Photo: Bob Walker/Oakland Museum of Ca
Q & A:
Senator Don
Perata on CEQA
PAGE 2
GreenbeltAction 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
CONTRA COSTA PRESSURE BUILDS
Eastern Cities Push to
Expand Urban Limit Line
DAVID REID
EAST BAY FIELD REPRESENTATIVE
C
ontra Costa’s Urban
Limit Line wraps around
the county’s cities and
keeps its farmland, orchards,
and hillsides safe from sprawl
development.
Unfortunately, the line’s loca-
tion and the county’s open space
are now up for grabs by East
County cities. Pittsburg, Antioch,
and Brentwood are proposing
to expand the county’s Urban
Limit Line and build sprawl-
ing “estate” housing—McMan-
sions—on nearly 5,000 acres of
currently protected lands. The
City of Concord is jumping on
the expansion bandwagon too,
asking for 1,600 acres of sensi-
tive shoreline habitat.
Contra Costa County already
has an Urban Limit Line that
defines where growth can and
cannot occur. The line contains
plenty of developable land, and
Greenbelt Alliance is working
to keep the line where it is and
encourage cities to do smarter
growth within the line.
WHY NOW?
The cities can attempt this
land grab now because of Mea-
sure J, the transportation sales
tax passed by Contra Costa
County voters last November.
Measure J set aside $460 mil-
lion to be distributed to the 19
cities and the county. However,
in order to receive this funding,
the cities and county must either
agree to comply with a county-
wide Urban Limit Line, or each
city must create its own line.
For the new Urban Limit Line
to qualify for the November 2006
ballot, 15 cities representing 75%
of the population, and four of
the five members of the County
Board of Supervisors must agree
on it. Then, as with any proposed
ballot measure submitted by
local government, its potential
environmental impacts must
be reviewed. Since this review
Morgan Hill’s
process is likely to take at least
a year, and the deadline to put
measures on the ballot is in
August 2006, the cities and the
county are running out of time
to agree on a line.
Contra Costa’s business
community, including such
traditional adversaries as the
Homebuilders Association, has
recognized the need for sensible
regional planning and incentives
for smarter growth. The busi-
ness community worked with
Greenbelt Alliance and Save
Mount Diablo to craft what has
become known as Plan C, which
would hold the line where it is
today. Any proposed changes in
the line would go to a county-
wide vote. Plan C also mandates
a review of policies and land use
designations that may be hinder-
ing efficient use of land inside
the line, which would result in
a set of recommendations every
five years.
A STANDOFF ON SPRAWL
The cities and county, how-
ever, are having a hard time
reaching an agreement. The
County Board of Supervisors and
cities in West and South Contra
Costa County agree with Plan C
and want to hold the line, with
minor exceptions. But cities in
East and Central County con-
tinue to demand an expansion
of the line. They propose that the
voters move the line in 2006, and
say they will wait to build in the
new areas until certain roads are
built or widened.
The proposal by East and
Central County cities amounts
to a free ticket to uncontrolled
growth. As many transpor-
tation studies have shown,
building or expanding roads
does not fix traffic conges-
tion. Without growth controls,
sprawl development springs up
along the new or widened road.
That leads to more cars on the
road, which leads right back to
gridlock. Widening or building
roads without changing growth
Spurious Urban
Limit Line
PAGE 4
SAN FRANCISCO ■ FA I R F I E L D
Contra Costa County’s Urban Limit Line keeps development from sprawling out over rolling hills and farmlands.
patterns will pave open space
and worsen air quality, without
making it any easier for people
to get around.
Time is running out for Con-
tra Costa’s cities and Board of
Supervisors to agree on a county
Urban Limit Line for environ-
mental review. The review may
end up studying both options—
holding the line and moving the
line—which would give them
another year to come to agree-
ment on a plan.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Whether there is ultimately
one countywide vote on an
agreed-upon line, or several
votes in individual cities, Green-
belt Alliance will continue
working to keep sprawl devel-
opment off farms and natural
areas. That will include doing
outreach to educate citizens
around the county about the
line and how its location relates
to open space and traffic.
City and county officials have
been wrangling for months over
the Urban Limit Line. But with
no agreement yet, the work to
save Contra Costa County’s
open space may just be begin-
ning. ■
Run for the Hills!
SF Marathon
Sunday, July 31st
PAGE 4
■ SAN JOSE ■ S A N TA R O S A ■ WA L N U T C R E E K SPRING 2005
The California
Environmental
Quality Act: At Risk?
KATE O’HARA
REGIONAL ISSUES ORGANIZER
W
hat would you think if you heard that a shopping mall was
going to be built across the street from your house? You’d
be worried about the impacts it would have on your air and
water. You’d want to have a say in whether, where, and how it would
happen. And you might ask, “Isn’t there a law to protect me?”
There is. It’s a powerful law that protects California’s air, water, and
land, and gives people a voice in the future of their communities. It’s
called the California Environmental Quality Act, also called CEQA.
The Environmental Quality Act is a cornerstone of California’s
environmental protections. Unfortunately, it is also under threat.
The Schwarzenegger Administration is considering a deal to reduce
the law’s power and pave the way for uncontrolled development—all
in the name of smart growth.
A POWERFUL LAW
Not all proposed developments are malls in your front yard, of
course. But any proposed development, whether it’s a highway, a
shopping mall, or housing, will have impacts on the surrounding
land and residents. The Environmental Quality Act deals with this
in two important ways.
First, it requires careful consideration of exactly what a pro-
posed project’s effects will be. If a project could have significant
negative effects, a range of alternatives must be considered.
continued on page 2
1
 MISSION
Q&A: Changing the California To make the nine-county San

