Climate Policy Toolkit
This case study features Marin County, which is the first comprehensive general plan in the nation with the overarching theme of sustainability. It is an attempt to provide insights that might facilitate other local governments to tackle climate change in their general plan. It presents some of the context and outcomes of Marin and their pioneering efforts.
This case study is a result of background research and interviews with Dawn Weisz-Brown, Principal Planner, Marin County Community Development Agency; Dana Armanino, Green Business Program Manager and Michele Rodriguez, Former Countywide Plan Program Manager.
Sources of information include:
Why address global climate change in the general plan?
How was climate change integrated into the general plan?
What climate change policies were adopted?
What were the key challenges to integrating climate change protection policies into the general plan?
For other cities looking to develop a Climate Action Plan what recommendations do you have?
The history of land use planning in Marin County has been marked by precedent setting approaches going all the way back to the adoption of its first general plan in 1973 when three environmental corridors were created to focus development and protect environmental resources. In 1973, a committee of the elected officials from all 12 jurisdictions including the county was formed to address development issues effecting the environment of countywide concern. In 1994, a comprehensive parcel-specific geographic information system (GIS) and transportation model was developed to conduct cumulative impact analysis to determine environmental impact. Their most recent update (completed in 2007) has proven to be the most innovative of them all.
In 2000, as county staff were preparing for another general plan update they determined that the theme of the update to the Countywide Plan was “planning sustainable communities”. This theme was chosen because Marin County government had a strong willingness to address climate change in county operations, and in the update of the general plan.
At that time, there was a lack of State and Federal leadership on the issue of climate change, and local control was the perfect opportunity to address land use, energy conservation, green building, and waste in the general plan. It was felt that since the general plan is the constitution for land use, the implementation was guaranteed through required updates to the community plans, specific plans, zoning, and subdivision ordinances and consistency of the Capital Improvement Program.
The temperament of the community in Marin has always been aligned with environmental protection so educating the public about the connections between environmental protection, social equity and the economy was a natural next step. Increasingly Marin residents were recognizing the impact of greenhouse gases on the world’s climate and the decreasing supply of resources that support life so this awareness allowed broad support to addressing these issues in the general plan.
The County Board of Supervisors was committed to lead by example, promote public participation, and work in community partnerships to address natural resource consumption in order to improve the quality of life for all people.
The Community Development Agency Director had a particular interest and expertise in this area and hired a project manager with a willingness to be innovative and address cutting-edge concepts in public policy and programs. Once hired, additional contract staff with an expertise in sustainability and climate change was hired to assist with the update to the Plan.
Today, Marin county’s pioneering efforts, may set the bar for other jurisdictions because integrating climate change into a general plan is expected due to the adoption of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). The stringent targets established by AB 32 require that all government agencies with land use authority reduce contributing factors such as energy, waste, and transportation.
The integration of climate change in the update to the general plan and in county operations came about because of the leadership of the Board of Supervisors and staff.
At the same time as the background research was being collected, the Community Development Agency in conjunction with the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors modified the County of Marin mission statement to link public service to sustainable communities in order to preserve Marin’s unique environmental heritage. In addition, the County Strategic Plan was updated to include community goals of sustainable communities. An inter-departmental working group was formed to educate the employees in their Department, to highlight county operations that conserved resources and to identify areas of improvement.
During Earth Week 2002, the Marin County Board of Supervisors signed a resolution to join the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCP). This campaign is administered under the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and attempts to reduce international greenhouse emission through actions by local governments. CCP calls on municipalities to proceed through five milestones to reduce their contribution to climate change:
To address the first milestone Marin County emissions were analyzed for the county operation and the county unincorporated area and the information was broken down by industry. From this analysis the majority of countywide contribution was from transportation (50%), residential (24%) and commercial (16%), agriculture (6%), waste (3%) and industry (1%) To address the second milestone, a target was set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15-20% below 1990 levels by the year 2020 for internal government and 15% countywide.
Between 2000 – 2005, the process involved several steps from initial research to goal setting to specific policy making. Prior to the update process beginning in earnest, extensive research was compiled on the definition of sustainability and its relationship to science, resource use and public policy and distributed to government officials, staff and the public. Forums were held with various speakers knowledgeable about the Natural Step, the Ecological Footprint, and on the 3-E’s of sustainability - economy, equity and environment - to consumption, personal decisions and actions. Staff provided trends, objectives and data to support the definition for the Countywide Plan Update to align the built environment and socioeconomic activities with the natural systems that support life.
