SlideShare a Scribd company logo

FinalReportFall2009_LB

L
Lydia Bi

This report summarizes precedent sustainability policies and programs from other cities to guide Madison, WI in updating its sustainability plan. Key findings are organized by topic: neighborhoods should promote compact development and affordable housing; transportation systems should emphasize public transit, bike/pedestrian infrastructure, and commuter rail; buildings should incentivize green construction and retrofits; utilities should pursue conservation and renewable energy; parks should utilize volunteer programs and green spaces; and food systems should address security, urban agriculture, and local infrastructure. Public input was gathered through forums to understand community priorities.

1 of 149
Download to read offline
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
FinalReportFall2009_LB
urpl 912 | 12.18.09i This report represents the collaborative effort of many people and organizations. In addition, there are several other individuals, businesses, and groups of people who helped to make this report possible. Within the confines of this short section, we can only begin to show our gratefulness to all those that made the process of writing and researching this report a fruitful and rewarding one. Firstly, great thanks must be extended to Jim LaGro, our professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, for his expertise, leadership, and guidance. His support and advice helped transform this report into a document that can help guide the City of Madison towards a sustainable future. We also extend our gratitude to Sherrie Gruder and Jeanne Hoffman, who jointly spearheaded our efforts; coordinated, organized, planned, and led the three public forums; and provided positive feedback throughout the entire process. Their insight and knowledge proved invaluable. Secondly, we would like to thank the Goodman Center, the Overture Center, and the Sequoya Library for providing wonderful facilities in which to hold public forums. We would also like to thank all of the local businesses that provided snacks or refreshments at the public forums, including The Iron Works Café, EVP Coffee, and La Brioche. Thirdly, we would like to thank the Sustainable Design and Energy Committee (SDEC) for their support. We would especially like to acknowledge Andrew Statz and Alder Satya Rhodes-Conway, for taking the time to come to our class and providing input and suggestions on how to improve our precedent studies. Finally, all the students in this class deserve recognition. This endeavor truly demanded a team effort, and reflects the many hours, attention and great care put into the compilation, synthesis, and presentation of the huge amount of research this project demanded. The research teams, reflecting the six areas of sustainability presented within this report, are as follows: • Neighborhoods (Zia Brucaya, Spencer Gardner, Danielle James) • Transportation (Alex Deley, Sam Shannahan, Yan Wu) • Buildings (Amanda Hower, David Kress, Minhye Park) • Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources (Andrew Bernhardt, Lydia Bi, Dan Schmitt) • Parks,OpenSpace,&UrbanForestry(Amanda Chraca, Dana Dentice, Chris Fuchsteiner) • Food Systems (Lindsey Day Farnsworth, Stephanie Mantz) Acknowledgments
iisustainability plan | TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Preface...............................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary.............................................................................................................v PART I: BEST PRACTICES Neighborhoods.....................................................................................................................1 Transportation....................................................................................................................11 Buildings.............................................................................................................................23 Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources...............................................................................37 Parks, Open Space, & Urban Forestry................................................................................51 FoodSystems.....................................................................................................................67 PART II: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PublicForums.....................................................................................................................81 SDEC Top Five Ideas...........................................................................................................85 CommunityEngagement....................................................................................................87 PART III: POLICY OPTIONS PolicyOptions....................................................................................................................91 ShapingtheFuture...........................................................................................................109 Bibliography.....................................................................................................................113 Appendix..........................................................................................................................122
urpl 912 | 12.18.09iii Environmental damage caused by human activity has become increasingly apparent over the course of the last several decades. Action at all levels of government has become imperative in order to attempt to repair damage done and to prevent further environmental harm. On February 16, 2005, Seattle mayor, Greg Nickels, challenged mayors across the US to band together to combat climate change through the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Madison’s mayor, Dave Cieslewicz, was oneofthefirstmayorstosignthishistoricagreement. In order to realize the goals of this agreement, Cieslewicz founded the Sustainable Design and Energy Committee (SDEC), who were tasked with producing a Sustainability Plan for the city of Madison. The plan was subsequently unanimously adopted by the city council, but by 2009, many of the goals of this initial sustainability plan had been met or surpassed. The City of Madison is now is in the process of updating this sustainability plan, and the goal of the new plan remains to guide the City toward a more sustainable future. This report is a survey of sustainability policies and programs already successfully in use in other cities, both in the United States and Internationally. These precedent studies are the product of a semester- long project for the annual Planning Workshop class of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Class members have identified precedents from which the SDEC can look to for guidance as it develops its new plan. Sustainability is a broad topic: encompassing many aspects of our lives. As a result,six specific areas of sustainability were identified and studied within this report. These six areas of focus are: • Energy, Water and Waste; • Buildings; • Neighborhoods; • Transportation; • Parks and Open Space; and • Food Systems. Although each policy in this report is examined within the confines of the specific category in which it is found, it is important to understand that many of these issues are highly interrelated. None of the topics studied should be considered solely as many of the programs studied can be used to address multiple issues. There are 3 general sections in this report. 1. The first section is a compilation of the differentpoliciesidentifiedthroughextensive research. This section provides general information about each studied program, where it has been implemented, and the rationale guiding the policy. 2. The second section deals with the public inputprocessemployedbytheSDECandclass members in preparing this report. The SDEC held 3 public sessions to gather community comments and to receive guidance on the sustainability issues that citizens perceive to be the most important. Notes and responses relevant to these meetings have also been included as part of the appendices 3. The third section provides a set of recommended policy options based on the precedent studies. It also includes a discussion pertaining to future efforts of the City to effectively involve the public in discussions about sustainability and environmental stewardship. Preface
sustainability plan | PREFACE iv This sustainability report is intended to accomplish two broad goals: 1. To Compile and distil successful sustainable policies, programs, strategies and efforts, in use both around the country and world, into a synthesized single document to use as a resource to help guide the City. 2. To articulate the values and desires of Madison in a way that gives Madison residents a loud and clear voice in the planning process. Photo: Wisconsin State Capitol view from East Washington Avenue - Madison, WI
urpl 912 | 12.18.09v Our collective quality of life is closely connected to social equity, environmental health, and economic vitality. Growing recognition of the interdependence ofsocial,environmentalandeconomicwell-beinghas inspired new ways of conceptualizing and engaging the built and natural environment. Municipalities across the United States are working to create more livable and sustainable communities through innovativedesign,planning,policyandprogramming. This report aims to establish a foundation for the City of Madison’s Sustainable Design and Energy Committee as it begins planning the second phase of its municipal sustainability plan. The precedent studies and subsequent recommendations in this report reflect a cross-section of examples from the forefront of sustainability planning. Following are our key findings organized in six topical categories as they correspond to the report. Sustainable Neighborhoods Sustainable urban land use requires a combination of land use policies that augment conventional land use controls such as zoning to holistically frame and direct the growth of a city. Compact development helps curb sprawl and intensify population density enough to justify investments in infrastructure such as rapid transit. The following considerations, approaches and techniques are well-suited to help the City of Madison promote and advance its goal of large-scale open space preservation, establish permanent agricultural and rural use districts, and encourage regional cooperation in limiting intensive rural development: Compact & Infill Development • Fosters mixed-use developments in walking distance of metro stations. • Reduces development footprint. • Integrates commercial hubs with residential areas, improving access and walkability while reducing car-dependence. Affordable Housing & Social Equity • Pre-approved floor plans can reduce the cost of new developments and expedite the permitting and construction process. • A growing number of environmentally sustainable affordable housing projects demonstrate the economic viability and social benefits of green housing stock. • Some new housing projects illustrate that the design and management of housing can facilitate skill-building and community interaction. Transportation Transportation fuel consumption accounts for over 45 percent of the United State’s total oil usage. Further, over 65 percent of transport fuel is used for personal motor vehicles. These facts are symptomatic of transportation and land- use systems that are both unsustainable and incongruent with the transportation goals of a truly livable city, where transportation is typified by the following attributes: 1) safe, affordable, equitable, and efficient transportation for individuals; 2) fosters a competitive economy and balanced regional development by meeting private sector transport needs; 3) provides a diversity of modes of transportation to accommodate different types of travel and freight; 4) reduces emissions and material waste; 5) minimizes noise pollution. The subsequent transportation types are characteristic of cities and regions leading the way in sustainable transportation planning: Executive Summary
sustainability plan | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi High Efficiency Transportation Systems • Light Rail and streetcar systems are rider- friendly and energy efficient. • Bus Rapid Transit is faster than conventional bus lines but less costly than light rail. • Mass transit corridors generate economic development and can be used to help finance transportation projects. Intelligent Transportation Systems • Improve safety, reduce congestion and improve mobility by enabling ridership to betterplantripsandanticipatetransitdelays. High Speed Commuter Rail • There is demonstrated economic development potential associated with rail projects. Bike Transit & Walkability • Safe and secure bike parking through bike lockers and zoning codes. • Development of complete streets for better pedestrian and bicycle safety. • Implementation of community bike programs. • Pedestrian foot bridges across busy intersections to increase safety and encourage pedestrian transit. Buildings The built environment significantly impacts natural environments and human lives by consuming resources, transforming landscapes, and creating spaces that affect our interactions. Buildings account for 72 % of electricity consumption, 39 % of energy use, 38 % of CO2 emissions, and 40 % of raw material use. The environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of buildings is reduced when buildings are designed for energy efficiency, environmental performance, and long- term cost effectiveness. Green building initiatives promote sustainable building practices that offer a host of benefits. For example green buildings can: 1) conserve natural resources and reduce solid waste; 2) reduce operating costs and save utility bills; 3) improve indoor air quality and occupants’ health; 4) contribute to employees’ productivity and performance. Best practices in green building tend to incorporate the following strategies and policy objectives: LEED Certification • Promote LEED certification and LEED- comparable design and performance standards in all new structures and renovations through incentives and/or penalties that reinvested in Green Building Funds. Density Bonus Incentives • Promote developers to build sustainable structures through an incentive that allows them to build at a denser rate. Green Existing Building Stock • Improve energy efficiency in existing building stock and reinvest in older communities. Guidance and Technical Support • Provide guidance documents on ways businesses and residents can use sustainable practices in their design and market the already available technical resources in a way that is easily accessible. Education & Outreach to Residents and Businesses • Educate and engage residents and businesses Photo: Light Rail Transit - Portland, OR
urpl 912 | 12.18.09vii through education green home tours and green design resources. Priority Permitting and Plan Review Processes • Expedite permitting processes for green buildings to incentivize and reward developers that invest in sustainable projects. Performance Monitoring • Monitor building performance with building report cards tools that help identify areas for on-going improvements. Energy, Utilities and Natural Resources There are a variety of ways municipalities can modify and promote energy, water, and natural resource management practices to reduce consumption and ensurelong-termaccesstoaffordableinfrastructure. In many instances the most cost-effective strategies can still reap significant environmental benefits. For example, capturing current losses, such as rainfall and stormwater runoff through rain gardens and green swales is one way of displacing the demand for potable water for nonhuman consumption (i.e. watering plants) while reducing the burden on current storm water systems. Many energy efficiency upgrades also serve both economic and environmental ends and have the added benefit of more than paying for themselves through the savings incur. Other examples of best practices in sustainability utility provision and natural resource management include: Energy Efficiency & Conservation • Renewable energy incentive rate structures • Consumer rebate and loan programs • Bio-Energy for Transportation Sustainable Waste Management • Engaging businesses and residents. • Waste prevention policies. Innovations & Improvement in Infrastructure • Storm water retention through streetscape Improvements. • Daylight lost streams. • Private stormwater management incentives. Water and Wastewater • Legalization of greywater reuse for landscaping. • Water conservation through faucet retrofit kits and programs. Parks, Open Space, and Urban Forestry Quality parks and open spaces are a critical element of the livable city. They ensure recreational opportunities and serve as valuable “third places”; theyofferecosystemsservicessuchasairpurification, erosion control,andnativespeciesconservation;and they confer economic benefits by growing the base through higher property values in areas adjacent to public green space. In addition, open space has proven to be less costly for cities than development, which often requires the provision of services and infrastructure such as sewer extensions, schools, and fire stations. When well-designed parks and open spaces are distributed throughout a municipality, they can support a diversity of day-to-day activities while also positioning a city to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change and natural disaster. Exemplary park, open space, and urban forestry planning includes: Open Space Volunteerism Photo: Park Central Apartments along Capital City bike path - Madison, WI
sustainability plan | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii • Engages community members in park stewardship and helps reduce maintenance costs. Golf Course Greening Programs • Reduce chemical run-off; improve water conservation; support environmental planning efforts; enhance water quality; serve as a means of education and outreach. (Formal certification is available through the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program.) Green Streets and Complete Streets Programs • Divert storm water through rain gardens, enhance bike and pedestrian mobility, may increase public safety by augmenting presence in public spaces. Food Systems The repercussions of the industrial food system are wide-ranging as evidenced by environmental consequencessuchaserosionandlossofbiodiversity; social ramifications such as epidemic rates of diet- related diseases; and inequitable economics, in which farmers bear a disproportionate amount of the production risk and capture only a fraction of the food dollar. Food policy has historically been driven by industry and decision-makers at the federal level, but growing awareness of the strong connections between food, public health, local economic development and environmental stewardship has caused many municipalities to explore ways of integrating the food system into their land-use, open space and economic development planning. Food system initiatives and policies typically cluster in the following four categories, each of which is accompanied by examples of best practices: Food Security and Nutrition • Pass food waste reduction legislation that encourages agencies to donate excess food by relieving them of liability associated with the donation. • Reduced availability of unhealthy foods through zoning. • Greater access to affordable local food through Farm-to-School Programs, EBT accessibility at all farmers’ markets, and increased healthy mobile food vendors. Urban and Regional Agriculture • Foster community gardens through demonstrationvictorygardensonpublicland; long-term lease agreements; partnerships with job training, agricultural, and nutrition groups. • Require design for food production in new subdivisions through US Green Building Council’s new LEED Neighborhood Design. Infrastructure • Grow farmers by protecting peri-urban farmland and zoning to accommodate green houses, market gardens, and urban livestock. • Support creative lease incentives for local small and mid-scale food processing. • Invest in permanent, year-round farmers’ market structures and green waste- processing. Economic development • Incentivize and attract supermarkets and healthymobilevendersbycreatingenterprise zones, microloan programs, zoning bonuses and increasing mobile vendor permits. • Create green job development through creative attraction of federal stimulus funding. Photo: Urban Agriculture - Chicago, IL
urpl 912 | 12.18.09ix • Build demand for local food by creating local food procurement policies and tax rebates for grocery stores that source locally. Communication and Public Engagement Sustainable cities also require ample opportunities for meaningful civic involvement. By communicating public sector sustainability initiatives through on-site signage, presence at public events, and advertising, cities can help communication how they are leading by example, and in so doing, galvanize civic interest and participation. Conversely, cities must demonstrate both a procedural and practical commitment to listening to public and serving its collective interest. Constructive and balanced communication between a municipality and its citizens is: Inclusive • Diverse audiences require many forms of communication • Build relationships with key stakeholders and community leaders. Informative • Get the word out—a city’s achievements gets people excited. • Partner with schools to engage students and develop a green curriculum. Responsive • Recognize and reward sustainable actions (e.g., sustainability awards.) • Engage citizens by letting them participate in process. Photo: Comcast Center - Philadelphia, PA
PART I: BEST PRACTICES neighborhoods transportation buildings energy, utilities, and natural resources parks, open space, and urban forestry food systems
urpl 912 | 12.18.091 GOALS & BEST PRACTICES GOAL 01 /// Rural Land Preservation RATIONALE: Sustainable urban land use relies on land use policies that frame the growth of the city as a whole. Zoning alone is not sufficient to produce substantial, long-term results in the pursuit of the goals of farmland and open space preservation, compact development, and increased mobility. Madison states in its Zoning Code that it is looking for ways to promote large-scale open space preservation, establish permanent agricultural and rural use districts, and encourage regional cooperation in limiting intensive rural development. To this end, tools such as transfer of development rights programs offer a highly effective approach to sustainable land use policy. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) TDR programs offer a mechanism for permanently preserving farmland, open space and other valuable lands through the sale of development rights on the private real estate market. Targeted rural preservation areas, or “sending zones,” are identified and allotted a set number of development rights per acre. Developments in “receiving zones,” (urban areas targeted for increased density), are either required or tempted with density bonuses to purchase these rights. TDR programs offer an attractive alternative to public purchase or zoning regulation by allowing developers an opportunity to maximize development profits. They also help mitigate “takings” conflicts by allowing private rural landowners to achieve a return on their real estate investments. TDR programs are best implemented on a county or regional level due to the market nature of the transactions and the goals they are intended to achieve. BEST PRACTICE A: Montgomery County, MD boasts the most successful TDR program in the nation. The program accounts for over 60% of the land preserved nationwide through TDRs. Prior to the 1980 establishment of the program, the County lost an average of 3,500 acres of farmland to development per year. In the ten years following the implementation of the program, the county lost a combined total of only 3,000 acres, reducing its losses by around 92%. By the end of 1997, 39,180 acres of farmland had been protected out of a total 89,000-acre sending area. Much of the program’s success is based on its ‘down zoning’ of sending zones, which reduced permitted development to only one dwelling unit per 25 acres. However, transferable development rights are calculated at one per five acres in order to afford landowners partial compensation for this loss of development potential. Key Facts • Over 64,000 acres of land have been preserved at one dwelling unit per 25 acres. • Over 5,000 acres have been permanently preserved from future development at any density. BEST PRACTICE B: King County, WA administers a unique and successful TDR program that allows purchased TDRs to be applied in many ways. These include using TDRs to meet traffic concurrency and emission reduction requirements for new developments. Such requirements are imposed on developers by the County, and can be offset through TDRs based on a calculation of the traffic volume that a preserved parcel of land will not generate and the vehicle miles that will not be traveled. The Precedent Study: Neighborhoods
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 2 County also established a TDR Exchange to facilitate the sale of rights and offers sellers an opportunity to lower their property taxes through a Public Benefit Rating System. Key Facts • Since the year 2000, over 137,500 acres (around 215 square miles) of rural and resource lands have been protected from development. GOAL 02 /// Compact Development RATIONALE: Compact development is a form of efficient land use that maximizes development potential in order to achieve a number of goals. These include: open space preservation, increased mobility, and enhanced energy efficiency. Heating and cooling costs can be dramatically reduced in compactbuildingswhereenergyflowsbetweenunits rather than escaping through outer walls. Compact development also saves cities large amounts of money by utilizing existing infrastructure. The Urban Land Institute estimates that over $100 billion in infrastructure costs could be saved over 25 years by pursuing better-planned and more compact forms of development. Compact development also encourages multi- modal transportation including walking and biking, by reducing distances between destinations. Some cities encourage compact development by prioritizing the use of vacant or underutilized parcels within the city before expanding into the rural fringe. This form of development both reduces service costs and provides for needed growth while preserving rural and environmentally sensitive lands. Madison could encourage a reduction in the amount of land consumed for development by adopting policies and programs that promote more compact forms of development. Infill Development BEST PRACTICE A: Arlington County, VA is one of the most successful examples of infill development in the nation. Once a declining suburb of Washington, D.C., Arlington County has become a thriving mix of housing, office and commercial development focused upon a seven-stop Metro subway corridor running through the County. Despite having added 15 million square feet of office space and 15,000 units of housing along the corridor, the region has not expanded its development footprint since 1980. Due to the County’s efforts to focus mixed-use infill development within walking distance of the seven Metro stations, auto traffic along one of its main boulevards decreased by 5 percent from 1980-2000. BEST PRACTICE B: Sacramento, CA encourages infill development by offering pre-approved, customizable house plans for vacant and underused lots within the City’s aging neighborhoods. The City offers three pre-approved floor plans ranging from 1,400-1,670 ft2 , which may be used in any R-1 or R-2 district (with the exception of the central city). Each floor plan includes three exterior design elevations to encourage variety and choice. The plans meet or exceed City design standards, and were designed with neighborhood input to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhood character and style. The program greatly reduces development costs and waiting times by selling the pre-approved plans, ready as-is to submit for a building permit, for around $1,850. The city also allows private developers to request pre-approval of their plans for repeated use, and has achieved success with the program by targeting a few neighborhoods at a time. Image: Transfer of Development Rights Process
urpl 912 | 12.18.093 Brownfield Redevelopment BEST PRACTICE A: The City of Chicago Brownfields Initiative is an aggressive brownfield redevelopment program focused on transforming contaminated sites into new industrial facilities, green spaces, affordable housing, and technological and manufacturing centers. Launched in 1993 with $2 million in General Obligation bonds, the program has helped the City increase its tax base by more than one million dollars annually, returned hundreds of acres of land to productive use, and created and retained over 3,000 jobs. It is currently a U.S. EPA Brownfields Showcase Community and a Smart Communities Network Land Use Success Story. The Redevelopment Process 1. Sites are evaluated based on access, control, cleanup costs and development value. 2. City acquires the site through negotiated purchase, foreclosure, or tax reactivation on property that has been tax delinquent for two years or more. 3. Site is added to the city’s “investment portfolio” of sites. 4. Risk assessments are performed. 5. Hazardous waste is removed immediately. 6. Cleanup strategies and cost estimates are then determined. 7. City enrolls sites in Illinois EPA’s Site Remediation Program, which establishes investigation and cleanup guidelines based on the intended use of the site. 8. Upon completion of the program, the IEPA issues a “No Further Remediation” Letter. 9. Sites are marketed for redevelopment. Keys to Success 1. Brownfield Forum of over 100 representatives from government, business, finance, environmental, community and civic organizations to review the public and private policy process, and outline the barriers to brownfield development. The Forum was made possible with funding from the MacArthur Foundation, and members made more than 50 recommendation for improvement that have been implemented by the City of Chicago and other participating department and agencies. 2. Multidisciplinary Teams and Partnerships that invite participation and collaboration from a variety of City departments, as well as state and federal agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor, NOAA, and USDA. 3. CommunityInvolvementthathelpstoidentify brownfield sites and development activities. 4. Financingforbrownfielddevelopersincluding property tax abatements, the Federal Tax Initiative, the Illinois Tax Incentive, the Cook County Property Tax Incentive, and TIF. 5. Environmental Insurance that principally benefits the private sector by offering a cost cap if cleanup exceeds estimates, and protection against unexpected conditions; the City has never bought environmental insurance, but some deals have hinged on it. 6. Legislation that Chicago’s experience has had a direct impact on, including environmental, water and demolition lien statutes used in judicial sales, the City’s eminent domain reform, a 1995 state law that changes liability standards for redeveloping Illinois’ contaminated sites, and contracts between the City and developers that contain “claw back” provisions. Photo: Metro Transit Corridor – Arlington County, VA
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 4 7. Prioritization of Sites based on ease of acquisition, availability of funding, complexityofcleanup,typeofenvironmental contamination, and other factors. 8. Simultaneous Environmental Assessments that allowed the City to obtain an overall view of sites requiring further action, and fast-track the redevelopment of sites that did not. 9. Coordinated, Innovative Cleanup Technologies that help minimize cleanup costs. Funding Sources • General Obligation Bonds ($2 million) • Sec. 108 Loan Guarantee ($74 million) • U.S. EPA Brownfields Showcase Community Designation ($691,000) • U.S. EPA Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Grant ($500,000) GOAL 03 /// Increased Mobility RATIONALE: The way land is often developed in Madison affects the ability Madisonians to utilize diverse modes of transportation. This can have significant environmental and social justice implications. Madison should be a community where citizens do not need to own cars in order to accomplish day-to-day tasks or meet basic needs. Land use that encourages multi-modal transportation options is a goal that can be achieved in many ways. In addition to utilizing compact development strategies, the City can encourage street connectivity, transit-oriented development, and can reduce parking options. Street Connectivity A dominant figure of suburban development is the cul-de-sac. This street type is designed to eliminate all traffic other than neighborhood residential, yet it results in a significant increase in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) for even simple errands. The lack of connectivity fostered by cul-de-sacs and other serpentine street patterns requires residents to drive further to arrive at their destination and limits walking and bicycling. BESTPRACTICEA:FortCollins,COimposesmaximum blocksizesonnewdevelopmentandrequiresatraffic shed that funnels traffic to at least three arterials in three different directions. BEST PRACTICE B: Austin, TX and Orlando, FL use a connectivity index to score proposed developments that divides the number of street links by the number of traffic nodes in the proposed transportation system. City ordinance mandates a minimum connectivity score, yet allows for variances under special circumstances. Transit-Oriented Development Transit-oriented development (TOD) orients land use to transit networks, organizing higher-density urban centers at network nodes. TOD achieves two goals simultaneously: it allows for energy- efficient compact development and it encourages multi-modal transit use. This results in compact, “walkable” urban centers with easy access to transit. BEST PRACTICE A: Denver, CO, has achieved success by strategically identifying areas for TOD over a multi-year timeframe. The Denver region’s Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan identifies specific districts for the future expansion of transit lines and TOD. Image: Street Connectivity Diagram
urpl 912 | 12.18.095 Reduced Surface Parking Parking lots are an inefficient use of land; often functioning at less than peak capacity for all but a handful of days every year. Traditional surface parking lots generate a great deal of storm water runoff and collect motor oil and other chemicals that eventually enter the water system. An important goal of sustainable land use should be to minimize wasteful uses of space and to encourage land uses that are both gentler on the physical environment and easier to negotiate by bike, foot, or public transit. BEST PRACTICE A: Portland, OR has placed a cap on the total number of public parking stalls in the downtown area. This encourages mass transit use and discourages needless trips. BEST PRACTICE B: Helena, MT has placed a citywide limit on the number of parking spaces. This is set at 110% of the mandated number of minimum parking spaces. GOAL 04 /// Affordability and Social Equity RATIONALE: A recent Brookings Institution publication on housing affordability and equity identifies ways in which municipalities can be conscientiousofgrowthmanagementinitiativesthat are inclusive, integrated, affordable and sustainable. Such initiatives include: • Eliminating exclusionary regulations (i.e. large-lot zoning, minimum setback requirements, medium density and multifamily restrictions, etc.). • Subsidizing rent in cities with weak housing demands and high vacancy rates. • Encouraging regional housing conversations to address sprawl and employment decentralization. • Locating housing so that low-income families live closer to schools and places of employment. • Expanding opportunities for housing vouchers. • Acknowledging that neighborhood revitalization may lead to displacement. Sustainability efforts are not complete unless they address issues of housing affordability, access to goods and services, jobs, transportation, and health care for all citizens. Social sustainability depends on equal access to a healthy quality of life for all. The most important element in this effort is the active promotion of integrated neighborhoods that encourage citizen collaboration within a wider context of economic and racial diversity. Green, Affordable, and Resource-Rich Neighborhoods BEST PRACTICE A: Wentworth Commons, located in Chicago, IL, is a mixed-use, four-story, 51- unit housing community. It was built in 2005 on a 65,800 ft2 former brownfield site donated by the City. The site is the first multi-unit residential building to receive LEED certification in Chicago. The development was originally designed to provide affordable rental units for families transitioning out of homelessness, however, its first floor is devoted to support services for the low-income minority communities that have lost housing, businesses and other economic resources. Included services: • A family resource center and community space Photo: Wentworth Commons – Green Affordable Housing – Chicago, IL
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 6 • Case management areas • Employment training • Leadership development • Community kitchen • Computer center (supported by a Digital Divide grant) The affordability formula for Wentworth Commons was based on 80% of the Chicago housing market median family income (MFI), which is $47,186. No tenant pays more than one-third of their income in rent. Based on these affordability criteria, 61% of the Wentworth Commons units qualify. An additional 20 units are subsidized through Shelter Plus Care funds from HUD. Development costs totaled over $13 million. Funding Sources: • Chicago Department of Housing Community Development Block Grant • Federal Home Loan Bank (loan) • Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunities (grant) • HUD Supportive Housing Program Capital (grant) • Sale of Tax Credits • Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation (grant) • ComEd Grant Enterprise Green Communities Initiative (grant) Green Features of Wentworth Commons: • Light-colored parking pavement. • Reflective roof. • Situation along two major bus lines that connect to the commuter rail station. • Permanent on-site bike storage. • Planted bio-swales to manage on-site storm water, and native plants that reduce the need for irrigation. • Rooftop 33 kWh photovoltaic system. • 26% of materials manufactured within 500 miles. • Renewable building materials, including cork flooring, wheat board and wainscot in all corridors. • Recycling rooms on each floor. • Low-emitting paints, sealants and adhesives. • Fluorescent lighting and Energy Star appliances. • Mechanical system 28% more efficient than Chicago Energy Conservation Code (earning 4 LEED points), resulting in $20,000-25,000 annual energy savings. BEST PRACTICE B: Murphy Ranch, located in the Bay Area of California, provides green affordable housing to 100 families in two-, three-, and four- bedroom town-homes on a 7.14-acre development site. Completed in 2003, it won the 2003 Flex Your Power Energy Efficiency Award and is ranked among the best housing developments in the state for innovative energy-saving strategies. In addition to its environmentally sustainable features, it contributes to social sustainability with units affordable to those earning 22%-60% of the area median income. Murphy Ranch was developed at a density of 14 units per acre and offers many amenities, including two play structures, a solar heated swimming pool and a recreation building. It is located on a bus line, and is within two-blocks of a day care, community center, large shopping center, and CalTrans Station. Its green features encourage alternative transportation, improve indoor air quality, and help to reduce waste and energy consumption. Green Features of Murphy Ranch: • Exceeds Title 24 (2001) energy efficiency Photo: Murphy Ranch – Affordable Housing – Morgan Hill, CA
urpl 912 | 12.18.097 standards by 25%. • High efficiency fluorescent lighting. • Energy Star appliances and natural gas where applicable. • PV solar electric panels on the community center and carport roofs, which provide 95% of the electricity for the common area/ community building. • Natural linoleum in kitchens, and recycled- content board loom carpet with recyclable backing in living rooms, bedrooms, and common areas. • Combination water and space heating system. • Formaldehyde-free batt insulation, high performance windows, fiber-cement siding, and low flow plumbing fixtures. • Sells power to the local utility at 35 cents/ KW at peak times, and buys it back at 7 cents/KW at night. • An LCD monitor in the community room monitors energy produced and used on site, and allows residents to view real-time picture of energy savings. • Each resident receives a manual that describes energy efficient features and benefits, and offers additional tips for recycling, energy conservation, green products, indoor air quality and pesticide use. Funding Sources: • City of Morgan Hill • County of Santa Clara • Housing Bond Trust • SCC Housing Trust • Lenders for Community Development • California Housing Finance Agency • State of California • Additional tax credits and rebates from government agencies, the local utility company and third party programs • Community Development and Obrate Family Affordable Housing Fund • Public Utilities Commission (rebate for 50% of the photovoltaic system) • Calculate a payback period of 14.8 years, and a return on investment for the PV system of 6.7%. Murphy Ranch also offers important social resources for its residents, including a community center and Eco-Pass program. The community center provides numerous services such as job training, computer access, after-school programs, financial literacy classes, organized sports, and youth literacy classes. The Eco-Pass program saves residents time and money while reducing car use by providing each resident with a free Eco-Pass for unlimited travel on the County’s bus and light rail systems. First Community Housing (FCH), the owner and non- profit developer of Murphy Ranch, is the largest single purchaser of resident passes in the County. FCH receives discounts to purchase the Eco-Passes, and believes the program pays for itself in resident satisfaction. As a result of FCH’s effectiveness and consistent application of the Eco-Pass program, municipalities are granting the organization’s developments a 10 percent reduction in parking requirements. Measurable Benefits: • Annual savings from PV: $10,450 • Annual Energy Savings: 47.4 Mw • CO2 emissions avoided since May 2005: 37,800 lbs BEST PRACTICE C: Daybreak Grove in Escondido, CA is a unique precedent for achieving multi- Photo: Murphy Ranch – Interior – Morgan Hill, CA
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 8 family housing integration within a single-family neighborhood. The development is a 13-unit affordable housing community built on less than one acre of land in a single-family neighborhood. During planning phases residents of the existing neighborhood fiercely opposed the development, yet developers ultimately gained approval by increasing the partition wall height and removing windows facing the single-family neighborhood. Although these concessions resulted in a degree of separation between the single- and multi-family housing units, they were integral to the success of a development that now provides healthy, affordable housing with a range of useful services for low- income families. The affordability formula for Daybreak Grove was based on family incomes ranging from $9,000- 28,000 per year, resulting in unit prices ranging from $278-454 for a 2-bedroom unit and $304-504 for a 3-bedroom unit. The development costs totaled $1,700,000, with funding provided by the following sources: • Low Income Housing Tax Credits • California Equity Fund (limited partnership) • California Department of Housing and Community Development (loan) • City of Escondido Community Development Commission (loan) • Local Initiatives Support Corporation Pre- Development (loan) • Bank of America and Citibank (loans) • Dr. William and Mrs. Lorraine Boyce (bargain sale of the land) Creating a design compatible with the existing neighborhood aesthetic was an important focus for the developers of Daybreak Grove. This was the first low-income multi-family housing development that the City of Escondido had participated in and officials were eager to show that low-income need not be synonymous with low-quality. An evaluation of Daybreak Grove’s successful development and design has made it easier to obtain approvals for subsequent similar projects citywide. Some of the unique design elements of the Daybreak Grove development include: • Bungalow-style structures in colors such as deep red and grey. • Lively roof profiles that alternate barrel- vaulted and shed-roofed forms. • Private and public outdoor spaces. • Front yard and porch, back yard and porch and small internal patios. • A public courtyard with an outdoor theatre, grassy play areas, drought resistant shade trees, edible species such as citrus and pomegranate and garden plots. Photo: Daybreak Grove – Multifamily Housing in Single-Family Neighborhood – Escondido, CA
urpl 912 | 12.18.099 Policy Matrix
SOURCES Affordable Housing Design Advisor: www.designadvisor. org, accessed on 12/2/2009. Affordable Housing Design Advisor Green Housing Projects: http://www.designadvisor.org/green/murphy. htm; First Community Housing, Flex Your Power Success Story: http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CS_ FirstCommunity.pdf; Home Depot Foundation, First Community Housing’s Murphy Ranch: http://www. homedepotfoundation.org/pdfs/murphy_ranch_3.pdf, all accessed on 12/4/2009. Arlington Virginia Environmental Services: http://www. arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/ dot/planning/page66674.aspx, accessed on 11/7/2009. Benfield, Kaid. (2008). “Transit-Oriented Development in Arlington: Stunning Success and Some Lessons,” NRDC Switchboard: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/ transitoriented_development_in.html; Davis, Steve. (2009). “Arlington, Virginia’s Story of Smart Growth: The Movie,” Smart Growth Around America Blog, http://blog.smartgrowthamerica.org/2009/05/08/ arlington-virginias-story-of-smart-growth-the- movie/; Blueprint Denver: http://www.denvergov.org/ Portals/650/documents/BlueprintDenver.pdf, accessed on 12/3/2009. City of Sacramento City Sponsored Infill House Plan Program: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/ dsd/planning/infill-house-plan-program/, accessed on 12/4/2009. CRCOG Best Practices Manual: Transfer of Development Rights (2002): http://www.crcog.org/publications/ CommDevDocs/TCSP/Ch03_FactSheet_TDR.pdf, accessed on 10/20/2009. Handy, Susan, et al. (2003). “Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There,” Chicago: American Planning Association. King County, Washington, Transfer of Development Rights Program: http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/ stewardship/sustainable-building/transfer-development- rights.aspx, accessed on 10/20/2009. Montgomery County Department of Economic Development Program Overview (2006): http://www. montgomerycountymd.gov/content/ded/agservices/ pdffiles/tdr_info.pdf, accessed on 11/14/2009. National Governors Association. (2001). “Growth Toolkit: Maintain Farmland and Other Working Lands”: http:// www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.9123e83a1f 6786440ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=6a685aa265 b32010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD, accessed on 11/14/2009. “Rethinking Local Affordable Housing Strategies: Lessons from 70 Years of Policy and Practice,” http://www. brookings.edu/es/urban/knight/executivesummary.pdf, accessed on 11/30/2009. Smart Communities Network Success Stories—Chicago Brownfields Initiative: http://www.smartcommunities. ncat.org/success/chicago_brownfields.shtml, accessed on 12/4/2009. The Urban Land Institute. (2005). “Higher Density Development: Myth and Fact.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: http://epa. gov/brownfields/success/showcase/sc_chica.htm, accessed on 11/29/2009. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 10 Photo: Hyde Park - Boise, ID
urpl 912 | 12.18.0911 INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction to Transportation Sustainability Fuel Consumption for U.S. Transportation accounts for over 45 percent of total U.S. oil usage. More than 65 percent of that amount is for personal motor vehicles. American drivers consume around nine million barrels of gasoline per day for personal transportation alone. This is equivalent to 378 million gallons of gasoline daily. As of 2006, this generated over 15.7 million metric tons of CO2, the principle gas thought to be responsible for global climate change. daily. This transportation paradigm is not sustainable and it is crucial for the City of Madison, in order to achieve its sustainability goals, to reduce the overall quantity of fuel that it consumes. Transportation fuel usage reductions are also called for within the natural step protocols that havebeenadoptedbytheCityofMadison.Improving mass transit options and encouraging mass transit rider-ship, or use of low or no carbon modes of transport, such as walking or cycling, are crucial mechanisms for tackling both fuel consumption considerations and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions. Furthermore, general accessibility, mobility, and public safety and health considerations must also be part of any sustainable transportation paradigm. We have identified several transit precedents, both national and international, which could be crucial in moving Madison towards greater transportation sustainability. 1.1 Definition of a Sustainable Transportation System Whatconstitutesasustainabletransportationsystem is open to some debate. However, it is clear that environmental and emissions considerations, cost- effectiveness, accessibility and public health and safety considerations are all crucial components in determining how sustainable a given transportation system is. A definition of transportation sustainability comes from the European Union Council of Ministers for Transport. They define a sustainable transportation system as one that: • Allows for the basic access and development needs of individuals, companies and society to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and promotes equity within and between successive generations. • Is Affordable, operates fairly and efficiently, offers a choice of transport mode, and supports a competitive economy, as well as balanced regional development. • Limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them, uses renewable resources at or below their rates of generation, and uses non-renewable resources at or below the rates of development of renewable substitutes, while minimizing the impact on the use of land and the generation of noise. 2 Inner-City Mass Transportation Modes There exist several precedents for sustainable mass transit systems within the United States and internationally. Many of these systems are both highly efficient, spur economic development along transportation corridors and are environmentally friendly. The relative successes of the precedents discussed below are representative of both regional realities and how well the systems were implemented. 2.1 The Historical Transit System in Madison Precedent Study: Transportation
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 12 Historically, Madison operated a robust streetcar system that covered many of the crucial commuter regions of the city. This system could serve as a useful precedent for any future mass-transportation system constructed in Madison. The Madison streetcar ran through the downtown and around the state capitol; stretching to the far north of the city, near the Dane County Regional Airport and through residential areas in the West, East the city and descending South to the belt line. An electrical wirethat hung abovethe trackpowered the system. This system fulfilled many of Madison’s mass transit needs at the time, and the same transit corridors formerly served by the system remain the most commonly traveled within the Madison metro area to this day. This system generated far lower environmental impacts than the current system of buses and individual motor vehicles. The Madison streetcar operated from the turn of the century until the early 1950s when it was torn out, as a result of the city caving to pressure and incentives offered by the General Motors Company. During its peak, the Madison streetcar system boasted incredibly wide ridership and was largely self-financing: meaning that fares paid for most of the cost of operation. OthercitieswithinWisconsin,notablyKenosha,have begun to recreate their historical streetcar systems. Kenosha operates five heritage streetcars on a 1.7- mile loop and is seeking to expand the system an additional 3.4 miles as a result of the great success of initial outlay. While this system largely serves tourists, Kenosha residents are increasingly using it as a means of getting around town. 2.2 Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Streetcars Light rail or streetcars are a mass transit option for theCityofMadison, forwhichmanyprecedentsexist throughout the World. Rail has several advantages over bus systems despite costing more to build per passenger mile. These benefits include: greater long term capacity as city density and rider ship increase, high fuel economy per passenger mile, faster transit speeds - which in turn promotes increased ridership, and light rail systems are as a whole more attractive to middle-class commuters who find buses stigmatizing. Well-integrated rail-based mass transit has been shown to dramatically reduce traffic delays and to reduce overall road congestion. LRT and streetcars are very similar to each other. The distinction between the two types of systems is that light rail systems operate at higher capacity and at higher speed and are often located slightly outside of city downtowns, serving suburban fringe areas. Streetcars are more typical downtown-oriented systems. This often means that both systems are used in conjunction, with streetcars running in high density downtown areas, often with frequent stops, while LRT systems serve the suburban and exurban fringe, often with fewer stops. Streetcars generally are more cost-effectiveness to install than LRT systems, however, the two types of rail-based systems serve slightly different purposes. Precedents of Streetcar and LRT Systems Excellent precedents examples of well-integrated light rail include Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Minneapolis/St. Paul Minnesota. Many modern light rail systems boast renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels that allow them to partially or completely power themselves, achieving lower carbon emissions or carbon neutrality Image: Historical Streetcar System - Madison, WI
urpl 912 | 12.18.0913 than older systems. There also exist numerous international examples of light rail and streetcar systems, including Sheffield, United Kingdom and Montpellier, France. National LRT/Streetcar Precedents • Portland, Oregon, which boasts similar population density to Madison, has developed a combined light rail and streetcar system that attracts around 46,000 riders per day. More than $6 billion worth of development has occurred along mass transit corridors since the initial 1978 decision to begin developing light rail in Portland. Additionally, many elements of the system were funded through a combination of Federal transportation grant moneys, Metro transportation moneys and, in the case of the streetcar, private sponsorship of transportation stops by local businesses without having to leverage higher property taxes. The total system cost some $512 million of local tax money with declining Federal support for additional segments over time, putting more demand on local resources. For example, the Airport line was paid for completely with local funding. The system, overall, costs around $1.54 to operate per passenger mile, compared to costs of around $2.43 per passenger mile for the bus system. Ridership continues to grow across each of the lines and continually exceeds projections, further mitigating the cost of operation. • The Portland Streetcar, a public-private project run separately from the TriMet bus and light rail system, was initially opened in July of 2001. It is routed in an elongated loop configuration over 4.8 miles of track, which resulted in a 2.4- mile loop (with cars operating in a bidirectional on separate streets 1-2 blocks apart). This route ncluded a total of 40 stops, located along the alignment, with stops situated every 3-4 blocks. The project was installed at a cost of US$54.6 million, a unit cost of $11.4 million per track-mile, or around $22.8 million per route- mile. • Salt Lake City, Utah, through its TRAX system, operates a light rail system that encompasses some 20 miles over 28 stops. At about $300 million, total project cost came in millions of dollars under budget (about $22.8 million/ mile). Ridership almost immediately exceeded initial projections by 40-50%. To respond to the demand, headways were shortened with frequency of train service increased and trains were lengthened to 3-car trains instead of 2-car at peak hours to handle the additional passengers. The LRT also brought huge operating cost savings when compared to the bus system. For the year 2000: the full first year of operation, operating cost per passenger- mile by TRAX were $0.15, compared, to $1.04 for The Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) bus operations. Weekday ridership continues to average around 28,000 independent riders per day, and cost of operation has held roughly constant, with slight increases due to inflation. International LRT/Streetcar Precedents • The Sheffield Super tram system boasts rider ship of around 36,000 riders per day at relatively low cost of operation. Sheffield is of similar population size, geographic size and population density to Madison and could serve as an important precedent from which to model a rail system in Madison. Photo: Central Platte Valley LRT – Denver, CO
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 14 • Montpellier, France boasts a comparable, though slightly smaller, though more densely situated population than Madison. It has developed a light rail system that is used by upwards of 75,000 people daily through just the initial of its three planned lines. It’s system, through intelligent line-routing, boasts among the highest per capita ridership for a light rail system in the world, while just over 80% of the cost of operation is covered through fairs. 2.3 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Bus rapid transit  systems are high-density, high- speed bus systems that operate on their own rights of way. These systems are similar to streetcars, and can include a physically separated lane on roads, or even tracks, but are based on the characteristics of buses. They cost significantly less to build than rail-based systems but have overall lower transport capacity. The goal of these systems is to approach the service quality of rail transit while costing little more than a traditional bus system. In places that BRT has been integrated it has heavily attracted riders and greatly increased corridor ridership. Ridership gains of 20% to 96% in BRT corridors have been noted (see chart below). National presidents of BRT include Boston, Massachusetts, and Los Angeles and San Pablo, California. International precedents include Ottawa, Canada; Curitiba, Brazil; and Bogotá, Columbia. National BRT Precedents • Boston’s Silver Line Phase I BRT system experienceda96%increaseinweekdaycorridor ridership. The Washington Street corridor in Boston experienced a 15% increase in riders perpassengerhour with the implementation of the Silver Line. The Silver Line had a direct and immediate benefit on air quality through the replacement of older diesel buses with lower- emission natural gas buses. The numerous land use changes in the corridor have strengthened the transit market, even as the presence of the Silver Line has encouraged transit-friendly development.Thesystemcapitalcostwas$2.84 million per directional route mile, not including vehicle costs, or $5.77 million per directional route mile including vehicle costs. About half the total $27 million budget was used for 17 articulated CNG buses, the remainder for infrastructure and ITS. The construction of the silver line has spurred economic development across the transit corridor, totaling more than an estimated $1.2 billion in investment. • Metro Rapid in Los Angeles reported high vehicle utilization, reduced subsidy per passenger mile ($0.15 to $0.18), and increased passengers per revenue mile (51 to 59.7). • San Pablo California’s Rapid Bus accounted for a 43% increase in corridor ridership. International BRT Precedents • Ottawa, Canada has seen some $700 million in development around BRT stations, while simultaneously reducing overall traffic congestion across BRT transit corridors. • Curitiba, Brazil was the first city in the world to develop a BRT system and has been a model for other countries to follow. 70% of Curitiba’s residents currently use the cities’ BRT system to commute to work. The success of Curitiba’s BRT system has dramatically diminished both congestion and air pollution. In Bogotá, Columbia the BRT system has improved Photo: A bus rapid transit system (BRT) operating on its own right of way – London, UK
urpl 912 | 12.18.0915 the transit capacity; achieved cost effectiveness, and contributes to urban renewal. 3 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) encompass a broad range of wireless and wire line communications-based information and electronics technologies. When integrated into a transportation system’s infrastructure, and in vehicles themselves, these technologies relieve congestion, improve safety and enhance productivity.  The application of ITS systems includes: arterial management, transit management, traffic incident management, electronicpaymentandpricing,travelerinformation, intermodal freight and other elements. There are a lot of successful precedents of ITS system, including Los Angeles, California; Puget Sound, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; and Phoenix, Arizona. Transit signal priority systems use sensors to detect approaching transit vehicles and alter signal timings to improve transit performance. For example, some systems extend the duration of green signals for public transportation vehicles when necessary. Electronic transit fare payment systems, often enabled by smart card or magnetic stripe technologies, can provide increased convenience to customers and generate significant cost savings to transportation agencies by increasing the efficiency of the money handling processes and improving administrative controls. Riders have increasingly used multiple agencies for their travel in the Puget Sound region: • The percent using the Puget Pass on other systems had increased from 41 percent in 2001 to 60 percent in 2004. • Transit system rose from 19 percent in 1998 to 27 percent in 2004. Information dissemination allows passengers to confirm scheduling information, improve transfer coordination, and reduce wait times. Electronic transit status information signs at bus stops help passengers manage time, and on-board systems such as next-stop audio enunciators help passengers in unfamiliar areas reach their destinations. This can also be integrated, as has been done in Los Angeles, Portland and other places with LEDs that display real-time headway (wait time) estimates. Safety and security: advanced software and communications enable data as well as voice to be transferred between transit management centers and transit vehicles. Transit management centers can monitor in-vehicle and in-terminal surveillance systems to improve quality or service and improve the safety and security of passengers and operators. Regions that benefited include the Beaver County Transit Authority (BCTA) in Rochester, Pennsylvania, the King County Metro in Seattle, Washington, the Triangle Transit Authority in Raleigh–Durham, North Carolina and the Valley Metro in Phoenix, Arizona. ITS technologies in use in these regions include: • Electronic manifests and trip completion data reduce operator workload and provide more accurate and consistent data.
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 16 • Real-time fleet location data further improve the ability of scheduling software to enhance vehicle productivity and accomplish meets with fixed-route service. • Onboardnavigationassistanceaidsoperators in keeping on schedule with their manifests, in particular with newer operators who are less familiar with local streets. • For the TriMet AVL system (Portland, Oregon): o Improved availability of real-time information for dispatchers could reduce running times by an average of 1.45 min/trip and reduce average passenger waiting time at the stop by 0.11 min. o Depending on the assumptions regarding reduced wait times and reduced wait time uncertainty, the number of annual transit trips with Transit Tracker information by means of the Internet needed for positive net benefits could range from approximately 200,000 to 900,000. • For the COTA AVL system (Columbus, Ohio), with changes in dispatcher workflow the observed overall effect was of saving nearly three hours in the time required for daily work.Itwasprojectedthatafleetsizeincrease of up to 10 percent could be accommodated with the current complement of dispatchers. • For the Delaware First State AVL system, roughly $2.3 million in annual benefits were estimated as reasonably attributed to the implementation of the system. Traveler information applications use a variety of technologies,includingInternetwebsites,telephone hotlines, as well as television and radio, to allow users to make more informed decisions regarding trip departures, routes, and mode of travel. Cost of Service Reductions: ITS, through improving conveneience can also boost mass transit usage, as was the case in San Jose, California: • The number of shared rides increased from 38 percent to 55 percent as a portion of all rides provided. • San Jose was also able to reduce its paratransit fleet from 200 to 130 vehicles, while managing to provide the same level of service. As a result, the cost per passanger mile decreased from $4.88 to $3.72. 4 Inter-regional Transportation Inter-regional transport can also be a crucial sustainability feature as part of any sustainability plan. The newly created Dane County RTA and proposed commuter rail corridor represents an opportunity for the Madison region to develop a sustainable regional transportaiton mode. Numerous precedents exist nationally for commuter rail development. These precedents include the Maryland Rail Commuter Service (MARC) which serves the Baltimore-Washington, DC metropolitan area, and the Seattle-Tacoma “Sounder” commuter rail system. The strength of these systems is that they enable rapid and effective transportation of large numbers of people living in suburban areas into central cities. Madison’s system has the additional advantage of being planned to incorporate existing rail track within the metropolitan area; which will dramatically reduce the cost of installing such a system. National Regional Commuter Rail Systems • The Baltimore-Washington MARC system is a three line system that covers a large commuter Photo: MARC Train at Camden Station - Baltimore, MD
urpl 912 | 12.18.0917 area with the Baltimore-Washington area. It stretches as far as Annapolis, Maryland and Martinsburg, West Virginia. The system includes stops in many of the surrounding cities and towns and includes parking facilities at those stops to allow greater transportation flexibility for its ridership. The current system has been in operation since 1984; however much of the system pre-existed in the form of the Maryland Rail Commuter Service. While the system predominantly operates on weekdays, additional hours of operation are added on weekends to accommodate sporting and other special events. • The Seattle-Tacoma Regional “Sounder” rail system feeds many of the communities along the Puget Sound region. The two line (north and south) system operates from Monday to Friday, and stretches north to Everett and South to Tacoma. Ridership for the system sits at just under 10,000 daily. The total cost of the 11 vehicle fleet was around $26.5 million, with the 204 miles of operational track infrastructure . All trains are equipped with on board GPS to give passengers real-time trip- time updates. The system also includes free on board Wi-fi accessible Internet access, the inclusion of which has further boosted system ridership. 5 Walkable and Bicycle Friendly Development Pedestrian and bicycle traffic improve the quality of life in cities by adding to the ambience and safety of city streets. Pedestrian and bicycle transportation also have clear health benefits. Research conducted in 1999 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that obesity is linked to heart disease, diabetes and other chronic conditions. The report goes on to state that, “One reason for Americans sedentary lifestyle is that walking and cycling have been replaced by automobile travel for allbuttheshortestdistances.” Capacityforincreased bicycling and walking exists: “half of all travel trips taken in the United States are 4.8 km (3 miles) or less in length; 28 percent are less than 1.6 km (one mile).” Numerous precedents for how to go about increasing bicycle and pedestrian friendliness exist. 5.1 Complete Streets and bicycle integration One of the most important components of making cities more bicycle and pedestrian friendly are so called “complete streets”. These include both sufficiently wide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians and protected or otherwise highlighted bicycle lanes. The process of using highly reflective paint to demarcate bicycle lanes, as has been done recently in Portland, Oregon and New York City, has been very useful in reducing the number of bicycle/ vehicular accidents. Research indicates that having the appropriate infrastructure to accommodate bicycles reduces the risk of an accident by 1.8 to 16 times. In Maastricht Netherlands, complete streets have been implemented across all roads. Basic road design in Maastrcht is, from the middle out: a car lane, a bright orange colored bike lane, and side walk. This sort of street design has been crucial in reducing the number of accidents between cars and cyclists, and between cyclists and pedestrians. 5.2 Zoning Code Rewrites There are numerous examples of cities that have attempted to use the zoning code to make the city morebikeandpedestrianfriendly.Thisincludesland- use zoning changes to incorporate more walkable streetscapes as well as mandatory minimums set for Pedestrian accessibility can be important – Columbus, OH
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 18 the number of bike parking spaces available. • The city of Dallas has decided to move from mixed-used zoning to a form-based zoning with the goal of improving ‘walkability’. They call this system: “walkable zoning”. The main changes in the change in zoning set standards and applied metrics for more walkable street development. The new form-based design has greater emphasis on the resulting streetscape that is created by development. • Washington D.C. has recently amended its zoning standards to increase bicycle parking and has removed requirements for minimum car parking space. Car parking in Washington D.C. is now tied to the parking demand of a land use, reducing the number of available parking spaces, and mitigating congestion. Previous zoning standards required 1 bicycle parking space for every 20 car parking spaces. Following the zoning change, bike parking is now based on the size (in sq/ft) of the land use, with bicycle parking requirements varying by land-use. Thus, commercial and residential districts boat higher numbers of bicycle parking spaces than industrial uses. • When compared to automobile storage, bicycles take up less land area than car parking. The District of Columbia Department of Transportation states that 10 bikes can be parked in the equivalent of one car parking space. 5.3BicyclesasapartofaMulti-modalTransportation System Bicycle Storage Insuring bicycle storage is available can be important in promoting bicycle usage. Incorporating bicycle storage in locations that allow bike users to connect to public transit is a step toward creating a multi- modal system. Security of bicycle storage is as a key rationale for whether a person rides a bike to work or not. There are several precedents of steps cities have taken to insure bicycles are secure: • Perth, Australia has recently implemented Bike cages or Bike Pods at rail stations around its metro area. The cage is open at all times of day except from 9 a.m.- 3p.m. This allows users to come in the morning, park their bike in the pod, commute to work, and then come home from work to pick up the bike in the early evening. The bike pods hold 40 bikes and cost roughly $50,000. The city hopes to create 20 pike pod stations within the Perth metro area. • Copenhagen, Denmark has bike lockers at many bus and rail stations. These lockers allow a person to put there bike in a metal enclosed structure for a cost of $2.00 which is refunded when the person returns and inserts the key into the locker to get his or her bike. Bikes and Public Transit Providing users with the ability to link their bike with buses and rail transit increases a person’s area of mobility and further frees them from the automobile. It also has benefits for the city bus system; as bike friendly public transit expands the overall service area of the system. It can also increase system revenue by encouraging increased rider-ship. Numerous cities, including Washington, DC have taken steps to increase the number of bicycles that can be fit onto busses, subways and its regional commuter rail system. Bike-friendly on street parking – Toronto, Canada
urpl 912 | 12.18.0919 Community Bike Sharing Bike sharing programs have been created to allow those without bikes to rent them as needed. These bike rental stations can also be strategically located so as to allow easy linkage with the public transit system. • Montreal, Canada, has created a bike-sharing program called, Bixi. The bike sharing program places automated bike rental stations at strategic locations throughout the city. People then can take a bike with a credit card and a $216 deposit, which is return. A person then can rent a bike for around $4 a day. There also are subscription services where users pay a yearly fee to have access to the bikes. Initial startup costs were around $13 million and the goal is for the system to eventually become self- financing. The system is based on a community bike sharing system in Lyon France where the bike rentals are free following the security deposit, with the system is financed through advertising revenue. • Portland, Oregon, created a Community Cycling Center. The center advocates for the advantages of bicycle rider-ship through community outreach and education programs. The Cycling Center both accepts donated bikes and teaches enrolled youth bicycle repair skills. These bikes are then resold to the community at affordable prices. Any person enrolled in the program who does not have a bike is given one. The program has prevented more than 800 bikes from entering landfills. The funding has come largely through donations from residents and companies. Complete street with clearly marked bike lane – Brooklyn, NY
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 20 Policy Matrix
urpl 912 | 12.18.0921 SOURCES 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, http://www.1kfriends. org/Transportation/WI_Transportation_Projects_/ Streetcars.htm Applicability of Bogotá’s TransMilenio BRT System to the United States, US Department of Transportation, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Bogota_ Report_Final_Report_May_2006.pdf Austen, Ian, "Montreal Inagurates Contients Most ambitious Bike-Sharing Program." The New York Times May 13, 2009, http://greeninc.blogs. nytimes.com/2009/05/13/montreal-inaugurates- continents-most-ambitious-bike-sharing-program/ Berrigan, D. and R.P. Troiano, “The Association Between Urban Form and Physical Activity in U.S. Adults,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, volume 23, issue 2, supplement 1, August 2002. Bike Rack on Buses Update, www.ci.mil.wi.us/ ImageLibrary/User/.../Bike_Racks_on_Buses_ Upate.pdf. Bush, Rudolph, City Hall Blog, The Dallas Morning News, November 10, 2008, http://cityhallblog. dallasnews.com/archives/2008/11/walkable- zoning-regulations-ex.html “Boston Silver Line Washington Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Demonstration Project Evaluation”, US Department of Transportation, September, 2005, http://www.nbrti.org/media/evaluations/Boston_ Silver_Line_final_report.pdf Cooper, Gary & Furmaniak, Thomas B, “Portland Streetcar: A Two-Year Report Card”, National Light Rail Transit Conference, Transportation Research Board, Portland, Nov. 2003 District of Columbia Department of Transportation, http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/lib/ddot/information/ bicycle/newbike-final.pdf Dutch, Steven, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Why People Don’t Use Mass Transit, http://www. uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/masstransit.htm Electric Street Car Systems, http://my.execpc. com/~coken2/stcarrs.htm European Council of the European Union, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage. aspx?lang=EN&id=1 Federal Highway Administration, “Integration of Bicycle and Transit”, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ ped_bike/docs/bike_bus.pdf Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation: Student Workbook (second edition). Report No. HRT-05-133h Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Data, 2005, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/data/grants_ financing_1090.html Lacy,Brian,SmartCommunitiesNetwork,Community Cycling center, http://www.smartcommunities.ncat. org/success/community_cycling.shtml Leeds Konsult, Light Rail Systems, http://www. konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments/ instrument002/l2_002c.htm Lesson 1: The Need for Bicycle and Pedestrian Photo: Bike path along John Nolen Drive - Madison, WI
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 22 Mobility, FHWA http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/ pedbike/pubs/05085/chapt1.htm Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA), http://www. lrta.org/explain.html Los Angeles County Metro, http://www.metro.net/ projects_studies/rapid/default.htm National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, http://www. nbrti.org/ Parkiteer, Bicycle Victoria, 2009, www.parkiteer. com.au Portland Streetcar History, http://www. portlandstreetcar.org/history.php Rail to Rails, ‘Walking and Biking as Mainstream Transportation Choices”, http://www.railstotrails. org/resources/documents/whatwedo/TrailLink%20 07%20Program_Mobility.pdf Railway Technology: Portland, http://www.railway- technology.com/projects/portland/ Railway Technology: Montpellier, http://www. railway-technology.com/projects/montpellier/ Railway Technology: Sheffield, http://www.railway- technology.com/projects/sheffield-tram/ Reynolds, Conor, et al, “The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature”, Environmental Health, October 21, 2009, http://www.ehjournal.net/ content/8/1/47 Roney,Mathew,“BicyclePedalingintotheSpotlight”, Earth Policy Institute, May 12, 2008, http://www. earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C48/ Sounder, First Quarter 2009 System Wide Ridership, http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/ newsroom/Ridership_Q1_2009.pdf Sounder Commuter Trains Specifications, http:// www.soundtransit.org/Riding-Sound-Transit/Our- Vehicles/Sounder-commuter-rail.xml Tri-Met MAX System Overview, http://trimet.org/ about/history/maxoverview.htm United States Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html Urban Habitat, “Curituba’s Bus System is Model For Rapid Transit”, http://urbanhabitat.org/node/344 Yglesias, Matthew, Class Warfare and the Bus, http:// yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/class- warfare-and-the-bus.php “Zoning Change will Make Bike Parking Based on Space, Not Car Parking”, WashCycle, November 02, 2009, http://www.thewashcycle.com/2009/11/ zoning-change-will-not-reduce-bike-parking.html
