Some Thoughts on Green

I attended the Green California Summit last week. It focused primarily on green building, but also on the business and economic opportunities that come with a move to sustainability. Here are a few thoughts based on something I sent off to Carol Harper at the Amador Community Network last week. More to follow soon ...

Business is going "green" -- not because business people are soft-headed do-gooders, but because it makes dollars and sense. Companies that have sustainability strategies are becoming more profitable than those that don't. They are wasting less, spending less on energy and becoming more much efficient. Large insurance companies and the finance industry are starting to be a big force in the push for sustainable business because those businesses have less associated risk.

"Green building" is here to stay. Again, it makes economic sense. It also creates better living and working spaces for people. Commercial real estate people are seeing real demand from tenants for green commercial space. People want greener homes. Kids do better in green schools. Some of the large California commercial builders are starting to do everything to green standards, including the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards.

"Green tech" may make our U.S. economy competitive again. We have the best innovators here, the best minds -- and they are creating new products, new ways of doing business, and "green-collar" jobs. Smart communities are focusing on green tech as part of their economic development strategies and making sure they have education and training available for the new generation of green-collar workers. A community college here -- long a dream of many locals -- could serve that function for us.

Planning has a big role to play in creating a sustainable future. It is not sustainable to have to drive a car for miles to do every last thing -- go to school, go to a job, go shopping, etc. Walkable communities like those we love in our small historic towns are our future. They are more environmentally sustainable than sprawl and healthier places to live, too. Advocates of smart growth have been saying this for some time. Now, the respected U.S Green Building Council is working on LEED standards for neighborhood design.

Even if we can afford gasoline, once supplies of oil start running out (which they may be already), we are going to have to wean ourselves off it, and fast. Fortunately, there is huge progress being made on alternative fuels, but not all alternatives are sustainable -- for example, cutting down the Amazon rain forest to grow corn for ethanol or destroying SE Asian rain forests to create palm oil plantations.

Saving energy community-wide can free up a lot of money in the local economy. If people are paying less to PG&E every month, they have more to spend in local businesses. See this tool, created several years ago.

People need to learn from nature. Nature buys local. Nature recycles its own waste. Nature often makes products very efficiently. Nature uses advanced technology. Defective products are, in the words of Green Summit keynote speaker Hunter Lovins, '"recalled by the manufacturer."

Green is mainstream. And as a couple of speakers said, "There is green in green." Those who think otherwise are likely to be left behind as companies and communities focus on finding new ways to do business, live, create jobs, and build wealth.

Calaveras Supervisors move to limit sprawl

It used to be that land use planning in Calaveras County was anything but smart. The county has been one of the fastest-growing in the state, with no constraints on the conversion of ranches and oak woodlands to golf courses and subdivisions, complete with overtapped groundwater and leaky septic systems. But it looks like those days may be over.

A few weeks ago, the Calaveras Board of Supervisors held a visioning session to establish a policy framework for the county's general plan update. It was most promising, with all five supervisors -- even Libertarian Tom Tryon -- agreeing that new development should occur in existing communities rather than sprawling all over the countryside. They even talked about incorporating the Ahwahnee Principles or the Land Use and Development Principles adopted by several Calaveras communities.

Then last week, the supervisors lifted the year-old subdivision moratorium put in place at the beginning of the plan update. But they didn't return to the bad old days of virtually unfettered growth.

Instead, they unanimously adopted policies to shape new development. The policies aren't binding -- the board will still look at each subdivision proposal -- but the clear message is "if you want us to approve your project, this is what it needs to be." The resolution even suggests to staff that they bring noncompliant applications to the board for an early decision rather than putting everyone through the time and expense of California Environmental Quality Act review.

The policies are intended to focus development in existing communities and limit sprawl. They express a clear preference for projects that

• Create new parcels only in areas where public water and sewer are available (except for single parcels and parcels over 40 acres)
  
• Protect onsite open space and habitat
  
• Provide roads built to county standards
  
• Promote affordable housing

And in the resolution language adopting the policies, the supervisors made clear they expect similar policies to be part of their general plan:

WHEREAS, during the October 23, 2007 workshop, the Board unanimously stated that the General Plan update, and in particular the Land Use Element of the General Plan, should include goals, policies and implementation measures regarding criteria for future development within the unincorporated area of Calaveras County that limits the use of groundwater and onsite septic systems to serve that development and should instead encourage high density development served by public surface water and public sewer with preservation of onsite open space as well as other associated infrastructure to serve the development such as roads built to county road standards;

Meanwhile, despite a moratorium on general plan and zoning changes, every month new well-and septic-dependent parcels are being created in rural Amador County, many in high fire zones. How smart is that?

Let the People Plan

Last weekend I attended the Sierra Nevada Alliance conference in Kings Beach. A couple of the sessions addressed an exciting trend -- community-based planning.

Instead of waiting to react to what a developer brings them, some towns are looking at land planned for annexation or redevelopment and coming up with a master plan for that land themselves. The processes are often hands-on, with lots of citizen involvement.

People decide what kind of development will take place, where, and how fast. They plan the parks and schools and fire stations. They plan the housing. They plan the business locations. They make sure that what they value most is protected -- special views, natural and historic features, and so forth. Most of all, they make sure the plan is consistent with their vision for their town.

And when the plan is done, the message to developers is clear: "This is what we need in our town. This is what we want. Join with us to make it happen."

The good news is that developers seem happy to bring in projects that fit the plans. That's probably because a community-developed plan gives the developer and landowner more certainty. It can also spare them all of the time and money they normally spend trying to market a project.

Amador County's small towns could take this approach to planning. Just think about how different the results might be from what developers are bringing us now.

Look at Martell. Some of us pushed for just such an approach to Martell redevelopment years ago, but the developers weren't interested. If local residents had developed a plan for Martell, it could have included a passive park in the woodland at the lower end, walking and bike trails to connect to the towns, mixed-use development with workforce housing, and more. But instead, we got a same-old, same-old sales-tax sacrifice zone that pulls revenue from our towns and gives us traffic jams in exchange.

It doesn't have to be that way. We don't have to wait for developers to "save" us with their ideas of what our towns should be.

We should define our future, ourselves.