Principles of Planning for Sustaining Places

David R. Godschalk FAICP UNC Chapel Hill

Making Comprehensive Plans to Sustain Places

APA Conference Los Angeles 15 April 2012

Agenda

Sustaining Places Task Force charge, process, state of art

Sustaining Places planning principles

examples from reviewed plans

Beyond best practices---cities as sustainable resource producers further thoughts & speculations

Sustainability—Defining Challenge of 21st Century

Issues

Resource depletion

Climate instability

Energy production

Economic stress

Social inequity

Public health

Sustaining Places Task Force Charge

• Focus on comprehensive plan as policy document & tool to achieve sustainable outcomes

• Examine related changes in best practices that integrate sustainability into comprehensive planning

• Look at how plans effect change & are held accountable

Task Force

Appoint. Fall

2010

Report Drafting

Interim Report

April 2011

Corres. Comm. Review

Final Report

Fall 2011

William Anderson FAICP co-chair

David Godschalk FAICP co-chair

Rudayna Abdo AICP

Kenneth Bowers AICP

Timothy Beatley

Benjamin Herman FAICP

Stephen Hardy AICP

Daniel Lerch

Ann McAfee

William Moomaw

David Rouse AICP

Eric Shaw

Sustaining Places Task Force Process PAS

REPORT

Jan.

2012

The defining challenge of our time…

Planning for sustaining places is:

• Dynamic, democratic process

• To meet needs of current & future generations

• Without compromising ecosystems

• Balance social, economic, environmental resources

• Incorporate resilience

• Link local, regional, & global concerns

Role of Comprehensive Plan

Plan is ideal vehicle:

• Legal authority

• Scope to cover functions

• History of practice

Plan has mandate to:

• Set community goals

• Engage citizens

• Assign implementation responsibilities

• Achieve consensus

Region:

San Diego Region CA

County:

Marin County CA, Union County OH

Growing Large City:

Seattle WA

Shrinking Large City: Philadelphia PA, Cleveland OH

Medium/Small City:

Fort Collins CO, Albany NY, Burlington VT, Keene NH

Plans Reviewed

Characteristics of Plans for Sustaining Places

• Adopt sustainability principles

• Integrate policies across programs

• Consider equity, health & wellbeing impacts

• Act on scientific evidence

• Address demands with limited funds

• Implement non-traditional goals

• Monitor sustainability metrics

• Link to regional plans

• Conduct stakeholder engagement

Emerging Model of Sustaining Places Planning

Adaptive planning

Sustainability goals

Integrated technical & participatory tracks

Evidence-based scenarios—What If?

Metric outcome measures

Target tracking

Ongoing implementation

Traditional Community Planning Assumptions

Past foretells future--economic & population growth projections

Adjust plans every 5 to 10 years --land use, transportation, & public facilities

All else remains relatively stable:

Climate conditions

Water resources

Energy supply

Agriculture

Ecosystems

Human health

Natural hazards

Trends

•Population projection

•Economic projection

Space

•Land use needs

•Transportation needs

Facilities

•Water & energy demand

•Public facilities demand

New Realities

Future is evolving & uncertain—growth/decline must be monitored

Plans respond to change strategically as evidence demands

Sources of instability include linkages among: Climate condition

Water resources

Energy supply

Agriculture

Ecosystems

Economy

Human health

Natural hazards

Energy

Water

Climate Land

use

Ecosystems

Agriculture

Health

Transportation

Economy

Principles of Planning for Sustaining Places -Livable built

environment

-Harmony with nature

-Resilient economy

-Interwoven equity

-Healthy communities

-Responsible regionalism

-Authentic participation

-Accountable implementation

2007 Marin Countywide Plan

.http://co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/fm/TOC.cfm

Community

Well Being

Socioeconomic Capital

Built Environment

housing, transportation, infrastructure

Agriculture

ranches, dairies, croplands, orchards

Natural Systems

water, air, soil, natural habitat

Livable Built Environment Principle

Ensure that all elements of the built environment, including land use, transportation, housing, energy, and infrastructure, work together to provide sustainable, green places for living, working, and recreation with a high quality of life.