urpl 912 | 12.18.0923 INTRODUCTION The built environment has a wide range of effects on human lives and natural environments through the consumption of resources, the alteration of natural habitats, and altering ecosystems. In the US, buildingsaccountfor72%ofelectricityconsumption, 39 % of energy use, 38 % CO2 emissions, and 40 % of raw materials use. The environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of buildings can be reduced if the buildings can be designed in a manner that is energy efficient, environmentally friendly, and cost effective. Green building initiatives promote sustainable building practices, thereby generating diverse benefits to a city and its people. Green buildings can: • Conserve natural resources and reduce solid waste • Reduce operating costs and lower utility bills • Improve indoor air quality and occupants’ health • Contribute to employees’ productivity and performance • Enhance asset value and local green building industry Currently, the City of Madison requires new buildings that the city owns to be certified by the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED® ) standard of the U.S. Green Building Council. However, the city has expressed a desire to expand its current green building practices, policies, and programs to encompass the residential and business communities. One way the city can expand upon its existing green building practices is to set forth a policy framework aimed at improving sustainability and livability across all aspects of the built environment. This precedent study presents policies and programs that have been implemented to promote green building practices throughout the U.S. for sustainability planning in Madison. CONTEXT In the search for best practices from around the world, Madison’s population size, current building attributes, and university-oriented nature served as a main search criteria. Similarly to Madison, many of the locations studied are homes to universities that affect the landscape and design of the city. Arlington County, Virginia and Scottsdale, Arizona are about the same size as Madison in terms of population. Another criterion used was sustainability plan rankings. Portland, Oregon ranks number two in Grist’s (an environmental news magazine) listing of the top fifteen green cities around the world (“15 Green Cities”). Chicago and Seattle are also runners up on the Grist rankings (“15 Green Cities”). Although every ranking system is different, many of the cities used in this report consistently are referenced as best practices in sustainability and green building literature. These study areas also serve as a guide for Madison to strengthen existing community resources in an urbanized environment. The precedent locations studied are as follows: • Arlington County, Virginia • Chicago, Illinois • Los Angeles, California • New York, New York • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • Portland, Oregon • Santa Monica, California • Scottsdale, Arizona • Seattle, Washington Precedent Study: Buildings
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 24 GOALS & BEST PRACTICES GOAL 01 /// Incorporate LEED® design principles or equivalent standards in all new construction and newly remodeled buildings RATIONALE: Many municipal governments have adopted standards to ensure that new or newly remodeledCity-ownedandCity-fundedbuildingsare more sustainable. However, only very few of these governments are creating policy that requires all new construction or remodeling of existing buildings to meet LEED® or equivalent standards. Meeting LEED® standards is crucial to providing a wide range of opportunities for all people to live, work, and play in a more environmentally responsible manner. This policy has proven successful in Arlington County, Virginia and Los Angeles, California. BEST PRACTICE A: Arlington County Virginia’s Green Building Fund. Since its inception in 2003, the county has set up a fund to collect a green building fee from all developers. A refund of this fee is available to those projects who achieve basic LEED® certification. Arlington County’s Department of Environmental Services provides brochures, guidelines, and documents on their website for developers and other members of the community interested in green building and the fund. As of September 2009, Arlington County has 20 LEED® certified buildings. Of the 20 LEED® certified buildings, five have achieved a certified rating, nine have a silver rating, and six have a gold rating. Key Facts • All developers must contribute $0.045 per square foot, (the cost of LEED® certification for most projects), to the Green Building Fund, when applying for a building permit. • Projects that achieve at least a basic LEED® certificationfromtheUSGBCreceivearefund of their contribution when the developers submit proof of certification to the county. • The Green Building Fund is used to provide educational and technical assistance to the community and developers. BEST PRACTICE B: Los Angeles’ Standard for Sustainability for Large Development Projects. In 2007, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa set a goal in the Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 35% below 1990 levels by 2030. In particular, the 2007 Climate Action Plan specified the need to reduce environmental impact of buildings on the city in order to meet the Mayor’s goals. The Standard for Sustainability, mandatory for all large projects, is a strategy Los Angeles is using to reduce the environmental impact of large buildings in the city. The Environmental Affairs Department is the agency responsible for implementing the Standard for Sustainability. The office staff provides a LEED® checklist and coordinates a Green Building Team that provides public outreach and technical support on sustainable practices. Key Facts • A large project must meet the standard if it is a(n): o Non-residential projects with a floor area at or above 50,000 square feet o High-rise residential projects with a floor area at or above 50,000 square feet and is at least seven stories tall o Low-rise residential projects of 50 or more dwelling units within buildings of at least 50,000 square feet of floor area and six stories tall Photo: Langston High School | Arlington, VA
urpl 912 | 12.18.0925 o Existing building that meets the minimum thresholds described above when redevelopment construction costs exceed a valuation of 50% of the existing building’s replacement cost • Formal LEED® certification is not required; instead, a project must meet the intent of LEED® standards. • The Department of City Planning issues a green building clearance in order for projects to receive a building permit. The green building clearance is issued only when the following items are submitted and approved by the city: o Plan drawings o Statement of declaration from the developer describing how they met the intent of LEED® certification o LEED® checklist $268 fee or a design review conducted by the USGBC GOAL02 ///Encouragedeveloperstodesign, construct, and operate environmentally responsible buildings through the implementation of density bonus incentives RATIONALE: In order for Madison to become a leader in sustainable building practices, it must work with the development community to both provide more environmentally responsible buildings and to ensure the environment surrounding the buildings themselves are sustainable as well. There are many ways to provide incentives for developers to be more sustainable in their building design. According to the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties’ 2007 Green Building Incentives That Work, density bonuses are one of the top three incentivesdeveloperssurveyedinthisreportthought would help developers build more sustainably (12). BEST PRACTICE A: Arlington County, Virginia’s Green Building Density Incentive. The goal of this initiative is to encourage private developers of large office, high-rise residential, and mixed use projects to design, construct, and operate environmentally responsible buildings by providing density and / or bonuses where appropriate. The county provides brochures, guidelines, and documents on their website for developers to learn about this incentive and the program qualifications. Key Facts • This policy uses the USGBC’s LEED® Green Building Rating System™ as a standard for measuring the comprehensive green approach of each project. • Applicable permits will not be issued unless approved LEED® components are included in the plan drawings and required LEED® documentation is submitted. BEST PRACTICE B: Seattle, Washington’s Density Bonus Incentive. This incentive was incorporated as part of a package of public amenities that mitigate the impacts of growth by protecting the environment, conserving natural resources, and promoting the public‘s health, safety, and welfare. The city will grant greater height or density requests if development projects achieve a LEED® silver rating or higher, as well as contribute to affordable housing and other public amenities. As part of the design review, Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development encourages all design players to develop green goals and strategies collaboratively by holding eco-charettes during a project’s design phase. There is a “commercial expert” on staff who helps coordinate eco-charettes, provides technical advice, and answers any questions about the
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 26 sustainable programs available to developers and residents of Seattle. Key Facts • The applicant must submit a letter of intent that communicates their commitment to achieve a LEED® Silver, Gold or Platinum rating on their project before issuance of the Master Use Permit. The City will then issue subsequent permits and the final Certificate of Occupancy based on this good faith commitment. • Within 90 days of receiving the final Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must submit documentation that demonstrates achievement of a LEED® silver rating or higher. o If the applicant fails to submit a timely report, the resulting penalty is a fee of $500 per day from the date due, which is issued 90 days after issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy. • Failure to demonstrate performance will also result in a penalty. Performance must be demonstrated through an independent report provided by the U.S. Green Building Council that confirms achievement of at least a LEED® Silver rating. The penalty is a fee determined by a formula of the building’s construction value and credits earned from USGBC to achieve LEED® certification. • All penalties collected will contribute to a Green Building Fund dedicated to supporting market adoption of green building. GOAL 03 /// Green the existing building stock and reinvest in older communities RATIONALE: While many sustainable building design and construction efforts are geared towards new development, the most sustainable buildings, communities, or landscapes often already exist. Maximizing the life cycle of all resources through conservation is a fundamental condition of sustainability. For this reason, municipalities across the country are incorporating policies and programs aimed at the conservation and improvement of their existing built resources, including re-use of historic buildings, retrofitting the existing building stock, and reinvestment in older communities. BEST PRACTICE A: New York, New York’s Greener, Greater Buildings Plan. As part of PlaNYC 2030 and Earth Day 2009, legislation was passed that requires all large buildings over 50,000 gross square feet to conduct an energy audit once every ten years. Implementation of this plan by the Department of Buildings is expected to affect over 2.5 billion square feet of New York City real estate. There are 22,000 buildings covered by this legislation, and roughly, 2,200 will come due every year on a randomized rotating schedule. In addition, over 19,000 construction-related jobs, such as energy auditing, upgrading lighting and maintaining equipment, will be created to implement energy efficiency investments over the next 13 years. Key Facts • The Department of Buildings uses ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) standards for the audit process. • Two types of improvements to the Photo: Seattle Justice Center | Seattle, WA
urpl 912 | 12.18.0927 buildings will be required retrofit measures, which are replacements of outmoded equipment with more efficient models, and retro- commissioning, which are tune-ups of existing equipment. • There is a three-year window of time between the completion of the audit and the completion of all retrofitting and retro-commissioning work. • Buildings that are unable to secure financing for the work, or that have experienced unanticipated delays during construction, will be eligible for extensions. The city plans to implement a direct lending program: A Greener, Greater Buildings Loan Fund, which uses $16 million of the $80 million in federal stimulus funding allocated to the city under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program. The Fund will provide loans to owners of two categories of buildings over 50,000 square feet: financially distressed buildings and buildings where owners have already taken the first steps towards decreasing their energy usage. Buildings must annually benchmark their energy and water consumption by using a free, online tool provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Building owners will need to enter only basic information about their building and have access to their energy bills in order to benchmark. While owners of commercial buildings will also need to enter information about tenant consumption, apartment buildings will be exempted from the requirement to enter residential tenant data. In order to ensure that New Yorkers can obtain the right level of training to perform construction-related jobs, the city has created theWorkingGroupforGreenBuildingWorkforce Development. The Working Group includes key stakeholders in the labor and real estate sectors, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), and the City of New York, to identify workforce and training needs and advise on the certification process. BEST PRACTICE B: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s High-Performance Building Renovation Guidelines. In 2004, the City of Philadelphia has created the High Performance Renovation (HPBR) Guidelines to improve the operations of its aging building stocks. The HPBR Guidelines are designed to focus on typical city renovation projects and provide guidance for considering: • Renovation sequence • Material selection • Construction practices • Energy Use • Operating implications and interrelatedness of building improvements that constitute high performance The HPBR Guidelines consist of 12 major renovation project types, and each HPBR Guideline provides the user with specific design options and detailed discussions on the means to improve building performance and the working environment. Within each technical guide: • The “System Integration” section enables the user to expand the scope of consideration from replacing one building component to reviewing the opportunities for achieving an integrated, whole building approach. Image: Buildings included in Greener, Greater Buildings Plan | New York, NY
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 28 • The “Sustainable Materials & Systems or Sustainable Strategies” are addressed with a scale range from $ to $$$$, which is utilized to provide the user with an estimate of costs. • The “Life Cycle Assessment” presents the cost-benefit analysis to give a better picture of the true cost of installing and owning recommended materials or technical systems. • The “Series Matrix” is provided to cross- reference the integrated nature of various technical issues and projects to the issues of guides. The designers and builders should assess the applicability of any recommendation offered in the HPBR Guidelines and apply them into design documents and construction practices as required by the conditions unique to the site. The HPBR Guidelines also provide a framework in which budget, planning, capital program and department level staff can improve the building renovation process. GOAL 04 /// Provide easily accessible, user- friendly sustainable design, development, and construction guidance and technical support RATIONALE: Conventional design and construction methods produce buildings that can negatively impact the environment as well as occupant health and productivity. These buildings are expensive to operate and contribute to excessive resource consumption, waste generation, and pollution. To help reduce these impacts and meet the goals of sustainability, some municipalities have adopted guidelines and prepared documents to facilitate the development and maintenance of green buildings. BEST PRACTICE A: Santa Monica, California’s Green Building Design and Construction Guidelines. In Santa Monica, the “Green Building Design and Construction Guidelines” were developed over a three-year period by City staff and Sheltair Scientific Ltd., a sustainable design consultant team, with extensive input from the local design, construction, and development community. These Guidelines includerequiredandrecommendedpracticesthatare intended to reduce life-cycle environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of both commercial and municipal developments and major remodel projects in Santa Monica. They provide specific “green” design and construction strategies in the following topic areas: Building Site and Form, Landscaping, Transportation, Building Envelope and Space Planning, Building Materials, Water Systems, Electrical Systems, HVAC Systems, Control Systems, Construction Management, and Commissioning. The Guidelines were developed for, and specifically apply to, the following building types: • Institutional and Commercial Offices • Light Industrial Buildings • Commercial Retail Buildings • Multi-Family Residences • Hotels and Motels They are not intended to address development of single-family residential dwellings and duplexes, high rise buildings, or occupancies with special process demands (heavy industrial operations, car washes, service garages, etc.); however, many of the recommended practices presented in the Guidelines are relevant to these building types as well. These Guidelines provide designers and builders Photo: 1 Crescent Drive | Philadelphia, PA
urpl 912 | 12.18.0929 with guidance on the ways that buildings can provide better health, ecological and resource performance effectively and economically. This document is a useful tool during the conceptual and schematic stages of design. All of these guidelines are available on the City’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment website, and are presented in a format that is straightforward, easy to navigate, and highly graphic. BEST PRACTICE B: Scottsdale, Arizona’s Green Building Program. Scottsdale’s Green Building Program encourages a whole-systems approach through design and building techniques to minimize environmental impact and reduce the energy consumption of buildings while contributing to the health of its occupants. This program rates building projects in the following six environmental impact areas: • Site Use • Energy • Indoor Air Quality • Building Materials • Solid Waste • Water Although participation in this program is voluntary, the City’s website and publications are an excellent resource that may entice builders, designers, and developers to get involved. One particularly useful resource offered is a series of documents explaining green building practices and expectations by project type (i.e. commercial, multi-family housing, tenant improvement, etc.). By offering a variety of workbooks, guides, and checklists through both printed and electronic media, Scottsdale has shortened the gap between private development practice and public (City) policy goals. GOAL 05 /// Increase the public’s understanding, education, and involvement in sustainable building practices and construction techniques RATIONALE: It is critical to bring the green building practice to the attention of the general public and building industry. By informing building industry professionals and the public of the benefits of green building, the city can expand market demand and strengthen local capacity to build green voluntarily. BEST PRACTICE A: Portland, Oregon’s Green Building Outreach and Education Programs. After adopting the Green Building program in 2001, the city of Portland has implemented various community outreach services and educational programs. In addition, the city has published case studies and technical briefs on local green building projects and emerging technologies such as ecoroofs, rainwater harvesting, fuel cells, and natural ventilation strategies so that the public and professionals can be updated with the latest information. Key Facts • Build It Green! Home tour is a self-guided tour that demonstrates the latest in green and solar building practices of around twenty homes in the Portland metro area. Since 2002, the tour has been the best information forum that homeowners, contractors, designers, and consumers share their experiences about green building materials, costs, successes and challenges. Ticket sales ($15/person) are collected for the Green Building Program of the City of Portland. Volunteers from a local nonprofit organization staff the Build It Green! Home Tour, and the tour booklet is provided to Photo: Colorado Court | Santa Monica, CA
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 30 inform tour-goers of tour stop addresses and an area map, along with detailed green home features and project data. • ReTHINKEducationSeriesisannualeducation program targeting homeowners, local building design & construction professionals, and small contractors. For five weeks local and regional experts provide technical training on how to successfully remodel and create healthy homes and sustainable sites. Specific topics addressed recently for the session are: o Ultra-low energy homes o Natural remodeling o Saving water and energy o Green materials and waste reduction o Creating a new way of living intentionally The cost of the education program is covered by enrollment fees charged for the classes ($12 for a single class or $50 for the whole series) and sponsorship by partner public agencies and nonprofit organizations. BEST PRACTICE B: Scottsdale, Arizona’s Green Building Publicity and Outreach Program. The City of Scottsdale’s Green Building Program enables community members to access information easily and participate in green building activities through presentations and exhibits at community and association events, as well as green building related lectures, workshops, or seminars. In addition, community members interested in green building can attend monthly public meeting held by Scottsdale’s Green Building Advisory Committee (GBAC) to review green building trends and discuss public outreach programs. • A variety of outreach efforts and educational programs exist for the community. o Annual Green Building Expo o Monthly Solar and Green Building Lecture Series o Fall and Spring Sustainable and Solar Home Tour o Design Day o Free bi-monthly Scottsdale’s Green Building newsletter • The City website lists designers, architects and builders who have active projects enrolled in green building program or have completed a project within the past two or three years. • Promotionalpackagescontaininginformation such as green building logo for ads, program brochures, and green home buyers guide are provided for builders and developers. • Job site signs are available for builders to help distinguish their projects from others and inform the general public of the builder’s commitment to green building practice. GOAL 06 /// Establish a building permitting and plan review process that encourages sustainable building design and development in the private-sector RATIONALE: A common concern for those involved in the development community is the duration and uncertainty of the review/permitting of building proposals. Givingpreferencetoprojectsthatcommit to certain sustainable certifications or other criteria representing achievements of stated goals provides an incentive for developers. These green building projects can pass through the process faster saving time and money. BEST PRACTICE A: Seattle, Washington’s Priority Photo: Arabian Public Library | Scottsdale, AZ
urpl 912 | 12.18.0931 Green Permit Program. The City of Seattle has a strong commitment to both climate protection and green building. To accelerate the adoption of green building practices, the Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) provides a Priority Green Permit program to assist innovative projects that will serve as visible models of high performance and sustainability. Complying with Seattle’s Priority Green Permit Program: • ProvidesasingleDepartmentofPlanningand Development point of contact for applicants • Provides code and process assistance by an interdisciplinary DPD review team • Sets high performance building expectations and goals • Adopts an integrated design approach • Maximizes financial incentives available from other City departments and agencies • Meets the 2030 Challenge In order to participate, applicants must meet defined building performance criteria (measured in a points- based system). Expedited permitting provides a high degree of predictability, with known timeframes and consequences for failure to perform (e.g., assessing penalties if a project fails to achieve the required level of energy performance). Conversely, Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development may consider a permit fee rebate if the guaranteed review schedule is not achieved. The requirements for participation in the program are periodically reviewed and revised to insure that: • Participation is sufficient to encourage a significant number of leading edge projects to demonstrate viability of high performance buildings in the market • Participation continues to target the highest levels of energy performance • Consideration is given to additional priorities • Department of Planning and Development’s review capacity is not overwhelmed BEST PRACTICE B: Chicago, Illinois’ Green Permit Program. The Chicago Department of Buildings (DOB)hasdevelopedanexpeditedpermitprocessfor projects that incorporate innovative green building strategies. The DOB Green Permit Program provides developers and owners with an incentive to build green by streamlining the permit process timeline for their projects. Projects accepted into the Green Permit Program can receive permits in less than 30 business days or in as little as 15 business days. The number of green building elements included in the project plans and project complexity determines the length of the timeline. The more green building elements that are included in a project, the shorter the timeline to obtain a permit. Applicants that demonstrate an extraordinary level of green strategy implementation may have consultant code review fees waived. To participate in the DOB Green Permit Program, the applicant must submit documentation outlining all of the green building components to be included in the project. These specific components will be discussed at the initial Green Permit Program orientation meeting. Admission into the DOB Green Permit Program is based on a series of requirements that qualifies the project for different levels of green building certification. In addition, many projects must apply certain strategies or technologies selected from a list of menu items that enhance sustainability, expand affordability or stimulate economic development. The DOB Green Permit Program allows applicants to incorporate a number of green building strategies and technologies from a select group of menu items Photo: Fisher Pavilion | Seattle, WA
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 32 in order to expedite the process timeline. Design professionals can incorporate environmentally- friendlyandenergy-efficientitemsintotheirprojects from the Green Menu below: • Exceptional Energy Performance • Green Roofs • Renewable Energy • Extra Affordability • Transit-Oriented Development and Difficult- to-Develop Areas • Innovation • Exceptional Water Management • Exceeds LEED or Chicago Green Homes Certification • Natural Ventilation • Exceptional Bike Parking GOAL 07 /// Continually monitor building operation and report on performance RATIONALE: The city should monitor green building strategies implemented and their associated costs and benefits to make sure that they are reaching their goals and promoting sustainable practices. The monitored practices will become the best resource and data for the city to evaluate its green building standards, technical services, and incentive programs. Also, public disclosure of green building performance will demonstrate impacts of progress and benefits. BEST PRACTICE A: Arlington County, Virginia’s Building Energy Report Cards. Under the Fresh Arlington Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE), the Arlington County Government has monitored its energy usage pattern to meet the goal of reducing emissions from County government’s operations 10% by 2012. As one of the key elements of the Fresh AIRE program, the Arlington County Building portfolio including 67 buildings, mostly owned by the County, offer Building Energy Report Cards in context with the function, use, and characteristics of each building through the website of the County government. Recently, the Building Energy Report Cards are updated by comparing data on buildings within County in 2007 to those same building in 2008. The most distinctive advantage of Arlington County’s Building Energy Report Cards lies in that all information is user friendly and easily accessible to the public via the Internet. Key Facts • The Energy Report Card has specific energy usage information for each building type, including community centers, healthcare facilities, libraries, offices, public safety buildings, residential programs & clinics, warehouses & storage, and specialty facilities. • Each building type section provides a bar graph of Site Energy Intensity by building and Energy Snapshots by building, along with documenting progress in reducing energy consumption, as well as expected opportunities or challenges for energy use reduction. • Evaluative analysis can be obtained from the Building Energy Report Cards, promoting improvementsinoperationsorre-investment in more efficient building components (lights, windows, heating, and cooling equipments, etc). • Indicators for the Energy Report Cards are: o Site Energy Intensity o Carbon Footprint o EPA ENERGY STAR Ratings and EPA National Average Comparisons o Regional Climate Photo: Center for Neighborhood Technology | Chicago, IL
urpl 912 | 12.18.0933 CONCLUSION Typical North American lifestyles are unsustainable in ecological and resource terms and will remain so over the next century if current practices persist. Buildings are a major contributor to this. As a result, a focus on the built environment is a crucial component in advancing sustainable thought and action. Learning from and moving towards sustainable building practices is a necessity. While this precedent study report is not comprehensive, it does provide a glimpse at best practices that may be easily applied and transferred to Madison. It is important to understand that sustainable building ideas and technologies are continually changing and cities must evolve and progress accordingly. Going forward, the City of Madison may use these references to make the City’s current and future built environment more sustainable. Photo: One and Two Potomac Yard | Arlington, VA
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 34 Policy Matrix
urpl 912 | 12.18.0935 Photo: Roberts Hall | Portland, OR SOURCES Arlington County’s 2007-2008 Building Energy Report Cards, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva. us/portals/topics/aire/BuildingEnergy.aspx Arlington County, Virginia’s Density Bonus Incentive, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva. us/DEPARTMENTS/EnvironmentalServices/epo/ EnvironmentalServicesEpoGreenBuildings.aspx Arlington County, Virginia’s Green Building Fund, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva.us/ DEPARTMENTS/EnvironmentalServices/epo/ EnvironmentalServicesEpoGreenBuildings.aspx Chicago, Illinois’ Green Permit Program, Available at: http://www.cityofchicago.org/ webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/ GreenPermitBrochure_1.pdf Grist’s 15 Green Cities, Available at: http://www.grist.org/article/cities3/ Los Angeles, California’s Building a Green Los Angeles: Framework for the City’s Green Building Program, Available at: http://www.lacity.org/council/cd9/pdf/ELEC%20 ENTIRE.pdf Los Angeles, California’s Standard for Sustainability, Available at: http://www.lacity.org/ead/ environmentla/greenbuilding/leed.htm National Association of Industrial and Office Properties Research Foundation, Green Building Incentives that Work: A Look at How Local Governments Are Incentivizing Green Development, Available at: http://www.naiop.org/foundation/ completedresearch.com New York, New York’s Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/ buildings_plan.shtml Philadelphia High-Performance Building Renovation Guidelines, Available at: h t t p : / / w w w . p h i l a . g o v / p d f s / PhiladelphiaGreenGuidelines.pdf Portland, Oregon’s Build It Green! Home Tour, Available at: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/ index.cfm?c=41893 Portland, Oregon’s ReTHINK Program, Available at: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index. cfm?c=42714 Santa Monica, California’s Green Building Design and Construction Guidelines, Available at: http:// www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/categories/ buildGreen.aspx Scottsdale, Arizona’s Green Building Program, Available at: http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/greenbuilding Seattle, Washington’s City Green Building, Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/GreenBuilding/ Commercial/IncentivesAssistance/default.asp#LEED Seattle, Washington’s 2006 Density Bonus Incentive, Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/ dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@sustainableblding/ documents/web_informational/dpdp_018423.pdf Seattle,Washington’sPriorityGreenPermitProgram,
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 36 Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/ U.S. Green Building Council, Green Building Research, Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/ DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1718
urpl 912 | 12.18.0937 INTRODUCTION Energy is a crucial element of sustainability. The impacts of energy are felt across all parts of our lives, from the electricity in our homes and offices, to the transportation methods we use whether they are based in fossil fuels or renewable sources. Work in “green” or sustainable energy practices will provide opportunities for new jobs and the reinvigoration of our communities. Water is our most valuable natural resource as it is crucial to human life. While Madison does not experience water shortages like those of the American Southwest, the quality and quantity of our water resources are still at risk. Madison’s water table and Mt. Simon aquifer has dropped by about 50 ft. from 1900-2000. The City expects another 20- 40 feet of draw down within the next 30 years. Improvements in our energy and water policies will help reduce consumption and ensure access to affordable infrastructure for generations to come. Capturing rainfall and stormwater runoff is one way to reduce potable water use. This helps to ensure future supply and to prevent pollutants from entering surface water, thus keeping our lakes and rivers clean. Energy efficiency upgrades are the quickest way to see economic and environmental benefits but we must also begin to restructure the way we create, distribute and consume energy. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: ENERGY Introduction When assessing our next steps in sustainable energy, it is important to remember that each city is different, and has different challenges and resources to utilize. For example, comparing the active solar energy production of a city in the Southwestern US to Madison is poor choice. Fortunately, when it comes to sustainable energy, Madison is already taking steps in the right direction. However, there remains much work to be done in moving Madison towards true energy sustainability. Energy sustainability considerations fit into three broad categories: • Reduce Energy Usage, Conservation & Building Efficiency • Efficient Energy Production & Pollution Reduction • Developing Renewable Energy Sources GOAL 01 /// Reduce Energy Usage, Energy Conservation & Building Efficiency Researchers have found that building efficiency is a critical area to improve energy efficiency. Different types of building systems play critical roles in energy consumption. Additionally, training and certification of energy experts to conduct building energy efficiency ratings will be a potential area of future job growth. The average Wisconsin household uses roughly 10,000 KW/H of energy per year. This is equivalent to 8,000 pounds of coal burnt each year, producing some 24,000 lbs of carbon dioxide gas (CO2). The averageAmericanhouseholdspends$2,200annually on energy bills. The burning of finite fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to produce power has significant environmental and public health consequences. By reducing energy consumption, improving energy efficiency and conserving energy, cities can reduce Precedent Study: Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 38 greenhouse gas emissions, save money, and help keep the planet healthy. Figure 1 shows how energy is consumed through buildings. Many cities in the US and around the world have set clearenergyconservationgoalsintheirsustainability plans. For example, San Francisco’s long term goal is to reduce per capita residential energy use by 50%, and to decrease energy use in municipal and commercial buildings by 50% through conservation and use of on-site renewable energy. In the Philadelphia region, the non-profit group, Energy Coordinating Agency (ECA) provides many services for the region’s residents including, weatherization assistance, hot water installation & assistance, energy education, conservation workshops, and energy budget counseling - both gratis and for a fee, home energy audits, and heating & solar water servicingMadison already does several of these things through the MadiSUN program: including a free energy audit and MG&E provides information on how to conserve energy for its customers. Researchers have identified five key policy tools in the European and Australian practices of improving building energy efficiency: • Building codes that have mandatory and specificrequirementsfornewbuildingsandin buildings undergoing major refurbishments are effective in improving energy efficiency. • Regional consistency in the energy efficiency requirements for building codes allow manufacturers to better standardize their products . • Energy Efficiency Ratings: A standardized rating of a building’s energy efficiency could potentially be required to be included in all property advertisements. • Issuance of Tradable “White Certificates“(Australia): a buildings-only cap-and-trade system in which owners of large buildings are given energy savings obligations that can be met either directly, or by buying certificates from better- performing buildings. • Public buildings should continue to be a test bed for new energy-saving ideas and should promote awareness of building energy- performance levels. The City of Portland has also set energy conservation goals and made significant in-roads towards achieving these goals, including: • Reduction of city energy bills by $1.1 million annually through improved energy efficiency • Energy efficiency improvements in more than 40 million ft2 of commercial and institutional space • Weatherization of more than 22,000 apartment units • A 9% reduction in per capita household energy use • Development of new commercial and residential energy codes In order to further improve energy efficiency, the City of Portland launched a neighborhood education project called “Clean Energy Works Portland”. The first phase of this program aims to help up to 500 qualified Portland homes finance and install energy efficiency upgrades. The project offers homeowners access to low-cost financing for energy efficiency home improvements, including new insulation or the installation of a high efficiency furnace or water heater. To help decide which upgrades and financing options make sense, participants receive the assistance of a qualified Energy Advocate throughout the process. Image: Energy allocation of building types in Delaware
urpl 912 | 12.18.0939 The City of Delaware helps residents improve home energy efficiency with a $100 rebate program on Energy Star qualified appliances. Under this program,productsthatareeligibleforrebateinclude refrigerators, freezers, top load clothes washers, front load clothes washers and dehumidifiers. Ameren, Illinois’ Energy Utilities encourage households to track energy usage and potential savings by providing $25 rebate incentive for programmable thermostats. These thermostats are Energy Star qualified appliances and offer four pre- programmedsettingstoautomaticallyregulatehome temperature according to season, whether residents are home or away. Properly using a programmable thermostat in a home could be one of the easiest ways to save energy, money, and help fight global warming. The average US household spends more than $2,200 a year on energy bills, nearly half of which goes to heating and cooling. Homeowners can save around $180 a year by properly setting their programmable thermostats. Providing an economic incentive to purchase programmable thermostats could encourage landlords to install them in rental units or provide an upgrade for low- income residents. Cities can provide helpful community assistance and education via flyers, brochures, or workshops about simple energy conservation tips, including: • Clothes Washing: Wash full loads of clothes. • Weather Stripping: Caulk and weather-strip around windows and doorframes that leak air. • Unplug: Unplug any battery chargers or power adapters when not in use. • Shade: Close drapery and shades during the hot part of the day to save on cooling. • Insulate: Use spray foam or caulk to seal holes around pipes, wiring, vents or recessed lights. The US EPA, through its Green Power Partnership project, works with a wide variety of organizations from Fortune 500 companies to local, state and federal governments, and a growing number of colleges and universities, which aims at increasing green power purchases, reducing environmental impacts of electricity use and supporting the development of new renewable generation capacity nationwide. Table 1 is a list of the top eight local governments investing in “green” power. California, Oregon, Maryland, Idaho, New York, and Minnesota have all had success promoting energy conservation through statewide policy initiatives. This process is called decoupling. Decoupling gives utility companies an incentive to promote energy conservation to its customers by breaking the link between energy sold and revenues. Traditionally, the more energy an energy utility can sell, the more money the company can make. Decoupling requires the energy utility to set its budget with a reasonable profit margin the year prior and then a preliminary rate is set so as to meet those operational and maintenance costs. After the energy utility surpasses a profit margin benchmark the rate charged for power begins to decrease, discouraging the energy utility from selling more energy because as the rate decreases, the smaller their profit margin becomes. Californiahashadparticularsuccesswithdecoupling, and for the last 30 years the main California energy utility, PG&E, has helped customers save over $20 billion - preventing 120 million tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. PG&E has kept California per capita energy use constant, while the majority of the country’s energy usage has risen by 50%. This is just one example of how local or state governments Image: Top eight local governments investing in “green” power
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 40 can work with local and regional utilities to help promote smart energy usage. GOAL 02 /// Efficient Energy Production & Pollution Reduction In many ways, Madison is just like any other energy customer; it is limited by what the market has to sell. Most cities are not in the business of producing their own energy, but there are still many things that cities have done to produce some or nearly all of their own energy. One example is Samso, Denmark, which is nearly energy self-sufficient, utilizing a mix of renewable energy sources, including biomass furnaces, offshore wind turbines, and selectively placed solar panels. Much of this has been achieved through local leadership, as the energy utilities involved are all municipally owned. In an American context, where most energy companies are privately owned, cities need to include energy companies in discussions about energy production. For much of America, coal-fired plants provide a large percentage of electrical energy needs. Critics of coal often cite this fuel as being excessively dirty rather than inefficient, but its low cost and abundance result in its widespread use. There are three coal-fired power plants on Madison’s isthmus: the MG&E power plant on Blount Street, UW- Madison’s Charter Street plant and the state-run Capitol Heating and Power facility. Together these plants are the major suppliers of Madison’s energy. Plans exist, however, to convert the charter street plant into a biomass energy plant fueled completely through wood chips. As the primary company that supplies household energy at the Madison area, MGE generates and distributes electricity to 136,000 customers in Dane County and purchases and distributes natural gas to 140,000 customers in seven south-central and western Wisconsin counties. Figure 2 demonstrates that coal-based electricity plays a predominant role in Madison’s electricity generation: making up to 46.7% of the city’s electricity sourcing. Renewable fuel only account for 2.7%. MGE has made some effort to increase its energy generation from clean energy sources. It increased its wind energy capacity from 11 to 87 MW in 2008. It owns two wind farms that have a combined capacity of 41 MW and it purchases 46 MW of wind capacity from two other mid-western wind farms. From 2002 to 2007, emission rates at MGE’s owned generation facilities decreased for nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates and mercury. MGE projects total carbon dioxide emissions to decline by 8% and the emission rate by 10% from 2005 to 2015, despite growing demand from electric customers. GOAL 03 /// Developing Renewable Energy Sources Biofuel - Biofuel offers several potential benefits including local and regional economic development opportunities, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and decreased dependence on volatile oil supplies. There are many different types and ways of making biofuel. Many types of energy today are considered forms of biofuel and Madison is in a unique position to take advantage of producing, selling, and utilizing many types. Fuel from corn, typically known as corn ethanol, is a form of biofuel. A similar product made from native prairie grasses, usually switchgrass, is also a potential fuel source. Since native prairie Image: 2008 Madison electricity generation
urpl 912 | 12.18.0941 grasses do not require high quantities of fertilizers and pesticides, native Wisconsin fauna could serve as a biofuel source with very low environmental impacts. Manure and other organic matter can be processed anaerobic digesters to capture methane, which can be used directly as a fuel or processed into natural gas or gasoline. Another option is biodiesel made from spent fryer oil, which can be turned into a form of diesel. Madison has already begun exploring biodiesel as an option for its city fleet vehicles, and has conducted a pilot project on the feasibility of anaerobic digesters. The City of Portland was the first city in the country with a local renewable fuel standard. Portland City Council voted on July 12, 2006 to approve a citywide renewable fuels standard, which became effective July 1, 2007. The standard requires a minimum 5% blend of biodiesel for all vehicle diesel fuel sold in the city limits. Gasoline is required to contain at least 10% ethanol. With this effort, the City is helping create demand for thousands of gallons of renewable transportation fuels, in order to spur market development of large-scale Oregon based biofuel production facilities to meet that demand. This growing renewable fuels market generates a need for oilseed crops like canola and mustard seed that can be grown by farmers. Portland continues to implement innovative, result-oriented strategies that meet goals for job growth, greenhouse gas emission reduction and local environmental health. TheCityofPortlandhasalsobeenapioneerintheuse ofbiodieselformunicipallyownedvehicles,including 373 trucks, 166 off-road vehicles (backhoes, graders, excavators, etc.), 62 towed units (compressors, generators, etc.) and many garbage haulers. All City- owned diesel vehicles and equipment that use the City’s fueling stations have been powered by a 20% biodiesel blend (20% biodiesel/80% petro-diesel, also known as B20) since 2004. During the summer of 2007, the City increased the fuel blend so that all equipment is currently running on B50 (50% biodiesel), and B20 during very cold winter days. Wind - There is only a small potential for wind energy production in Madison in comparison to other regions in the United States. Despite this, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80% over the last 20 years. As one moves east of Madison, closer to Lake Michigan, the energy that can be produced from wind technology increases dramatically. Current state-of- the-art wind power plants are generating electricity at less than 5 cents/kWh compared to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour in the early 1980’s, making investment in renewable wind energy a smarter safer idea. Solar - According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center over the past 50 years, there has been an average of 89 full sun days in Madison, and an average of 186 to 219 sunny to partly sunny days in Madison. Even though we do not have the solar potential that the sunny southwest states have, Madison still possess great potential for solar. Madison has already installed several solar panels and solar hot water heaters on public buildings. Madison has also initiated the MadiSUN program, which provides citizens with the opportunity to take advantage of a personalized renewable energy home analysis. One of the biggest challenges with active solar energy production is the high up-front capital costs. However, an electric utility in Washington State, the Chelan County Public Utility District (PUD), came up with a simple way to make solar energy cost-effective. It did this through a market driven Image: MGE projected CO2 emission rate in the Madison area
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 42 program called Sustainable Natural Alternative Power (SNAP) program. SNAP has helped to install a large number of solar power systems at the lowest possible cost by relying on free-market supply and demand principles to make solar-generated energy cost-effective, instead of heavily bureaucratic and often expensive give-away rebate programs. This performance-based approach uses market forces to determine the market price of solar power instead of utilizing prices set by the government or electric utilities. The rate for solar energy is determined by simply dividing the total annual dollars in the SNAP fund by the total number of solar kilowatt hours generated that year. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: SOLID WASTE Introduction The production of garbage that serves no future purpose is unsustainable and unnatural. Only processes and systems whose products and byproducts can be reused or recycled, are truly sustainable. Cities workings towards becoming carbon-neutral must also set the goal to reach zero- waste, such that nothing is sent to a landfill or burnt in an incinerator. In this section, we will explore what Madison and other cities around the world are currently doing to reduce garbage production and find ways to avoid wasting potentially reusable “waste.” GOAL 04 /// Reduce Waste through Comprehensive Recycling Programs The City of Madison states that it has a “very successful recycling program” - recycling and composting over 59% of the city’s waste stream. However, Madison residents still send over 49,000 tons of material to the Dane County Landfill every year. That is equivalent to 1,471 pounds of trash for each of Madison’s 67,000 households served by the Streets Division. The city states that, “this large pile of trash costs Madison taxpayers $1,380,000 in landfill fees and another $544,000 to haul to the landfill.” This begs the question as to whether recyclying this waste material would create a net cost savings. The city of Madison Streets Division wants to put Madison residents on a ‘trash diet’, with the goal getting all residents to reduce the amount of trash they generate by one pound each week. The ultimate goal is to reduce the volume of trash going to the landfill by 5,805 tons annualy, or a 12% overall reduction. The city provides a list of ‘simple’ steps to help residents reduce their garbage. The first steps include tracking and keeping a log of individual garbage generated - including weighing it on bathroom scales. To reduce food waste, the city suggests preparing less food at meal times, smarter grocery shopping, eating purchased fruits and veggetables, freezing leftovers, and home composting. Recyling is also important. According to a 2003 DNR study conducted in South Central Wisconsin: 16% of the residential waste disposed in the South Central region of Wisconsin could have been recycled. However, even if every Madison resident started sorting their refuse properly and placing every item that the city recycles on the curb to be picked up by the Streets Division, the city would still send a great deal of material to landfills that could have been recycled, however the city lacks the fascillites to do so. Photo: Germany public recycling receptacles
urpl 912 | 12.18.0943 Germany - Germany is at the forefront of recycling. In the 1990’s German citizens demanded that manufactures use less packaging in products and provide the means to return and reuse the necessary packaging. Unlike The United States and much of the rest of the world where disposal of packaging is a burden placed on the consumer, the citizens of Germany claimed manufactures should deal with thispackaging.Germanpoliticianstooknoticeofthis, and nowpackaging is nowregulated,with theoverall amount of packaging used in Germany reduced by 14%. Berkley, California has implemented a similar system and now regulates packaging in retail stores and restaurants. Berkley bans certain types of polystyrene foams and uses strong public education component so that businesses and residents alike understand and support these efforts. Germany has also implemented a four-bin recycling system that, at first glance, appears confusing, but forGermansthissystemhasprovenhighlysuccessful at reducing the amount of trash sent to landfills. San Francisco – As of 2007, San Francisco diverted 72% of its trash away from landfills. Due to the success of this waste management program, the city has set the goal through their Waste to Wealth program of zero net waste. Many other California cities, as well as Seattle, Austin, Boulder Colorado, and many cities in New Zealand have also set zero waste goals and have developed strategies to achieve these goals. Minneapolis, San Antonio, and hundreds of other cities and communities across America, have partnered with the non-profit group RecycleBank, which has small devices that attach to recycling pickup trucks and to the curbside carts and can then weigh and remember the amount of recycling for all the households that choose to participate in this voluntary program. Households, and even communities in some cases, receive points for the total amount of material they recycle, and can then use these points like cash at both national and local grocery stores, pharmacies, and retail stores. Recylemania is an example of recycling practice aimed to motivate competition. The event takes place on 510 college campuses across the U.S. and Canada. Different awards are given out in different categories, including most paper recycled per student. In Madison, neighborhoods come together as teams and compete to see if they can recycle more and waste less. GOAL 05 /// Reduce Waste through a Municipal Compost Program San Francisco, Los Angeles, Berkley and Seattle are just a few of the cities that are partly working to their zero waste goals through the development of a municipal composting program. San Francisco now has three separate curbside bins, blue for recyclables, green for food and yard waste, and black for garbage. They also reach out to the various communitiescompromisingSanFranciscobycreating informational flyers in five different languages; they promote the composting program by providing free small kitchen counter food scrap collection pails; and offer a 25% discount to restaurants and hotels to participate in the compost program. The result of the compost program is that 37,000 tons of organic matter is recycled into fertilizer that the city then turns around as a product in which they sell back to citizens. For all the cities that have set zero waste goals, they Photos: San Francisco Municipal Compost Bin and Odor Free Counter-top Pail
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 44 too have also implemented municipal compost programs. There are also several Canadian cities as well as European cities that also have municipal compost programs. Ultimately, home composting is amoresustainablesolutiontomunicipalcomposting because the organic matter does not have to be transported via a vehicle, but all these cities despite the promotion of home composting, found that not all citizens wanted to practice home composting and found it much more convenient for the city to take on this necessary public service. In addition to anaerobic digestion at landfills, water treatment facilities, and on farms (all of which Madison is currently engaged in) Boston has an odor-free urban digestion facility that produces compost and energy for 1500 homes with room for future expansion. Solid Waste Outreach and Communication Even for environmentally conscious citizen, navigating Madison’s city recycling guide, can be tedious and challenging. It is difficult to determine what can and cannot be recycled as specifications are unclear for several types of items. One of the biggest impacts that the city could make on improving recycling and home composting is through better public education and outreach and through the addition of a feedback system to solicit community input. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: WATER Introduction Clean Water is important not only for health but also for the economy of a city surrounded by lakes. Municipalities like Madison can take proactive approaches to reduce pollution at the source, limiting the need for expensive conveyance infrastructure. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population will grow by 50 million people, or approximately 18 percent, between 2000 and 2020. If our communities are to support this growth without negatively impacting the quality of the local water supply, they must plan for acquisition and disposal of water resources. The biggest problem associated with this municipal growth is continued development and increased impervious surface coverage. With less natural vegetation to slow and absorb runoff, water collects and moves across the landscape quickly. Increases in flooding, poor domestic water quality and habitat degradation are increasingly serious problems. Within the process of any development, there are many opportunities to reduce total stormwater runoff, ensure access to safe drinking water and improve groundwater quality. Planning at all scales (site, district/city and regional) is important to preserve the natural hydrologic system. Water policy is not only a site-specific issue: the city and its residents must work together to manage this valuable natural resources. The Center for Watershed Protection provides a simple but important framework to preserve water resources: • Protect Open Space and Critical Ecological Features • Encourage Development in already developed or degraded areas • Develop Land efficiently (minimize waste) Many modern developments are being built at increasingly low densities, with the belief that having more lawns and distance between homes will reduce runoff and make the developments more efficient. In one analysis of building permits Image: Groundwater Drawdown
urpl 912 | 12.18.0945 in 22 metropolitan areas between 1989 and 1998, approximately 95 percent of building permits were on green field sites. Studies have shown that the volume of runoff from highly compacted lawns is almost as high as from paved surfaces. Manhattan accommodates 1.54 million people on 14,720 acres (23 square miles) according to the Census, 2000. Were it not developed at its current density of 52 dwelling units per acre, but rather at one house per acre, Manhattan would need approximately 750,000 more acres, or an additional 1,170 square miles, to accommodate its current population. This is roughly equivalent in size to the State of Road Island. Although the site-specific density of many subdivisions is lower than corresponding urban development, the infrastructure needed to serve those homes, including roads, utilities and commercial and retail development is often ignored. As Figure 4 shows, increasing the housing density of a region or community can drastically reduce the amount of impervious cover and total runoff. The cost of the extra infrastructure to serve widely dispersed developments drives up costs. A recent study in the Journal of the American Planning Association used an engineering cost model to assess the influence of land use on the cost of water distribution and sewer services. The study estimated service costs at $143 for a household located on a 0.25 acre lot in a compact development near the service center. If the same household moved to a 1-acre lot in a similar location, its annual service cost would be $272, even if it did not increase its water use. If that household used the same amount of water on a 1-acre site in a dispersed development far from the service center, its water and sewer service would soar to $388 annually. GOAL 06 /// Reduce Potable Water use through Grey Water Recycling Access to clean drinking water is vital to the survival of any community. Like many other cities in the Midwest, Madison uses ground water to meet drinking water needs. Currently drawdown is making water harder to access. Drawdown is the measure of distance of the typical water table depth to the point where water is in a particular well (see Figure 5). On-site scale programs, like Madison’s rebate for low-flow toilet fixtures, can help reduce the need for more water. While Madison does not have a Combined Sewer System, reducing non-waste water from the system through disconnecting down-spouts, rain barrel and rain garden programs can help to reduce loads on the Waste Water Treatment Facilities and help to encourage recharge of ground water resources. Madisonians currently use around 70 gallons of water per day. Grey water or wastewater that is collected separately from a sewage flow and that does not contain industrial chemicals, hazardous wastes, or wastewater from toilets; makes up 50- 80% of potable water use. The implementation of grey water reuse systems can be important as a water conservation method. Grey water reuse system are plumbing systems for private or single- family residences that collects gray water. (Montana House Bill 259) Reused grey water is usually limited to flushing toilets and subsurface irrigation. While many states have begun to implement legislation legalizing this practice, only a few municipalitiesaretackingtheissue.Malibu,California is one. Their legislation deals specifically with the Image: Stormwater Runoff Volumes and Development Density
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 46 application of Grey water as a tool for landscape irrigation. As part of the city zoning code, there is a maximum volume of irrigation water that can be applied to a site, “any portion of the landscaped area which is irrigated by a city approved grey water system shall be considered exempt in the calculation of the maximum applied water allowance.” Grey water reuse must still be closely regulated for public safety. The State of Arizona provides a three tired system. For grey water applications under 400 gal./day no special permit is needed and work is covered under the Reclaimed Water General Permit. Systems that process over 400 gallons per day and don’t meet the list of requirements of commercial, multi-family, and institutional systems require a standard permit under the second tier. Systems using over 3,000 gallons per day fall under the third tier, and are given attention by regulators on a case-by-case basis. Reducing water use through plumbing fixtures is a staple of LEED and other green building practices. However, many low-income residents or renters are unable or unwilling to update fixtures. Toronto and Prescott Arizona are cities that have developed small water efficient upgrade kits offered to residents and businesses. The $10 kits offer faucet aerators, low flow shower heads, toilet flow reduction and leak test, and lawn watering instruction kits to help residents reduce potable water use. Once the homeowner installs the kit the $10 fee is refunded to their water bill. Offering similar kits could encourage landlords and low-income households to upgrade aging housing stock. GOAL 07 /// Promote Clean Surface Water through Urban Stormwater Management It is not rational or economical to attempt to capture every last drop of rainwater. It is more reasonable to slow runoff to predevelopment conditions and limit pollutant run-off. Stormwater pollution directly impacts the health of our lakes and water bodies. The following case studies show how this can be done on varying scales and models for future planning. Chicago: Green Alley Handbook – The handbook offers a discussion on replacement of typical alley infrastructure with porous pavements, infiltration and increases in vegetation. “With approximately 1,900 miles of public alleys, Chicago has one of the mostextensiveandimportantpiecesofinfrastructure of any city in the world. That’s approximately 3,500 acres of paved impermeable surface that provides an opportunity to better manage resources and improve the environment (City of Chicago). Lansing, Michigan: Green Capitol and Rain Garden Program. Lansing Michigan, as part of its Regional Watershed Plan, has developed several green infrastructure projects aimed at reducing pollution and quantity of stormwater. The first project, the Michigan Avenue rain gardens, one of 12 EPA Smart Growth Streets, captures runoff from 90% of storms. These policies and systems could be extended to parking areas, one of the largest contributors to runoff. Because of reduced traffic speeds and loading in parking area, they are perfectly adapted for infiltration and “greening” policies. In addition to treating runoff from the streets and sidewalks, the rain gardens are aesthetically appealing, provide educational opportunities for the public, and offer a pedestrian friendly environment. The implementation of these rain gardens has helped ease peak flows for nearly 90% of rainfall events, and decreased the amount of flow entering the storm sewer system. During the process of creating Photo: Lansing, MI “Green Street” infrastructure improvements
urpl 912 | 12.18.0947 these rain gardens, interviews from public meetings was played on television to help inform the pubic of their benefits. In an effort to reduce costs, the City of Lansing instituted an “Adopt-a-Garden” program, giving individual groups and businesses an opportunity to sponsor and assume maintenance responsibilities for one of the Michigan Avenue rain gardens. The city has also formed a partnership with a local science museum, which plans to develop a rain garden within the museum that will lead into a tour of Michigan Avenue. Minneapolis: Stormwater Utility Funds: In 2005, Minneapolis implemented a stormwater utility fee. Revenues from this fee are used for stormwater management programs. Implementation of this fee changed how each property was billed for stormwater services. The stormwater utility fee is similar to other fees the city charges its residents for services provided, such as a sanitary sewer fee and garbage disposal fee. Stormwater utility rates are based on an estimate of runoff generated and discharged to the City’s system from a particular property. Residents can receive a rebate of the stormwater fee by reducing impervious surfaces on their properties either through new construction or redevelopment. The fee is based on a standardized unit of imperviousness. New York City – 2030 PlaNYC : The 2030 PlaNYC plan calls for inclusion of a variety of source control systems to capture, slow and divert stormwater. Programs including Blue Roofs (detaining 1-2” water on roofs during storm events), sidewalk biofiltration, porous pavements, swales, green streets, cisterns, rain barrels and green roofs; help to reduce the amount of combined sewage overflow during storms. The New York plan uses sidewalk infrastructure as a best management practice. Many city plans call for streets to serve as best management practice models, however existing streets tend to have a lengthy useful life of around 40 years, making installation percentages slow to reach useful mitigation levels. Sidewalks however, are replaced or serviced on average every 13 years in New York City. NYC estimates by 2030 they will have replaced or serviced all of its sidewalks. When water storage under the sidewalk (bioinfiltration) included, NYC estimates it could divert 4 billion gallons of runoff per year. That represents 20% of its Combined Sewer Overflow baseline. Table 2 shows estimated costs for several stormwater BMPs. Seattle - Thornton Creek Water Quality Channel: Within the 620 acre of the Upper Branch of Thornton Creek in Seattle, an existing 8 acre parking lot was redeveloped into a $200 million public/ private mixed-use center. As part of the community approval process a bioretention and infiltration facility was included into the site design. The open- air 30ft x 200ft biofiltration channel replaces the existing underground pipes, built in the 1950s, and provides a park-like setting. The site is designed to slow stormwater, with an overflow into the storm sewer system, as a backup during large rain events. This serves both as a water treatment feature and provides space for recreation along the water: utilizingnaturalvegetation. Thefacility re-associates the space with the water, long hidden under the streets. Day lighting streams and providing natural drainage and infiltration more closely mimics natural systems and is less costly than more typical built infrastructure. As the city moves forward with sustainability planning, the general water management goals Image: NYC Stormwater Infrastructure Costs
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 48 set by the Center for Watershed Protection can be a useful guide to determine a path towards sustainable water infrastructure: • Reduce water use and maximize water reuse. • Non-point source pollution control: Reduces urban impervious surface and increase re- vegetation in urban areas • Use of point-source pollution control to eliminate contaminants, for example: providing hazardous-waste drop-off centers or pick-up services for businesses to minimize toxic chemicals intruding into the City’s sewer system. • Strategize and ensure adequate funding for the use of innovative technology and for repairing, replacing and upgrading infrastructure in an environmentally and biologically sound and timely manner. • Aquatic and Terrestrial Enhancement to provide connectivity, protect biodiversity and provide habitats for native fish and wildlife species. Preserves remaining natural areas and ensures sustainable development. CONCLUSION Extant energy and water resources are finite, whether they are fossil fuels, ground water or “renewable” fuels or products like biomass. There is a useful life to all products and policies. Part of acheving greater sustainability involved changing how we conduct our lives. We must be proactive and not merely wait for someone else to make necessary changes. We can learn from past practices and evolve our thinking to create truly sustainable infrastructure for our city. Integrating the practices and polices discussed in this section will help to preserve our water and energy resources. Image: Seattle Thornton Creek Water Management Channel Plan
urpl 912 | 12.18.0949 Policy Matrix
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 50 SOURCES Energy_Utilities_Natural Resources Bibliography 100% Green Power Purchasers. http://www.epa.gov/ grnpower/toplists/partner100.htm 6 October 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009 3 Easy Ways to Conserve Energy. http://www.enactwi. org/index.php?page=conserve-energy Accessed on 21 October 2009. American Wind Energy Association FAQ Cost. http:// www.awea.org/faq/cost.html Accessed 4 December 2009 Biofuels. http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index. cfm?c=42843 Accessed 4 December 2009 Biofuels/Biodiesel. http://www.biofuelsportland.com Accessed 4 December 2009 Building Energy Efficiency Programs in Europe and Australia. http://www.envirovaluation.org/index. php/2009/10/16/building-energy-efficiency-programs- in-europe-and-australia-offer-important-lessons-for- the-united-states. 21 September 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009. Charter Street plant will use biomass fuel, not coal. http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/437085 6 February 2009. accessed 4 December 2009 City of Malibu, Zoning Ordinance, Title 17.44.050 Elements of landscape documentation package Environmentally friendly upgrade planned for Charter Street plant. http://www.news.wisc.edu/16755 21 may 2009. Accessed on 4 December 2009 EPA – Green Infrastructure http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/ home.cfm?program_id=298 Accessed 4 December 2009 From Turbines and Straw, Danish Self-Sufficiency. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/world/ europe/30samso.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 29 September 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009. Michigan Stormwater. http://www.michigan.gov/ stormwatermgt/0,1607,7-205--198075--,00.html Accessed 4 December 2009. Our Environment. http://www.mge.com/environment/ Accessed 4 December 2009 Plan / water / introduction http://www.sustainable-city. org/Plan/Water/intro.htm Accessed 1 October 2009 PowerPlants.http://www.mge.com/about/powerplants/ Accessed 4 December 2009 Protecting Water Resources With Higher-Density Development. http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/protect_ water_higher_density.pdf Accessed 1 October 2009 Programmable Thermostats for Consumers. http:// www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=thermostats.pr_ thermostats. Accessed on 4 December 2009 Schueler, Tom. 1995. “The Peculiarities of Perviousness.” Watershed Protection Techniques. 2.1. Sustainable Energy Utility Oversight Board. http://www. seu-de.org/ Accessed on 20 October 2009. Sustainable City. http://www.sustainable-city.org/Plan/ Energy/strategy.htm. Accessed on 4 December 2009. Thornton Creek Water Quality Channel. http:// www.seattle.gov/UTIL/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_ System/Projects/COS_002477.asp Accessed on 4 December 2009 U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.energy.gov/ Accessed on 4 December 2009 White, Dr. James A .http://www.chelanpud.org/ documents/SNAP_ASES_Paper.pdf Accessed on 4 December 2009
urpl 912 | 12.18.0951 INTRODUCTION “Parks, public places, natural areas and recreational opportunities give life and beauty to our city. These essential assets connect people to place, self and others,” states Portland Parks & Recreation in their Parks 2020 Vision (2001). The provision of quality parks, open spaces, and recreational opportunities plays a major role in the livability of a city. This has significant implications for the sustainability of not only the parks and open spaces themselves, but also of the city and community of which they are apart. Oneofthefirsttasksofthisstudyistodefinewhatthe term “open space” means. Open space has different meanings depending on the context and what each communityormunicipalitydecidestocharacterizeas open space. Some municipalities use open space to mean strictly parks, and others include hardscapes, such as plazas and green streets. For the purpose of this precedent study we will use open space in a broad sense. Open space will include, but is not limited to, parks, plazas, stream valleys, natural areas, trails, conservation easements, riverfront areas, streetscapes, cemeteries, and so on. While open space is usually conceived as being public, we consider any large tract of outdoor space, whether private or public, as open space. Open space provides a myriad of benefits: economic, environmental, and social. The most obvious economic benefits are evident in the increasing property values (and therefore, property tax) associated with properties in close proximity to open space. The other benefit is open space can sometimes be less costly for cities in comparison to the cost of development, which requires the provision of services and infrastructure. If parks and open spaces are equally distributed and well- designed, they can supply a diversity of activity types to meet the needs of all peoples within the community. Open space also provides an environmental benefit through the offset of air and water pollution, regulation of erosion, runoff and flooding, and preservation of species. Ultimately, open space puts a community in a better position to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change and natural disaster. The importance of park and open space has been addressed in many of sustainability plans and park and open space plans of varying levels of government (city, county, state), as well as nationally and internationally. Keeping in mind the context of Madison, we focused mostly on municipalities, but did find a few relevant practices from university and international sustainability plans. The precedent locations are as follows: • Alexandria, VA • Bellevue, WA • Denver, CO • Edmonton, AB • Edmonston, MD • Eugene, OR • Hawaii • Lake Forest, IL • Miami, FL • Nashville, Davidson County, TN • New York, NY • Ozaukee County, WI • Pasadena, CA • Pittsburgh, PA • Portland, OR • San Francisco, CA • Seattle, WA • Sioux Falls, SD • South Australia • University of California- Santa Barbara Precedent Study: Parks, Open Space, & Urban Forestry