Environmental Quality Act

Francisco Bay Area a better
place to live by protecting the
region’s greenbelt and improv-

S
tate Senate Majority Leader Don Perata (D-East Bay) recently without threatening our environment. SB 832 will make it easier ing the livability of its cities and
proposed a bill to change the California Environmental Quality to get more housing built in already developed areas near public towns. We work through public
Act (CEQA). We asked him about his proposed changes to transit. The bill will also ensure that new housing is located in policy development, advocacy
the state’s most important environmental law. places where there will be little or no environmental impact. It’s and education, in partnership
a sensible solution to our housing shortage. with diverse coalitions.
Greenbelt Alliance: You have introduced legislation that
changes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). What GA: The Schwarzenegger Administration is developing proposed CENTRAL OFFICE
does your proposed CEQA changes. Its approach is to have environmental review
bill do? occur primarily when a city updates its General Plan. It would 631 Howard Street, Suite 510
also limit citizens’ challenges to the environmental assessments San Francisco, CA 94105
Senator Perata: (415) 543-6771
of proposed development. What do you think of this approach?
I am proud to have info@greenbelt.org
introduced a bill Senator Perata: The Administration is focused on the right www.greenbelt.org
that will help problem—our state’s housing shortage—but its proposed solution
address California’s will be bad for California’s people, communities, and environment. SONOMA-MARIN OFFICE
housing crisis by The Governor’s approach significantly weakens CEQA—our most
making it easier to important environmental protection law—and seeks to reduce 50 Santa Rosa Ave., Suite 307
build new homes in citizens’ input on how and where their community will grow. The Santa Rosa, CA 95404
already developed Administration’s approach is a dream come true for those who (707) 575-3661
areas. The bill, SB would like to weaken environmental protections to make it easier kbrown@greenbelt.org
832, applies only to to develop open space, critical habitat, and prime farmland.
cities of more than SOUTH BAY OFFICE
GA: Critics of CEQA amendments have said that any change to
200,000 people. It 1922 The Alameda, Suite 213
the law is bad for the environment. What’s your perspective?
exempts proposed San Jose, CA 95126
housing develop- Senator Perata: California is lucky to have such a good envi- (408) 983-0856
ments of 300 units ronmental protection law on the books. Over the years CEQA has mbeasley@greenbelt.org
or less on sites of helped protect our clean air, clean water, and open space. It has
ten acres or less also protected the health of millions of Californians. My goal, EAST BAY OFFICE
California Senate Majority Leader Don Perata from completing through SB 832, is to strengthen the law by making it easier to
1601 North Main St., Suite 105
(D-East Bay) says that his proposal will support a full CEQA Envi- build new homes in already developed places near transit. This
ronmental Impact will relieve pressure to build on undeveloped farmlands and open Walnut Creek, CA 94596
infill development throughout the state.
Report. There are space and provide needed housing near jobs. That’s good for the (925) 932-7776
important provi- environment and good for Californians. dreid@greenbelt.org
sions in the bill that ensure that the proposed building is very
GA: With such different proposals emerging in the Legislature SOLANO-NAPA OFFICE
near transit, includes affordable housing and won’t cause sig-
and Administration, what is the likelihood of any CEQA changes
nificant environmental harm. It is a step in the right direction 725 Texas Street
being passed and signed by the Governor in this session?
toward creating more housing in our existing cities and towns Fairfield, CA 94533
while protecting the environment. Senator Perata: I look forward to working with the Admin- (707) 427-2308
istration on passing CEQA changes that will help address our bschoradt@greenbelt.org
GA: Why is this bill important now?
housing shortage while ensuring protection of the environment.
Senator Perata: Too many Californians cannot afford a home. Success here will require a greater commitment from the Adminis- BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Just 30% of families are able to afford the median-priced home tration to approaches that focus on building new homes in already
statewide. We need to fix this problem by creating more housing developed areas instead of fueling additional sprawl development Officers
in a way that strengthens our economy and our communities, and harming the environment. ■ Michelle Yesney, President
Zach Cowan, Vice President
Margaret Spaulding,
Vice President