Next, the Plan was re-organized to combine the previous 15 elements into three elements: Natural Systems, Built Environment and Socioeconomic to reflect the order of Dailey’s Triangle, a conceptual framework for sustainability. The policies related to greenhouse gas emissions were threaded throughout the document. To ensure consistency and clarity, staff developed a unified format that would be used throughout the plan: 1) What are the desired outcomes? 2) Why is it important? 3) How will results be achieved? 4) How will success be measured? These questions lead to the development of indicators, benchmarks and targets to help measure and evaluate progress. This process provided a context in which to consider the need for new or revised implementation measures.
The working group also defined a set of sustainability objectives whose goals are to provide the broadest statement of what the County hoped to accomplish. These objectives are taken from the American Planning Association’s Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability and include the following:
In Marin County these objectives help provide specific direction for the types of actions that should be considered
As the community began to move deeper into the Countywide Plan update process, a sustainability working group of local residents and business owners was convened to help prepare guiding principles. Out of this effort emerged 12 guiding principles, whose purpose is to provide a framework to the update process and to future actions related to the general plan. The principles related to a variety of stand-alone subjects including affordable housing, public health and workforce preparedness as well as creating linkages between subjects. Each guiding principle included a brief description to provide context. For example, principle #1 reads
Link equity, economy, and the environment locally, regionally, and globally. We will improve the vitality of our community, economy, and environment. We will seek innovations that provide multiple benefits.
In addition to the Guiding Principles, the working groups created countywide goals to reflect core community values and to identify fundamental outcomes desired. For example goal #9 reads,
A Healthy and Safe Lifestyle. Marin residents will have access to a proper diet, health care, and opportunities to exercise, and the community will maintain very low tobacco, alcohol, drug abuse, and crime rates.
To show the linkage between the guiding principles and the goals throughout the Countywide Plan, a figure was included at the end of each section illustrating if a particular goal was aligned with a guiding principle: An example of the figure is shown below:
| Guiding Principles of Sustainability | ||||
| Goals | Link equity, economy, and the environment | Minimize the use of finite resources. | Preserve our natural assets | Protect agricultural assets. |
| BIO-1 Enhanced Native Habitat and Biodiversity | X | X | X | |
| BIO-2 Protection of Sensitive Biological Resources | X | X | ||
In order to provide concrete and actionable measures of success, the County adopted over100 nonbinding indicators, benchmarks, and targets to help measure and evaluate progress. These indicators are intended provide county staff guidance as to whether the implementation measures are working or whether new ones need to be added or the existing ones need to be revised. The indicators are also being used to help inform the community about Marin’s progress towards it’s goals. The indicators are tied to a “See-it Viewer” a web-based tracking mechanism that allows the public to follow the progress of key indicators.
One of these indicators is Annual CO2 emissions. Total CO2 emissions are calculated or estimated and the annual change from the previous year is reported to the Board of Supervisors. For examnple, solar installations are monitored by reviewing building permits, and from those permits, total installed PV systems are estimated. From this data, reductions in GHG emissions due to avoided utility energy purchases can be calculated. At present, jt is estimated that 2,465 tons of GHG emissions have been reduced due to solar installations alone. As another example, The Construction Waste Ordinance has diverted 75,000 tons of waste and reduced GHG emissions by 150,000 tons.
The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan includes a list of measures and their potential annual CO2 reduction. This information is used by the Board of Supervisors when setting annual goals and priorities, and assigning staffing and financial resources.
Climate change policies and programs were developed by addressing the same questions as guided the rest of the plan: 1) What are the desired outcomes? 2) Why is it important? 3) How will results be achieved? 4) How will success be measured?
Specific to climate change the following outcomes were defined:
§ Reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
§ Monitor Climate Change, and
§ Adapt to Climate Change.
To achieve the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions climate change policies were developed in the following areas:
§ Increase renewable energy
§ Conserve energy
§ Change commuting and driving patterns
§ Divert solid waste
§ Increase biocapacity of open space and agriculture
§ Increase local food and sustainable agriculture.
To achieve the goal of adapting to climate change, additional policies were developed in the following areas:
§ Plan for sea level rise
§ Seek levee assistance
§ Consider future threat of sea level rise
§ Establish a climate change planning process
§ Revise and implement floodplain ordinance
A variety of response strategies were developed out of these goals and policies such as limiting development so coastal wetlands can migrate inland to provide capacity for high water and flood flows.
