By Josh Gelfand

March 30th, 2008

To paraphrase Gordon Gekko, the hyper-aggressive investor antagonist played by Michael Douglas in the 1987 film Wall Street, “Green, for lack of a better word, is good.” Sure, he had a different letter on the end of the first word, but, in the context of what I’m writing about, I’d rather go with green than greed. Besides, those of us in the eco-conscious business sector believe we can meet our financial desires while balancing the effects of our decisions on the environment and the community at large. To make a city green, you need drive and you need determination, but unlike Mr. Gekko, you need cooperation and integration as well. We are trying to make San Diego as green a city as we can, so we need to ask ourselves, are we on the right path? Are we really working together, as a community, to lay the foundations for a truly sustainable future in “America’s Finest City?” Can we become “America’s Greenest City?”

First we have to look at what makes a city “green.” The concept is up to interpretation, especially considering how new a concept it is, and the definition is constantly evolving. But for the sake of this discussion, let’s use the parameters used by Popular Science magazine in their February, 2008 article entitled, “America’s 50 Greenest Cities.”

In the article they measure the 50 greenest cities in the U.S. based on a point system in four main areas:

* Electricity: how much renewable power is available and being used, along with consumer incentives for cleaner energy and conservation – 10 pts

* Transportation: quality, availability and use of public transit, walkability, as well as carpool options, biking and other alternatives; also air quality is included here – 10 pts

* Green Living: LEED or equivalent buildings and projects as well as public space and nature preserves – 5 pts

* Recycling and green perspective: how much waste is diverted, ease of recycling programs; ‘perspective’ refers to how green residents think their city is – 5 pts

This all describes the concept of “Smart Growth,” which is basically a reversal of the “sprawl” trend that we’ve been experiencing, not only since the suburbanization trend of post-WWII, but really since “manifest destiny” sent Lewis and Clark westward 200 years ago. While the features that distinguish smart growth in a community vary from place to place, in general, smart growth invests time, attention, and resources in restoring community and vitality to center cities and older suburbs. New smart growth is more town-centered, is transit and pedestrian oriented, and has a greater mix of housing, commercial and retail uses. It also preserves open space and many other environmental amenities. We are experiencing a re-urbanization, due, in part, to rising fuel costs ($111/barrel today), as well as a demographic shift towards a desire for community-style living.


Variety and diversity drive Smart Growth. Its principles include:


* Creating a range of housing opportunities and choices

* Creating pedestrian-friendly “walkable” neighborhoods

* Encouraging community and stakeholder collaboration

* Fostering distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place

o Using natural and man-made boundaries and landmarks to define an area, along with using community values in architecture and design to provide a distinctive, identifiable feel for residents, employees and visitors

* Making development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective

o This concept must be embraced by the private sector, as investors and developers are the only ones with the capital to implement this type of development. However, government cooperation is required to make the right infrastructure and regulatory decisions to create fair, predictable and cost-effective smart growth.

* Mixed land use

* Preserving open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas

* Providing variety and diversity of transportation and mobility options

* Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities – avoid developing new infrastructure when we can improve on that which we already have

* Promote compact building design, which not only provides for more efficient use of existing land and resources, but also enables wider transportation choices


All of these concepts of Smart Growth point to the driving factor that will enable the most ideal development, best known as the “Triple Bottom Line.” This is what brings together the necessary community members – government, industry, organizations, and individuals and families. The triple bottom line sets the criteria for measuring any type of organizational success. Development must benefit us 1) Socially, 2) Environmentally, and 3) Financially. It’s catchier to refer to these three as People, Planet, and Profit (who doesn’t like a little alliteration? Even that is fun to say aloud – “a little alliteration.” Try this one: A little alliteration in Little Italy).


For far too long, the investment community has focused solely on the third – profit – as the only relevant bottom line, and it has done so at the expense of the other two. As a higher level of consciousness begins to take over, we must realize that true success – sustained success – can only be met when we measure the effect of our decisions not only on our bank accounts, but by
the social and environmental world around us that enables our financial success.