Characteristics: Transportation choices Green building stands.

Mixed land use at different scales Renewable energy

Infill development Urban design standards

Range of housing types Regional transportation

Access to public facilities Complete streets

Walkable neighborhoods Historic preservation

Livable Built Environment Example

2004 Sustainable Seattle Plan

Urban Village strategy combines smart growth, urban design, & participation

Balances environment, equity, & economic—the 3-E goal

Seattle’s Core Values:

Community

Environmental Stewardship

Economic Opportunity & Security

Social Equity

Harmony with Nature Principle

Ensure that contributions of natural resources to human wellbeing are explicitly recognized and valued and that maintaining their health is a primary objective.

Characteristics: Conserve natural areas Reduce carbon footprints

Restore & connect habitats Respect topography

Meet air quality standards Achieve climate goals

Increase energy security Commit to green building

Reduce solid waste streams Restore/manage streams

Manage stormwater Conserve resources

Responsible stewardship Safe/adequate water supply

Harmony with Nature Example

http://ci.keene.nh.us/departments/planning/keene-cmp-2010

Keene Comprehensive Master Plan

Keene Wildlife Action Plan: Map of Vegetation Communities

Resilient Economy Principle

Ensure that the community is prepared to deal with both

positive and negative changes to its economic health and to

initiate sustainable urban development and redevelopment

that foster business growth and reliance on local assets.

Characteristics: Economic growth capacity Balanced land use mix

Commercial/industrial land supply Transport access to jobs

Green business encouragement Local ownership promotion

Regional competition response Neighborhoods at risk plans

Community-based economic develop. Jobs w/competitive wages

Innovative/entrepreneurial atmosphere Educational partnerships

Fiscal sustainability/transparency Efficient infrastructure

Advance plans for disaster recovery

Resilient Economy Example

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/

cwp/Economic

As a shrinking city,

Cleveland had to re-

imagine itself as a

city based on a new

form of sustainability.

Interwoven Equity Principle

Ensure fairness and equity in providing for the housing, services, health, safety, and livelihood needs of all citizens and groups.

Characteristics: Provide affordable housing Coordinate jobs/housing

Improve poor neighborhoods Improve at-risk health

Include under-served in planning Promote workplace diversity

Protect vulnerable from hazards Improve old infrastructure

Distribute costs/benefits equitably Measure plan outcomes

Make services accessible to minorities

Interwoven Equity Example

http://cultivatingcommunity.net

/draft-plan.html

Change zoning & subdivision regulations…to accommodate housing types for seniors, empty nesters, young singles, those with disabilities, & others.

Offer incentives (streamlined development review, density bonus, height bonus, etc.) to encourage mixed-income developments with variety of housing types.

Healthy Communities Principle

Ensure that public health needs are recognized and addressed through provisions for healthy foods, physical activity, access to recreation, health care, environmental justice, and safe neighborhoods.

Characteristics: Safe & healthy neighborhoods Accessible parks, open space

Opportunities for active lifestyles Locally grown healthy food

Wellness of at-risk populations Adequate schools for all

Mitigated brownfield sites Support for arts & culture

Design for walking & biking Environmental justice

Access to affordable health care

Healthy Communities Example KEY PRINCIPLES Community Safety •Foster a safe community. Community Wellness •Provide opportunities for healthy & active lifestyles. •Support local food production ACTIONS Near Term • Develop policy for agricultural

activities on Natural Areas Program lands.

• Convene inter-departmental team to acquire/manage open lands.

• Build partnerships to support community garden plots.

Community gardens and markets help to increase options & availability of healthy & local food options.

www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/city-plan.php

Responsible Regionalism Principle

Ensure that all local proposals account for ,connect with, and support the plans of adjacent jurisdictions and the surrounding region.

