local news	forums	articles	resources	actions
	organizations	interviews	books	sites	search

Sustainability is a word you have to spell to people over the phone. How can there be a community plan based on a word that is not in common use? While the word itself has not yet come into the vernacular, the idea it represents encompasses an urgent need, recognized by a growing number of people around the globe, to provide for a positive common future. This sustainability plan has come into being because many people in San Francisco are convinced that there is both a self-interested and an ethical obligation to live in a way that considers the rights to livelihood of future generations and of the other living beings on this planet. Sustainability: A Definition For simplicity, this planning process has used the UN’s definition of sustainability: A sustainable society meets the needs of the present without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Certainly, there’s a good deal to be inferred here, particularly when it comes to social equity within human society and the rights of the earth’s non-human beings. Nonetheless, it was felt that there would be a pretty good consensus among San Franciscans about the direction in which it is important to move without getting hung up on the definition’s details. The community process that developed this plan was focused on producing a plan for action, not debating the fine points of the definition. Sustainability: An Explanation Ignoring for the moment the ethics of the issue, there are some hard facts underlying the ability of civilization to perpetuate itself indefinitely into the future. For life as we know it to survive here: The physical resources and systems that support life must be maintained: They can’t be used up so that there is nothing left; and They can’t be made unusable through degradation. The health of plant and animal populations, whether they are considered as the human food chain or as a highly complex system that interacts with physical life-support systems (such as the atmosphere) in ways that aren’t well understood, must be insured. A social structure must be created that will be capable of achieving the preceding two requirements. This means equitable distribution of resources; high quality of life in cities (which, by their density, are conducive to reduced environmental impact); education and affluence that lead to population control; social justice to eliminate the disruptive social upheaval that results from its lack; public education that gives people the tools to improve their interaction with the natural world, and a myriad other social considerations. Social systems without these attributes are unstable and cannot maintain a proper balance with the natural world.

Human Activity in the Closed System of Planet Earth The natural systems of the planet have their own rules. Previous to human development, the biosphere evolved in such a way that all its parts were in balance, with waste products of one creature used as building blocks of another. All human activity interacts with the natural systems of the planet. These activities may not have a negative effect on nature if the quantities of pollutants generated do not exceed the quantities that can be absorbed by natural systems. Habitat modification can be accommodated by animals and plants if it is slow and slight, allowing them to adjust or move elsewhere. However, the volume of chemicals introduced into the environment today far exceeds the assimilation capabilities of natural systems. This has caused global warming, acidification of forests, and chronic human-health problems, among many other ills. The reduction of numbers of non-human creatures and destruction of their habitats has exceeded the levels their populations can accommodate. This has resulted in Canada’s eastern seaboard fisheries closing, massive extinctions of species, and the reduction of genetic diversity in many surviving species. If human activities even slightly exceed the levels acceptable to natural systems, those systems will degrade, sometimes slowly, sometimes -- once a critical point has been reached -- catastrophically. For almost all systems, the level of disruption that triggers catastrophic decline is unknown. The obvious, inescapable result of many of our current life practices is the degradation of the systems that support them, even if the effects aren’t immediately apparent. Integrating Environmental, Economic and Social Concerns A balanced and sustainable social system is not possible without addressing the economic and community-development needs of the City’s residents. Wealth in the economy will enable the City to make the long-term capital investments necessary to create and maintain an environmentally sensitive and esthetically pleasing place to live. An equitable distribution of the community’s wealth will enable all residents to participate in civic life and will maximize the City’s human resource potential. Sustained economic growth and expansion of markets for the City’s goods and services can be achieved in ways that are environmentally benign and socially just. Society cannot be stable unless the basic human needs of all its members are met. Increased local self-reliance and equity, educational opportunity, and a guarantee of participation and accountability in civic discourse create a strong population of people who have the leisure to plan for their own and society’s best interests in the long run, rather than being forced to continually focus on the most short-term human needs. Social and cultural diversity, attention to environmental justice, and an understanding of the integral connections between humans and the natural world, will create a vibrant community base on which to build a successful long-term culture. Children and youth, representing the “future generations” that form part of the core of sustainability’s definition, obviously must be better nurtured and prepared to be full participants in a future society where appropriate technology and civic participation play a central role. Steps Toward a Solution This is all very theoretical, and it is often easy to be overwhelmed by the size of the problem. However, there is a clear connection between today’s everyday activities and the quality of life that will be possible for future generations. To construct a sustainable society, one that can provide for the physical and other needs of local residents while reversing the trends of increased pollution and environmental degradation now threatening the quality of urban life and the health of the earth’s other life forms, it is necessary to start changing the conventions of society. Sustainability can be divided into manageable sections, specific strategies can be proposed, and action can begin. It is important to emphasize that the sustainability plan should be a means, not an end. The plan is only a tool for future action. However, to proceed in a sensible way to change long-standing environmental practices, it’s necessary to come up with some goals, actions, and objectives to be achieved. To begin to fulfill our responsibility to our own futures and that of our children is the aim of this sustainability plan. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Lao Tsu   However, you must keep moving in approximately the same direction. Common Sense