So, now on to San Diego. Why do people want to live here? We call ourselves “America’s Finest City,” but what does that actually mean? The weather is great, the beaches are beautiful, there are wonderful restaurants, and we’ve got Balboa Park, great tourist attractions, in addition to having well respected academic institutions along with the hub of the biotech industry.

That’s right, San Diego is not on the list. Fourteen of the 50 are in California, the highest being San Francisco at #2, and five are in Southern California, including Irvine (21), Riverside (28), Pasadena (37), San Bernardino (47) and Thousand Oaks (48). Not a single city in San Diego
County made the cut. So now we need to ask why this is. Let’s compare San Diego to the #1 greenest city on the list, Portland, Oregon.

* 50% of the Portland’s power comes from renewable sources, including wind, low-impact (small) hydro, geothermal, and biomass. In San Diego, it’s 7%, including 3% biomass and waste, 3% wind, 1% geothermal, and
less than 1% each of solar and small hydroelectric. The rest comes from 58% natural gas, 18% nuclear, 10% coal and 7% large scale hydro.


* 25% of Portland’s workforce commutes by bike, public transit or carpool, compared to about 3-5% in SD.

* They have 35 LEED certified buildings, here we have about 14.

It looks like we’re moving in the right direction when it comes to green building commercially, though I’m only aware of one green home currently being built. And California’s energy initiative will require 20% renewables by 2020, though we can, and should be much more aggressive than that, especially with our solar capabilities. While wind is a challenge – it’s been said that only ¼ of 1% of the land in San Diego County even has enough wind to establish a farm, and that’s before environmental and wildlife assessments – we should be leading the way in wave technology research, and we’re not. They have turbines in the East River in New York City, yet we haven’t taken a step in that direction in the bay, harbor or ocean.


That leaves us with our biggest challenge to becoming a green city on par with the other leaders.



Transportation

Did you know that the San Diego trolley was the first light rail system in the country? Since the first line opened in 1981 (from San Ysidro to downtown), and the second line opened in 1986 (to Euclid Ave. and its extensions), 29 other cities developed and began operations of light rail systems before we opened a 3rd line, the “Green” line, in 2005. And the 4th line, that’s intended to go from Old Town up to La Jolla, keeps getting delayed and delayed.

Now, we’re basically abandoning the development of more LRT (light rail transit) systems for BRT, or bus rapid transit – the rubber tire trolleys. Even though independent studies around the world show that not only is light rail more cost effective, it’s cleaner, it operates independent of traffic systems and most importantly, it attracts a much higher ridership. This has been in Portland as well as in Los Angeles, where the Orange line, a BRT, has about half the ridership as it should in comparison to the Gold Line LRT, with comparable population and access.

Believe it or not, the San Diego Trolley actually has the 4th highest
ridership in the nation for LRT systems – which means WE CAN DO BETTER.

We know traffic is a problem, and we know it’s only going to get worse. Since the SANDAG regional transit plan was developed in 2003, the freeways they’ve expanded or developed include the 56, the 125, parts of the 5, the 15, the 805 and the 163, and they’re currently also working on the 52, the 76 and the 905. In that time, they’ve added the Green Line to SDSU and just finally opened the Sprinter from Oceanside to San Marcos.

That is simply not enough. There are many more problems with the development
of a better mass transit system in the region. SANDAG is using money specifically designated for public transit to add carpool lanes. Somehow they’ve defined vehicles holding two people as “mass transit.” In addition, MTS just raised rates and eliminated transfers, making it cost more than a gallon of gas to take a one-way trip requiring more than one bus or trolley line. MTS is also ignoring potential revenue sources with a complete lack of aggression in garnering advertising inside busses and trolleys. There aren’t ads inside the trolleys! If they simply sold some ad space, they wouldn’t have to raise rates and make it cost prohibitive to take public transit.

Public transit must be cost effective for the rider, it must feel safe, and it must feel GOOD (back to quality of life). I can’t feel like a loser because I’m riding the bus – I should feel great about it. There is no stigma to public transit in San Francisco or New York or Boston, yet there is in So Cal. That needs to change.