Environmental Quality Act: At Risk? CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

Betsy York, Vice President
David Azevedo,
Secretary-Treasurer
If any negative effects will still occur, the local government agency statewide environmental group, has been keeping close tabs on the
Nancy Adler • Bob Berman • David
must acknowledge them, and mitigation may be required to offset issue. According to Karen Douglas, the group’s Acting Executive
Bomberger • Janet Byron • John
the damage. This is all written up in an Environmental Impact Director, “We’re getting mixed signals from the Schwarzenegger Chapman • Kristen Clements • Peter
Report, or EIR. Administration about whether it will go forward with its proposed Cohen • Tina Duong • Volker Eisele •
Second, the Environmental Quality Act requires that the pro- changes to the Environmental Quality Act, after the initial outcry William D. Evers, Jr. • Marilyn Farley
cess be open to the public. It requires that the public be given an from the public and from environmental and social equity groups. • Mort Fleishhacker • Bud Johns •
opportunity to comment on the EIR, and requires responses to the We hope it will drop the proposals entirely, because they’re terrible Robert E. Johnson • Vivian Kahn • Jon
public’s comments before the EIR can be approved. for the environment and for Californians.” Kannegaard • Jake Mackenzie • Jean
Both of these central functions of the law—evaluating environ- McCown • Vicki Moore • Cindy Rubin
mental impacts and giving the public a voice—are threatened by BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE • Michele Stratton • Dee Swanhuyser
the Governor’s current proposal. The state’s Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency has • Laney Thornton • George D. Tuttle •
Gary Zimmerman
also proposed draft legislation that makes sweeping changes to
REDUCING THE LAW’S POWER housing law. It would remove local cities’ Housing Elements—which Staff
The Schwarzenegger Administration, through the California are the primary tool for ensuring that cities build housing—and Tom Steinbach, Executive Director
Resources Agency, has proposed draft legislation that includes a replace them with “self-certification.” It would discourage inclusion- • Elizabeth Adam, Office Manager
number of significant changes in the Environmental Quality Act. ary housing, which is a proven tool for creating affordable housing • Blair Alpert-Sandler, Systems
The first change would deal with the scale on which EIRs are as a city grows by including a percentage of affordable homes in Coordinator • Michele Beasley, South
Bay Field Representative • Kelly
done. It would change the law to focus environmental review at each new residential development. It would also reduce the envi-
Brown, Sonoma-Marin Field Represen-
the General Plan level. General Plans are long-term plans for an ronmental review of projects and remove citizens’ ability to stop bad
tative • Samantha Brownstein,
entire city or county. Currently, EIRs are also required at either the developments. Like the proposed changes to the Environmental Director of Administration • Julie
Specific Plan (neighborhood) or project level. This change would Quality Act, this legislation would remove planning decisions from Cummins, Education Program
be like trying to measure and mitigate every environmental impact local citizens and elected officials and put the power in the hands Coordinator • Anita Lalwani,
of every building in a whole city, all at once. Because General Plans of developers to decide where, when, and how to build. Membership Assistant • Jeremy
are not detailed enough for this purpose, this would end up being Either of these proposals is bad news. Taken together, the pro- Madsen, Field Director • Kate O’Hara,
a kind of free pass for development. It would also mean minimal posals from the California Resources Agency and the State Busi- Regional Issues Organizer • David
input by the public, who typically participate more in local planning ness, Transportation, and Housing Agency amount to an attack Reid, East Bay Field Representative
than in the General Plan process. on Californians’ ability to create better communities and protect • Brent Schoradt, Solano-Napa
Two other changes involve expanding exemptions that are our environment. Field Representative • Cheryl Scott,
Education and Volunteer Assistant •
meant to encourage infill development, that is, development
Elizabeth Stampe, Communications
within existing urban areas. The changes would exempt all sorts REAL SOLUTIONS
Director • Kit Thomas, Bookkeeper •
of housing developments from having to go through the CEQA Of course, it is possible to build more homes without dismantling Steve Van Landingham, Development
process—regardless of their location. Subdivisions built out on protections for people and the environment. Senator Perata has Director • Melissa Wright,
the greenbelt could thereby escape any environmental review or proposed a way to do that (see the Q & A with Senator Perata, above), Development Associate
mitigation requirement: a sure recipe for sprawl. and other legislators have also jumped into the CEQA-change fray.
Founder:
The Administration may already have noticed the unpopular-
Dorothy Erskine (1896–1982)
ity of these changes. The Planning and Conservation League, a continued on page 4
PRINTED BY UNION LABOR ON RECYCLED PAPER