Characteristics: City & regional activity connections Green-print plans

Fair share housing Infrastructure

Pop & econ projections Needs & priorities

Regional visions & plans Shared fiscal resources

Coordinate regional land use, open space & mobility programs

Responsible Regionalism Example

Transportation & land use key elements

Encourage future growth in Developed Land areas

Maintain Conservation areas & open land

Integrated Regional Investment Strategy

www.sandag.org

San Diego Regional Plan

Authentic Participation Principle Ensure that the planning process actively involves all

segments of the community in analyzing issues, generating visions, developing plans, and monitoring outcomes.

Characteristics: City/neighborhood involvement Diverse participation

Organize constituencies Stakeholder reps.

Techniques geared to populations Ongoing information

Social media use Disadvantaged leadership

Agency staff involvement Transparent decisions

Alternative vision scenarios & outcome evaluations

Authentic Participation Example

Responsive Government

Increase diversity on decision-making boards

Implement neighborhood design process

Reorganize city government

Develop more creative information access

Youth Civic Participation

Implement civics curriculum in schools

Develop community service internships

Add youth representatives to boards & commissions

http://burlingtonlegacyproject.org/files

Burlington 2030 Plan

Accountable Implementation Principle

Ensure that responsibilities for carrying out the plan are clearly stated, along with metrics for evaluating progress in achieving desired outcomes.

Characteristics: Involve public in goal setting Use indicators/metrics

Coordinate implementing agencies Assign responsibilities

Set plan-related invest. priorities Commit resources

Monitor outcomes/goal progress Report during budgeting

Balance upgrades, new services & green technology

Accountable Implementation Example

What must change in Albany as a system? Which strategies target needed changes? Keys to achieving the vision: • Improve Albany’s image &

quality of life • Increase fiscal capacity • Facilitate & mobilize private

investment • Establish Albany’s

reputation as a Green Community http://albany2030.org

Albany 2030 Plan

Beyond Best Practices: Cities as Resource Producers

• Settling for neutral impacts (emissions trading, green building, etc.) won’t make up for past damage or sustain future growth

• Turn cities from consumers into producers of environmental resources—biodiversity, energy, clean air & water

• Use metrics to identify & measure real sustainability

• Shape development decisions with real time outcome monitoring http://oursurprisingworld.com/acros-

fukuoka-the-serene-green-roof-of-

japan/

Recommendations for APA—Lead the Way • Establish professional culture of

sustaining places in planning practice & education

• Conduct research & develop sustaining places knowledge, concepts, &techniques

• Develop education & awareness to widen public & professional understanding of sustaining places planning

Sustaining Places Plan

Comprehensive Plan Accreditation

References

Birkeland, Janis. 2008. Positive Development: From Vicious Circles to Virtuous Cycles through Built Environmental Design. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Condon, Patrick M. 2010. Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities: Design Strategies for the Post-Carbon World. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Feiden, Wayne, and Elisabeth Hamlin. 2011. Assessing Sustainability: A Guide for Local Governments. (PAS 565) APA Planners Press.

Godschalk, D.R., and W. Anderson. 2012. Sustaining Places: The Role of the Comprehensive Plan. APA PAS Report #567, January.

Hollander, Justin B. 2011. Sunburnt Cities: The Great Recession, Depopulation, and Urban Planning in the American Sunbelt. New York: Routledge.

Mohsen, Mostafavi, and Gareth Doherty (eds.). 2010. Ecological Urbanism. Lars Muller Publishers.

Sartè, S. Bry. 2010. Sustainable Infrastructure: The Guide to Green Engineering and Design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Making Comprehensive Plans to Sustain Places

David Godschalk FAICP, Professor Emeritus, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

William Anderson FAICP, Principal/Vice President, AECOM, San Diego

Alex Hinds, Co-Founder Center for Sustainable Communities, Sonoma State University

APA Conference Los Angeles 15 April 2012

APA Sustaining Places Initiative

“Sustaining Places…how places can be sustained and how places themselves sustain life and civilization. Planning’s comprehensive focus … encompasses all scales and all forms of organization of human settlement…solutions require planners’ values, skills, and leadership.”