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 52 • Vancouver, BC • Virginia Beach, VA Using these plans as a resource, this study identifies goals, best practices, performance indicators, policies, and processes for parks, open spaces, and urban forestry. Most appear to be applicable and appropriate for Madison. This study identifies seven overarching goals and is organized by general park and open space themes. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: PARK & OPEN SPACE PROVISION, ACCESSIBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY GOAL 01 /// Accessibility and connectivity of parks and open spaces RATIONALE: Accessibility appears to be one of the most common goals prescribed in city sustainability and park and open space plans. Accessibility is typically achieved using park service area standards. Another strategy for improving both human and wildlife accessibility to parks, open spaces, and natural areas is through connecting these areas, especially to other regional park and recreation facilities, to form an extensive park and open space system. BEST PRACTICE A: Ensure that all residents are within a 10-minute walk of a park. This is one of the most common practices stated as major goals or objectives in the studied plans, including New York City’s PlaNYC, Portland’s Parks 2020 Vision, and the Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco. NYC’s three main approaches to this practice are to make existing play space and parkland available to more people, expand park hours, and re-imagine streets and sidewalks as public spaces (City of New York, 2007). Indicator: San Francisco’s sustainability plan uses “the percentage of population with a recreational facility and natural setting within a ten-minute walk” as one of its park and open space indicators (1997). This indicator addresses the presence of barriers that would not be accounted for if linear distance (i.e. ¼-mile) was used. However, this method adds to the complexity of measuring the indicator. BEST PRACTICE B: Expand usable park hours at existing sites. NYC is installing new lighting and providing more multi-purpose fields by converting asphalt sites into multi-use turf fields and maximizing time on existing turf fields by installing additional lights for nighttime use (City of New York, 2007). Indicator: Keeping a progress report of new lighting and multi-purpose fields may serve as an indicator of progress (City of New York, 2009). BEST PRACTICE C: Utilize non-traditional open space areas to create connectivity. Denver initiated a policy of exploring non-traditional green space to connect open space. They utilize gulches and utility corridors (i.e. water drainage ways) where appropriate, as examples of green connectors (City of Denver, 2000). With the addition of trails, these corridors can be multi-functional in providing stormwater management, recreational opportunities, and connectivity among open spaces. Indicator: As a measure of progress, the City of Edmonton, Alberta is comparing the connectivity of Photo: NYC is ensuring that all New Yorkers live within a 10-minute walk of a park
urpl 912 | 12.18.0953 green spaces and natural areas in new and existing neighborhoods (City of Edmonton, 2006). GOAL 02 /// Provide a wide variety of high quality recreation services and opportunities for all residents. RATIONALE: This goal, stated in Portland’s Parks 2020 Vision has implications for the number of users thatcanenjoyaparksystem.Peopleofdifferentages and abilities have different recreational needs. The following best practice is presented in the Hawai‘i and San Francisco sustainability plans: BEST PRACTICE A: Provide adequate public property and facilities for all recreational activities, including passive recreational opportunities. San Francisco has the long-term objective of promoting passive recreation activities including gardening, bird-watching, and wildlife appreciation (City of San Francisco, 1997). Indicator: The Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan uses the number and diversity of recreational facilities and activities per capita as an indicator (State of Hawai’i Sustainability Task Force, 2008). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: NON- TRADITIONAL OPEN SPACE GOAL 03 /// Create more open space by re-imagining streets, sidewalks, and other built open spaces as public places, and using non-traditional green space. BEST PRACTICE A: Utilize hardscapes as public spaces. NYC is creating public plazas and greening the cityscape to improve the pedestrian experience. Underutilized roadway and parking areas can be transformed into an attractive space where people can gather, such as outside a shop or café (City of New York, 2007). Process: Neighborhoods with the lowest ratio of open space to population will have highest priority for new projects. Community initiative and need is a part of the selection criteria (City of New York, 2007). Policy: Bellevue, WA has a public policy to encourage private developers to invest in pedestrian amenities that provide the public with interesting alternatives to the typical automobile-dominated urban streetscape. Examples include small plazas, fountains, seating areas, landscaping and artwork (City of Bellevue, 2003). Indicator: Percentage of new and existing development that includes hardscape public amenities (City of Bellevue, 2003). BEST PRACTICE B: Create more green streets. Transformingunusedroadwayswithnativevegetation and tree plantings has significant economic and environmental benefits. Green streetscapes have the potential to provide stormwater management, provide habitat, and increase economic activity by attracting more people to an area. Creating safe and attractive green streets makes places more livable and encourages bicyclists and pedestrians. Edmonston, Maryland, a town of 1,500, has begun a $1.1 million makeover of its main thoroughfare, Photo: NYC’s Willoughby Street transformed into a plaza
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 54 Decatur Street (Wheeler, 2009). When the work is done, Decatur Street will naturally treat more than 90 percent of the pollution from the 40 inches of rainwater that sweeps into the Anacostia River each year. The new street will consist of rain gardens, energy efficient streetlights powered by wind, porous pavement, and a drought-resistant tree canopy designed to shade the concrete. This will filter rainwater before it flows into the river, attract birds to keep insects under control, and put people to work. The street and sidewalk will also be accommodating to walkers, runners and bikers (Rein, 2009). The materials used for the street and sidewalks themselves will consist of recycled material, including milled asphalt, concrete and glass (Town of Edmonston, 2009). Stakeholder Involvement: Edmonston’s Mayor and Council enlisted a volunteer “Green Street Advisory Group” of residents, students, engineers, designers, and representatives from environmental and health organizations to generate ideas, review plans, and advise town officials on the project. The group meets monthly and has issued recommendations on horticulture, design, safety, green business development, alternative energy, among other topics (Town of Edmonston, 2009).   Decatur Street will also incorporate a “walking tour” of interpretative signs that describe the environmental features of the street to educate residents, students, and the public. Edmonston plans to make all of the engineering plans and design concepts available online (Town of Edmonston, 2009). Indicators: The Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco (1997) uses as an indicator the number of neighborhood green street corridors created annually to determine progress towards their goal of provision of streetscapes. BEST PRACTICE C: Turn publically held vacant land into open space. Alexandria, VA has a policy to establish a vacant land program to convert underutilized and vacant land into public open space, and transfer critical vacant land sites to its Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities (City of Alexandria, 2002). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: PARK OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND FUNDING GOAL 04 /// To maintain “parks, open spaces, recreation facilities and streetscapes through practical, economic, creative and collaborative means to achieve clean, safe, inviting and inspiring spaces for people and wildlife”(City of San Francisco, 1997) BEST PRACTICE A: Action-oriented maintenance Image: Edmonston, MD is replacing its main street with a “green street”
urpl 912 | 12.18.0955 and management plans are completed for every open space area. Stakeholder Involvement: San Francisco’s plans are based on community input and are flexible to reflect changing community needs and interests. Neighborhood support groups are involved in condition assessments (City of San Francisco, 1997). BEST PRACTICE B: Achieve Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary certification for all golf courses. Audubon International awards certification to recognize golf courses that protect the environment, conserve natural resources, and provide wildlife habitats. Based on a site specific report provided by Audubon International, a plan is developed for a golf course, addressing environmental planning, wildlife and habitat management, chemical use reduction and safety, water conservation, water quality management, and outreach and education. By implementing and documenting environmental management practices in those areas, a golf course is eligible for designation as a Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary, improving its stature and reputation. The annual registration fee for the program is $200, which includes certification materials and review. Recertification is required every two years to ensure that a course continues to uphold certification standards (Audubon International, 2009). Stakeholder Involvement: The Ozaukee County Country Club formed an advisory committee as a part of achieving certification as an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary. It consists of club members and golf staff, who contribute ideas on health, safety, and environmental stewardship (Bailey, 1994). BEST PRACTICE C: Appropriate landscaping is maintained for all public facilities including parks, schools, housing developments and public buildings. Allofthestudieduniversityplans,including Carleton, Stanford and UC-Santa Barbara, practice appropriate landscaping. Appropriate landscaping implies the use of native plants with low-maintenance and low-water use. Through this practice, mechanized maintenance procedures can be reduced (UCSB, 2008). Indicator: Ratio of mowed areas to un-mowed areas and/or the ratio of native plantings to non-native plantings. BEST PRACTICE D: “To promote and strengthen community participation in the planning, creation, management and stewardship of parks, open spaces, recreational facilities and streetscapes” (City of San Francisco, 1997) Community partnerships and a strong volunteer network serve as a non-monetary funding source for maintaining a city’s park and open space system. Portland Parks & Recreation funding strategy is to utilize volunteers, funding partnerships, interagency cooperation, entrepreneurial projects, and to identify and initiate operating efficiencies and cost- avoidance strategies (2001). Leveraging the business community as staff and volunteers is another way to promote community participation. In Seattle, the business community is a major participant in providing staff and volunteers to assist with park and recreation programs. In a 2002 survey, three out of four small businesses in Seattle reported that they participate in community service activities (City of Seattle, 2003). Photo: UC-Santa Barbara promotes the use of low-maintenance na- tive landscaping
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 56 Policy: San Francisco has proposed using a business- tax reduction incentive for companies that donate at least 20 hours per year of volunteer time per full- time employee to work in public park and recreation facilities or provide design and professional services to neighborhood park councils (City of San Francisco, 1997). Indicator: The Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco uses the indicator of number of volunteer hours spent annually on maintenance of open space (1997). Stakeholder Involvement: Neighborhood park groupscanplayaleadingpartnershiprolewithpublic agencies in stewardship, planning, programming and creating open spaces, parks, recreational facilities, and streetscapes in San Francisco (City of San Francisco, 1997). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: PRIVATE OPEN SPACE GOAL 05 /// Preserve and maintain private and institutional open space. RATIONALE: Much of the open space in most municipalities is held by private persons or institutions. A successful sustainability plan should look at the role of private open space within a city and address ways to expand and preserve private open space. BEST PRACTICE A: Explore regulatory protection of private open space. Alexandria, VA is exploring the use of an Open Space Overlay Protection Zone which would require the preservation of significant areas and the review of future development proposals on privately held land (City of Alexandria, 2002). Indicator: Amount of privately held open space currently under conservation. Seattle has a goal of providing 1 acre of “breathing room” open space for every 100 citizens. Breathing room open space includes open spaces that are permanently set aside as open; whether or not they are accessible for public use (City of Seattle, 2003). BEST PRACTICE B: Incentivize protection of environmentalfeatureswithinprivatedevelopment. Policy: Sioux Falls, SD has a policy goal in their open space plan to provide development incentives for private development projects to preserve environmental resources, including drainage ways and swales, mature trees, wetlands, and prairies and grassland areas (City of Sioux Falls, 2009). BEST PRACTICE C: Inform the public of voluntary land conservation options. The City of Alexandria has developed a voluntary land conservation options brochure. This brochure lays out the potential options for people interested in donating their land, selling an easement, giving the city a right of first refusal to match an offer if the owner wants to sell, or selling their land at a loss (City of Alexandria, 2002). Indicator: Totalvoluntarylandplacedinconservation per population. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: NATURAL Photo: Heritage tree preserved in Fitchburg’s Swan Creek Neighborhood
urpl 912 | 12.18.0957 RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEM HEALTH GOAL06 /// Maintaintheecosystemhealth of natural resources within open space. RATIONALE: Maintaining the unique natural resources of an area is a key goal in sustainability and open space plans that were used in this precedent study. The goal is to maintain and protect these important ecosystems for the future because of their economic, environmental, and social benefits. Madison is already working to preserve wetlands throughout the city. BEST PRACTICE B: Protect, expand and restore interconnected ecosystems, ecologically important natural areas, and wildlife corridors. The City of Denver (2000) has a goal of formally designating 100 acres of their park system as formally protected natural areas. By 2010, the Government of South Australia (2007) hopes to establish five “biodiversity corridors aimed at maximizing ecological outcomes particularly in the face of climate change.”  Indicators: San Francisco is using abundance and species diversity of birds and number of indigenous native plant species planted in developed parks, private landscapes and natural areas as a measure of ecosystem health. The city is also using the number of square feet of invasive species removed from natural areas as an indicator (City of San Francisco, 1997).   A few cities use the percent or number of acres of open space that are protected or conserves natural features as a metric to determine the effectiveness of open space preservation. For example, Portland wants to increase the amount of protected habitat land by 620 acres (Portland Parks & Recreation, 2001), while Hawaii is taking another approach and measuring the percentage of lands and water protected for native plants and animals (State of Hawai’i Sustainability Task Force, 2008). Process: Nashville’ sustainability actions include strengthening partnerships with other government agencies, local universities and environmental non- profit groups to develop a comprehensive survey of plants, animals, and habitats, as well as partnerships with land trusts and other private organizations to secure conservation easements or cooperative management agreements (Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 2002). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: URBAN FORESTRY GOAL 07 /// Expand and maintain the urban forest. RATIONALE: Urban forestry best practices have significant economic implications for a community. “Publicly owned trees - and, collectively our urban forest, help conserve and reduce energy use, reduce local carbon dioxide levels, improve air quality, mitigate storm water runoff, and provide other benefits associated with aesthetics, property value increase and quality of life. Trees contribute to the vitality of a city like any other component of community infrastructure.  Like streets, sidewalks, public buildings, and recreational facilities, trees are a major capital asset,” states Friends of the Pittsburgh Urban Forest (2009). Image: Protect and restore natural areas and wildlife corridors
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 58 BEST PRACTICE A: Expand the urban forest on city streets from 60% to 80% and within parks from 80% to 90%. While Portland has this vision, Denver and New York both have a plan to plant 1,000,000 trees by 2030. Indicator: The indicator depends on whether the municipality knowsitscurrenttreecanopy. Ifitdoes, then the municipality usually strives to increase its percentage of canopy coverage. If it does not, the goal may be a certain number of new trees planted within a set timeframe. Stakeholder Involvement: Encourage public and private schools to participate in tree planting and maintenance programs. BEST PRACTICE B: Enact a tree preservation ordinance. Many cities have begun to implement tree preservation ordinances in order to help protect existing trees within a city, helping the environment and maintaining the urban forest canopy. These ordinances help a city lay out which trees it want to protect and the protection measures that will be taken. It is important that the community has defined goals and objectives in developing a tree preservation ordinance. According to theMinnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee (1995), some common goals of tree preservation ordinances are to: • Reduce tree loss during development; • Reduce damage to standing trees during construction; • Provide for replacement of trees lost during construction; • Provide for planting trees where none occurred previously; • Provide for the maintenance of preserved trees after construction is completed). The goals of a tree preservation ordinance should be tailored to each community and should be clearly laid out. This precedent study examines two tree preservation ordinances: Lake Forest, Illinois and Pasadena, California. Policy: In 2001, Lake Forest, IL reviewed and updated its tree preservation ordinance to focus on tree preservation in conjunction with development and redevelopment. The city also created and defined protected areas as conservation areas, no- disturbance areas, and tree preservation areas. To accomplish this, Lake Forest requires developers to provide tree surveys, and street tree plans for any proposed development. The goal is to ensure that development has proper tree coverage and to encourage woodland areas within the city (Lake Forest, 2006). Key Facts • Lake Forest requires inch for inch replacement. If protected trees have to be removed the city requires the new tree(s) to match the DBH of the removed tree(s). • The Director of Community Development has the authority to stop work on construction or withhold occupancy permits until the ordinance is met. Fines for violation can range up to $750 per violation. • Requires landscape plans and street tree plans. Landscape plans require two 3” shade trees for each 100 linear feet of foundation for residential and 50% of open space on non- residential development must be landscaped with one tree per 500sq. ft. of landscaped Photo: NYC has a goal to plant one million more trees by 2030
urpl 912 | 12.18.0959 area. Policy: In 2002, Pasadena passed an ordinance significantly amending their tree protection ordinance. This amendment protected four main categories of trees: public trees, historic trees, specimen trees, and native trees; as long as they meet varying size requirements. There are 63 specimen tree types and 13 native tree types that are protected under the ordinance and where that protection is applicable (City of Pasadena, 2009). Key Facts • Pasadena’s ordinance applies to private residential property. If the protected tree is in the front, corner, or meets criteria in the backyard then it is protected. • Ifconstructionoccursaroundprotectedtrees, fencing around the drip line of the trees is required during construction. Pasadena also requires the use of hand tools to minimize damage to the roots if construction has to occur within the drip line of the tree. • Pasadena can require construction bonds in the value of protected trees within the construction zone prior to beginning construction. Fines for violation of the ordinance range from $250 to a maximum of $1000. Policy: San Francisco has enacted a heritage tree ordinance that preserves old trees and allows people to self-nominate trees on private property (City of San Francisco, 1997). BEST PRACTICE C: Establish a street tree inventory and complete a cost-benefit analysis. Pittsburgh’s street tree inventory data establishes a basis for a complete cost-benefit analysis of its street tree program, using software developed by the USDA-Forest Service called STRATUM (Street Tree Resource Analysis Tool for Urban Forest Managers). According to the USDA-Forest Service (2009), STRATUM is a tool “to quantify the dollar value of annual environmental and aesthetic benefits: energy conservation, air quality improvement, CO2 reduction, stormwater control, and property value increase.” Indicator: The STRATUM analysis provides a dollar value indication of the environmental work provided by each tree.  Pittsburgh’s street trees provide cumulative benefits valued at an average of $81 per tree annually, for a gross total value of $2.4 million (Friends of the Pittsburgh Urban Forest, 2009). The utilization of STRATUM to provide an analysis of Madison’s tree inventory is very practical and can serve as a great indicator of performance for a number of sustainable practices. Madison has already created a tree inventory. BEST PRACTICE D: Annual inspection and pruning of public trees (street and parks). San Francisco’s objective is to inspect all 21,000 of its public street trees and prune and service 7,000 street trees annually (City of San Francisco, 1997). BEST PRACTICE E: Forest management and vegetation replacement plans are complete and implemented for all parks, open spaces and streetscapes. Stakeholder Involvement: San Francisco promotes volunteer habitat restoration work parties in public open spaces (City of San Francisco, 1997). Eugene’s Forest Management Plan process began by identifying interested parties who formed an Image: Pittsburgh uses STRATUM software to measure the benefits of its street trees
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 60 interested party list. The city staff later made presentations to targeted community groups, homebuilders, and neighborhood groups to discuss the plan’s development (City of Eugene, 1992). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: FUNDING STRATEGIES Sufficient funding is critical to the development and maintenance of parks, open spaces, and other green infrastructure. According to Lewis (2008), research by the Center for City Park Excellence (CCPE) shows that a park department needs an annual total budget of at least $85-95 per resident to have the funding base needed to run its system and create new parks. For municipalities to keep up existing open space and acquire more, a constant search for funding is required to maintain maintenance and programs that help make any city livable and sustainable. The practices below are innovative ways to keep maintenance costs down and increase revenues for open space. San Francisco implemented some novel strategies for reducing maintenance and programs costs, inclduing: • Requiring that a movie fee be paid to the Recreation and Park Department Fund from any movies shooting scenes of or in city parks, squares, and maintained open spaces • Initiating a joint City/community-based fundraising and maintenance pilot for neighborhood parks • Allocating 1% of hotel tax for parks, open spaces, and street trees • Creating a sports-star sponsorship campaign to encourage area sports figures and sports franchises to fund related recreation activities such as tennis, baseball, softball, soccer, and basketball. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: OTHER STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PRACTICES Stakeholder involvement varies among the plans reviewed for this precedent study. Stakeholders for PlaNYC open space initiaves are involved through community meetings, listening sessions, surveys for new parks, request-based tree planting, and design days for playgrounds. One of Nashville’s objectives for generating public support for its park and greenways system is “to develop a clear marketing plan and outreach materials to raise awareness of Metro Parks and Greenways facility and program offerings.” They suggest actions like developing program guides or catalogs of programs that can be targeted to appropriate audiences (Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 2002). The Government of South Australia offers a variety of ways for staying informed and involved with its sustainability plan, using its Community Engagement Board to promote involvement. People can be a “Friend of the Plan,” receive a regular newsletter, or share information about sustainable projects (Government of South Australia, 2007). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: MEASURABLE BENEFITS The precedent study demonstrates important benefits that open space can provide, while reaching a balance between the three E’s of sustainability: economics, environment, and social equality. Economics: Sustainable open space and parks not Photo: Olbrich Botanical Gardens in Madison
urpl 912 | 12.18.0961 only enhance livability, but they increase the value of the land. Trees within cities provide their own economic benefit. • A 2003 study of almost 7,000 single family homes inLeonCounty,Floridashowedthathomeswithin 200 feet of a park experienced an estimated $6,015 increase in value. Homes between 200 and 1,320 feet of the park increased in value by an average of $1,773 (Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department, 2007). • A 25-foot tree reduces annual heating and cooling costs of a typical residence by 8 to 12 percent, producing an average $10 savings per American household per month (Nowak, 2007). • Within two years of the reopening of Manhattan’s Bryant Park, neighboring Sixth Avenue saw a 60 percent increase in office space leasing activity over the prior year. Between 1990 and 2000, rents for commercial office space near the park increased between 115 and 225 percent, compared with increases of between 41 percent and 73 percent in the surrounding submarkets, according to a study conducted by Ernst & Young (Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department, 2007). • OvertheyearsNewYorkhasinvestedmillions of dollars in its urban forest program. Trees provide an estimated $5.60 in benefits for every dollar spent on tree planting and care (NYC Million Trees, 2009). Social Equity: Open spaces and parks are a tool that can be used to revitalize neighborhoods and provide social connections for a community. • Access to open space is seen as a major equity issue. • Tree-lined streets encourage people to walk in their communities. • Parks and open space can offer a sense of place and improve the quality of life. • New York’s plaza initiative program prioritizes funding to neighborhoods with the lowest open space to population ratio (City of New York, 2007). • Open space offers recreational opportunities for at-risk youth, low-income children and families. Open space also provides places in low-income neighborhoods where people can feel a sense of community (University of Washington- Department of Landscape Architecture, 2006). Access to public parks and recreational facilities has been strongly linked to reductions in crime, particularly reduced juvenile delinquency (Reid, 1994). Environment: One of the main purposes of open space is to allow people, especially in urban settings, to experience the natural environment, while preserving critical natural features. • A typical urban forest of 10,000 trees will retain 10 million gallons of rainwater per year (Million Tree NYC 2009). • A study of New York’s urban forest estimated that the trees remove 42,300 tons of carbon and 2,202 tons of air pollution estimated at $779,000 and $10.6 million per year (Nowak, 2007). • There is growing evidence that trees help reduce air pollutants that can trigger asthma and other respiratory illnesses. (Denver Game Plan 200). • Open space helps combat cities “heat island” effect and cool summer air temperatures. • Open space helps provide habitat for wildlife Photo: Bike path on John Nolen Drive
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 62 (City of New York, 2007). CONCLUSION Open spaces are important to communities for a wide variety of reasons and are a critical part of making a city more sustainable. Municipalities want to find cost effective ways to increase the amount of green space within their city. No matter the size, most municipalities approach open space in roughly the same ways: focusing on ways to connect, create, and fund more open space. There are many notable practices, indicators, and policies that can be tools to manage, improve and increase the amount of open space and recreational opportunities within the City of Madison. Photo: A certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary golf course
urpl 912 | 12.18.0963 Policy Matrix
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 64 SOURCES Audubon International. 2009. Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses Certification Overview. Retrieved November 10, 2009 from http://www.auduboninternational.org/PDFs/ Golf%20Certification%20Overview.pdf. Bailey, Phil. 1994. Ozaukee Country Club’s Audubon Stepping Stone to a Better Environment. USGA Green Section Record. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1990s/1994/940912.pdf. CityofAlexandria.2002. AlexandriaOpenSpacePlan. Retrieved Sept 19, 2009 from http://alexandriava.gov/ uploadedfiles/recreation/info/OpenSpacePlan.pdf City of Alexandria. 2009. Eco-City Alexandria: Environmental Action Plan. Retrieved Sept 18, 2009 from http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/tes/eco- city/EAP_FINAL_06_18_09.pdf City of Bellevue. 2003. Bellevue’s Parks and Open Space Plan. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.cityofbellevue.org/park_plan.htm City of Denver. Greenprint Denver, building a sustainable city. Retrieved Sept. 18, 2009 from http://www.greenprintdenver.org/water-environment/ City of Denver. 2000. Game Plan. Retrieved Sept. 17, 2009 from http://www.denvergov.org/ parksandrecreation/Home/GamePlan/tabid/432591/ Default.aspx City of Edmonton. 2006. Environmental Strategic Plan. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http:// www.iclei.org/index.php?id=8572. City of Eugene. 1992. Urban Forest Management Plan. Retrieved Sept 17, 2009 from http:// www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/ PTARGS_0_2_144746_0_0_18/ForestPlan.pdf. City of Eugene. 2006. Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Project and Priority Plan. Retrieved Sept. 18 2009 From http://www.eugene-or.gov/portal/ server.pt?open=512&objID=217&PageID=1360&cached =true&mode=2&userID=2 City of New York. 2007. PlaNYC. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from http://www.nyc.gov/ html/planyc2030/html/downloads/the-plan.shtml. City of New York. 2009. PlaNYC Progress Report 2009. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from http:// www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/downloads/ the-plan.shtml. City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. 2009. Status Report: Portland Plan Indicators. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index. cfm?a=246919&c=46822. City of Portland. 2007. Green Streets Cross-Bureau Team Report. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image. cfm?id=153974. City of San Francisco. 1997. Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.sustainable-city.org/. City of Seattle. 2003. Monitoring Our Progress: Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/ groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/Web_ Informational/dpd_001102.pdf. Photo: Green space on Madison’s isthmus
urpl 912 | 12.18.0965 Photo: Children working in a community garden City of Seattle. 2005. Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan Toward a Sustainable Seattle. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.seattle.gov/ dpd/Planning/Seattle%5Fs%5FComprehensive%5FPlan/ ComprehensivePlan/ City of Sioux Falls. 2009. Open Space. Retrieved September 30, 2009 from http://www.siouxfalls. org/~/media/documents/planning/2009/shape_sf/ jan_09_policies/OPEN%20SPACE.ashx. City of Vancouver. 2009. Greenest City: Quick Start Recommendations. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http://vancouver.ca/greenestcity/PDF/ greenestcity-quickstart.pdf. Friends of the Pittsburgh Urban Forest. 2009. STRATUM: Street Tree Resource Analysis Tool for Urban Forest Managers. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www. pittsburghforest.org/STRATUM. Government of South Australia. 2007. South Australia’s Strategic Plan 2007. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http://saplan.org.au/images/pdf/South_ Australia_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf. Lewis, Megan. 2008. From Recreation to Re- Creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space System Planning. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 551. Chicago: American Planning Association. MetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidson County. 2002. Metropolitan Parks & Greenways and Master Plan. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www.nashville.gov/parks/master_plan.asp. Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department. 2007. The Miami-Dade County Parks and Open Space System Master Plan. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.miamidade. gov/greatparksummit/library/OSMP_FINAL_REPORT_ entiredocument.pdf. Million Trees NYC. 2009. Benefits of NYC’s Urban Forest. Retrieved Sept 21 from http://www. milliontreesnyc.org/html/urban_forest/urban_forest_ benefits.shtml. Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee. 1995. A Guide to Developing a Community Tree Preservation Ordinance. State of Minnesota, Department of NaturalResources.RetrievedDecember1,2009from http://www.mnstac.org/RFC/preservationordguide. htm. Nowak, David. 2007. Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values: New York City’s Urban Forest. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved Sept 20, 2009 from http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/downloads/ pdf/ufore_study.pdf. Portland Parks & Recreation. 2001. Parks 2020 Vision. Retrieved September 23, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index. cfm?c=40182&a=89435. Reid, Ian. 1994. Canadian Youth: Does Activity Reduce Risk? Canadian Parks and Recreation Association. Retrieved on Dec. 1, 2009 from http:// lin.ca/resource-details/1323. State of Hawai’i Sustainability Task Force. 2008. Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.hawaii2050. org/images/uploads/Hawaii2050_Plan_FINAL.pdf. Town of Edmonston. 2009. The Green Street Project.
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 66 Retrieved October 30, 2009 from http://www. edmonston.us.com/GoingGreen.html. University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). 2008. Campus Sustainability Plan. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://sustainability.ucsb.edu/plan/ docs/sustainability_plan_workingdoc4.08.pdf. University of Washington-Department of Landscape Architecture. 2006. Open Space Seattle 2100. Retrieved September 30, 2009 from http://www. open2100.org/. USDA Forest Service. 2009. What is STRATUM? Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www. fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/stratum.shtml. Wheeler, Timothy. 2009. Remaking Main Street. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved December 2, 2009 from http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bal- md.gr.street25nov25,0,2052577.story. Wolf, Kathy. 1998. Urban Forest Values: Economic Benefits of Trees in Cities. Fact Sheet 3. University of Washington- Center for Urban Horticulture. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from http://www. naturewithin.info/Policy/EconBens-FS3.pdf.
urpl 912 | 12.18.0967 INTRODUCTION The industrial food system has wrought widespread environmental degradation and resulted in epidemic rates of diet-related diseases. These diseases are disproportionately borne by low- income communities and communities of color. As a result, while food policy has traditionally been established by industry and decision-makers at the federal level, transformation of the agrifood system is increasingly recognized as integral to the long- term success of sustainability initiatives at all levels of policy and planning. Because of its direct impact on public health and the environment, as well as its potential to contribute to community-based, long- term economic development, food is an issue that must be addressed within Madison’s sustainability framework. Since the food system encompasses a continuum of activities, including production, processing, distribution, consumption, and disposal, this report will address a spectrum of food system topics. Based on best practices identified in municipal food policy documents and programming, sustainability plans, and the work of allied food systems practitioners, this section is organized into four subsections, each of which addresses an important component of a healthy and sustainable local food system: • Food Security and Nutrition • Urban and Regional Agriculture • Food Processing and Distribution Infrastructure • Local Economic Development The intent of this section of the report is to use the above categories as a framework to highlight the policy and planning trends and innovations that are guiding sustainable food system design and development at the municipal level throughout the United States. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: FOOD NUTRITION AND SECURITY GOAL 01 /// To eliminate hunger and diet-related diseases, increase fruit and vegetable consumption, and improve geographic and economic accessibility of culturally appropriate, healthy food. 1.1 Food Waste Reduction and Hunger Relief The Federal Food Donation Act, passed in May of 2008 encourages executive agencies and their contractors, in contracts for the provision, service, or sale of food, to the greatest extent safe and feasible, to donate excess food to nonprofit food security organizations. This legislation has two crucial characteristics that help make food donation low risk and convenient for the donor agency: 1) the act includes a provision indicating that donor agencies are not responsible “for costs and logistics of collecting, transporting, maintaining the safety of, or distributing excess” to those in need; 2) the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act of 2006 ensures that donor agencies that take appropriate measures to prevent spoilage and contamination will not be held liable for food borne illnesses resulting from their donations. (Source: GovTrack. us) Nonprofit partners are presently tracking the food quantities donated through the federal system to assess the impact of the Act. Due to its recent implementation, numbers have yet to be reported. The EPA has emerged as a federal champion of food Precedent Study: Food Systems
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 68 waste reduction. It cites the numerous benefits associated with diverting organics from the waste stream. This diversion serves to: • Reduce trash collection and disposal fees; • Provide food to the needy; • Recover the nutrient value of food as compost or animal feed; • Help communities meet local and state waste reduction goals; • Sustain local industries and jobs; and • Create an improved public image of an agency or business. (Source: EPA) The EPA has developed a number of resources for public and private entities interested in launching food donation and waste reduction programs. For example, the EPA’s Food Waste Management Cost Calculator is a free online tool that enables agencies and businesses to estimate the cost competiveness of alternatives to food waste disposal, including source reduction, donation, composting, and recycling. (Source: EPA) 1.2 Reduced Availability of Unhealthy Foods InJuly2008,theLosAngelesCityCouncilunanimously approved a moratorium on new fast food outlets in South Los Angeles. The moratorium was proposed in response to the publication of statistics indicating that 30% of the South Los Angeles’ population is obese, as compared to 20% at the county level. Approximately 50% of the 900 restaurants located in South Los Angeles, a predominantly low-income neighborhood, are fast food establishments with limited seating. The moratorium is the first fast food ordinance in the nation that was introduced explicitly on the basis of health, rather than aesthetic concerns or small business protection. The moratorium aimed to increase the demand for fresh food, attract full-service grocery retail establishments, and help prevent juvenile onset of diet-related diseases such as Type Two Diabetes. (Source: Sturm) New research released in November 2009 found that neighborhoods with higher mean incomes adjacent to South Los Angeles actually had higher concentrations of fast food restaurants in spite of having lower mean body mass indices. In fact, after comparing the physical activity, daily consumption of fruits and vegetables, and frequency of meals eaten outside the home, there were virtually no differences between the high-income and lower- income communities. The critical difference seemed to be calories intake from discretionary snacking. The study concluded that while “regulating the food environment may be a promising direction for preventing obesity . . . based on our findings, the one-year ordinance restricting fast-food outlets is not the right application.” (Source: Sturm) The study identified several proposed and emerging regulatory policies that show promise: • Taxes that reduce the profitability of junk foods for retailers – San Francisco, CA; State of New York • Mandatory menu/calorie labeling – State of California; New York City, NY • Portion Controls • Counter-advertising/reduced exposure to junk food cues 1.3 Healthy Food in Public Schools Some of these strategies are already being implemented in public school districts. The Vista Unified School District in southern California passed a policy prohibiting the sale of junk food and high Image: Food insecurity rates among households with selected characteristics in Wisconsin 1996-2000.
urpl 912 | 12.18.0969 trans fat food-stuffs in vending machines on their campuses. High-risk foods and drinks have been replaced with healthier options, such as fresh fruits, vegetables, and drinking water. “Research has shown that the availability of less healthy food in schools is inversely associated with fruit and vegetable consumption and is positively associated with fat intake among students.” (Source: Kubik) St. Paul, Minnesota instituted the “Five a Day Power Plus Program” which requires that schools offer additional fruit options on days that baked goods are available for purchase. Further, fresh fruit is advertised by point of sale merchandising. The program has proven successful; with fruit sales outpacing baked goods sales in lunch lines. (Source: CDC) 1.4 SNAP Accessible Farmers Markets Many states are converting from paper food stamps (now SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and WIC, Women Infants and Children) to more discrete and convenient EBT cards. Farmers’ markets were initially concerned that they would be unable to serve customers on SNAP and WIC due to the absence of phone lines and electricity at many market sites. Strategies have since emerged to address this challenge. Point of Sale (POS) locations at many farmers’ markets now offer tokens that can then be exchanged for product at individual market stands. At closing, vendors exchange the tokens for cash. Unused tokens may be used at a later time or transferred back to the EBT card. USDA authorization for EBT administration and the associated employee trainings can be time and labor intensive, but the enhanced food access achieved by EBT farmers’ market EBT programs has proven beneficial for both farmers and customers. (Source: Ecology Center) 1.5 Grocery Store Attraction for Underserved Areas In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative (FFFI), a public- private partnership established in 2004, has proven successful in improving access to healthy food by providing one-time loans and grants to attract supermarkets and other fresh food retailers to underserved urban and rural areas.   In just five years, the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative (FFFI) has helped achieve the following: • 68 new or improved fresh food retail establishments in underserved communities; • 400,000 residents with improved access to healthy food; • 3,700 jobs created or retained; • $540,000 increase in local tax revenue from a single store in Pennsylvania;  • $165 million in private investment leveraged from $30 million in state seed money. (Source: Policy Link) Policy Link, a national research and action institute for the advancement of economic and social equity, has partnered with FFFI to compile resources on Grocery Store attraction strategies and healthy food retailing for local governments (Source: Policy Link). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: URBAN AND REGIONAL AGRICULTURE GOAL 02 /// To foster food production, reduce household food expenses, and increase community engagement. 2.1 Community Gardens “As of end of FY 2008, 753 Farmers’ markets were authorized to accept SNAP benefits nationwide, a 34 percent increase from FY 2007. While the percentage of redemptions is very little, the amount of funds going to small farmers has increased from above $1 million in 2007 to $2.7 million in 2008.” --USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 70 Sustainable, small-scale food production methods tend to rely more heavily on labor than fossil fuels andvirtuallyeliminatepackaging-reducingthefossil footprint of the food system. Home food production can significantly reduce household food expenses, particularly during the growing season. To see the typical distribution of energy consumption within the food system, see diagram 1. In spring 2009, Springfield, Illinois established a community garden in the center of the racetrack on the State fairgrounds. The project was initiated by Illinois Department of Agriculture in partnership with University of Illinois Cooperative Extension and its Master Gardeners Program in response to inquiries from local residents. The 12 x 12 foot garden plots cost $10.00 each, all of the plot fees are reinvested in the garden, and gardeners are eligible to lease up to two plots seasonally. (State of Illinois) This project highlights a trend popularized by Michelle Obama’s white house “victory” garden, in which public agencies are increasingly reevaluating under-utilized public and private properties within their foodsheds (including right of ways, easements, and parks) to promote urban food production. Other examples of municipal food pantry and demonstration gardens include: • City Hall, San Francisco, CA • City Hall, Portland, OR 2.2 Building Urban Food Production Capacity through Public-Nonprofit Partnerships The City of Portland, Oregon partners with six public and nonprofit gardening organizations that offer a range of free to low-cost classes and seminars on everything from chemical-free gardening to canning, and provides online instruction for composting. Links to these resources are readily available on the City’s sustainability website, along with listings of what products are in season, how to register for a community garden plot, and where one can source local product or donate surplus food. (Source: City of Portland) Similarly, the P-Patch Program, an acclaimed initiative of the City of Seattle’s Department of Neighborhoods, serves over 6,000 gardeners at 67 gardens on 23 acres of land (Source: Hou). Through collaboration with its land trust partner the P-Patch Trust, the P-Patch Program has procured long-term leases or fee-ownership of many of its gardens and has leveraged Neighborhood Matching Fund Grants to fund improvements at garden sites. More recently the Program has worked with nonprofits to launch a youth gardening program and a market garden CSA that works primarily with the City’s immigrant gardeners. (Source: City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods) 2.3 Rehabilitation through Food Production A growing number of case studies point to the restorative impact of small scale food production. In Philadelphia, PA, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society operates the City Harvest program in conjunction with the Philadelphia Prison System and local food security nonprofits. Seedlings are started by inmates and transplanted into the prison’s Roots-to-Reentry garden, local community gardens or cultivated by volunteers in 35 local gardens. The harvest is then distributed through local food pantries. This public-private partnership addresses both food insecurity and job-readiness training for prisoners and has been so successful that the Philadelphia Prison System is expanding its growing space. This expansion includes the construction of Photo: Hoop houses can help promote and facilitate commercial urban agriculture in regions with short growing seasons.
urpl 912 | 12.18.0971 a hoop house, an arbor and the cultivation of fruit and nut trees. (Source: Pennsylvania Horticultural Society) In another example, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center near Newark, NJ has collaborated with Rutgers Cooperative Extension to engage veterans at the center in food production. Participating veterans helped convert the center’s lawn into 20 x 50 foot plots. The garden now includes hoop houses for late season crops, such as kale and collards. In 2009, the veterans harvested over 1,000 pounds of produce, which they shared with other patients at the center and used at a café in another nearby veteran medical center. They have plans to increase production in the future. (Source: Applebome) 2.4 Zoning and Land-Use The diagram in Figure 4 illustrates the rural to urban land-use transect in relation to food production. It is a useful visual tool upon which to build public planning conversations about what types of food production (including, in some instances, livestock) are appropriate in which zones. Madison has become a national leader in its development of urban agricultural overlay zoning. As the City’s investment in urban agriculture evolves from a theoretical discussion to actual construction of hoop houses and market gardens, planners and cognate professionals must be prepared to engage residents in constructive conversations on the benefits and constraints of different types of agriculture in different zones across the urban to rural continuum. Refer to the diagram 2 for a visual demonstration of agricultural types and intensity as they correspond to the built environment. 2.5FoodProduction&NewResidentialDevelopment In many older cities, planning for urban agriculture will require a reevaluation of old zoning codes and expansion on developed but under-utilized public andprivateproperties.Newdevelopments,however, provideauniqueopportunitytointegratesustainable food systems into the physical plan during the pre- design phase. The U.S. Green Building Council’s new LEED Neighborhood Design offers LEED credits and guidelines to planners and design professionals for site characteristics that foster local food production. These include neighborhood farms and gardens, community supported agriculture, and proximity to farmers’ market. (Source: US Green Building Council) 2.6 Farmland Conservation & Urban Growth Boundaries An urban growth boundary (UGB) is a peri-urban boundaryestablishedtocontrolsprawlbymandating higher density development on the inside of the boundary and restricting the area outside to lower density development. A UGB circumscribes an entire urban area and is employed by municipal governments to guide zoning and land use decisions. If the boundary includes multiple jurisdictions, special regional agencies can be created to manage the boundary. Urban growth boundaries can be valuable tools for preserving peri-urban farmland and promoting strategic development. Portland, OR is one of the most commonly cited examples of an urban growth boundary. Municipal and county collaboration with agricultural land trusts has also proven to be an effective strategy for leveraging public and private dollars for agricultural and natural resource conservation. Conservation easements can reduce the property taxes of peri-urban farmland, making it financially feasible for farmers to keep the land in cultivation Image: This diagram shows a range of urban agricultural activities throughout the urban-rural continuum
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 72 rather than selling to developers. Further, communication between public local and regional planning entities and land trusts can help ensure that private conservation efforts align with long term local and regional land-use planning goals. For example, San Diego County identified more than 172,000 acres of target conservation lands through its comprehensive planning effort for protection through voluntary methods, including land trusts. In Vermont, the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board has been instrumental in financially and logistically supporting efforts by state and local land trusts to secure affordable housing and open space conservation. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: FOOD PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE GOAL 03 /// To reduce fossil fuel consumption and create greater demand for local food production by scaling up local processing and distribution infrastructure that bolsters the local economy. 3.1 Support entrepreneurial and nonprofit food processing initiatives The City of Beloit, Wisconsin has been instrumental in helping a locally sourced grocery and café, Bushel & Peck, lease a local industrial facility at a below-market rate until its local food processing operation becomes fully financially self-sustaining. This is just one of nearly a dozen small and mid- scale food-processing initiatives that are cropping up throughout Wisconsin (Source: UW Extension Agricultural Innovation Center). A number of these projects have already been vetted by the Agricultural Innovation Center of UW Cooperative Extension, and by regional economic development entities such as Thrive. Partnerships with the municipality and county could help expedite projects, leverage funding, or provide tax-incentives to help these projects develop traction. Following are several additional strategies consistent with the recommendations proposed by the Manhattan Borough’s February 2009 municipal food policy report,“FoodinthePublicInterest”(Source:Stringer): • Incentivize through reduced tax-rates and CBDG funding; • Put food processing/distribution into city county economic development plans; • Implement firm & funded local food purchasing policies for municipal agencies to grow demand for local product. 3.2 Growing Sustainable Farmers and Regional Production Capacity Growing Power in Milwaukee, Wisconsin offers an example of year-round, low-environmental impact, local food production in a region notorious for its short growing season. This nonprofit, founded by Will Allen, an urban “agripreneur” and recipient of the 2008 MacArthur Genius Award, incorporates a variety of hands-on food production workshops into its market gardening program. Its goals are three-part: 1) to advance projects and growing methods, 2) to provide education and technical assistance for new growers, and 3) to facilitate food production and distribution. Growing Power’s facilities currently include: greenhouses, fish runs, hoop houses, a worm depository, beehives, poultry houses and outdoor pens for live animals, a thirty- pallet compost systems, an anaerobic digester, and a small store front to make its product available Image: Small scale production combined with local processing and distribution can reduce fossil fuel consumption.
urpl 912 | 12.18.0973 to the neighborhood. (Source: Growing Power) Growing Power has attracted national attention for its innovations in urban “agripreneurism” and has provided assistance to many allied organizations and initiatives. They currently supply restaurants and farmers markets in the Milwaukee metro area and as far south as Chicago. Municipalities can support private efforts such as Growing Power by allowing for urban agricultural overlays in their zoning codes, that permit market gardening; livestock such as chickens, goats, and bees; and cultivation structures such greenhouses and hoop houses. 3.3 Permanent Year-Round Market Structures Markets of all varieties provide important public spaces and commercial hubs for the communities and districts in which they are located. Permanent market structures, in particular, can serve as anchor institutions - attracting both tourism and fostering local commerce. Following are several renowned examples of permanent public markets in the United States and Canada: • Pike Place Market – Seattle, WA • Milwaukee Public Market – Milwaukee, WI • Reading Terminal Market – Philadelphia, PA • Grand Central Public Market – Los Angeles, CA • Granville Market – Vancouver, B.C. 3.4 Public-Private Distribution Partnerships In2006,theDaneCountyPlanningandDevelopment Department established the Institutional Food Market Coalition (IFM) with the aim of expanding market opportunities for Dane County and regional producers. They also sought to connect large volume institutional buyers from both private and public sector institutions with local and organically grown Wisconsin agricultural products. (Source: Falk) In July 2008, IFM and its co-op partner, the Badgerland Produce Auction received a $46,540 grant award from Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin; a program of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. The grant enabled Badgerland to expand its operational and infrastructural capacity to increase the sales of locally grown fruits and vegetables. The Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin (BLBW) grant program invites pre-proposals for projects that are likely to stimulate Wisconsin’s agricultural economy by increasing the purchase of Wisconsin grown or produced food by local food buyers. Pre- proposals are accepted from individuals, groups, businesses and organizations involved in Wisconsin agriculture, “agritourism”, food retailing, processing, distribution or warehousing. (Source: Wisconsin DATCP) In southwestern Wisconsin, the Iowa County Area Economic Development Corporation (ICAEDC), a 501(c) 6 organization dedicated to business development, is working to bridge the gap between supply and demand by partnering with a national nonprofit and local food entrepreneurs to develop a county-scale food processing cluster with several distinct products lines designed to serve the regional population and its visitors. The project, now in its infancy, hopes to become a national model for small-scale community-led economic development and regional fair trade. (Source: Morales) Strategic developmentoflinkedindustries,suchasprocessing, would support regional wholesale food distribution by advancing the following goals: • Deliver more local product to larger volume regional markets; • Enhance access to fresh and fresh-frozen local product for consumers in institutions Image: Examples of public sector funding sources for local food system development
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 74 such as schools and hospitals; • Reduce food miles traveled; • Retain more food dollars in regional economy; and • Foster community economic development, which as distinct from “economic growth” is characteristically long-term, purposeful, and permanent. It also increases communities’ capacity to act and innovate. (Source: Morales) A recently released Slow Money report examines the community economic development potential of the Wisconsin food system. It identifies a variety of state and federal funding sources for food- based economic development projects, such as the processing and distribution efforts described above, as illustrated in Table 1. Municipalities can serve as facilitators of public-private collaboration by removing artificial administrative barriers and connecting private and nonprofit partners with public funding sources. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL 04 /// Secure a larger portion of the food dollar for local farmers, grow green jobs, increase demand for local food, and attract allied industries for long- term community economic development. 4.1 Incentivize healthy, green business New York City has established food enterprise zones in neighborhoods with low-income populations and insufficient access to full-service grocery retailers to attract businesses that meet its residents’ nutrition needs. The City has also created zoning incentives to encourage new fresh food stores as well as local street vendors. As a way to fund the start up of these businesses, the City has brought on board several local banking institutions that are willing to provide microloans. They have also asked the Housing Authority to consider offering space for local food to be sold, or fresh food to be grown and sold. This would include creating an inventory of all local vacant land and highlighting the areas of concentration for new infill. This could incorporate not only private property opportunities, but also publicly owned, underutilized land. 4.2 Modify Zoning and Permitting to Bolster Healthy Mobile Food Vending The City of San Francisco has updated its sustainability plan to include greater investment in sustainable food and job creation through local food procurement practices and small food business development initiatives. The City plans to conduct a land-use audit to identify properties that could offer favorable lease agreements for food establishments and is expanding permit access for mobile food vendors. (See Figure 6) To advance these initiatives the City is also working on the development of food enterprise zones, expedited permitting processes, tax incentives, and other policies. The City is charting its progress by tracking the number of leases offered, sales of healthy food from businesses operating under permitting incentives, and its own sourcing of local food for its events. (Source: City of San Francisco) The July 2009 Executive Directive mandates immediate action to advance a number of the objectives stated above, serving as a model of policy that is more than platitude. Importantly, the directive also requires the input of diversity of stakeholders, including urban agriculture, nutrition Image: San Francisco has identified specific goals and tasks toward a healthier, more sustainable and economically robust food system
urpl 912 | 12.18.0975 experts, food retail, distributors, the Food Security Task Force, the Tenderloin Hunger Task Force, the San Francisco Unified School District, and others. Finally, the directive charges the following specific departmentswiththetaskofadvancingtheseefforts: • Mayor’s Office; • DPH Office of Food Systems; • Shape Up Program representative; • Department of Recreation and Parks Director or designee; • San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Director or designee; • Human Service Agency Director or designee; • Director of Department of Aging and Adult Services; • Director of Department of Children Youth and Their Families or designee. (Source: Newsome) Similarly, New York City is growing its economy by increasing the number of food vendor permits to help mitigate high unemployment rates. Currently the City’s waiting list for vending permits exceeds 10,000. The City has also developed an extensive “Greenmarket” program that is operated by the Council on the Environment of New York City. The “Greenmarket” program targets low-income neighborhoods and offers food stalls to vendors willing to sell produce at a reduced rate. (Source: CouncilontheEnvironmentinNewYorkCity)Another initiative titled “Green Carts” allows vendors to sell fresh whole fruits and vegetables from freely leased carts that are city built and maintained. Free Green Carts attract vendors who, in exchange, are required to sell fresh fruits and vegetables for reduced prices in low-income communities. (Source: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene) The effectiveness of these programs will be measured by the amount of revenue they generate and the number of vendors and customers they attract. 4.3 Sustainable Agricultural Job Development through Federal Stimulus Funding In August 2009, USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen A. Merrigan, announced three new programs designed to promote local, sustainable agriculture. One of these initiatives, the Value-Added Producer Grant Program, is aimed at providing money to agricultural producers that add value to raw products through food processing or marketing. All food in this program must be marketed locally and it is targeted to fund support planning for these businesses. These include: business development plans, website development, and additional staff. 1% of the current funding offered has been set aside for mid-tier value chains that supply local and regional networks and connect producers with markets “in a way that strengthens competitiveness and profitability of small and medium sized businesses.” (Source: Merrigan) These grants illustrate a new level of federal support for sustainable agricultural job creation, which was recently reinforced by the official designation of sustainable agricultural jobs as eligible for federal stimulus funding. 4.4 Local Food Procurement Policies Since Woodbury County Iowa first passed the “Woodbury County Policy for Rural Economic Revitalization: Local Food Purchase Policy” (Source: Woodbury County) in 2006, a plethora of local and state governments have followed suit. Many of these policies and resolutions have been criticized for lacking the financial backing and programmatic support necessary to translate into significant and/ or consistent sales for local producers. Impactful policies, such as Executive Directives (as compared to Photo: Buy Fresh Buy Local campaigns can grow demand for local food and build the local agricultural economy.
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 76 Resolutions), combined with programming provided by nonprofits or partners at public universities may prove effective in transforming these policies into practices. 4.5 Local Food Sourcing Tax Credits The Iowa Local Farmer & Food Security Act (LFFSA) of 2010 is newly proposed legislation that aims to compensate for the shortcomings of local food procurement policies by offering clear financial incentives for wholesale purchase of local product. LFFSA establishes tax credits for grocers who source local food, under contract with local growers who grow fruits, vegetables, and meats, for sale in local markets. The tax credits are intended to reduce barriers experienced by local food producers who would like to compete in the local wholesale/grocery marketplace. The development of reliable markets for local food producers will foster agricultural diversity and encourage the availability of loans to farmers who wish to make a living through food production. Itwillalsocreateeconomicopportunities for rural communities, and will help ensure a local source of food as security for area residents. (Source: Marqusee) CONCLUSION MunicipalitiesacrosstheUnitedStatesarepartnering with nonprofits, universities, entrepreneurs, small business development entities, and county and state governments to spur innovative, sustainable growth through local food policy, planning and programming. This section highlights over a dozen different initiatives and examples that have emerged under the following four themes: Food Security and Nutrition, Urban and Regional Agriculture, Food Processing and Distribution Infrastructure, Local Economic Development. This cross section of examples aims to establish the food sustainably landscape and begin a conversation about appropriate “next steps” for the Green Capital City initiativeasMadisonbeginsplanningthesubsequent phases of its municipal sustainability plan. Photo: NYC’s Green Carts program has increased the accessibility of affordable produce and expanded economic opportunities vendors.
urpl 912 | 12.18.0977 Policy Matrix
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 78 SOURCES Applebome, Peter. “After War, Finding Peace and Calm in a Garden.” New York Times, November 30, 2009, New York Section. Bellows, A. “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” Community Food Security Coalition. http://www. foodsecurity.org/UAHealthArticle.pdf (accessed September 20, 2009). California Environmental Associates. “Slow Money Wisconsin.” 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Data and Trends.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/ statistics/prev/national/figage.htm (accessed December 2, 2009). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Recommended Community Strategies and MeasurementstoPreventObesityintheUnitedStates: Implementation and Measurement Guide.” Centers forDiseaseControlandPrevention.July,2009.http:// www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/community_ strategies_guide.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009.) University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems. 2006. “U.S. Food System Fact Sheet.” University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems. http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01- 06.pdf (accessed December 1, 2009). CityofPortlandBureauofPlanningandSustainability. “Urban Growth Bounty 2009.” City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. http:// www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=49224 (accessed December 3, 2009). CityofSanFrancisco.“Sourcing&ServingSustainable, Healthy Food.” City of San Francisco. http:// www.sfgov.org/site/sffood_index.asp?id=66024 (accessed December 4, 2009). City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. “P-Patch Community Gardens.” City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. http://www. cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/ppatch/ (accessed December 3, 2009). Council on the Environment in New York City. “Greenmarket.” Council on the Environment in New York City. http://www.cenyc.org/greenmarket (accessed December 4, 2009). Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co. “Food Production Along the Transect.” New Urban News. http://www. newurbannews.com/13.4/jun08newest.html (accessed December 3, 2009). Ecology Center. “EBT Farmers’ Market Nutrition Project.” Ecology Center. http://www.ecologycenter. org/ebt/ (accessed December 2, 2009). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Food Waste Management Tools and Resources.” Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa. gov/waste/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd- res.htm (accessed December 3, 2009). GovTrack.us The Federal Food Donation Act. 2008. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record. xpd?id=110- s20080522-78 (accessed November 30, 2009). Growing Power. “About Us.” Growing Power. http:// www.growingpower.org/about_us.htm (accessed September 20, 2009). Photo: Support for green jobs
urpl 912 | 12.18.0979 Illinois Department of Agriculture. Press Release. “Illinois Department of Agriculture to Plant Community Garden: Garden will be open to the public and located on Illinois State Fairgrounds.” March 10, 2009. http://www.agr.state.il.us/ newsrels/r0310091.html (accessed December 4, 2009) Kubik, M. Y., Lytle, L. A., Hannan, P. J., Perry, C. L., & Story, M. (2003). The association of the school food environment with dietary behaviors of young adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1168-1173. http://www.joe.org/ joe/2009february/a3.php (accessed December 3, 2009). Merrigan, Kathleen. Memorandum. “Harnessing USDA Rural Development programs to support local and regional food systems.” USDA. August 26, 2009. Marqusee, Rob. “Iowa Local Farmer & Food Security Act.” Woodbury County. http://www. woodburyorganics.com/Woodbury_Organics/ Main_files/LFFSA%20v1.1.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009). Morales, Alfonso, and Lindsey Day Farnsworth. “Satiating the Demand: Planning for Alternative Models of Regional Food Distribution.” University of Wisconsin Department of Urban and Regional Planning Working Papers. October 2009. Morales, Alfonso and Gregg Kettles. “Zoning for Public Markets and Street Vendors.” American Planning Association. Issue 2. Zoning Practice, February 2009. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “NYC Green Carts.” New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. http:// www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cdp/cdp_pan_green_ carts.shtml (accessed December 4, 2009). Newsome, Gavin. Executive Directive. “Healthy and Sustainable Food for San Francisco.” July 9, 2009July 9, 2009. http://civileats.com/ wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Mayor-Newsom- Executive-Directive-on-Healthy-Sustainable-Food. pdf (accessed December 4, 2009). Parry, Olivia. Press Release. Dane County Partnership to Benefit from State Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin Grant Dollars to Make it Easier to Access Locally Grown, Organic Produce. July, 17, 2008.http://danedocs. countyofdane.com/webdocs/pdf/plandev/ifm/ Kathleen_Falk.pdf. Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. “Philadelphia Green’s City Harvest program.”Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. http://www. pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/ city-harvest.html (accessed December 3, 2009). Policy Link. “A National Fresh Food Financing Initiative:  An Innovative Approach to Improve Health and Spark Economic Development.” Policy Link. http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/ b.5136643/k.1E5B/Improving_Access_to_Healthy_ Food.htm (accessed November 30, 2009). Stringer, Scott M. “Food In the Public Interest: How New York City’s Food Policy Holds the Key to Hunger, Health, Jobs and the Environment.” Manhattan Borough. February, 2009. http://www.mbpo.org/ uploads/FoodInThePublicInterest.pdf (accessed October 15, 2009). Sturm, Roland and Deborah A. Cohen. “Zoning Photo: Permanent public market structures can serve as social and commercial anchors.
sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 80 For Health? The Year-Old Ban On New Fast-Food Restaurants In South LA.” Health Affairs 28, no. 6 (2009): w1088–w1097 (published online 6 October 2009; 10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1088) US Department of Agriculture. US Department of Agriculture. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.” US Department of Agriculture. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/ snapmain.htm (accessed December 4, 2009). US Department of Health and Human Services (2007) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US Green Building Council. “LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System.” Proposed draft for ballot. http://www.usgbc. o r g / S h o w F i l e . a s px ? D o c u m e n t I D = 6 1 4 6 (accessed October 14, 2009). UW Extension. “Hunger Close to Home: Dane County.” University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension. Revised August, 2008. http://www.uwex. edu/ces/flp/demographics/hunger/pdfs/dane.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009). UW Extension Agricultural Innovation Center. “Incubator and Shared Kitchens.” UW Extension Agricultural Innovation Center. http://www. uwex.edu/ces/agmarkets/aic/sharedkitchens.cfm (accessed on December 1, 2009). Wisconsin Department of Agricultural, Trade and Consumer Protection. “Buy Local Buy Wisconsin Grant Program.” Wisconsin Department of Agricultural, Trade and Consumer Protection. http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/mktg/business/ marketing/val-add/directmktg/blbw.jsp (accessed on December 2, 2009). Woodbury County Iowa. Resolution. “Woodbury County Policy for Rural Economic Revitalization: Local Food Purchase Policy.” http://www.woodbury- ia.com/departments/EconomicDevelopment/ WC%20LFPP%20v3.pdf I (accessed on December 2, 2009).
FinalReportFall2009_LB
PART II: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT public forums sdec top 5 ideas community engagement
urpl 912 | 12.18.0981 PUBLIC FORUMS During the fall of 2009, three public forums were held in Madison for two reasons: 1) to inform residents of the progress that has been made in making city government more sustainable, and 2) to better understand the values and priorities of city residents regarding Madison’s livability and sustainability. The forums were held at the Goodman Community Center on October 22nd , the Overture Center on October 29th and the Sequoya Public Library on November 5th . Staff from the City of Madison, members of the Sustainable Design and Energy Committee (SDEC), specialists from UW Extension, along with graduate students from UW-Madison’s Department of Urban and Regional Planning helped organize and facilitate the forums. Results from all three forums have been combined, analyzed, and summarized below. Sustainable Neighborhoods Natural Beauty is most important to the quality of life for public forum participants (14 percent). However, many participants also felt that healthy food (13 percent), connections (12 percent), and education & learning (12 percent) were important to their quality of life. Participants also felt that land use and development patterns needed the greatest attention within the city. Other concerns included transportationandmobilityaswellasparksandopen space. The top three areas that residents felt will move Madison toward sustainability were walkable neighborhoods (24 percent), denser development (18 percent), and mixed business and residential uses (17 percent). Most participants also thought the city should promote clean technologies/green jobs (33 percent), local commerce (29 percent), and local food systems (29 percent) to achieve sustainable economic vitality in Madison. Many participants (30 percent) felt affordable housing for working families was the most important way to promote social welfare in a sustainable Madison. Neighborhood networks (29 percent), volunteers (17 percent), and crime (12 percent) were the three most important areas to work on to become a more sustainable community. Participants stated that living wages and job training are important in improving employment in a sustainable Madison. Youth skills and health insurancecoveragearealsoimportant. Forotherways to improve employment, participants mentioned green jobs; programs to entice business owners to build in Madison and stay in Madison; more diverse jobs; local food and energy production, and renewed cottage industries and home-based business. In the area of youth and education, participants stated that literacy programs/libraries, high school graduation and service learning should be improved to make Madison more sustainable. Also mentioned were after-school/summer activities for youth; support for multiple paths to success, including trade education and service learning apprenticeship; living Public Involvement
