Earth is our home and home to all living things. Earth itself is alive. We are part of an evolving universe. Human beings are members of an interdependent community of life with a magnificent diversity of life forms and cultures. We are humbled before the beauty of Earth and share a reverence for live and the sources of our being. We give thanks for the heritage that we have received from past generations and embrace our responsibilities to present and future generations.
The Earth Community stands at a defining moment. The biosphere is governed by laws that we ignore at our own peril. Human beings have acquired the ability to radically alter the environment and evolutionary processes. Lack of foresight and misuse of knowledge and power threaten the fabric of life and the foundations of local and global security. There is great violence, poverty, and suffering in our world. A fundamental change of course is needed.
The choice is before us: to care for Earth or to participate in the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. We must reinvent industrial-technological civilization, finding new ways to balance self and community, having and being, diversity and unity, short-term and long-term, using and nurturing.
In the midst of all our diversity, we are one humanity and one Earth family with a shared destiny. The challenges before us require an inclusive ethical vision. Partnerships must be forged and cooperation fostered at local, bioregional, national and international levels. In solidarity with one another and the community of life, we the peoples of the world commit ourselves to action guided by the following principles:
1. Respect Earth and all life. Earth, each life form, and all living beings possess intrinsic value and warrant respect independent of their utilitarian value to humanity.
2. Care for Earth, protecting and restoring the diversity, integrity, and beauty of the planet’s ecosystems. Where there is risk of irreversible or serious damage to the environment, precautionary action must be taken to prevent harm.
3. Live sustainably, promoting and adopting modes of consumption, production and reproduction that respect and safeguard human rights and the regenerative capacities of Earth.
4. Establish justice, and defend without discrimination the right of all people to life, liberty, and security of person within an environment adequate for human health and spiritual well-being. People have a right to potable water, clean air, uncontaminated soil and food security.
5. Share equitably the benefits of natural resource use and a healthy environment among the nations, between rich and poor, between males and females, between present and future generations, and internalize all environmental, social and economic costs.
6. Promote social development and financial systems that create and maintain sustainable livelihoods, eradicate poverty, and strengthen local communities.
7. Practice non-violence, recognizing that peace is the wholeness created by harmonious and balanced relationships with oneself, other persons, other life forms, and Earth.
8. Strengthen processes that empower people to participate effectively in decision-making and ensure transparency and accountability in governance and administration in all sectors of society.
9. Reaffirm that Indigenous and Tribal Peoples have a vital role in the care and protection of Mother Earth. They have the right to retain their spirituality, knowledge, lands, territories and resources.
10. Affirm that gender equality is a prerequisite for sustainable development.
11. Secure the right to sexual and reproductive health, with special concern for women and girls.
12. Promote the participation of youth as accountable agents of change for local, bioregional and global sustainability.
13. Advance and put to use scientific and other types of knowledge and technologies that promote sustainable living and protect the environment.
14. Ensure that people throughout their lives have opportunities to acquire the knowledge, values, and practical skills needed to build sustainable communities.
15. Treat all creatures with compassion and protect them from cruelty and wanton destruction.
16. Do not do to the environment of others what you do not want done to your environment.
17. Protect and restore places of outstanding ecological, cultural, aesthetic, spiritual, and scientific significance.
18. Cultivate and act with a sense of shared responsibility for the well being of the Earth Community. Every person, institution and government has a duty to advance the indivisible goals of justice for all, sustainability, world peace, and respect and care for the larger community of life.
Embracing the values in this Charter, we can grow into a family of cultures that allows the potential of all persons to unfold in harmony with the Earth Community. We must preserve a strong faith in the possibilities of the human spirit and a deep sense of belonging to the universe. Our best actions will embody the integration of knowledge with compassion.——In order to develop and implement the principles in this Charter, the nations of the world should adopt as a first step an international convention that provides an integrated legal framework for existing and future environmental and sustainable development law and policy.
Notes on the Earth Charter Process by Peter Adriance
The Earth Charter was expected to be one of the major products of the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) or Earth Summit. Originally conceived of in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission, the Charter was to be a common ethical framework for decision making on environment and development matters.
In preparation for the Earth Summit, NGOs initiated several efforts to draft an Earth Charter, and over a two year period leading up to and including the ’92 Summit a number of prototypes were produced. However, the governments at the Earth Summit fell short of generating an Earth Charter – and adopted instead the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
Following the Summit, two NGOs, the Earth Council and Green Cross International, joined forces with others to advance the development of an Earth Charter. In May of 1995 they cosponsored a meeting at the Hague to discuss elements of an Earth Charter and to initiate the next stage in the drafting process. An Earth Charter Commission was appointed and regional consultations were held worldwide with an extremely diverse field over a two year period. The “benchmark draft” that emerged from the March ’97 Rio+5 meetings was informed by those consultations and all the documents and discussions that preceded them, and it represents the next stage in a multiyear drafting process.
What happens now? The Earth Charter will be introduced at the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development in April ’97 for possible inclusion on the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly Special Session in June. Governments may take note of the effort and consider the prospect of developing a “U.N.” Earth Charter themselves. In the mean time, the draft Charter will be circulated widely during the coming year and discussed by as many people as possible. The hope is to give it the weight and momentum of a popular document which would smooth the way for the governments to draft and adopt an Earth Charter.
“The primary purpose of the Earth Charter Project is to create a ‘soft law’ document that sets forth the fundamental principles of [the] emerging new ethics, principles that include respect for human rights, peace, economic equity, environmental protection, and sustainable living… “The Earth Charter will become a universal code of conduct for states and people that will do for environmental conservation and sustainable development what the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights has done for human rights.” — (Steven Rockefeller, member, Earth Charter Management Committee, quoted in Earth Ethics, Spring, 1996).
The process of developing the Earth Charter is as important as the product itself. While many have contributed to the Charter’s development to date, many more will do so in the coming months as various groups undertake diverse efforts to stimulate discussion about the Charter and to engage people in its further development. A “final” version of the Charter based on the consensus emerging from those discussions will be drafted for approval by the Earth Charter Commission in the spring of ’98. The hope is that a “U.N.” Earth Charter will be agreed upon at the United Nations no later than the year 2000.
Sustainable development focuses on whole systems, long range planning, and front end solutions. It seeks out partnerships between government and business, and requires the participation of the entire public.
Economic Principles:
Integrates the environment and the economy in all levels of decision-making. Utilizes economic appraisals that fully value the cost of goods and services (including environmental and social impacts).
Revises how we measure and value growth to be equitable, long-term, and reflect quality of life elements.
Incorporates economic incentives that encourage the conservation of resources: reflects the total cost of goods; and shifts the burden of taxes and fees from the public to the user.
Reorients technology to better manage risks and efficiently utilizes materials and energy.
Environmental Principles:
Conserves and enhances the natural resource base (air, water, soils, biological diversity).
Enhances interdisciplinary science and education – improves our understanding of and information available on natural systems and their interrelationships.
Adjusts the use of natural resources and the capacity of environmental systems to reflect carrying capacity.
