Sustainable City Program: Mandate or Dream?

By Christian Boyce

In 1994, the City of Santa Monica adopted a Sustainable City Program designed to create a" more sustainable way of life" both locally and globally. Basically, the idea is to make Santa Monica a city that can work now and in the future by making choices today that favor the natural environment when possible.

Included in the program's Guiding Principles is this: "City decision-making will be guided by a mandate to maximize environmental benefits and reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts."

One wonders whether Santa Monica's Sustainable City Program is really a "mandate" or not, because in case after case recommendations are made by City staff, and decisions are made by Council, that seem to conflict with the Sustainable City Program's principles.

Here are some examples from the recent past:

August, 2003: City staff recommends the expansion of the City's garbage transfer facility at a cost of roughly $8 million. The facility would lose money unless an additional 200 tons of trash were brought into Santa Monica (or unless Santa Monicans were forced to pay higher trash collection rates).

That's interesting. Why would we want to bring 200 MORE tons of trash into Santa Monica?

According to the staff report, Santa Monica generates, on average, 423 tons of trash each day, so 200 more tons translates to 47 percent more trash -- and 47 percent more truck trips, and 47 percent more associated pollution. That's significant.

Wouldn't it be more "sustainable" to REDUCE the amount of trash we're generating as Santa Monicans, without having to worry about such reductions being at odds with the City staff's goals?

Wouldn't it be more "sustainable" to work to reduce the amount of trash in general -- in Santa Monica and in neighboring cities -- instead of building in additional trash-handling capacity?

And why would we want to INCREASE the number of garbage truck trips into our town (or any), especially when the offramp at Cloverfield -- the ramp closest to the transfer facility's location -- is already so congested as to cause traffic to back up on Interstate 10 for more than a mile on a daily basis? It is to the Council's credit that they rejected this proposal, but gee, can't we get the City staff on board too?

August, 2003: City staff recommends leaving one side of the 1800 block of 9th Street (nearly two-thirds of the block's on-street parking spaces) unprotected in a sea of otherwise permit-only blocks.

According to the staff report "many of the non-residential parkers involved were Santa Monica High School students...", which puts staff's recommendation squarely at odds with this Guiding Principle from the Santa Monica Sustainable City Program:

"Individual citizens, community-based groups and businesses must be aware of their impacts on the environment, must take responsibility for reducing or eliminating those impacts, and must take an active part in community efforts to address environmental concerns. The City will therefore be a leader in the creation and sponsorship of environmental education opportunities in cooperation with schools, colleges and other organizations in the community."

Staff's recommendation doesn't show leadership in environmental education; rather, it encourages high school students to drive to school when -- according to the Sustainable City guidelines -- it ought to DISCOURAGE the practice. Staff's recommendation to leave one side of the street unprotected is notable in that it is contrary not only to the Sustainable City guidelines, but to the City's Municipal Code and the residents' stated wishes as well.

Increased traffic, increased pollution, increased reliance on automobiles -- and a missed opportunity to teach our young people a lesson in sustainability, all in one recommendation. (As of this writing, staff has not provided a rationale for its recommendation.)

October, 2003: City staff recommends creation of "Airport Park" at Santa Monica Airport. This would seem to be rather "sustainable," yet the Devil is in the details.

When the park is built, Santa Monica College's remote parking lot (a model of sustainability, providing free parking at the airport and free shuttle service to the campus) will be lost, causing (according to the final Environmental Impact Report) "unavoidable adverse impacts" (that is, an increased number of cars) in neighborhoods as far away as Lincoln and Pico Boulevards -- with "no feasible mitigation measures."

And the notion of installing artificial turf (which was not part of the final Environmental Impact Report submitted to Council) in place of natural grass seems completely at odds with "sustainability."

Natural grass would appear to be a much better choice for several reasons (as compared to artificial turf, it significantly reduces storm water runoff and increases groundwater infiltration due to inherent permeability. It cools the environment via evapotranspiration, reducing reliance on air conditioners. It traps dust particles that can be expected in an urban airport environment and washes them down into the soil, preventing further movement; and it reduces carbon dioxide levels-- as well as airborne pollutants -- and produces oxygen via photosynthesis).

Why, then, does the Council, almost without exception, appear at least somewhat interested in using artificial turf, yet almost completely not interested in providing subterranean parking, which could ameliorate the loss of Santa Monica College's lot? Creating a new park offers quite an opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to the principles of sustainability -- and in this case, it's an opportunity lost.

To me and Mr. Webster, a "mandate" is "an authoritative command or instruction, especially a written one." That seems pretty clear. But, it also seems pretty clear that the Sustainable City Program "mandate" isn't consistently guiding City staff nor the Council, and that makes me wonder why not.

Maybe the Sustainable City Program isn't a mandate at all. Maybe it's merely a bunch of dreams that we'd like to have come true by themselves. One would guess that the Sustainable City Program is somewhere in between -- something less than a mandate, and more than a dream -- but it seems, by staff's and Council's recent actions, that we're a bit too close to the "dream" end of the spectrum, and that's
not where we ought to be.

The Sustainable City Program is something that Santa Monica should rightly take pride in. The goals are noble, and more than that, essential -- and in many ways significant progress has been made.

Sometimes, though, other considerations seem to take precedence and sustainability takes a back seat. At times like those -- like these -- we should do what we can to push the pendulum back toward sustainability. That's why I've written this. I hope it makes a difference.

Christian Boyce is a Macintosh consultant