APA President Bruce Knight

2004 Sustainable Seattle Plan

2007 Marin Countywide Plan

Batting Order

David Godschalk Role of Comprehensive Plan. Planning principles.

William Anderson Planning scales . Implementation. San Diego Regional Plan.

Alex Hinds Plan metrics. Public participation. Marin Countywide Plan.

Continuing Education Credit for AIA Members This session has been approved to provide 1.25

LU/HSW/SD credits.

Sign up on sheet at back of room to claim credits.

Sustaining Places Planning Scale and the Vertical Integration of Plans

William Anderson, FAICP

Principal/Vice-President, AECOM

William.anderson3@aecom.com

Supply of resources is regional Air, water, habitat, energy, employment

Demand for resources are local decisions

Land use, transportation choice, energy use, water use

Horizontal Integration of Plan Elements

Elements

Land Use

Circulation

Housing

Conservation

Open Space

Noise

Safety

Economic Prosperity

Recreation

Historic Preservation

Culture

Public Facilities

Urban Design

Integrated for:

Policy Coordination

Internal Consistency

Capital Improvement Plan Consistency

Zoning Consistency

Planning Scale Example sustainability policies

Regional Plan • Air quality management • Habitat conservation system • Watershed and water quality management • Regional transportation network

Local Jurisdiction Plan • Land use types and location policies • Green building policies • Jobs/housing coordination • Economic base capacity • Bicycle circulation network

Community Plan • Parcel land use & zoning • Community public facilities strategy • Housing options • Mobility connections & pedestrian master plan • Community character & urban design policies

Master Plan • Development program • Building & site design • Passive energy systems • Landscaping for water conservation • Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit network connections

The

San Diego

Example

City Planning & Community Investment

A City Set in a

Bio-Diverse Region

Housing Units in the San Diego Region Over Time

GHG Inventory Project Results

www.sandiego.edu/epic

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2006 Levels 2020 BAU Projections AB 32 Target Executive Order S-3-05Target (2050)

MM

T C

O2

E

Hypothetical GHG Emissions Reduction Targets San Diego County

ON-ROAD TRANSPORTATION

46%

ELECTRICITY 25%

NATURAL GAS END USES

9%

CIVIL AVIATION

5%

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES AND

PRODUCTS 5%

OTHER FUELS/OTHER 4%

OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT AND

VEHICLES 4%

WASTE 2%

AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY/LAND USE

2% RAIL 1%

WATER-BORNE NAVIGATION

0.4%

GHG Inventory Project Results

www.sandiego.edu/e

pic

GHG Emissions for San Diego County (2006)

Smart Growth Concept Map

13

2050 Regional Transportation Plan

Smart Growth Tools for Local Jurisdictions

Smart Growth Incentive Program and Environmental Mitigation Program

Visual Simulations

Resources

Jurisdictions That have Updated or Are Updating their General/Specific Plans

Pre-2004

2004-2011

In Progress

A City of Villages

Prime Industrial

Lands

Village Propensity Map

Conservation Element

Climate Change

Reduce carbon footprint,

mitigate impacts, and adapt to changes

Address sustainable building and practices that reduce global climate change

Encourage clean tech industries to benefit San Diego’s environment and economy

Climate Change Addressed Throughout the General Plan

Community Plans

Sign montage

COMMUNITY IDENTITY

CONSERVATION

GENERAL PLAN

City-wide policies

COMMUNITY PLANS

LAND USE &

URBAN DESIGN PUBLIC FACILITIES

ZONING FINANCING

PROJECTS

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NTA

L

RE

VIE

W

UPTOWN

Community

Plan

The Uptown District Master Plan

The Uptown District

• 318 Residential Units (townhomes, flats, and artist’s

lofts ranging from 652 to 1,249 square feet)

• 145,000 square feet of Commercial and Retail space,

one of Southern California’s most successful Ralph’s

grocery stores

• Neighborhood Community Center and Public Green

A 14-acre mixed-use redevelopment

project initiated by the City of San

Diego Planning Department in 1986.