Social Principles:
Ensures a sustainable level of population and access to education, health care, and family planning services.
Improves governance through cohesive efforts that link agencies and departments, and central government with local government; incorporates project appraisal techniques that include environmental and social costs and benefits; involves citizens in decision-making.
Promotes values and ethics that reflect sustainable development – the interdependence of the environment and the economy, the importance of fairness and equity for long-term prosperity, and the need for cooperation and community.
Enhances interdisciplinary science and education – improves our understanding of and information available on natural systems and their interrelationships.
Principles condensed from Our Common Future and various Canadian models by Patricia Scruggs.
In 1972 in Stockholm, the United Nations held the first international conference on the environment, which brought together the industrialized and developing nations to delineate the “rights” of the human family to a healthy and productive environment. From this event, the United Nations Environment Programme was developed.
WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
The World Commission on Environment and Development, or Brundtland Commission named after its chair, Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, was formulated in 1987 by an urgent call from the UN General Assembly to create a “global agenda for change.” The assigned task was to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond, find ways of cooperation between nations for mutally supportive objectives, consider ways the international community can deal more effectively with environmental concerns, and define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues. In its final report, “Our Common Future,” the Commission agreed on an analysis, broad remedies, and recommendations for a sustainable course of development.
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), or Earth Summit, was an unprecedented international meeting of delegations from 178 countries, heads of state of more than 100 countries, and representatives of more than 1,000 non-governmental organizations or NGOs that took place in June, 1992, in Rio de Janeiro. Its purpose was to develop a global consensus on measures needed to balance development pressures against an increasingly imperiled global environment. Its mandate was to define plans of action for achieving a future that is environmentally sound and equitable between nations and peoples as well as generations, to elaborate strategies and measures to halt and reverse the effects of environmental degradation, and to strength national and international efforts to promote sustainable and environmentally sound development in all countries.
The following five major agreements are associated with UNCED:
Agenda 21 – a broad, 40-chapter statement of goals and potential programs related to sustainable development;
The Rio Declaration – a brief statement of principles on sustainable development;
The Biodiversity Treaty – a binding international agreement aimed at strengthening national control and preservation of biological resources;
The Statement of Forest Principles – a non-binding agreement on development, preservation, and management of the Earth’s remaining forests;
The Framework Convention on Climate Change – a binding international agreement that seeks to limit or reduce emissions of gases, mainly carbon dioxide and methane, associated with the potential for global warming.
UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) is an inter-governmental body of the United Nations established in 1993 that meets annually to review progress at the international, regional and national levels in the implementation of recommendations and commitments contained in the final documents of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). It elaborates policy guidance and options for future activities to follow up UNCED and achieve sustainable development, and promotes dialogue and builds partnerships for sustainable development with governments, the international community and the major groups identified in Agenda 21.
U.S. PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPEMENT
The President’s Council on Sustainable Development was created in June,1993 by President Clinton to advise him on sustainable development and to develop bold, new approaches to integrate economic, environmental, and equity issues. The Council is a ground-breaking partnership of 25 diverse leaders from business; multiple levels of government; and community, environmental, labor, and civil rights organizations.
During the first phase of Council’s work, the President charged the Council to draft recommendations on a national action strategy on sustainable development. The Council’s first report included a vision statement and fundamental beliefs on sustainable development; recommended changes in business, community institutions, individuals, and at all levels of government that must occur to achieve sustainable development; ten goals and indicators of sustainable development; and scores of wide-ranging recommendations and actions to implement them.
In the second phase, President Clinton asked the Council to work on first steps to implement recommendations in the report, support the creation of the Joint Center for Sustainable Communities, and work with Vice President Al Gore on efforts within the administration to support sustainable development.
For the third phase, 1997 and 1998, President Clinton has asked the Council to continue to forge consensus on policy; demonstrate implementation of policy; conduct outreach and constituency building; and evaluate and report on progress.
“Whatever befalls the earth befalls the people of earth. The earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”
Sustainability Defined (World Commission on Environment & Development, 1987)
“Sustainable development means meeting the needs of the present without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. . . Economics and ecology must be completely integrated in decision-making and lawmaking processes not just to protect the environment, but also to protect and promote development.”
Buckminster Fuller on the purpose of the World Game:
“To make the world work for 100% of humanity In the shortest possible time Through spontaneous cooperation Without ecological offense Or the disadvantage of anyone.”
World Scientists Warning (signed by 1,575 leading scientists from 69 countries, 1992)
“Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. . . If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. . . Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.”
Agenda 21 (policy document from the Earth Summit, June, 1992)
“Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future.”
Agenda 21/ Chapter 28
“Because so many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives. . . By 1996, most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on ‘a local Agenda 21’ for the community.”
UN Commission on Sustainable Development (first meeting, June 14, 1993)
“A 53-member Commission has been set up within the Economic and Social Council of the UN to monitor how the recommendations in Agenda 21 and other Rio agreements are being implemented by Governments and by the United Nations and its agencies.”
President’s Council on Sustainable Development (announced June 14, 1993)
“The President’s Council on Sustainable Development represents a groundbreaking commitment to explore and develop policies that encourage economic growth, job creation, and effective use of our natural and cultural resources.”
League of California Cities Resolution (passed October, 1993)
“The League of California Cities encourages: the creation of Sustainable Community programs in California cities through the participation of all segments of the respective communities; regional efforts to adopt policies and programs on the concept of sustainability to ensure the future well-being of our natural and human resources, and participation of California cities in new forums/organizations to promote and implement sustainable policies.”
Business Council for Sustainable Development
“We need fundamental political and economic changes:
Market-based policies must promote more efficient resource use, rapid technology advances and productivity gains.
Short-term profits need to give way to more long-term attention to capital appreciation, wealth creation, the “eco-efficiency” of corporations and the environmental opportunities in developing counties.
Products and processes need to be optimized to reduce pollution during their production, use, disposal, and exercising product life-cycle stewardship.
Technology cooperation is the enabling tool for integrating economic development with environmental protection.
Economic growth is necessary for improved social equity, environmentally sustainable development and to stabilize population.”
The State of California is responsible for developing a regional disposal facility for low-level radioactive waste generated by universities, medical centers, nuclear power plants, industries, and some government agencies. The California Department of Health Services has issued a license for such a facility at Ward Valley, a remote site in the arid Mojave Desert, eighteen miles from the Colorado River.
