as
tribal land, its development would not
be subject to state or local environmental
and planning laws. Congressman Mike Honda
(D-San Jose) is sponsoring legislation that
could start the complex process of getting Sar-
gent Ranch recognized as tribal land. Despite these
developments, Greenbelt Alliance will continue to
push for protection of Sargent Ranch.
In Gilroy, the City Council has given up an oppor-
tunity to join the Santa Clara County Open Space
Authority. Gilroy’s joining would have raised money
for the conservation of working farms and natural
areas in southern Santa Clara County. Unfortunately,
city leaders chose not to put the issue on the ballot,
saying a public vote would be too costly.
TAKE ACTION!
Join us at the next Coyote Valley Task Force meeting and speak
up in favor of smart growth. More information is available at
www.sanjoseca.gov/coyotevalley/.
East Bay
(Contra Costa and Alameda Counties)
DAVID REID
EAST BAY FIELD REPRESENTATIVE
In Livermore, Brentwood,
Antioch, and Pittsburg, devel-
opers are peddling initiatives
to expand suburban sprawl
into sensitive natural areas and
working farms. These measures
vary from place to place, but
they are all bought and paid for
by developers to change land-use policies so they can
increase their profits. (See story on page 1.)
While the community discussion over these ini-
tiatives was taking place, the Contra Costa Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) changed
its historic policy of upholding Contra Costa County’s
existing Urban Limit Line. Under state law, each
county in California is required to have a LAFCo,
which is responsible for regulating municipal bound-
ary changes within the county. The Contra Costa
LAFCo policy change is a significant blow to growth
management. Under the new policy, LAFCo could
well approve plans by cities to annex and develop
thousands of acres of land that for years has been
off-limits to development.
A draft East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP) has been released. This would establish
a designated area for development in east Contra
Costa County, and impose per-acre development fees
to help fund acquisition of sensitive lands elsewhere.
More information is available at www.cocohcp.org.
TAKE ACTION!
Volunteer to stop the developer-backed initiatives—join
efforts in San Francisco, Walnut Creek, Livermore, and east-
ern Contra Costa County. To volunteer, contact David Reid at
dreid@greenbelt.org or 925-932-7776.
Sonoma and Marin Counties
DAISY PISTEY-LYHNE
SONOMA-MARIN FIELD REPRESENTATIVE
The long process of updating
Sonoma County’s General Plan is
now firmly in the home stretch.
The plan will act as the County’s
blueprint for growth for the next 15
years. Greenbelt Alliance and our
local allies are analyzing both the
Draft General Plan and the Draft
Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) on the
plan. We will make
recommendations to
the Planning Com-
mission
and Board of
Supervisors
on how the
proposed plan
can be improved
to preserve
Sonoma County’s
scenic landscapes
and quality of life.
The city of Cloverdale
is also updating its General Plan. Greenbelt
Alliance is urging the City to establish an Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) during this update process.
Cloverdale is expected to increase its population by as
much as a third in the next 20 years. A UGB will help
manage that growth without sprawling outward onto
vineyards and forested hillsides.
In August, on the same day that the Indian casino
proposed for outside Rohnert Park’s UGB announced
a move inside the UGB, Sonoma State University
announced the purchase of land outside the city’s UGB,
over a mile from the campus. Unfortunately, the school
has proposed the development of up to 429 houses for
faculty and staff at this location.
TAKE ACTION!
Comment on the Draft EIR for Sonoma County’s General
Plan: attend the November public comment meeting (date TBA),
or write to Bob Gaiser, Sonoma County Permit and Resource
Management Department (bgaiser@sonoma-county.org, or fax
707-565-8343). More info at: www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/
gp2020/index.html.
Solano and Napa Counties
JEREMY MADSEN
FIELD DIRECTOR
A small group of landowners has created a ballot
measure that would force Napa County to either 1) pay
any landowner who claims that a new land-use regula-
tion will decrease potential profits from his property,
or 2) waive the regulation just for that property owner.