sustainability plan | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 82 skills; making schools and daycares non-toxic indoor environments; teaching children how to grow food; youth outreach and children nutrition. The five most important elements with regard to health in a sustainable Madison are: physical activity/ fitness, health care availability, healthy diet, health insurance, and mental illness. Sustainable Transportation The proportion of forum participants who use mass transit on a regular basis is slightly less than the proportion who do not use mass transit. The main reasons why participants do not use mass transit include: difficult to get where they want to go; slow/ too many transfers (inconvenience); infrequent service; poor access to public transit where they live; already bike to work; self-employed people and lack of dog-park which means people can walk their dogs or take the bus, however, don’t have time to do both each day. However, the majority of participants (65%) would like to use light rail or rapid bus service rather than drive, which implies the potential demand for a more advanced transit system. Ninety-one percent of the participants also claim that excellent mass transit is important or very important to attract businesses and future economic development in a sustainable Madison. The key components to a sustainable transportation system from the standpoint of the forum participants are: frequent bus service, extensive bike trails, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, commuter rail, and light rail service. In order to make Madison’s transportation system more sustainable, participants favored: dense development; later bus service; reliable bus service; integrated multi-modal system; more carsharing; compact land use; peak hour service of no less than once every ten minutes; off-peak service at least every 20 minutes; financial incentives to encourage bus ridership. Further, participants realize that a Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is necessary since the City of Madison needs to coordinate and fund all of these transit services with surrounding communities in Dane County. The accompanying graph shows that many participants would like to reduce the following activities for the purpose of environmental protection: driving a car, mowing the lawn, idling a car or truck, and reducing electricity use. The three public forums offered insight into Madison residents’ values and opinions on policy priorities. The next section highlights the Sustainable Design and Energy Committee’s top ideas for achieving a sustainable Madison. Sustainable Building Ninety five percent of forum participants think making all new construction and remodels energy efficient is important or very important. About 92
urpl 912 | 12.18.0983 percent thought it was important or very important for all new construction or remodels to have healthy indoor air, but about 8 percent thought this was only slightly important or somewhat important. Sixty three percent of residents thought it was very important to improve the energy efficiency of existing commercial buildings in Madison and 65 percent thought it was very important to improve the energy efficiency of houses. The importance of planted roofs on commercial buildings had the most varied responses: 83 percent of participants thought it was important or very important, 14 percent felt this was slightly or somewhat important, and 3 percent felt it was not important at all. Energy, Natural Resources, Waste and Water Madison’s residents recognize the important role that the management of energy, natural resources, wasteandwatermustplayinbecomingasustainable city. Water and stormwater management practices are important to participants at the public forums. Ecosystem quality and waste management are also primary concerns. The top three priorities are groundwater quality drinkability (29 percent), wetland protection and restoration (28 percent) and groundwater quantity (19 percent). The majority of participants said they would be willing to consume less non-local foods, packaging of consumer goods, and pesticides and fertilizers. Eighty-nine percent, or 67 people, of those who attended the public forums said they would be willing to separate their food and organic waste from other waste before pick up. While most (71 percent) had heard of MPowering Madison before attending the public forum, only 35 percent of residents said their families had taken the Mpower pledge and only 8 percent said their businesses had taken the pledge. However, participants said they would be will to take many of the actions Mpower asks people to do. The majority of the participants indicated that a clean, healthy environment is most important to the economic well-being and quality of life in a sustainable Madison. Parks & Open Space Eighty five percent of forum participants stated that protecting open spaces from development is important or very important; 84% think making neighborhoods more attractive is important or very important; 88% of them noted the importance of preserving environmental sensitive areas; nearly 80% think providing play area for youth is important; 81% think creating areas where neighbors can get to know each other is significant and 82% consider recreational/exercise facilities for families important or very important. Furthermore, 92% of participants feel safe in parks.
84sustainability plan | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Healthy Food Systems Forum participants want more healthy foods in schools (25 percent), community gardens (21 percent), and neighborhood grocery stores with fresh produce (18 percent). When purchasing food, a majority of participants consider where it is produced (locally vs. nationally) and how it is produced. Participants’ three major sources of food are supermarkets and natural food stores, followed by small neighborhood grocery stores, and farmers’ markets. Thirty-three percent of those at the public forums said they already grow their own food. However, 24 percent of residents said they would like to grow more of their own food if they had more time, and 22 percent said they would if they had a garden. Only 13 percent indicated that they would not want to grow their own food at all. Most people thought diet related diseases such as diabetes and heart disease were very important (as opposed to not, somewhat, important or most important) for Madison to become a sustainable city, and that growing local food was most important in fostering a sustainable economy in Madison.
urpl 912 | 12.18.0985 Sustainable Design and Energy Committee: TOP 5 IDEAS The Sustainable Design and Energy Committee (SDEC) members submitted their “Top 5 Ideas” for the City of Madison’s sustainability plan. Ideas were submitted by 14 members from the private sector and 11 members from the public sector. Responses covered a wide range of topics which can be organized into three major categories– planning process, policies and programs, and desired outcomes. Planning Process This category concerns the process that committee members believe should be used in developing a sustainability plan. About 26% of the ideas related to the process of developing and implementing a sustainability plan. The most commonly cited were goal setting, funding sources, establishing baselines and metrics, and reporting. As indicated in the table below, communication was a top priority for several committee members, and measuring progress was rated as second most important. Policies and Programs The policies and programs category concerns the strategies for implementing the plan’s goals and recommendations. The majority of ideas presented by the committee focused on this category, with 54% of the total responses. The most commonly cited
sustainability plan | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 86 programs and policies related to transportation, energy efficiency, and green building. Other ideas in this category include smart growth, open space, and recycling. Outcomes – Natural, Built, and Social Environment Thiscategoryconcernstheoutcomesthatcommittee members hope to achieve through implementation of the sustainability plan. These ideas focused on ways to increase education and awareness, foster economic development, clean Madison’s lakes and address social equity issues. Approximately 20% of the committee’s responses are reflected in this category. Conclusion Among the three main categories the planning process appeared to be the most important component of the sustainability plan according to committee member’s responses. Members particularly expressed an interest in communication and the way in which progress would be measured. In terms of actual programs and policies, transportation surfaced as the most commonly cited. Lastly, committeemembers felt that education and raising awareness among citizens, school and community leaders, and business owners would play an important role in achieving greater sustainability.
urpl 912 | 12.18.0987 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LincolnsaidatGettysburgin1863,weareanation“… of the people, by the people, and for the people…” AnidealprevalentinAmericangovernmentsincethe signing of the Declaration of Independence, citizen participation has been and continues to be essential to the success of any local government initiative. Particularly, in planning for sustainability, success will depend on citizen support and behavioral adjustments. The City of Madison recognized this and asked for citizen feedback at three public forums. At the public forums, participants stressed the importance of improving communication between city government, the business sector, and the general populace. To successfully reach all the different stakeholders in Madison, effective communication must be inclusive, informative, and responsive. Inclusive The attendants at each public forum provided valuable information to help shape Madison’s sustainability plan. However, as described in the Public Forum Survey Results section, the majority of the citizens who attended the public forums were white, male, and already familiar with sustainability terminologyandbestpractices. Althoughinputfrom all demographic groups is important in designing a sustainability plan, the demographic makeup of the public forum attendants does not reflect the overall demographic composition of the City of Madison. Thus, additional public participation opportunities are needed to gain a more complete understanding of how the Madison populace feels about various sustainability policies, programs, and practices.   One way to engage members of the public who traditionally are less involved in local government public participation is to identify and build relationships with key stakeholders and community leaders. Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) such as neighborhood associations, faith-based groups, owners of popular local businesses such as bakeries, barber shop, and pizza places, youth groups, and community centers are great community resources that can serve as a conduit to reach certain sectors of the community (Green and Haines, 2008). CBOs are typically in rooted in place and have contacts and information about the neighborhood. An example of a CBO in Madison is the Wil-Mar Neighborhood Community Center in the Williamson-Marquette neighborhood that has a goal of delivering “responsible, high quality services and programs in a safe and respectful environment for people of all ages” (“Wil-Mar Neighborhood Center”). Another way to educate and encourage the participation of Madison’s youth is to collaborate with local schools to develop a green curriculum. Not only is it a way to inspire young people, but it is also a good way to reach the parents as well. Informative A communication strategy in support of the city’s sustainability goals could include the following media: Newspapers, Radio, & Television Some public forum participants claimed they read about the meeting in the local newspaper. Some of the public forums were taped for television broadcast on the city channel. However, the City of Madison could use local radio stations to announce
88 meetings, planning efforts, and other community events more often. One barrier to radio advertising may be the cost, but the city could negotiate a lower rate by committing to a long-term contract. Internet Social Media Tools A recent survey by the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) and Development CounsellorsInternational(DCI)foundthat57percent of respondents who work in economic development firms use social media in their organization’s communication efforts (Anonymous, 2009). Below is a list of social media activities with descriptions of possible, but not all, applications for businesses and local governments: • Facebook: A social network utility that helps people communicate and connect online, to build online communities about their region, a specific industry, local or national events, contests, or other activities. This could be a tool to reach younger populations who can become a fan of the Sustainable, Design, and Energy Committee and see what they are doing to encourage sustainable practices in Madison. • LinkedIn: An interconnected network of experienced professionals from around the world. Over 50 million members can connect with present and former colleagues as well as join groups and discussion boards around industries, topics, and job resources. This tool can connect the City with experts in the sustainability field. • Twitter: A free social networking and micro- bloggingservicethatenablesitsuserstosend and read messages known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters displayed on the author’s profile page and delivered to the author’s subscribers. This could be used to reach the general public. • Flickr and YouTube: Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, and YouTube,thelargestonlinevideocommunity, can provide the opportunity to broadcast and host their visual assets. Photographs and videos have long-been effective in telling a story and displaying the many benefits of a community or simply visually displaying an already compelling message. This can highlight the achievements of the city and community members to the general public via the city website. Essentialtothesuccessofsocialmediaistheneedfor organizations to recognize that Web 2.0 tools (web applications that facilitate interactive information and collaboration) should be one element in a larger, more strategic communications plan. Utilizing social media does not eliminate the need for more traditional communications activities; however, it does expand an organization’s ability to reach new and existing audiences (Anonymous, 2009). Furthermore, developing content that is relevant, timely, and engaging to audiences is essential. Social media is people-intensive, not budget-intensive. There is relatively little media cost in adopting these strategies, but it does take staff some time to keep it up to date as part of an overall marketing campaign. To launch a social media campaign, the City of Madison should consider adopting a social media policy that addresses key questions that may arise during outreach. It should state the purpose of the communication effort, identify ownership/ rules about content posts as well as clarify rules of behavior for online members. The City should have a clear plan for who will manage the tool and how sustainability plan | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Image: Examples of Popular Social Media Tools
urpl 912 | 12.18.0989 comments, questions, changes, or issues should be handled. Billboards, Magazines, Placards, and Signs Madison has much to be proud of. The residents who attended the public forums voiced a desire to be better informed on the City’s sustainability efforts. Sign and placards, such as Focus on Energy’s sign “my house is powered by the sun,” can be simple but effective at communicating with citizens. Word of Mouth People are more likely to attend a meeting if their neighbors, colleagues, friends, or professors tell them about it. Yet the science behind sustainability is not always obvious or easy to understand. Sustainability planning must include public education to raise awareness. Also, public involvement will generally increase if the participants not only learn something, but actively engage in the planning process. The Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Toolkit, available online at www.esdtoolkit.org, has ideas for how to introduce the concept of sustainable development and other ways to elicit values, priorities, and other information from attendants (Chrystalbridge, 2009). Responsive In addition to making Madison’s achievements and efforts known, providing opportunities for all citizens to voice concerns, ask for guidance, or make known their own personal achievements towards sustainability is key to keeping everyone onboard throughout the planning and implementation process. Communicating with the business and resident communities includes recognizing successes in the community through a sustainability trophy and awards ceremony. The Office of Sustainability of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana announced that the City’s first Sustainability Awards luncheon will be held Tuesday, February 9, 2010 (Keys, 2009). The awards are designed to inspire innovation, highlight impact, reward leadership and promote education around the principles of sustainability. Five awards will be given to honor excellence in each of the following categories: land; air; energy; and reduce, reuse, and recycle. In addition to listening to input and recognizing community achievement, sustainability demands action. Data from the public forums must be translated and communicated in such a way that citizens feel that their input was considered and acted upon where appropriate. Measurable goals and indicators are essential in a sustainability plan to convey the efforts of the city to address the citizen’s concerns and ensure their values are being met. Sources: Anonymous. 2009. “Employing social media.” EDA Update 2.10: n. pag. Web. 4 Dec. 2009 http://www. planning.org/eda/newsletter/2009/oct.htm. Chrystalbridge, Marianne. “Public Participation.” ESD Toolkit. n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2009 http://www.esdtoolkit. org/discussion/participation.htm. Green, Gary Paul and Anna Haines. Asset Building & Community Development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2008. Google Books. Web. 3 Dec. 2009 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zjaR9fw MjOMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP12&dq=identify+community+lea Photo: Home with Solar Panel Sign in Yard - South Orchard St., Madison WI
sustainability plan | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 90 ders+and+minorities&ots=6qp81IDgIz&sig=vN8t5gFZQLl Z4TrLFn0Iwqy1tG0#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Key, Jerry. “City’s Sustainability Awards to be Held February 2010.” Southeast Indianapolis Communities. Blogspot, 21 Nov. 2009. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. http://southeastindy.blogspot.com/2009/11/ citys-sustainability-awards-to-be-held.html. Suarez, Susan J. “Public Participation & Social Justice.” American Institute of Certified Planners. n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2009 http://www.planning.org. “Wil-Mar Neighborhood Center.” Madison.com. Madison Newspapers, Inc., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2009 http://www.madison.com/communities/wil-mar/index. php.
FinalReportFall2009_LB
PART III: POLICY OPTIONS policy options shaping the future
urpl 912 | 12.18.0991 SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS The dominant suburban and urban fringe development patterns in Dane County, over the last half century, have created a built environment that poses significant challenges to Madison’s and the region’s sustainability. A combination of land use policies – as summarized below -- could help the City of Madison and its neighborhoods become not only more sustainable, but also more livable. • Transfer of Development Rights: TDR programs use the private real estate market to permanently preserve rural lands. They can be a win-win solution to open space preservation because developers, landowners, and the public realize a substantial benefit from the transaction. TDR programs preclude the need for public land purchases or highly-restrictive zoning regulations, and mitigate takings conflicts by compensating landowners for restricted development rights. The Madison Comprehensive Plan indicates a desire to permanently preserve open space and agriculture/rural use districts. TDR programs are best implemented at a regional scale, which directly supports Madison’s expressed desire in the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the County and surrounding towns to take stronger roles in preventing more intensive development in rural unincorporated areas. • Compact Development: Compact development is integral to sustainable land use policy. Compact development patterns contribute to open space preservation, increased mobility, energy efficiency, affordability, and savings in infrastructure costs by maximizing the development potential of land. The Urban Land Institute found that doubling density can decrease vehicle miles traveled by 38%, and that residents of high-density areas tend to own half the number of cars as residents of low-density single-family communities. Well designed compact development can also help to reduce crime rates, enhance neighborhood connections, and promote community ownership and involvement. Madison can promote compact development by encouraging brownfield redevelopment, infill, and transit-oriented development. • Brownfield Redevelopment: Brownfield redevelopment can be both costly and time- consuming; however, it potentially provides important environmental, economic, and social benefits. Madison currently has a Brownfields Remediation / Elimination and Workforce Development (BREWD) program that targets business development in three areas of the City. This program could be strategically expanded to also create public open space, affordable housing, and public facilities on brownfield sites throughout the City. Chicago’s Brownfields Initiative can be a useful precedent for Madison in its efforts to streamline its redevelopment process and obtain funding for expanded redevelopment initiatives. • Infill Development: Infill development offers many potential neighborhood benefits, including a compact mix of land uses, and increased walkability. Madison could look to the precedent of Sacramento’s pre- approved floor plan program as a template Photo: Redevelopment of a brownfield site - Traverse City, MI
92 for expediting its granny flat approval process as well as single-family or other infill development projects. One of the keys to successful infill development, in addition to expedited approval processes, is designing land uses and structures that are compatible within the existing neighborhood character. • Street Connectivity: An interconnected network of streets tends to encourage walking,biking,andtransittripswhileastreet network with few connections generally favors automobile travel. A recent special report published by the Transportation Research Board concludes that good street connectivity can reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT), especially when coupled with more compact development. Madison could follow the example of cities such as Austin, TX and Fort Collins, CO, which have adopted street connectivity requirements for new development. • Transit-Oriented Development: Many cities have enhanced the viability of their transit systems by encouraging development around transit nodes. Transportation choices are closely related to the way land is developed. Madison should encourage higher density, mixed-use development near its existing and projected transit network, allowing residents closer proximity to shopping, employment and other activities. This targeted development strategy would support an energy-efficient rail and bus transit system. • Reduced Surface Parking: Parking lots are an inefficient use of land, functioning at less than peak capacity for all but a handful of days every year. Traditional surface parking lots generate heavy storm water runoff, which in turn collects motor oil and other chemicals that infiltrate local waterways. Large parking lots also can become safety hazards for pedestrians. Madison could follow Helena, Portland and other cities by implementing downtown parking caps or lowering city-wide maximum parking standards. The City could also incentivize structured and underground parking lots to limit the detrimental effects of large-lot surface parking. • Green Affordable Housing: Green affordable housing is low impact, energy efficient housing, affordable to low to moderate income residents.  Madison can facilitate the development of green, affordable housing by eliminating exclusionary land use regulations, subsidizing rent and home ownership for qualified low-income residents, and incentivizing or enforcing stronger energy efficiency standards for both new and renovated housing.  City-wide benefits would include cleaner air, reduced homelessness, and cost savings from energy efficiency.  • Neighborhood-Based Community and Social Services: The provision of on-site resources and services for residents is an important component of sustainable housing practices.  Madison already has community centers and programs, but the expansion of these resources in every neighborhood can increase employment and education, reduce crime, and enhance mobility for all residents.  On-site housing resources could include transportation subsidies, job training, education programs for both youth and adults, financial literacy programs, access to technology, and case management.  sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
urpl 912 | 12.18.0993
94sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS TRANSPORTATION Transitioning away from the auto-centric transportation paradigm is critical if the City of Madison is to achieve its sustainability goals. A reduction in vehicle miles traveled would help reduce carbon dioxide emissions that pose health and climate problems. By promoting mass-transit, bicycling and walking, Madison can greatly reduce its overall fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. These transportation policy options demonstrate the role that transportation policies can play in promoting accessibility, mobility, public safety, and public health. • Light Rail or Street Cars: Madison has been studying the feasibility of a light rail line running through the city for some time now. Historically, Madison had an extensive street car system that was comprehensive in its area of coverage and level of service. A light rail or street car system would have many benefits, including greater long term transit capacity as the city and ridership grow, and higher fuel economy per passenger mile. A light rail or street car system could help encourage people to drive less, which could significantly lower transportation related CO2 emissions. • Bus Rapid Transit: Bus Rapid Transit or BRT is a mass transport option that could be economically feasible for Madison. A BRT system has buses operating on their own right-of-way, which operate similarly to light rail or street car systems. BRT, like streetcars, has also been considered by the City of Madison for implementation. University Avenue and other streets currently have their own bus lanes; making implementation of a BRT system easier in those areas. The advantages of BRT are similar to those of light rail and streetcars, in that BRT offers higher long term capacities to meet future city growth and ridership. BRT can help to significantly lower the air pollution attributable to Madison’s commuters. • Increasing Intelligent Transportation System Technology: Madison has already begun to use some of the ITS technologies available today, including real-time bus tracking and LEDs at bus stops. The number of LEDs at bus stops could be expanded to include stops throughout the city, making the bus system more convenient to use. LEDs display estimated wait times for buses as Madison has real time GPS tracking devices on its fleet. Other ITS technologies that could be implemented include electronic payment systems, which could make the ticket sale process more efficient, and the linkage of bus system information to Google maps. The benefits of these changes are likely to include increased knowledge, and safety of the system resulting in increased bus ridership. This in turn can generate greater revenues from the bus system and reduce the number of cars on the road. • Inter-Regional Transportation and Commuter Rail: Dane County has already taken some initial steps needed to create a regional commuter rail system. The first of these was the formation of the Dane County Regional Transit Authority (RTA). Commuter railwouldprovideincreasedopportunitiesfor peopleinthegreaterMadisonregiontotravel inasustainablemannertodestinationsinand Photo: Light Rail on Howard Street in downtown - Baltimore, MD
urpl 912 | 12.18.0995 around the City of Madison. Madison has the additional cost benefit of using existing track infrastructure for part of the potential commuter rail system. A regional rail system could help spur economic development along rail corridors. Madison also has the opportunity to connect its current public transit system to the proposed regional commuter rail line, further increasing the region’s transit service. • Biking and pedestrian friendly streets: Madison has made great strides in ensuring that cycling is a viable transportation mode. This is reflected in the numerous streets throughout the city that already have bike lanes. Bike racks have also been placed on the fronts of most of the bus fleet. The city is also attempting to make street crosswalks safer for pedestrians. Madison can further improve its bike and pedestrian friendliness by clearly marking bike lanes and all cross walks, insuring that they are visible to drivers. Madison can also improve its bicycle storage options, especially at public transit stops, in order to further increase the ability of residents to connect by bicycle to public transit. The environmental and health benefits of increasing the walking and biking are clear, as both forms of transit emit no C02 and are excellent ways for people to be physically active.
96sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
urpl 912 | 12.18.0997 BUILDINGS Currently in the United States, buildings account for 72% of electricity consumption, 39 % of energy use, 38 % of CO2 emissions, and 40 % of raw materials use. Sustainable building practices can mitigate the environmental impacts of communities and neighborhoods. The following policy options are effective methods for making Madison’s buildings more sustainable. • LEED or Equivalent Goal: Many municipal governments, including Madison, have adopted standards to ensure that new or newlyremodeledCity-ownedandCity-funded buildings are more sustainable. Madison already requires city-owned buildings to achieve LEED silver certification. Very few municipalities require all new construction or remodeled existent buildings to meet LEED or equivalent standards. Madison could distinguish itself as a sustainable city by requiring that all buildings meet LEED or equivalent standards. • Density Bonus Goal: According to the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties’ 2007 Green Building Incentives That Work, density bonuses are one of the top three incentives endorsed by developers surveyed. To encourage the construction of sustainable buildings, Madison could provide density bonus incentives for those projects that meet specified social equity, energy efficiency, and mobility standards. This could be measured in a variety of ways, such as comparing a building’s floor area ratio to the desired density standard and to the density of affordable housing units per acre. Affordability is based on 30% of the area’s median household income. • Existing Building Goal: While many sustainable building design and construction effortsaregearedtowardsnewdevelopment, in any community most buildings, regardless of scale or use, are already in place. In Madison, efforts to retrofit, rehabilitate, or otherwise improve the sustainability and energy efficiency of existing structures could prove crucial for long-term building sustainability. A program to conduct an energy audit and building upgrade cycle could be coupled with existing City programs. Success could be measured by an annual comparison of a given building’s energy efficiency, compared with similar buildings’ performance ratings. • Guidance and Technical Support Goal: Some municipalities have adopted guidelines to facilitate the development and maintenance of green buildings. Madison already has several similar measures in place through the MadiSun, Mpowering Madison program, and The Natural Step. However, this already useful toolbox could be expanded by creating sustainability guidelines for the private development community. For example, two-page sustainability guidelines could be prepared for office buildings, industrial buildings, and residential buildings. This technical assistance could be offered through both printed and electronic media. This program could be enhanced by surveying the development community to see what other information they need to build more sustainably. Photo: Green roof on City Hall - Chicago, IL
98 • Public Understanding, Education and Involvement Goal: It is critical to bring green building practices to the attention of the general public and to all facets of the building industry. By informing these groups of the benefits of green building, the city can expand market demand and strengthen the local capacity to build green. Routine communication on the city’s progress towards sustainability could encourage the public and the building community to embrace the “best practices” for a more sustainable future. One way to do this is by making this information more user-friendly and easy for the development community and public to access. Guidelines and fact sheets, for example, could be made available through the City’s website. • Building Plan Review and Permit Process Goal:Acommonconcernforthoseinvolvedin development is the duration and uncertainty of the review/permitting process for building proposals. Giving preference to projects that commit to specific sustainability goals provides an incentive for the development community. Green building projects could pass through the process faster, saving developers’ time and money. Madison could expedite the permitting process for targeted projects, such as a new grocery store that meets specific site and building standards. Depending on the project complexity, green building permits could be approved in as little as 30 days. • Monitoring and Reporting on Building Performance Goal: The City of Madison should monitor the costs and benefits of its green building strategies and practices to evaluate the effectiveness of the sustainability standards, technical services, and incentive programs. Although Madison is already monitoring and reporting on city- owned buildings, public disclosure of energy usage in privately owned green buildings can be an education tool to increase public awareness of the benefits of sustainable building practices. All information should be user-friendly and easily accessible to the public through the Internet. The City also could survey the public to see how accessible and user-friendly these monitoring documents are. sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
urpl 912 | 12.18.0999
100sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS ENERGY, UTILITIES, AND NATURAL RESOURCES One of the best ways for communities to become more sustainable is to use natural resources more efficiently. It is no secret that our energy and water resources are finite, whether they are fossil fuels, ground water, “renewable” fuels or products like biomass and ethanol. Improvements in Madison’s energy and water policies could reduce consumption, increase efficiency, and ensure access to affordable infrastructure for generations to come. By incorporating some of these policies and programs, Madison can continue to transform its built environment into one that is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. • Energy Usage, Conservation & Building Efficiency: In addition to LEED requirements for city buildings, expanding the program to include privately-owned buildings could save city residents and businesses millions of dollars in energy costs while also reducing tons of CO2 emissions. Establishing energy efficiency standards for all buildings is crucial. In addition, low-income residents and their landlords could be offered rebates on energy-saving fixtures like setback thermostats and Energy Star appliances. Implementation of a regional “Smart Grid” could help increase energy conservation. Public education and outreach to community groups, neighborhood associations, and schools could inform them of the best practices for energy efficiency. • Efficient Energy Production & Pollution Reduction: There are three coal-fired power plants on Madison’s isthmus: the MG&E power plant on Blount Street, UW-Madison’s CharterStreet plant and the state-run Capitol Heating and Power facility. These plants, when taken together are the major suppliers of Madison’s electricity consumption. However, there are plans to convert the Charter Street plant into a biomass energy plant, operating completely on wood chips. Converting the coal-fired plants to other fuel sources, such as natural gas, would help to improve both air and water quality in and around Madison. • Developing Renewable Bioenergy Sources: Portland, Oregon currently requires a minimum 5% blend of biodiesel for all vehicle diesel fuel sold within its city limits. Gasoline is required to contain at least 10% ethanol. Through this effort, Portland is creating demand for thousands of gallons of renewable transportation fuels. This in turn helps to spur market development of large- scale Oregon based biofuel production. This growing renewable fuels market generates a need for oilseed crops like canola and mustard seed that can be grown as rotational crops by farmers. Strategies such as this meet goals for job growth, greenhouse gas emission reduction and local environmental health. Although the crops that could supply fuels for Madison differ from Portland, the practice of encouraging bio- fuel usage through policy helps to reduce monoculture farming practices and to ensure environmental sustainability. • Reduce Waste through Comprehensive Recycling Program: Madison does a good job of keeping waste out of landfills by Photo: Compost in hand
urpl 912 | 12.18.09101 recycling and composting over 59% of the city’s waste stream. However, Madison residents still annually send nearly 50,000 tons of material to the Dane County Landfill. That is about 1,500 pounds of trash, on average, for each of Madison’s 67,000 households served by the Streets Division. Enrolling city neighborhoods in Recyclebank could encourage recycling by fostering a waste reduction competition between enrolled communities. In addition to residential based programs, increasing recycling in public spaces could help to keep waste and recyclable products from ending up in landfills or water bodies. Recycling programs in Germany have been extremely successful. Manufacturers, for example, are responsible for recycling the packaging of goods sold. This has reduced overall packaging in Germany by 14%. • Reduce Waste through a Municipal Compost Program: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Berkeley and Seattle are just some of the cities working towards the goal of zero waste. San Francisco now has three separate curbside bins, blue for recyclables, green for food and yard waste, and black for garbage. They also reach out to the various communities in the San Francisco Bay area by creating informational flyers in five different languages. These flyers promote the composting program by including a coupon for a free small kitchen counter food scrap collection pails. They also offer coupons for a 25% discount to restaurants and hotels that participate in the compost program. Nearly 40,000 tons of organic matter is annually recycled into fertilizer which the city then sells. In addition to composting organic waste, the city of Boston powers 1500 homes through an anaerobic digester within the city boundary. The odor-free facility has been well received by resident • Reduce Potable Water usage through Greywater Recycling - Water from showers, bathroom faucets, and laundry - also known as greywater - makes up 50-80% of potable water use. Madison residents use about 70 gallons/day and much of this could be reused through greywater recycling systems. Reused water is usually limited to flushing toilets and subsurface irrigation. While many new buildings have been designed with water efficient fixtures, many older homes and apartments have not been upgraded. Toronto and Prescott, Arizona encourage landlords and low-income households to upgrade aging housing stock by offering low- priced kits that include faucet aerators, low flow shower heads, a toilet flow reduction and leak test, and lawn watering instructions to help residents reduce potable water use. Once the homeowner installs the kit, the $10 fee is credited on their water bill. • PromoteCleanSurfaceWaterthroughUrban Stormwater Management: Stormwater runoff, contaminated with sediment and other chemical and biological pollutants, negatively impacts the health of Madison’s lakes. While Madison does not have a combined sewer system, disconnecting down-spouts, and increasing the number of rain barrel and rain garden programs would help reduce runoff to the lakes and potentially increase groundwater recharge. In addition to “daylighting” long buried creeks and streams, Madison could take other steps to restore its natural hydrologic patterns. As part of this restoration process, outreach to community groups, neighborhood associations, and schools could increase environmental awareness and build interest and support for Madison’s green infrastructure.
102sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
urpl 912 | 12.18.09103 PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND URBAN FORESTRY Parks, open space, and the urban forests provide places for people to connect with each other and with the natural environment. These outdoor spaces play an important role in making cities vibrant and livable places. Parks and open spaces provide many economic, environmental, and social benefits. These benefits include reducing air and water pollution, increasing property values, and providing nearby recreational opportunities. The policies and practices listed below can help enhance Madison’s parks and open space system to create a more sustainable community. • Ensure accessibility to public open space: Ensuring that all residents of Madison are within a 10-15 minute walk of a park or other public open space is an important livability goal. Meaningful civic spaces - re- imagined streets and sidewalks, along with new plazas and waterfront promenades – are valuable community assets that could be implemented in conjunction with higher density infill and redevelopment. • Create more ‘Green Streets’: Green streets arepublicspacesthataccommodatemultiple forms of transportation, not just cars. Green streets also provide tree canopy coverage and incorporate sustainable stormwater management practices. Madison currently uses some best practices, including rain gardens. But more can be done, especially on major avenues and boulevards, to plant trees and no-mow ground covers, install porous paving, and integrate bio-infiltration swales. • Ensure appropriate maintenance, landscaping and natural plants for public lands: By landscaping with drought- tolerant native plants, the economic costs and environmental impacts of managing public lands can be reduced. The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary program for golf courses, for example, helps course superintendents develop environmental management practices that protect the environment, conserve natural resources, and provide wildlife habitat. The program would be viable for Madison’s five golf courses. • Encourage and preserve private open space: Open space is not merely public land but includes private and institutional open space. By informing the public of voluntary land conservation options, and incentivizing the protection of environmental features through rebates and expedited permits within the development process, cities such as Sioux Falls, SD, and Alexandria, VA, are working to conserve privately-held open spaces. • Enact a Tree Preservation Ordinance: Madison currently does not have a tree preservation ordinance. Cities such as Milwaukee, WI, Pasadena, CA, and Lake Forest, IL, have adopted tree protection ordinances that protect designated trees during construction. These ordinances also provide replacement standards and fines when trees are damaged or have to be removed. Photo: Warner Park rain garden - Madison, WI
104 • Maintain the ecosystem health of natural resources within open spaces: Madison has several conservation areas to protect ecologically important wetlands within the city. Madison should consider following the lead of Denver and the Government of South Australia which have protected networks of biodiversity corridors to enhance ecosystem resilience to climate change. These green infrastructure protections include natural areas threatened by development. • Increase the urban canopy: Cities from New YorktoSanFranciscohavesetambitiousgoals to increase the urban canopy. New York has set a goal to reforest parks and increase the urban canopy to 90% in parks and to 80% on city streets. Several other cities, including Denver, have tree planting goals within the city to ensure adequate tree coverage throughout the city. With the Madison street tree inventory to be completed soon, the data will be available to identify locations - for example, in residential, commercial, and industrial areas - where Madison’s tree canopy could be enhanced. • Expand volunteerism: When community members become active in caring for their neighborhood, it provides a sense of ownership and, potentially, reduces the maintenance demand on the city. Currently, Madison has several volunteer opportunities including the ‘adopt a park’ program. Madison also works with local community and conservation groups in various capacities. These programs could be expanded by using the Internet to solicit and report volunteer service. sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
urpl 912 | 12.18.09105
106 FOOD SYSTEMS The success of food systems policy development will depend on numerous factors, including the capacity of municipal staff and allied private and nonprofit organizations, the type and availability of public and private grant monies, and the perceived needs and/or priorities of local citizens (e.g. food security public health, access to cultivatable land, economic development). The following sustainable municipal food policies and actions range from short-term to long-term, and vary in the difficulty of implementation. The policy options laid out below would help maintain Madison’s reputation as a leader and innovator in the field of food systems, while also making Madison more sustainable. Short-term: • Food waste reduction and hunger relief legislation. • Counter-advertising against unhealthy foods. • Removal of junk food vending machines from public schools & agencies. • Increased point-of-sale signage and availability of fruits and vegetables in school & municipal cafeterias. • Demonstration “victory gardens” on highly visible public land. • SNAP-accessible farmers markets. • Zoning for urban agriculture. • Incorporation of food processing/ distribution infrastructure into regional land- use and economic development plans. • Modification of zoning ordinances to support healthy mobile vending. • Increase the number of available mobile vending permits. Mid-term: • Ordinances restricting access to unhealthy food. • Grocery store attraction: o Zoning incentives (e.g. density bonuses) for developments with full-service supermarkets in under- served areas. o Public-private partnerships providing one-time loans/grants • Restrictive ordinances/ regulation of fast food cues. (e.g. density, size and location controls on signage and advertising) • Mandatory menu/calorie labeling at restaurants. • Subdivision design standards mandating inclusion of food access and food production features. • Public-private agricultural programming for hunger relief, rehabilitation/re-entry services, and job training. • Build demand for local food through actionable local food procurement policies. o Establish a local food procurement policy pilot project in partnership with a single municipal agency or a partner such as the University of Wisconsin. Long-term: • Taxes that reduce the profitability of discretionary calories (i.e. junk food) for food retailers. • Tax credits for food retailers sourcing locally. • TIF districts and CBDG grants to promote local food-based small business incubation, food processing and distribution enterprises. • Collaborate with local food producers, retailers, and distributors to identify artificial or administrative barriers to a robust local farm-direct and wholesale food market: o Work with Wisconsin DATCP, the sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS Photo: Edible, organic garden in front of City Hall - San Francisco, CA
urpl 912 | 12.18.09107 Department of Public Health and otherstomodifyregulationsdesigned for the industrial agricultural sector to better accommodate the scale and production practices of small/mid- scale producers and distributors. • Develop permanent year-round public market facilities (e.g., on Madison’s west side, east side, and central area). • Implement a municipal curb-side household organic composting program. • Construct anaerobic digesters to capture energy from food waste and other local organic refuse.
108sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
urpl 912 | 12.18.09109 SHAPING THE FUTURE: THREE PHASES This report has presented a broad range of sustainability policies and practices that have been successfully implemented in other communities. Although the City of Madison has made substantial progress in becoming a more sustainable community, additional policies and programs can be developed and implemented. Three phases are briefly outlined, below, to suggest that shaping Madison’s future could be an iterative process. Each successive phase can build upon previous phases. Collectively, the following three phases illustrate a complementary set of policies and practices that could be implemented in Madison and Dane County to create a more sustainable city and region. Photo: Activity along State Street - Madison, WI
110sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS Phase 1 In the nearest future, Madison could improve bus service, further enhance the mobility and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, create incentives for energy and water conservation, implement greener storm water management practices, increase waste recycling, improve access to healthy food, and better protect urban street trees. Table 1: Madison’s Green Future
urpl 912 | 12.18.09111 Phase 2 Building on the first phase, stronger incentives could increase energy and water efficiency, better manage waste and storm water, and improve both public health and the local food system. Successes in each of the areas can raise public awareness and build support for additional sustainability programs and practices. Table 2: Madison’s Greener Future
112sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS Phase 3 In the third (but not final) phase, environmental and economic sustainability are integrated with social equity to ensure that benefits of a more sustainable and livable community are enjoyed by all citizens, regardless of age, gender, income level, or race/ ethnicity. Table 3: Madison’s Greenest Future
FinalReportFall2009_LB
bibliography appendix
urpl 912 | 12.18.09113 100% Green Power Purchasers. http://www.epa. gov/grnpower/toplists/partner100.htm 6 October 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, http://www.1kfriends. org/Transportation/WI_Transportation_Projects_/ Streetcars.htm 3 Easy Ways to Conserve Energy. http://www. enactwi.org/index.php?page=conserve-energy Accessed on 21 October 2009. Affordable Housing Design Advisor: www. designadvisor.org, accessed on 12/2/2009. Affordable Housing Design Advisor Green Housing Projects: http://www.designadvisor.org/green/ murphy.htm; American Wind Energy Association FAQ Cost. http:// www.awea.org/faq/cost.html Accessed 4 December 2009 Applebome, Peter. “After War, Finding Peace and Calm in a Garden.” New York Times, November 30, 2009, New York Section. Applicability of Bogotá’s TransMilenio BRT System to the United States, US Department of Transportation, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Bogota_ Report_Final_Report_May_2006.pdf Arlington County’s 2007-2008 Building Energy Report Cards, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva. us/portals/topics/aire/BuildingEnergy.aspx Arlington County, Virginia’s Density Bonus Incentive, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva. us/DEPARTMENTS/EnvironmentalServices/epo/ EnvironmentalServicesEpoGreenBuildings.aspx Arlington County, Virginia’s Green Building Fund, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva.us/ DEPARTMENTS/EnvironmentalServices/epo/ EnvironmentalServicesEpoGreenBuildings.aspx Arlington Virginia Environmental Services: http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/ EnvironmentalServices/dot/planning/page66674. aspx, accessed on 11/7/2009. Audubon International. 2009. Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses Certification Overview.RetrievedNovember10,2009from http:// www.auduboninternational.org/PDFs/Golf%20 Certification%20Overview.pdf. Austen, Ian, “Montreal Inagurates Contients Most ambitious Bike-Sharing Program.” The New York Times May 13, 2009, http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes. com/2009/05/13/montreal-inaugurates-continents- most-ambitious-bike-sharing-program/ Bailey, Phil. 1994. Ozaukee Country Club’s Audubon Stepping Stone to a Better Environment. USGA Green Section Record. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1990s/1994/940912.pdf. Bellows, A. “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” Community Food Security Coalition. http://www. foodsecurity.org/UAHealthArticle.pdf (accessed September 20, 2009). Benfield,Kaid.(2008).“Transit-OrientedDevelopment in Arlington: Stunning Success and Some Lessons,” NRDC Switchboard: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/ blogs/kbenfield/transitoriented_development_ in.html Bibliography
114 Berrigan, D. and R.P. Troiano, “The Association Between Urban Form and Physical Activity in U.S. Adults,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, volume 23, issue 2, supplement 1, August 2002. Bike Rack on Buses Update, www.ci.mil.wi.us/ ImageLibrary/User/.../Bike_Racks_on_Buses_ Upate.pdf. Biofuels. http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/ index.cfm?c=42843 Accessed 4 December 2009 Biofuels/Biodiesel. http://www.biofuelsportland. com Accessed 4 December 2009 Blueprint Denver: http://www.denvergov.org/ Portals/650/documents/BlueprintDenver.pdf, accessed on 12/3/2009. “Boston Silver Line Washington Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Demonstration Project Evaluation”, US Department of Transportation, September, 2005, http://www.nbrti.org/media/evaluations/Boston_ Silver_Line_final_report.pdf Building Energy Efficiency Programs in Europe and Australia. http://www.envirovaluation.org/ index.php/2009/10/16/building-energy-efficiency- programs-in-europe-and-australia-offer-important- lessons-for-the-united-states. 21 September 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009. Bush, Rudolph, City Hall Blog, The Dallas Morning News, November 10, 2008, http://cityhallblog. dallasnews.com/archives/2008/11/walkable- zoning-regulations-ex.html California Environmental Associates. “Slow Money Wisconsin.” 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Data and Trends.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/ statistics/prev/national/figage.htm (accessed December 2, 2009). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Recommended Community Strategies and MeasurementstoPreventObesityintheUnitedStates: Implementation and Measurement Guide.” Centers forDiseaseControlandPrevention.July,2009.http:// www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/community_ strategies_guide.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009.) Charter Street plant will use biomass fuel, not coal. http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/437085 6 February 2009. accessed 4 December 2009 Chicago, Illinois’ Green Permit Program, Available at: http://www.cityofchicago.org/ webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/ GreenPermitBrochure_1.pdf CityofAlexandria.2002. AlexandriaOpenSpacePlan. Retrieved Sept 19, 2009 from http://alexandriava. gov/uploadedfiles/recreation/info/OpenSpacePlan. pdf City of Alexandria. 2009. Eco-City Alexandria: Environmental Action Plan. Retrieved Sept 18, 2009 from http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/tes/ eco-city/EAP_FINAL_06_18_09.pdf City of Bellevue. 2003. Bellevue’s Parks and Open Space Plan. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.cityofbellevue.org/park_plan.htm City of Denver. Greenprint Denver, building a sustainablecity. RetrievedSept.18,2009fromhttp:// www.greenprintdenver.org/water-environment/ City of Denver. 2000. Game Plan. Retrieved Sept. 17, 2009 from http://www.denvergov. org/parksandrecreation/Home/GamePlan/ tabid/432591/Default.aspx City of Edmonton. 2006. Environmental Strategic Plan. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http:// www.iclei.org/index.php?id=8572. sustainability plan | BIBLIOGRAPHY
urpl 912 | 12.18.09115 City of Eugene. 1992. Urban Forest Management Plan. Retrieved Sept 17, 2009 from http:// www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/ PTARGS_0_2_144746_0_0_18/ForestPlan.pdf. City of Eugene. 2006. Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Project and Priority Plan. Retrieved Sept. 18 2009 From http://www.eugene-or.gov/ portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=217&PageID=13 60&cached=true&mode=2&userID=2 City of Malibu, Zoning Ordinance, Title 17.44.050 Elements of landscape documentation package City of New York. 2007. PlaNYC. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from http://www.nyc.gov/ html/planyc2030/html/downloads/the-plan.shtml. City of New York. 2009. PlaNYC Progress Report 2009. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from http:// www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/downloads/ the-plan.shtml. City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. 2009. Status Report: Portland Plan Indicators. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/ index.cfm?a=246919&c=46822. City of Portland. 2007. Green Streets Cross-Bureau Team Report. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/ image.cfm?id=153974. City of San Francisco. 1997. Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.sustainable-city.org/. CityofPortlandBureauofPlanningandSustainability. “Urban Growth Bounty 2009.” City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. http:// www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=49224 (accessed December 3, 2009). City of Sacramento City Sponsored Infill House Plan Program: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/ planning/infill-house-plan-program/, accessed on 12/4/2009. CityofSanFrancisco.“Sourcing&ServingSustainable, Healthy Food.” City of San Francisco. http://www. sfgov.org/site/sffood_index.asp?id=66024 (accessed December 4, 2009). City of Seattle. 2003. Monitoring Our Progress: Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/ groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/ Web_Informational/dpd_001102.pdf. City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. “P-Patch Community Gardens.” City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. http://www. cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/ppatch/ (accessed December 3, 2009). City of Seattle. 2005. Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan Toward a Sustainable Seattle. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/ Planning/Seattle%5Fs%5FComprehensive%5FPlan/ ComprehensivePlan/ City of Sioux Falls. 2009. Open Space. Retrieved September 30, 2009 from http://www.siouxfalls. org/~/media/documents/planning/2009/shape_sf/ jan_09_policies/OPEN%20SPACE.ashx. City of Vancouver. 2009. Greenest City: Quick Start Recommendations. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http://vancouver.ca/greenestcity/PDF/ greenestcity-quickstart.pdf. Cooper, Gary & Furmaniak, Thomas B, “Portland Streetcar: A Two-Year Report Card”, National Light Rail Transit Conference, Transportation Research Board, Portland, Nov. 2003 Council on the Environment in New York City. “Greenmarket.” Council on the Environment in New York City. http://www.cenyc.org/greenmarket
116 (accessed December 4, 2009). CRCOG Best Practices Manual: Transfer of Development Rights (2002): http://www.crcog. org/publications/CommDevDocs/TCSP/Ch03_ FactSheet_TDR.pdf, accessed on 10/20/2009. Davis, Steve. (2009). “Arlington, Virginia’s Story of Smart Growth: The Movie,” Smart Growth Around America Blog, http://blog.smartgrowthamerica. org/2009/05/08/arlington-virginias-story-of-smart- growth-the-movie/; District of Columbia Department of Transportation, http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/lib/ddot/information/ bicycle/newbike-final.pdf Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co. “Food Production Along the Transect.” New Urban News. http:// www.newurbannews.com/13.4/jun08newest.html (accessed December 3, 2009). Dutch, Steven, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Why People Don’t Use Mass Transit, http://www. uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/masstransit.htm Ecology Center. “EBT Farmers’ Market Nutrition Project.” Ecology Center. http://www.ecologycenter. org/ebt/ (accessed December 2, 2009). Electric Street Car Systems, http://my.execpc. com/~coken2/stcarrs.htm Environmentally friendly upgrade planned for Charter Street plant. http://www.news.wisc. edu/16755 21 may 2009. Accessed on 4 December 2009 EPA – Green Infrastructure http://cfpub.epa.gov/ npdes/home.cfm?program_id=298 Accessed 4 December 2009 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Food Waste Management Tools and Resources.” Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa. gov/waste/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd- res.htm (accessed December 3, 2009). European Council of the European Union, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage. aspx?lang=EN&id=1 Federal Highway Administration, “Integration of Bicycle and Transit”, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ ped_bike/docs/bike_bus.pdf Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation: Student Workbook (second edition). Report No. HRT-05-133h Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Data, 2005, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/data/grants_ financing_1090.html First Community Housing, Flex Your Power Success Story: http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CS_ FirstCommunity.pdf; Friends of the Pittsburgh Urban Forest. 2009. STRATUM: Street Tree Resource Analysis Tool for Urban Forest Managers. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www. pittsburghforest.org/STRATUM. From Turbines and Straw, Danish Self-Sufficiency. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/world/ europe/30samso.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 29 September 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009. Government of South Australia. 2007. South Australia’s Strategic Plan 2007. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http://saplan.org.au/images/pdf/ South_Australia_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf. GovTrack.us The Federal Food Donation Act. 2008. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record. xpd?id=110- s20080522-78 (accessed November 30, 2009). Grist’s 15 Green Cities, Available at: http://www. sustainability plan | BIBLIOGRAPHY
urpl 912 | 12.18.09117 grist.org/article/cities3/ Growing Power. “About Us.” Growing Power. http:// www.growingpower.org/about_us.htm (accessed September 20, 2009). Handy, Susan, et al. (2003). “Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There,” Chicago: American Planning Association. HomeDepotFoundation,FirstCommunityHousing’s Murphy Ranch: http://www.homedepotfoundation. org/pdfs/murphy_ranch_3.pdf, all accessed on 12/4/2009. Illinois Department of Agriculture. Press Release. “Illinois Department of Agriculture to Plant Community Garden: Garden will be open to the public and located on Illinois State Fairgrounds.” March 10, 2009. http://www.agr.state.il.us/ newsrels/r0310091.html (accessed December 4, 2009) King County, Washington, Transfer of Development Rights Program: http://www.kingcounty.gov/ environment/stewardship/sustainable-building/ transfer-development-rights.aspx, accessed on 10/20/2009. Kubik, M. Y., Lytle, L. A., Hannan, P. J., Perry, C. L., & Story, M. (2003). The association of the school food environment with dietary behaviors of young adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1168-1173. http://www.joe.org/ joe/2009february/a3.php (accessed December 3, 2009). Lacy,Brian,SmartCommunitiesNetwork,Community Cycling center, http://www.smartcommunities.ncat. org/success/community_cycling.shtml Leeds Konsult, Light Rail Systems, http://www. konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments/ instrument002/l2_002c.htm Lesson 1: The Need for Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility, FHWA http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/ pedbike/pubs/05085/chapt1.htm Lewis,Megan.2008.FromRecreationtoRe-Creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space System Planning. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 551. Chicago: American Planning Association. Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA), http://www. lrta.org/explain.html Los Angeles, California’s Building a Green Los Angeles: Framework for the City’s Green Building Program, Available at: http://www.lacity.org/council/cd9/pdf/ELEC%20 ENTIRE.pdf Los Angeles, California’s Standard for Sustainability, Available at: http://www.lacity.org/ead/ environmentla/greenbuilding/leed.htm Los Angeles County Metro, http://www.metro.net/ projects_studies/rapid/default.htm Marqusee, Rob. “Iowa Local Farmer & Food Security Act.” Woodbury County. http://www. woodburyorganics.com/Woodbury_Organics/ Main_files/LFFSA%20v1.1.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009). Marqusee, Rob. “Iowa Local Farmer & Food Security Act.” Woodbury County. http://www. woodburyorganics.com/Woodbury_Organics/ Main_files/LFFSA%20v1.1.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009). Merrigan, Kathleen. Memorandum. “Harnessing USDA Rural Development programs to support local and regional food systems.” USDA. August 26, 2009. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. 2002. Metropolitan Parks & Greenways and Master Plan. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www.nashville.gov/parks/master_plan.asp.
118 Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department. 2007. The Miami-Dade County Parks and Open Space System Master Plan. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.miamidade. gov/greatparksummit/library/OSMP_FINAL_ REPORT_entiredocument.pdf. Michigan Stormwater. http://www.michigan.gov/ stormwatermgt/0,1607,7-205--198075--,00.html Accessed 4 December 2009. Million Trees NYC. 2009. Benefits of NYC’s Urban Forest. Retrieved Sept 21 from http://www. milliontreesnyc.org/html/urban_forest/urban_ forest_benefits.shtml. Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee. 1995. A Guide to Developing a Community Tree Preservation Ordinance. State of Minnesota, Department of NaturalResources.RetrievedDecember1,2009from http://www.mnstac.org/RFC/preservationordguide. htm. Montgomery County Department of Economic Development Program Overview (2006): http:// www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/ded/ agservices/pdffiles/tdr_info.pdf, accessed on 11/14/2009. Morales, Alfonso, and Lindsey Day Farnsworth. “Satiating the Demand: Planning for Alternative Models of Regional Food Distribution.” University of Wisconsin Department of Urban and Regional Planning Working Papers. October 2009. Morales, Alfonso and Gregg Kettles. “Zoning for Public Markets and Street Vendors.” American Planning Association. Issue 2. Zoning Practice, February 2009. National Association of Industrial and Office Properties Research Foundation, Green Building Incentives that Work: A Look at How Local Governments Are Incentivizing Green Development, Available at: http://www.naiop.org/foundation/ completedresearch.com National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, http://www. nbrti.org/ National Governors Association. (2001). “Growth Toolkit: Maintain Farmland and Other Working Lands”: http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menui tem.9123e83a1f6786440ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnex toid=6a685aa265b32010VgnVCM1000001a01010a RCRD, accessed on 11/14/2009. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “NYC Green Carts.” New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. http:// www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cdp/cdp_pan_green_ carts.shtml (accessed December 4, 2009). New York, New York’s Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ planyc2030/html/plan/buildings_plan.shtml Newsome, Gavin. Executive Directive. “Healthy and Sustainable Food for San Francisco.”July 9, 2009. http://civileats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ Mayor-Newsom-Executive-Directive-on-Healthy- Sustainable-Food.pdf (accessed December 4, 2009). Nowak, David. 2007. Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values: New York City’s Urban Forest. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved Sept 20, 2009 from http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/ downloads/pdf/ufore_study.pdf. Our Environment. http://www.mge.com/ environment/ Accessed 4 December 2009 Parkiteer, Bicycle Victoria, 2009, www.parkiteer. com.au Parry, Olivia. Press Release. Dane County Partnership to Benefit from State Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin Grant Dollars to Make it Easier to Access Locally Grown, Organic Produce. July, 17, 2008. http://danedocs. sustainability plan | BIBLIOGRAPHY
urpl 912 | 12.18.09119 countyofdane.com/webdocs/pdf/plandev/ifm/ Kathleen_Falk.pdf. Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. “Philadelphia Green’s City Harvest program.”Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. http://www. pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/city- harvest.html (accessed December 3, 2009). Philadelphia High-Performance Building Renovation Guidelines, Available at: http://www.phila.gov/ pdfs/PhiladelphiaGreenGuidelines.pdf Plan / water / introduction http://www.sustainable- city.org/Plan/Water/intro.htm Accessed October 2009 Policy Link. “A National Fresh Food Financing Initiative:  An Innovative Approach to Improve Health and Spark Economic Development.” Policy Link. http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/ b.5136643/k.1E5B/Improving_Access_to_Healthy_ Food.htm (accessed November 30, 2009). Portland, Oregon’s Build It Green! Home Tour, Available at: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/ index.cfm?c=41893 Portland, Oregon’s ReTHINK Program, Available at: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index. cfm?c=42714 Portland Parks & Recreation. 2001. Parks 2020 Vision. Retrieved September 23, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index. cfm?c=40182&a=89435. Portland Streetcar History, http://www. portlandstreetcar.org/history.php Power Plants. http://www.mge.com/about/ powerplants/ Accessed 4 December 2009 Protecting Water Resources With Higher-Density Development. http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/ protect_water_higher_density.pdf Accessed 1 October 2009 Programmable Thermostats for Consumers. http:// www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=thermostats.pr_ thermostats. Accessed on 4 December 2009 Rail to Rails, ‘Walking and Biking as Mainstream Transportation Choices”, http://www.railstotrails. org/resources/documents/whatwedo/TrailLink%20 07%20Program_Mobility.pdf Railway Technology: Portland, http://www.railway- technology.com/projects/portland/ Railway Technology: Montpellier, http://www. railway-technology.com/projects/montpellier/ Railway Technology: Sheffield, http://www.railway- technology.com/projects/sheffield-tram/ Reid, Ian. 1994. Canadian Youth: Does Activity Reduce Risk? Canadian Parks and Recreation Association. Retrieved on Dec. 1, 2009 from http:// lin.ca/resource-details/1323. “Rethinking Local Affordable Housing Strategies: Lessons from 70 Years of Policy and Practice,” http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/knight/ executivesummary.pdf, accessed on 11/30/2009. Reynolds, Conor, et al, “The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature”, Environmental Health, October 21, 2009, http://www.ehjournal.net/ content/8/1/47 Roney,Mathew,“BicyclePedalingintotheSpotlight”, Earth Policy Institute, May 12, 2008, http://www. earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C48/ Santa Monica, California’s Green Building Design and Construction Guidelines, Available at: http:// www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/categories/ buildGreen.aspx
120 Schueler, Tom. 1995. “The Peculiarities of Perviousness.” Watershed Protection Techniques. 2.1. Scottsdale, Arizona’s Green Building Program, Available at: http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/ greenbuilding Seattle, Washington’s City Green Building, Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/GreenBuilding/ Commercial/IncentivesAssistance/default.asp#LEED Seattle, Washington’s 2006 Density Bonus Incentive, Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/ dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@sustainableblding/ documents/web_informational/dpdp_018423.pdf Seattle, Washington’s Priority Green Permit Program, Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/ Smart Communities Network Success Stories— Chicago Brownfields Initiative: http://www. smartcommunities.ncat.org/success/chicago_ brownfields.shtml, accessed on 12/4/2009. Sounder, First Quarter 2009 System Wide Ridership, http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/ newsroom/Ridership_Q1_2009.pdf Sounder Commuter Trains Specifications, http:// www.soundtransit.org/Riding-Sound-Transit/Our- Vehicles/Sounder-commuter-rail.xml State of Hawai’i Sustainability Task Force. 2008. Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.hawaii2050. org/images/uploads/Hawaii2050_Plan_FINAL.pdf. Stringer, Scott M. “Food In the Public Interest: How New York City’s Food Policy Holds the Key to Hunger, Health, Jobs and the Environment.” Manhattan Borough. February, 2009. http://www.mbpo.org/ uploads/FoodInThePublicInterest.pdf (accessed October 15, 2009). Sturm, Roland and Deborah A. Cohen. “Zoning For Health? The Year-Old Ban On New Fast-Food Restaurants In South LA.” Health Affairs 28, no. 6 (2009): w1088–w1097 (published online 6 October 2009; 10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1088) US Department of Agriculture. Sustainable Energy Utility Oversight Board. http:// www.seu-de.org/ Accessed on 20 October 2009. Sustainable City. http://www.sustainable-city.org/ Plan/Energy/strategy.htm. Accessed on 4 December 2009. The Urban Land Institute. (2005). “Higher Density Development: Myth and Fact.” Thornton Creek Water Quality Channel. http:// www.seattle.gov/UTIL/About_SPU/Drainage_&_ Sewer_System/Projects/COS_002477.asp Accessed on 4 December 2009 Town of Edmonston. 2009. The Green Street Project. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from http://www. edmonston.us.com/GoingGreen.html. Tri-Met MAX System Overview, http://trimet.org/ about/history/maxoverview.htm United States Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). 2008. Campus Sustainability Plan. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://sustainability.ucsb.edu/plan/ docs/sustainability_plan_workingdoc4.08.pdf. University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems. 2006. “U.S. Food System Fact Sheet.” University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems. http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01- 06.pdf (accessed December 1, 2009). University of Washington-Department of Landscape Architecture. 2006. Open Space Seattle 2100. sustainability plan | BIBLIOGRAPHY
urpl 912 | 12.18.09121 Retrieved September 30, 2009 from http://www. open2100.org/. Urban Habitat, “Curituba’s Bus System is Model For Rapid Transit”, http://urbanhabitat.org/node/344 USDA Forest Service. 2009. What is STRATUM? Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www. fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/stratum.shtml. US Department of Agriculture. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.” US Department of Agriculture. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/ snapmain.htm (accessed December 4, 2009). U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.energy.gov/ Accessed on 4 December 2009 US Department of Health and Human Services (2007) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: http://epa. gov/brownfields/success/showcase/sc_chica.htm, accessed on 11/29/2009. US Green Building Council. “LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System.” Proposed draft for ballot. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile. aspx?DocumentID=6146 (accessed October 14, 2009). U.S. Green Building Council, Green Building Research, Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/ DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1718 UW Extension. “Hunger Close to Home: Dane County.” University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension. Revised August, 2008. http://www.uwex. edu/ces/flp/demographics/hunger/pdfs/dane.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009). UW Extension Agricultural Innovation Center. “Incubator and Shared Kitchens.” UW Extension Agricultural Innovation Center. http://www. uwex.edu/ces/agmarkets/aic/sharedkitchens.cfm (accessed on December 1, 2009). Wheeler, Timothy. 2009. Remaking Main Street. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved December 2, 2009 from http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bal- md.gr.street25nov25,0,2052577.story. White, Dr. James A .http://www.chelanpud.org/ documents/SNAP_ASES_Paper.pdf Accessed on 4 December 2009 Wisconsin Department of Agricultural, Trade and Consumer Protection. “Buy Local Buy Wisconsin Grant Program.” Wisconsin Department of Agricultural, Trade and Consumer Protection. http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/mktg/business/ marketing/val-add/directmktg/blbw.jsp (accessed on December 2, 2009). Wolf, Kathy. 1998. Urban Forest Values: Economic Benefits of Trees in Cities. Fact Sheet 3. University of Washington- Center for Urban Horticulture. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from http://www. naturewithin.info/Policy/EconBens-FS3.pdf. Woodbury County Iowa. Resolution. “Woodbury CountyPolicyforRuralEconomicRevitalization:Local Food Purchase Policy.” http://www.woodbury-ia. com/departments/EconomicDevelopment/WC%20 LFPP%20v3.pdf I (accessed on December 2, 2009). Yglesias, Matthew, Class Warfare and the Bus, http:// yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/class- warfare-and-the-bus.php “Zoning Change will Make Bike Parking Based on Space, Not Car Parking”, WashCycle, November 02, 2009, http://www.thewashcycle.com/2009/11/ zoning-change-will-not-reduce-bike-parking.html
122sustainability plan | APPENDIX Public Forum Results: Neighborhoods
urpl 912 | 12.18.09123 Public Forum Results: Neighborhoods (Continued)
124sustainability plan | APPENDIX Public Forum Results: Transportation
urpl 912 | 12.18.09125 Public Forum Results: Buildings
126sustainability plan | APPENDIX Public Forum Results: Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources
urpl 912 | 12.18.09127 Public Forum Results: Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources (Continued)
128sustainability plan | APPENDIX Public Forum Results: Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources (Continued)
urpl 912 | 12.18.09129 Public Forum Results: Parks, Open Space, & Urban Forestry
130sustainability plan | APPENDIX Public Forum Results: Food Systems
urpl 912 | 12.18.09131 Public Forum Results: Food Systems (Continued)
132sustainability plan | APPENDIX