The California Radioactive Materials Management Forum is an association of professional societies and public and private institutions and corporations that use radioactive materials and generate low-level radioactive waste. For more information about how society uses radioactive materials and the many governmental findings that the proposed Ward Valley project will be safe, please see Cal Rad’s Web Page at www.calradforum.org or contact:Alan Pasternak, Cal Rad Forum P.O. Box 1638, Lafayette, CA 94549, 510-283-5210 Fax: 510-283-5219
Groups such as Americans for a Safe Future, Committee to Bridge the Gap, and Physicians for Social Responsibility are concerned that radioactive materials from the facility will migrate through existing pathways to the Colorado River and contaminate the drinking water for Southern California. They are concerned that the proposed dump would be built in unlined trenches, that a similar site has leaked to alarming levels within just 30 years, and that health and liability risks would fall on California residents. The dump contractor claims that most of the waste consists of low level medical waste; however other sources indicate that 98% of the radioactivity would be from nuclear power plants and reactors. For more information on their concerns, see the Ward Valley Web Site: www.envirolink.org/orgs/wardvalley or contact:Derek Chernow, Americans for a Safe Future 409 Santa Monica Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90404 310-395-2388 Fax: 310-394-5825
Maguire Thomas Partners has proposed a development at Playa Vista involving 1067 acres of coastal plain and wetlands. In the proposal, approximately 300 acres of wetlands and other habitat would be preserved and restored. The plan was developed over several years through consultation with major environmental groups and other interest groups in the community. Opponents are concerned that the development will contribute to congestion, air pollution, and destruction of habitat. For more information, contact:
Lisa Weil, Playa Vista, Maguire Thomas Partners 3250 Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-822-0074
The Department of Airports is developing several alternative proposals to increase the capacity of the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) from 50 million passengers/year to 90 million/year by 2015. Concerns have been raised by Councilwoman Ruth Galanter and others regarding potential impacts on area residents, ground transportation, and air pollution. For more information, contact:
Department of Airports – 888-LAX-2015 Website: www.lax2015.org Sheila Murphy (in charge of plan) or Susan Gilmore (PR) 310-646-7690
Ericka Smith Office of Councilwoman Ruth Galanter 200 N. Spring St., Rm. 239, City Hall Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-485-3357; Fax: 213-237-0549
There are two key current long range transportation planning efforts in Southern California for the period 2001 to 2025. The Southern CaliforniaAssociation of Governments (SCAG) is distributing for comment the 2001 Draft Regional Transportation Plan which covers the following six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial. The plan proposes $130 billion for transportation maintenance and improvements in the six-county region over the next 25 years.
In addition, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has a preliminary draft long range plan recommending how to spend $89 billion over the next 25 years within Los Angeles County.
With an additional 3.5 million residents to be added to L.A. County by 2025 (a total of 6 million additional for the entire region), congestion is projected to become much worse. Average freeway speeds will be nearly cut in half, slowing morning and evening rush hours to a crawl. In spite of this, the preliminary draft plans being discussed by the SCAG and MTA transportation agencies expect that over 70% of home to work trips will continue to be by single occupancy automobile and less than4% of all trips will use transit. Only minimal resources are being put into land use/smart growth solutions or bicycle, pedestrian options.The plans also do not address rising fuel costs, energy supply disruptions or possible future federal mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the transportation investments recommended so far leave our region vulnerable to these possible scenarios, which could have severe impact on our regional economy.
Your suggestions for alternatives need to be communicated to decision-makers.Your comments are crucial in determining whether these plans will address concerns for mobility, environment and our quality of life.
Sponsored by the City of Santa Monica and the Southern California Council on Environment and Development with additional support from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Southern California Gas Company
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Becoming a Sustainable City
Dean Kubani, Senior Environment Policy Analyst and Director of Santa Monica’s Sustainable City Program, 310-458-2227:
The Sustainable City Program involves the community in developing a comprehensive vision, including environment, housing and economics. Our accomplishments include a 5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 92% reduction in urban runoff, and more.
Eugene Zeller, Director of Planning and Building Department, City of Long Beach, 562-570-6428:
We will establish baseline data and benchmarks as part of a community scorecard. We will develop “green” building guidelines for purchase of materials and maintenance of city facilities. We will also revise our land use plan to allow for appropriate densities and development.
Douglas Otto, Facilitator for the Long Beach Strategic Plan and member of the Planning Commission, 562-491-1191:
We saw sustainability as a metaphor for the entire Strategic Plan. Ultimately the residents must buy into the process, through development of community indicators and long term involvement in the process.
Energy Efficiency, Renewables and Deregulation
Craig Perkins, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-8221:
Our program involves energy efficiency projects (lighting, etc.), renewable energy procurement (we are now 100% green power for all city facilities), local energy sources (photovoltaic carport, solar electric roofing, etc.) and new efficient HVAC systems.
John Moot, City Council, City of Chula Vista, 619-233-1888:
Energy deregulation is a big opportunity for us to make a statement to the marketplace that there is a demand for clean energy. Users of 50 kW or less per meter are eligible for a subsidy of 1.25¢ per kWh, so we got it for less than the cost of dirty brown energy.
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Manuel Jaquez, Purchasing Specifications Analyst, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles, 213-847-1434:
There are many benefits in sustainable products procurement that can help protect the environment, human life, and natural resources, as well as reduce product cost and provide revenue savings to public agencies.
Dean Kubani, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-2227:
The US EPA did a report of “green” purchasing in Santa Monica, available from us, or the EPA. We decided to define green purchasing as “environmentally preferable purchasing,” including products that are recycled, less hazardous (less toxic), resource efficient and less polluting (such as alternative fueled vehicles).
Alternative Fuel Vehicle Fleets
Rick Cole, City Manager, City of Azusa, 626-797-4757:
We have used AB 2766 funds to purchase five CNG trucks. We are working with the Gas Company to install a fast CNG fueling facility for our area of the San Gabriel Valley. Even if you have limited finances, you can still do it.
T. L. Garrett, Air Quality Division, Environmental Affairs Department, City of Los Angeles, 213-580-1025
Clean fuels funding can come from the Carl Moyer program, MSRC, heavy-duty diesel retrofit program, AB 2766, State energy program grants, etc. Our next steps include: identifying alternative fuel niche applications and infrastructure development.
Green Building and Design
Susan Munves, Resource Efficiency Coordinator, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-8229:
Good green buildings often cost little or no more to build than inefficient ones. We have developed guidelines that will apply to all new construction and substantial remodels of commercial and multi-family buildings.
George Burmeister, Colorado Energy Group (consultant to Santa Clarita), 303-494-4711:
The Community Energy Efficiency Program is a utility-sponsored voluntary program, which encourages incentives from local governments to homebuilders to build at least 30% beyond code requirements for efficiency. The results are big savings in utility bills for homeowners.
Cities for Climate Protection Campaign
Pam O’Connor, Santa Monica City Council, 310-458-8201:
The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) brings together municipal policy and technical people to support improvements in our cities. It creates a network for sharing information and makes it fun and interesting.
Abby Young, USA Director, ICLEI, 510-540-8843:
The Cities for Climate Protection campaign began in 1993 to see how cities could readily achieve global warming reductions. It doesn’t cost anything to participate. We have software programs, materials and training workshops.
Dean Kubani, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-2227:
We have been impressed with the ICLEI information. We recommend participation.
Field Visits to Santa Monica’s Facilities
Pico Boulevard Streetscape Project: Craig Perkins, Director, Environmental and Public Works Department, 310-458-8221:
We are enhancing the safety and appearance of Pico Boulevard by a median strip with trees, accent street lights, additional street streets and crosswalk enhancements.