The measure will be on the June 2006 ballot.
An independent report, commissioned by Napa
County to analyze the potential impacts of the mea-
sure, was released in September. The report found
that, if passed, this “Unfair Payment” measure would
have dire consequences. Under one scenario studied
in the report, the measure’s passage would mean that
close to 70 percent of the County’s discretionary bud-
get—which funds public safety—would go toward
landowner payments. Not surprisingly, the study found
that the County would probably avoid such dramatic
payments, instead choosing not to enact any new land-
use rules. Because of this, the study concluded that
Napa County would be unable to adjust to changing
environmental and economic conditions or carry out
many state and federal mandates.
If the Unfair Payment measure passes, it will pose a
major threat to the scenic lands and wine country heri-
tage for which the county is internationally known.
TAKE ACTION!
If you live in Napa County, write a letter to the editor of the
Napa Register (napaopinion@napanews.com) to say the Unfair
Payment initiative is costly and unwise. More info at: www.green
belt.org/regions/solanonapa/index.shtml.
Region-Wide
KATE O’HARA
REGIONAL ISSUES ORGANIZER
Earlier this year, sprawl devel-
opers and the Schwarzeneg-
ger Administration launched
attacks on California’s most
important environmental
protection law, the California
Environmental Quality Act.
The Environmental Quality
Act requires any new development—whether
it’s a subdivision, a freeway, a shopping mall, or a
landfill—to undergo review to ensure that it causes
as little harm as possible to our communities, the
air we breathe, and the water we drink. Work-
ing with fellow environmental and community
advocates, Greenbelt Alliance was able to beat
back the attack.
The opponents tried to weaken the
Environmental Quality Act in the name of
building more housing. While we do
need more homes in the Bay Area,
particularly affordable homes,
gutting our most important envi-
ronmental law is not the solution.
To stimulate more housing produc-
tion within our cities, we need more
funding for local governments to plan for homes
and policies that create more affordable homes. By
developing neighborhood plans for housing through
robust community-participation processes, cities can
build support for good development and provide more
certainty for infill developers. During the winter,
Greenbelt Alliance will continue working with allies
to craft state legislation that brings more support and
resources for local planning processes.
TAKE ACTION!
Call your state representative and senator and tell them you
support more money for local neighborhood planning! Find your
legislators’ contact info at: www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html. ■
All photos except Daisy Pistey-Lyhne: Richard Rollins, richardrollinsphoto.com
3
 Planned Giving: Investing in the Bay Area for Future Generations
STEVE VAN LANDINGHAM
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
G
reenbelt Alliance’s work is largely about the future:
planning for growth while ensuring that working farms
and natural areas stay that way. The good develop-
ments in cities that we endorse can take years to build. The
good planning we advocate for forests, farms, and hillsides
takes time to result in a more fully protected greenbelt.
The outcomes are most clear when you consider the what-
ifs. What if Angel Island had been flattened for subdivisions? Or
if Mount Diablo’s foothills and flanks had been paved over?
There are plenty of future what-ifs, too. What if a giant
new highway slices past Mount Hamilton, bringing auto malls
to remote ranchlands? What if an initiative in Napa County
prevents new safeguards for farmland and rivers? What if new
threats—and opportunities—arise that we can’t even imagine
now? Greenbelt Alliance needs to be here to act.
ENSURING LONG-TERM PROTECTION
To ensure Greenbelt Alliance will be here for the long term,
a growing number of supporters are remembering our work
in their estate plans. If you care about the Bay Area’s fate in
decades to come, you can include Greenbelt Alliance in your
trust or will, allowing your investment in the Bay Area to con-
tinue beyond your lifetime to benefit future generations.
If you decide to include Greenbelt Alliance in your will or
trust, you can designate a specific program or geographic area
Photo: Richard Rollins
You can invest in the Bay Area’s landscapes by remembering Greenbelt
Alliance in your will or trust.