The Plan’s Sponsors The sustainability plan, now a City document, was drafted by a community collaboration in which City staff contributed on equal footing with members of other sectors of the community. In 1993, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors established a Commission on San Francisco’s Environment, charged among other things with drafting and implementing a plan for San Francisco’s long-term environmental sustainability. Knowing they could not produce a plan that would actually be implemented without working with a broad cross-section of the community, several commissioners and others in the community formed Sustainable San Francisco: a collaboration of city agencies, including The City Planning Department, the Bureau of Energy Conservation, the Recreation and Park Department, and the Solid Waste Management Program; businesses; environmental organizations; elected officials; and concerned individuals, to develop a plan for the city’s future. Nearly 400 people, from every walk of life, have volunteered their time to produce this plan. Sustainable San Francisco structured the drafting process so that people with expertise on the issues covered in the plan could produce a draft in a fairly short time-frame. This has been an enormous undertaking, with thousands of hours of time committed to discussions, drafts, revisions, and meeting management. The hope was to produce a draft that was comprehensive enough to make a very solid foundation upon which a wider public could make suggestions for improvement. With this broad base of support, the finalized plan has the best chance of being effective. Structure of the Plan Volunteers spent the early part of 1995 researching sustainability plans from around the world and created a format with the best chance of producing a plan that would really be implemented. This plan uses a “general goals / specific objectives / actions” approach modeled on the European Community’s Agenda 21 Implementation Plan (for the United Kingdom) (Agenda 21 is the United Nations action strategy for sustainable development). A supplemental section of indicators, which give a measurable sense of whether the city is moving in the right direction, is based on work done by Sustainable Seattle. For each topic, the plan sets out: Broad, long-term social goals, meant to be very general, that speak to the basic human and ecosystem needs that are to be addressed. Long-term objectives to achieve a sustainable society, describing the state of the City when it reaches sustainability. Objectives for the year 2002, describing the proposed state of the City within five years. These objectives are quantified and meant to be feasible within a five-year time-frame. They include objectives for businesses and individual residents as well as for city programs. Specific actions to be taken to achieve the objectives. They also include actions for all sectors: government, business, the non-profit community and individuals. Some are suggested for specific entities; most are not. These proposed actions are just that -- proposals. The City of San Francisco has endorsed the goals and objectives of the plan, and will consider the specific actions in the future as more fleshed-out proposals on which the public have had further opportunity to comment are brought before the Board or the various City Commissions. A separate section lists indicators for all topic areas. The indicators were designed to be numerical measurements that: Are obvious in what is being measured, Can be found at low cost given the current information-gathering machinery, Clearly indicate a trend toward or away from sustainability, Are understandable to everyone and easily presented in the media.

Topics Addressed in the Plan Section I - Specific Environmental Topics Air Quality Biodiversity Energy, Climate Change, and Ozone Depletion Food and Agriculture Hazardous Materials Human Health Parks, Open Spaces and Streetscapes Solid Waste Transportation Water and Wastewater Section II - Topics that Span Many Issues Economy and Economic Development Environmental Justice Municipal Expenditures Public Information and Education Risk Management (Activities of High Environmental Risk) Clearly, several topics are overlapping. While, for instance, nearly every environmental topic section addresses public education, environmental justice, and the other topics from Section II, special groups were formed to focus exclusively on these topics, in order to ensure that they were addressed in depth. Topics not Addressed in the Plan Sustainability planning includes equal parts environmental, economic and community planning. The primary focus of this version of San Francisco’s sustainability plan is the environmental component, with a section on sustainable economic development, and one on the social issue of environmental justice. Over the coming months, the mayor’s office will work to broaden the economic and community aspects of the plan. Even with a focus primarily on the environmental component, some limits had to be set to address an issue as broad as environmental sustainability. This plan addresses primarily the physical systems of the planet that often get short shrift from planners, and the social systems that have a direct impact on them. Land-use is a vital issue that does not have a separate section; there are land-use implications to almost every section’s proposed actions. It is addressed to the greatest extent in the Transportation, Economy and Economic Development, Food and Agriculture, and Parks sections. Differing Structures in Different Sections Anyone reading this plan straight through will notice that different sections have slightly different numbering systems and different ways of addressing their topic. The numbering systems follow the approach that each drafting group took to its proposals, and could not be made uniform without violating the logical structures put forward. The numbering differences reflect the community collaboration nature of the planning process, and is irrelevant to the content of the sections. What’s the Baseline? In 1994, the Commission on San Francisco’s Environment published a baseline study of San Francisco’s current environmental situation, the Environmental State of the City Report. (As of this writing, it is out of print.) It provides a baseline for many of the issues covered in the plan. However, some of the topics listed above were not covered in the State of the City report. This sustainability planning effort has been evolving over time, and the topic list has expanded since the report was done. More research will be needed. Baseline data for the indicators section has yet to be compiled.