More Related Content

PDF
Planning for Sustainable Communities: Master Plan Guidance for New Jersey Of...
APA-NJ
 
PDF
Elements of Effective Engagement
The Rockefeller Foundation
 
PDF
Sustainability Assessment in Benin
jeanhuge
 
PDF
Ten Cities, Four Countries, Five Years: Lessons on the Process of Building Ur...
The Rockefeller Foundation
 
PDF
Mahmuda Mutahara "towards preachin what is practiced?"
Arjen Zegwaard
 
PDF
West Denver Phase 2 Report Final
socialmonkey
 
PDF
Participation in the Planning and Design of Public Open Space
Julie Meyer
 
PDF
EDEN Directors Strategic Planning Report
George M. Okantey, CPLP
 
Planning for Sustainable Communities: Master Plan Guidance for New Jersey Of...
APA-NJ
 
Elements of Effective Engagement
The Rockefeller Foundation
 
Sustainability Assessment in Benin
jeanhuge
 
Ten Cities, Four Countries, Five Years: Lessons on the Process of Building Ur...
The Rockefeller Foundation
 
Mahmuda Mutahara "towards preachin what is practiced?"
Arjen Zegwaard
 
West Denver Phase 2 Report Final
socialmonkey
 
Participation in the Planning and Design of Public Open Space
Julie Meyer
 
EDEN Directors Strategic Planning Report
George M. Okantey, CPLP
 

What's hot (20)

PPTX
Flip Wester "Turning Tides?"
Arjen Zegwaard
 
PPTX
Martijn van Staveren "Feeling blue get green"
Arjen Zegwaard
 
PDF
ACCCRN Cities Projects 2014
The Rockefeller Foundation
 
PDF
Rebuild by Design Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Rockefeller Foundation
 
PDF
Tools in the Toolbox: An Overview to Start the Conversation
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
 
PDF
Global Water Partnership : Strategy 2009 -2013
Christina Parmionova
 
PPTX
Community Participation In Cost Effective Housing.
Director-Navnirman Bahu-Uddeshiya Mahila Sanstha,Suvarna Lele Architects.
 
PPTX
Rural Climate Dialogues: Developing a Citizen-Based Response
nado-web
 
PPT
Sustainability Defined
Hector Rodriguez
 
PDF
ACCCRN Cities Poject - May 2013
The Rockefeller Foundation
 
PDF
Multistakeholder processes
Marc Manthey
 
PDF
IENAnnualReport2015
Andrew Reitelbach
 
PDF
FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY BEYOND DONOR’S SUPPORT. THE CASE OF ...
International Journal of Technical Research & Application
 
PDF
Community Based Wetland and Watershed Management
Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition
 
PPTX
The Role of the Media in Risk Communication, Sidika TEKELI-YESIL
Global Risk Forum GRFDavos
 
PDF
NSF Decadal Vision Report
Lyle Birkey
 
PPTX
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environ...
Aberdeen CES
 
PDF
Tracking The Field Of Environmental Philanthropy | Stanford Social Innovation...
rachelleon
 
PDF
Public particpation letter_10-24-2010
peggydrouet
 
PDF
Water Wise Roadmap
BPWWC
 
Flip Wester "Turning Tides?"
Arjen Zegwaard
 
Martijn van Staveren "Feeling blue get green"
Arjen Zegwaard
 
ACCCRN Cities Projects 2014
The Rockefeller Foundation
 
Rebuild by Design Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Rockefeller Foundation
 
Tools in the Toolbox: An Overview to Start the Conversation
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
 
Global Water Partnership : Strategy 2009 -2013
Christina Parmionova
 
Community Participation In Cost Effective Housing.
Director-Navnirman Bahu-Uddeshiya Mahila Sanstha,Suvarna Lele Architects.
 
Rural Climate Dialogues: Developing a Citizen-Based Response
nado-web
 
Sustainability Defined
Hector Rodriguez
 
ACCCRN Cities Poject - May 2013
The Rockefeller Foundation
 
Multistakeholder processes
Marc Manthey
 
IENAnnualReport2015
Andrew Reitelbach
 
FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY BEYOND DONOR’S SUPPORT. THE CASE OF ...
International Journal of Technical Research & Application
 
Community Based Wetland and Watershed Management
Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition
 
The Role of the Media in Risk Communication, Sidika TEKELI-YESIL
Global Risk Forum GRFDavos
 
NSF Decadal Vision Report
Lyle Birkey
 
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environ...
Aberdeen CES
 
Tracking The Field Of Environmental Philanthropy | Stanford Social Innovation...
rachelleon
 
Public particpation letter_10-24-2010
peggydrouet
 
Water Wise Roadmap
BPWWC
 
Ad

Viewers also liked (7)

PDF
SDECslideshow_LB
Lydia Bi
 
DOCX
adil cv12
Adil Hussain
 
PDF
บทที่4 ฮาร์ดแวร์และอุปกรณ์ที่เกี่ยวข้อง
mothanajrp
 
PDF
MCC final
Lydia Bi
 
DOCX
adil cv12
Adil Hussain
 
DOC
CV-GEBY[1]
gabe budiman siwalette
 
PDF
Aurangabad Smart City Proposal- Stage 2
Nikhil Bhalerao
 
SDECslideshow_LB
Lydia Bi
 
adil cv12
Adil Hussain
 
บทที่4 ฮาร์ดแวร์และอุปกรณ์ที่เกี่ยวข้อง
mothanajrp
 
MCC final
Lydia Bi
 
adil cv12
Adil Hussain
 
CV-GEBY[1]
gabe budiman siwalette
 
Aurangabad Smart City Proposal- Stage 2
Nikhil Bhalerao
 
Ad

Similar to FinalReportFall2009_LB (20)

DOCX
The actual paper I answered in class. But since im not doing t.docx
arnoldmeredith47041
 
PPTX
Climate Change and resource sustainability.pptx
SaeedAlasrani
 
PPTX
City of surrey- project ideas
Adriana Zuniga
 
PDF
2009 APA Sustainable Comprehensive Plan
WRT
 
PDF
IRJET- Sustainable Planning Strategies and its Principles
IRJET Journal
 
PDF
The Guide To Greening Cities Sadhu Aufochs Johnston Steven S Nicholas
laizereckbo
 
PDF
CZ09 Sea Grant presentations
moniquemyers
 
PDF
776 the future of sustainable cities - critical reflections=john flint mike r...
AmirPDehghani
 
PDF
The Sustainable City 2nd Edition Guo Dong
joeephlaskay
 
PDF
MAPD 2010 - ICLEI sustainability toolkit
American Planning Association - Massachusetts Chapter
 
PPTX
Sustainable metropolitan development- issues and its solutions.
shrikrishna kesharwani
 
PDF
A Sustainable Lac Megantic
Centre Magnétique
 
PDF
2009 APA Sustainable Comprehensive Plan
Wallace Roberts & Todd
 
PDF
1. Does US Have An Urban Sustainability Agenda For 21st Century
NewmanMirela
 
PDF
The Sustainable City 2nd Edition Guo Dong
guiuvelie
 
PDF
Public Realm as Sustainable Design
Green Initiatives 绿色倡议
 
PPTX
sustainable cities 1.pptx .....................
PratikshaJadhav74
 
PDF
A Systematic Review Of The Existing Literature For The Evaluation Of Sustaina...
Bryce Nelson
 
PPTX
Sustainability in Discretionary Review
Wallace Roberts & Todd
 
PDF
Urbanization
Getachew Demissie Desta
 
The actual paper I answered in class. But since im not doing t.docx
arnoldmeredith47041
 
Climate Change and resource sustainability.pptx
SaeedAlasrani
 
City of surrey- project ideas
Adriana Zuniga
 
2009 APA Sustainable Comprehensive Plan
WRT
 
IRJET- Sustainable Planning Strategies and its Principles
IRJET Journal
 
The Guide To Greening Cities Sadhu Aufochs Johnston Steven S Nicholas
laizereckbo
 
CZ09 Sea Grant presentations
moniquemyers
 
776 the future of sustainable cities - critical reflections=john flint mike r...
AmirPDehghani
 
The Sustainable City 2nd Edition Guo Dong
joeephlaskay
 
MAPD 2010 - ICLEI sustainability toolkit
American Planning Association - Massachusetts Chapter
 
Sustainable metropolitan development- issues and its solutions.
shrikrishna kesharwani
 
A Sustainable Lac Megantic
Centre Magnétique
 
2009 APA Sustainable Comprehensive Plan
Wallace Roberts & Todd
 
1. Does US Have An Urban Sustainability Agenda For 21st Century
NewmanMirela
 
The Sustainable City 2nd Edition Guo Dong
guiuvelie
 
Public Realm as Sustainable Design
Green Initiatives 绿色倡议
 
sustainable cities 1.pptx .....................
PratikshaJadhav74
 
A Systematic Review Of The Existing Literature For The Evaluation Of Sustaina...
Bryce Nelson
 
