Gardens, gardens, everywhere...at least in Berkeley.

When I initially decided to start this blog, sharing what I learned about community gardens and locally grown food was going to be it's main reason for being.  As I stumbled into one interesting sustainability/planning topic after another, I realized that a focus that narrow wasn't going to work for me.  I am, however, still interested in the subject, and I decided to start with a closer look at community gardens in Berkeley.

Wow.  There are alot of community gardens in Berkeley!  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, it is the culture of Berkeley that first brought me greater awareness about the local food movement and its impact on the health of both the consumer and the community.  These impacts are especially great when choosing organic or pesticide free sources, and buying locally grown food cuts down on energy and emissions required to bring produce to your local grocer.  Growing your own food goes even further, by allowing people to connect directly with what they consume, and reinforcing community relationships with a cooperative effort.

Not everyone can, or wants, to grow their own food.  For some the limitation is time, space, or both.  I personally fall somewhere in the middle of the above groups, but it is likely that I would have started something small by now if my neighborhood wasn't so full of deer.  Because of my adorable but hungry neighbors, I would have to construct a considerable barrier to keep them away from my edibles.  I love the deer.  But they would love my tomatoes.  It also takes considerable effort to get a garden setup, figure out what works and what doesn't, and to manage the fruits of your labor in an efficient way.

Enter the role of Community Gardens.  They allow the average person to overcome the problems of space and infrastructure and get involved with what they eat with a reduced time commitment.  There are even groups like the Berkeley Community Gardening Collaborative  that help organize those gardens and train the community on the methods and benefits involved.  BCGC is really a great resource (as is the Ecolcogy Center that manages it).

From the BCGC website, or this one as well, one can find a local garden near them: at least 10 general gardens plus 10-12 others for special purposes or located at schools.  One can also learn about local farmer's markets and training and volunteer opportunities.   Some gardens allow you to spend a little time and/or money and share a portion of what grows, be it food, flowers, herbs, etc.  Some, like the Karl Linn Community Garden (picture, left),  also serve as a public gathering place.  Others, like Spiral Gardens (picture, above right),  donate a significant portion of the food grown to promote health in the community.  In this case they split the harvests between low-income seniors in the neighboring complex and the volunteers that make it happen.

Kind of makes you all green and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

Berkeley Downtown Plan Debate Continues

As a resident of Berkeley, I have been following the recent evolution of the new Downtown Area Plan.  What was initially an idea that remarkably enjoyed “unanimous support,” has slowly evolved over a four year period into a heated debate.  The debate reflects an ongoing struggle in Berkeley between those who seek to limit development and an increase in urban density and those who feel that a density increase is vital to restoring the ailing downtown area.

Some who oppose increased density argue that it is bad development mislabeled as smart growth, and a movement towards more people, more cars and traffic problems, and less green space.  Those that support a density increase see it as a means of creating a more walkable community, allowing people to live where they work, and thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions exacerbated by suburban sprawl.  These two groups are especially pitted against each other in Berkeley, and people on both sides can claim to be environmentalists.


While the original plan that was proposed by the 25-member citizen's Downtown Area Advisory Plan Committee was hardly unanimously approved, the plan that was then adapted by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council has been even more hotly contested.  This version has been successfully petitioned to be put up for public vote in 2010, a fight led by two City Council members who voted against the commission version.  So what are these additional layers of disagreement about?

Essentially, the debate centers around two general areas.  The first involves the interconnected concerns regarding the impacts of increased density and height allowances on the overall character of downtown and it’s historical landmarks.  The City Council approved version allows taller buildings with fewer restrictions.  The second issue involves the green building and affordable housing elements that the DAPAC worked to incorporate into their version, but the Planning Commission considerably weakened.   The DAPAC felt that both of these components were vital to the plan’s success.  The Planning Commission, at least those members who voted for the final plan, felt that the adjustments were necessary to make Berkeley’s development economically feasible.  Those fighting this version criticize it as siding with developers and not accurately reflecting the needs and values of Berkeley residents.

In light of the fact that even that chairman of the DAPAC, Will Travis, acknowledged that the committee did not examine economic aspects of the plan due to time constraints and a general distrust of economists, it seems reasonable that the new plan be explored further in a public forum.  There is no doubt that the impacts of the plan will be far-reaching, and that including supports for green building measures and affordable housing are essential.  But enacting a plan that actually executes the goals of improving the vitality of the area while maintaining the historical essence of the community, rather than preventing development with excessive costly requirements, is where the challenge lies.

The debate continues.

It's a great day to start a blog!

My day began with the fantastic news that Governor Schwarzenegger signed in two important bills this week that increase incentives to invest in solar energy.  AB 920 changes the current net-metering law to require utility companies to buy back annual energy surplus from customers who generate it via solar panels.  This is a huge step, one that many debated could happen at all.

When you install solar panels on your home, the energy generated rolls back your electricity meter averaged over a year of usage.  Because more power is often consumed in months with the least amount of sunlight, this averaging allows your summer sun to pay for your winter heat.  Prior to AB 920, if your system generated more power than you used, the utilities essentially got that power for free.  At the end of the year your balance went back to zero.

Now the utility companies have to pay for ALL your power, at a rate determined by the California Public Utilities Commission. This is a huge step!  It means that you can earn money by not using power!   It will also encourage investment in ample or oversized systems for those who can afford them, those who want to offset their carbon footprint, those who live is especially sunny areas like the desert, and those who use certain buildings on a part-time or seasonal basis.

The second bill, SB 32, expands the “feed-in tariff” system approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in early 2008.  The system as originally approved by the CPUC allowed the government to regulate the rate that utility companies pay for private power generation from facilities up to 1.5 megawatts in capacity.  Under the CPUC program private customers are paid only a market rate for their solar power, essentially exchanging the cost of “brown power” for that generated with solar cells. Some feel that this incentive is not good enough and does not accurately take into account the benefits of this clean power.  Not only is the energy produced with fewer resources, but because the solar cells can be located closer to the user, there can be less energy required for transmission.  That only 14MW have been installed under the CPUC program since it began is an indicator that these critics are correct.

SB32 changes the way the pricing structure is determined, adding in environmental and distributed generation attributes in the tariffs, which are now determined by avoided cost, and not just current market rate.  It also doubles the capacity covered, so that facilities up tp 3 megawatts now fall under this umbrella.
The hope is that these changes will encourage both private investors and utilities themselves to build solar facilities.  There are successful examples in Europe, where feed in tariffs have been in place for some time.  Germany has had exceptional success, in part due to the over market price German utilities pay for private generation of clean power.

Lets hope the results of these incentives follows Germany’s example!
Ontario recently launched a similar but much more aggressive program, considered to potentially turn Ontario into a “green-energy titan.” Their program allows private producers of solar electricity to earn up to 80.2 cents per kilowatt for solar power (wow!) and between 11-19 cents for other forms of green power such as wind farms, biogas facilities and mini-hydro plants (the exchange rate from Canadian to US dollars is almost 1:1).  This is a huge step in moving Canada towards their impressive goal of shutting down all coal plants by 2014.  Go Canada!