When Jesse White first reached out to us via Facebook to inquire about a communications internship, we knew we had a stellar prospect on our hands.

Jesse greets a new member at the Bay Area Moving Planet rally.

In the five months Jesse worked with us, he made quite the lasting impression on our online communications. Jesse led our social media push around PARK(ing) Day and the Bay Area Moving Planet event in September 2011. Jesse also led a drive to beef up our Facebook presence (The new landing page? Thanks Jesse!), and helped establish a routine to analyze our email statistics.

A graduate of the University of Minnesota in political science, communications and new media studies, Jesse has certainly found his niche in the online advocacy world. We’re disappointed to see Jesse move on, but wish him the best at Walk Oakland Bike Oakland and Public Advocates.

Thank you, Jesse!

UPDATED at 5 p.m. on Jan. 25

Collaboration paid off in Concord — and now that Contra Costa city has a world-class future in the works.

On January 24, the Concord City Council approved a visionary plan for the closed Concord Naval Weapons Station. The adopted blueprint emphasizes walkable neighborhoods with homes that people can afford near transit and services, with decent paying jobs and open spaces protected from sprawl. Moreover it does so while designating nearly 70 percent of the area — 3,500 acres or three Golden Gate Parks — as protected open space.

As members of the Community Coalition for a Sustainable Concord, Greenbelt Alliance has been working toward this vision for nearly six years. The coalition stepped in when it was clear initial plans for the site were heading in the wrong direction – toward business-as-usual sprawl.

Working together, we built broad support that will remake a corner of Concord and send positive ripple effects throughout the Bay Area.

“The plan for the Concord Naval Weapons Station is great. It preserves open space and envisions a great new park space. And it will lead to more homes for people within walking distance of an under-used BART station,” said Jeremy Madsen, Greenbelt Alliance Executive Director. “It’s also remarkable because so many people – from environmentalists, to union workers, to local residents – worked together to create a community blueprint that will strengthen the local economy and improve quality of life.”

Read more about our history with the Concord Naval Weapons Station.

The Gilroy Demonstration Garden, in the heart of downtown Gilroy, is dedicated to environmentally sustainable gardening and education programs for the local community. Judy Hess, Director of the Demonstration Garden, recently spoke with Greenbelt Alliance.

Greenbelt Alliance: What led you to start a community garden in Gilroy?

Judy Hess: I have wanted to have a garden or farm for years. I saw in the paper that the Arts Alliance wanted to have a garden in Gilroy, and I contacted them. At our meeting, we formed the dream to create a community around healthy, healing food. I love the fact that it is in Downtown Gilroy.

GA: How does the community benefit from the Demonstration Garden?

JH: Everyone in Gilroy can participate! Our garden areas are for everyone, and we don’t rent boxes. Anyone who volunteers gets to take home produce or a vegetable start. We also offer classes on health and gardening to help folks engage. The garden also donates food to the local food bank and sells food at our Saturday morning farm stand and our local farmers market.

GA: What is food security and how does the garden help Santa Clara County?

JH: Food security is the availability of food, especially in areas of need. Gilroy’s food security, statistically, is rated very low. We answer that we’re helping by offering food to volunteers, donating food to the local food bank, and selling affordable organic produce at the farmers market. Plus, our central location provides us the ability to provide fresh food to our low-income neighbors.

GA: What do you have planned for this year?

JH: We plan to continue growing crops and increase our yield by 20% and will continue to host our farmers market in downtown Gilroy. Our dream goal this year is to start a garden in every school and teach youth the love of gardening as well as the health benefits of fresh produce. We have already begun work at Brownell School.

GA: What have you learned about community building?

JH: We have learned so much! Our tagline is building community one seed at a time. At first, I thought everyone would want to come work in the garden. The reality is people are still learning about the garden. It is fun to watch residents make friendships and work together to create a beautiful garden and downtown Gilroy.

Read more about the Gilroy Demonstration Garden.

El Camino has changed a lot since it was first paved in 1912; what will it look like in the future?

Greenbelt Alliance, in partnership with the Grand Boulevard Initiative, the San Mateo County Health System, and others, is hosting Walk the Talk forums to discuss how to shift a vision of walkable and thriving downtowns into real change for the better. Community residents, business owners, and other interested people are invited to listen and share ideas on El Camino Real’s potential in their neighborhood.

The next Walk the Talk Forum is in Menlo Park at 6 p.m. on Thursday, January 26.

