 |
|
|
An Invitation to Public DiscussionWhat Kind of Future Do We Want? |
|
Drafting Group: Barbara Bernardini, Calvin Broomhead, John Deakin, Danielle Dowers, Scott Edmonson, Frank Filice, Deirdre Holmes, Holly Van Houten, Kevin Kelly, Beryl Magilavy, Annie Malley, Terry Marasco, Ross Mirkarimi, Paul Okamoto, Howard Strassner, and Isabel Wade I. INTRODUCTION II. WHAT IS SUSTAINABILITY? III. OVERVIEW OF A SUSTAINABLE SAN FRANCISCO
IV. ORGANIZING A SUSTAINABLE SAN FRANCISCO
AFFILIATIONS OF VOLUNTEER DRAFTING GROUP This document is an invitation for public discussion and a draft guide to public and private initiatives to achieve a more livable city and one that can be sustained over the long term. San Franciscans must do this while facing new challenges. The Association of Bay Area Governments estimates an increase in population in the Bay Area of one million people in the next fifteen years. Changes in the economic climate have moved the city's jobs base from shipping and manufacturing to information services. The city's culture is enriched by a growing proportion of people from other countries, with new languages and ways of looking at the world. An increased environmental awareness has made us all realize that we not only value the unsurpassed physical beauty of our city, but worry for its future in the face of global warming, insufficient water, polluted air, and the decline of the fisheries that historically graced our waterfront. The rich agricultural land that once provided a local source of superior produce is under constant threat from sprawl development in the suburbs. Many dedicated people are working to slow and reverse these concerning trends. The City of San Francisco has a range of programs now in existence to improve the quality of life here. Nonprofit organizations have been in the forefront of work for change. However, the last time the City looked comprehensively at where it was going was in the 1930's, with the enactment of the main portions of the current City Charter. The City's Master Plan was begun two decades later, with a land use element and an urban design element completed in 1968. The Environmental Protection Element was added in 1974, with only one major amendment to add energy conservation objectives and policies. While all elements of the Master Plan prepared since 1970 include environmental preservation and protection policies and features, no comprehensive review of the Master Plan has been made to include coordinated sustainability objectives and policies. The new challenges faced by San Francisco make it past time for us to consider as a community how to protect and enhance the natural resource base of our city and to reduce our impact on the bioregion. This effort to enhance our sustainability will allow us to improve the quality of life in San Francisco for current residents and future generations. "Sustainability," as defined by a commission of the United Nations, is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The long-term goal for urban sustainability is to develop a prosperous and healthful urban system which can provide for the physical and other needs of the populace and, at the same time, reverse the trends of increasing pollution and environmental degradation now threatening the quality of urban life. III. OVERVIEW OF A SUSTAINABLE SAN FRANCISCO Achieving a society that will offer future generations the same, if not improved, resources, opportunities and natural beauty as we were granted by previous generations will involve a commitment to the following seven fundamental principles: 1. Minimize Human Impact on Local, Regional and Global Ecosystems The environment will play a crucial role in all decision-making, and Green development will provide for environmentally-sustainable economic activity with a minimal negative impact on local, regional and global ecosystems. Patterns of human activity will respect the physical boundaries of the natural environment and be directed with an awareness of energy efficiency as well as the unique landscape of our city. Continuous monitoring of our progress will indicate opportunities for greater improvement to keep our behavior in balance with natural systems. 2. Advocate Resource Efficiency, Conservation and Reuse Energy and raw materials use will be reduced to a level comparable to their rate of regeneration. Renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, and reused and recycled materials will be preferred in an effort to eliminate waste. Local resources will be preferred to imported ones due to the additional energy expenditure required for transportation of imported goods. 3. Promote Pollution Prevention Prevention of pollution is both more effective and more cost-efficient than attempting to correct and repair the various levels of damage and ill-health pollution causes. 4. Ensure Economic Prosperity through Stewardship of the Environment San Francisco's economic climate and quality of life will prosper as its residents develop a stronger relationship with the City's air, water, land, natural resources, plants, animals, and ecological processes by rehabilitating and restoring them to their maximum health and potential. Economic prosperity is inherently linked with local and regional environmental quality. 