2
 A R O U N D T H E G R E E N B E LT

Stopping sprawl (UGB) to allow 2,450 new homes north of the city, on
currently protected land. Pardee’s effort comes only
Solano and Napa Counties
BRENT SCHORADT

and spurring smart two years after the Livermore City Council adopted a
voter-initiated measure establishing the UGB. Liver-
more residents will vote on the developer’s proposal
SOLANO–NAPA FIELD REPRESENTATIVE

This spring, Greenbelt Alliance

growth throughout in November, and Greenbelt Alliance is helping local

activists educate residents about the issue.
is working with a growing coali-
tion of transportation and land
use activists to shape Solano

the Bay Area. TAKE ACTION!

Call the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors and urge them
to hold the Urban Limit Line and adopt an inclusionary housing
County’s next transportation
sales tax proposal. Greenbelt
Alliance worked to defeat a high-
policy. Contact information is at www.greenbelt.org/regions/east- way-heavy transportation plan
bay/camp_inclusionary.html. Brent Schoradt last November that would have
South Bay encouraged sprawling housing
(Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties) developments and put more cars on local highways.
MICHELE BEASLEY We have created a Sensible Transportation Platform
SOUTH BAY FIELD REPRESENTATIVE Sonoma and Marin Counties that gives incentives to cities that pursue smart land
KELLY BROWN use planning and significantly funds public transit.
Since 2003, the City of San Jose SONOMA-MARIN FIELD REPRESENTATIVE The only way to improve traffic in Solano County is to
has been planning an entire new manage future growth and expand public transporta-
town in Coyote Valley, on the city’s The Sonoma County Board of tion options.
southern edge. Though this is an Supervisors is poised to take a Working farms and spectacular natural areas are
opportunity for smart growth, the monumental leap toward provid- at risk around Vacaville, one of the Bay Area’s fastest
current plan will instead create ing affordable housing for county growing cities. That’s why Greenbelt Alliance is sup-
car-dependent sprawl, with wind- residents. In early April, Green- porting the Vacaville Growth Management Initiative.
ing suburban-style streets and belt Alliance and local allies The initiative will control growth and protect Upper
Michele Beasley neighborhoods cut off from one turned out over 100 people to Lagoon Valley, Vaca Valley, and Pleasants Valley by estab-
another by expressways. a Board hearing to urge them lishing an Urban Planning Area (another term for an
City planners will soon begin working on an Environ- Kelly Brown to adopt a jobs-housing linkage Urban Growth Boundary) around the city. This will keep
mental Impact Report (EIR) for Coyote Valley. The EIR fee and an inclusionary housing sprawl off of Vacaville’s orchards, valleys, and hillsides,
provides an opportunity to examine alternatives to the policy. Jobs-housing linkage fees require new commer- while preventing urban encroachment around Solano
proposed specific plan. Greenbelt Alliance is pushing cial developments to contribute funding for affordable County’s largest employer, Travis Air Force Base.
the city to include in the EIR an alternative based on our housing, and inclusionary housing policies require new
vision for Coyote Valley, Getting It Right. This residential developments to include affordable units TAKE ACTION!
alternative would bring homes, or contribute funds toward Urge the Solano Transportation Authority to adopt the Sensible
shops, and jobs closer affordable housing. Both Transportation Platform. For more information visit www.green
together and make it policies have been proven belt.org/regions/solanonapa/camp_transport.html.
easier to walk, bike, to create affordable hous-
or take transit, instead ing throughout the Bay
of having to get in a car
for every errand. Its compact Region-Wide
design would require less develop- KATE O’HARA