Alternative Fuel Vehicles: Joe Delaney, Solid Waste Operations Manager, 310-458-8554:
We have 70% of the City’s Solid Waste vehicles on alternative fuels, including cars, trash trucks, street sweepers, shovel loaders, etc. We have both fast and slow fill CNG facilities.
Green Fleets: Ralph Merced, Fleet Maintenance Supervisor, Department of Environmental and Public Works Management:
Recycled/environmentally preferable products we use include: re-refined oil and hydraulic fluid, recycled oil filters, re-conditioned batteries, retread tires, propylene glycol anti-freeze, water-based parts cleaner, etc.
Green Street Repair: Bogee Cline, Street Maintenance Superintendent:
We use cooler “white topping,” a cement-asbestos mixture that goes over the old asphalt base. We are using brick pavers instead of concrete for sidewalks to save a lot of labor. We are testing rubberized sidewalks that are great for kids to play on because they are soft.
Green Cleaning Products and Equipment on the Third Street Promenade: Craig Perkins and Eddie Greenberg, Promenade Crew Leader, Solid Waste Management Department:
We use small electric utility trucks for maintenance. We use less toxic cleaning products to protect our employees’ health. The result has been improved custodial morale, as well as lower costs, with no reduction in effective cleaning.
Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF): Craig Perkins and Neal Shapiro, Urban Runoff Coordinator:
The SMURRF treats up to 0.5 million gallons per day of urban runoff. Before this facility, these drains sent untreated water directly into the Santa Monica Bay full of litter, decaying leaves, oil, pesticides and bacteria, threatening the health of swimmers and fish.SUMMARIES OF PRESENTATIONS
For more information, contact the speaker.
Welcome and Overview
Kathleen Gildred, Director, SCCED, 310-281-8534: Agenda 21 was adopted by all the nations of the Earth at the Earth Summit in 1992 as the environmental agenda for the 21st Century. Chapter 27 points out that the cities are key to implementation of that agenda. That is a basis for this conference.
Terrence McNally, Moderator, 310-312-0041: Today we are going to discuss the principles of sustainability, and we will find that going “green” is not necessarily more expensive or less effective. In fact, if we consider a longer time frame and externalities, it is the most responsible way to go.
Becoming a Sustainable City
Craig Perkins, Director, Environmental and Public Works Department, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-8221:
We are adopting a systemic approach to sustainability. For example, currently, recycling programs lose money, yet if we make responsible purchasing decisions to buy recycled paper, then we are using a systems approach to increase the value of our recyclables. If we recognize our collective roles in creating solutions nationally and locally, we see that municipalities have a lot of ability to make change.
Today is a good opportunity to learn from each other and overcome the compartmentalization of our separate jurisdictional boundaries to get to regional and national solutions.
Dean Kubani, Senior Environment Policy Analyst and Director of Santa Monica’s Sustainable City Program, 310-458-2227:
Santa Monica has 92,000 people in 8.3 square miles, with no vacant land, so development is infill and remodels.
In the early 1990s we started a comprehensive process of examining our environmental programs because they were being implemented in a piecemeal way. The Sustainable City Program allowed us to pull the programs together and involve the community in developing a vision of where it wanted to be in 30 years. We integrated the environment, housing and economics.
We formed a task force and held a lot of public meetings in addition to surveys. The Sustainable City Program was adopted by the City Council in September 1994. It has eight Guiding Principles that provide a broader vision, plus Policy Area Goals for:
Resource Conservation, including energy and water use
Transportation
Pollution Prevention and Public Health
Community and Economic Development, including housing, open space and parks
We developed sixteen original indicators that:
Were numerical and measurable
Tied to the principles and major goals
Could be influenced by local community or government actions
Established targets for 2000 (which were based on existing mandated goals, informal policies, or our best guess).
Our implementation strategies included: ordinances, general plan, development agreements, internal administrative polices, as well as education of our staff and the community.
Our funding strategies included: reallocating existing resources, establishing partnerships with public and private agencies, taxing unsustainable practices, property assessments, operational savings and grants from Metropolitan Water District (MWD), California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), California Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR), and others.
Our accomplishments include:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5% reduction
Water Use 13% reduction
Wastewater Flows 13% reduction
Urban Runoff 92% reduction
Landfilled Solid Waste 36% reduction
Fleet Vehicles using alternative fuel 40% of fleet
Eugene Zeller, Director of Planning and Building Department, City of Long Beach, 562-570-6428:
Long Beach has developed a strategic plan for development of the city for the next decade. Using a public survey, we identified seven key strategies, one of which was related to the environment. We established an Environment Task Force, which identified sustainability as the overarching goal and the precept by which future actions will be judged.
Our goal is to create a sustainable city. This will involve coordinating relevant activities of all departments. We will create a Sustainable Development Board to establish baseline data, look at full cost accounting, uate our purchasing policies, identify incentives, and encourage public education awareness and involvement.
We hope the Strategic Plan will be adopted by City Council in July. Thereafter my department will work with other departments and the Sustainable Development Board to establish baseline data and benchmarks as part of a community scorecard. We will also develop green building guidelines for purchase of materials and maintenance of city facilities and possibly for private developments. We will also:
– Revise our land use plan to allow for appropriate densities
– Encourage pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development
– Focus growth in downtown and along arterials
– Encourage high quality mixed use housing
– Preserve open space
– Develop a comprehensive beach harbor, rivers and wetlands master plan
– Integrate neighborhoods with rivers and the shoreline
– Compile an inventory of restorable wetland areas
– Collaborate with the Federal government and other cities to establish wetlands and bird zones
– Identify funding for land acquisition for habitat
– Enhance the beachfront
– Restore wetlands and create recreational opportunities along the rivers.
Douglas Otto, Facilitator for the Long Beach Strategic Plan and member of the Planning Commission, 562-491-1191:
Long Beach has a magnificent environment, including 5 miles of beaches, terminus for both the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers, a beach bike path, 43 varieties of shore birds, stops on the Pacific Flyway, relatively good air quality, etc. The Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific celebrates our environment awareness.
I was facilitator of the process to allow citizens to participate in the plan. We saw sustainability as a metaphor for the entire Strategic Plan. Ultimately the residents must buy into the process, through development of community indicators and long term involvement in the process.
David Sundstrom, as chair of the environment planning process, involved people with a variety of views, including the environmental community, neighborhood organizations, business, religious groups, etc.
We realized measurable targets are key, because the citizens cry out for ways to assess their government in a quick, effective way.
Questions and Answers
Q: What was the percentage response to your surveys?
A: Otto: Long Beach didn’t do a survey. We had many community meetings over 7 months. In a “community scan” in 1997, a group led by a professor interviewed community leaders and residents to identify major issues.
Q: What were your cost savings as compared to the cost of implementation?
A: Perkins: The Santa Monica toilet retrofit program made a profit. Since 1990 it has cost $1 million to implement and saved $3 million. We are expecting to spend $200,000 for energy conservation measures with a 12 year payback period.
Kubani: Our toxics use reduction program is saving 5% over the old program with no loss of effectiveness. Our integrated pest management (IPM) program is saving 30% over our old pest control contract and completely eliminates spraying of pesticides.
