Greenbelt Alliance

This June, residents of Marin and Sonoma Counties face a choice: keep the SMART train running, or watch one of the region’s most important climate investments unravel. 

The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) train carries over 4,000 riders each weekday, offering a proven alternative to car travel that eases Highway 101 congestion and cuts greenhouse gas emissions. But without renewed funding, SMART cannot sustain current operations, let alone grow.

That’s why Measure B — a continuation of the existing quarter-cent sales tax for SMART train service and the adjacent multi-use pathway — will appear on the June ballot in Marin and Sonoma counties. Measure B doesn’t create a new tax. It keeps your existing investments alive — securing the next 30 years of service.

Greenbelt Alliance proudly endorses Measure B and encourages voters across Marin and Sonoma counties to vote YES on the June ballot.

Why It Matters

SMART is more than a train. Every trip taken on SMART means fewer cars on the road, less pollution in the air, and a cleaner commute for thousands of North Bay residents. For an environmentally motivated community, Marin and Sonoma’s housing and transportation systems still depend heavily on single-occupancy vehicles. This measure represents a needed investment in public transportation. 

Without Measure B, SMART will not be able to maintain today’s service levels. That means fewer trains, fewer riders, and more cars on 101. It means an incomplete pathway system. And it means abandoning an investment that voters in Marin and Sonoma counties have already made in their shared future.

Protecting and Growing a Regional Investment

Over the past decade, SMART has extended its reach across the North Bay, and the 24 mile pathway running alongside the tracks has become a beloved active transportation corridor for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Measure B protects that progress and opens the door to more: expanded service hours, greater geographic reach, and a pathway system that’s finally complete.

A YES vote on Measure B directly funds:

• Continued daily SMART train service connecting Sonoma and Marin counties
• A reliable, low-emissions alternative to Highway 101
• Expansion of service hours and geographic reach across the North Bay
• Completion and maintenance of the SMART pathway for cyclists and pedestrians
• Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from the region’s transportation sector. People who ride SMART reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 33% compared to completing the same trip in a car.

A Smart Investment in Our Shared Future

At Greenbelt Alliance, we believe that resilient communities require both healthy lands and healthy transportation systems — the kind that give people real alternatives to driving, reduce emissions, and keep our region connected even as climate pressures intensify.

The quarter-cent sales tax that funds SMART is already in place. Measure B simply continues it. The cost of not renewing this funding — degraded service, stranded riders, and backsliding on our climate commitments — is far greater than the cost of saying yes.

Thirty years from now, the North Bay can be a place where hopping on a train is as natural as getting in a car – where our transportation choices match our values. That future starts this June. Vote YES on Measure B.

The post Vote Yes on Measure B: Keep SMART Moving for the Next 30 Years appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

In early May, Greenbelt Alliance with its partners hosted two community workshops in support of the Port of Oakland’s Waterfront Resilience Plan. The workshops were hosted in partnership with the Port of Oakland, the City of Oakland, Hood Planning Group, Ninth Root, Civic Edge Consulting, the West Oakland Cultural Action Network (WOCAN), the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project (WOEIP) and Oakland Don’t Play. During the workshops, neighbors and residents gathered to explore and weigh in on the latest flood maps, and shared input on community values for the Port of Oakland’s Waterfront Resilience Plan. 

Nearly 100 attendees joined us over two workshops that were both deeply anchored in community. The first workshop on Saturday May 2 was located at The Townderosa in West Oakland, and the second workshop on Thursday, May 7 was hosted by Oakland Don’t Play, a local clothing business located in deep East Oakland. Both locations were backyard spaces curated for building community and exchanging ideas and information.

The workshops included a poster session where community members had the opportunity to ask questions and share input with project partners. Attendees were guided through three stations. The first station welcomed attendees and outlined the public’s role in the process. The second station featured maps showing future flooding projections, and the third station captured neighborhood values and priorities. Each station sparked conversations about what matters most to the community—including what future impacts from flooding will look like, and what the community wants to see protected.