ment of open space. It would also be less REGIONAL ISSUES ORGANIZER
expensive than the proposed plan, which
would tear up and rebuild the Valley’s roads, In June, the Metropolitan
create an artificial lake, and build a costly Transportation Commission
and unusual transit system. The Getting It Right (MTC)—the Bay Area’s regional
alternative includes none of these items or their transportation agency—will vote
costs. The savings could then fund open space on a Regional Transit Oriented
protection and affordable housing, which are Development Policy. This policy
shortchanged in the current plan. will require cities and counties
to plan for good development
TAKE ACTION! Kate O’Hara around proposed transit stations
Contact the San Jose City Council and urge them to direct City before MTC funds new transit
planning staff to study an alternative that is based on Getting It projects. If the policy is strong, it will encourage the
Right. Contact information is at www.sanjoseca.gov/council. establishment of true “transit villages” around future
stations. A transit village is a well-designed mix of
homes, offices, and shops near a transit station. The
goal of a transit village is to create an inviting place
East Bay Area, and to live, work, and play, where housing is affordable
(Contra Costa and Alameda Counties) will help and transit is convenient.
DAVID REID reduce pres- Greenbelt Alliance, together with the
EAST BAY FIELD REPRESENTATIVE sure to build Transportation and Land Use Coalition
on the green- and the Non-Profit Housing Association
Sprawl proposals in the East Bay belt. The Board of Northern California have been working
continue to surface. Last fall, is scheduled to vote on these critical to ensure that MTC takes this opportunity
Antioch’s City Council shelved policies in May 2005, and we will be working to make the most of transit funding. We are
its plans for “Future Urban Area to ensure that they are adopted. concerned, however, that MTC may instead
#1,” a massive development on The City of Cloverdale has just begun an update pass a weak, ineffective policy that does not provide
2,400 acres south of town around of their General Plan. The updated plan will act as the guidelines for affordable housing or good design around
Sand Creek. Now a smaller plan blueprint for growth for the next 20 years. Cloverdale is stations. We have been lobbying MTC Commissioners to
has come forward for the same the only city in Sonoma County without an Urban Growth strengthen their policy by including our Livable Commu-
David Reid area, where Shea Homes is pro- Boundary (UGB). This summer, Greenbelt Alliance and nities Platform. Including the platform will be a major
posing to build 1,400 homes on local environmental allies will be urging the city to adopt step toward accommodating the Bay Area’s future growth
1,000 acres. Unfortunately, just because this plan is a UGB, which will protect the city’s scenic hillsides and in a livable, sustainable way.
smaller doesn’t mean it’s any better. Greenbelt Alliance rural character from sprawl development.
is working with a local group to protect the Sand Creek TAKE ACTION!
land from this new sprawl plan. TAKE ACTION! Contact your town’s elected leaders on the Metropolitan
In Oakley, a proposal to build 2,500 homes on as many Urge the Cloverdale City Council to adopt an Urban Growth Transportation Commission and urge them to include the Livable
acres appears to have political support despite the fact Boundary. Contact information is at www.cloverdale.net/govern Communities Platform as part of their Regional Transit Oriented
that the only thing keeping the land above water are ment.asp. Development policy. Contact information is at www.mtc.ca.gov/
levees constructed before World War I. Greenbelt Alli- about_mtc/commtext.htm. ■
ance is seeking ways to halt the dangerous plan.
In Livermore, Pardee Homes has qualified an ini-
tiative to move the city’s Urban Growth Boundary All photos except Kelly Brown: Richard Rollins, richardrollinsphoto.com