In addressing adaptation critical information was lacking and the county committed to study the effects of climate change in the following ways:
§ Built Environment: Effect of flooding and rising sea level on sewage systems, property and infrastructure.
§ Water Resources: Runoff, changes in precipitation, drought, salinity, sea level rise and shifting seasons.
§ Agricultural and Food Systems: Food supply, economic impacts and effect on grazing lands.
§ Public Health: Temperature-related health effects, air quality impacts, extreme weather events, vector, rodent, water and food-borne diseases.
Arrays of programs were initiated with a host of partners and include Green Business, Green Building, Waste Tire Education, Solar Incentives, and Energy Efficiency programs. For more detailed information about these programs visit www.sustainablemarin.org. Examples of the “greening” initiatives that were developed for the built environment include the following:
§ Limit sprawl by restricting development in environmental sensitive areas.
§ Require mixed-use in commercial areas.
§ Create a Housing Overlay Designation to focus affordable and workforce housing near jobs, transit and services.
§ Require Green Building
§ Retrofit existing buildings.
Examples of “greening” initiatives that were developed for transportation include the following:
§ Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
§ Support regional rail initiatives.
§ Prioritize funding for projects that reduce fossil-fuel use and single-occupancy auto trips.
§ Enact telecommuting, satellite work-centers, and alternative work schedules.
§ Provide incentives for using public transit, vanpools, carpools, car sharing, bicycles, walking and other transportation alternatives.
§ Switch to zero-emission or other low-emission vehicles.
§ Support infrastructure necessary for alternative fuel vehicles, including fueling and charging stations.
In addition, several zoning ordinances were adopted including a Single Family Dwelling Energy Efficiency Ordinance to limit the amount of energy in large homes, requiring energy efficiency measures being integrated into the design. A Construction Waste Ordinance was adopted requiring recycling or re-use of construction waste. In addition, the findings for Design Review were modified to add energy efficiency and green building into discretionary review projects.
One of the key challenges of integrating climate protection policies into the general plan was the length of time it takes to update and adopt a general plan and environmental impact report (seven years) which was significantly slower than new climate change programs could be developed and operated. As a result, while the general plan was being updated various programs were developed, funded and operated including a green business, green building, renewable energy programs. This tended to spread the staff thin trying to balance their time on the general plan amendment and the program development and operation.
Another challenge was that in 2000, when the plan update began, there was limited proof and understanding of global climate change, so education was a critical piece of the work. In addition, there was no other jurisdiction that had linked land use to climate change so all the material was created from scratch requiring a significant amount of time and effort. Today there is little question that climate change is underway, so many jurisdictions can move right to solutions. Additionally, there are examples of general plan policies and operating programs that can be borrowed and adapted to local conditions reducing time and effort.
In Marin County, the Community Development Agency took the lead on addressing global climate change. A challenge was getting other departments to participate, especially departments that the Agency didn’t already work with on an ongoing basis. The critical balance was in providing education and resources and making connections to their department decisions and actions. Within the Community Development Agency most staff needed assistance understanding the connection of climate change to their respective jobs. This level of effort was extraordinarily time-consuming, but necessary to make long-term change.
Measuring progress is a major challenge. In part this stems from the number of agencies involved in gathering information about energy, transportation, and waste and the availability and quality of the information available. Long-term sources of information are necessary to ensure consistency. Implementation of programs also requires broad based cooperation, from other agencies, private business, and residents who may be out of the counties control.
In the future, funding will become a more significant challenge. Some initiatives that have not yet begun will require adequate funding and staff resources, not currently available. Now that the county has been addressing this issue for several years, the easier and less costly programs are underway, leaving the more complex and expensive projects remaining.
Another challenge is in quantifying the amount of carbon potentially reduced from each program not yet implemented. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan does estimate the potential annual CO2 reduction (tons) so that county staff can decide which programs will yield the greatest reductions. Assumptions were used to make many of these determinations.
One final challenge is in getting people to recognize that they have to make a personal change to make a difference, so ongoing education is a necessity. The education needs to evolve over time and address current trends and options. Expectations for large scale, quick change is likely to turn people away from making changes at all.
§ Internal Operations. Set-up an inter-department working group from the beginning to get early buy-in into the project.
§ General Plan. Make sure your indicators are linked to regional and state indicators for comparative purposes.
§ Ordinances. Make sure to adjust your fee schedule to adequately reflect the staff time and effort involved in changes from climate change processes and monitoring.
Comments