From the poster session attendees learned how climate change is causing water levels to rise, and how this will result in increased flooding, including coastal flooding (when tides or storms push water over the shoreline), groundwater flooding (when water under the soil rises toward the surface), and stormwater flooding, (when heavy rains fill streets faster than drains can move the water away). 

Community input is integral to the Port’s Waterfront Resilience Plan. As Dave Peters of WOCAN shared: 

“Even though we don’t see where I’m at in West Oakland as a flooding risk. The risk of having toxics being pushed up to the surface exists. So we want to make sure that that community knowledge gets back to the Port and gets included in the Plan. We need y’all in your neighborhood to come and talk about your experience to add to the data. We need the science, but community input makes it real.” Dave PetersWOCAN Founder

Now that these first workshops are wrapped up, the engagement doesn’t stop here. The project team will be hosting a series of smaller stakeholder meetings over the summer, and additional community workshops are slated this fall. Oakland residents also have the opportunity to share their ideas through an online survey. If you live, work, or play in Oakland, please share your ideas with us here!

Want to stay connected? Sign up here to receive email updates about the project and stay up to date on what the Oakland Alameda Adaptation Committee is working on!

The post Waterfront Voices Workshops Shape the Port of Oakland’s Resilience Plan appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

When Contra Costa voters approved the Urban Limit Line (ULL) in 1990, they made a decision about what kind of county this would be. They drew a boundary beyond which urban development couldn’t go – protecting the farms in the Tassajara Valley, the open hillsides above Walnut Creek, and the wetlands along the shoreline – and they asked future generations to keep it in place.

For 35 years, it has held. In that time, the line has been adjusted only six times, and voters renewed it in 2006 with 64% support. The landscapes that define Contra Costa exist in part because that commitment has been kept.

It expires December 31, 2026. Measure A on the June 2 ballot is how we renew it again.

The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors has referred the measure to voters, with updates to the boundary to better reflect current conditions on the ground. Greenbelt Alliance urges a YES vote in June.

Why the Urban Limit Line Matters

The ULL isn’t about stopping growth. It’s about making sure growth happens in the right places: in existing communities where infrastructure already exists, where people can get around without a car, where new housing and new neighbors strengthen what’s already there. By establishing a clear line beyond which no new urban land uses can be designated, the ULL has protected the county’s agricultural lands, open hillsides, and natural landscapes for more than three decades.

Protected open space and farmland are not optional extras — they are foundational to the health, climate resilience, and livability of Contra Costa communities. Clean water, cooler temperatures, local food, open land that absorbs carbon, and buffers communities from wildfire and flood. The ULL supports all of that by directing growth where it belongs and keeping natural lands open.

Why Greenbelt Alliance Supports Measure A

 

“Greenbelt Alliance has been following the Urban Limit Line since before it was even a measure, working with the county to ensure the lines being drawn are protecting open spaces and encouraging growth in the right places. We do both those things. We want to encourage infill housing and also make sure the open spaces we love are protected.”

Zoe Siegel, Senior Director of Climate Resilience at Greenbelt Alliance

Greenbelt Alliance has worked to protect the Bay Area’s open spaces and farmland for more than 60 years, and the Contra Costa Urban Limit Line is central to that work. By keeping growth focused within existing communities and away from natural landscapes, the ULL directly supports our mission to protect the greenbelt and help Bay Area cities thrive. 

Measure A is also a critical climate tool. Compact infill development reduces the vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions that drive the climate crisis, while preserving open lands sequester carbon, filter water, and buffer communities against extreme heat, flooding, and wildfire. At a time when federal rollbacks are threatening environmental protections across the board, locally-driven policies like this one matter more than ever.