Q: Is the first step getting the politicians on the City Council involved?
A: Zeller: The environment was one of top issues in the community scan. It was championed by the community who saw environmental consequences as an important part of the decision-making processes. The report will go to City Council in a favorable political climate.
A: Otto: Most governments respond to the “crisis du jour,” so the City Council needs citizen action to bring long range planning to their attention.
Energy Efficiency, Renewables and Deregulation
Craig Perkins, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-8221:
Prior to deregulation, the electricity in our municipal facilities came from Edison, using the “system” mix of natural gas, hydro, coal, and nuclear, with renewables comprising only about 11%. It cost us about $80 million per year.
Our guiding principles for finding a new source of electricity were to:
– Ensure reliability and price stability
– Optimize energy efficiency investments
– Reduce environment and health impact
– Increase use of renewable resources
– Improve the environmental impact of utility restructuring
– Gain greater control of city’s energy future
Electricity generation creates half of all air pollution in the US and over a third of the global warming emissions. The average American is responsible for the annual release of 22 tons of CO2, 5 times the global per capita average.
Our analysis of deregulation showed:
– Potential cost savings are minimal by switching providers (we could save 1-3% using electricity from primarily coal plants)
– City aggregation opportunities are limited
– Energy efficiency and development of community energy systems present the greatest opportunities
– Purchase of green power is the best current approach to achieving our city’s goals
We did a survey of 400 residents and 400 businesses and found:
– Understanding of deregulation and green electricity is low.
– 70% said they would switch to green energy if there was no difference in price.
– If it cost 10% more, 45% of residential customers and 30% of businesses would still want green power.
– The city should play a lead role in educating and informing the community.
We asked for bids and on February 1, 1999, the City Council voted that as of June 1, 1999, we would be purchasing 100% green power from Commonwealth Energy. They pledged to bring on line new geothermal sources for this power. We also began implementation of the following strategies:
1. Energy efficiency
– Retrofit city facilities at a cost of $2 million would produce $200,000 annual savings, providing a 12 year payback. Lighting efficiency has a faster payback.
– Implement new building standards for municipal facilities.
– Develop regional energy efficiency demonstration projects with a focus on opportunities for residents and small businesses, including a pilot project with access to public goods funds to install energy efficiency technology.
– Lower average urban temperature to reduce the need for air conditioning by planting trees, lightening color of pavement, reflective roofs, etc. These methods could drop the average summer temperature by 7-10º.
2. Renewable energy procurement
– Provide information to the community and actively promote switching to green power.
– Advocate for continued state and federal funding support for green power.
– Demonstrate city’s commitment by purchasing green power.
3. Local energy sources
– Install photovoltaics on roofs.
– Implement solar schools program.
– Evaluate innovative integrated approaches, such as combining yard waste disposal with cogeneration of electricity.
– Install photovoltaic carport, solar electric roofing.
4. Community energy systems
– Do a feasibility study of alternative energy for the Civic Center for heating, cooling and electricity.
– Incorporate new systems into the public safety building under construction.
5. City’s role beyond its boundaries
– Advocate on behalf of Santa Monica’s approach with other jurisdictions.
Summary: Energy is a critical part of the new future and municipalities need to set an example. It takes:
– commitment
– creativity
– courage
– conscience
– choice
John Moot, City Council, City of Chula Vista, 619-233-1888:
One of our residents had gotten our city involved in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) program, so I had an awareness of some of these issues. The San Diego County Association of Governments (SANDAG) decided to form a power pool to purchase energy at lower cost. Commonwealth Energy proposed an energy mix of 80% coal, which would save a little money. But I realized that local government pays for much of the cost of the health care for pollution-related diseases, and the property damage done by global warming.
Energy deregulation is big opportunity for us to make a statement to the marketplace that there is a demand for clean energy. We said we wanted a portion of our $10 million in electric purchases to be from renewable sources. So Commonwealth came back with a green energy option. Because of the Renewable Energy Trust Fund, users of 50 kW or less per meter are eligible for a subsidy of 1.5¢ per kWh, so we got it for less than the cost of brown energy. As a result, 80% of the governments in SANDAG signed up for green energy, and we have replaced polluting sources with clean energy.
San Diego is not liberal, but we presented it as voluntary option that was cheaper, and the newspaper ran supportive articles. We could convince City Councils to start at 50% green and increase it later. Even the ex-marine Mayor of Oceanside saw the benefits and the political capital that could be gained by switching to green energy. The choice benefits both the people and the environment.
Q: What is cost of solar electric roofing?
A: It costs about 3 times the cost of normal metal roofing. You can get it from a California company called Solar Utility.
Q: Do your building permits require more energy efficiency?
A: No, we use incentive programs, because people don’t like punitive rules. We have offered incentives such as break on a permit fee, based on the model of the Austin, Texas Green Star program.
Q; Did you get any funding from the federal government?
A: Perkins: We got some money to hire a consultant to do the analysis of the bids. It turns out the calculation of electric power is very complicated.
Q: How long did it take to implement the conversion?
A: Perkins: Because Edison makes it so hard, it took 6 months for Santa Monica to do it.
A: Moot: A big issue is the cost of changing the meters. In the future, make sure you own the meters.
Terrence McNally: It is important to remember that you are reducing public health costs by purchasing green energy.
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Terrence McNally: Since 20% of spending in the nation is by governmental entities, it is possible for government procurement to drive environmental change.
Manuel Jaquez, Purchasing Specifications Analyst, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles, 213-847-1434:
A. Why switch to environmentally preferable products? It is:
1. Politically correct:
– Fulfills legislative mandates (such as increased diversion from landfills)
– Integrates objectives (increases markets for recycled and sustainable products)
2. Good for the environment:
– Conserves natural resources and raw materials.
– Has long term implications for the global environment and survival of life and humanity.
3. Benefits employee safety and public health and welfare:
– Use product safety and material safety data to ensure employee health.
– Design and uate sustainable products to reduce impacts on health and the environment, without compromising safety standards and product performance and operational specifications.
How do we change purchasing procedures? Purchasing procedures in the City of Los Angeles are complex. The City practices centralized competitive bidding and decentralized buying by operating departments against the awarded contracts through purchase orders, sub-purchase orders, and other mechanisms allowed to departments: petty cash, blanket authority, and credit cards. The bidding process is integrated with development of City standards, operational and performance specifications to meet operational needs by the 40 City Council controlled departments, bureaus, and offices. The City’s other three proprietary departments: Airports, Harbor, and the Water and Power Departments have their own purchasing program.
In public procurement the issue of communication is very critical in purchasing the products and materials specified to meet or exceed the operational needs of the end user operations. This communication is equally important in partnering between the City user department, the manufacturer/ vendor, and the purchasing department.
In developing effective communications and operations, one needs to consider the following:
1. Develop a strategy to identify operational issues, conduct needs assessments, find strengths and weaknesses, note opportunities and threats.
2. Obtain management support; plan procurement process goals and objectives; obtain the right complement of staffing resources; set timetables for review of end user operational needs; conduct value analysis and product life cycle analysis; and conduct uations of product-operations performance.