Thank you.

National APA Conference, Los Angeles, April 15, 2012

Cultural Landscape of Marin County

“Planning is best done in advance” - Anonymous

Environmental corridors -

the foundation of the Countywide Plan

Since 1973 land use in Marin

had been guided by 3

environmental corridors:

City-Centered

Inland Rural

Coastal Recreation

In 2007, a 4th, Baylands

Corridor was added.

Pin

e Gulc

h Cre ek

Ol em

a

Cre

ek

La

gunit as C

re e k

San Geroni mo C reek

Lagu

n itas Creek

Halleck Cre

ek

Arro yo

A

vichi

N

ovat o Cr eek

Arr oyo

San Jos e

Miller Creek

S

le epy

Ho

l

l ow

Creek

Gall inas Creek

San Rafael C

k

Fai rfax Creek

San A nselm o

Cre

ek

Corte Madera Ck

Ro

ss C

r eek

Larks p u

r C

reek

A

rr oyo Corte M

ader a d

el PresidioRedw

ood C reek

Coy

ote Cr e ek

Eskoot Creek

Petalu

ma River

Sa n Anton io Creek

Sal mon Cre ek

Ch

ileno Creek

Walker

Cre

ek

Ste m

ple C r eek

Est

ero d

e A

merican o

US

Hig

hw

ay 1

01S

tate

Hig

hw

ay 1

Sir Francis D rake Blv

d

I-580

Sir F

rancis

Dra ke

Blvd

Sta

te H

ighw

ay 1

TO

MA

LES

BA

Y

DRAKES BAY

SAN FRANCISCO BAY

SAN PABLO BAY

SAN RAFAEL BAY

BOLINAS BAY

RICHARDSON

BAY

P A C

I F I C O

C E

A N

S O N

O M

A C O

U N T Y

Novato

Tiburon

Sausalito

San Rafael

Olema

Bolinas

Nicasio

Tomales

Marshall

Marinwood

Inverness

Kentfield

Muir Beach

Dillon Beach

Stinson Beach

Pt. Reyes Station

Ross

Fairfax

Larkspur

Belvedere

Mill Valley

San Anselmo

Corte Madera

Tamalpais

San Geronimo Village

±0 2 4 6 81Miles

THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR GENERAL PLAN PURPOSES.THE COUNTY OF MARIN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE FORUSE OF THIS MAP BEYOND ITS INTENDED PURPOSE.

MAP 3-1

ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDORS

SOURCE: County of Marin

Water Bodies

Streams

Legend

Lakes

Perennial

Intermittent

County Boundary

City Boundary

Highways and Major Roads

Ephemeral

Date: December 20, 2004 File: EnvCorr with Bayland 3-1.mxd

Environmental Corridors

City Centered Corridor

Inland Rural Corridor

Coastal Corridor

Baylands Corridor

What’s Required in a General Plan?

According to California law, there are 7 mandatory elements: Land Use

Circulation

Housing

Conservation

Open Space

Noise

Safety

CWP Public Outreach and Community Participation:

Extensive public outreach and education (since 2000)

4 Working Groups (2001-02)

• Guiding Principles

• Natural Systems/Ag

• Built Environment

• Socioeconomics

+ San Quentin Reuse Committee

Plan was finally adopted in 2007

Public Process Takes Time

Then:

Now:

Marin Countywide Plan’s

Framework for Sustainability

Ecological Footprint Comparison

27.4

24.021.8

13.0

9.5

3.1 2.5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Marin

County

United

States

Canada France Italy Chile Mexico

Acr

es

per

Pe

rso

n

How Does Marin’s Footprint Compare to Other San

Francisco Bay Area Counties?

Number of earths that would be required to serve the footprint of

each S.F. Bay Area County:

Marin Countywide Plan

Each element addresses:

What are the desired outcomes?

Why it is important?

How will results be achieved?

How will success be measured?