The Plan Drafters In order to produce a draft reasonably quickly, people were recruited for the various topics who already knew a lot about the issues. Volunteers came primarily from the environmental advocacy communities, city agencies, businesses, and the academic community. Members of the general public who contacted Sustainable San Francisco in time to attend all the meetings also participated. Everyone volunteered their time. Although there was remarkable unanimity among the plan drafters about the basic attributes of a sustainable society, as would be expected in any exercise of this size and scope, participants didn’t always agree on the best strategy for achieving it. Some feel strongly that the plan does not go far enough and contains too many compromises; others feel that it has gone too far and is unrealistic. That it is incomplete is beyond doubt. The plan would be incomplete at twice its length, and aspects of it will loose their timeliness as circumstances change every day after its publication. Nonetheless, while not aspiring to be a perfect treatise, the document can provide the rough game-plan that is necessary for a concerted effort to achieve a sustainable society, an effort that has been orchestrated by as broad a cross-section of the community as has been gathered in many years for a common purpose. The only goal of producing this plan is to begin implementing it. As large as the drafting group is, it represents only a tiny fraction of the public in San Francisco who must make the plan part of their personal agendas for it to succeed. This draft represents an invitation to all San Franciscans to think about a common future, and an opportunity to make a choice of the routes to that end. Public Comment Public comments were solicited in four day-long public hearings in June, 1996, and were accepted in writing throughout the summer. Comments were distributed to all participants in the drafting groups, who finalized this draft in September of 1996. Further opportunities for public comment occurred during consideration of this plan by the advisory Commission on San Francisco’s Environment (October, 1996), the new charter Commission on the Environment (November, 1996) and by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (July, 1997). Endorsement of the Plan The Sustainability Plan became policy of the City and County of San Francisco in July, 1997. City Planning Department staff are currently working a several-year strategy to update and revise the City’s General Plan. Work will continue to appropriately combine the two documents. Implementing the Plan The plan is meant to be a blueprint, but because of its comprehensive nature, implementation of the various actions within it will take a good deal of (choose one or more) formal environmental review, advocacy before the commissions responsible for implementation of that area, legislation, regulation, finding new money, securing public support, and so forth. A new Department of the Environmental, the first in San Francisco’s history, was formed over the winter of 1996-7. One of the main responsibilities of this new agency will be to begin implementing the sustainability plan. This central focus within the structure of the city itself will go a long way toward ensuring that the plan is more than a community writing exercise. The fact that a new agency has been created, however, should not minimize the importance of the work of the City’s older environmental agencies, many of which participated in the drafting process. They are already implementing some of the actions proposed here, and plans for more are in the works. Several of the City’s agencies are on the cutting edge of environmental program leadership, and it is hoped that the focus on sustainability issues provided by this plan will help secure them the resources and support they need to move forward even more aggressively on an agenda for San Francisco’s future, and will make them role models for agencies that have been slower to share this common vision. A number of the plan’s actions are suggested for the private sector and individuals. Implementation of these actions will be essential for a fundamental change in the way San Francisco interacts with the natural world, and the various advocacy groups, city agencies, and activist individuals involved in drafting the plan will work with the environmental department to ensure that these changes move forward. Many of the actions suggested in this plan will go nowhere without new sources of funding. It is up to the creativity of our City leadership, including business and the non-profit community, to find this funding through new money and more efficient use of current resources. Changes of law and regulation must be addressed one at a time, and will take more concerted drafting and public discussion than has been possible in this preliminary drafting process. They will take time and persistence. This plan is a first step in the long process of changing attitudes that separate humans from the rest of the natural world and ignore the long-term results of human behavior. It is a process of developing the wealth of the community, and strengthening the health and capacities of all the City’s residents. Through vision, persistence, and a plan of action, San Franciscans will be able to create a healthy society that respects the needs of all its members, and the needs of the natural systems of which they are a part. Beryl Magilavy Director Department of the Environment