As for biofuels, there is still much debate as to the environmental impact of these; however, most of the negative information revolves around corn ethanol. With all of the attention corn ethanol is getting, many folks are surprised that right here in town, at the Eco Center fuel station (41st and El Cajon Blvd.) is the only commercial E85 pump in the entire state. It’s not doing very well, even though there are many cars that are flexfuel enabled, primarily because of a lack of awareness. Biodiesel has more potential, in my opinion, because of the great variety of sources and feedstocks that can be produced into the fuel, as well as the energy ratio, which is the ratio of how much energy it takes to produce a source to how much energy you eventually get out of the source (Ethanol has an energy ratio of about 1:0.9, while biodiesel from virgin soy has an energy ratio of 1:3.2) In addition, the impact of diesel on air quality is very significant, considering the emissions (even with ultra low sulfur), and the fact that 95% of all of our goods and services in this country are brought to us by diesel, whether by truck, train or ship. With the port, we have the opportunity to be a leader in conversion to biofuels for the marine sector. In addition, it should be noted, that the US military is the #1 user of biodiesel in the country, utilizing B20 in the majority of their non-stationary diesel-powered machinery. We need our biotech and research facilities to help develop more efficient ways of producing this fuel, and helping the research into utilizing algae for biodiesel, which is considered on of the most promising sources.



Green Living

We have some wonderful public parks and open space in the city, especially at Balboa Park, and the Harbor redevelopment will include even more open public space downtown. We have the country’s first LEED certified Marina, and we have more and more projects that will meet LEED standards coming along. The USGBC is strong here, and they are doing a solid job promoting the right standards. Project development will help us become a leader in this field. The Broadway Naval Complex, the new Irvine property at Kettner
and Broadway and the Civic Center redevelopment will all help us progress towards being a greener city, especially when our most identifiable landmarks meet such standards. What are most necessary will be local incentives established to encourage more sustainable design in both commercial and residential structures.



Recycling and Waste Reduction

We have a decent curbside program here, but we don’t have enough for commercial and multi-family dwellings. The city recently amended the sanitation code to require large multi-unit dwellings to provide recycling, however, this plan is just not aggressive enough, nor does recycling alone answer the problem of our threatened landfills, which are most definitely running out of space. Just last month, the California Integrated Waste Management Board released a study revealing that 85 percent of those surveyed believe global warming is real. It also reveals more than 78 percent of all respondents believe practicing recycling and waste reduction
has an impact on global warming. However, when asked how they can prevent landfill waste, the majority of Californians only cited recycling habits.

This clearly shows a lack of understanding of 2 of the 3 basic tenants of environmental stewardship (the 3 ‘R’s) – Reduce and Reuse. With an economy based on consumption, how do we not only educate the public on how to get more out of using less, but how do we maintain a bottom line? The study showed that much more education is needed when it comes to waste reduction techniques, but in addition, we also need better information and resources for recycling hazardous materials, like batteries and fluorescent bulbs, as well as e-waste.

Did you know the vast majority of our recycled materials are sent overseas for production? For example, there are many diversionary plants in California, where materials, like paper, are sorted and bundled. But then the scrap materials are sold to mills in China, India, and elsewhere for repulping and reuse in cardboard, newspaper and tissue products. What is the environmental impact then, of sending our recycled and reconstituted base materials overseas? We burn fuel to get it there, and we have no regulatory control over the business practices of the factories in these other countries. Wouldn’t it make more sense to develop plants here to do the same
thing?

What we’re missing more than anything else when it comes to moving this city forward is INTEGRATION. Development in the region has been very disjointed, which is anathema to the true concept of Smart Growth. The late, great musical genius Frank Zappa used the term “Project/Object” over his career, which he described as “conceptual continuity.” Basically, he repeated and reinterpreted spoken and musical themes over the span of his career: the “object” being the big picture concept, and the “projects” being the smaller compositions and endeavors. This is how we need to approach Smart Growth. The “object” is a greener, sustainable San Diego, meeting the triple bottom line, and the “projects” are just that – each development, system, and undertaking that is integrated into making us green.

While integration and cooperation between government, businesses, organizations, individuals and families are the keys to success, politics and activism can only go so far. Change needs to happen through the consumer-industrial chain for the impact to be greatest.


People. Planet. Profit. In no particular order.