The Countywide Plan

Indicators, Benchmarks & Targets

• Measuring Success

• Non-binding information tools

• Not required in general plans

• Feedback loops

• Opportunity to evaluate & reconsider strategies

Pin

e G

ulc

h C

reek

Ol em

a

C

re

ek

L

a

gu

nit as Cre

ek

San Geroni mo C reek

L

agu

n itas Creek

Halleck Cre

ek

Arro yo

Avic

hi

No

vat o

Cr eek

Arr o

yo San Jos e

Miller Creek

Sle e

py H

o

l

l ow

C

reek

Gall inas Creek

San Rafael Ck

Fai rfax Cree

k

San A nselm o

Cre

ek

Corte

Madera Ck

Ro

ss

C r e

ek

Larks p u

r

Creek

Arr oyo C

orte

Mad

era d

el Presid

ioRedw

ood C reek

Co

yote Cr e ek

Eskoot Cre

ek

Petalu

ma River

Sa n Anton io Creek

Sal mon Cre ek

Ch

ileno Creek

Walker

Cre

ek

Ste m

p

le C r eek

Est

ero d

e A

merican o

US

Hig

hw

ay 1

01S

tate

Hig

hw

ay 1

Sir Francis D rake Blv

d

I-580

Sir

Fra

ncis

Dra k

e B

lvd

Sta

te H

ighw

ay 1

TO

MA

LE

S B

AY

DRAKES BAY

SAN FRANCISCO BAY

SAN PABLO BAY

SAN RAFAEL BAY

BOLINAS BAY

RICHARDSON

BAY

P A C

I F I C O

C E

A N

S O

N O

M A

C O

U N

T Y

Novato

Tiburon

Sausalito

San Rafael

Olema

Bolinas

Nicasio

Tomales

Marshall

Marinwood

Inverness

Kentfield

Muir Beach

Dillon Beach

Stinson Beach

Pt. Reyes Station

Ross

Fairfax

Larkspur

Belvedere

Mill Valley

San Anselmo

Corte Madera

Tamalpais

San Geronimo Village

±0 2 4 6 81Miles

THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR GENERAL PLAN PURPOSES.THE COUNTY OF MARIN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE FORUSE OF THIS MAP BEYOND ITS INTENDED PURPOSE.

MAP 3-1

ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDORS

SOURCE: County of Marin

Water Bodies

Streams

Legend

Lakes

Perennial

Intermittent

County Boundary

City Boundary

Highways and Major Roads

Ephemeral

Date: December 20, 2004 File: EnvCorr with Bayland 3-1.mxd

Environmental Corridors

City Centered Corridor

Inland Rural Corridor

Coastal Corridor

Baylands Corridor

14

Natural Systems & Agriculture

Biological resources

Water resources

Environmental Hazards

Atmosphere and climate

Open space

Trails

Agriculture and food

Topics in the Natural Systems & Agriculture Element:

2005 Countywide GHG Emissions: Tons CO2e & Percent by Sector

Industrial

65,000

2%

Commercial

390,000

12%

Residential

596,000

19%

Transportat ion

1,983,000

62%

Waste

56,965

2%

Agricultural

97,000

4%

Climate Change Overall Goals – What are the Desired Outcomes?

Reduce GHG emissions

Monitor climate change

Adapt to climate change

Indicator Benchmark Targets

Amount of GHG

Emissions

Countywide

Reduce 15-20% by

2020.

2,634,000 tons

CO2 in 1990

How will success be measured?

Communicating Progress

•Preserve Agricultural Lands and Uses

•Promote Local & Organic Food Products

•Support Sustainable Agriculture

•Encourage Community Gardens &

Healthy Food in Schools & Workplaces

Agriculture & Food Natural Systems & Agriculture:

Indicator Benchmark Targets

Acres of land

farmed

organically

Increase by 1,500%

by 2010 and

1,700% by 2015

357 acres in 2000

How will success be measured?