Sustainability in Discretionary Review
Wallace Roberts & Todd
 
Urbanization
Getachew Demissie Desta
 

FinalReportFall2009_LB

  • 2. urpl 912 | 12.18.09i This report represents the collaborative effort of many people and organizations. In addition, there are several other individuals, businesses, and groups of people who helped to make this report possible. Within the confines of this short section, we can only begin to show our gratefulness to all those that made the process of writing and researching this report a fruitful and rewarding one. Firstly, great thanks must be extended to Jim LaGro, our professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, for his expertise, leadership, and guidance. His support and advice helped transform this report into a document that can help guide the City of Madison towards a sustainable future. We also extend our gratitude to Sherrie Gruder and Jeanne Hoffman, who jointly spearheaded our efforts; coordinated, organized, planned, and led the three public forums; and provided positive feedback throughout the entire process. Their insight and knowledge proved invaluable. Secondly, we would like to thank the Goodman Center, the Overture Center, and the Sequoya Library for providing wonderful facilities in which to hold public forums. We would also like to thank all of the local businesses that provided snacks or refreshments at the public forums, including The Iron Works Café, EVP Coffee, and La Brioche. Thirdly, we would like to thank the Sustainable Design and Energy Committee (SDEC) for their support. We would especially like to acknowledge Andrew Statz and Alder Satya Rhodes-Conway, for taking the time to come to our class and providing input and suggestions on how to improve our precedent studies. Finally, all the students in this class deserve recognition. This endeavor truly demanded a team effort, and reflects the many hours, attention and great care put into the compilation, synthesis, and presentation of the huge amount of research this project demanded. The research teams, reflecting the six areas of sustainability presented within this report, are as follows: • Neighborhoods (Zia Brucaya, Spencer Gardner, Danielle James) • Transportation (Alex Deley, Sam Shannahan, Yan Wu) • Buildings (Amanda Hower, David Kress, Minhye Park) • Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources (Andrew Bernhardt, Lydia Bi, Dan Schmitt) • Parks,OpenSpace,&UrbanForestry(Amanda Chraca, Dana Dentice, Chris Fuchsteiner) • Food Systems (Lindsey Day Farnsworth, Stephanie Mantz) Acknowledgments
  • 3. iisustainability plan | TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Preface...............................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary.............................................................................................................v PART I: BEST PRACTICES Neighborhoods.....................................................................................................................1 Transportation....................................................................................................................11 Buildings.............................................................................................................................23 Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources...............................................................................37 Parks, Open Space, & Urban Forestry................................................................................51 FoodSystems.....................................................................................................................67 PART II: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PublicForums.....................................................................................................................81 SDEC Top Five Ideas...........................................................................................................85 CommunityEngagement....................................................................................................87 PART III: POLICY OPTIONS PolicyOptions....................................................................................................................91 ShapingtheFuture...........................................................................................................109 Bibliography.....................................................................................................................113 Appendix..........................................................................................................................122
  • 4. urpl 912 | 12.18.09iii Environmental damage caused by human activity has become increasingly apparent over the course of the last several decades. Action at all levels of government has become imperative in order to attempt to repair damage done and to prevent further environmental harm. On February 16, 2005, Seattle mayor, Greg Nickels, challenged mayors across the US to band together to combat climate change through the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Madison’s mayor, Dave Cieslewicz, was oneofthefirstmayorstosignthishistoricagreement. In order to realize the goals of this agreement, Cieslewicz founded the Sustainable Design and Energy Committee (SDEC), who were tasked with producing a Sustainability Plan for the city of Madison. The plan was subsequently unanimously adopted by the city council, but by 2009, many of the goals of this initial sustainability plan had been met or surpassed. The City of Madison is now is in the process of updating this sustainability plan, and the goal of the new plan remains to guide the City toward a more sustainable future. This report is a survey of sustainability policies and programs already successfully in use in other cities, both in the United States and Internationally. These precedent studies are the product of a semester- long project for the annual Planning Workshop class of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Class members have identified precedents from which the SDEC can look to for guidance as it develops its new plan. Sustainability is a broad topic: encompassing many aspects of our lives. As a result,six specific areas of sustainability were identified and studied within this report. These six areas of focus are: • Energy, Water and Waste; • Buildings; • Neighborhoods; • Transportation; • Parks and Open Space; and • Food Systems. Although each policy in this report is examined within the confines of the specific category in which it is found, it is important to understand that many of these issues are highly interrelated. None of the topics studied should be considered solely as many of the programs studied can be used to address multiple issues. There are 3 general sections in this report. 1. The first section is a compilation of the differentpoliciesidentifiedthroughextensive research. This section provides general information about each studied program, where it has been implemented, and the rationale guiding the policy. 2. The second section deals with the public inputprocessemployedbytheSDECandclass members in preparing this report. The SDEC held 3 public sessions to gather community comments and to receive guidance on the sustainability issues that citizens perceive to be the most important. Notes and responses relevant to these meetings have also been included as part of the appendices 3. The third section provides a set of recommended policy options based on the precedent studies. It also includes a discussion pertaining to future efforts of the City to effectively involve the public in discussions about sustainability and environmental stewardship. Preface
  • 5. sustainability plan | PREFACE iv This sustainability report is intended to accomplish two broad goals: 1. To Compile and distil successful sustainable policies, programs, strategies and efforts, in use both around the country and world, into a synthesized single document to use as a resource to help guide the City. 2. To articulate the values and desires of Madison in a way that gives Madison residents a loud and clear voice in the planning process. Photo: Wisconsin State Capitol view from East Washington Avenue - Madison, WI
  • 6. urpl 912 | 12.18.09v Our collective quality of life is closely connected to social equity, environmental health, and economic vitality. Growing recognition of the interdependence ofsocial,environmentalandeconomicwell-beinghas inspired new ways of conceptualizing and engaging the built and natural environment. Municipalities across the United States are working to create more livable and sustainable communities through innovativedesign,planning,policyandprogramming. This report aims to establish a foundation for the City of Madison’s Sustainable Design and Energy Committee as it begins planning the second phase of its municipal sustainability plan. The precedent studies and subsequent recommendations in this report reflect a cross-section of examples from the forefront of sustainability planning. Following are our key findings organized in six topical categories as they correspond to the report. Sustainable Neighborhoods Sustainable urban land use requires a combination of land use policies that augment conventional land use controls such as zoning to holistically frame and direct the growth of a city. Compact development helps curb sprawl and intensify population density enough to justify investments in infrastructure such as rapid transit. The following considerations, approaches and techniques are well-suited to help the City of Madison promote and advance its goal of large-scale open space preservation, establish permanent agricultural and rural use districts, and encourage regional cooperation in limiting intensive rural development: Compact & Infill Development • Fosters mixed-use developments in walking distance of metro stations. • Reduces development footprint. • Integrates commercial hubs with residential areas, improving access and walkability while reducing car-dependence. Affordable Housing & Social Equity • Pre-approved floor plans can reduce the cost of new developments and expedite the permitting and construction process. • A growing number of environmentally sustainable affordable housing projects demonstrate the economic viability and social benefits of green housing stock. • Some new housing projects illustrate that the design and management of housing can facilitate skill-building and community interaction. Transportation Transportation fuel consumption accounts for over 45 percent of the United State’s total oil usage. Further, over 65 percent of transport fuel is used for personal motor vehicles. These facts are symptomatic of transportation and land- use systems that are both unsustainable and incongruent with the transportation goals of a truly livable city, where transportation is typified by the following attributes: 1) safe, affordable, equitable, and efficient transportation for individuals; 2) fosters a competitive economy and balanced regional development by meeting private sector transport needs; 3) provides a diversity of modes of transportation to accommodate different types of travel and freight; 4) reduces emissions and material waste; 5) minimizes noise pollution. The subsequent transportation types are characteristic of cities and regions leading the way in sustainable transportation planning: Executive Summary
  • 7. sustainability plan | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi High Efficiency Transportation Systems • Light Rail and streetcar systems are rider- friendly and energy efficient. • Bus Rapid Transit is faster than conventional bus lines but less costly than light rail. • Mass transit corridors generate economic development and can be used to help finance transportation projects. Intelligent Transportation Systems • Improve safety, reduce congestion and improve mobility by enabling ridership to betterplantripsandanticipatetransitdelays. High Speed Commuter Rail • There is demonstrated economic development potential associated with rail projects. Bike Transit & Walkability • Safe and secure bike parking through bike lockers and zoning codes. • Development of complete streets for better pedestrian and bicycle safety. • Implementation of community bike programs. • Pedestrian foot bridges across busy intersections to increase safety and encourage pedestrian transit. Buildings The built environment significantly impacts natural environments and human lives by consuming resources, transforming landscapes, and creating spaces that affect our interactions. Buildings account for 72 % of electricity consumption, 39 % of energy use, 38 % of CO2 emissions, and 40 % of raw material use. The environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of buildings is reduced when buildings are designed for energy efficiency, environmental performance, and long- term cost effectiveness. Green building initiatives promote sustainable building practices that offer a host of benefits. For example green buildings can: 1) conserve natural resources and reduce solid waste; 2) reduce operating costs and save utility bills; 3) improve indoor air quality and occupants’ health; 4) contribute to employees’ productivity and performance. Best practices in green building tend to incorporate the following strategies and policy objectives: LEED Certification • Promote LEED certification and LEED- comparable design and performance standards in all new structures and renovations through incentives and/or penalties that reinvested in Green Building Funds. Density Bonus Incentives • Promote developers to build sustainable structures through an incentive that allows them to build at a denser rate. Green Existing Building Stock • Improve energy efficiency in existing building stock and reinvest in older communities. Guidance and Technical Support • Provide guidance documents on ways businesses and residents can use sustainable practices in their design and market the already available technical resources in a way that is easily accessible. Education & Outreach to Residents and Businesses • Educate and engage residents and businesses Photo: Light Rail Transit - Portland, OR
  • 8. urpl 912 | 12.18.09vii through education green home tours and green design resources. Priority Permitting and Plan Review Processes • Expedite permitting processes for green buildings to incentivize and reward developers that invest in sustainable projects. Performance Monitoring • Monitor building performance with building report cards tools that help identify areas for on-going improvements. Energy, Utilities and Natural Resources There are a variety of ways municipalities can modify and promote energy, water, and natural resource management practices to reduce consumption and ensurelong-termaccesstoaffordableinfrastructure. In many instances the most cost-effective strategies can still reap significant environmental benefits. For example, capturing current losses, such as rainfall and stormwater runoff through rain gardens and green swales is one way of displacing the demand for potable water for nonhuman consumption (i.e. watering plants) while reducing the burden on current storm water systems. Many energy efficiency upgrades also serve both economic and environmental ends and have the added benefit of more than paying for themselves through the savings incur. Other examples of best practices in sustainability utility provision and natural resource management include: Energy Efficiency & Conservation • Renewable energy incentive rate structures • Consumer rebate and loan programs • Bio-Energy for Transportation Sustainable Waste Management • Engaging businesses and residents. • Waste prevention policies. Innovations & Improvement in Infrastructure • Storm water retention through streetscape Improvements. • Daylight lost streams. • Private stormwater management incentives. Water and Wastewater • Legalization of greywater reuse for landscaping. • Water conservation through faucet retrofit kits and programs. Parks, Open Space, and Urban Forestry Quality parks and open spaces are a critical element of the livable city. They ensure recreational opportunities and serve as valuable “third places”; theyofferecosystemsservicessuchasairpurification, erosion control,andnativespeciesconservation;and they confer economic benefits by growing the base through higher property values in areas adjacent to public green space. In addition, open space has proven to be less costly for cities than development, which often requires the provision of services and infrastructure such as sewer extensions, schools, and fire stations. When well-designed parks and open spaces are distributed throughout a municipality, they can support a diversity of day-to-day activities while also positioning a city to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change and natural disaster. Exemplary park, open space, and urban forestry planning includes: Open Space Volunteerism Photo: Park Central Apartments along Capital City bike path - Madison, WI
  • 9. sustainability plan | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii • Engages community members in park stewardship and helps reduce maintenance costs. Golf Course Greening Programs • Reduce chemical run-off; improve water conservation; support environmental planning efforts; enhance water quality; serve as a means of education and outreach. (Formal certification is available through the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program.) Green Streets and Complete Streets Programs • Divert storm water through rain gardens, enhance bike and pedestrian mobility, may increase public safety by augmenting presence in public spaces. Food Systems The repercussions of the industrial food system are wide-ranging as evidenced by environmental consequencessuchaserosionandlossofbiodiversity; social ramifications such as epidemic rates of diet- related diseases; and inequitable economics, in which farmers bear a disproportionate amount of the production risk and capture only a fraction of the food dollar. Food policy has historically been driven by industry and decision-makers at the federal level, but growing awareness of the strong connections between food, public health, local economic development and environmental stewardship has caused many municipalities to explore ways of integrating the food system into their land-use, open space and economic development planning. Food system initiatives and policies typically cluster in the following four categories, each of which is accompanied by examples of best practices: Food Security and Nutrition • Pass food waste reduction legislation that encourages agencies to donate excess food by relieving them of liability associated with the donation. • Reduced availability of unhealthy foods through zoning. • Greater access to affordable local food through Farm-to-School Programs, EBT accessibility at all farmers’ markets, and increased healthy mobile food vendors. Urban and Regional Agriculture • Foster community gardens through demonstrationvictorygardensonpublicland; long-term lease agreements; partnerships with job training, agricultural, and nutrition groups. • Require design for food production in new subdivisions through US Green Building Council’s new LEED Neighborhood Design. Infrastructure • Grow farmers by protecting peri-urban farmland and zoning to accommodate green houses, market gardens, and urban livestock. • Support creative lease incentives for local small and mid-scale food processing. • Invest in permanent, year-round farmers’ market structures and green waste- processing. Economic development • Incentivize and attract supermarkets and healthymobilevendersbycreatingenterprise zones, microloan programs, zoning bonuses and increasing mobile vendor permits. • Create green job development through creative attraction of federal stimulus funding. Photo: Urban Agriculture - Chicago, IL
  • 10. urpl 912 | 12.18.09ix • Build demand for local food by creating local food procurement policies and tax rebates for grocery stores that source locally. Communication and Public Engagement Sustainable cities also require ample opportunities for meaningful civic involvement. By communicating public sector sustainability initiatives through on-site signage, presence at public events, and advertising, cities can help communication how they are leading by example, and in so doing, galvanize civic interest and participation. Conversely, cities must demonstrate both a procedural and practical commitment to listening to public and serving its collective interest. Constructive and balanced communication between a municipality and its citizens is: Inclusive • Diverse audiences require many forms of communication • Build relationships with key stakeholders and community leaders. Informative • Get the word out—a city’s achievements gets people excited. • Partner with schools to engage students and develop a green curriculum. Responsive • Recognize and reward sustainable actions (e.g., sustainability awards.) • Engage citizens by letting them participate in process. Photo: Comcast Center - Philadelphia, PA
  • 11. PART I: BEST PRACTICES neighborhoods transportation buildings energy, utilities, and natural resources parks, open space, and urban forestry food systems
  • 12. urpl 912 | 12.18.091 GOALS & BEST PRACTICES GOAL 01 /// Rural Land Preservation RATIONALE: Sustainable urban land use relies on land use policies that frame the growth of the city as a whole. Zoning alone is not sufficient to produce substantial, long-term results in the pursuit of the goals of farmland and open space preservation, compact development, and increased mobility. Madison states in its Zoning Code that it is looking for ways to promote large-scale open space preservation, establish permanent agricultural and rural use districts, and encourage regional cooperation in limiting intensive rural development. To this end, tools such as transfer of development rights programs offer a highly effective approach to sustainable land use policy. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) TDR programs offer a mechanism for permanently preserving farmland, open space and other valuable lands through the sale of development rights on the private real estate market. Targeted rural preservation areas, or “sending zones,” are identified and allotted a set number of development rights per acre. Developments in “receiving zones,” (urban areas targeted for increased density), are either required or tempted with density bonuses to purchase these rights. TDR programs offer an attractive alternative to public purchase or zoning regulation by allowing developers an opportunity to maximize development profits. They also help mitigate “takings” conflicts by allowing private rural landowners to achieve a return on their real estate investments. TDR programs are best implemented on a county or regional level due to the market nature of the transactions and the goals they are intended to achieve. BEST PRACTICE A: Montgomery County, MD boasts the most successful TDR program in the nation. The program accounts for over 60% of the land preserved nationwide through TDRs. Prior to the 1980 establishment of the program, the County lost an average of 3,500 acres of farmland to development per year. In the ten years following the implementation of the program, the county lost a combined total of only 3,000 acres, reducing its losses by around 92%. By the end of 1997, 39,180 acres of farmland had been protected out of a total 89,000-acre sending area. Much of the program’s success is based on its ‘down zoning’ of sending zones, which reduced permitted development to only one dwelling unit per 25 acres. However, transferable development rights are calculated at one per five acres in order to afford landowners partial compensation for this loss of development potential. Key Facts • Over 64,000 acres of land have been preserved at one dwelling unit per 25 acres. • Over 5,000 acres have been permanently preserved from future development at any density. BEST PRACTICE B: King County, WA administers a unique and successful TDR program that allows purchased TDRs to be applied in many ways. These include using TDRs to meet traffic concurrency and emission reduction requirements for new developments. Such requirements are imposed on developers by the County, and can be offset through TDRs based on a calculation of the traffic volume that a preserved parcel of land will not generate and the vehicle miles that will not be traveled. The Precedent Study: Neighborhoods
  • 13. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 2 County also established a TDR Exchange to facilitate the sale of rights and offers sellers an opportunity to lower their property taxes through a Public Benefit Rating System. Key Facts • Since the year 2000, over 137,500 acres (around 215 square miles) of rural and resource lands have been protected from development. GOAL 02 /// Compact Development RATIONALE: Compact development is a form of efficient land use that maximizes development potential in order to achieve a number of goals. These include: open space preservation, increased mobility, and enhanced energy efficiency. Heating and cooling costs can be dramatically reduced in compactbuildingswhereenergyflowsbetweenunits rather than escaping through outer walls. Compact development also saves cities large amounts of money by utilizing existing infrastructure. The Urban Land Institute estimates that over $100 billion in infrastructure costs could be saved over 25 years by pursuing better-planned and more compact forms of development. Compact development also encourages multi- modal transportation including walking and biking, by reducing distances between destinations. Some cities encourage compact development by prioritizing the use of vacant or underutilized parcels within the city before expanding into the rural fringe. This form of development both reduces service costs and provides for needed growth while preserving rural and environmentally sensitive lands. Madison could encourage a reduction in the amount of land consumed for development by adopting policies and programs that promote more compact forms of development. Infill Development BEST PRACTICE A: Arlington County, VA is one of the most successful examples of infill development in the nation. Once a declining suburb of Washington, D.C., Arlington County has become a thriving mix of housing, office and commercial development focused upon a seven-stop Metro subway corridor running through the County. Despite having added 15 million square feet of office space and 15,000 units of housing along the corridor, the region has not expanded its development footprint since 1980. Due to the County’s efforts to focus mixed-use infill development within walking distance of the seven Metro stations, auto traffic along one of its main boulevards decreased by 5 percent from 1980-2000. BEST PRACTICE B: Sacramento, CA encourages infill development by offering pre-approved, customizable house plans for vacant and underused lots within the City’s aging neighborhoods. The City offers three pre-approved floor plans ranging from 1,400-1,670 ft2 , which may be used in any R-1 or R-2 district (with the exception of the central city). Each floor plan includes three exterior design elevations to encourage variety and choice. The plans meet or exceed City design standards, and were designed with neighborhood input to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhood character and style. The program greatly reduces development costs and waiting times by selling the pre-approved plans, ready as-is to submit for a building permit, for around $1,850. The city also allows private developers to request pre-approval of their plans for repeated use, and has achieved success with the program by targeting a few neighborhoods at a time. Image: Transfer of Development Rights Process
  • 14. urpl 912 | 12.18.093 Brownfield Redevelopment BEST PRACTICE A: The City of Chicago Brownfields Initiative is an aggressive brownfield redevelopment program focused on transforming contaminated sites into new industrial facilities, green spaces, affordable housing, and technological and manufacturing centers. Launched in 1993 with $2 million in General Obligation bonds, the program has helped the City increase its tax base by more than one million dollars annually, returned hundreds of acres of land to productive use, and created and retained over 3,000 jobs. It is currently a U.S. EPA Brownfields Showcase Community and a Smart Communities Network Land Use Success Story. The Redevelopment Process 1. Sites are evaluated based on access, control, cleanup costs and development value. 2. City acquires the site through negotiated purchase, foreclosure, or tax reactivation on property that has been tax delinquent for two years or more. 3. Site is added to the city’s “investment portfolio” of sites. 4. Risk assessments are performed. 5. Hazardous waste is removed immediately. 6. Cleanup strategies and cost estimates are then determined. 7. City enrolls sites in Illinois EPA’s Site Remediation Program, which establishes investigation and cleanup guidelines based on the intended use of the site. 8. Upon completion of the program, the IEPA issues a “No Further Remediation” Letter. 9. Sites are marketed for redevelopment. Keys to Success 1. Brownfield Forum of over 100 representatives from government, business, finance, environmental, community and civic organizations to review the public and private policy process, and outline the barriers to brownfield development. The Forum was made possible with funding from the MacArthur Foundation, and members made more than 50 recommendation for improvement that have been implemented by the City of Chicago and other participating department and agencies. 2. Multidisciplinary Teams and Partnerships that invite participation and collaboration from a variety of City departments, as well as state and federal agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor, NOAA, and USDA. 3. CommunityInvolvementthathelpstoidentify brownfield sites and development activities. 4. Financingforbrownfielddevelopersincluding property tax abatements, the Federal Tax Initiative, the Illinois Tax Incentive, the Cook County Property Tax Incentive, and TIF. 5. Environmental Insurance that principally benefits the private sector by offering a cost cap if cleanup exceeds estimates, and protection against unexpected conditions; the City has never bought environmental insurance, but some deals have hinged on it. 6. Legislation that Chicago’s experience has had a direct impact on, including environmental, water and demolition lien statutes used in judicial sales, the City’s eminent domain reform, a 1995 state law that changes liability standards for redeveloping Illinois’ contaminated sites, and contracts between the City and developers that contain “claw back” provisions. Photo: Metro Transit Corridor – Arlington County, VA
  • 15. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 4 7. Prioritization of Sites based on ease of acquisition, availability of funding, complexityofcleanup,typeofenvironmental contamination, and other factors. 8. Simultaneous Environmental Assessments that allowed the City to obtain an overall view of sites requiring further action, and fast-track the redevelopment of sites that did not. 9. Coordinated, Innovative Cleanup Technologies that help minimize cleanup costs. Funding Sources • General Obligation Bonds ($2 million) • Sec. 108 Loan Guarantee ($74 million) • U.S. EPA Brownfields Showcase Community Designation ($691,000) • U.S. EPA Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Grant ($500,000) GOAL 03 /// Increased Mobility RATIONALE: The way land is often developed in Madison affects the ability Madisonians to utilize diverse modes of transportation. This can have significant environmental and social justice implications. Madison should be a community where citizens do not need to own cars in order to accomplish day-to-day tasks or meet basic needs. Land use that encourages multi-modal transportation options is a goal that can be achieved in many ways. In addition to utilizing compact development strategies, the City can encourage street connectivity, transit-oriented development, and can reduce parking options. Street Connectivity A dominant figure of suburban development is the cul-de-sac. This street type is designed to eliminate all traffic other than neighborhood residential, yet it results in a significant increase in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) for even simple errands. The lack of connectivity fostered by cul-de-sacs and other serpentine street patterns requires residents to drive further to arrive at their destination and limits walking and bicycling. BESTPRACTICEA:FortCollins,COimposesmaximum blocksizesonnewdevelopmentandrequiresatraffic shed that funnels traffic to at least three arterials in three different directions. BEST PRACTICE B: Austin, TX and Orlando, FL use a connectivity index to score proposed developments that divides the number of street links by the number of traffic nodes in the proposed transportation system. City ordinance mandates a minimum connectivity score, yet allows for variances under special circumstances. Transit-Oriented Development Transit-oriented development (TOD) orients land use to transit networks, organizing higher-density urban centers at network nodes. TOD achieves two goals simultaneously: it allows for energy- efficient compact development and it encourages multi-modal transit use. This results in compact, “walkable” urban centers with easy access to transit. BEST PRACTICE A: Denver, CO, has achieved success by strategically identifying areas for TOD over a multi-year timeframe. The Denver region’s Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan identifies specific districts for the future expansion of transit lines and TOD. Image: Street Connectivity Diagram
  • 16. urpl 912 | 12.18.095 Reduced Surface Parking Parking lots are an inefficient use of land; often functioning at less than peak capacity for all but a handful of days every year. Traditional surface parking lots generate a great deal of storm water runoff and collect motor oil and other chemicals that eventually enter the water system. An important goal of sustainable land use should be to minimize wasteful uses of space and to encourage land uses that are both gentler on the physical environment and easier to negotiate by bike, foot, or public transit. BEST PRACTICE A: Portland, OR has placed a cap on the total number of public parking stalls in the downtown area. This encourages mass transit use and discourages needless trips. BEST PRACTICE B: Helena, MT has placed a citywide limit on the number of parking spaces. This is set at 110% of the mandated number of minimum parking spaces. GOAL 04 /// Affordability and Social Equity RATIONALE: A recent Brookings Institution publication on housing affordability and equity identifies ways in which municipalities can be conscientiousofgrowthmanagementinitiativesthat are inclusive, integrated, affordable and sustainable. Such initiatives include: • Eliminating exclusionary regulations (i.e. large-lot zoning, minimum setback requirements, medium density and multifamily restrictions, etc.). • Subsidizing rent in cities with weak housing demands and high vacancy rates. • Encouraging regional housing conversations to address sprawl and employment decentralization. • Locating housing so that low-income families live closer to schools and places of employment. • Expanding opportunities for housing vouchers. • Acknowledging that neighborhood revitalization may lead to displacement. Sustainability efforts are not complete unless they address issues of housing affordability, access to goods and services, jobs, transportation, and health care for all citizens. Social sustainability depends on equal access to a healthy quality of life for all. The most important element in this effort is the active promotion of integrated neighborhoods that encourage citizen collaboration within a wider context of economic and racial diversity. Green, Affordable, and Resource-Rich Neighborhoods BEST PRACTICE A: Wentworth Commons, located in Chicago, IL, is a mixed-use, four-story, 51- unit housing community. It was built in 2005 on a 65,800 ft2 former brownfield site donated by the City. The site is the first multi-unit residential building to receive LEED certification in Chicago. The development was originally designed to provide affordable rental units for families transitioning out of homelessness, however, its first floor is devoted to support services for the low-income minority communities that have lost housing, businesses and other economic resources. Included services: • A family resource center and community space Photo: Wentworth Commons – Green Affordable Housing – Chicago, IL
  • 17. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 6 • Case management areas • Employment training • Leadership development • Community kitchen • Computer center (supported by a Digital Divide grant) The affordability formula for Wentworth Commons was based on 80% of the Chicago housing market median family income (MFI), which is $47,186. No tenant pays more than one-third of their income in rent. Based on these affordability criteria, 61% of the Wentworth Commons units qualify. An additional 20 units are subsidized through Shelter Plus Care funds from HUD. Development costs totaled over $13 million. Funding Sources: • Chicago Department of Housing Community Development Block Grant • Federal Home Loan Bank (loan) • Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunities (grant) • HUD Supportive Housing Program Capital (grant) • Sale of Tax Credits • Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation (grant) • ComEd Grant Enterprise Green Communities Initiative (grant) Green Features of Wentworth Commons: • Light-colored parking pavement. • Reflective roof. • Situation along two major bus lines that connect to the commuter rail station. • Permanent on-site bike storage. • Planted bio-swales to manage on-site storm water, and native plants that reduce the need for irrigation. • Rooftop 33 kWh photovoltaic system. • 26% of materials manufactured within 500 miles. • Renewable building materials, including cork flooring, wheat board and wainscot in all corridors. • Recycling rooms on each floor. • Low-emitting paints, sealants and adhesives. • Fluorescent lighting and Energy Star appliances. • Mechanical system 28% more efficient than Chicago Energy Conservation Code (earning 4 LEED points), resulting in $20,000-25,000 annual energy savings. BEST PRACTICE B: Murphy Ranch, located in the Bay Area of California, provides green affordable housing to 100 families in two-, three-, and four- bedroom town-homes on a 7.14-acre development site. Completed in 2003, it won the 2003 Flex Your Power Energy Efficiency Award and is ranked among the best housing developments in the state for innovative energy-saving strategies. In addition to its environmentally sustainable features, it contributes to social sustainability with units affordable to those earning 22%-60% of the area median income. Murphy Ranch was developed at a density of 14 units per acre and offers many amenities, including two play structures, a solar heated swimming pool and a recreation building. It is located on a bus line, and is within two-blocks of a day care, community center, large shopping center, and CalTrans Station. Its green features encourage alternative transportation, improve indoor air quality, and help to reduce waste and energy consumption. Green Features of Murphy Ranch: • Exceeds Title 24 (2001) energy efficiency Photo: Murphy Ranch – Affordable Housing – Morgan Hill, CA
  • 18. urpl 912 | 12.18.097 standards by 25%. • High efficiency fluorescent lighting. • Energy Star appliances and natural gas where applicable. • PV solar electric panels on the community center and carport roofs, which provide 95% of the electricity for the common area/ community building. • Natural linoleum in kitchens, and recycled- content board loom carpet with recyclable backing in living rooms, bedrooms, and common areas. • Combination water and space heating system. • Formaldehyde-free batt insulation, high performance windows, fiber-cement siding, and low flow plumbing fixtures. • Sells power to the local utility at 35 cents/ KW at peak times, and buys it back at 7 cents/KW at night. • An LCD monitor in the community room monitors energy produced and used on site, and allows residents to view real-time picture of energy savings. • Each resident receives a manual that describes energy efficient features and benefits, and offers additional tips for recycling, energy conservation, green products, indoor air quality and pesticide use. Funding Sources: • City of Morgan Hill • County of Santa Clara • Housing Bond Trust • SCC Housing Trust • Lenders for Community Development • California Housing Finance Agency • State of California • Additional tax credits and rebates from government agencies, the local utility company and third party programs • Community Development and Obrate Family Affordable Housing Fund • Public Utilities Commission (rebate for 50% of the photovoltaic system) • Calculate a payback period of 14.8 years, and a return on investment for the PV system of 6.7%. Murphy Ranch also offers important social resources for its residents, including a community center and Eco-Pass program. The community center provides numerous services such as job training, computer access, after-school programs, financial literacy classes, organized sports, and youth literacy classes. The Eco-Pass program saves residents time and money while reducing car use by providing each resident with a free Eco-Pass for unlimited travel on the County’s bus and light rail systems. First Community Housing (FCH), the owner and non- profit developer of Murphy Ranch, is the largest single purchaser of resident passes in the County. FCH receives discounts to purchase the Eco-Passes, and believes the program pays for itself in resident satisfaction. As a result of FCH’s effectiveness and consistent application of the Eco-Pass program, municipalities are granting the organization’s developments a 10 percent reduction in parking requirements. Measurable Benefits: • Annual savings from PV: $10,450 • Annual Energy Savings: 47.4 Mw • CO2 emissions avoided since May 2005: 37,800 lbs BEST PRACTICE C: Daybreak Grove in Escondido, CA is a unique precedent for achieving multi- Photo: Murphy Ranch – Interior – Morgan Hill, CA
  • 19. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 8 family housing integration within a single-family neighborhood. The development is a 13-unit affordable housing community built on less than one acre of land in a single-family neighborhood. During planning phases residents of the existing neighborhood fiercely opposed the development, yet developers ultimately gained approval by increasing the partition wall height and removing windows facing the single-family neighborhood. Although these concessions resulted in a degree of separation between the single- and multi-family housing units, they were integral to the success of a development that now provides healthy, affordable housing with a range of useful services for low- income families. The affordability formula for Daybreak Grove was based on family incomes ranging from $9,000- 28,000 per year, resulting in unit prices ranging from $278-454 for a 2-bedroom unit and $304-504 for a 3-bedroom unit. The development costs totaled $1,700,000, with funding provided by the following sources: • Low Income Housing Tax Credits • California Equity Fund (limited partnership) • California Department of Housing and Community Development (loan) • City of Escondido Community Development Commission (loan) • Local Initiatives Support Corporation Pre- Development (loan) • Bank of America and Citibank (loans) • Dr. William and Mrs. Lorraine Boyce (bargain sale of the land) Creating a design compatible with the existing neighborhood aesthetic was an important focus for the developers of Daybreak Grove. This was the first low-income multi-family housing development that the City of Escondido had participated in and officials were eager to show that low-income need not be synonymous with low-quality. An evaluation of Daybreak Grove’s successful development and design has made it easier to obtain approvals for subsequent similar projects citywide. Some of the unique design elements of the Daybreak Grove development include: • Bungalow-style structures in colors such as deep red and grey. • Lively roof profiles that alternate barrel- vaulted and shed-roofed forms. • Private and public outdoor spaces. • Front yard and porch, back yard and porch and small internal patios. • A public courtyard with an outdoor theatre, grassy play areas, drought resistant shade trees, edible species such as citrus and pomegranate and garden plots. Photo: Daybreak Grove – Multifamily Housing in Single-Family Neighborhood – Escondido, CA
  • 20. urpl 912 | 12.18.099 Policy Matrix
  • 21. SOURCES Affordable Housing Design Advisor: www.designadvisor. org, accessed on 12/2/2009. Affordable Housing Design Advisor Green Housing Projects: http://www.designadvisor.org/green/murphy. htm; First Community Housing, Flex Your Power Success Story: http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CS_ FirstCommunity.pdf; Home Depot Foundation, First Community Housing’s Murphy Ranch: http://www. homedepotfoundation.org/pdfs/murphy_ranch_3.pdf, all accessed on 12/4/2009. Arlington Virginia Environmental Services: http://www. arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/ dot/planning/page66674.aspx, accessed on 11/7/2009. Benfield, Kaid. (2008). “Transit-Oriented Development in Arlington: Stunning Success and Some Lessons,” NRDC Switchboard: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/ transitoriented_development_in.html; Davis, Steve. (2009). “Arlington, Virginia’s Story of Smart Growth: The Movie,” Smart Growth Around America Blog, http://blog.smartgrowthamerica.org/2009/05/08/ arlington-virginias-story-of-smart-growth-the- movie/; Blueprint Denver: http://www.denvergov.org/ Portals/650/documents/BlueprintDenver.pdf, accessed on 12/3/2009. City of Sacramento City Sponsored Infill House Plan Program: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/ dsd/planning/infill-house-plan-program/, accessed on 12/4/2009. CRCOG Best Practices Manual: Transfer of Development Rights (2002): http://www.crcog.org/publications/ CommDevDocs/TCSP/Ch03_FactSheet_TDR.pdf, accessed on 10/20/2009. Handy, Susan, et al. (2003). “Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There,” Chicago: American Planning Association. King County, Washington, Transfer of Development Rights Program: http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/ stewardship/sustainable-building/transfer-development- rights.aspx, accessed on 10/20/2009. Montgomery County Department of Economic Development Program Overview (2006): http://www. montgomerycountymd.gov/content/ded/agservices/ pdffiles/tdr_info.pdf, accessed on 11/14/2009. National Governors Association. (2001). “Growth Toolkit: Maintain Farmland and Other Working Lands”: http:// www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.9123e83a1f 6786440ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=6a685aa265 b32010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD, accessed on 11/14/2009. “Rethinking Local Affordable Housing Strategies: Lessons from 70 Years of Policy and Practice,” http://www. brookings.edu/es/urban/knight/executivesummary.pdf, accessed on 11/30/2009. Smart Communities Network Success Stories—Chicago Brownfields Initiative: http://www.smartcommunities. ncat.org/success/chicago_brownfields.shtml, accessed on 12/4/2009. The Urban Land Institute. (2005). “Higher Density Development: Myth and Fact.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: http://epa. gov/brownfields/success/showcase/sc_chica.htm, accessed on 11/29/2009. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 10 Photo: Hyde Park - Boise, ID
  • 22. urpl 912 | 12.18.0911 INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction to Transportation Sustainability Fuel Consumption for U.S. Transportation accounts for over 45 percent of total U.S. oil usage. More than 65 percent of that amount is for personal motor vehicles. American drivers consume around nine million barrels of gasoline per day for personal transportation alone. This is equivalent to 378 million gallons of gasoline daily. As of 2006, this generated over 15.7 million metric tons of CO2, the principle gas thought to be responsible for global climate change. daily. This transportation paradigm is not sustainable and it is crucial for the City of Madison, in order to achieve its sustainability goals, to reduce the overall quantity of fuel that it consumes. Transportation fuel usage reductions are also called for within the natural step protocols that havebeenadoptedbytheCityofMadison.Improving mass transit options and encouraging mass transit rider-ship, or use of low or no carbon modes of transport, such as walking or cycling, are crucial mechanisms for tackling both fuel consumption considerations and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions. Furthermore, general accessibility, mobility, and public safety and health considerations must also be part of any sustainable transportation paradigm. We have identified several transit precedents, both national and international, which could be crucial in moving Madison towards greater transportation sustainability. 1.1 Definition of a Sustainable Transportation System Whatconstitutesasustainabletransportationsystem is open to some debate. However, it is clear that environmental and emissions considerations, cost- effectiveness, accessibility and public health and safety considerations are all crucial components in determining how sustainable a given transportation system is. A definition of transportation sustainability comes from the European Union Council of Ministers for Transport. They define a sustainable transportation system as one that: • Allows for the basic access and development needs of individuals, companies and society to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and promotes equity within and between successive generations. • Is Affordable, operates fairly and efficiently, offers a choice of transport mode, and supports a competitive economy, as well as balanced regional development. • Limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them, uses renewable resources at or below their rates of generation, and uses non-renewable resources at or below the rates of development of renewable substitutes, while minimizing the impact on the use of land and the generation of noise. 2 Inner-City Mass Transportation Modes There exist several precedents for sustainable mass transit systems within the United States and internationally. Many of these systems are both highly efficient, spur economic development along transportation corridors and are environmentally friendly. The relative successes of the precedents discussed below are representative of both regional realities and how well the systems were implemented. 2.1 The Historical Transit System in Madison Precedent Study: Transportation
  • 23. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 12 Historically, Madison operated a robust streetcar system that covered many of the crucial commuter regions of the city. This system could serve as a useful precedent for any future mass-transportation system constructed in Madison. The Madison streetcar ran through the downtown and around the state capitol; stretching to the far north of the city, near the Dane County Regional Airport and through residential areas in the West, East the city and descending South to the belt line. An electrical wirethat hung abovethe trackpowered the system. This system fulfilled many of Madison’s mass transit needs at the time, and the same transit corridors formerly served by the system remain the most commonly traveled within the Madison metro area to this day. This system generated far lower environmental impacts than the current system of buses and individual motor vehicles. The Madison streetcar operated from the turn of the century until the early 1950s when it was torn out, as a result of the city caving to pressure and incentives offered by the General Motors Company. During its peak, the Madison streetcar system boasted incredibly wide ridership and was largely self-financing: meaning that fares paid for most of the cost of operation. OthercitieswithinWisconsin,notablyKenosha,have begun to recreate their historical streetcar systems. Kenosha operates five heritage streetcars on a 1.7- mile loop and is seeking to expand the system an additional 3.4 miles as a result of the great success of initial outlay. While this system largely serves tourists, Kenosha residents are increasingly using it as a means of getting around town. 2.2 Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Streetcars Light rail or streetcars are a mass transit option for theCityofMadison, forwhichmanyprecedentsexist throughout the World. Rail has several advantages over bus systems despite costing more to build per passenger mile. These benefits include: greater long term capacity as city density and rider ship increase, high fuel economy per passenger mile, faster transit speeds - which in turn promotes increased ridership, and light rail systems are as a whole more attractive to middle-class commuters who find buses stigmatizing. Well-integrated rail-based mass transit has been shown to dramatically reduce traffic delays and to reduce overall road congestion. LRT and streetcars are very similar to each other. The distinction between the two types of systems is that light rail systems operate at higher capacity and at higher speed and are often located slightly outside of city downtowns, serving suburban fringe areas. Streetcars are more typical downtown-oriented systems. This often means that both systems are used in conjunction, with streetcars running in high density downtown areas, often with frequent stops, while LRT systems serve the suburban and exurban fringe, often with fewer stops. Streetcars generally are more cost-effectiveness to install than LRT systems, however, the two types of rail-based systems serve slightly different purposes. Precedents of Streetcar and LRT Systems Excellent precedents examples of well-integrated light rail include Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Minneapolis/St. Paul Minnesota. Many modern light rail systems boast renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels that allow them to partially or completely power themselves, achieving lower carbon emissions or carbon neutrality Image: Historical Streetcar System - Madison, WI
  • 24. urpl 912 | 12.18.0913 than older systems. There also exist numerous international examples of light rail and streetcar systems, including Sheffield, United Kingdom and Montpellier, France. National LRT/Streetcar Precedents • Portland, Oregon, which boasts similar population density to Madison, has developed a combined light rail and streetcar system that attracts around 46,000 riders per day. More than $6 billion worth of development has occurred along mass transit corridors since the initial 1978 decision to begin developing light rail in Portland. Additionally, many elements of the system were funded through a combination of Federal transportation grant moneys, Metro transportation moneys and, in the case of the streetcar, private sponsorship of transportation stops by local businesses without having to leverage higher property taxes. The total system cost some $512 million of local tax money with declining Federal support for additional segments over time, putting more demand on local resources. For example, the Airport line was paid for completely with local funding. The system, overall, costs around $1.54 to operate per passenger mile, compared to costs of around $2.43 per passenger mile for the bus system. Ridership continues to grow across each of the lines and continually exceeds projections, further mitigating the cost of operation. • The Portland Streetcar, a public-private project run separately from the TriMet bus and light rail system, was initially opened in July of 2001. It is routed in an elongated loop configuration over 4.8 miles of track, which resulted in a 2.4- mile loop (with cars operating in a bidirectional on separate streets 1-2 blocks apart). This route ncluded a total of 40 stops, located along the alignment, with stops situated every 3-4 blocks. The project was installed at a cost of US$54.6 million, a unit cost of $11.4 million per track-mile, or around $22.8 million per route- mile. • Salt Lake City, Utah, through its TRAX system, operates a light rail system that encompasses some 20 miles over 28 stops. At about $300 million, total project cost came in millions of dollars under budget (about $22.8 million/ mile). Ridership almost immediately exceeded initial projections by 40-50%. To respond to the demand, headways were shortened with frequency of train service increased and trains were lengthened to 3-car trains instead of 2-car at peak hours to handle the additional passengers. The LRT also brought huge operating cost savings when compared to the bus system. For the year 2000: the full first year of operation, operating cost per passenger- mile by TRAX were $0.15, compared, to $1.04 for The Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) bus operations. Weekday ridership continues to average around 28,000 independent riders per day, and cost of operation has held roughly constant, with slight increases due to inflation. International LRT/Streetcar Precedents • The Sheffield Super tram system boasts rider ship of around 36,000 riders per day at relatively low cost of operation. Sheffield is of similar population size, geographic size and population density to Madison and could serve as an important precedent from which to model a rail system in Madison. Photo: Central Platte Valley LRT – Denver, CO
  • 25. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 14 • Montpellier, France boasts a comparable, though slightly smaller, though more densely situated population than Madison. It has developed a light rail system that is used by upwards of 75,000 people daily through just the initial of its three planned lines. It’s system, through intelligent line-routing, boasts among the highest per capita ridership for a light rail system in the world, while just over 80% of the cost of operation is covered through fairs. 2.3 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Bus rapid transit  systems are high-density, high- speed bus systems that operate on their own rights of way. These systems are similar to streetcars, and can include a physically separated lane on roads, or even tracks, but are based on the characteristics of buses. They cost significantly less to build than rail-based systems but have overall lower transport capacity. The goal of these systems is to approach the service quality of rail transit while costing little more than a traditional bus system. In places that BRT has been integrated it has heavily attracted riders and greatly increased corridor ridership. Ridership gains of 20% to 96% in BRT corridors have been noted (see chart below). National presidents of BRT include Boston, Massachusetts, and Los Angeles and San Pablo, California. International precedents include Ottawa, Canada; Curitiba, Brazil; and Bogotá, Columbia. National BRT Precedents • Boston’s Silver Line Phase I BRT system experienceda96%increaseinweekdaycorridor ridership. The Washington Street corridor in Boston experienced a 15% increase in riders perpassengerhour with the implementation of the Silver Line. The Silver Line had a direct and immediate benefit on air quality through the replacement of older diesel buses with lower- emission natural gas buses. The numerous land use changes in the corridor have strengthened the transit market, even as the presence of the Silver Line has encouraged transit-friendly development.Thesystemcapitalcostwas$2.84 million per directional route mile, not including vehicle costs, or $5.77 million per directional route mile including vehicle costs. About half the total $27 million budget was used for 17 articulated CNG buses, the remainder for infrastructure and ITS. The construction of the silver line has spurred economic development across the transit corridor, totaling more than an estimated $1.2 billion in investment. • Metro Rapid in Los Angeles reported high vehicle utilization, reduced subsidy per passenger mile ($0.15 to $0.18), and increased passengers per revenue mile (51 to 59.7). • San Pablo California’s Rapid Bus accounted for a 43% increase in corridor ridership. International BRT Precedents • Ottawa, Canada has seen some $700 million in development around BRT stations, while simultaneously reducing overall traffic congestion across BRT transit corridors. • Curitiba, Brazil was the first city in the world to develop a BRT system and has been a model for other countries to follow. 70% of Curitiba’s residents currently use the cities’ BRT system to commute to work. The success of Curitiba’s BRT system has dramatically diminished both congestion and air pollution. In Bogotá, Columbia the BRT system has improved Photo: A bus rapid transit system (BRT) operating on its own right of way – London, UK
  • 26. urpl 912 | 12.18.0915 the transit capacity; achieved cost effectiveness, and contributes to urban renewal. 3 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) encompass a broad range of wireless and wire line communications-based information and electronics technologies. When integrated into a transportation system’s infrastructure, and in vehicles themselves, these technologies relieve congestion, improve safety and enhance productivity.  The application of ITS systems includes: arterial management, transit management, traffic incident management, electronicpaymentandpricing,travelerinformation, intermodal freight and other elements. There are a lot of successful precedents of ITS system, including Los Angeles, California; Puget Sound, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; and Phoenix, Arizona. Transit signal priority systems use sensors to detect approaching transit vehicles and alter signal timings to improve transit performance. For example, some systems extend the duration of green signals for public transportation vehicles when necessary. Electronic transit fare payment systems, often enabled by smart card or magnetic stripe technologies, can provide increased convenience to customers and generate significant cost savings to transportation agencies by increasing the efficiency of the money handling processes and improving administrative controls. Riders have increasingly used multiple agencies for their travel in the Puget Sound region: • The percent using the Puget Pass on other systems had increased from 41 percent in 2001 to 60 percent in 2004. • Transit system rose from 19 percent in 1998 to 27 percent in 2004. Information dissemination allows passengers to confirm scheduling information, improve transfer coordination, and reduce wait times. Electronic transit status information signs at bus stops help passengers manage time, and on-board systems such as next-stop audio enunciators help passengers in unfamiliar areas reach their destinations. This can also be integrated, as has been done in Los Angeles, Portland and other places with LEDs that display real-time headway (wait time) estimates. Safety and security: advanced software and communications enable data as well as voice to be transferred between transit management centers and transit vehicles. Transit management centers can monitor in-vehicle and in-terminal surveillance systems to improve quality or service and improve the safety and security of passengers and operators. Regions that benefited include the Beaver County Transit Authority (BCTA) in Rochester, Pennsylvania, the King County Metro in Seattle, Washington, the Triangle Transit Authority in Raleigh–Durham, North Carolina and the Valley Metro in Phoenix, Arizona. ITS technologies in use in these regions include: • Electronic manifests and trip completion data reduce operator workload and provide more accurate and consistent data.
  • 27. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 16 • Real-time fleet location data further improve the ability of scheduling software to enhance vehicle productivity and accomplish meets with fixed-route service. • Onboardnavigationassistanceaidsoperators in keeping on schedule with their manifests, in particular with newer operators who are less familiar with local streets. • For the TriMet AVL system (Portland, Oregon): o Improved availability of real-time information for dispatchers could reduce running times by an average of 1.45 min/trip and reduce average passenger waiting time at the stop by 0.11 min. o Depending on the assumptions regarding reduced wait times and reduced wait time uncertainty, the number of annual transit trips with Transit Tracker information by means of the Internet needed for positive net benefits could range from approximately 200,000 to 900,000. • For the COTA AVL system (Columbus, Ohio), with changes in dispatcher workflow the observed overall effect was of saving nearly three hours in the time required for daily work.Itwasprojectedthatafleetsizeincrease of up to 10 percent could be accommodated with the current complement of dispatchers. • For the Delaware First State AVL system, roughly $2.3 million in annual benefits were estimated as reasonably attributed to the implementation of the system. Traveler information applications use a variety of technologies,includingInternetwebsites,telephone hotlines, as well as television and radio, to allow users to make more informed decisions regarding trip departures, routes, and mode of travel. Cost of Service Reductions: ITS, through improving conveneience can also boost mass transit usage, as was the case in San Jose, California: • The number of shared rides increased from 38 percent to 55 percent as a portion of all rides provided. • San Jose was also able to reduce its paratransit fleet from 200 to 130 vehicles, while managing to provide the same level of service. As a result, the cost per passanger mile decreased from $4.88 to $3.72. 4 Inter-regional Transportation Inter-regional transport can also be a crucial sustainability feature as part of any sustainability plan. The newly created Dane County RTA and proposed commuter rail corridor represents an opportunity for the Madison region to develop a sustainable regional transportaiton mode. Numerous precedents exist nationally for commuter rail development. These precedents include the Maryland Rail Commuter Service (MARC) which serves the Baltimore-Washington, DC metropolitan area, and the Seattle-Tacoma “Sounder” commuter rail system. The strength of these systems is that they enable rapid and effective transportation of large numbers of people living in suburban areas into central cities. Madison’s system has the additional advantage of being planned to incorporate existing rail track within the metropolitan area; which will dramatically reduce the cost of installing such a system. National Regional Commuter Rail Systems • The Baltimore-Washington MARC system is a three line system that covers a large commuter Photo: MARC Train at Camden Station - Baltimore, MD
  • 28. urpl 912 | 12.18.0917 area with the Baltimore-Washington area. It stretches as far as Annapolis, Maryland and Martinsburg, West Virginia. The system includes stops in many of the surrounding cities and towns and includes parking facilities at those stops to allow greater transportation flexibility for its ridership. The current system has been in operation since 1984; however much of the system pre-existed in the form of the Maryland Rail Commuter Service. While the system predominantly operates on weekdays, additional hours of operation are added on weekends to accommodate sporting and other special events. • The Seattle-Tacoma Regional “Sounder” rail system feeds many of the communities along the Puget Sound region. The two line (north and south) system operates from Monday to Friday, and stretches north to Everett and South to Tacoma. Ridership for the system sits at just under 10,000 daily. The total cost of the 11 vehicle fleet was around $26.5 million, with the 204 miles of operational track infrastructure . All trains are equipped with on board GPS to give passengers real-time trip- time updates. The system also includes free on board Wi-fi accessible Internet access, the inclusion of which has further boosted system ridership. 5 Walkable and Bicycle Friendly Development Pedestrian and bicycle traffic improve the quality of life in cities by adding to the ambience and safety of city streets. Pedestrian and bicycle transportation also have clear health benefits. Research conducted in 1999 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that obesity is linked to heart disease, diabetes and other chronic conditions. The report goes on to state that, “One reason for Americans sedentary lifestyle is that walking and cycling have been replaced by automobile travel for allbuttheshortestdistances.” Capacityforincreased bicycling and walking exists: “half of all travel trips taken in the United States are 4.8 km (3 miles) or less in length; 28 percent are less than 1.6 km (one mile).” Numerous precedents for how to go about increasing bicycle and pedestrian friendliness exist. 5.1 Complete Streets and bicycle integration One of the most important components of making cities more bicycle and pedestrian friendly are so called “complete streets”. These include both sufficiently wide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians and protected or otherwise highlighted bicycle lanes. The process of using highly reflective paint to demarcate bicycle lanes, as has been done recently in Portland, Oregon and New York City, has been very useful in reducing the number of bicycle/ vehicular accidents. Research indicates that having the appropriate infrastructure to accommodate bicycles reduces the risk of an accident by 1.8 to 16 times. In Maastricht Netherlands, complete streets have been implemented across all roads. Basic road design in Maastrcht is, from the middle out: a car lane, a bright orange colored bike lane, and side walk. This sort of street design has been crucial in reducing the number of accidents between cars and cyclists, and between cyclists and pedestrians. 5.2 Zoning Code Rewrites There are numerous examples of cities that have attempted to use the zoning code to make the city morebikeandpedestrianfriendly.Thisincludesland- use zoning changes to incorporate more walkable streetscapes as well as mandatory minimums set for Pedestrian accessibility can be important – Columbus, OH
  • 29. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 18 the number of bike parking spaces available. • The city of Dallas has decided to move from mixed-used zoning to a form-based zoning with the goal of improving ‘walkability’. They call this system: “walkable zoning”. The main changes in the change in zoning set standards and applied metrics for more walkable street development. The new form-based design has greater emphasis on the resulting streetscape that is created by development. • Washington D.C. has recently amended its zoning standards to increase bicycle parking and has removed requirements for minimum car parking space. Car parking in Washington D.C. is now tied to the parking demand of a land use, reducing the number of available parking spaces, and mitigating congestion. Previous zoning standards required 1 bicycle parking space for every 20 car parking spaces. Following the zoning change, bike parking is now based on the size (in sq/ft) of the land use, with bicycle parking requirements varying by land-use. Thus, commercial and residential districts boat higher numbers of bicycle parking spaces than industrial uses. • When compared to automobile storage, bicycles take up less land area than car parking. The District of Columbia Department of Transportation states that 10 bikes can be parked in the equivalent of one car parking space. 5.3BicyclesasapartofaMulti-modalTransportation System Bicycle Storage Insuring bicycle storage is available can be important in promoting bicycle usage. Incorporating bicycle storage in locations that allow bike users to connect to public transit is a step toward creating a multi- modal system. Security of bicycle storage is as a key rationale for whether a person rides a bike to work or not. There are several precedents of steps cities have taken to insure bicycles are secure: • Perth, Australia has recently implemented Bike cages or Bike Pods at rail stations around its metro area. The cage is open at all times of day except from 9 a.m.- 3p.m. This allows users to come in the morning, park their bike in the pod, commute to work, and then come home from work to pick up the bike in the early evening. The bike pods hold 40 bikes and cost roughly $50,000. The city hopes to create 20 pike pod stations within the Perth metro area. • Copenhagen, Denmark has bike lockers at many bus and rail stations. These lockers allow a person to put there bike in a metal enclosed structure for a cost of $2.00 which is refunded when the person returns and inserts the key into the locker to get his or her bike. Bikes and Public Transit Providing users with the ability to link their bike with buses and rail transit increases a person’s area of mobility and further frees them from the automobile. It also has benefits for the city bus system; as bike friendly public transit expands the overall service area of the system. It can also increase system revenue by encouraging increased rider-ship. Numerous cities, including Washington, DC have taken steps to increase the number of bicycles that can be fit onto busses, subways and its regional commuter rail system. Bike-friendly on street parking – Toronto, Canada
  • 30. urpl 912 | 12.18.0919 Community Bike Sharing Bike sharing programs have been created to allow those without bikes to rent them as needed. These bike rental stations can also be strategically located so as to allow easy linkage with the public transit system. • Montreal, Canada, has created a bike-sharing program called, Bixi. The bike sharing program places automated bike rental stations at strategic locations throughout the city. People then can take a bike with a credit card and a $216 deposit, which is return. A person then can rent a bike for around $4 a day. There also are subscription services where users pay a yearly fee to have access to the bikes. Initial startup costs were around $13 million and the goal is for the system to eventually become self- financing. The system is based on a community bike sharing system in Lyon France where the bike rentals are free following the security deposit, with the system is financed through advertising revenue. • Portland, Oregon, created a Community Cycling Center. The center advocates for the advantages of bicycle rider-ship through community outreach and education programs. The Cycling Center both accepts donated bikes and teaches enrolled youth bicycle repair skills. These bikes are then resold to the community at affordable prices. Any person enrolled in the program who does not have a bike is given one. The program has prevented more than 800 bikes from entering landfills. The funding has come largely through donations from residents and companies. Complete street with clearly marked bike lane – Brooklyn, NY
  • 31. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 20 Policy Matrix
  • 32. urpl 912 | 12.18.0921 SOURCES 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, http://www.1kfriends. org/Transportation/WI_Transportation_Projects_/ Streetcars.htm Applicability of Bogotá’s TransMilenio BRT System to the United States, US Department of Transportation, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Bogota_ Report_Final_Report_May_2006.pdf Austen, Ian, "Montreal Inagurates Contients Most ambitious Bike-Sharing Program." The New York Times May 13, 2009, http://greeninc.blogs. nytimes.com/2009/05/13/montreal-inaugurates- continents-most-ambitious-bike-sharing-program/ Berrigan, D. and R.P. Troiano, “The Association Between Urban Form and Physical Activity in U.S. Adults,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, volume 23, issue 2, supplement 1, August 2002. Bike Rack on Buses Update, www.ci.mil.wi.us/ ImageLibrary/User/.../Bike_Racks_on_Buses_ Upate.pdf. Bush, Rudolph, City Hall Blog, The Dallas Morning News, November 10, 2008, http://cityhallblog. dallasnews.com/archives/2008/11/walkable- zoning-regulations-ex.html “Boston Silver Line Washington Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Demonstration Project Evaluation”, US Department of Transportation, September, 2005, http://www.nbrti.org/media/evaluations/Boston_ Silver_Line_final_report.pdf Cooper, Gary & Furmaniak, Thomas B, “Portland Streetcar: A Two-Year Report Card”, National Light Rail Transit Conference, Transportation Research Board, Portland, Nov. 2003 District of Columbia Department of Transportation, http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/lib/ddot/information/ bicycle/newbike-final.pdf Dutch, Steven, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Why People Don’t Use Mass Transit, http://www. uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/masstransit.htm Electric Street Car Systems, http://my.execpc. com/~coken2/stcarrs.htm European Council of the European Union, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage. aspx?lang=EN&id=1 Federal Highway Administration, “Integration of Bicycle and Transit”, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ ped_bike/docs/bike_bus.pdf Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation: Student Workbook (second edition). Report No. HRT-05-133h Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Data, 2005, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/data/grants_ financing_1090.html Lacy,Brian,SmartCommunitiesNetwork,Community Cycling center, http://www.smartcommunities.ncat. org/success/community_cycling.shtml Leeds Konsult, Light Rail Systems, http://www. konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments/ instrument002/l2_002c.htm Lesson 1: The Need for Bicycle and Pedestrian Photo: Bike path along John Nolen Drive - Madison, WI
  • 33. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 22 Mobility, FHWA http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/ pedbike/pubs/05085/chapt1.htm Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA), http://www. lrta.org/explain.html Los Angeles County Metro, http://www.metro.net/ projects_studies/rapid/default.htm National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, http://www. nbrti.org/ Parkiteer, Bicycle Victoria, 2009, www.parkiteer. com.au Portland Streetcar History, http://www. portlandstreetcar.org/history.php Rail to Rails, ‘Walking and Biking as Mainstream Transportation Choices”, http://www.railstotrails. org/resources/documents/whatwedo/TrailLink%20 07%20Program_Mobility.pdf Railway Technology: Portland, http://www.railway- technology.com/projects/portland/ Railway Technology: Montpellier, http://www. railway-technology.com/projects/montpellier/ Railway Technology: Sheffield, http://www.railway- technology.com/projects/sheffield-tram/ Reynolds, Conor, et al, “The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature”, Environmental Health, October 21, 2009, http://www.ehjournal.net/ content/8/1/47 Roney,Mathew,“BicyclePedalingintotheSpotlight”, Earth Policy Institute, May 12, 2008, http://www. earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C48/ Sounder, First Quarter 2009 System Wide Ridership, http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/ newsroom/Ridership_Q1_2009.pdf Sounder Commuter Trains Specifications, http:// www.soundtransit.org/Riding-Sound-Transit/Our- Vehicles/Sounder-commuter-rail.xml Tri-Met MAX System Overview, http://trimet.org/ about/history/maxoverview.htm United States Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html Urban Habitat, “Curituba’s Bus System is Model For Rapid Transit”, http://urbanhabitat.org/node/344 Yglesias, Matthew, Class Warfare and the Bus, http:// yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/class- warfare-and-the-bus.php “Zoning Change will Make Bike Parking Based on Space, Not Car Parking”, WashCycle, November 02, 2009, http://www.thewashcycle.com/2009/11/ zoning-change-will-not-reduce-bike-parking.html
  • 34. urpl 912 | 12.18.0923 INTRODUCTION The built environment has a wide range of effects on human lives and natural environments through the consumption of resources, the alteration of natural habitats, and altering ecosystems. In the US, buildingsaccountfor72%ofelectricityconsumption, 39 % of energy use, 38 % CO2 emissions, and 40 % of raw materials use. The environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of buildings can be reduced if the buildings can be designed in a manner that is energy efficient, environmentally friendly, and cost effective. Green building initiatives promote sustainable building practices, thereby generating diverse benefits to a city and its people. Green buildings can: • Conserve natural resources and reduce solid waste • Reduce operating costs and lower utility bills • Improve indoor air quality and occupants’ health • Contribute to employees’ productivity and performance • Enhance asset value and local green building industry Currently, the City of Madison requires new buildings that the city owns to be certified by the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED® ) standard of the U.S. Green Building Council. However, the city has expressed a desire to expand its current green building practices, policies, and programs to encompass the residential and business communities. One way the city can expand upon its existing green building practices is to set forth a policy framework aimed at improving sustainability and livability across all aspects of the built environment. This precedent study presents policies and programs that have been implemented to promote green building practices throughout the U.S. for sustainability planning in Madison. CONTEXT In the search for best practices from around the world, Madison’s population size, current building attributes, and university-oriented nature served as a main search criteria. Similarly to Madison, many of the locations studied are homes to universities that affect the landscape and design of the city. Arlington County, Virginia and Scottsdale, Arizona are about the same size as Madison in terms of population. Another criterion used was sustainability plan rankings. Portland, Oregon ranks number two in Grist’s (an environmental news magazine) listing of the top fifteen green cities around the world (“15 Green Cities”). Chicago and Seattle are also runners up on the Grist rankings (“15 Green Cities”). Although every ranking system is different, many of the cities used in this report consistently are referenced as best practices in sustainability and green building literature. These study areas also serve as a guide for Madison to strengthen existing community resources in an urbanized environment. The precedent locations studied are as follows: • Arlington County, Virginia • Chicago, Illinois • Los Angeles, California • New York, New York • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • Portland, Oregon • Santa Monica, California • Scottsdale, Arizona • Seattle, Washington Precedent Study: Buildings
  • 35. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 24 GOALS & BEST PRACTICES GOAL 01 /// Incorporate LEED® design principles or equivalent standards in all new construction and newly remodeled buildings RATIONALE: Many municipal governments have adopted standards to ensure that new or newly remodeledCity-ownedandCity-fundedbuildingsare more sustainable. However, only very few of these governments are creating policy that requires all new construction or remodeling of existing buildings to meet LEED® or equivalent standards. Meeting LEED® standards is crucial to providing a wide range of opportunities for all people to live, work, and play in a more environmentally responsible manner. This policy has proven successful in Arlington County, Virginia and Los Angeles, California. BEST PRACTICE A: Arlington County Virginia’s Green Building Fund. Since its inception in 2003, the county has set up a fund to collect a green building fee from all developers. A refund of this fee is available to those projects who achieve basic LEED® certification. Arlington County’s Department of Environmental Services provides brochures, guidelines, and documents on their website for developers and other members of the community interested in green building and the fund. As of September 2009, Arlington County has 20 LEED® certified buildings. Of the 20 LEED® certified buildings, five have achieved a certified rating, nine have a silver rating, and six have a gold rating. Key Facts • All developers must contribute $0.045 per square foot, (the cost of LEED® certification for most projects), to the Green Building Fund, when applying for a building permit. • Projects that achieve at least a basic LEED® certificationfromtheUSGBCreceivearefund of their contribution when the developers submit proof of certification to the county. • The Green Building Fund is used to provide educational and technical assistance to the community and developers. BEST PRACTICE B: Los Angeles’ Standard for Sustainability for Large Development Projects. In 2007, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa set a goal in the Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 35% below 1990 levels by 2030. In particular, the 2007 Climate Action Plan specified the need to reduce environmental impact of buildings on the city in order to meet the Mayor’s goals. The Standard for Sustainability, mandatory for all large projects, is a strategy Los Angeles is using to reduce the environmental impact of large buildings in the city. The Environmental Affairs Department is the agency responsible for implementing the Standard for Sustainability. The office staff provides a LEED® checklist and coordinates a Green Building Team that provides public outreach and technical support on sustainable practices. Key Facts • A large project must meet the standard if it is a(n): o Non-residential projects with a floor area at or above 50,000 square feet o High-rise residential projects with a floor area at or above 50,000 square feet and is at least seven stories tall o Low-rise residential projects of 50 or more dwelling units within buildings of at least 50,000 square feet of floor area and six stories tall Photo: Langston High School | Arlington, VA