Voting yes on Measure A advances priorities that matter deeply to residents across the county, including:

• Protecting agricultural lands and open space from conversion to sprawl development
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic by directing new housing and jobs to infill locations
• Maintaining the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, which ensures that at least 65% of the county’s land remains non-urban
• Restricting new development in fire hazard severity zones and on steep slopes, reducing wildfire risk
• Supporting successful implementation of the county’s newly adopted 2045 General Plan

There Is Room to Grow Inside the Line

Opponents of urban growth boundaries sometimes argue that such limits constrain housing production. The Contra Costa ULL tells a different story. The county’s 2045 General Plan process confirmed that vacant and underutilized land inside the existing ULL can accommodate 23,200 new housing units, 1.2 million square feet of new commercial development, and 5 million square feet of new industrial space. There is no need to expand into open space and farmland to meet the county’s growth needs — and there never has been.

Measure A also includes targeted adjustments to the ULL map that would make it more accurate and functional: removing areas with major development constraints or protected status, aligning the county line with city boundaries where cities have adopted their own urban growth boundaries, and cleaning up inconsistencies like so-called ULL “islands.” These changes reflect reality on the ground without opening the door to sprawl.

A Long Track Record of Stability

The ULL has proven to be a remarkably stable and durable policy. In its 35-year history, it has been adjusted only six times, and only once in response to a private development application. That’s a record that reflects both the policy’s durability and the strong public commitment to the values it protects.

Renewing the ULL through Measure A also has a practical financial benefit: the county is required to maintain it in order to receive approximately $2 million annually in local street maintenance funding from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Letting the ULL expire would put those dollars at risk.

In the June 2026 election, vote YES on Measure A to renew the Contra Costa Urban Limit Line. Renewing the ULL is a tangible way for Contra Costa voters to say that the landscapes they love — the farms, the hills, the open shorelines — are worth protecting for the next generation.

The post Vote Yes on Measure A to Renew Contra Costa’s Urban Limit Line appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

By Andrew Ha & Tallulah Shepard

California is facing significant challenges in addressing both housing affordability and climate related vulnerabilities. These urgent issues are more related than many realize, and to effectively overcome these challenges for a more resilient future, we must collaborate across these issue areas. However, the people most dedicated to working on housing and climate often work in separate rooms, speak different languages, and occasionally find themselves on opposite sides of the same fight. Common Ground exists to change that. These big challenges require bold action but the pace of the change means there is a real risk of advocates talking past each other.

In the Winter 2025-26 Common Ground Learning Series, the Alliance for Housing and Climate Solutions (AHCS) brought together over 250 housing and environmental advocates across five sessions to do exactly the opposite—discussing and engaging with each other. Here’s what we learned.

The rules are finally changing — but are they changing in the right way?

For decades, California’s housing shortage has been exacerbated by a thicket of regulations that make infill development slow, expensive, and legally risky. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has long been both a vital environmental protection and, critics argue, a tool easily weaponized to delay or kill housing near transit and jobs. 

In 2025, the state legislature moved faster than it had in years. Two major CEQA reform bills, AB 130 and SB

131, cleared with Governor Newsom’s support, creating new exemptions for infill housing and advanced manufacturing. Our session with Zack Subin from the Terner Center helped situate these changes in a longer arc: California has been gradually shifting away from sprawl toward urban infill and transit-oriented development, but the pace still falls well short of what people actually need. While there is no clear consensus on exactly the size of our housing shortage, organizations like the California Housing Partnership found that we are facing a 1.3 million affordable housing deficit. 

The reforms were met with a mix of enthusiasm and apprehension in the Common Ground discussion. AB 130’s targeted infill housing exemption landed relatively well. SB 131 prompted harder questions. Some participants worried it was too deferential to manufacturing interests and too vague about habitat protections.

UC Berkeley Professor Eric Biber offered one path forward: “So there are ways you could resolve this by doing some mapping. You could determine that within a certain core area, we’re going to prove that there are no wetlands and habitat to worry about. And then outside of that core area, you can take an exception if you do a site evaluation on those issues… You’d want to do careful upfront mapping because there’s going to be things you’ll carve out.”