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments for an effort as large as this one are by necessity woefully incomplete. We greatly appreciate the support and participation of everyone who donated their time to this effort. This effort has been made possible by the financial support of the City and County of San Francisco, Bureau of Energy Conservation, Columbia Foundation, The Fred Gellert Foundation, San Francisco Foundation, and True North Foundation. Sustainable San Francisco’s Web page was created and maintained as donations by Nick McBurney and Z Smith. A special thank-you to Felicia Marcus, regional administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, for encouraging so many of her staff to participate in this process. We cannot begin to thank all the individuals and institutions who have donated time and expertise to this community effort. However, we would like to specifically mention our steering-committee members (who planned out this effort), coordinators (who recruited the drafting-group participants, kept the meetings together, and often did most of the group’s drafting), facilitators (who were responsible for the meetings running smoothly and for work product being produced), and recorders (who took notes at the meetings and some of whom did most of the group’s drafting):

Jim Aldrich Ann Bartz Brad Benson Barbara Bernardini Carter Brooks Calvin Broomhead Graham Charles Jean Circiello Theresa Cole Tom Cooper Danielle Dowers Scott Edmondson Frank Filice Kevin Fox Lisa Gallina Janis Gomes Jennifer Greenfeld Douglas Hall Janet Jacobs

Maggie Johnson Warren Karlenzig Paula Kehoe Kevin Kelley Carla Kincaid-Yoshikawa Bill Kissinger Natalie Kraft Vivian Leanio Kivi Leroux Lori Lewis Anne Marie Malley Caroline McNeely Janet Michaelson Diane Mintz Ross Mirkarimi Page Nelson Carol Northrup Paul Okamoto Matt Orr

Laura Pappas Barbara Perman Maria Rea Arnold Robbins Jonathan Rubens Samantha Schoenfeld Bob Silver Daniel StandFree Howard Strassner Shelley Stump Becky Tuden Becky Tudisco Holly Van Houten Jim Vreeland Isabel Wade Hannah Ware Tes Welborn Liane Yee Katie Zitterbart