  • 36. urpl 912 | 12.18.0925 o Existing building that meets the minimum thresholds described above when redevelopment construction costs exceed a valuation of 50% of the existing building’s replacement cost • Formal LEED® certification is not required; instead, a project must meet the intent of LEED® standards. • The Department of City Planning issues a green building clearance in order for projects to receive a building permit. The green building clearance is issued only when the following items are submitted and approved by the city: o Plan drawings o Statement of declaration from the developer describing how they met the intent of LEED® certification o LEED® checklist $268 fee or a design review conducted by the USGBC GOAL02 ///Encouragedeveloperstodesign, construct, and operate environmentally responsible buildings through the implementation of density bonus incentives RATIONALE: In order for Madison to become a leader in sustainable building practices, it must work with the development community to both provide more environmentally responsible buildings and to ensure the environment surrounding the buildings themselves are sustainable as well. There are many ways to provide incentives for developers to be more sustainable in their building design. According to the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties’ 2007 Green Building Incentives That Work, density bonuses are one of the top three incentivesdeveloperssurveyedinthisreportthought would help developers build more sustainably (12). BEST PRACTICE A: Arlington County, Virginia’s Green Building Density Incentive. The goal of this initiative is to encourage private developers of large office, high-rise residential, and mixed use projects to design, construct, and operate environmentally responsible buildings by providing density and / or bonuses where appropriate. The county provides brochures, guidelines, and documents on their website for developers to learn about this incentive and the program qualifications. Key Facts • This policy uses the USGBC’s LEED® Green Building Rating System™ as a standard for measuring the comprehensive green approach of each project. • Applicable permits will not be issued unless approved LEED® components are included in the plan drawings and required LEED® documentation is submitted. BEST PRACTICE B: Seattle, Washington’s Density Bonus Incentive. This incentive was incorporated as part of a package of public amenities that mitigate the impacts of growth by protecting the environment, conserving natural resources, and promoting the public‘s health, safety, and welfare. The city will grant greater height or density requests if development projects achieve a LEED® silver rating or higher, as well as contribute to affordable housing and other public amenities. As part of the design review, Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development encourages all design players to develop green goals and strategies collaboratively by holding eco-charettes during a project’s design phase. There is a “commercial expert” on staff who helps coordinate eco-charettes, provides technical advice, and answers any questions about the
  • 37. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 26 sustainable programs available to developers and residents of Seattle. Key Facts • The applicant must submit a letter of intent that communicates their commitment to achieve a LEED® Silver, Gold or Platinum rating on their project before issuance of the Master Use Permit. The City will then issue subsequent permits and the final Certificate of Occupancy based on this good faith commitment. • Within 90 days of receiving the final Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must submit documentation that demonstrates achievement of a LEED® silver rating or higher. o If the applicant fails to submit a timely report, the resulting penalty is a fee of $500 per day from the date due, which is issued 90 days after issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy. • Failure to demonstrate performance will also result in a penalty. Performance must be demonstrated through an independent report provided by the U.S. Green Building Council that confirms achievement of at least a LEED® Silver rating. The penalty is a fee determined by a formula of the building’s construction value and credits earned from USGBC to achieve LEED® certification. • All penalties collected will contribute to a Green Building Fund dedicated to supporting market adoption of green building. GOAL 03 /// Green the existing building stock and reinvest in older communities RATIONALE: While many sustainable building design and construction efforts are geared towards new development, the most sustainable buildings, communities, or landscapes often already exist. Maximizing the life cycle of all resources through conservation is a fundamental condition of sustainability. For this reason, municipalities across the country are incorporating policies and programs aimed at the conservation and improvement of their existing built resources, including re-use of historic buildings, retrofitting the existing building stock, and reinvestment in older communities. BEST PRACTICE A: New York, New York’s Greener, Greater Buildings Plan. As part of PlaNYC 2030 and Earth Day 2009, legislation was passed that requires all large buildings over 50,000 gross square feet to conduct an energy audit once every ten years. Implementation of this plan by the Department of Buildings is expected to affect over 2.5 billion square feet of New York City real estate. There are 22,000 buildings covered by this legislation, and roughly, 2,200 will come due every year on a randomized rotating schedule. In addition, over 19,000 construction-related jobs, such as energy auditing, upgrading lighting and maintaining equipment, will be created to implement energy efficiency investments over the next 13 years. Key Facts • The Department of Buildings uses ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) standards for the audit process. • Two types of improvements to the Photo: Seattle Justice Center | Seattle, WA
  • 38. urpl 912 | 12.18.0927 buildings will be required retrofit measures, which are replacements of outmoded equipment with more efficient models, and retro- commissioning, which are tune-ups of existing equipment. • There is a three-year window of time between the completion of the audit and the completion of all retrofitting and retro-commissioning work. • Buildings that are unable to secure financing for the work, or that have experienced unanticipated delays during construction, will be eligible for extensions. The city plans to implement a direct lending program: A Greener, Greater Buildings Loan Fund, which uses $16 million of the $80 million in federal stimulus funding allocated to the city under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program. The Fund will provide loans to owners of two categories of buildings over 50,000 square feet: financially distressed buildings and buildings where owners have already taken the first steps towards decreasing their energy usage. Buildings must annually benchmark their energy and water consumption by using a free, online tool provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Building owners will need to enter only basic information about their building and have access to their energy bills in order to benchmark. While owners of commercial buildings will also need to enter information about tenant consumption, apartment buildings will be exempted from the requirement to enter residential tenant data. In order to ensure that New Yorkers can obtain the right level of training to perform construction-related jobs, the city has created theWorkingGroupforGreenBuildingWorkforce Development. The Working Group includes key stakeholders in the labor and real estate sectors, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), and the City of New York, to identify workforce and training needs and advise on the certification process. BEST PRACTICE B: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s High-Performance Building Renovation Guidelines. In 2004, the City of Philadelphia has created the High Performance Renovation (HPBR) Guidelines to improve the operations of its aging building stocks. The HPBR Guidelines are designed to focus on typical city renovation projects and provide guidance for considering: • Renovation sequence • Material selection • Construction practices • Energy Use • Operating implications and interrelatedness of building improvements that constitute high performance The HPBR Guidelines consist of 12 major renovation project types, and each HPBR Guideline provides the user with specific design options and detailed discussions on the means to improve building performance and the working environment. Within each technical guide: • The “System Integration” section enables the user to expand the scope of consideration from replacing one building component to reviewing the opportunities for achieving an integrated, whole building approach. Image: Buildings included in Greener, Greater Buildings Plan | New York, NY
  • 39. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 28 • The “Sustainable Materials & Systems or Sustainable Strategies” are addressed with a scale range from $ to $$$$, which is utilized to provide the user with an estimate of costs. • The “Life Cycle Assessment” presents the cost-benefit analysis to give a better picture of the true cost of installing and owning recommended materials or technical systems. • The “Series Matrix” is provided to cross- reference the integrated nature of various technical issues and projects to the issues of guides. The designers and builders should assess the applicability of any recommendation offered in the HPBR Guidelines and apply them into design documents and construction practices as required by the conditions unique to the site. The HPBR Guidelines also provide a framework in which budget, planning, capital program and department level staff can improve the building renovation process. GOAL 04 /// Provide easily accessible, user- friendly sustainable design, development, and construction guidance and technical support RATIONALE: Conventional design and construction methods produce buildings that can negatively impact the environment as well as occupant health and productivity. These buildings are expensive to operate and contribute to excessive resource consumption, waste generation, and pollution. To help reduce these impacts and meet the goals of sustainability, some municipalities have adopted guidelines and prepared documents to facilitate the development and maintenance of green buildings. BEST PRACTICE A: Santa Monica, California’s Green Building Design and Construction Guidelines. In Santa Monica, the “Green Building Design and Construction Guidelines” were developed over a three-year period by City staff and Sheltair Scientific Ltd., a sustainable design consultant team, with extensive input from the local design, construction, and development community. These Guidelines includerequiredandrecommendedpracticesthatare intended to reduce life-cycle environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of both commercial and municipal developments and major remodel projects in Santa Monica. They provide specific “green” design and construction strategies in the following topic areas: Building Site and Form, Landscaping, Transportation, Building Envelope and Space Planning, Building Materials, Water Systems, Electrical Systems, HVAC Systems, Control Systems, Construction Management, and Commissioning. The Guidelines were developed for, and specifically apply to, the following building types: • Institutional and Commercial Offices • Light Industrial Buildings • Commercial Retail Buildings • Multi-Family Residences • Hotels and Motels They are not intended to address development of single-family residential dwellings and duplexes, high rise buildings, or occupancies with special process demands (heavy industrial operations, car washes, service garages, etc.); however, many of the recommended practices presented in the Guidelines are relevant to these building types as well. These Guidelines provide designers and builders Photo: 1 Crescent Drive | Philadelphia, PA
  • 40. urpl 912 | 12.18.0929 with guidance on the ways that buildings can provide better health, ecological and resource performance effectively and economically. This document is a useful tool during the conceptual and schematic stages of design. All of these guidelines are available on the City’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment website, and are presented in a format that is straightforward, easy to navigate, and highly graphic. BEST PRACTICE B: Scottsdale, Arizona’s Green Building Program. Scottsdale’s Green Building Program encourages a whole-systems approach through design and building techniques to minimize environmental impact and reduce the energy consumption of buildings while contributing to the health of its occupants. This program rates building projects in the following six environmental impact areas: • Site Use • Energy • Indoor Air Quality • Building Materials • Solid Waste • Water Although participation in this program is voluntary, the City’s website and publications are an excellent resource that may entice builders, designers, and developers to get involved. One particularly useful resource offered is a series of documents explaining green building practices and expectations by project type (i.e. commercial, multi-family housing, tenant improvement, etc.). By offering a variety of workbooks, guides, and checklists through both printed and electronic media, Scottsdale has shortened the gap between private development practice and public (City) policy goals. GOAL 05 /// Increase the public’s understanding, education, and involvement in sustainable building practices and construction techniques RATIONALE: It is critical to bring the green building practice to the attention of the general public and building industry. By informing building industry professionals and the public of the benefits of green building, the city can expand market demand and strengthen local capacity to build green voluntarily. BEST PRACTICE A: Portland, Oregon’s Green Building Outreach and Education Programs. After adopting the Green Building program in 2001, the city of Portland has implemented various community outreach services and educational programs. In addition, the city has published case studies and technical briefs on local green building projects and emerging technologies such as ecoroofs, rainwater harvesting, fuel cells, and natural ventilation strategies so that the public and professionals can be updated with the latest information. Key Facts • Build It Green! Home tour is a self-guided tour that demonstrates the latest in green and solar building practices of around twenty homes in the Portland metro area. Since 2002, the tour has been the best information forum that homeowners, contractors, designers, and consumers share their experiences about green building materials, costs, successes and challenges. Ticket sales ($15/person) are collected for the Green Building Program of the City of Portland. Volunteers from a local nonprofit organization staff the Build It Green! Home Tour, and the tour booklet is provided to Photo: Colorado Court | Santa Monica, CA
  • 41. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 30 inform tour-goers of tour stop addresses and an area map, along with detailed green home features and project data. • ReTHINKEducationSeriesisannualeducation program targeting homeowners, local building design & construction professionals, and small contractors. For five weeks local and regional experts provide technical training on how to successfully remodel and create healthy homes and sustainable sites. Specific topics addressed recently for the session are: o Ultra-low energy homes o Natural remodeling o Saving water and energy o Green materials and waste reduction o Creating a new way of living intentionally The cost of the education program is covered by enrollment fees charged for the classes ($12 for a single class or $50 for the whole series) and sponsorship by partner public agencies and nonprofit organizations. BEST PRACTICE B: Scottsdale, Arizona’s Green Building Publicity and Outreach Program. The City of Scottsdale’s Green Building Program enables community members to access information easily and participate in green building activities through presentations and exhibits at community and association events, as well as green building related lectures, workshops, or seminars. In addition, community members interested in green building can attend monthly public meeting held by Scottsdale’s Green Building Advisory Committee (GBAC) to review green building trends and discuss public outreach programs. • A variety of outreach efforts and educational programs exist for the community. o Annual Green Building Expo o Monthly Solar and Green Building Lecture Series o Fall and Spring Sustainable and Solar Home Tour o Design Day o Free bi-monthly Scottsdale’s Green Building newsletter • The City website lists designers, architects and builders who have active projects enrolled in green building program or have completed a project within the past two or three years. • Promotionalpackagescontaininginformation such as green building logo for ads, program brochures, and green home buyers guide are provided for builders and developers. • Job site signs are available for builders to help distinguish their projects from others and inform the general public of the builder’s commitment to green building practice. GOAL 06 /// Establish a building permitting and plan review process that encourages sustainable building design and development in the private-sector RATIONALE: A common concern for those involved in the development community is the duration and uncertainty of the review/permitting of building proposals. Givingpreferencetoprojectsthatcommit to certain sustainable certifications or other criteria representing achievements of stated goals provides an incentive for developers. These green building projects can pass through the process faster saving time and money. BEST PRACTICE A: Seattle, Washington’s Priority Photo: Arabian Public Library | Scottsdale, AZ
  • 42. urpl 912 | 12.18.0931 Green Permit Program. The City of Seattle has a strong commitment to both climate protection and green building. To accelerate the adoption of green building practices, the Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) provides a Priority Green Permit program to assist innovative projects that will serve as visible models of high performance and sustainability. Complying with Seattle’s Priority Green Permit Program: • ProvidesasingleDepartmentofPlanningand Development point of contact for applicants • Provides code and process assistance by an interdisciplinary DPD review team • Sets high performance building expectations and goals • Adopts an integrated design approach • Maximizes financial incentives available from other City departments and agencies • Meets the 2030 Challenge In order to participate, applicants must meet defined building performance criteria (measured in a points- based system). Expedited permitting provides a high degree of predictability, with known timeframes and consequences for failure to perform (e.g., assessing penalties if a project fails to achieve the required level of energy performance). Conversely, Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development may consider a permit fee rebate if the guaranteed review schedule is not achieved. The requirements for participation in the program are periodically reviewed and revised to insure that: • Participation is sufficient to encourage a significant number of leading edge projects to demonstrate viability of high performance buildings in the market • Participation continues to target the highest levels of energy performance • Consideration is given to additional priorities • Department of Planning and Development’s review capacity is not overwhelmed BEST PRACTICE B: Chicago, Illinois’ Green Permit Program. The Chicago Department of Buildings (DOB)hasdevelopedanexpeditedpermitprocessfor projects that incorporate innovative green building strategies. The DOB Green Permit Program provides developers and owners with an incentive to build green by streamlining the permit process timeline for their projects. Projects accepted into the Green Permit Program can receive permits in less than 30 business days or in as little as 15 business days. The number of green building elements included in the project plans and project complexity determines the length of the timeline. The more green building elements that are included in a project, the shorter the timeline to obtain a permit. Applicants that demonstrate an extraordinary level of green strategy implementation may have consultant code review fees waived. To participate in the DOB Green Permit Program, the applicant must submit documentation outlining all of the green building components to be included in the project. These specific components will be discussed at the initial Green Permit Program orientation meeting. Admission into the DOB Green Permit Program is based on a series of requirements that qualifies the project for different levels of green building certification. In addition, many projects must apply certain strategies or technologies selected from a list of menu items that enhance sustainability, expand affordability or stimulate economic development. The DOB Green Permit Program allows applicants to incorporate a number of green building strategies and technologies from a select group of menu items Photo: Fisher Pavilion | Seattle, WA
  • 43. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 32 in order to expedite the process timeline. Design professionals can incorporate environmentally- friendlyandenergy-efficientitemsintotheirprojects from the Green Menu below: • Exceptional Energy Performance • Green Roofs • Renewable Energy • Extra Affordability • Transit-Oriented Development and Difficult- to-Develop Areas • Innovation • Exceptional Water Management • Exceeds LEED or Chicago Green Homes Certification • Natural Ventilation • Exceptional Bike Parking GOAL 07 /// Continually monitor building operation and report on performance RATIONALE: The city should monitor green building strategies implemented and their associated costs and benefits to make sure that they are reaching their goals and promoting sustainable practices. The monitored practices will become the best resource and data for the city to evaluate its green building standards, technical services, and incentive programs. Also, public disclosure of green building performance will demonstrate impacts of progress and benefits. BEST PRACTICE A: Arlington County, Virginia’s Building Energy Report Cards. Under the Fresh Arlington Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE), the Arlington County Government has monitored its energy usage pattern to meet the goal of reducing emissions from County government’s operations 10% by 2012. As one of the key elements of the Fresh AIRE program, the Arlington County Building portfolio including 67 buildings, mostly owned by the County, offer Building Energy Report Cards in context with the function, use, and characteristics of each building through the website of the County government. Recently, the Building Energy Report Cards are updated by comparing data on buildings within County in 2007 to those same building in 2008. The most distinctive advantage of Arlington County’s Building Energy Report Cards lies in that all information is user friendly and easily accessible to the public via the Internet. Key Facts • The Energy Report Card has specific energy usage information for each building type, including community centers, healthcare facilities, libraries, offices, public safety buildings, residential programs & clinics, warehouses & storage, and specialty facilities. • Each building type section provides a bar graph of Site Energy Intensity by building and Energy Snapshots by building, along with documenting progress in reducing energy consumption, as well as expected opportunities or challenges for energy use reduction. • Evaluative analysis can be obtained from the Building Energy Report Cards, promoting improvementsinoperationsorre-investment in more efficient building components (lights, windows, heating, and cooling equipments, etc). • Indicators for the Energy Report Cards are: o Site Energy Intensity o Carbon Footprint o EPA ENERGY STAR Ratings and EPA National Average Comparisons o Regional Climate Photo: Center for Neighborhood Technology | Chicago, IL
  • 44. urpl 912 | 12.18.0933 CONCLUSION Typical North American lifestyles are unsustainable in ecological and resource terms and will remain so over the next century if current practices persist. Buildings are a major contributor to this. As a result, a focus on the built environment is a crucial component in advancing sustainable thought and action. Learning from and moving towards sustainable building practices is a necessity. While this precedent study report is not comprehensive, it does provide a glimpse at best practices that may be easily applied and transferred to Madison. It is important to understand that sustainable building ideas and technologies are continually changing and cities must evolve and progress accordingly. Going forward, the City of Madison may use these references to make the City’s current and future built environment more sustainable. Photo: One and Two Potomac Yard | Arlington, VA
  • 45. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 34 Policy Matrix
  • 46. urpl 912 | 12.18.0935 Photo: Roberts Hall | Portland, OR SOURCES Arlington County’s 2007-2008 Building Energy Report Cards, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva. us/portals/topics/aire/BuildingEnergy.aspx Arlington County, Virginia’s Density Bonus Incentive, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva. us/DEPARTMENTS/EnvironmentalServices/epo/ EnvironmentalServicesEpoGreenBuildings.aspx Arlington County, Virginia’s Green Building Fund, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva.us/ DEPARTMENTS/EnvironmentalServices/epo/ EnvironmentalServicesEpoGreenBuildings.aspx Chicago, Illinois’ Green Permit Program, Available at: http://www.cityofchicago.org/ webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/ GreenPermitBrochure_1.pdf Grist’s 15 Green Cities, Available at: http://www.grist.org/article/cities3/ Los Angeles, California’s Building a Green Los Angeles: Framework for the City’s Green Building Program, Available at: http://www.lacity.org/council/cd9/pdf/ELEC%20 ENTIRE.pdf Los Angeles, California’s Standard for Sustainability, Available at: http://www.lacity.org/ead/ environmentla/greenbuilding/leed.htm National Association of Industrial and Office Properties Research Foundation, Green Building Incentives that Work: A Look at How Local Governments Are Incentivizing Green Development, Available at: http://www.naiop.org/foundation/ completedresearch.com New York, New York’s Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/ buildings_plan.shtml Philadelphia High-Performance Building Renovation Guidelines, Available at: h t t p : / / w w w . p h i l a . g o v / p d f s / PhiladelphiaGreenGuidelines.pdf Portland, Oregon’s Build It Green! Home Tour, Available at: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/ index.cfm?c=41893 Portland, Oregon’s ReTHINK Program, Available at: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index. cfm?c=42714 Santa Monica, California’s Green Building Design and Construction Guidelines, Available at: http:// www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/categories/ buildGreen.aspx Scottsdale, Arizona’s Green Building Program, Available at: http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/greenbuilding Seattle, Washington’s City Green Building, Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/GreenBuilding/ Commercial/IncentivesAssistance/default.asp#LEED Seattle, Washington’s 2006 Density Bonus Incentive, Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/ dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@sustainableblding/ documents/web_informational/dpdp_018423.pdf Seattle,Washington’sPriorityGreenPermitProgram,
  • 47. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 36 Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/ U.S. Green Building Council, Green Building Research, Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/ DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1718
  • 48. urpl 912 | 12.18.0937 INTRODUCTION Energy is a crucial element of sustainability. The impacts of energy are felt across all parts of our lives, from the electricity in our homes and offices, to the transportation methods we use whether they are based in fossil fuels or renewable sources. Work in “green” or sustainable energy practices will provide opportunities for new jobs and the reinvigoration of our communities. Water is our most valuable natural resource as it is crucial to human life. While Madison does not experience water shortages like those of the American Southwest, the quality and quantity of our water resources are still at risk. Madison’s water table and Mt. Simon aquifer has dropped by about 50 ft. from 1900-2000. The City expects another 20- 40 feet of draw down within the next 30 years. Improvements in our energy and water policies will help reduce consumption and ensure access to affordable infrastructure for generations to come. Capturing rainfall and stormwater runoff is one way to reduce potable water use. This helps to ensure future supply and to prevent pollutants from entering surface water, thus keeping our lakes and rivers clean. Energy efficiency upgrades are the quickest way to see economic and environmental benefits but we must also begin to restructure the way we create, distribute and consume energy. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: ENERGY Introduction When assessing our next steps in sustainable energy, it is important to remember that each city is different, and has different challenges and resources to utilize. For example, comparing the active solar energy production of a city in the Southwestern US to Madison is poor choice. Fortunately, when it comes to sustainable energy, Madison is already taking steps in the right direction. However, there remains much work to be done in moving Madison towards true energy sustainability. Energy sustainability considerations fit into three broad categories: • Reduce Energy Usage, Conservation & Building Efficiency • Efficient Energy Production & Pollution Reduction • Developing Renewable Energy Sources GOAL 01 /// Reduce Energy Usage, Energy Conservation & Building Efficiency Researchers have found that building efficiency is a critical area to improve energy efficiency. Different types of building systems play critical roles in energy consumption. Additionally, training and certification of energy experts to conduct building energy efficiency ratings will be a potential area of future job growth. The average Wisconsin household uses roughly 10,000 KW/H of energy per year. This is equivalent to 8,000 pounds of coal burnt each year, producing some 24,000 lbs of carbon dioxide gas (CO2). The averageAmericanhouseholdspends$2,200annually on energy bills. The burning of finite fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to produce power has significant environmental and public health consequences. By reducing energy consumption, improving energy efficiency and conserving energy, cities can reduce Precedent Study: Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources
  • 49. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 38 greenhouse gas emissions, save money, and help keep the planet healthy. Figure 1 shows how energy is consumed through buildings. Many cities in the US and around the world have set clearenergyconservationgoalsintheirsustainability plans. For example, San Francisco’s long term goal is to reduce per capita residential energy use by 50%, and to decrease energy use in municipal and commercial buildings by 50% through conservation and use of on-site renewable energy. In the Philadelphia region, the non-profit group, Energy Coordinating Agency (ECA) provides many services for the region’s residents including, weatherization assistance, hot water installation & assistance, energy education, conservation workshops, and energy budget counseling - both gratis and for a fee, home energy audits, and heating & solar water servicingMadison already does several of these things through the MadiSUN program: including a free energy audit and MG&E provides information on how to conserve energy for its customers. Researchers have identified five key policy tools in the European and Australian practices of improving building energy efficiency: • Building codes that have mandatory and specificrequirementsfornewbuildingsandin buildings undergoing major refurbishments are effective in improving energy efficiency. • Regional consistency in the energy efficiency requirements for building codes allow manufacturers to better standardize their products . • Energy Efficiency Ratings: A standardized rating of a building’s energy efficiency could potentially be required to be included in all property advertisements. • Issuance of Tradable “White Certificates“(Australia): a buildings-only cap-and-trade system in which owners of large buildings are given energy savings obligations that can be met either directly, or by buying certificates from better- performing buildings. • Public buildings should continue to be a test bed for new energy-saving ideas and should promote awareness of building energy- performance levels. The City of Portland has also set energy conservation goals and made significant in-roads towards achieving these goals, including: • Reduction of city energy bills by $1.1 million annually through improved energy efficiency • Energy efficiency improvements in more than 40 million ft2 of commercial and institutional space • Weatherization of more than 22,000 apartment units • A 9% reduction in per capita household energy use • Development of new commercial and residential energy codes In order to further improve energy efficiency, the City of Portland launched a neighborhood education project called “Clean Energy Works Portland”. The first phase of this program aims to help up to 500 qualified Portland homes finance and install energy efficiency upgrades. The project offers homeowners access to low-cost financing for energy efficiency home improvements, including new insulation or the installation of a high efficiency furnace or water heater. To help decide which upgrades and financing options make sense, participants receive the assistance of a qualified Energy Advocate throughout the process. Image: Energy allocation of building types in Delaware
  • 50. urpl 912 | 12.18.0939 The City of Delaware helps residents improve home energy efficiency with a $100 rebate program on Energy Star qualified appliances. Under this program,productsthatareeligibleforrebateinclude refrigerators, freezers, top load clothes washers, front load clothes washers and dehumidifiers. Ameren, Illinois’ Energy Utilities encourage households to track energy usage and potential savings by providing $25 rebate incentive for programmable thermostats. These thermostats are Energy Star qualified appliances and offer four pre- programmedsettingstoautomaticallyregulatehome temperature according to season, whether residents are home or away. Properly using a programmable thermostat in a home could be one of the easiest ways to save energy, money, and help fight global warming. The average US household spends more than $2,200 a year on energy bills, nearly half of which goes to heating and cooling. Homeowners can save around $180 a year by properly setting their programmable thermostats. Providing an economic incentive to purchase programmable thermostats could encourage landlords to install them in rental units or provide an upgrade for low- income residents. Cities can provide helpful community assistance and education via flyers, brochures, or workshops about simple energy conservation tips, including: • Clothes Washing: Wash full loads of clothes. • Weather Stripping: Caulk and weather-strip around windows and doorframes that leak air. • Unplug: Unplug any battery chargers or power adapters when not in use. • Shade: Close drapery and shades during the hot part of the day to save on cooling. • Insulate: Use spray foam or caulk to seal holes around pipes, wiring, vents or recessed lights. The US EPA, through its Green Power Partnership project, works with a wide variety of organizations from Fortune 500 companies to local, state and federal governments, and a growing number of colleges and universities, which aims at increasing green power purchases, reducing environmental impacts of electricity use and supporting the development of new renewable generation capacity nationwide. Table 1 is a list of the top eight local governments investing in “green” power. California, Oregon, Maryland, Idaho, New York, and Minnesota have all had success promoting energy conservation through statewide policy initiatives. This process is called decoupling. Decoupling gives utility companies an incentive to promote energy conservation to its customers by breaking the link between energy sold and revenues. Traditionally, the more energy an energy utility can sell, the more money the company can make. Decoupling requires the energy utility to set its budget with a reasonable profit margin the year prior and then a preliminary rate is set so as to meet those operational and maintenance costs. After the energy utility surpasses a profit margin benchmark the rate charged for power begins to decrease, discouraging the energy utility from selling more energy because as the rate decreases, the smaller their profit margin becomes. Californiahashadparticularsuccesswithdecoupling, and for the last 30 years the main California energy utility, PG&E, has helped customers save over $20 billion - preventing 120 million tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. PG&E has kept California per capita energy use constant, while the majority of the country’s energy usage has risen by 50%. This is just one example of how local or state governments Image: Top eight local governments investing in “green” power
  • 51. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 40 can work with local and regional utilities to help promote smart energy usage. GOAL 02 /// Efficient Energy Production & Pollution Reduction In many ways, Madison is just like any other energy customer; it is limited by what the market has to sell. Most cities are not in the business of producing their own energy, but there are still many things that cities have done to produce some or nearly all of their own energy. One example is Samso, Denmark, which is nearly energy self-sufficient, utilizing a mix of renewable energy sources, including biomass furnaces, offshore wind turbines, and selectively placed solar panels. Much of this has been achieved through local leadership, as the energy utilities involved are all municipally owned. In an American context, where most energy companies are privately owned, cities need to include energy companies in discussions about energy production. For much of America, coal-fired plants provide a large percentage of electrical energy needs. Critics of coal often cite this fuel as being excessively dirty rather than inefficient, but its low cost and abundance result in its widespread use. There are three coal-fired power plants on Madison’s isthmus: the MG&E power plant on Blount Street, UW- Madison’s Charter Street plant and the state-run Capitol Heating and Power facility. Together these plants are the major suppliers of Madison’s energy. Plans exist, however, to convert the charter street plant into a biomass energy plant fueled completely through wood chips. As the primary company that supplies household energy at the Madison area, MGE generates and distributes electricity to 136,000 customers in Dane County and purchases and distributes natural gas to 140,000 customers in seven south-central and western Wisconsin counties. Figure 2 demonstrates that coal-based electricity plays a predominant role in Madison’s electricity generation: making up to 46.7% of the city’s electricity sourcing. Renewable fuel only account for 2.7%. MGE has made some effort to increase its energy generation from clean energy sources. It increased its wind energy capacity from 11 to 87 MW in 2008. It owns two wind farms that have a combined capacity of 41 MW and it purchases 46 MW of wind capacity from two other mid-western wind farms. From 2002 to 2007, emission rates at MGE’s owned generation facilities decreased for nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates and mercury. MGE projects total carbon dioxide emissions to decline by 8% and the emission rate by 10% from 2005 to 2015, despite growing demand from electric customers. GOAL 03 /// Developing Renewable Energy Sources Biofuel - Biofuel offers several potential benefits including local and regional economic development opportunities, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and decreased dependence on volatile oil supplies. There are many different types and ways of making biofuel. Many types of energy today are considered forms of biofuel and Madison is in a unique position to take advantage of producing, selling, and utilizing many types. Fuel from corn, typically known as corn ethanol, is a form of biofuel. A similar product made from native prairie grasses, usually switchgrass, is also a potential fuel source. Since native prairie Image: 2008 Madison electricity generation
  • 52. urpl 912 | 12.18.0941 grasses do not require high quantities of fertilizers and pesticides, native Wisconsin fauna could serve as a biofuel source with very low environmental impacts. Manure and other organic matter can be processed anaerobic digesters to capture methane, which can be used directly as a fuel or processed into natural gas or gasoline. Another option is biodiesel made from spent fryer oil, which can be turned into a form of diesel. Madison has already begun exploring biodiesel as an option for its city fleet vehicles, and has conducted a pilot project on the feasibility of anaerobic digesters. The City of Portland was the first city in the country with a local renewable fuel standard. Portland City Council voted on July 12, 2006 to approve a citywide renewable fuels standard, which became effective July 1, 2007. The standard requires a minimum 5% blend of biodiesel for all vehicle diesel fuel sold in the city limits. Gasoline is required to contain at least 10% ethanol. With this effort, the City is helping create demand for thousands of gallons of renewable transportation fuels, in order to spur market development of large-scale Oregon based biofuel production facilities to meet that demand. This growing renewable fuels market generates a need for oilseed crops like canola and mustard seed that can be grown by farmers. Portland continues to implement innovative, result-oriented strategies that meet goals for job growth, greenhouse gas emission reduction and local environmental health. TheCityofPortlandhasalsobeenapioneerintheuse ofbiodieselformunicipallyownedvehicles,including 373 trucks, 166 off-road vehicles (backhoes, graders, excavators, etc.), 62 towed units (compressors, generators, etc.) and many garbage haulers. All City- owned diesel vehicles and equipment that use the City’s fueling stations have been powered by a 20% biodiesel blend (20% biodiesel/80% petro-diesel, also known as B20) since 2004. During the summer of 2007, the City increased the fuel blend so that all equipment is currently running on B50 (50% biodiesel), and B20 during very cold winter days. Wind - There is only a small potential for wind energy production in Madison in comparison to other regions in the United States. Despite this, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80% over the last 20 years. As one moves east of Madison, closer to Lake Michigan, the energy that can be produced from wind technology increases dramatically. Current state-of- the-art wind power plants are generating electricity at less than 5 cents/kWh compared to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour in the early 1980’s, making investment in renewable wind energy a smarter safer idea. Solar - According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center over the past 50 years, there has been an average of 89 full sun days in Madison, and an average of 186 to 219 sunny to partly sunny days in Madison. Even though we do not have the solar potential that the sunny southwest states have, Madison still possess great potential for solar. Madison has already installed several solar panels and solar hot water heaters on public buildings. Madison has also initiated the MadiSUN program, which provides citizens with the opportunity to take advantage of a personalized renewable energy home analysis. One of the biggest challenges with active solar energy production is the high up-front capital costs. However, an electric utility in Washington State, the Chelan County Public Utility District (PUD), came up with a simple way to make solar energy cost-effective. It did this through a market driven Image: MGE projected CO2 emission rate in the Madison area
  • 53. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 42 program called Sustainable Natural Alternative Power (SNAP) program. SNAP has helped to install a large number of solar power systems at the lowest possible cost by relying on free-market supply and demand principles to make solar-generated energy cost-effective, instead of heavily bureaucratic and often expensive give-away rebate programs. This performance-based approach uses market forces to determine the market price of solar power instead of utilizing prices set by the government or electric utilities. The rate for solar energy is determined by simply dividing the total annual dollars in the SNAP fund by the total number of solar kilowatt hours generated that year. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: SOLID WASTE Introduction The production of garbage that serves no future purpose is unsustainable and unnatural. Only processes and systems whose products and byproducts can be reused or recycled, are truly sustainable. Cities workings towards becoming carbon-neutral must also set the goal to reach zero- waste, such that nothing is sent to a landfill or burnt in an incinerator. In this section, we will explore what Madison and other cities around the world are currently doing to reduce garbage production and find ways to avoid wasting potentially reusable “waste.” GOAL 04 /// Reduce Waste through Comprehensive Recycling Programs The City of Madison states that it has a “very successful recycling program” - recycling and composting over 59% of the city’s waste stream. However, Madison residents still send over 49,000 tons of material to the Dane County Landfill every year. That is equivalent to 1,471 pounds of trash for each of Madison’s 67,000 households served by the Streets Division. The city states that, “this large pile of trash costs Madison taxpayers $1,380,000 in landfill fees and another $544,000 to haul to the landfill.” This begs the question as to whether recyclying this waste material would create a net cost savings. The city of Madison Streets Division wants to put Madison residents on a ‘trash diet’, with the goal getting all residents to reduce the amount of trash they generate by one pound each week. The ultimate goal is to reduce the volume of trash going to the landfill by 5,805 tons annualy, or a 12% overall reduction. The city provides a list of ‘simple’ steps to help residents reduce their garbage. The first steps include tracking and keeping a log of individual garbage generated - including weighing it on bathroom scales. To reduce food waste, the city suggests preparing less food at meal times, smarter grocery shopping, eating purchased fruits and veggetables, freezing leftovers, and home composting. Recyling is also important. According to a 2003 DNR study conducted in South Central Wisconsin: 16% of the residential waste disposed in the South Central region of Wisconsin could have been recycled. However, even if every Madison resident started sorting their refuse properly and placing every item that the city recycles on the curb to be picked up by the Streets Division, the city would still send a great deal of material to landfills that could have been recycled, however the city lacks the fascillites to do so. Photo: Germany public recycling receptacles
  • 54. urpl 912 | 12.18.0943 Germany - Germany is at the forefront of recycling. In the 1990’s German citizens demanded that manufactures use less packaging in products and provide the means to return and reuse the necessary packaging. Unlike The United States and much of the rest of the world where disposal of packaging is a burden placed on the consumer, the citizens of Germany claimed manufactures should deal with thispackaging.Germanpoliticianstooknoticeofthis, and nowpackaging is nowregulated,with theoverall amount of packaging used in Germany reduced by 14%. Berkley, California has implemented a similar system and now regulates packaging in retail stores and restaurants. Berkley bans certain types of polystyrene foams and uses strong public education component so that businesses and residents alike understand and support these efforts. Germany has also implemented a four-bin recycling system that, at first glance, appears confusing, but forGermansthissystemhasprovenhighlysuccessful at reducing the amount of trash sent to landfills. San Francisco – As of 2007, San Francisco diverted 72% of its trash away from landfills. Due to the success of this waste management program, the city has set the goal through their Waste to Wealth program of zero net waste. Many other California cities, as well as Seattle, Austin, Boulder Colorado, and many cities in New Zealand have also set zero waste goals and have developed strategies to achieve these goals. Minneapolis, San Antonio, and hundreds of other cities and communities across America, have partnered with the non-profit group RecycleBank, which has small devices that attach to recycling pickup trucks and to the curbside carts and can then weigh and remember the amount of recycling for all the households that choose to participate in this voluntary program. Households, and even communities in some cases, receive points for the total amount of material they recycle, and can then use these points like cash at both national and local grocery stores, pharmacies, and retail stores. Recylemania is an example of recycling practice aimed to motivate competition. The event takes place on 510 college campuses across the U.S. and Canada. Different awards are given out in different categories, including most paper recycled per student. In Madison, neighborhoods come together as teams and compete to see if they can recycle more and waste less. GOAL 05 /// Reduce Waste through a Municipal Compost Program San Francisco, Los Angeles, Berkley and Seattle are just a few of the cities that are partly working to their zero waste goals through the development of a municipal composting program. San Francisco now has three separate curbside bins, blue for recyclables, green for food and yard waste, and black for garbage. They also reach out to the various communitiescompromisingSanFranciscobycreating informational flyers in five different languages; they promote the composting program by providing free small kitchen counter food scrap collection pails; and offer a 25% discount to restaurants and hotels to participate in the compost program. The result of the compost program is that 37,000 tons of organic matter is recycled into fertilizer that the city then turns around as a product in which they sell back to citizens. For all the cities that have set zero waste goals, they Photos: San Francisco Municipal Compost Bin and Odor Free Counter-top Pail
  • 55. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 44 too have also implemented municipal compost programs. There are also several Canadian cities as well as European cities that also have municipal compost programs. Ultimately, home composting is amoresustainablesolutiontomunicipalcomposting because the organic matter does not have to be transported via a vehicle, but all these cities despite the promotion of home composting, found that not all citizens wanted to practice home composting and found it much more convenient for the city to take on this necessary public service. In addition to anaerobic digestion at landfills, water treatment facilities, and on farms (all of which Madison is currently engaged in) Boston has an odor-free urban digestion facility that produces compost and energy for 1500 homes with room for future expansion. Solid Waste Outreach and Communication Even for environmentally conscious citizen, navigating Madison’s city recycling guide, can be tedious and challenging. It is difficult to determine what can and cannot be recycled as specifications are unclear for several types of items. One of the biggest impacts that the city could make on improving recycling and home composting is through better public education and outreach and through the addition of a feedback system to solicit community input. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: WATER Introduction Clean Water is important not only for health but also for the economy of a city surrounded by lakes. Municipalities like Madison can take proactive approaches to reduce pollution at the source, limiting the need for expensive conveyance infrastructure. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population will grow by 50 million people, or approximately 18 percent, between 2000 and 2020. If our communities are to support this growth without negatively impacting the quality of the local water supply, they must plan for acquisition and disposal of water resources. The biggest problem associated with this municipal growth is continued development and increased impervious surface coverage. With less natural vegetation to slow and absorb runoff, water collects and moves across the landscape quickly. Increases in flooding, poor domestic water quality and habitat degradation are increasingly serious problems. Within the process of any development, there are many opportunities to reduce total stormwater runoff, ensure access to safe drinking water and improve groundwater quality. Planning at all scales (site, district/city and regional) is important to preserve the natural hydrologic system. Water policy is not only a site-specific issue: the city and its residents must work together to manage this valuable natural resources. The Center for Watershed Protection provides a simple but important framework to preserve water resources: • Protect Open Space and Critical Ecological Features • Encourage Development in already developed or degraded areas • Develop Land efficiently (minimize waste) Many modern developments are being built at increasingly low densities, with the belief that having more lawns and distance between homes will reduce runoff and make the developments more efficient. In one analysis of building permits Image: Groundwater Drawdown
  • 56. urpl 912 | 12.18.0945 in 22 metropolitan areas between 1989 and 1998, approximately 95 percent of building permits were on green field sites. Studies have shown that the volume of runoff from highly compacted lawns is almost as high as from paved surfaces. Manhattan accommodates 1.54 million people on 14,720 acres (23 square miles) according to the Census, 2000. Were it not developed at its current density of 52 dwelling units per acre, but rather at one house per acre, Manhattan would need approximately 750,000 more acres, or an additional 1,170 square miles, to accommodate its current population. This is roughly equivalent in size to the State of Road Island. Although the site-specific density of many subdivisions is lower than corresponding urban development, the infrastructure needed to serve those homes, including roads, utilities and commercial and retail development is often ignored. As Figure 4 shows, increasing the housing density of a region or community can drastically reduce the amount of impervious cover and total runoff. The cost of the extra infrastructure to serve widely dispersed developments drives up costs. A recent study in the Journal of the American Planning Association used an engineering cost model to assess the influence of land use on the cost of water distribution and sewer services. The study estimated service costs at $143 for a household located on a 0.25 acre lot in a compact development near the service center. If the same household moved to a 1-acre lot in a similar location, its annual service cost would be $272, even if it did not increase its water use. If that household used the same amount of water on a 1-acre site in a dispersed development far from the service center, its water and sewer service would soar to $388 annually. GOAL 06 /// Reduce Potable Water use through Grey Water Recycling Access to clean drinking water is vital to the survival of any community. Like many other cities in the Midwest, Madison uses ground water to meet drinking water needs. Currently drawdown is making water harder to access. Drawdown is the measure of distance of the typical water table depth to the point where water is in a particular well (see Figure 5). On-site scale programs, like Madison’s rebate for low-flow toilet fixtures, can help reduce the need for more water. While Madison does not have a Combined Sewer System, reducing non-waste water from the system through disconnecting down-spouts, rain barrel and rain garden programs can help to reduce loads on the Waste Water Treatment Facilities and help to encourage recharge of ground water resources. Madisonians currently use around 70 gallons of water per day. Grey water or wastewater that is collected separately from a sewage flow and that does not contain industrial chemicals, hazardous wastes, or wastewater from toilets; makes up 50- 80% of potable water use. The implementation of grey water reuse systems can be important as a water conservation method. Grey water reuse system are plumbing systems for private or single- family residences that collects gray water. (Montana House Bill 259) Reused grey water is usually limited to flushing toilets and subsurface irrigation. While many states have begun to implement legislation legalizing this practice, only a few municipalitiesaretackingtheissue.Malibu,California is one. Their legislation deals specifically with the Image: Stormwater Runoff Volumes and Development Density
  • 57. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 46 application of Grey water as a tool for landscape irrigation. As part of the city zoning code, there is a maximum volume of irrigation water that can be applied to a site, “any portion of the landscaped area which is irrigated by a city approved grey water system shall be considered exempt in the calculation of the maximum applied water allowance.” Grey water reuse must still be closely regulated for public safety. The State of Arizona provides a three tired system. For grey water applications under 400 gal./day no special permit is needed and work is covered under the Reclaimed Water General Permit. Systems that process over 400 gallons per day and don’t meet the list of requirements of commercial, multi-family, and institutional systems require a standard permit under the second tier. Systems using over 3,000 gallons per day fall under the third tier, and are given attention by regulators on a case-by-case basis. Reducing water use through plumbing fixtures is a staple of LEED and other green building practices. However, many low-income residents or renters are unable or unwilling to update fixtures. Toronto and Prescott Arizona are cities that have developed small water efficient upgrade kits offered to residents and businesses. The $10 kits offer faucet aerators, low flow shower heads, toilet flow reduction and leak test, and lawn watering instruction kits to help residents reduce potable water use. Once the homeowner installs the kit the $10 fee is refunded to their water bill. Offering similar kits could encourage landlords and low-income households to upgrade aging housing stock. GOAL 07 /// Promote Clean Surface Water through Urban Stormwater Management It is not rational or economical to attempt to capture every last drop of rainwater. It is more reasonable to slow runoff to predevelopment conditions and limit pollutant run-off. Stormwater pollution directly impacts the health of our lakes and water bodies. The following case studies show how this can be done on varying scales and models for future planning. Chicago: Green Alley Handbook – The handbook offers a discussion on replacement of typical alley infrastructure with porous pavements, infiltration and increases in vegetation. “With approximately 1,900 miles of public alleys, Chicago has one of the mostextensiveandimportantpiecesofinfrastructure of any city in the world. That’s approximately 3,500 acres of paved impermeable surface that provides an opportunity to better manage resources and improve the environment (City of Chicago). Lansing, Michigan: Green Capitol and Rain Garden Program. Lansing Michigan, as part of its Regional Watershed Plan, has developed several green infrastructure projects aimed at reducing pollution and quantity of stormwater. The first project, the Michigan Avenue rain gardens, one of 12 EPA Smart Growth Streets, captures runoff from 90% of storms. These policies and systems could be extended to parking areas, one of the largest contributors to runoff. Because of reduced traffic speeds and loading in parking area, they are perfectly adapted for infiltration and “greening” policies. In addition to treating runoff from the streets and sidewalks, the rain gardens are aesthetically appealing, provide educational opportunities for the public, and offer a pedestrian friendly environment. The implementation of these rain gardens has helped ease peak flows for nearly 90% of rainfall events, and decreased the amount of flow entering the storm sewer system. During the process of creating Photo: Lansing, MI “Green Street” infrastructure improvements
  • 58. urpl 912 | 12.18.0947 these rain gardens, interviews from public meetings was played on television to help inform the pubic of their benefits. In an effort to reduce costs, the City of Lansing instituted an “Adopt-a-Garden” program, giving individual groups and businesses an opportunity to sponsor and assume maintenance responsibilities for one of the Michigan Avenue rain gardens. The city has also formed a partnership with a local science museum, which plans to develop a rain garden within the museum that will lead into a tour of Michigan Avenue. Minneapolis: Stormwater Utility Funds: In 2005, Minneapolis implemented a stormwater utility fee. Revenues from this fee are used for stormwater management programs. Implementation of this fee changed how each property was billed for stormwater services. The stormwater utility fee is similar to other fees the city charges its residents for services provided, such as a sanitary sewer fee and garbage disposal fee. Stormwater utility rates are based on an estimate of runoff generated and discharged to the City’s system from a particular property. Residents can receive a rebate of the stormwater fee by reducing impervious surfaces on their properties either through new construction or redevelopment. The fee is based on a standardized unit of imperviousness. New York City – 2030 PlaNYC : The 2030 PlaNYC plan calls for inclusion of a variety of source control systems to capture, slow and divert stormwater. Programs including Blue Roofs (detaining 1-2” water on roofs during storm events), sidewalk biofiltration, porous pavements, swales, green streets, cisterns, rain barrels and green roofs; help to reduce the amount of combined sewage overflow during storms. The New York plan uses sidewalk infrastructure as a best management practice. Many city plans call for streets to serve as best management practice models, however existing streets tend to have a lengthy useful life of around 40 years, making installation percentages slow to reach useful mitigation levels. Sidewalks however, are replaced or serviced on average every 13 years in New York City. NYC estimates by 2030 they will have replaced or serviced all of its sidewalks. When water storage under the sidewalk (bioinfiltration) included, NYC estimates it could divert 4 billion gallons of runoff per year. That represents 20% of its Combined Sewer Overflow baseline. Table 2 shows estimated costs for several stormwater BMPs. Seattle - Thornton Creek Water Quality Channel: Within the 620 acre of the Upper Branch of Thornton Creek in Seattle, an existing 8 acre parking lot was redeveloped into a $200 million public/ private mixed-use center. As part of the community approval process a bioretention and infiltration facility was included into the site design. The open- air 30ft x 200ft biofiltration channel replaces the existing underground pipes, built in the 1950s, and provides a park-like setting. The site is designed to slow stormwater, with an overflow into the storm sewer system, as a backup during large rain events. This serves both as a water treatment feature and provides space for recreation along the water: utilizingnaturalvegetation. Thefacility re-associates the space with the water, long hidden under the streets. Day lighting streams and providing natural drainage and infiltration more closely mimics natural systems and is less costly than more typical built infrastructure. As the city moves forward with sustainability planning, the general water management goals Image: NYC Stormwater Infrastructure Costs
  • 59. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 48 set by the Center for Watershed Protection can be a useful guide to determine a path towards sustainable water infrastructure: • Reduce water use and maximize water reuse. • Non-point source pollution control: Reduces urban impervious surface and increase re- vegetation in urban areas • Use of point-source pollution control to eliminate contaminants, for example: providing hazardous-waste drop-off centers or pick-up services for businesses to minimize toxic chemicals intruding into the City’s sewer system. • Strategize and ensure adequate funding for the use of innovative technology and for repairing, replacing and upgrading infrastructure in an environmentally and biologically sound and timely manner. • Aquatic and Terrestrial Enhancement to provide connectivity, protect biodiversity and provide habitats for native fish and wildlife species. Preserves remaining natural areas and ensures sustainable development. CONCLUSION Extant energy and water resources are finite, whether they are fossil fuels, ground water or “renewable” fuels or products like biomass. There is a useful life to all products and policies. Part of acheving greater sustainability involved changing how we conduct our lives. We must be proactive and not merely wait for someone else to make necessary changes. We can learn from past practices and evolve our thinking to create truly sustainable infrastructure for our city. Integrating the practices and polices discussed in this section will help to preserve our water and energy resources. Image: Seattle Thornton Creek Water Management Channel Plan
  • 60. urpl 912 | 12.18.0949 Policy Matrix
  • 61. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 50 SOURCES Energy_Utilities_Natural Resources Bibliography 100% Green Power Purchasers. http://www.epa.gov/ grnpower/toplists/partner100.htm 6 October 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009 3 Easy Ways to Conserve Energy. http://www.enactwi. org/index.php?page=conserve-energy Accessed on 21 October 2009. American Wind Energy Association FAQ Cost. http:// www.awea.org/faq/cost.html Accessed 4 December 2009 Biofuels. http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index. cfm?c=42843 Accessed 4 December 2009 Biofuels/Biodiesel. http://www.biofuelsportland.com Accessed 4 December 2009 Building Energy Efficiency Programs in Europe and Australia. http://www.envirovaluation.org/index. php/2009/10/16/building-energy-efficiency-programs- in-europe-and-australia-offer-important-lessons-for- the-united-states. 21 September 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009. Charter Street plant will use biomass fuel, not coal. http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/437085 6 February 2009. accessed 4 December 2009 City of Malibu, Zoning Ordinance, Title 17.44.050 Elements of landscape documentation package Environmentally friendly upgrade planned for Charter Street plant. http://www.news.wisc.edu/16755 21 may 2009. Accessed on 4 December 2009 EPA – Green Infrastructure http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/ home.cfm?program_id=298 Accessed 4 December 2009 From Turbines and Straw, Danish Self-Sufficiency. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/world/ europe/30samso.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 29 September 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009. Michigan Stormwater. http://www.michigan.gov/ stormwatermgt/0,1607,7-205--198075--,00.html Accessed 4 December 2009. Our Environment. http://www.mge.com/environment/ Accessed 4 December 2009 Plan / water / introduction http://www.sustainable-city. org/Plan/Water/intro.htm Accessed 1 October 2009 PowerPlants.http://www.mge.com/about/powerplants/ Accessed 4 December 2009 Protecting Water Resources With Higher-Density Development. http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/protect_ water_higher_density.pdf Accessed 1 October 2009 Programmable Thermostats for Consumers. http:// www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=thermostats.pr_ thermostats. Accessed on 4 December 2009 Schueler, Tom. 1995. “The Peculiarities of Perviousness.” Watershed Protection Techniques. 2.1. Sustainable Energy Utility Oversight Board. http://www. seu-de.org/ Accessed on 20 October 2009. Sustainable City. http://www.sustainable-city.org/Plan/ Energy/strategy.htm. Accessed on 4 December 2009. Thornton Creek Water Quality Channel. http:// www.seattle.gov/UTIL/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_ System/Projects/COS_002477.asp Accessed on 4 December 2009 U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.energy.gov/ Accessed on 4 December 2009 White, Dr. James A .http://www.chelanpud.org/ documents/SNAP_ASES_Paper.pdf Accessed on 4 December 2009
  • 62. urpl 912 | 12.18.0951 INTRODUCTION “Parks, public places, natural areas and recreational opportunities give life and beauty to our city. These essential assets connect people to place, self and others,” states Portland Parks & Recreation in their Parks 2020 Vision (2001). The provision of quality parks, open spaces, and recreational opportunities plays a major role in the livability of a city. This has significant implications for the sustainability of not only the parks and open spaces themselves, but also of the city and community of which they are apart. Oneofthefirsttasksofthisstudyistodefinewhatthe term “open space” means. Open space has different meanings depending on the context and what each communityormunicipalitydecidestocharacterizeas open space. Some municipalities use open space to mean strictly parks, and others include hardscapes, such as plazas and green streets. For the purpose of this precedent study we will use open space in a broad sense. Open space will include, but is not limited to, parks, plazas, stream valleys, natural areas, trails, conservation easements, riverfront areas, streetscapes, cemeteries, and so on. While open space is usually conceived as being public, we consider any large tract of outdoor space, whether private or public, as open space. Open space provides a myriad of benefits: economic, environmental, and social. The most obvious economic benefits are evident in the increasing property values (and therefore, property tax) associated with properties in close proximity to open space. The other benefit is open space can sometimes be less costly for cities in comparison to the cost of development, which requires the provision of services and infrastructure. If parks and open spaces are equally distributed and well- designed, they can supply a diversity of activity types to meet the needs of all peoples within the community. Open space also provides an environmental benefit through the offset of air and water pollution, regulation of erosion, runoff and flooding, and preservation of species. Ultimately, open space puts a community in a better position to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change and natural disaster. The importance of park and open space has been addressed in many of sustainability plans and park and open space plans of varying levels of government (city, county, state), as well as nationally and internationally. Keeping in mind the context of Madison, we focused mostly on municipalities, but did find a few relevant practices from university and international sustainability plans. The precedent locations are as follows: • Alexandria, VA • Bellevue, WA • Denver, CO • Edmonton, AB • Edmonston, MD • Eugene, OR • Hawaii • Lake Forest, IL • Miami, FL • Nashville, Davidson County, TN • New York, NY • Ozaukee County, WI • Pasadena, CA • Pittsburgh, PA • Portland, OR • San Francisco, CA • Seattle, WA • Sioux Falls, SD • South Australia • University of California- Santa Barbara Precedent Study: Parks, Open Space, & Urban Forestry
  • 63. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 52 • Vancouver, BC • Virginia Beach, VA Using these plans as a resource, this study identifies goals, best practices, performance indicators, policies, and processes for parks, open spaces, and urban forestry. Most appear to be applicable and appropriate for Madison. This study identifies seven overarching goals and is organized by general park and open space themes. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: PARK & OPEN SPACE PROVISION, ACCESSIBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY GOAL 01 /// Accessibility and connectivity of parks and open spaces RATIONALE: Accessibility appears to be one of the most common goals prescribed in city sustainability and park and open space plans. Accessibility is typically achieved using park service area standards. Another strategy for improving both human and wildlife accessibility to parks, open spaces, and natural areas is through connecting these areas, especially to other regional park and recreation facilities, to form an extensive park and open space system. BEST PRACTICE A: Ensure that all residents are within a 10-minute walk of a park. This is one of the most common practices stated as major goals or objectives in the studied plans, including New York City’s PlaNYC, Portland’s Parks 2020 Vision, and the Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco. NYC’s three main approaches to this practice are to make existing play space and parkland available to more people, expand park hours, and re-imagine streets and sidewalks as public spaces (City of New York, 2007). Indicator: San Francisco’s sustainability plan uses “the percentage of population with a recreational facility and natural setting within a ten-minute walk” as one of its park and open space indicators (1997). This indicator addresses the presence of barriers that would not be accounted for if linear distance (i.e. ¼-mile) was used. However, this method adds to the complexity of measuring the indicator. BEST PRACTICE B: Expand usable park hours at existing sites. NYC is installing new lighting and providing more multi-purpose fields by converting asphalt sites into multi-use turf fields and maximizing time on existing turf fields by installing additional lights for nighttime use (City of New York, 2007). Indicator: Keeping a progress report of new lighting and multi-purpose fields may serve as an indicator of progress (City of New York, 2009). BEST PRACTICE C: Utilize non-traditional open space areas to create connectivity. Denver initiated a policy of exploring non-traditional green space to connect open space. They utilize gulches and utility corridors (i.e. water drainage ways) where appropriate, as examples of green connectors (City of Denver, 2000). With the addition of trails, these corridors can be multi-functional in providing stormwater management, recreational opportunities, and connectivity among open spaces. Indicator: As a measure of progress, the City of Edmonton, Alberta is comparing the connectivity of Photo: NYC is ensuring that all New Yorkers live within a 10-minute walk of a park
  • 64. urpl 912 | 12.18.0953 green spaces and natural areas in new and existing neighborhoods (City of Edmonton, 2006). GOAL 02 /// Provide a wide variety of high quality recreation services and opportunities for all residents. RATIONALE: This goal, stated in Portland’s Parks 2020 Vision has implications for the number of users thatcanenjoyaparksystem.Peopleofdifferentages and abilities have different recreational needs. The following best practice is presented in the Hawai‘i and San Francisco sustainability plans: BEST PRACTICE A: Provide adequate public property and facilities for all recreational activities, including passive recreational opportunities. San Francisco has the long-term objective of promoting passive recreation activities including gardening, bird-watching, and wildlife appreciation (City of San Francisco, 1997). Indicator: The Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan uses the number and diversity of recreational facilities and activities per capita as an indicator (State of Hawai’i Sustainability Task Force, 2008). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: NON- TRADITIONAL OPEN SPACE GOAL 03 /// Create more open space by re-imagining streets, sidewalks, and other built open spaces as public places, and using non-traditional green space. BEST PRACTICE A: Utilize hardscapes as public spaces. NYC is creating public plazas and greening the cityscape to improve the pedestrian experience. Underutilized roadway and parking areas can be transformed into an attractive space where people can gather, such as outside a shop or café (City of New York, 2007). Process: Neighborhoods with the lowest ratio of open space to population will have highest priority for new projects. Community initiative and need is a part of the selection criteria (City of New York, 2007). Policy: Bellevue, WA has a public policy to encourage private developers to invest in pedestrian amenities that provide the public with interesting alternatives to the typical automobile-dominated urban streetscape. Examples include small plazas, fountains, seating areas, landscaping and artwork (City of Bellevue, 2003). Indicator: Percentage of new and existing development that includes hardscape public amenities (City of Bellevue, 2003). BEST PRACTICE B: Create more green streets. Transformingunusedroadwayswithnativevegetation and tree plantings has significant economic and environmental benefits. Green streetscapes have the potential to provide stormwater management, provide habitat, and increase economic activity by attracting more people to an area. Creating safe and attractive green streets makes places more livable and encourages bicyclists and pedestrians. Edmonston, Maryland, a town of 1,500, has begun a $1.1 million makeover of its main thoroughfare, Photo: NYC’s Willoughby Street transformed into a plaza
  • 65. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 54 Decatur Street (Wheeler, 2009). When the work is done, Decatur Street will naturally treat more than 90 percent of the pollution from the 40 inches of rainwater that sweeps into the Anacostia River each year. The new street will consist of rain gardens, energy efficient streetlights powered by wind, porous pavement, and a drought-resistant tree canopy designed to shade the concrete. This will filter rainwater before it flows into the river, attract birds to keep insects under control, and put people to work. The street and sidewalk will also be accommodating to walkers, runners and bikers (Rein, 2009). The materials used for the street and sidewalks themselves will consist of recycled material, including milled asphalt, concrete and glass (Town of Edmonston, 2009). Stakeholder Involvement: Edmonston’s Mayor and Council enlisted a volunteer “Green Street Advisory Group” of residents, students, engineers, designers, and representatives from environmental and health organizations to generate ideas, review plans, and advise town officials on the project. The group meets monthly and has issued recommendations on horticulture, design, safety, green business development, alternative energy, among other topics (Town of Edmonston, 2009).   Decatur Street will also incorporate a “walking tour” of interpretative signs that describe the environmental features of the street to educate residents, students, and the public. Edmonston plans to make all of the engineering plans and design concepts available online (Town of Edmonston, 2009). Indicators: The Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco (1997) uses as an indicator the number of neighborhood green street corridors created annually to determine progress towards their goal of provision of streetscapes. BEST PRACTICE C: Turn publically held vacant land into open space. Alexandria, VA has a policy to establish a vacant land program to convert underutilized and vacant land into public open space, and transfer critical vacant land sites to its Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities (City of Alexandria, 2002). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: PARK OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND FUNDING GOAL 04 /// To maintain “parks, open spaces, recreation facilities and streetscapes through practical, economic, creative and collaborative means to achieve clean, safe, inviting and inspiring spaces for people and wildlife”(City of San Francisco, 1997) BEST PRACTICE A: Action-oriented maintenance Image: Edmonston, MD is replacing its main street with a “green street”
  • 66. urpl 912 | 12.18.0955 and management plans are completed for every open space area. Stakeholder Involvement: San Francisco’s plans are based on community input and are flexible to reflect changing community needs and interests. Neighborhood support groups are involved in condition assessments (City of San Francisco, 1997). BEST PRACTICE B: Achieve Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary certification for all golf courses. Audubon International awards certification to recognize golf courses that protect the environment, conserve natural resources, and provide wildlife habitats. Based on a site specific report provided by Audubon International, a plan is developed for a golf course, addressing environmental planning, wildlife and habitat management, chemical use reduction and safety, water conservation, water quality management, and outreach and education. By implementing and documenting environmental management practices in those areas, a golf course is eligible for designation as a Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary, improving its stature and reputation. The annual registration fee for the program is $200, which includes certification materials and review. Recertification is required every two years to ensure that a course continues to uphold certification standards (Audubon International, 2009). Stakeholder Involvement: The Ozaukee County Country Club formed an advisory committee as a part of achieving certification as an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary. It consists of club members and golf staff, who contribute ideas on health, safety, and environmental stewardship (Bailey, 1994). BEST PRACTICE C: Appropriate landscaping is maintained for all public facilities including parks, schools, housing developments and public buildings. Allofthestudieduniversityplans,including Carleton, Stanford and UC-Santa Barbara, practice appropriate landscaping. Appropriate landscaping implies the use of native plants with low-maintenance and low-water use. Through this practice, mechanized maintenance procedures can be reduced (UCSB, 2008). Indicator: Ratio of mowed areas to un-mowed areas and/or the ratio of native plantings to non-native plantings. BEST PRACTICE D: “To promote and strengthen community participation in the planning, creation, management and stewardship of parks, open spaces, recreational facilities and streetscapes” (City of San Francisco, 1997) Community partnerships and a strong volunteer network serve as a non-monetary funding source for maintaining a city’s park and open space system. Portland Parks & Recreation funding strategy is to utilize volunteers, funding partnerships, interagency cooperation, entrepreneurial projects, and to identify and initiate operating efficiencies and cost- avoidance strategies (2001). Leveraging the business community as staff and volunteers is another way to promote community participation. In Seattle, the business community is a major participant in providing staff and volunteers to assist with park and recreation programs. In a 2002 survey, three out of four small businesses in Seattle reported that they participate in community service activities (City of Seattle, 2003). Photo: UC-Santa Barbara promotes the use of low-maintenance na- tive landscaping