It became clear through the session that a lot remains unknown. In this uncertainty, cities have already begun to receive new AB 130 development applications while policy advocates continue to propose new cleanup bills. What is known is that these CEQA reforms mark a pivotal, albeit controversial, shift in changing the housing landscape of California.

Climate risk isn't coming. It's here, and it's reshaping where and how we can build.

Header photo credit: Fire in the Hills by CALfire Flickr/CC-BY-NC

Wildfire has changed the calculus of homeownership in California in ways that would have seemed extreme just five years ago. Insurance companies are now charging steep premiums and, in many cases, simply not renewing high-risk policies, leaving homeowners exposed and entire communities questioning their long-term viability. Siew Gee Lim from Milliman pointed out that overall nonrenewal rates roughly doubled in California over the last five years due to increased wildfire risk. 

This creates a real paradox for housing advocates: we need to build more, but we also need to build smarter. Common Ground’s session on wildfire and insurance didn’t just surface the scale of the problem. It pointed toward emerging solutions. New wildfire modeling practices, combined with community mitigation efforts, clearer standards, and new public-private partnerships, may be opening a path toward a more stable and competitive insurance market.

The broader lesson is: you cannot build resilient, affordable communities without confronting where and how you build. 

The hidden costs of housing aren't hidden anymore.

Reducing the cost of housing isn’t just about zoning or permitting. It’s about every fee, every remediation requirement, and every financing gap that stacks up before a single unit is built. Speakers from CA YIMBY and Prosperity California pushed this conversation into uncomfortable but necessary territory.

Brownfield development—meaning building on formerly industrial or contaminated land—represents a major opportunity to add housing in urban areas without displacing green space or wildlife. But it comes with real environmental justice stakes: remediation has to be done right, and future residents, who are often lower-income, shouldn’t bear the health burden of a cleanup that wasn’t done right. 

Impact fees generated some of the liveliest debate. These are charges levied on new development to fund public infrastructure like parks, schools, and utilities. In theory, they make sense. In practice, participants questioned whether they had become too burdensome and whether the costs were being distributed fairly.

Aaron Eckhouse of CA YIMBY put it plainly: “I love parks — but if we’re placing the entire burden of funding our park system and the growing park needs of the entire community specifically on new housing, we’re going to get less new housing. And that new housing that we get is going to be more expensive.”

That’s not an argument against parks. It’s an argument for honest accounting about who pays for them.

You can't get anywhere without transit, and transit is in trouble.

If there’s one session that felt like a wake-up call, it was the one on public transit. The Bay Area’s transit agencies are facing a genuine fiscal cliff: pandemic-era federal relief funds are running out, ridership hasn’t fully recovered across many systems, and the funding mechanisms meant to sustain these agencies were designed for a different era. A conservative estimate from SPUR and the Connect Bay Area campaign cites a $793 million deficit for the 4 major Bay Area transit agencies

in the coming year. For BART alone, that would be $350 million or approximately 30% of their operating budget.

This might seem tangential to housing and climate work. It isn’t. Transit-oriented development only works if the transit actually works. Greenhouse gas reductions depend on people having real alternatives to driving. And the communities most dependent on public transit, lower-income residents, seniors, and people with disabilities, are the same communities most at risk from both the housing crisis and climate change.

Common Ground doesn’t resolve these issues. But bringing the people working on them into the same room and clearly naming the stakes is how you start to galvanize action.

California isn’t short on people who care about getting this right. What we’re short on is time and the kind of alignment that turns good intentions into policy that actually moves. 

CEQA is being rewritten, the insurance market is destabilizing, and transit agencies are facing an existential funding gap. These aren’t abstract problems. They’re being decided now, and the outcomes will shape the state for a generation. 

Common Ground exists because we believe the people working on housing and climate are stronger together and because the hardest conversations are worth having out loud, in the same room, with people who might push back.

Missed the sessions? Check them out here.

The post Learning to Find Common Ground Together appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.