3. Analyze political decisions for administrative and operational implementation and networking with the employees involved.
4. Do product–operations life cycle analysis to determine costs and benefits to find the lowest ultimate cost to the city and the community. The cost-benefit analysis is important to calculate the return on investment. This calculation helps one to learn the costs involved in providing safe products, protecting the City liability, and protecting the taxpayer’s interest.
5. Look at short term and long term benefits of the procurement decisions
and remember the waste management hierarchy:
– Reduce
– Reuse
– Recycle
6. Build a sustainable recycling strategy:
– Use closed loop arrangements and consider remanufactured products when practical and where recycled product content is possible.
– Integrate a sustainable strategy through:
– Source reduction and purchasing
– Collection, recycling and reclamation programs
– Solid waste management, landfill diversion and disposal programs
7. Fulfill Federal Energy Star and Sustainable Product Procurement requirements for post-consumer and secondary waste content:.
– As of January 1, 1999, all copy, printing and writing paper is required to have at least 30% post-consumer recycled content for all state or local agency purchases using over $10,000 of federal funds, per Executive Order #13101 (see www.ofee.gov).
C. What are our product categories? The City of Los Angeles currently is re-engineering the procurement process and its purchasing system. The business process and systems will be streamlined and computerized by October 1, 2000. There is a need to maintain a technical engineering team support to the procurement operation. The City has a Recycled Products Purchasing Program where 18 categories of recycled products are identified for City’s purchasing. This Program is complemented with a 10% price preference for recycled products bids. The following are the recycled product categories in that Program:
1. Paper and paper products
2. Compost
3. Glass
4. Lubricating oil
5. Plastics
6. Solvents and paints
7. Tires
8. Building insulation materials
9. Concrete and cement , fly ash
10. Auto parts
11. Rubber
12. Asphalt
13. Batteries
14. Aggregate rock
15. Remanufactured laser toner cartridges
16. Processed crushed miscellaneous base (for road construction)
17. Movable and portable walls (for office enclosures)
18. Antifreeze/coolant
Example: As an example of cost savings and benefits by revising specifications to improve field operations, the City reviewed and revised the way street operations and inert materials relative to asphalt recycling were being handled. At that time, 90% of street resurfacing inert materials was landfilled and 10% was recycled into new asphalt materials used in street paving . The City was paying to dispose it in a landfill and another City operation was buying the same inert materials for base in roadways. By revising the specifications and changing operations, the inert materials were recycled and reused in street paving and maintenance The result was a cost savings of over $1.5 million per year.
D. Conclusion: There are many benefits in sustainable products procurement that can help protect the environment, human life, and natural resources, as well as reduce product cost and provide revenue savings to public agencies.
Dean Kubani, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-2227:
The USEPA did a case study of “green” purchasing in Santa Monica. The full report is available from us, or the EPA. We decided to define green purchasing as “environmentally preferable purchasing.” It is not limited to purchasing recycled products, it also includes products that are less hazardous (less toxic), resource efficient and less polluting (such as alternative fueled vehicles).
Our purchasing goals include:
– Reduce Resource Consumption
– Reduce Waste and Pollution
– Protect Human Health and the Environment
Areas of purchasing success include:
– Environmentally friendly vehicle maintenance products, including antifreeze, parts cleaner, motor oil, retread tires
– Safer custodial supplies
– Recycled content products, including paper, office products, motor oil, street surfacing materials, paint, trash can liners, etc.
– Alternative fuel vehicles
– Integrated pest control services
– Energy and water conserving equipment
– Renewable sources of electricity.
Green purchasing is based on:
– Ordinances
– Council-adopted policies
– Administrative policies (this is our primary implementation strategy, it is not directed or mandated by City Council, but they are supportive of our approach).
Implementation methods can be simple or complex. You can have a single criterion for a single product, or you can have multiple criteria involving multiple products, with a citywide bid process. The Environmental Programs Division staff work within the existing City purchasing process and partner with buyers, upper management and end users. We conduct research, test products, develop specifications, and train end users.
Obstacles we have overcome included:
– “Low bid” – We decided to define that as the “lowest responsible bid,” so it can include environmental attributes and performance criteria as well as cost.
– Employee resistance to change – We provided training and education. We told them we were concerned with their health and they got enthusiastic about the new non-toxic cleaning products.
– Product performance – We did research and testing to find out the products and methods of use that worked best.
Keys to success were:
– Get support from the top
– Include end users in the decision making process
– Do detailed research and testing
– Implement a pilot program first
– Train end users
– Be flexible, and change direction if needed.
Alternative Fuel Vehicle Fleets
Rick Cole, City Manager, City of Azusa, 626-797-4757:
Our Public Works Superintendent identified AB 2766 funds to purchase alternative fueled vehicles. Back in 1998, we approved bids for five CNG trucks, (two are bi-fuel). However, it took months to get State approval for the vehicles, despite our efforts to comply with the stated policy of promoting cleaner air. We remained tenaciously committed to the goal and a little over a year later, finally received delivery.
It is essential to work with the end users of the vehicles. We organized the staffs from the affected departments into an Alternative Fuel Vehicle Policy Committee to actually hammer out the policy we took to the Council.
We were frustrated when we were fined $2,500 by AQMD because of a technicality when we were closing out our old gas tanks. The irony for us is that the year before we had won their prestigious “Clean Air” Award for our work in promoting transit use and ridesharing. So we persuaded them as an alternative to paying the fine to allow us to spend $20,000 for a slow fuel CNG facility for overnight vehicle fueling. (It costs $200,000 for a fast fuel station.) However, the Gas Company is considering putting in a fast fuel facility and we are actively assisting in lining up other jurisdictions to support this.
We are not a wealthy city. But even if you have limited finances, you can still do it. We have to consider the future of our planet; it is time to put into practice the motto, think globally, act locally.
T. L. Garrett, Air Quality Division, Environmental Affairs Department, City of Los Angeles, 213-580-1025
Types of Alternative Fuels: There are a variety of alternative fuels in use, including CNG (compressed natural gas), LNG (liquefied natural gas), LPG (liquid petroleum gas or propane), battery electrics, hybrids, biofuels (such as those made from waste grease, usually blended with diesel), and clean diesel.
Fueling Facilities: A slow fuel CNG facility takes 4 hours to fill one vehicle, or 12 hours if there are 12 vehicles on one compressor. It costs $2 million for a fast fill CNG station. Los Angeles has 200 electrical quick charge locations, but electric vehicle availability is almost zero. We have the infrastructure but almost no vehicles.
Types of Vehicles: Types of vehicles include: trash trucks, street sweepers, pickup trucks, cars, vans, shuttles and buses. All the City DASH buses are propane powered. There are also SULEVs (super ultra low emission vehicles) that produce less than 5% of the pollution of a standard car. The Harbor Post Office will have the first all-electric postal fleet. There are LPG/electric hybrid shuttle buses and dual fuel refuse trucks with LNG/diesel. The biofuel costs $3/gallon, compared to $1/gallon for diesel. The clean diesel particulate traps using low sulfur fuel from Arco can clean up much of the soot.