Kirsten Keith, the mayor of Menlo Park, will open the forum, followed by an introduction to “Healthy Communities and the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative” by Jean Fraser, the chief of the San Mateo County Health System. Jessica Ter Schure, a principal at Nelson\Nygaard, will speak about “Green Transportation and Connectivity,” followed by a Q & A panel discussion with various local experts.

Residents will also get an opportunity to participate in a small group discussion with their neighbors and friends on the potential of El Camino Real. Click here to RSVP.

Just last week the Metropolitan Transportation Commission released a second draft of the OneBayArea grant proposal.

Unfortunately, it seems like for every step the Commission took in the right direction, it took two more in the wrong direction. And a few pretty big details are so problematic that the OneBayArea grant is starting to look like a step backwards from the status quo and will actually take us farther from achieving our Plan Bay Area goals, not closer.  Here are the biggest issues:

Support for Priority Development Areas

Previously, the region had a handful of different programs dedicated to specific types of projects — a program for bike projects, one to support focused growth and sustainable communities, one to address climate change, and one for local road maintenance.  The idea behind the OneBayArea grant was to combine these programs into one program with more flexibility – rather than dedicating dollars to specific types of projects — while directing more of the funds to the right places: Priority Development Areas (places in existing cities and towns, near transit, where cities are planning for sustainable growth). In essence, it would use geographic priorities rather than programmatic priorities. That could have worked out well.  Unfortunately, as always, the devil is in the details.

One (baby) step forward: Counties are supposed to spend 70% of their dollars (50% in the northern counties) on projects in PDAs or that support PDAs.  That makes some sense; if there’s a bike lane that runs through several PDAs along a corridor, you don’t just want to add the bike lane within the bounds of the PDAs and not connect the areas between PDAs.

Two (giant) steps back: But the current definition of “PDA-supportive” is much too broad.  It would “Allow a project to count toward the PDA target if it connects to or provides proximate access to a PDA.”  Under that definition, a project to re-pave an entire 25-mile, 4-lane road would count if it touches just one PDA on one end.  That definitely doesn’t fit with the region’s goals of supporting focused growth and sustainable transportation.

How to get back on track: MTC should tighten up the definition of “PDA-supportive” to make sure projects meet the intent of the grant (add more geographic focus) or allow only bike, pedestrian, or transit projects to fit the “PDA-supportive” bill (restore some programmatic focus).

Support for cities doing the most for sustainable, equitable development

The OneBayArea grant is the main tool to support cities that are doing sustainable, equitable development in places near transit.

One (pretty big) step forward: Thanks to hard work by Greenbelt Alliance and our allies, the revised version of the funding formula for the grant program rewards those counties that do the best job building affordable homes. And we were glad to see that cities are still required to have an adopted and approved Housing Element in order to be eligible for funds.

Two steps back: But funding is distributed to counties based on the aggregate actions of all the county’s cities taken together, which washes away differences between cities in a given county. We all know that land-use decisions about where to grow and how many affordable homes to build are made at the local level, by cities. Local governments play a major role in whether or not affordable housing gets built, so cities that have built more affordable housing should be rewarded. Unless cities see that their actions are linked to funding, they’ll be less likely to do the right thing.

And right now, county Congestion Management Agencies can distribute funds to cities with very few links to specific city actions.  The current version of the grant removes any reference to cities’ policies around affordable homes and preventing unwanted displacement of low-income residents.  And there’s no requirement that CMAs look at a city’s past performance on sustainable, equitable growth when making grants.

How to get back on track: MTC should establish some basic criteria to be used in distributing funding to cities, e.g. by the CMAs.  For example, past affordable housing production should be used to allocate funding both at the county and SUB-county level and MTC should reinstate local affordable housing and anti-displacement policies as one way for cities to qualify for funding.  At a minimum, MTC should establish now clear expectations for additional criteria at the city level that will be used for future rounds of grants.

Conservation grants for rural areas

We are thrilled that MTC, for the first time, is proposing a $5 million pilot grant program for land conservation.

One step forward: The new proposal explicitly opens up the conservation grant program to acquisition of land and easements. It also calls for prioritizing projects that will leverage funds from other agencies and philanthropic foundations – great news, because the Coastal Conservancy and the Moore Foundation have both expressed interest in doing just that.