Communicating Progress

Communicating Progress

Built Environment

• Community Development

• Design

• Energy and Green Building

• Mineral Resources

• Housing

• Transportation

• Noise

• Public Facilities and Services

• Planning Areas

Topics in the Built Environment:

Greening our Built Environment

- Limit sprawl, restrict development in environmentally sensitive areas

- Require mixed-use in commercial areas

- Housing Overlay Designation – Focus affordable & workforce

housing near jobs, transit & services

- Require Green Building

- Retrofit existing buildings

- Pursue Community Choice Aggregation

Marinwood Shopping Center Before:

After:

San Quentin Vision – Land Use Plan

How do we Green Transportation?

GREENING Transportation

- Prioritize funding for projects that reduce fossil-fuel use and single-

occupancy auto trips

- Provide incentives for public transit, bicycles, vanpools, carpools,

car sharing, walking

- Reduce parking requirements if located near transit or in trip

reduction programs

Communicating Progress

Communicating Progress

Socioeconomic

Topics in the Socioeconomic Element:

• Economy

• Childcare

• Public Safety

• Community Participation

• Diversity

• Education

• Environmental Justice

• Public Health

• Arts and Culture

• Historical and Archaeological Resources

• Parks and Recreation

Indicator Benchmark Targets

Number of

certified

“green”

businesses

Increase to

250 by 2010,

and 400 by

2015

0 in 2000

How will success be measured?

Communicating Progress

Public Health

Public Health

What are the desired outcomes?

Goal: Reduced rates of Obesity, Eating Disorders, and Chronic Disease

Such as Heart Disease and Breast Cancer

How?

Promote Nutrition Education and Access to Healthy Foods

Promote Physical Activity

Promote Healthy Environments

Develop Disease Prevention and Management Programs

Indicator Benchmark Targets

Percent of

population

overweight &

obese.

10% decrease in obesity by

2015. Children: physical

activity up 10%, eating 5

servings of fruit & veggies

per day, up by 10%

34% children over

weight/obese in 2001;

60% exercised at least

20 minutes at least 3

days per week in 2002

How will success be measured?

Communicating Progress

See-it Viewer: allows the public to follow

progress of key indicators

From Planning to More Implementation

Marin Indicators Report

Indicator Trends

Clear Progress

Moderate

Performance Improvement Area

1. Agriculture 1. Education 1. Housing

2. Arts & Culture 2. Transportation 2. Child Care

3. Biological Resources 3. Climate Change

4. Energy & Green Building 4. Economy

5. Food

6. Open Space

7. Public Facilities & Services

8. Public Health

9. Public Safety

• Local government JPA purchases power

• Buy or own power

• Local government advantages

• JPA created – 2008-09

• Customers are “in” unless they “opt-out”

• PG&E continues to deliver electricity & serve

customers

What is Marin Clean Energy? Renewable Energy:

11,

800

10,

000

1,1

00

190

70,

000

11,

800

10,

000

1,1

00

190

350

,000

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

Encourage

Community

Car Sharing

Expand Local

or Regional

Bus Service

Install Solar

Panels on

Municipal

Facilities

Perform Energy

Efficient

Lighting

Retrofits

Marin Clean

Energy

CO

2 R

ed

ucti

on

(to

ns

per

year)

2010

2019

MCE GHG Reduction Potential

Energy Options - Light Green or Deep Green

Light Green

Initially 25% renewable, increasing to

50% within 5 years

Competitive Costs

78% Fossil Free

47

Deep Green

100% renewable

$0.01 premium for kilowatt-hour

Renewables Portfolio Standard

Projected Procurement – 2010

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

MEA PG&E SCE SDG&E SPPC PacCorp

California RPS Mandate – 20%

48

- Marin County Community Dev.

Agency

- Global Footprint Network

-Bay Conservation & Development Commission

- Climate Protection Campaign

- Real Living Solutions

- Marin Clean Energy

Special thanks to:

Deep Green

100% renewable

$0.01 premium for kilowatt-hour

Contact Information: Alex Hinds, Co-founder Center for Sustainable Communities, Dept of Environmental Studies and Planning Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA hindsa@sonoma.edu