Organizational Participants in the City Circles drafting the Sustainability Plan (The City Circles also Included Many Individual San Francisco Residents) Access Benefits Acurex Environmental Advocates for Parks Algalita Marine Research Foundation American College of Traditional Chinese Medicine American Institute of Architects American Lung Association American Red Cross Applied Development Economics Architects, Designers & Planners for Social Responsibility Asian Pacific Environmental Network Bank of America Bank of California Barnes Clarke Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay Area Defense Conservation Action Team Bay Conservation & Development Commission Bay Keeper Blue Cross of California Blue Pearl Press Brown Enterprises Brown, Vence & Associates Building Owners and Managers Association- San Francisco CAL-OSHA Consultation California Native Plant Society California Academy of Science California Energy Markets California Food Policy Advocates California Public Utilities Commission California State Automobile Association Center for Marine Conservation Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice Chamber of Commerce Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. Chinatown Public Health Center, Health Center 4 Chinese Progressive Association City College City Electric City of San Francisco Agriculture, Weights and Measurements Department City of San Francisco Board of Supervisors City of San Francisco City Attorney’s Office City of San Francisco City Planning Department City of San Francisco Commission on San Francisco’s Environment City of San Francisco Controller’s Office City of San Francisco Department of Building Inspection City of San Francisco Department of Parking & Traffic City of San Francisco Department of Public Health City of San Francisco Department of Public Health, AIDS Office City of San Francisco Department of Public Health, EMF (Electro-magnetic field) Program City of San Francisco Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental Health Management City of San Francisco Department of Public Health, Hazardous Waste Program City of San Francisco Department of Public Health, Tobacco Free Project City of San Francisco Department of Public Health, Water Quality Control Program City of San Francisco Department of Public Works City of San Francisco Department of Public Works, Bureau of Architecture City of San Francisco Department of Public Works, Bureau of Construction Management City of San Francisco Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering City of San Francisco Department of Public Works, Bureau of Environmental Regulation and Management City of San Francisco Department of Public Works, Bureau of Street Environmental Services City of San Francisco Department of Public Works, Sewer Odor Hotline City of San Francisco Department of Public Works, Water Pollution Control City of San Francisco Department of Social Services City of San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (City of) San Francisco General Hospital City of San Francisco Hetch Hetchy Water & Power City of San Francisco Hetch Hetchy Water & Power, Bureau of Energy Conservation City of San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Community Development City of San Francisco Municipal Railway City of San Francisco Office of the Chief Administrative Officer City of San Francisco Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, City Employees Commute Assistance Program (City of) San Francisco Public Library, Wallace Stegner Environmental Center City of San Francisco Purchasing Department City of San Francisco Redevelopment Agency City of San Francisco Recreation & Parks Department City of San Francisco Solid Waste Management Program City of San Francisco Solid Waste Management Program, Recycling Program City of San Francisco Solid Waste Management Program, Hazardous Waste Management Program (City of) San Francisco Unified School District (City of) San Francisco Water Department Clean City Coalition Coalition for Better Wastewater Solutions Coalition for Urban Concerns Cole Hardware Communities for a Better Environment Community and Environment Community Environmental Relations Compass Management & Leasing Consumer Action’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Project Eco-Development Associates Embarcadero Farmer’s Market Energy Investment, Inc. Engineers Local 39 Environmental Building Inspections Environmental Health Network Environmental Law Community Law Clinic EQE International Exploratorium Eyebright Interactive Failure Analysis, Inc. Franklin Environmental Products Fresh Start Farms Friends of Islais Creek Friends of McLaren Park Friends of Recreation & Parks Friends of the New de Young Friends of the Urban Forest Garden Project Global Action Plan Golden Gate Audubon Society Golden Gate Law School Legal Clinic Golden Gate National Recreation Area Golden Gate University Goodwill Gottfried Technologies, Inc. Greenpeace Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council Recycling Center Hastings Environmental Law Journal Health Access Hines Corporation HKIT Architects HMR Recycling Indigo Development Indoor Air Quality Inspections Institute for Conservation & Health Institute for Health and Healing: California Pacific Medical Center Institute for Sustainable Policy Studies Integrated Waste Management Consulting Interaction Associates Interior Concerns International Society of Culture and Ecology Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Kaiser Permanente Klienfelder Ladson Associates Land Bank, Inc. Landmark Exchange Management League of Conservation Voters League of Women Voters Living Library Materials for Acquisition and Gifts in Kind (M.A.G.I.K.) Materials for the Future Foundation Macy’s Marathon US Realties, Inc./Building Owner’s and Managers’ Association Marin Advocates for Transit Marin Farmers Market Market Street Development Association Metro Maintenance Metropolitan Transportation Commission Mission Neighborhood Health Center National Electrical Contractors Association Natural Resources Defense Council Norcal Waste Systems O’Rorke Public Relations and Advertising Office of Senator Marks Okamoto Saijo Architecture Pacific Gas & Electric Company Parkside Elementary School Peninou French Laundry & Cleaners Peninsula Electric Vehicle Association People Organized to Demand Environmental Rights Planet Drum Foundation Port of San Francisco, Environment and Safety Section Presidio Pacific Center Redefining Progress RIDES/Bay Area Commuters San Francisco Apartment Association San Francisco Automotive Service Council San Francisco Bicycle Coalition San Francisco Community Recyclers San Francisco Conservation Corps San Francisco County Transportation Authority San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners San Francisco League of Conservation Voters San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) San Francisco Public Market Collaborative San Francisco State University, Department of Epidemiology San Francisco Tomorrow Sanitary Fill Company Save Energy Company Scoma’s Restaurant Sierra Club Simon, Martin-Vegue, Winkelstein, Moris Architects Snappy Lube South Bayshore Development Corporation South of Market Employment Center South of Market Neighborhood Emergency Response Team Southeast Alliance for Environmental Justice Students for Environmental Action Sunset Scavenger Company Sustainable City Technosis Consulting The Gap, Inc. Ti Couz Restaurant TODCO Trust for Public Land/Inner Sunset Parks Group UC Berkeley University of California at San Francisco, Office of Environmental Health and Safety University of San Francisco, Department of Environmental Science Urban Ecology Urban Resource Systems US Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service US Environmental Protection Agency - Region IX Warner Insulation Waste Resource Technologies West Bay Filipino Multi-Services West Bay Resources Weyerhauser Paper Company YMCA

top