On Sunday, February 25 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle featured one of my energy writings titled “Let’s Micro-Energize. Our energy should encourage small, close-to-home sources”

(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/25/SC37626.DTL)

In March Huey Johnson invited me to attend one of Marin’s Sustainable Task Force meetings. Under the time constraints of the meeting I was unable to fully express my thoughts on sustainability as it applies to Marin’s General Plan update. This is a report reflecting my feelings coming out of that General Plan process meeting.

Several California counties and cities are updating their General Plans (GP). Marin is including “sustainability” as a component of their update. Marin’s Huey Johnson, founder of the Trust for Public Land and former California Resources Agency Chief and now Director of Resource Renewal Institute, was the speaker at a recent Marin GP Sustainability Task Force Meeting. On the Task Force was Sim Van der Ryn, former State Architect in the same Governor Brown administration and the man who designed a 70’s Solar Village for Hamilton Air Force Base. Huey graciously invited me to say a few words about micro energy concepts during his allotted time.

Certainly one of the nation’s richest counties should provide incentives to be a micro energy model. Net metering photovoltaics should blanket south facing roofs on government buildings, Lucas Properties, Fireman’s Fund, shopping centers, businesses, residences and at ferry and train stations. Green generating renewable power could micro step Marin toward a micro-energized Ectopia.

But to be an Ectopian macro-model, Marin must follow Huey’s words about “comprehensive, government and industry collaboration” by having regional businesses, developers and government officials in Marin and Sonoma creatively form joint ventures to address regional needs. Ectopia doesn’t happen by having a few groups dictate golden draw bridged land use policies for green looking Marin. It does not come from exhausted developers accepting whatever they are allowed from their politically debased projects. In the North Bay, creative collaboration requires over burdened citizens, governments, businesses, and land owners, especially along the rail line, address regional housing, transit and energy needs in tandem with each other.

Among the Task Force’s guiding sustainability principles were: environment, economy and social equity. Each principle needs indicators (verifiable data) to gauge the success of programs intended to make those principles part of Marin’s good life. As Sim pointed out, Marin scores in environmental achievements (84% of its land in open space, agricultural or parks) but flunks social equity by failing to provide affordable ownership housing. Indicators abound.

Task Force member Aeri Kurtzig suggested that Marin’s guiding economic principle had an environmental footprint suffocating it by asking, “How sustainable would the world be, if we replicated Marin’s footprint to it?” How lightly does Marin tread, when it:

· Averages annual population growth of about one-half of 1% (annual net migration of about 700 people) for the last 30 years while adding SUVs and lesser oxygen eating dinovehisaurs at a 300% higher rate?

· Caves in to politically adept affordable housing opponents who use a myriad of well-clothed excuses to oppose building sufficient work place, transit oriented, resource conserving housing?

· Exports its workforce spending to other residing counties and wastes precious human capital and parenting time via grid locking its imported and nearby workers for 5 hours a day?

Sustainability necessitates designing so that the environment’s most powerful creature, mankind, uses appropriate resources as efficiently, gently and wisely as possible for all God’s children. It requires thinking globally when acting locally

Marin will not address major sustainability drains without adjusting its failed land use pattern that it exports to the region. In the past, Marin has unwisely used developments at Hamilton Air Force Base, Vintage Oaks Shopping Center, etc. These large parcels were neither transit oriented compact mixed used communities nor solar covered. Short sighted pressures may force a similar mistake on St. Vincent’s Silveira.

The 1980’s referendum defeated Berg Revoir Hamilton Proposal would have been a train centered mixed-use development that dedicated a huge money chunk to implementing rail and escrowing an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. It would have been more environmentally friendly and sustainable than the eventual political group’s dictated design. Novato wanted a Vintage Oaks shopping center revenue generator. Novato should have added apartment units to it, as some of us proposed, so that it could have been a fully active mixed use pocket enabling rider ship on its adjacent train line.

Compact, mixed use, pedestrian friendly designs use less curbs, gutters, roads, automobiles, and open space. They save on initially consumed and required for getting around resources. They are more sustainable and cost effective than suburban sprawl. In the past, pedestrian pocket developments in Marin took political courage to support and leadership to educate the too-busy public on their sustainable need. Too little of both was provided.

How Marin and Sonoma collaborate to use their remaining transit oriented land will determine how sustainable their green plan is for resource renewal.