5. Ensure Environmental Justice A sustainable society requires the fair and equal treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies and programs. No racial, ethnic or socio-economic group will suffer a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences, or be denied equal access to the full range of resources from clear air to health services. The focus of city design will be the creation of safe and healthy places for people to live, work and play in the context of an ecologically-sound environment. The City will be built with appropriate, local materials; will blur the boundaries between park land and the built environment; will encourage respect for local culture and natural history; will facilitate personal contact; and will provide an efficient and pleasant structure for vibrant commercial activity. Housing, shops, restaurants, work places, schools, health services, parks, civic facilities and entertainment will be within walking distance or within easy access to frequent, safe public transit. A healthy commercial and industrial sector will provide income for the local population and strengthen the tax base for public works. Designing the city for people will offer more choices and opportunities for a prosperous and higher quality of life. To effectively administer itself in a sustainable manner, San Francisco will have a local government that is flexible and responsive, encouraging citizen involvement. The Environmental Commission will work with elected officials and those responsible for overall city planning to establish connections between policy formulation and implementation; frequent evaluation using objective indicators; and an overall review of the sustainability plan and its programs at regular intervals. All parts of city government will integrate sustainable principles into their functions. IV. ORGANIZING A SUSTAINABLE SAN FRANCISCO The strength of San Francisco lies in both the diverse character of its neighborhoods and in its sense of unity as a cosmopolitan city. To achieve sustainability, all the different places that make up the city of San Francisco3/4from each neighborhood to its open spaces and urban infrastructure3/4must function both independently and collectively within the principles of sustainability. It is not enough to address sustainability in terms of the City's land, air, water and waste. Its sustainability also lies in that more intangible element called "place"3/4and in the vast collection of places that make up the built identity of San Francisco. A San Francisco neighborhood is a distinct, organized place within the City that can be transformed at many different levels (i.e., environmental, social, cultural and economic) in the pursuit of sustainability. Defining sustainable principles, policies and programs at the neighborhood scale offers the people of San Francisco a way to understand and relate this sustainability plan to our own lifestyles and our sense of place, and is an integral part of maintaining and improving the quality of life in San Francisco's neighborhoods. At the same time that neighborhoods offer useful organizing systems for promoting sustainability, so do the larger urban systems that create the sense of a world-class city. Locally, this combination of organizing systems includes 1) single-family residential neighborhoods, 2) multi-dwelling residential neighborhoods, 3) residential/commercial neighborhood districts, 4) the downtown and Civic Center district, 5) industrial neighborhoods, 6) the San Francisco shoreline, 7) the city's parks, recreation areas and open spaces, and 8) urban public works infrastructure. Policies and programs focused on these types of neighborhoods and urban systems should not only maintain the integrity of existing neighborhoods, but also redirect rehabilitation of individual buildings and the larger urban infrastructure toward sustainability. Ways in which sustainability can be enhanced at all these types of neighborhood and urban systems are multi-fold. All neighborhoods could become more sustainable by reducing the consumption of energy, materials and water through conservation, the use of highly efficient technology, and the conversion to renewable resources. To further promote sustainability, all residential neighborhoods should be mixed with commercial districts to drastically curtail local use of the motor vehicle, thereby reducing traffic congestion, the need for parking, and associated air pollution. Likewise, the downtown and Civic Center districts should maintain and enhance their regional and local transportation connections and their balance of day (office workplaces and shopping) and night (shopping, tourism, dining and entertainment) activities. Industrial neighborhoods should offer places for economic development (e.g., new entrepreneurial enterprises, jobs, artists' workspaces) while remaining the home of many long-time San Francisco businesses. To make the underlying fabric of the City more sustainable, the City's shoreline and public open spaces should be restored to historic levels of biodiversity3/4as reflected in the local fishing and marine industries delivering food, renewable resources and economic development to San Francisco. At the same time, San Francisco's shoreline, public spaces and urban infrastructure should contribute to lower per-capita energy use, material consumption, and increased food production; and to social justice through the equitable distribution of these amenities. All San Franciscans should have access to these public amenities. Clearly, sustainability should be addressed at different levels3/4for both private and public spaces as well as for specific neighborhoods and larger urban systems. As the people of San Francisco relate sustainability to the quality of our neighborhoods, to the overall City environment and to our own lives, implementation of the plan has a strong chance of succeeding in creating a more sustainable San Francisco. The following sections set out, topic by topic, introductory Agriculture is often not considered an urban issue. Yet historically, even large cities such as Paris, Shanghai, and Mexico City generated