Funding Sources: Funding can come from the Carl Moyer program, MSRC, heavy-duty diesel retrofit program, AB 2766 funding for clean fuels, State energy program grants, etc. We got $50,000 for our alternative fuel taxi program.
Next steps for L.A. include:
– Identify alternative fuel niche applications in the city
– Apply for external funding and maximize leverage of city funds
– Focus more on infrastructure development.
Q: How do the alternative fuel refuse trucks work?
A: Garrett: We ordered some 2 years ago, but they not been delivered yet. We tried 2 CNG trash trucks and had a bad experience.
Q: Does L.A. have an alternative fuel policy?
A: Garrett: The Department of General Services has an alternative fuel policy, but only some departments have them. We need a critical mass of orders to bring down the cost of vehicle purchasing and infrastructure installation.
Green Building and Design
Susan Munves, Resource Efficiency Coordinator, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-8229:
Good green buildings often cost little or no more to build than inefficient ones. Our goal is to develop guidelines to encourage businesses to build them. We hired a team of consultants based in Vancouver to develop the guidelines. We focused on commercial and multi-family buildings.
A green building:
– Uses less water and energy
– Uses less materials
– Lowers building operational costs
–
Strategies:
– Use less to do more
– Use a careful combination of design strategies
– Build to adapt well and last longer
– Avoid creating problems that have to be fixed after the fact
– Take advantage of site conditions
Criteria:
– Targets are based on computer simulations of prototypical buildings:
– Base case models comply with Title 24
– Target models incorporate established energy efficiency measures
– Cost-efficiency is defined as simple payback of less than 5 years with no more than 3% increase in construction costs
Targets:
– 25% energy reduction from 1998 Title 24 for hotels and motels and light industrial buildings
– 20% reduction for offices and residences
Construction management:
– Prepare a demolition and site protection plan to divert at least 60% of waste away from landfills
– Salvage reusable materials
– Use recycled content products
Recommended practices:
– Provide advice and information for designers and developers
– Encourage an integrated approach
– Encourage designers to push the envelope with new designs
Our guidelines will apply to all new construction and substantial remodels. Assisted housing projects and city projects will incorporate all cost-effective methods as models. The new Santa Monica public safety facility we hope will be the greenest police headquarters in the world. We will use gray water for toilet flushing. We have reduced the size of HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems) and the expected energy use.
Community Energy Efficiency Program, a Santa Clarita Success Story
George Burmeister, Colorado Energy Group (consultant to Santa Clarita), 303-494-4711:
The Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) is a utility-sponsored voluntary program, started by California local governments and the homebuilding industry in 1999, which encourages incentives from local governments to homebuilders to build at least 30% beyond code requirements for efficiency. The results are big savings in utility bills for the homeowners.
Housing is a huge market, with a projected 40% increase over the next few years. The potential energy and environmental savings are big, funding and technical assistance are available, and the homebuilding industry is supportive.
The benefits to local governments include:
– Longer lasting housing stock
– Meeting local energy saving goals
– Improved relations between the city and building professionals
– Improved environment and air quality (help meet the air quality mitigation strategy, air quality savings are bankable for the future, etc.)
– Improved resource efficiency
– Public recognition of program (if desired by homebuilders and/or the city/county)
– Economic multiplier effects – dollars stay in the community
Consumer benefits include:
– Substantial energy savings, more disposable income for families
– Easier access to financing, you qualify for more home
– Resale marketing edge
– More comfortable home
– Outdoor air quality improvement
Builders are required to:
– Attain a CHEERS environmental efficiency design rating of 86 (30% above the code requirement of 80) (which meets Energy Star criteria)
– Use engineer-designed and stamped HVAC plans
– Meet CEC tight duct criteria
– Have installing contractors meet quality of work guidelines
– Have CHEERS inspection and diagnostics verify the 86 score
Benefits to builders: The Santa Clarita Pilot Program has formal City Council support that if builders go beyond code by 30% they get the following benefits:
– Faster plan check review (if the time is cut in half, it often saves them $1,800)
– Fee discount/subsidy (the City Council appropriated funds which serve as small subsidies to builders)
– Special recognition (City will promote “greener builders”)
– Advertising/promotional support (funded by local utility and City)
Unique CEEP attributes:
– Strong support from utilities, builders and local government
– Verification of energy savings
– All homes meet EnergyStar requirements
– Free technical assistance provided
– Flexibility for local governments
Summary of community benefits:
– Improved resource efficiency
– Improved environmental air quality
– Longer lasting housing stock
– More recognition (again, only if desired)
– Energy savings and associated economic multipliers
– Enhanced image for community.
Q: What are your incentives for commercial development in Santa Monica?
A: Munves: We looked at all the choices for incentives, but because of the highly politicized aspects of development in Santa Monica, we couldn’t use them. We are currently taking a regulatory approach, but we need incentives. We are looking at the program from the US Building Council.
Q: Are you doing workshops for local building contractors?
A: Burmeister: We had peer review and focus groups. We received a grant from the Gas Company to implement the program. Workshops were not included in the grant, however, we do offer complimentary workshops for building contractors through funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Q: How is the program financed?
A: Burmeister: Builders pay $400-600 per home to participate. The utilities pay for consultants (mostly me) to help each city or county on request. It is a great deal for the city or county!
Q: How can you get the cities to work together to implement this?
A: Burmeister: City staff are overworked. We work with one city or county at a time–we have not really considered a regional approach, or a multi-city/county effort yet. We have 13 jurisdictions in the Los Angeles area alone that are implementing the Community Energy Efficiency Program now. City and county building officials work together closely–so, in essence, they are informally working together on CEEP. There is also some competition between jurisdictions, which helps our program.
A: Munves: In Santa Monica, this is a cooperative program involving both the Environment Division and the Building and Safety Department, a coordination process which we need to make easier.
Cities for Climate Protection Campaign
Pam O’Connor, Santa Monica City Council:
The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) brings together policy and technical people to support improvements in our cities. It provides the opportunity for people to come together to do whatever the community needs. It creates a network for sharing information and makes it fun and interesting. Their conferences are very practical and useful.
Abby Young, USA Director, ICLEI, 510-540-8843:
ICLEI brings together all the local strategies we have talked about today that contribute to curbing global warming. ICLEI involves governments around the world that are solving environment problems at the local level. My job is to encourage many cities to work together on this issue. ICLEI is based in Toronto, with 8 offices around the world, including Chile, Japan, Australia, Germany, and the USA.
The Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) campaign began in 1993 to see how cities can achieve global warming reductions without too much difficulty. We have developed a precise yet simple methodology that can work for all sizes of local governments. The steps we suggest for local governments are:
1. Do a baseline emission analysis for the entire community and forecast how emissions are likely to grow in the future without any action.
2. Adopt an emissions reduction target. Most municipalities are choosing to reduce 20% below 1990 levels by some future year. (The US national goal is 7% below 1990 emissions, yet, as a nation, we are now 25% above 1990 levels.)