3
 Greenbelt vs. Greed
Is Morgan Hill the Next
Stop on a Sprawl Highway?
MICHELE BEASLEY
SOUTH BAY FIELD REPRESENTATIVE
T
he drive from San Francisco on 101 South can seem
like one long trip through sprawl, as you go by car
dealerships, malls, sound walls, parking lots, and
more car dealerships. With no breaks between cities,
you have to rely on freeway signs for any sense of place.
Then around Morgan Hill, you finally burst out into open
space, into the greenbelt that keeps Morgan Hill distinct
from San Jose, San Martin, and Gilroy.
That greenbelt is now threatened. And the threat
is coming from the very process that was supposed to
protect it forever.
Adapted from 2002 City of Morgan Hill map
This map of Morgan Hill shows the current urban growth bound-
ary (black line) and the areas threatened by a new, expanded,
Urban Limit Line (dark grey). The threatened land to the city’s
southeast is working farmland that separates Morgan Hill from
San Martin.
GreenbeltAction
631 Howard Street, Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 543-6771
info@greenbelt.org
www.greenbelt.org
Change service requested
Run for the hills!
Photo by Bob Walker, collection of the Oakland Museum of California
Sunday, July 31st
Run or walk 5K, a half-marathon, or a whole marathon,
and raise funds to support Greenbelt Alliance’s work
protecting hills like these. Sign up for the San Francisco
Marathon at www.causetorun.com, and choose Team 6.
In 2003, the City of Morgan Hill decided to tackle the
question of how to permanently protect its greenbelt of
farms and natural areas. It formed an Advisory Commit-
tee to undertake an “Urban Limit Line/Greenbelt” study.
The committee’s tasks were to define the City’s ultimate
growth boundary, designate the lands outside the line for
permanent protection, and create a plan for funding that
protection.
Two years later, the result is a line that, instead of
protecting land, actually paves the way for develop-
ment of hundreds of acres of working farmland. What
happened? A few property owners and speculators had
taken over the process. They were less interested in
what happened outside the line than in making sure
their lands were inside the line—a much more profit-
able place to be.
Morgan Hill already has an Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB); it does not need a new expanded line that opens
up more land to development. It still has plenty of vacant
land within the UGB. In addition, the City’s growth con-
trol measure limits the number of new homes that can be
built each year, so even if the city doesn’t change the way
it grows, new land won’t be needed for at least another
twenty years. This new Urban Limit Line will pave farm-
land, encourage sprawl, and eliminate any distinction
between Morgan Hill and San Martin: outcomes far from
its original purpose.
Greenbelt Alliance, together with other environmental
representatives on the advisory committee, has urged the
City Council not to accept this new line that threatens
Morgan Hill’s greenbelt. In response, the City Council
has decided to study an alternative proposal suggested
by environmental advocates in addition to the Advisory
Committee’s proposal. The alternative proposal draws a
much tighter Urban Limit Line around Morgan Hill and
puts the focus back on the greenbelt’s protection, not
its development.
Morgan Hill is lucky to be defined by rolling hills and
lush farmland, instead of melting into a sea of auto malls
and parking lots. It’s a great place to live. Greenbelt Alli-
ance is working to keep it that way. ■
Environmental Quality Act:
At Risk? CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2
But the most effective ways to speed the process
and increase housing production would not involve
changing the Environmental Quality Act at all.
As the law stands now, EIRs can be done for Specific
Plans, not just individual projects. The Specific Plan
includes enough detail for good evaluation and is large
enough for planning on a neighborhood scale. But cit-
ies often have to take the less efficient route of doing
project-by-project EIRs because they cannot afford
the EIR process; they need the project developers to
pay for it. The state could increase infill housing by
providing cities with the resources to do EIRs at the
Specific Plan level. This funding could come from a
“regional impact fee” on new developments, based
on how well they meet smart growth standards. This
would provide an incentive to use land efficiently and
build near transit, and would encourage a regional
outlook in planning.
Another effective way to build more affordable hous-
ing would simply be to put more funding and support
toward the affordable housing efforts that already exist,
like inclusionary housing ordinances. They work. We
just need more of them.
STAYING VIGILANT
Sprawl developers would like us to believe that if we
just removed all of those pesky laws protecting our air,
water, land, and health, they would do smart growth and
solve our affordable housing problem. While it seems
an obvious ploy, it’s not obvious to everyone. Together
with partners across the state, Greenbelt Alliance is
working to let the public know: the law that keeps our
environment and communities safe is itself at risk.
The California Environmental Quality Act protects
us. Now it’s our turn to protect it.
TAKE ACTION!
Tell Governor Schwarzenegger to drop plans to weaken
the California Environmental Quality Act. Email him online at
www.govmail.ca.gov, or call 916-445-2841. ■
Nonprofit organization
U.S. Postage Paid
Permit No.9294
San Francisco, CA