much of the food and fuel needed by city residents. Even in today's global economy, the island metropolis of Hong Kong grows almost half of its produce within its land area. Since most people worldwide will live in cities by the turn of the century, it is in our immediate interest to ensure that a high-quality, sufficient, and regular supply of food is available to urban centers. Planning for a sustainable city is therefore incomplete without planning for the cultivation and delivery of its food supply. Urban consumers can also have a direct impact on the health of the environment far beyond the border of the city through their purchasing decisions. Kesterson Reservoir in the Central Valley was poisoned by agricultural practices stemming from consumer demand for cosmetically "perfect" produce. Consumers can vote with their dollars to prefer food grown using sustainable, organic methods. Many health experts warn of dangers of eating pesticide residues, and farm workers are frequently poisoned by the toxic substances with which they work. Far outside of California, rain forests are being burned at a tremendous rate to provide grazing land for cattle that is consumed as hamburger by American consumers. People can find out about these practices and eat at restaurants that grow beef in a less harmful way. City leaders can work with surrounding jurisdictions to retain local agricultural land, which enables us to have food that is fresher and is less dependent on fossil-fuel-based transport to arrive at our stores. Closer to home, we need to take a look at available space in the city where food can be grown. Community gardens, small urban farms, rooftop gardens, and gardens on private land all provide people in the city with food, a chance to be outside working with nature, and a chance to learn a trade. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." The quality of the air in the Bay Area is a reflection of many small choices made by everyone every day, from our means of transportation to jobs and shopping, to the decision to let the gardener use a leaf blower (37 times more polluting than an automobile), to whether or not to use an aerosol hair spray. Poor outdoor and indoor air quality leads to breathing problems, allergies, flu-like symptoms in humans; damage to buildings and infrastructure; and acidification of lakes, destruction of forests, and corrosion of rocks in nature. On a global scale, air pollution causes greenhouse warming, which appears to be changing weather patterns around the globe. Perhaps most seriously, air pollution has caused a rapid decrease in the stratospheric ozone which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Negative consequences of an increase in UV include increased skin cancer in humans and a possible decline in ocean plankton, the basis for all life on earth. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." A sustainable economy is the fundamental integration of environmental and economic sectors. Both considerations have to be made part of every level of planning to provide the best possible life for San Franciscans in the context of environmental concerns. There are five fundamental characteristics of a sustainable economy. 1) It is based entirely on renewable energy use, 2) It is energy-efficient, 3) It completely recycles the minimized amount of resources it needs, 4) It avoids releasing toxics into the environment, and 5) The costs of all impacts of a policy choice are included in decision-making, including those that are met by others. A sustainable business sector must be innovative, dynamic and entrepreneurial to successfully compete in the global economy without causing environmental degradation. It should maximize employment opportunities, income, and leisure. Most economic activity in San Francisco is within the private sector, and its activities have a very significant effect on the local environment. Private-sector business and industry must assess their own operations through ongoing environmental audits and environmental management plans. City government can use land-use policies, economic incentives and regulatory control to build the local economy through a vibrant business sector that operates in a least-polluting manner, including tourism and "green" industries3/4those with environmental improvement as a major focus of the company's business. Planning documents, zoning regulations and development guidelines should support development of an ecological-built environment (buildings, density, transportation system, utility infrastructure and processes, public services, etc.). City government can sponsor business-attraction programs to target Green businesses and industries (renewable energy, energy conservation, recycling, etc.) and those that will play lead roles in the transition to an environmentally sustainable economy locally, nationally, and globally (such as chemical engineering; research, development and production of less-toxic building materials and practices; and habitat restoration). The City can sponsor, or work with nonprofit organizations to sponsor, job-training programs to give local workers the range of skills involved in the transition to a sustainable economy. Preference programs can support locally owned or controlled businesses, and business-retention programs can assist local businesses to be more environmentally responsible. The City can use its fiscal and regulatory powers to stimulate better environmental outcomes for business through incentives and recognition. A central agency should review all areas of governmental environmental management and regulatory control, employing ecological design, the principles of full-cost pricing, and the "polluter pays" principle where possible. Finally, municipal operations and the City's production, purchasing, investment, and policy decisions should be modified to employ options that support, promote, and employ environmentally sound practices of a sustainable city. These issues are discussed at more length in the Municipal Purchasing section. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." D. Energy, Climate Change, and Ozone Depletion In order to be sustainable our society will need to meet three conditions:
As the planet's most voracious energy user, the US consumes a quarter of the world's annual energy use, while supporting only 5% of its population. Unfortunately this does not make us the most productive; in fact the US uses twice as much energy as the most efficient industrialized economies to produce an equivalent output. In order to support this economy, the US imports well over 40% of its oil supply at an annual cost of about $50 billion; accounting for nearly 40% of our trade deficit. Closer to home, San Francisco uses 5 billion kilowatt hours of electricity (2/3 from non-renewable resources), 30 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and 190 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. 92% of this energy is from non-renewable sources, which has a negative impact on our climate and economy at both local and global levels. Clearly, choices we make about energy generation and consumption are likely to have serious consequences both for the environment and for our economic security. In the long term, moving towards energy sustainability means taking action to both promote renewable energy production, and to reduce consumption through efficient technologies and practices. A truly sustainable energy system will use no more energy than it produces; all energy production would come from renewable sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydro. In the shorter term, improved efficiency in the use of energy is the most cost-effective source of "new" energy supply. In this case an increased need for energy supplies does not result in further environmental damage from newly constructed generation capacity. Furthermore, an energy policy which holds sustainability as a priority will include the costs of "externalities" such as environmental impacts in decisions about energy fuel choices and costs. This is likely to benefit us both environmentally and economically. When the cost of the negative impact on the environment of non-renewable energy use is taken into account, the real cost of conserved energy goes down and the benefits of energy efficiency go up relative to conventional practice. As we move towards a sustainable energy economy there are some general principles we can follow:
For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." The unsustainable growth and development of our society up until now has created strongly negative byproducts: pollution, lack of access to adequate public transportation, and sharply inequitable access to economic opportunities, among others. These negative environmental consequences have fallen disproportionately upon people of low income and inadequate political clout, many of whom are people of color. The concept of environmental justice is to acknowledge these historical inequities and to consciously ensure that there is a fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, income and educational levels with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and practices. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." The presence of large quantities of hazardous materials in everyday life is a relatively new phenomenon. Only since World War II have so many chemicals been synthesized. In the early years of their use by the military, ignorance of their long-term effects and short-sightedness permitted them to be casually dumped in our soil and water, leading to the current situation of severe pollution at Hunters Point and some parts of the Presidio. Industry perpetuated the military market by producing ever-stronger chemicals for industrial applications, leading to the groundwater pollution we now find in parts of Mission Bay and around Islais Creek (for example). Products also have been produced for purchase by the general public which are highly toxic in their effects on human health and the environment. Household hazardous waste, including motor oil, continues to be one of the major causes of pollution of the Bay and ocean. Our society has become highly dependent on petroleum-based products, which are poisonous to animals and plants when they are unintentionally spilled directly into natural systems. Since the early 1970's, strict federal and State regulation has made it increasingly difficult for industrial polluters to reduce their costs at the expense of future generations. However, the legacy of many decades of dumping has yet to be fully determined, and many decades of clean-up are ahead. At the same time, toxic materials continue to be produced in enormous quantities. Their use contaminates the air, land, groundwater, and the bodies of plants, animals and humans. The use of poisons in these quantities far exceeds the ability of the environment to assimilate them. To achieve a sustainable society, chemical use must be vastly reduced, as the damage it has caused in the past is slowly healed. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." The health of a society is directly evidenced by the health of its citizens. Their physical and mental well-being can be negatively affected by stress; genetic disorders; viruses, bacteria and other parasites; chemicals from a range of sources from environmental pollutants to addictive drugs; poor diet and inadequate exercise; alienation from nature and other people; lack of creative outlets; and a myriad of unknown causes. Organized society can enhance the health of each member of the community by providing equal access to a broad range of health care services, using a diversity of philosophies of healing; facilitating life's transitions into adulthood, retirement, and death; providing public information on proper diet, exercise, disease prevention and healing; ensuring a fresh, safe, and accessible supply of food; providing opportunities for people to get exercise in the regular course of their lives; ensuring that people have an opportunity to maintain a close contact with the natural world; maintaining a cultural milieu in which people can participate in creative expression, and promoting research into the unknown causes of ill-health. In a sustainable society, the private and public sectors will address all these issues. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." A sustainable city should have its municipal activities be a model for the rest of the city. Municipal activities should go beyond traditional reduction, reuse and recycling of solid waste. A comprehensive program should evaluate and move towards reduction of toxic materials and increasing the use of recycled materials in capital projects. It should consider cradle-to-grave life-cycle costs when purchasing capital goods or replacement items, or when designing capital improvements. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." Noise is an invisible pollutant that can have a significant effect on health, property values, and a pleasant ambience. Excessive noise can cause sleeplessness, interfere with communication, and cause serious stress problems in both people and animals. In order to maintain agricultural spaces and wild lands around cities, it is essential that living in a relatively dense environment is made attractive to people. The alternative is what we have seen in the last few decades3/4 increasing sprawl development, as people choose not to live in cities. While the price of housing, fear of crime, and other motivations contribute greatly to people's decisions to move out of town, excessive noise can have a significant influence on the quality of life in a city, making it a less appealing place for people to live. Particularly with the population continuing to grow in the Bay Area, it is essential that urban life attract a greater proportion of the population, so open space can be preserved. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." J. Open Space: Inland Lakes and Streams, and Natural Habitat Protection of the City's open spaces and natural habitats benefits humans and the natural world alike. Natural areas provide air quality improvement, aquifer recharge, and a resting place for migratory birds. They provide an opportunity for city people to get in touch with nature in all its complexity, providing an environment that is far more diverse in plant and animal material than any landscaped park. Natural areas are home for threatened and endangered plant and animal species and contribute to the diversity of biological life. Streams, creeks, and wetlands supply water and are breeding grounds for the aquatic species which support fishing and other economic activities. San Francisco also fits into a regional environment. How we manage our shorelines promotes stewardship of the ocean and bay. Work with neighboring jurisdictions and State and federal authorities set standards for those bodies of water directly. The City also owns many acres of watershed lands far from our city limits, which are components of the restoration and protection of salmon runs in the Sierras and overall water quality and supply. Preservation, restoration, and management of open spaces and natural habitats promote these environmental benefits and are critical components of our environmental stewardship. Biodiversity, at its simplest definition, is the variety of life that has evolved on earth. That definition includes genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity. Genetic diversity is the variation in genes enabling organisms to evolve and adapt to new conditions. Species diversity is the number, types, and distribution of species within an ecosystem. Ecosystem diversity is the variety of habitats and communities of different species that interact in a complex web of interdependent relationships. The value of biodiversity to humans can be directly linked to agricultural production, medicines and many industrial products. Most importantly, biodiversity provides an opportunity to adapt to local and global ecological change, for sustaining biodiversity provides a variety of genes, species and habitats that may be essential for our own survival in the future. The loss of the world's biological diversity is due to over-population, habitat loss and fragmentation, introduced species, over-exploitation of plant and animal species, industrial agriculture and forestry, pollution of soil, water and the atmosphere, and global climate change. Many of these factors have played a strong role in shaping San Francisco's current environment. Despite the decline of biodiversity in the San Francisco Bay Area, the region still supports a rich variety of plant and animal communities, including open coast, bay and salt marsh, chaparral, grasslands, broadleaf forest, and cone forest. Most of the natural habitat of San Francisco has been destroyed to make room for an urban environment. New species of plants and animals are continually moving in, often competing and succeeding against the native species. San Francisco cannot turn back the clock and return to its pre-urban environment, but it can take actions to preserve and restore what natural habitat is left in the City, promote restoration of native species, protect local natural areas essential to migrating birds, and educate the public about the value of local animals that live in our remnant natural habitats or have adapted to human-designed areas. The City can promote public awareness of the importance of biodiverstiy in the local and global environment and can be a regional advocate for preserving the biodiversity of the Bay and ocean. San Francisco should maintain an inventory of the biodiversity, both native and non-native, of the city, to ensure a greater understanding of the biodiversity of San Francisco. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." K. Open Space: Parks, Public Spaces and the Streetscape Parks, public spaces and the streetscape increase the attractiveness of the built environment and create critical habitat and pathways for wildlife. They provide us with a place to come together for enjoyment, recreation, and education, and enhance the experience of shopping, working, and living in the city. They become gathering places to appreciate the arts, culture, and political discourse. How the streetscape supports pedestrians and bicyclists influences decisions to use cars or other forms of transportation. Urban forests and street trees improve air and water quality, reduce noise and wind, and provide shade and cooling. These areas can contribute to our safety from crime and provide safe places for our children to play. While some of parts of the city are rich in landscaped amenities, attention must be paid to improve those areas where parkland per resident and street trees per mile are below the national average. San Francisco has long been recognized for its parks and public spaces, from the design of Golden Gate Park to the multitude of urban plazas and squares that dot our downtown. Neighborhoods, however, are often deficient in landscaped areas in their central commercial districts and trees are lacking on many city residential streets. Tourists visit our famous parks, contributing to our economic vitality, and would be increasingly attracted to our neighborhoods if landscaping and park space were improved. Finally, parks, public spaces and street trees provide employment and job training and can increase overall economic self-sufficiency. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." L. Public Information and Education Public education is a fundamental cornerstone of a sustainable society. In such a society, it is necessary for every member to do his or her share to live lightly on the planet. Education provides the foundation upon which technological innovations can occur that will help maintain our material standard of living while lessening the environmental impact. It produces a work force that will attract the kind of business that will sustain our local economy. A good education improves our sense of individual worth and maintains optimism through hard times. Even with the best intentions, it is nearly impossible for people to change their behavior without information about how to make the change. Living sustainably is a new concept in our society, and there are many ways in which governments, business and the nonprofit community can help disseminate information on pollution prevention, waste minimization and disposal, cleaner products made from sustainable materials, resource conservation, consumer safety, and other new positive actions. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." Every society needs to be prepared for emergencies. In San Francisco, the one most on people's minds is, of course, earthquake. While the event itself cannot be avoided, the amount of injury, fire, and environmental damage through chemical spills and other causes can be greatly reduced by careful planning. An efficient fire department has reduced the risk of large fires, but with the number and density of wooden buildings, this remains a constant threat. After the 1989 earthquake, the fact that our one remaining fireboat had not been put into mothballs may have saved a large part of the city from the Marina fire. While we do not have a significant heavy industrial base which would raise the chance of large-scale chemical accidents such as happened on Bhopal, India, nevertheless, we do have enough large users of hazardous materials that strictly enforced safeguards are necessary in this area. Any of these avoidable disasters can not only result in loss of life and property, but of significant environmental damage. New activities carried out by modern society, nuclear technology and biotechnology, carry enormously greater potential risk to human health and the environment than anything contemplated by earlier civilizations. We cannot ignore their enormous potential hazards. To do so would be as short-sighted as to remain unprepared for civil emergencies. Biotechnology is a new science that has not yet suffered a catastrophic accident, but as the disaster at Chernobyl shows, sloppy safeguards can have catastrophic and long-term consequences for human and environmental health that can affect large areas. It is important to have thought in advance about the relationship the city chooses to have with the industries who engage in these technologies, including smaller operators such as hospitals and farms. For suggestions please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." The issue of solid waste goes to the core of a society's relationship with the planet's resources. Are they treated as valuable, difficult-to-replace commodities, or used unnecessarily and wasted thoughtlessly? It also goes to the core of issues of social equity: It has