Two steps back: Unfortunately, the proposal also opens up the grant program to “farm-to-market” and “open space access” projects.  Now we of course support making it easier for farmers to bring their food to consumers, and easier for residents to get to parks. But unless these projects are carefully defined, we’re concerned these funds will basically be used for road maintenance, in the theory that every road could be on a path from some farm to some consumer, or some resident to some park.

How to get back on track: MTC should ensure that all projects funded by the conservation grant program meet real conservation goals, rather than be used for road maintenance.  At a minimum, MTC should clearly define criteria for which farm-to-market and open space access projects will be eligible for the grants.

Unless these issues are addressed, the grants may actually turn out to be more of a loss than a gain for sustainability and equity.

In April of 2011 Andy Waggoner joined Greenbelt Alliance as a policy intern, eager to jump into policy development for Plan Bay Area, our regional plan to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through planning for vibrant neighborhoods and smart transportation lines.

For the next nine months, he helped Greenbelt Alliance with everything from researching which Bay Area counties had the best records building affordable homes (San Francisco and Santa Clara counties topped the list) to developing indicators for successful greenbelt protection (things like “bushels of local produce grown in the Bay Area”) to community outreach for YouChoose Bay Area workshops.

Andy has moved on to a position with PG&E’s Generation Interconnection Services team. He will serve as a ‘one stop shop’ for people who are bringing renewable energy online, from small-scale rooftop solar to large wholesale installations.

Andy’s daughter, who will soon turn one, can rest assured that her dad is doing everything he can to make the Bay Area and the world a more sustainable place for her future.  Thanks, Andy!

What will the neighborhood around Coddingtown Mall look like in 20 years?

That’s the question that Santa Rosa planners and residents are wrestling with right now. Will the coming Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit station bring with it acres of parking lots? Or will bike lanes connect from the train station to the mall to Santa Rosa Junior College across the freeway?

Click the image to see the map of the draft plan.

These questions will largely be answered in the North Santa Rosa Station Area Plan — the plan for the neighborhood around the mall and the station — at which we got a first glimpse at a community workshop in November. We’re pretty keen on most of what we heard from the Santa Rosa Planning Department and Pacific Municipal Consultants, but there’s always a little room for improvement. Here’s our take:

The draft plan

For starters, Greenbelt Alliance is pleased that many of policies from our policy platform, SMART Santa Rosa (PDF), are included in this preferred draft alternative plan. Kudos to Santa Rosa’s receptive planning staff.

In addition to introducing new zoning options, parking policies, and increased numbers of homes and jobs, the City also shared public feedback from previous meetings.  Based on comments, there is support for complete streets (meaning streets designed for bikes, pedestrians and cars), mixed-use development near the station, and plenty of homes within walking distance from the station.

By the numbers

The following chart summarizes how the draft plan compares to the previous drafts Alternative A and Alternative B for homes and jobs.

Parking
The draft plan reduces parking requirements for all types of uses in the neighborhood. For example, the parking requirement for detached residential in the City of Santa Rosa is currently 4 spaces per home whereas it is 2 spaces per home in the draft plan.  Attached residential uses, including apartment buildings, require 1.5 spaces per home. Non-residential uses, including restaurants, shops, and office spaces currently require 4 to 13 spaces per 1,000 square feet in the City. In comparison, the draft plan requires 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which means there will be a lot more space for shops and offices in the SMART neighborhood, and a lot less space for parked cars.

Zoning
The draft plan calls for mixed-use residential zoning close to the station, and near to the Coddingtown Mall. As a result, services will be within walking distance of the homes near the station, and commuters will be able to pick up coffee, a newspaper, or other items on their way to and from the train.

Transportation
With the introduction of new complete streets, roundabouts, and off-street bicycle and pedestrian pathways in the draft plan, the neighborhood will become more of  pedestrian- and bike-friendly. In particular, one of the most important features is the proposed 101 Connector Bridge that will allow a safe way for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the freeway from the station to the Santa Rosa Junior College.

Overall, Greenbelt Alliance and our coalition partners are thrilled to see Santa Rosa taking our platform suggestions seriously. We think that once the SMART trains start rolling, residents will be clamoring to relocate to this great new walkable neighborhood.

Santa Clara County residents who wondered why a general plan update matters, or how a future high-speed rail line will impact their town had their questions answered at Greenbelt Alliance’s Changemaker Training. On December 10, a group gathered at the Gilroy Police Department to learn how to speak up for what’s important to them, to understand how decisions are made in their local government and to help their local government wrestle with these questions and more.

Attendees came out of the training with communication techniques, tools for engagement in the planning framework, a better understanding of how various agencies work both together and independently, and empowerment to effectively participate in city and county projects.