3. Adopt a plan to do what is needed to achieve the target.
4. Implement the plan.
5. Monitor and report on the results.
It doesn’t cost anything to participate, but it is a big commitment by the city. However, since local governments actually bear the brunt of the impacts of global warming, it is a prudent step. The benefits of participation include improved local air quality and cost savings over the long term.
For example, fleet managers can identify ways to “green” their fleets. Denver did an assessment of vehicle usage and operating costs. They developed a Green Fleets program, that is saving $150,000/year in reduced vehicle and fuel costs. The City of Santa Monica has a Parking Cashout Program that pays municipal employees to carpool, take transit or bike to work. Another technique is using LED bulbs to reduce energy use and maintenance costs for traffic lights. Group purchasing can reduce the initial costs.
The City of Berkeley requires all buildings in the city to meet an energy efficiency code upon change of title. So far, this has upgraded 50% of their buildings. Ann Arbor, Michigan created a city energy facility fund, a self-sustaining loan fund that finances municipal energy-saving projects without negative impacts on the city budget. The city uses 80% of the savings to pay back the loan and keeps the other 20%. Then after the 5 year payback period, it keeps all the savings.
The total impact on global warming by the nearly 100 US cities involved in the CCP is a reduction of 7.5 million tons of greenhouse gases per year. If every city did these things, we would exceed the entire US reduction goal under the Kyoto protocol.
We would love to work with more local governments. We have software programs, materials and training workshops. Our next workshop in September in New Orleans will be on how to overcome barriers. We provide case studies and best practices guides with value pricing on local methods, for example, to reduce auto miles traveled. We also have references to expert consultants in the field of climate protection. We have leads on grant funding for solar power, transportation projects, outreach to local businesses, etc.
Dean Kubani, City of Santa Monica, 310-458-2227:
We have been very impressed with the ICLEI information. We get regular emails telling us about grant opportunities and networking with other cities doing this program. The ICLEI workshops are the best conferences because they provide the tools to get your job done. We recommend participation.
Field Visits to Santa Monica’s Facilities
(All speakers are on the staff of the City of Santa Monica)
Pico Boulevard Streetscape Project
Craig Perkins, Director, Environmental and Public Works Department, 310-458-8221:
We are enhancing the safety and appearance of Pico Boulevard by a median strip with trees, accent street lights, additional street streets and crosswalk enhancements. Many of the crosswalks will have in-street flashing lights that are activated by pressing the “walk” button.
Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Joe Delaney, Solid Waste Operations Manager, 310-458-8554:
We have 70% of the City’s Solid Waste vehicles on alternative fuels, including cars, trash trucks, street sweepers, shovel loaders, etc. We have both fast and slow fill CNG facilities. With the 5-7,000 psi compressor, we can fill an auto in the same time it takes to fill a gasoline powered vehicle. The capacity of the tank is equivalent to 25 gallons, so we can go all day without refilling. We do overnight slow fill at up to 3,800 psi to get more fill on the trash trucks. We often do a partial booster fill when the trucks are parked during lunch hour.
The problem is that Cummings has stopped production of the pure CNG engine for trucks. They do produce a dual CNG/diesel engine, but it has no spark plug, so it always needs a diesel mixture to ignite.
We also have on display the GEM neighborhood vehicles, which are street legal, can go up to 25 mph with a 40 mile range on electric batteries. They cost $10,000, but Arizona has a $10,000 tax credit, so they are essentially free there.
Green Fleets
Ralph Merced, Fleet Maintenance Supervisor, Department of Environmental and Public Works Management:
We use only re-refined oil and have had no problems. All warranties have been valid. (Santa Monica purchases it from the Rosemead Oil Company, 562-941-3261.) We have built a home-made rack to drain bottles to remove all the remaining liquid from bottles of oil and anti-freeze. We use propylene glycol because it is less toxic than regular antifreeze (Santa Monica purchases it from Cummings). Re-refined hydraulic fluid works well. Santa Monica doesn’t crush oil filters so they can be recycled more easily. (Santa Monica uses Delta Four in Sun Valley (818-767-2302) to recycle them for a small fee.) Water-based parts cleaner is used when doing brake work, etc. (Santa Monica purchases it from Colleen Hassell at Dura Chem, 714-630-4100). We purchase re-conditioned batteries from Advance Batteries in Santa Monica, 310-450-1630.
Retread tires work well on the heavy duty vehicles, but are not cost effective for passenger vehicles. For our bucket loader, we use a rubber blade made of 100% recycled tires (the rubber blade reduces wear on the transfer station concrete floors).
Green Street Repair
Bogee Cline, Street Maintenance Superintendent
We have a variety of methods for environmentally friendly street and sidewalk repair. One method is called “white topping,” which is a special mixture of cement with asbestos that goes over the old asphalt base. Because it is light colored it is 15º cooler in the summer sun, thus reducing the air conditioning bills for the people living on the street. The lower temperatures also reduce gasoline tank emissions from cars parked on the street. The light color also enhances the effect of street lights and makes people feel safer at night. The cost is about $15 per square foot, compared to $3.50 for asphalt, but it is supposed to last up to 50 years, versus 6 years for asphalt. We have tested it on a residential street and it seems to be working fine.
We are using brick pavers for sidewalks that are saving a lot of labor. When a tree root lifts up a paver, we just pull it up, cut out the root and put in back in a few minutes. They cost about $14 per square foot, compared to $8 per square foot for concrete. However, the brick pavers take much less time. We can repair 5 – 7 brick paved areas in a single day, as opposed to 4 – 5 concrete pours in a week.
We are testing rubberized sidewalks that are great for kids to play on because they are soft to fall on. They cost about $16 per square foot. Both the rubberized and the brick pavers have cracks between the blocks that allow the water to go through into the soil beneath which reduces urban runoff.
We are also refilling utility trenches with glass beads from recycled glass.
Green Cleaning Products and Equipment on the Third Street Promenade
Craig Perkins and Eddie Greenberg, Promenade Crew Leader, Solid Waste Management Department:
We use small electric utility trucks for maintenance. They can carry up to a ton of supplies. They only take an hour and a half to charge.
We use less toxic cleaning products to protect our employees’ health. In 1993 Santa Monica adopted a Toxics Use Reduction Program which governs the purchasing of all products that contain chemicals. This program, which was uated in 1998 by the US EPA, includes custodial supplies, fleet maintenance, pest control, street maintenance, and plumbing/paint shop operations. We have identified “green” alternatives in 15 of 17 cleaning product categories.
We buy 55 gallon drums and mix it into squirt bottles which are carefully labeled. The result has been improved custodial morale, as well as lower costs, with no reduction in effective cleaning.
Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF)
Craig Perkins and Neal Shapiro, Urban Runoff Coordinator:
The SMURRF is designed to treat up to 0.5 million gallons per day of urban runoff, which is the dry water flow from the two main storm drains that serve Santa Monica — the Pico-Kenter and Pier drains. Before this facility, these drains sent untreated water directly into the Santa Monica Bay.