been shown that five percent of the world's population uses 85% of its resources. San Francisco already has an excellent recycling collection program for several materials. However, collection is only part of the recycling process. After the materials are collected, they are sorted, processed, manufactured into new products, and sold for use over again. In order to maintain the strength of the market for the recycled products our curbside program and recycling centers collect, it is necessary for people to buy products that are made with recycled material. Even more important than this economic consideration, buying products made with recycled content, instead of virgin content, saves the virgin materials for use at another time. Recyclables include more than the materials that go into the blue bins. Cities have long wasted their resources of organic materials (kitchen scraps, landscape trimmings, and cast-offs from markets). These materials, rich in vitamins and trace minerals, can be used to enrich the soil to grow healthier, pesticide-free plants. Sewage sludge is currently wasted, going into a landfill. It could be used to produce compost, energy, and other useful products. Most importantly, the existence of a large volume of solid waste is an indication that people are using more resources than they need. Waste prevention is the practice of reducing needless material use in packaging, disposables, partially-used goods, unrecyclable materials, and just plain junk. San Francisco will be sustainable when it has a very low level of resource use coming from renewable resources, much of which is reused and recycled. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." Transportation's role in creating a sustainable city centers around the need to get people where they want to go comfortably and in good time without environmental degradation. Despite improvements in the emissions from gasoline-powered cars, the private auto produces a myriad of negative effects: air pollution; noise; traffic congestion; and a high death rate not only of drivers and passengers, but of pedestrians and cyclists. A transit system based on individual cars, even if they produced no pollution at all, still contributes to an increased unpleasantness of the built environment. Freeways ruin any neighborhood through which they pass and contribute to the loss of local agricultural land and open space. Potentially useful urban real estate is wasted on parking spaces. Wide roadways supplant roadside plantings and pedestrian amenities. The public health is diminished as people sit behind the wheel instead of walking or cycling. Commercial marketplaces are isolated in seas of parking spaces and people are isolated from each other in the course of traveling from one place to the next. San Francisco has the advantage, unique in the western part of the country, of having an urban form that does not require the use of automobiles to get from place to place. People in about 30% of the City's households do not own cars. Nevertheless, car use remains extremely popular because it meets some of people's needs that they do not feel can be met by other means of transportation: it's quick and convenient, seems inexpensive on a per-use basis if one ignores the capital costs, eliminates the need to interact personally with other people, enables people to tote around a lot of material, and sometimes provides the only means of transit to particular places or for people with special needs. Only by meeting these needs with more benign means of transportation will people be convinced to use less detrimental forms of transportation. This can be done through a combination of improvements in the public transportation system, public education around the costs to individuals and society of car usage, provision of non-polluting taxis, vans, and rental cars for numerous or bulky packages or weekend trips to the country, and shifting the real costs of the car-based transportation infrastructure to its users. Those who pay the increased taxes and continue to drive will benefit from reduced congestion. Currently those who drive most are able to use their political clout and the confusion of the public to pass most of the cost of their auto use to others. In the case of mobility-impaired people, individual transportation will probably remain a necessity. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." Water is fundamental to life, and maintenance of the City's supply of pure water is essential to its sustainability. San Francisco planned early for its future needs with the development of the Hetch Hetchy system, which supplies us with water from the Sierras, as well as providing us with water we sell to other jurisdictions. Since water demands on the natural supply are continually increasing with the increasing human population of California, it behooves us to plan for the long term, so that we will have enough good-quality water for our own needs and the needs of our neighbors, while leaving enough in the natural watercourses and watersheds for the plants and animals that depend upon it. In addition, our discharged water is one of the primary conveyances of chemical, particulant, and biological contaminants into the San Francisco Bay and the ocean. In order to reduce our impact on these essential systems, it will be necessary not only to have an efficient catchment and processing system, but to achieve very low levels of these materials being discharged into the water supply in the first place. For suggestions, please see Document II, "Possible Goals, Objectives, Actions and Indicators Suggested for Consideration by City Circles." AFFILIATIONS OF VOLUNTEER DRAFTING GROUP Barbara Bernardini, resident |