631 Howard Street, Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-543-6771
info@greenbelt.org
www.greenbelt.org
Change service requested
Through the Roof: Solano
County’s Housing Crisis
This new report by
Greenbelt Alliance, the
Non-Profit Housing Asso-
ciation of Northern Cali-
fornia, and the Solano
Housing Coalition finds
that Solano County’s
sprawling growth is
not creating affordable
homes. Fortunately, if
Solano’s biggest cities adopt inclusionary housing poli-
cies, they can create a wider range of housing options
while taking pressure off the greenbelt.
for your gift. If you don’t make a designation, your gift can
continue in perpetuity as an investment in Greenbelt Alliance’s
Endowment, which saves the principal and puts the interest
toward our work. (For instance, if you are currently giving
$150 per year, a bequest of $2,500 will continue to produce
income of $150 or more every year.) You can also simply name
Greenbelt Alliance as a beneficiary on your retirement fund
or life insurance.
To honor the far-thinking individuals who have included
Greenbelt Alliance in their trust or will, we created the T. Jack
Kent, Jr. Legacy Circle, named after Greenbelt Alliance’s
co-founder.
Why do our members include charitable giving in their
wills? They give a wide array of reasons, including everything
from tax purposes to setting an example for heirs, or simply
to continue supporting a cause they believe in. Bud Johns,
long-time Greenbelt Alliance supporter and Board member,
says, “Greenbelt Alliance’s mission of preserving the Bay Area’s
unique quality by protecting open space and improving land
use planning has long been important to me. It’s satisfying to
know that my bequest to the organization’s endowment means
I will be able to continue assisting in that critical mission.”
GETTING STARTED
Whether you include Greenbelt Alliance or not, it’s good
to have an effective estate plan. We have assembled a variety
of resources to help you get started on a plan. Our simple
Estate Planning Kit will help you identify and list your assets
before meeting with an attorney. We can also provide basic
information on wills and trusts through brochures from the
California State Bar Association. Finally, we have recently
created a brochure on how to include Greenbelt Alliance in
your trust or will.
While we cannot provide legal advice, Greenbelt Alliance
development staff and members of the Planned Giving Com-
mittee are available to answer your questions and help ensure
that your wishes are carried out. All information provided to
Greenbelt Alliance is strictly confidential.
For more information or to request any of the free resources
listed above, contact Greenbelt Alliance’s Development
Director, Steve Van Landingham, at 415-543-6771 ext. 305 or
svanlandingham@greenbelt.org. ■
Effective Transit
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2
number of homes, incorporate bike and
pedestrian access, and study ways to reduce
parking requirements. If a city does not cre-
ate an acceptable station area plan, MTC
will withhold construction money for the
transit project.
To help cities follow the TOD policy,
MTC is providing funds for the station area
plans. The first round of planning grants,
totaling $2.8 million, will go to downtown
Santa Rosa around a new SMART (Sonoma
Marin Area Rail Transit) station, to Santa
Clara around a new BART/ACE station,
and to cities on the proposed BART exten-
sion from Pittsburg to Brentwood, among
others (see table on Page 2). The first
funding round provides a great opportunity
for local people to shape the future of their
communities—if you live in any of these
communities, consider getting involved.
(Contact MTC at 510-817-5700 or call your
local City Council to find out how.)
MORE WORK TO DO
The new TOD policy will help shape
growth in the region by avoiding past land-
use mistakes. However, the policy alone
will not create the great communities our
region needs to accommodate future growth.
In fact, the policy as it was finally adopted
requires cities to plan for a relatively low
minimum number of homes. Fortunately,
the policy does provide an opportunity for
residents to participate in the planning pro-
cess, so they can call on local leaders to plan
for more homes than required. Together
with local residents and fellow advocates,
Greenbelt Alliance will demand plans that
will truly accommodate growth, make tran-
sit effective, and protect the greenbelt. ■
Nonprofit organization
U.S. Postage Paid
Permit No.9294
San Francisco, CA