A variety of speakers led the conversation at the Changemaker Training. If you missed the day, click on the links below:

On December 9, your favorite regional agencies and mine – the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments – released the long-anticipated answer to the question: how do the five different scenarios for Plan Bay Area* measure up to the 10 goals and targets we’ve set for ourselves as a region?

Simple math (five scenarios times 10 targets) gave us a clue that the answer would consist of a tidal wave of data (targets analysis, equity analysis, and powerpoint). You’re welcome to surf the wave yourself if you like, but just in case it’s a bit much, here’s a quick summary:

The good

• The scenarios that go furthest toward putting homes near job centers and the Bay Area’s main transit network (BART, Caltrain, etc.) generally do the best on most measures – reducing greenhouse gases, deaths from air pollution, injuries and fatalities from collisions, and overall driving, while STILL increasing walking, biking and transit use and protecting natural and agricultural lands.  No surprise there – smart growth does the job.
• All the scenarios meet our 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target.

The bad

• While all scenarios show over 90% of new development in the existing urban footprint, close to 10% of development on greenfields is still disappointing.  We can do better.  The fact that Scenario 1 has 280,000 more homes than scenario 5 yet shows only 2% of development on greenfields (as opposed to 10% in scenario 5) proves it’s possible.  What we need is political will to make it happen.
•  No scenario meets the 2035 greenhouse gas reduction targets, even with good land-use plans and a strong emphasis on transit.  It’s essential that the region start looking to other creative strategies, like Transportation Demand Management measures and equitable pricing policies, to get where we need to go for the climate.

The really bad

• In all scenarios, combined housing and transportation costs for low-income households take up over 75% of household income(!).  In four scenarios, it’s over 80%.  As a region, we need to get serious about addressing our housing affordability challenges. How would these results change if, for instance, the region passed a tax measure to fund affordable housing?What about if MTC quadrupled its investment in the Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing fund?  We need to first study what it will take to improve the situation, and then make sure we actually implement those solutions.

The really interesting

• For most of the targets, there’s actually not a huge difference in the results among the scenarios – just a few percentage points.  The one difference that really jumps out is with the “economic vitality” target.  Gross Regional Product increases by over 130% in scenarios 1 and 2.  But that result drops by almost 20 percentage points in scenarios 3, 4 and 5. Why the difference? Scenarios 1 and 2 actually plan to meet the region’s full projected housing need, while scenarios 3, 4 and 5 basically say, “oh, we’ll never be able to build that many homes; let’s just fall short of the goal.”  The results mirror what we hear from the business community – CEOs of Bay Area companies have listed “the high cost of housing for employees” as the number one barrier to doing business here for the last seven years running. While the foreclosure crisis has decreased home values in certain areas, the most desirable neighborhoods in the region are still incredibly costly to live in.  If we don’t meet our housing need, housing costs will continue to rise over the long term, and companies will start to look elsewhere to do business.  These results show that reducing housing costs by increasing supply is an essential economic development strategy. It’s just simple supply and demand.

Now what?

Over the next several months, the regional agencies will be gathering feedback on the five scenarios with the goal of creating one “preferred scenario” for Plan Bay Area.  The first step is a series of public workshops in January.  The agencies hope to have a draft plan by March, with final adoption in May.  Now is the time to make your voice heard on the future of growth and transportation for the region.

 ~ Stephanie Reyes, Policy Director
Greenbelt Alliance

* Plan Bay Area is the region’s plan for the next generation of growth and transportation. It’s a 25-year plan that will direct $200 billion of Federal, State, and Local funds to cities, transit, and roads around the Bay Area.

Our December volunteer of the month is outings leader Sarah Cramer.  Sarah is an education specialist at the Oakland Zoo.  For the past several years, Sarah has treated Greenbelt Alliance Members to a special tour of the Oakland Zoo, one of our most popular outings. Sarah is a great spokesman for the educational work of the Oakland Zoo as well for the work of Greenbelt Alliance.

Sarah has traveled widely throughout the world on various zoological projects and has gained an appreciation of the goals of Greenbelt Alliance to foster a vibrant urban area surrounded by open spaces in the Bay Area.

Watch for Sarah’s annual outing on the Greenbelt Alliance online calendar. In the meantime, you can catch Sarah on television in a monthly wildlife feature: http://www.youtube.com/user/oaklandzoo08

Thank you, Sarah!