  • 67. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 56 Policy: San Francisco has proposed using a business- tax reduction incentive for companies that donate at least 20 hours per year of volunteer time per full- time employee to work in public park and recreation facilities or provide design and professional services to neighborhood park councils (City of San Francisco, 1997). Indicator: The Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco uses the indicator of number of volunteer hours spent annually on maintenance of open space (1997). Stakeholder Involvement: Neighborhood park groupscanplayaleadingpartnershiprolewithpublic agencies in stewardship, planning, programming and creating open spaces, parks, recreational facilities, and streetscapes in San Francisco (City of San Francisco, 1997). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: PRIVATE OPEN SPACE GOAL 05 /// Preserve and maintain private and institutional open space. RATIONALE: Much of the open space in most municipalities is held by private persons or institutions. A successful sustainability plan should look at the role of private open space within a city and address ways to expand and preserve private open space. BEST PRACTICE A: Explore regulatory protection of private open space. Alexandria, VA is exploring the use of an Open Space Overlay Protection Zone which would require the preservation of significant areas and the review of future development proposals on privately held land (City of Alexandria, 2002). Indicator: Amount of privately held open space currently under conservation. Seattle has a goal of providing 1 acre of “breathing room” open space for every 100 citizens. Breathing room open space includes open spaces that are permanently set aside as open; whether or not they are accessible for public use (City of Seattle, 2003). BEST PRACTICE B: Incentivize protection of environmentalfeatureswithinprivatedevelopment. Policy: Sioux Falls, SD has a policy goal in their open space plan to provide development incentives for private development projects to preserve environmental resources, including drainage ways and swales, mature trees, wetlands, and prairies and grassland areas (City of Sioux Falls, 2009). BEST PRACTICE C: Inform the public of voluntary land conservation options. The City of Alexandria has developed a voluntary land conservation options brochure. This brochure lays out the potential options for people interested in donating their land, selling an easement, giving the city a right of first refusal to match an offer if the owner wants to sell, or selling their land at a loss (City of Alexandria, 2002). Indicator: Totalvoluntarylandplacedinconservation per population. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: NATURAL Photo: Heritage tree preserved in Fitchburg’s Swan Creek Neighborhood
  • 68. urpl 912 | 12.18.0957 RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEM HEALTH GOAL06 /// Maintaintheecosystemhealth of natural resources within open space. RATIONALE: Maintaining the unique natural resources of an area is a key goal in sustainability and open space plans that were used in this precedent study. The goal is to maintain and protect these important ecosystems for the future because of their economic, environmental, and social benefits. Madison is already working to preserve wetlands throughout the city. BEST PRACTICE B: Protect, expand and restore interconnected ecosystems, ecologically important natural areas, and wildlife corridors. The City of Denver (2000) has a goal of formally designating 100 acres of their park system as formally protected natural areas. By 2010, the Government of South Australia (2007) hopes to establish five “biodiversity corridors aimed at maximizing ecological outcomes particularly in the face of climate change.”  Indicators: San Francisco is using abundance and species diversity of birds and number of indigenous native plant species planted in developed parks, private landscapes and natural areas as a measure of ecosystem health. The city is also using the number of square feet of invasive species removed from natural areas as an indicator (City of San Francisco, 1997).   A few cities use the percent or number of acres of open space that are protected or conserves natural features as a metric to determine the effectiveness of open space preservation. For example, Portland wants to increase the amount of protected habitat land by 620 acres (Portland Parks & Recreation, 2001), while Hawaii is taking another approach and measuring the percentage of lands and water protected for native plants and animals (State of Hawai’i Sustainability Task Force, 2008). Process: Nashville’ sustainability actions include strengthening partnerships with other government agencies, local universities and environmental non- profit groups to develop a comprehensive survey of plants, animals, and habitats, as well as partnerships with land trusts and other private organizations to secure conservation easements or cooperative management agreements (Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 2002). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: URBAN FORESTRY GOAL 07 /// Expand and maintain the urban forest. RATIONALE: Urban forestry best practices have significant economic implications for a community. “Publicly owned trees - and, collectively our urban forest, help conserve and reduce energy use, reduce local carbon dioxide levels, improve air quality, mitigate storm water runoff, and provide other benefits associated with aesthetics, property value increase and quality of life. Trees contribute to the vitality of a city like any other component of community infrastructure.  Like streets, sidewalks, public buildings, and recreational facilities, trees are a major capital asset,” states Friends of the Pittsburgh Urban Forest (2009). Image: Protect and restore natural areas and wildlife corridors
  • 69. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 58 BEST PRACTICE A: Expand the urban forest on city streets from 60% to 80% and within parks from 80% to 90%. While Portland has this vision, Denver and New York both have a plan to plant 1,000,000 trees by 2030. Indicator: The indicator depends on whether the municipality knowsitscurrenttreecanopy. Ifitdoes, then the municipality usually strives to increase its percentage of canopy coverage. If it does not, the goal may be a certain number of new trees planted within a set timeframe. Stakeholder Involvement: Encourage public and private schools to participate in tree planting and maintenance programs. BEST PRACTICE B: Enact a tree preservation ordinance. Many cities have begun to implement tree preservation ordinances in order to help protect existing trees within a city, helping the environment and maintaining the urban forest canopy. These ordinances help a city lay out which trees it want to protect and the protection measures that will be taken. It is important that the community has defined goals and objectives in developing a tree preservation ordinance. According to theMinnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee (1995), some common goals of tree preservation ordinances are to: • Reduce tree loss during development; • Reduce damage to standing trees during construction; • Provide for replacement of trees lost during construction; • Provide for planting trees where none occurred previously; • Provide for the maintenance of preserved trees after construction is completed). The goals of a tree preservation ordinance should be tailored to each community and should be clearly laid out. This precedent study examines two tree preservation ordinances: Lake Forest, Illinois and Pasadena, California. Policy: In 2001, Lake Forest, IL reviewed and updated its tree preservation ordinance to focus on tree preservation in conjunction with development and redevelopment. The city also created and defined protected areas as conservation areas, no- disturbance areas, and tree preservation areas. To accomplish this, Lake Forest requires developers to provide tree surveys, and street tree plans for any proposed development. The goal is to ensure that development has proper tree coverage and to encourage woodland areas within the city (Lake Forest, 2006). Key Facts • Lake Forest requires inch for inch replacement. If protected trees have to be removed the city requires the new tree(s) to match the DBH of the removed tree(s). • The Director of Community Development has the authority to stop work on construction or withhold occupancy permits until the ordinance is met. Fines for violation can range up to $750 per violation. • Requires landscape plans and street tree plans. Landscape plans require two 3” shade trees for each 100 linear feet of foundation for residential and 50% of open space on non- residential development must be landscaped with one tree per 500sq. ft. of landscaped Photo: NYC has a goal to plant one million more trees by 2030
  • 70. urpl 912 | 12.18.0959 area. Policy: In 2002, Pasadena passed an ordinance significantly amending their tree protection ordinance. This amendment protected four main categories of trees: public trees, historic trees, specimen trees, and native trees; as long as they meet varying size requirements. There are 63 specimen tree types and 13 native tree types that are protected under the ordinance and where that protection is applicable (City of Pasadena, 2009). Key Facts • Pasadena’s ordinance applies to private residential property. If the protected tree is in the front, corner, or meets criteria in the backyard then it is protected. • Ifconstructionoccursaroundprotectedtrees, fencing around the drip line of the trees is required during construction. Pasadena also requires the use of hand tools to minimize damage to the roots if construction has to occur within the drip line of the tree. • Pasadena can require construction bonds in the value of protected trees within the construction zone prior to beginning construction. Fines for violation of the ordinance range from $250 to a maximum of $1000. Policy: San Francisco has enacted a heritage tree ordinance that preserves old trees and allows people to self-nominate trees on private property (City of San Francisco, 1997). BEST PRACTICE C: Establish a street tree inventory and complete a cost-benefit analysis. Pittsburgh’s street tree inventory data establishes a basis for a complete cost-benefit analysis of its street tree program, using software developed by the USDA-Forest Service called STRATUM (Street Tree Resource Analysis Tool for Urban Forest Managers). According to the USDA-Forest Service (2009), STRATUM is a tool “to quantify the dollar value of annual environmental and aesthetic benefits: energy conservation, air quality improvement, CO2 reduction, stormwater control, and property value increase.” Indicator: The STRATUM analysis provides a dollar value indication of the environmental work provided by each tree.  Pittsburgh’s street trees provide cumulative benefits valued at an average of $81 per tree annually, for a gross total value of $2.4 million (Friends of the Pittsburgh Urban Forest, 2009). The utilization of STRATUM to provide an analysis of Madison’s tree inventory is very practical and can serve as a great indicator of performance for a number of sustainable practices. Madison has already created a tree inventory. BEST PRACTICE D: Annual inspection and pruning of public trees (street and parks). San Francisco’s objective is to inspect all 21,000 of its public street trees and prune and service 7,000 street trees annually (City of San Francisco, 1997). BEST PRACTICE E: Forest management and vegetation replacement plans are complete and implemented for all parks, open spaces and streetscapes. Stakeholder Involvement: San Francisco promotes volunteer habitat restoration work parties in public open spaces (City of San Francisco, 1997). Eugene’s Forest Management Plan process began by identifying interested parties who formed an Image: Pittsburgh uses STRATUM software to measure the benefits of its street trees
  • 71. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 60 interested party list. The city staff later made presentations to targeted community groups, homebuilders, and neighborhood groups to discuss the plan’s development (City of Eugene, 1992). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: FUNDING STRATEGIES Sufficient funding is critical to the development and maintenance of parks, open spaces, and other green infrastructure. According to Lewis (2008), research by the Center for City Park Excellence (CCPE) shows that a park department needs an annual total budget of at least $85-95 per resident to have the funding base needed to run its system and create new parks. For municipalities to keep up existing open space and acquire more, a constant search for funding is required to maintain maintenance and programs that help make any city livable and sustainable. The practices below are innovative ways to keep maintenance costs down and increase revenues for open space. San Francisco implemented some novel strategies for reducing maintenance and programs costs, inclduing: • Requiring that a movie fee be paid to the Recreation and Park Department Fund from any movies shooting scenes of or in city parks, squares, and maintained open spaces • Initiating a joint City/community-based fundraising and maintenance pilot for neighborhood parks • Allocating 1% of hotel tax for parks, open spaces, and street trees • Creating a sports-star sponsorship campaign to encourage area sports figures and sports franchises to fund related recreation activities such as tennis, baseball, softball, soccer, and basketball. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: OTHER STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PRACTICES Stakeholder involvement varies among the plans reviewed for this precedent study. Stakeholders for PlaNYC open space initiaves are involved through community meetings, listening sessions, surveys for new parks, request-based tree planting, and design days for playgrounds. One of Nashville’s objectives for generating public support for its park and greenways system is “to develop a clear marketing plan and outreach materials to raise awareness of Metro Parks and Greenways facility and program offerings.” They suggest actions like developing program guides or catalogs of programs that can be targeted to appropriate audiences (Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 2002). The Government of South Australia offers a variety of ways for staying informed and involved with its sustainability plan, using its Community Engagement Board to promote involvement. People can be a “Friend of the Plan,” receive a regular newsletter, or share information about sustainable projects (Government of South Australia, 2007). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: MEASURABLE BENEFITS The precedent study demonstrates important benefits that open space can provide, while reaching a balance between the three E’s of sustainability: economics, environment, and social equality. Economics: Sustainable open space and parks not Photo: Olbrich Botanical Gardens in Madison
  • 72. urpl 912 | 12.18.0961 only enhance livability, but they increase the value of the land. Trees within cities provide their own economic benefit. • A 2003 study of almost 7,000 single family homes inLeonCounty,Floridashowedthathomeswithin 200 feet of a park experienced an estimated $6,015 increase in value. Homes between 200 and 1,320 feet of the park increased in value by an average of $1,773 (Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department, 2007). • A 25-foot tree reduces annual heating and cooling costs of a typical residence by 8 to 12 percent, producing an average $10 savings per American household per month (Nowak, 2007). • Within two years of the reopening of Manhattan’s Bryant Park, neighboring Sixth Avenue saw a 60 percent increase in office space leasing activity over the prior year. Between 1990 and 2000, rents for commercial office space near the park increased between 115 and 225 percent, compared with increases of between 41 percent and 73 percent in the surrounding submarkets, according to a study conducted by Ernst & Young (Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department, 2007). • OvertheyearsNewYorkhasinvestedmillions of dollars in its urban forest program. Trees provide an estimated $5.60 in benefits for every dollar spent on tree planting and care (NYC Million Trees, 2009). Social Equity: Open spaces and parks are a tool that can be used to revitalize neighborhoods and provide social connections for a community. • Access to open space is seen as a major equity issue. • Tree-lined streets encourage people to walk in their communities. • Parks and open space can offer a sense of place and improve the quality of life. • New York’s plaza initiative program prioritizes funding to neighborhoods with the lowest open space to population ratio (City of New York, 2007). • Open space offers recreational opportunities for at-risk youth, low-income children and families. Open space also provides places in low-income neighborhoods where people can feel a sense of community (University of Washington- Department of Landscape Architecture, 2006). Access to public parks and recreational facilities has been strongly linked to reductions in crime, particularly reduced juvenile delinquency (Reid, 1994). Environment: One of the main purposes of open space is to allow people, especially in urban settings, to experience the natural environment, while preserving critical natural features. • A typical urban forest of 10,000 trees will retain 10 million gallons of rainwater per year (Million Tree NYC 2009). • A study of New York’s urban forest estimated that the trees remove 42,300 tons of carbon and 2,202 tons of air pollution estimated at $779,000 and $10.6 million per year (Nowak, 2007). • There is growing evidence that trees help reduce air pollutants that can trigger asthma and other respiratory illnesses. (Denver Game Plan 200). • Open space helps combat cities “heat island” effect and cool summer air temperatures. • Open space helps provide habitat for wildlife Photo: Bike path on John Nolen Drive
  • 73. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 62 (City of New York, 2007). CONCLUSION Open spaces are important to communities for a wide variety of reasons and are a critical part of making a city more sustainable. Municipalities want to find cost effective ways to increase the amount of green space within their city. No matter the size, most municipalities approach open space in roughly the same ways: focusing on ways to connect, create, and fund more open space. There are many notable practices, indicators, and policies that can be tools to manage, improve and increase the amount of open space and recreational opportunities within the City of Madison. Photo: A certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary golf course
  • 74. urpl 912 | 12.18.0963 Policy Matrix
  • 75. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 64 SOURCES Audubon International. 2009. Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses Certification Overview. Retrieved November 10, 2009 from http://www.auduboninternational.org/PDFs/ Golf%20Certification%20Overview.pdf. Bailey, Phil. 1994. Ozaukee Country Club’s Audubon Stepping Stone to a Better Environment. USGA Green Section Record. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1990s/1994/940912.pdf. CityofAlexandria.2002. AlexandriaOpenSpacePlan. Retrieved Sept 19, 2009 from http://alexandriava.gov/ uploadedfiles/recreation/info/OpenSpacePlan.pdf City of Alexandria. 2009. Eco-City Alexandria: Environmental Action Plan. Retrieved Sept 18, 2009 from http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/tes/eco- city/EAP_FINAL_06_18_09.pdf City of Bellevue. 2003. Bellevue’s Parks and Open Space Plan. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.cityofbellevue.org/park_plan.htm City of Denver. Greenprint Denver, building a sustainable city. Retrieved Sept. 18, 2009 from http://www.greenprintdenver.org/water-environment/ City of Denver. 2000. Game Plan. Retrieved Sept. 17, 2009 from http://www.denvergov.org/ parksandrecreation/Home/GamePlan/tabid/432591/ Default.aspx City of Edmonton. 2006. Environmental Strategic Plan. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http:// www.iclei.org/index.php?id=8572. City of Eugene. 1992. Urban Forest Management Plan. Retrieved Sept 17, 2009 from http:// www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/ PTARGS_0_2_144746_0_0_18/ForestPlan.pdf. City of Eugene. 2006. Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Project and Priority Plan. Retrieved Sept. 18 2009 From http://www.eugene-or.gov/portal/ server.pt?open=512&objID=217&PageID=1360&cached =true&mode=2&userID=2 City of New York. 2007. PlaNYC. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from http://www.nyc.gov/ html/planyc2030/html/downloads/the-plan.shtml. City of New York. 2009. PlaNYC Progress Report 2009. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from http:// www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/downloads/ the-plan.shtml. City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. 2009. Status Report: Portland Plan Indicators. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index. cfm?a=246919&c=46822. City of Portland. 2007. Green Streets Cross-Bureau Team Report. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image. cfm?id=153974. City of San Francisco. 1997. Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.sustainable-city.org/. City of Seattle. 2003. Monitoring Our Progress: Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/ groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/Web_ Informational/dpd_001102.pdf. Photo: Green space on Madison’s isthmus
  • 76. urpl 912 | 12.18.0965 Photo: Children working in a community garden City of Seattle. 2005. Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan Toward a Sustainable Seattle. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.seattle.gov/ dpd/Planning/Seattle%5Fs%5FComprehensive%5FPlan/ ComprehensivePlan/ City of Sioux Falls. 2009. Open Space. Retrieved September 30, 2009 from http://www.siouxfalls. org/~/media/documents/planning/2009/shape_sf/ jan_09_policies/OPEN%20SPACE.ashx. City of Vancouver. 2009. Greenest City: Quick Start Recommendations. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http://vancouver.ca/greenestcity/PDF/ greenestcity-quickstart.pdf. Friends of the Pittsburgh Urban Forest. 2009. STRATUM: Street Tree Resource Analysis Tool for Urban Forest Managers. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www. pittsburghforest.org/STRATUM. Government of South Australia. 2007. South Australia’s Strategic Plan 2007. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http://saplan.org.au/images/pdf/South_ Australia_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf. Lewis, Megan. 2008. From Recreation to Re- Creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space System Planning. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 551. Chicago: American Planning Association. MetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidson County. 2002. Metropolitan Parks & Greenways and Master Plan. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www.nashville.gov/parks/master_plan.asp. Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department. 2007. The Miami-Dade County Parks and Open Space System Master Plan. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.miamidade. gov/greatparksummit/library/OSMP_FINAL_REPORT_ entiredocument.pdf. Million Trees NYC. 2009. Benefits of NYC’s Urban Forest. Retrieved Sept 21 from http://www. milliontreesnyc.org/html/urban_forest/urban_forest_ benefits.shtml. Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee. 1995. A Guide to Developing a Community Tree Preservation Ordinance. State of Minnesota, Department of NaturalResources.RetrievedDecember1,2009from http://www.mnstac.org/RFC/preservationordguide. htm. Nowak, David. 2007. Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values: New York City’s Urban Forest. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved Sept 20, 2009 from http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/downloads/ pdf/ufore_study.pdf. Portland Parks & Recreation. 2001. Parks 2020 Vision. Retrieved September 23, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index. cfm?c=40182&a=89435. Reid, Ian. 1994. Canadian Youth: Does Activity Reduce Risk? Canadian Parks and Recreation Association. Retrieved on Dec. 1, 2009 from http:// lin.ca/resource-details/1323. State of Hawai’i Sustainability Task Force. 2008. Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.hawaii2050. org/images/uploads/Hawaii2050_Plan_FINAL.pdf. Town of Edmonston. 2009. The Green Street Project.
  • 77. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 66 Retrieved October 30, 2009 from http://www. edmonston.us.com/GoingGreen.html. University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). 2008. Campus Sustainability Plan. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://sustainability.ucsb.edu/plan/ docs/sustainability_plan_workingdoc4.08.pdf. University of Washington-Department of Landscape Architecture. 2006. Open Space Seattle 2100. Retrieved September 30, 2009 from http://www. open2100.org/. USDA Forest Service. 2009. What is STRATUM? Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www. fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/stratum.shtml. Wheeler, Timothy. 2009. Remaking Main Street. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved December 2, 2009 from http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bal- md.gr.street25nov25,0,2052577.story. Wolf, Kathy. 1998. Urban Forest Values: Economic Benefits of Trees in Cities. Fact Sheet 3. University of Washington- Center for Urban Horticulture. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from http://www. naturewithin.info/Policy/EconBens-FS3.pdf.
  • 78. urpl 912 | 12.18.0967 INTRODUCTION The industrial food system has wrought widespread environmental degradation and resulted in epidemic rates of diet-related diseases. These diseases are disproportionately borne by low- income communities and communities of color. As a result, while food policy has traditionally been established by industry and decision-makers at the federal level, transformation of the agrifood system is increasingly recognized as integral to the long- term success of sustainability initiatives at all levels of policy and planning. Because of its direct impact on public health and the environment, as well as its potential to contribute to community-based, long- term economic development, food is an issue that must be addressed within Madison’s sustainability framework. Since the food system encompasses a continuum of activities, including production, processing, distribution, consumption, and disposal, this report will address a spectrum of food system topics. Based on best practices identified in municipal food policy documents and programming, sustainability plans, and the work of allied food systems practitioners, this section is organized into four subsections, each of which addresses an important component of a healthy and sustainable local food system: • Food Security and Nutrition • Urban and Regional Agriculture • Food Processing and Distribution Infrastructure • Local Economic Development The intent of this section of the report is to use the above categories as a framework to highlight the policy and planning trends and innovations that are guiding sustainable food system design and development at the municipal level throughout the United States. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: FOOD NUTRITION AND SECURITY GOAL 01 /// To eliminate hunger and diet-related diseases, increase fruit and vegetable consumption, and improve geographic and economic accessibility of culturally appropriate, healthy food. 1.1 Food Waste Reduction and Hunger Relief The Federal Food Donation Act, passed in May of 2008 encourages executive agencies and their contractors, in contracts for the provision, service, or sale of food, to the greatest extent safe and feasible, to donate excess food to nonprofit food security organizations. This legislation has two crucial characteristics that help make food donation low risk and convenient for the donor agency: 1) the act includes a provision indicating that donor agencies are not responsible “for costs and logistics of collecting, transporting, maintaining the safety of, or distributing excess” to those in need; 2) the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act of 2006 ensures that donor agencies that take appropriate measures to prevent spoilage and contamination will not be held liable for food borne illnesses resulting from their donations. (Source: GovTrack. us) Nonprofit partners are presently tracking the food quantities donated through the federal system to assess the impact of the Act. Due to its recent implementation, numbers have yet to be reported. The EPA has emerged as a federal champion of food Precedent Study: Food Systems
  • 79. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 68 waste reduction. It cites the numerous benefits associated with diverting organics from the waste stream. This diversion serves to: • Reduce trash collection and disposal fees; • Provide food to the needy; • Recover the nutrient value of food as compost or animal feed; • Help communities meet local and state waste reduction goals; • Sustain local industries and jobs; and • Create an improved public image of an agency or business. (Source: EPA) The EPA has developed a number of resources for public and private entities interested in launching food donation and waste reduction programs. For example, the EPA’s Food Waste Management Cost Calculator is a free online tool that enables agencies and businesses to estimate the cost competiveness of alternatives to food waste disposal, including source reduction, donation, composting, and recycling. (Source: EPA) 1.2 Reduced Availability of Unhealthy Foods InJuly2008,theLosAngelesCityCouncilunanimously approved a moratorium on new fast food outlets in South Los Angeles. The moratorium was proposed in response to the publication of statistics indicating that 30% of the South Los Angeles’ population is obese, as compared to 20% at the county level. Approximately 50% of the 900 restaurants located in South Los Angeles, a predominantly low-income neighborhood, are fast food establishments with limited seating. The moratorium is the first fast food ordinance in the nation that was introduced explicitly on the basis of health, rather than aesthetic concerns or small business protection. The moratorium aimed to increase the demand for fresh food, attract full-service grocery retail establishments, and help prevent juvenile onset of diet-related diseases such as Type Two Diabetes. (Source: Sturm) New research released in November 2009 found that neighborhoods with higher mean incomes adjacent to South Los Angeles actually had higher concentrations of fast food restaurants in spite of having lower mean body mass indices. In fact, after comparing the physical activity, daily consumption of fruits and vegetables, and frequency of meals eaten outside the home, there were virtually no differences between the high-income and lower- income communities. The critical difference seemed to be calories intake from discretionary snacking. The study concluded that while “regulating the food environment may be a promising direction for preventing obesity . . . based on our findings, the one-year ordinance restricting fast-food outlets is not the right application.” (Source: Sturm) The study identified several proposed and emerging regulatory policies that show promise: • Taxes that reduce the profitability of junk foods for retailers – San Francisco, CA; State of New York • Mandatory menu/calorie labeling – State of California; New York City, NY • Portion Controls • Counter-advertising/reduced exposure to junk food cues 1.3 Healthy Food in Public Schools Some of these strategies are already being implemented in public school districts. The Vista Unified School District in southern California passed a policy prohibiting the sale of junk food and high Image: Food insecurity rates among households with selected characteristics in Wisconsin 1996-2000.
  • 80. urpl 912 | 12.18.0969 trans fat food-stuffs in vending machines on their campuses. High-risk foods and drinks have been replaced with healthier options, such as fresh fruits, vegetables, and drinking water. “Research has shown that the availability of less healthy food in schools is inversely associated with fruit and vegetable consumption and is positively associated with fat intake among students.” (Source: Kubik) St. Paul, Minnesota instituted the “Five a Day Power Plus Program” which requires that schools offer additional fruit options on days that baked goods are available for purchase. Further, fresh fruit is advertised by point of sale merchandising. The program has proven successful; with fruit sales outpacing baked goods sales in lunch lines. (Source: CDC) 1.4 SNAP Accessible Farmers Markets Many states are converting from paper food stamps (now SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and WIC, Women Infants and Children) to more discrete and convenient EBT cards. Farmers’ markets were initially concerned that they would be unable to serve customers on SNAP and WIC due to the absence of phone lines and electricity at many market sites. Strategies have since emerged to address this challenge. Point of Sale (POS) locations at many farmers’ markets now offer tokens that can then be exchanged for product at individual market stands. At closing, vendors exchange the tokens for cash. Unused tokens may be used at a later time or transferred back to the EBT card. USDA authorization for EBT administration and the associated employee trainings can be time and labor intensive, but the enhanced food access achieved by EBT farmers’ market EBT programs has proven beneficial for both farmers and customers. (Source: Ecology Center) 1.5 Grocery Store Attraction for Underserved Areas In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative (FFFI), a public- private partnership established in 2004, has proven successful in improving access to healthy food by providing one-time loans and grants to attract supermarkets and other fresh food retailers to underserved urban and rural areas.   In just five years, the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative (FFFI) has helped achieve the following: • 68 new or improved fresh food retail establishments in underserved communities; • 400,000 residents with improved access to healthy food; • 3,700 jobs created or retained; • $540,000 increase in local tax revenue from a single store in Pennsylvania;  • $165 million in private investment leveraged from $30 million in state seed money. (Source: Policy Link) Policy Link, a national research and action institute for the advancement of economic and social equity, has partnered with FFFI to compile resources on Grocery Store attraction strategies and healthy food retailing for local governments (Source: Policy Link). GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: URBAN AND REGIONAL AGRICULTURE GOAL 02 /// To foster food production, reduce household food expenses, and increase community engagement. 2.1 Community Gardens “As of end of FY 2008, 753 Farmers’ markets were authorized to accept SNAP benefits nationwide, a 34 percent increase from FY 2007. While the percentage of redemptions is very little, the amount of funds going to small farmers has increased from above $1 million in 2007 to $2.7 million in 2008.” --USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
  • 81. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 70 Sustainable, small-scale food production methods tend to rely more heavily on labor than fossil fuels andvirtuallyeliminatepackaging-reducingthefossil footprint of the food system. Home food production can significantly reduce household food expenses, particularly during the growing season. To see the typical distribution of energy consumption within the food system, see diagram 1. In spring 2009, Springfield, Illinois established a community garden in the center of the racetrack on the State fairgrounds. The project was initiated by Illinois Department of Agriculture in partnership with University of Illinois Cooperative Extension and its Master Gardeners Program in response to inquiries from local residents. The 12 x 12 foot garden plots cost $10.00 each, all of the plot fees are reinvested in the garden, and gardeners are eligible to lease up to two plots seasonally. (State of Illinois) This project highlights a trend popularized by Michelle Obama’s white house “victory” garden, in which public agencies are increasingly reevaluating under-utilized public and private properties within their foodsheds (including right of ways, easements, and parks) to promote urban food production. Other examples of municipal food pantry and demonstration gardens include: • City Hall, San Francisco, CA • City Hall, Portland, OR 2.2 Building Urban Food Production Capacity through Public-Nonprofit Partnerships The City of Portland, Oregon partners with six public and nonprofit gardening organizations that offer a range of free to low-cost classes and seminars on everything from chemical-free gardening to canning, and provides online instruction for composting. Links to these resources are readily available on the City’s sustainability website, along with listings of what products are in season, how to register for a community garden plot, and where one can source local product or donate surplus food. (Source: City of Portland) Similarly, the P-Patch Program, an acclaimed initiative of the City of Seattle’s Department of Neighborhoods, serves over 6,000 gardeners at 67 gardens on 23 acres of land (Source: Hou). Through collaboration with its land trust partner the P-Patch Trust, the P-Patch Program has procured long-term leases or fee-ownership of many of its gardens and has leveraged Neighborhood Matching Fund Grants to fund improvements at garden sites. More recently the Program has worked with nonprofits to launch a youth gardening program and a market garden CSA that works primarily with the City’s immigrant gardeners. (Source: City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods) 2.3 Rehabilitation through Food Production A growing number of case studies point to the restorative impact of small scale food production. In Philadelphia, PA, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society operates the City Harvest program in conjunction with the Philadelphia Prison System and local food security nonprofits. Seedlings are started by inmates and transplanted into the prison’s Roots-to-Reentry garden, local community gardens or cultivated by volunteers in 35 local gardens. The harvest is then distributed through local food pantries. This public-private partnership addresses both food insecurity and job-readiness training for prisoners and has been so successful that the Philadelphia Prison System is expanding its growing space. This expansion includes the construction of Photo: Hoop houses can help promote and facilitate commercial urban agriculture in regions with short growing seasons.
  • 82. urpl 912 | 12.18.0971 a hoop house, an arbor and the cultivation of fruit and nut trees. (Source: Pennsylvania Horticultural Society) In another example, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center near Newark, NJ has collaborated with Rutgers Cooperative Extension to engage veterans at the center in food production. Participating veterans helped convert the center’s lawn into 20 x 50 foot plots. The garden now includes hoop houses for late season crops, such as kale and collards. In 2009, the veterans harvested over 1,000 pounds of produce, which they shared with other patients at the center and used at a café in another nearby veteran medical center. They have plans to increase production in the future. (Source: Applebome) 2.4 Zoning and Land-Use The diagram in Figure 4 illustrates the rural to urban land-use transect in relation to food production. It is a useful visual tool upon which to build public planning conversations about what types of food production (including, in some instances, livestock) are appropriate in which zones. Madison has become a national leader in its development of urban agricultural overlay zoning. As the City’s investment in urban agriculture evolves from a theoretical discussion to actual construction of hoop houses and market gardens, planners and cognate professionals must be prepared to engage residents in constructive conversations on the benefits and constraints of different types of agriculture in different zones across the urban to rural continuum. Refer to the diagram 2 for a visual demonstration of agricultural types and intensity as they correspond to the built environment. 2.5FoodProduction&NewResidentialDevelopment In many older cities, planning for urban agriculture will require a reevaluation of old zoning codes and expansion on developed but under-utilized public andprivateproperties.Newdevelopments,however, provideauniqueopportunitytointegratesustainable food systems into the physical plan during the pre- design phase. The U.S. Green Building Council’s new LEED Neighborhood Design offers LEED credits and guidelines to planners and design professionals for site characteristics that foster local food production. These include neighborhood farms and gardens, community supported agriculture, and proximity to farmers’ market. (Source: US Green Building Council) 2.6 Farmland Conservation & Urban Growth Boundaries An urban growth boundary (UGB) is a peri-urban boundaryestablishedtocontrolsprawlbymandating higher density development on the inside of the boundary and restricting the area outside to lower density development. A UGB circumscribes an entire urban area and is employed by municipal governments to guide zoning and land use decisions. If the boundary includes multiple jurisdictions, special regional agencies can be created to manage the boundary. Urban growth boundaries can be valuable tools for preserving peri-urban farmland and promoting strategic development. Portland, OR is one of the most commonly cited examples of an urban growth boundary. Municipal and county collaboration with agricultural land trusts has also proven to be an effective strategy for leveraging public and private dollars for agricultural and natural resource conservation. Conservation easements can reduce the property taxes of peri-urban farmland, making it financially feasible for farmers to keep the land in cultivation Image: This diagram shows a range of urban agricultural activities throughout the urban-rural continuum
  • 83. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 72 rather than selling to developers. Further, communication between public local and regional planning entities and land trusts can help ensure that private conservation efforts align with long term local and regional land-use planning goals. For example, San Diego County identified more than 172,000 acres of target conservation lands through its comprehensive planning effort for protection through voluntary methods, including land trusts. In Vermont, the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board has been instrumental in financially and logistically supporting efforts by state and local land trusts to secure affordable housing and open space conservation. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: FOOD PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE GOAL 03 /// To reduce fossil fuel consumption and create greater demand for local food production by scaling up local processing and distribution infrastructure that bolsters the local economy. 3.1 Support entrepreneurial and nonprofit food processing initiatives The City of Beloit, Wisconsin has been instrumental in helping a locally sourced grocery and café, Bushel & Peck, lease a local industrial facility at a below-market rate until its local food processing operation becomes fully financially self-sustaining. This is just one of nearly a dozen small and mid- scale food-processing initiatives that are cropping up throughout Wisconsin (Source: UW Extension Agricultural Innovation Center). A number of these projects have already been vetted by the Agricultural Innovation Center of UW Cooperative Extension, and by regional economic development entities such as Thrive. Partnerships with the municipality and county could help expedite projects, leverage funding, or provide tax-incentives to help these projects develop traction. Following are several additional strategies consistent with the recommendations proposed by the Manhattan Borough’s February 2009 municipal food policy report,“FoodinthePublicInterest”(Source:Stringer): • Incentivize through reduced tax-rates and CBDG funding; • Put food processing/distribution into city county economic development plans; • Implement firm & funded local food purchasing policies for municipal agencies to grow demand for local product. 3.2 Growing Sustainable Farmers and Regional Production Capacity Growing Power in Milwaukee, Wisconsin offers an example of year-round, low-environmental impact, local food production in a region notorious for its short growing season. This nonprofit, founded by Will Allen, an urban “agripreneur” and recipient of the 2008 MacArthur Genius Award, incorporates a variety of hands-on food production workshops into its market gardening program. Its goals are three-part: 1) to advance projects and growing methods, 2) to provide education and technical assistance for new growers, and 3) to facilitate food production and distribution. Growing Power’s facilities currently include: greenhouses, fish runs, hoop houses, a worm depository, beehives, poultry houses and outdoor pens for live animals, a thirty- pallet compost systems, an anaerobic digester, and a small store front to make its product available Image: Small scale production combined with local processing and distribution can reduce fossil fuel consumption.
  • 84. urpl 912 | 12.18.0973 to the neighborhood. (Source: Growing Power) Growing Power has attracted national attention for its innovations in urban “agripreneurism” and has provided assistance to many allied organizations and initiatives. They currently supply restaurants and farmers markets in the Milwaukee metro area and as far south as Chicago. Municipalities can support private efforts such as Growing Power by allowing for urban agricultural overlays in their zoning codes, that permit market gardening; livestock such as chickens, goats, and bees; and cultivation structures such greenhouses and hoop houses. 3.3 Permanent Year-Round Market Structures Markets of all varieties provide important public spaces and commercial hubs for the communities and districts in which they are located. Permanent market structures, in particular, can serve as anchor institutions - attracting both tourism and fostering local commerce. Following are several renowned examples of permanent public markets in the United States and Canada: • Pike Place Market – Seattle, WA • Milwaukee Public Market – Milwaukee, WI • Reading Terminal Market – Philadelphia, PA • Grand Central Public Market – Los Angeles, CA • Granville Market – Vancouver, B.C. 3.4 Public-Private Distribution Partnerships In2006,theDaneCountyPlanningandDevelopment Department established the Institutional Food Market Coalition (IFM) with the aim of expanding market opportunities for Dane County and regional producers. They also sought to connect large volume institutional buyers from both private and public sector institutions with local and organically grown Wisconsin agricultural products. (Source: Falk) In July 2008, IFM and its co-op partner, the Badgerland Produce Auction received a $46,540 grant award from Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin; a program of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. The grant enabled Badgerland to expand its operational and infrastructural capacity to increase the sales of locally grown fruits and vegetables. The Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin (BLBW) grant program invites pre-proposals for projects that are likely to stimulate Wisconsin’s agricultural economy by increasing the purchase of Wisconsin grown or produced food by local food buyers. Pre- proposals are accepted from individuals, groups, businesses and organizations involved in Wisconsin agriculture, “agritourism”, food retailing, processing, distribution or warehousing. (Source: Wisconsin DATCP) In southwestern Wisconsin, the Iowa County Area Economic Development Corporation (ICAEDC), a 501(c) 6 organization dedicated to business development, is working to bridge the gap between supply and demand by partnering with a national nonprofit and local food entrepreneurs to develop a county-scale food processing cluster with several distinct products lines designed to serve the regional population and its visitors. The project, now in its infancy, hopes to become a national model for small-scale community-led economic development and regional fair trade. (Source: Morales) Strategic developmentoflinkedindustries,suchasprocessing, would support regional wholesale food distribution by advancing the following goals: • Deliver more local product to larger volume regional markets; • Enhance access to fresh and fresh-frozen local product for consumers in institutions Image: Examples of public sector funding sources for local food system development
  • 85. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 74 such as schools and hospitals; • Reduce food miles traveled; • Retain more food dollars in regional economy; and • Foster community economic development, which as distinct from “economic growth” is characteristically long-term, purposeful, and permanent. It also increases communities’ capacity to act and innovate. (Source: Morales) A recently released Slow Money report examines the community economic development potential of the Wisconsin food system. It identifies a variety of state and federal funding sources for food- based economic development projects, such as the processing and distribution efforts described above, as illustrated in Table 1. Municipalities can serve as facilitators of public-private collaboration by removing artificial administrative barriers and connecting private and nonprofit partners with public funding sources. GOALS & BEST PRACTICES: LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL 04 /// Secure a larger portion of the food dollar for local farmers, grow green jobs, increase demand for local food, and attract allied industries for long- term community economic development. 4.1 Incentivize healthy, green business New York City has established food enterprise zones in neighborhoods with low-income populations and insufficient access to full-service grocery retailers to attract businesses that meet its residents’ nutrition needs. The City has also created zoning incentives to encourage new fresh food stores as well as local street vendors. As a way to fund the start up of these businesses, the City has brought on board several local banking institutions that are willing to provide microloans. They have also asked the Housing Authority to consider offering space for local food to be sold, or fresh food to be grown and sold. This would include creating an inventory of all local vacant land and highlighting the areas of concentration for new infill. This could incorporate not only private property opportunities, but also publicly owned, underutilized land. 4.2 Modify Zoning and Permitting to Bolster Healthy Mobile Food Vending The City of San Francisco has updated its sustainability plan to include greater investment in sustainable food and job creation through local food procurement practices and small food business development initiatives. The City plans to conduct a land-use audit to identify properties that could offer favorable lease agreements for food establishments and is expanding permit access for mobile food vendors. (See Figure 6) To advance these initiatives the City is also working on the development of food enterprise zones, expedited permitting processes, tax incentives, and other policies. The City is charting its progress by tracking the number of leases offered, sales of healthy food from businesses operating under permitting incentives, and its own sourcing of local food for its events. (Source: City of San Francisco) The July 2009 Executive Directive mandates immediate action to advance a number of the objectives stated above, serving as a model of policy that is more than platitude. Importantly, the directive also requires the input of diversity of stakeholders, including urban agriculture, nutrition Image: San Francisco has identified specific goals and tasks toward a healthier, more sustainable and economically robust food system
  • 86. urpl 912 | 12.18.0975 experts, food retail, distributors, the Food Security Task Force, the Tenderloin Hunger Task Force, the San Francisco Unified School District, and others. Finally, the directive charges the following specific departmentswiththetaskofadvancingtheseefforts: • Mayor’s Office; • DPH Office of Food Systems; • Shape Up Program representative; • Department of Recreation and Parks Director or designee; • San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Director or designee; • Human Service Agency Director or designee; • Director of Department of Aging and Adult Services; • Director of Department of Children Youth and Their Families or designee. (Source: Newsome) Similarly, New York City is growing its economy by increasing the number of food vendor permits to help mitigate high unemployment rates. Currently the City’s waiting list for vending permits exceeds 10,000. The City has also developed an extensive “Greenmarket” program that is operated by the Council on the Environment of New York City. The “Greenmarket” program targets low-income neighborhoods and offers food stalls to vendors willing to sell produce at a reduced rate. (Source: CouncilontheEnvironmentinNewYorkCity)Another initiative titled “Green Carts” allows vendors to sell fresh whole fruits and vegetables from freely leased carts that are city built and maintained. Free Green Carts attract vendors who, in exchange, are required to sell fresh fruits and vegetables for reduced prices in low-income communities. (Source: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene) The effectiveness of these programs will be measured by the amount of revenue they generate and the number of vendors and customers they attract. 4.3 Sustainable Agricultural Job Development through Federal Stimulus Funding In August 2009, USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen A. Merrigan, announced three new programs designed to promote local, sustainable agriculture. One of these initiatives, the Value-Added Producer Grant Program, is aimed at providing money to agricultural producers that add value to raw products through food processing or marketing. All food in this program must be marketed locally and it is targeted to fund support planning for these businesses. These include: business development plans, website development, and additional staff. 1% of the current funding offered has been set aside for mid-tier value chains that supply local and regional networks and connect producers with markets “in a way that strengthens competitiveness and profitability of small and medium sized businesses.” (Source: Merrigan) These grants illustrate a new level of federal support for sustainable agricultural job creation, which was recently reinforced by the official designation of sustainable agricultural jobs as eligible for federal stimulus funding. 4.4 Local Food Procurement Policies Since Woodbury County Iowa first passed the “Woodbury County Policy for Rural Economic Revitalization: Local Food Purchase Policy” (Source: Woodbury County) in 2006, a plethora of local and state governments have followed suit. Many of these policies and resolutions have been criticized for lacking the financial backing and programmatic support necessary to translate into significant and/ or consistent sales for local producers. Impactful policies, such as Executive Directives (as compared to Photo: Buy Fresh Buy Local campaigns can grow demand for local food and build the local agricultural economy.
  • 87. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 76 Resolutions), combined with programming provided by nonprofits or partners at public universities may prove effective in transforming these policies into practices. 4.5 Local Food Sourcing Tax Credits The Iowa Local Farmer & Food Security Act (LFFSA) of 2010 is newly proposed legislation that aims to compensate for the shortcomings of local food procurement policies by offering clear financial incentives for wholesale purchase of local product. LFFSA establishes tax credits for grocers who source local food, under contract with local growers who grow fruits, vegetables, and meats, for sale in local markets. The tax credits are intended to reduce barriers experienced by local food producers who would like to compete in the local wholesale/grocery marketplace. The development of reliable markets for local food producers will foster agricultural diversity and encourage the availability of loans to farmers who wish to make a living through food production. Itwillalsocreateeconomicopportunities for rural communities, and will help ensure a local source of food as security for area residents. (Source: Marqusee) CONCLUSION MunicipalitiesacrosstheUnitedStatesarepartnering with nonprofits, universities, entrepreneurs, small business development entities, and county and state governments to spur innovative, sustainable growth through local food policy, planning and programming. This section highlights over a dozen different initiatives and examples that have emerged under the following four themes: Food Security and Nutrition, Urban and Regional Agriculture, Food Processing and Distribution Infrastructure, Local Economic Development. This cross section of examples aims to establish the food sustainably landscape and begin a conversation about appropriate “next steps” for the Green Capital City initiativeasMadisonbeginsplanningthesubsequent phases of its municipal sustainability plan. Photo: NYC’s Green Carts program has increased the accessibility of affordable produce and expanded economic opportunities vendors.
  • 88. urpl 912 | 12.18.0977 Policy Matrix
  • 89. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 78 SOURCES Applebome, Peter. “After War, Finding Peace and Calm in a Garden.” New York Times, November 30, 2009, New York Section. Bellows, A. “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” Community Food Security Coalition. http://www. foodsecurity.org/UAHealthArticle.pdf (accessed September 20, 2009). California Environmental Associates. “Slow Money Wisconsin.” 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Data and Trends.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/ statistics/prev/national/figage.htm (accessed December 2, 2009). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Recommended Community Strategies and MeasurementstoPreventObesityintheUnitedStates: Implementation and Measurement Guide.” Centers forDiseaseControlandPrevention.July,2009.http:// www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/community_ strategies_guide.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009.) University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems. 2006. “U.S. Food System Fact Sheet.” University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems. http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01- 06.pdf (accessed December 1, 2009). CityofPortlandBureauofPlanningandSustainability. “Urban Growth Bounty 2009.” City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. http:// www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=49224 (accessed December 3, 2009). CityofSanFrancisco.“Sourcing&ServingSustainable, Healthy Food.” City of San Francisco. http:// www.sfgov.org/site/sffood_index.asp?id=66024 (accessed December 4, 2009). City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. “P-Patch Community Gardens.” City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. http://www. cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/ppatch/ (accessed December 3, 2009). Council on the Environment in New York City. “Greenmarket.” Council on the Environment in New York City. http://www.cenyc.org/greenmarket (accessed December 4, 2009). Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co. “Food Production Along the Transect.” New Urban News. http://www. newurbannews.com/13.4/jun08newest.html (accessed December 3, 2009). Ecology Center. “EBT Farmers’ Market Nutrition Project.” Ecology Center. http://www.ecologycenter. org/ebt/ (accessed December 2, 2009). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Food Waste Management Tools and Resources.” Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa. gov/waste/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd- res.htm (accessed December 3, 2009). GovTrack.us The Federal Food Donation Act. 2008. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record. xpd?id=110- s20080522-78 (accessed November 30, 2009). Growing Power. “About Us.” Growing Power. http:// www.growingpower.org/about_us.htm (accessed September 20, 2009). Photo: Support for green jobs
  • 90. urpl 912 | 12.18.0979 Illinois Department of Agriculture. Press Release. “Illinois Department of Agriculture to Plant Community Garden: Garden will be open to the public and located on Illinois State Fairgrounds.” March 10, 2009. http://www.agr.state.il.us/ newsrels/r0310091.html (accessed December 4, 2009) Kubik, M. Y., Lytle, L. A., Hannan, P. J., Perry, C. L., & Story, M. (2003). The association of the school food environment with dietary behaviors of young adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1168-1173. http://www.joe.org/ joe/2009february/a3.php (accessed December 3, 2009). Merrigan, Kathleen. Memorandum. “Harnessing USDA Rural Development programs to support local and regional food systems.” USDA. August 26, 2009. Marqusee, Rob. “Iowa Local Farmer & Food Security Act.” Woodbury County. http://www. woodburyorganics.com/Woodbury_Organics/ Main_files/LFFSA%20v1.1.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009). Morales, Alfonso, and Lindsey Day Farnsworth. “Satiating the Demand: Planning for Alternative Models of Regional Food Distribution.” University of Wisconsin Department of Urban and Regional Planning Working Papers. October 2009. Morales, Alfonso and Gregg Kettles. “Zoning for Public Markets and Street Vendors.” American Planning Association. Issue 2. Zoning Practice, February 2009. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “NYC Green Carts.” New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. http:// www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cdp/cdp_pan_green_ carts.shtml (accessed December 4, 2009). Newsome, Gavin. Executive Directive. “Healthy and Sustainable Food for San Francisco.” July 9, 2009July 9, 2009. http://civileats.com/ wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Mayor-Newsom- Executive-Directive-on-Healthy-Sustainable-Food. pdf (accessed December 4, 2009). Parry, Olivia. Press Release. Dane County Partnership to Benefit from State Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin Grant Dollars to Make it Easier to Access Locally Grown, Organic Produce. July, 17, 2008.http://danedocs. countyofdane.com/webdocs/pdf/plandev/ifm/ Kathleen_Falk.pdf. Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. “Philadelphia Green’s City Harvest program.”Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. http://www. pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/ city-harvest.html (accessed December 3, 2009). Policy Link. “A National Fresh Food Financing Initiative:  An Innovative Approach to Improve Health and Spark Economic Development.” Policy Link. http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/ b.5136643/k.1E5B/Improving_Access_to_Healthy_ Food.htm (accessed November 30, 2009). Stringer, Scott M. “Food In the Public Interest: How New York City’s Food Policy Holds the Key to Hunger, Health, Jobs and the Environment.” Manhattan Borough. February, 2009. http://www.mbpo.org/ uploads/FoodInThePublicInterest.pdf (accessed October 15, 2009). Sturm, Roland and Deborah A. Cohen. “Zoning Photo: Permanent public market structures can serve as social and commercial anchors.
  • 91. sustainability plan | PRECEDENTS 80 For Health? The Year-Old Ban On New Fast-Food Restaurants In South LA.” Health Affairs 28, no. 6 (2009): w1088–w1097 (published online 6 October 2009; 10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1088) US Department of Agriculture. US Department of Agriculture. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.” US Department of Agriculture. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/ snapmain.htm (accessed December 4, 2009). US Department of Health and Human Services (2007) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US Green Building Council. “LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System.” Proposed draft for ballot. http://www.usgbc. o r g / S h o w F i l e . a s px ? D o c u m e n t I D = 6 1 4 6 (accessed October 14, 2009). UW Extension. “Hunger Close to Home: Dane County.” University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension. Revised August, 2008. http://www.uwex. edu/ces/flp/demographics/hunger/pdfs/dane.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009). UW Extension Agricultural Innovation Center. “Incubator and Shared Kitchens.” UW Extension Agricultural Innovation Center. http://www. uwex.edu/ces/agmarkets/aic/sharedkitchens.cfm (accessed on December 1, 2009). Wisconsin Department of Agricultural, Trade and Consumer Protection. “Buy Local Buy Wisconsin Grant Program.” Wisconsin Department of Agricultural, Trade and Consumer Protection. http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/mktg/business/ marketing/val-add/directmktg/blbw.jsp (accessed on December 2, 2009). Woodbury County Iowa. Resolution. “Woodbury County Policy for Rural Economic Revitalization: Local Food Purchase Policy.” http://www.woodbury- ia.com/departments/EconomicDevelopment/ WC%20LFPP%20v3.pdf I (accessed on December 2, 2009).
  • 93. PART II: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT public forums sdec top 5 ideas community engagement
  • 94. urpl 912 | 12.18.0981 PUBLIC FORUMS During the fall of 2009, three public forums were held in Madison for two reasons: 1) to inform residents of the progress that has been made in making city government more sustainable, and 2) to better understand the values and priorities of city residents regarding Madison’s livability and sustainability. The forums were held at the Goodman Community Center on October 22nd , the Overture Center on October 29th and the Sequoya Public Library on November 5th . Staff from the City of Madison, members of the Sustainable Design and Energy Committee (SDEC), specialists from UW Extension, along with graduate students from UW-Madison’s Department of Urban and Regional Planning helped organize and facilitate the forums. Results from all three forums have been combined, analyzed, and summarized below. Sustainable Neighborhoods Natural Beauty is most important to the quality of life for public forum participants (14 percent). However, many participants also felt that healthy food (13 percent), connections (12 percent), and education & learning (12 percent) were important to their quality of life. Participants also felt that land use and development patterns needed the greatest attention within the city. Other concerns included transportationandmobilityaswellasparksandopen space. The top three areas that residents felt will move Madison toward sustainability were walkable neighborhoods (24 percent), denser development (18 percent), and mixed business and residential uses (17 percent). Most participants also thought the city should promote clean technologies/green jobs (33 percent), local commerce (29 percent), and local food systems (29 percent) to achieve sustainable economic vitality in Madison. Many participants (30 percent) felt affordable housing for working families was the most important way to promote social welfare in a sustainable Madison. Neighborhood networks (29 percent), volunteers (17 percent), and crime (12 percent) were the three most important areas to work on to become a more sustainable community. Participants stated that living wages and job training are important in improving employment in a sustainable Madison. Youth skills and health insurancecoveragearealsoimportant. Forotherways to improve employment, participants mentioned green jobs; programs to entice business owners to build in Madison and stay in Madison; more diverse jobs; local food and energy production, and renewed cottage industries and home-based business. In the area of youth and education, participants stated that literacy programs/libraries, high school graduation and service learning should be improved to make Madison more sustainable. Also mentioned were after-school/summer activities for youth; support for multiple paths to success, including trade education and service learning apprenticeship; living Public Involvement
  • 95. sustainability plan | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 82 skills; making schools and daycares non-toxic indoor environments; teaching children how to grow food; youth outreach and children nutrition. The five most important elements with regard to health in a sustainable Madison are: physical activity/ fitness, health care availability, healthy diet, health insurance, and mental illness. Sustainable Transportation The proportion of forum participants who use mass transit on a regular basis is slightly less than the proportion who do not use mass transit. The main reasons why participants do not use mass transit include: difficult to get where they want to go; slow/ too many transfers (inconvenience); infrequent service; poor access to public transit where they live; already bike to work; self-employed people and lack of dog-park which means people can walk their dogs or take the bus, however, don’t have time to do both each day. However, the majority of participants (65%) would like to use light rail or rapid bus service rather than drive, which implies the potential demand for a more advanced transit system. Ninety-one percent of the participants also claim that excellent mass transit is important or very important to attract businesses and future economic development in a sustainable Madison. The key components to a sustainable transportation system from the standpoint of the forum participants are: frequent bus service, extensive bike trails, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, commuter rail, and light rail service. In order to make Madison’s transportation system more sustainable, participants favored: dense development; later bus service; reliable bus service; integrated multi-modal system; more carsharing; compact land use; peak hour service of no less than once every ten minutes; off-peak service at least every 20 minutes; financial incentives to encourage bus ridership. Further, participants realize that a Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is necessary since the City of Madison needs to coordinate and fund all of these transit services with surrounding communities in Dane County. The accompanying graph shows that many participants would like to reduce the following activities for the purpose of environmental protection: driving a car, mowing the lawn, idling a car or truck, and reducing electricity use. The three public forums offered insight into Madison residents’ values and opinions on policy priorities. The next section highlights the Sustainable Design and Energy Committee’s top ideas for achieving a sustainable Madison. Sustainable Building Ninety five percent of forum participants think making all new construction and remodels energy efficient is important or very important. About 92
  • 96. urpl 912 | 12.18.0983 percent thought it was important or very important for all new construction or remodels to have healthy indoor air, but about 8 percent thought this was only slightly important or somewhat important. Sixty three percent of residents thought it was very important to improve the energy efficiency of existing commercial buildings in Madison and 65 percent thought it was very important to improve the energy efficiency of houses. The importance of planted roofs on commercial buildings had the most varied responses: 83 percent of participants thought it was important or very important, 14 percent felt this was slightly or somewhat important, and 3 percent felt it was not important at all. Energy, Natural Resources, Waste and Water Madison’s residents recognize the important role that the management of energy, natural resources, wasteandwatermustplayinbecomingasustainable city. Water and stormwater management practices are important to participants at the public forums. Ecosystem quality and waste management are also primary concerns. The top three priorities are groundwater quality drinkability (29 percent), wetland protection and restoration (28 percent) and groundwater quantity (19 percent). The majority of participants said they would be willing to consume less non-local foods, packaging of consumer goods, and pesticides and fertilizers. Eighty-nine percent, or 67 people, of those who attended the public forums said they would be willing to separate their food and organic waste from other waste before pick up. While most (71 percent) had heard of MPowering Madison before attending the public forum, only 35 percent of residents said their families had taken the Mpower pledge and only 8 percent said their businesses had taken the pledge. However, participants said they would be will to take many of the actions Mpower asks people to do. The majority of the participants indicated that a clean, healthy environment is most important to the economic well-being and quality of life in a sustainable Madison. Parks & Open Space Eighty five percent of forum participants stated that protecting open spaces from development is important or very important; 84% think making neighborhoods more attractive is important or very important; 88% of them noted the importance of preserving environmental sensitive areas; nearly 80% think providing play area for youth is important; 81% think creating areas where neighbors can get to know each other is significant and 82% consider recreational/exercise facilities for families important or very important. Furthermore, 92% of participants feel safe in parks.
  • 97. 84sustainability plan | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Healthy Food Systems Forum participants want more healthy foods in schools (25 percent), community gardens (21 percent), and neighborhood grocery stores with fresh produce (18 percent). When purchasing food, a majority of participants consider where it is produced (locally vs. nationally) and how it is produced. Participants’ three major sources of food are supermarkets and natural food stores, followed by small neighborhood grocery stores, and farmers’ markets. Thirty-three percent of those at the public forums said they already grow their own food. However, 24 percent of residents said they would like to grow more of their own food if they had more time, and 22 percent said they would if they had a garden. Only 13 percent indicated that they would not want to grow their own food at all. Most people thought diet related diseases such as diabetes and heart disease were very important (as opposed to not, somewhat, important or most important) for Madison to become a sustainable city, and that growing local food was most important in fostering a sustainable economy in Madison.
  • 98. urpl 912 | 12.18.0985 Sustainable Design and Energy Committee: TOP 5 IDEAS The Sustainable Design and Energy Committee (SDEC) members submitted their “Top 5 Ideas” for the City of Madison’s sustainability plan. Ideas were submitted by 14 members from the private sector and 11 members from the public sector. Responses covered a wide range of topics which can be organized into three major categories– planning process, policies and programs, and desired outcomes. Planning Process This category concerns the process that committee members believe should be used in developing a sustainability plan. About 26% of the ideas related to the process of developing and implementing a sustainability plan. The most commonly cited were goal setting, funding sources, establishing baselines and metrics, and reporting. As indicated in the table below, communication was a top priority for several committee members, and measuring progress was rated as second most important. Policies and Programs The policies and programs category concerns the strategies for implementing the plan’s goals and recommendations. The majority of ideas presented by the committee focused on this category, with 54% of the total responses. The most commonly cited
  • 99. sustainability plan | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 86 programs and policies related to transportation, energy efficiency, and green building. Other ideas in this category include smart growth, open space, and recycling. Outcomes – Natural, Built, and Social Environment Thiscategoryconcernstheoutcomesthatcommittee members hope to achieve through implementation of the sustainability plan. These ideas focused on ways to increase education and awareness, foster economic development, clean Madison’s lakes and address social equity issues. Approximately 20% of the committee’s responses are reflected in this category. Conclusion Among the three main categories the planning process appeared to be the most important component of the sustainability plan according to committee member’s responses. Members particularly expressed an interest in communication and the way in which progress would be measured. In terms of actual programs and policies, transportation surfaced as the most commonly cited. Lastly, committeemembers felt that education and raising awareness among citizens, school and community leaders, and business owners would play an important role in achieving greater sustainability.
  • 100. urpl 912 | 12.18.0987 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LincolnsaidatGettysburgin1863,weareanation“… of the people, by the people, and for the people…” AnidealprevalentinAmericangovernmentsincethe signing of the Declaration of Independence, citizen participation has been and continues to be essential to the success of any local government initiative. Particularly, in planning for sustainability, success will depend on citizen support and behavioral adjustments. The City of Madison recognized this and asked for citizen feedback at three public forums. At the public forums, participants stressed the importance of improving communication between city government, the business sector, and the general populace. To successfully reach all the different stakeholders in Madison, effective communication must be inclusive, informative, and responsive. Inclusive The attendants at each public forum provided valuable information to help shape Madison’s sustainability plan. However, as described in the Public Forum Survey Results section, the majority of the citizens who attended the public forums were white, male, and already familiar with sustainability terminologyandbestpractices. Althoughinputfrom all demographic groups is important in designing a sustainability plan, the demographic makeup of the public forum attendants does not reflect the overall demographic composition of the City of Madison. Thus, additional public participation opportunities are needed to gain a more complete understanding of how the Madison populace feels about various sustainability policies, programs, and practices.   One way to engage members of the public who traditionally are less involved in local government public participation is to identify and build relationships with key stakeholders and community leaders. Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) such as neighborhood associations, faith-based groups, owners of popular local businesses such as bakeries, barber shop, and pizza places, youth groups, and community centers are great community resources that can serve as a conduit to reach certain sectors of the community (Green and Haines, 2008). CBOs are typically in rooted in place and have contacts and information about the neighborhood. An example of a CBO in Madison is the Wil-Mar Neighborhood Community Center in the Williamson-Marquette neighborhood that has a goal of delivering “responsible, high quality services and programs in a safe and respectful environment for people of all ages” (“Wil-Mar Neighborhood Center”). Another way to educate and encourage the participation of Madison’s youth is to collaborate with local schools to develop a green curriculum. Not only is it a way to inspire young people, but it is also a good way to reach the parents as well. Informative A communication strategy in support of the city’s sustainability goals could include the following media: Newspapers, Radio, & Television Some public forum participants claimed they read about the meeting in the local newspaper. Some of the public forums were taped for television broadcast on the city channel. However, the City of Madison could use local radio stations to announce
  • 101. 88 meetings, planning efforts, and other community events more often. One barrier to radio advertising may be the cost, but the city could negotiate a lower rate by committing to a long-term contract. Internet Social Media Tools A recent survey by the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) and Development CounsellorsInternational(DCI)foundthat57percent of respondents who work in economic development firms use social media in their organization’s communication efforts (Anonymous, 2009). Below is a list of social media activities with descriptions of possible, but not all, applications for businesses and local governments: • Facebook: A social network utility that helps people communicate and connect online, to build online communities about their region, a specific industry, local or national events, contests, or other activities. This could be a tool to reach younger populations who can become a fan of the Sustainable, Design, and Energy Committee and see what they are doing to encourage sustainable practices in Madison. • LinkedIn: An interconnected network of experienced professionals from around the world. Over 50 million members can connect with present and former colleagues as well as join groups and discussion boards around industries, topics, and job resources. This tool can connect the City with experts in the sustainability field. • Twitter: A free social networking and micro- bloggingservicethatenablesitsuserstosend and read messages known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters displayed on the author’s profile page and delivered to the author’s subscribers. This could be used to reach the general public. • Flickr and YouTube: Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, and YouTube,thelargestonlinevideocommunity, can provide the opportunity to broadcast and host their visual assets. Photographs and videos have long-been effective in telling a story and displaying the many benefits of a community or simply visually displaying an already compelling message. This can highlight the achievements of the city and community members to the general public via the city website. Essentialtothesuccessofsocialmediaistheneedfor organizations to recognize that Web 2.0 tools (web applications that facilitate interactive information and collaboration) should be one element in a larger, more strategic communications plan. Utilizing social media does not eliminate the need for more traditional communications activities; however, it does expand an organization’s ability to reach new and existing audiences (Anonymous, 2009). Furthermore, developing content that is relevant, timely, and engaging to audiences is essential. Social media is people-intensive, not budget-intensive. There is relatively little media cost in adopting these strategies, but it does take staff some time to keep it up to date as part of an overall marketing campaign. To launch a social media campaign, the City of Madison should consider adopting a social media policy that addresses key questions that may arise during outreach. It should state the purpose of the communication effort, identify ownership/ rules about content posts as well as clarify rules of behavior for online members. The City should have a clear plan for who will manage the tool and how sustainability plan | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Image: Examples of Popular Social Media Tools
  • 102. urpl 912 | 12.18.0989 comments, questions, changes, or issues should be handled. Billboards, Magazines, Placards, and Signs Madison has much to be proud of. The residents who attended the public forums voiced a desire to be better informed on the City’s sustainability efforts. Sign and placards, such as Focus on Energy’s sign “my house is powered by the sun,” can be simple but effective at communicating with citizens. Word of Mouth People are more likely to attend a meeting if their neighbors, colleagues, friends, or professors tell them about it. Yet the science behind sustainability is not always obvious or easy to understand. Sustainability planning must include public education to raise awareness. Also, public involvement will generally increase if the participants not only learn something, but actively engage in the planning process. The Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Toolkit, available online at www.esdtoolkit.org, has ideas for how to introduce the concept of sustainable development and other ways to elicit values, priorities, and other information from attendants (Chrystalbridge, 2009). Responsive In addition to making Madison’s achievements and efforts known, providing opportunities for all citizens to voice concerns, ask for guidance, or make known their own personal achievements towards sustainability is key to keeping everyone onboard throughout the planning and implementation process. Communicating with the business and resident communities includes recognizing successes in the community through a sustainability trophy and awards ceremony. The Office of Sustainability of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana announced that the City’s first Sustainability Awards luncheon will be held Tuesday, February 9, 2010 (Keys, 2009). The awards are designed to inspire innovation, highlight impact, reward leadership and promote education around the principles of sustainability. Five awards will be given to honor excellence in each of the following categories: land; air; energy; and reduce, reuse, and recycle. In addition to listening to input and recognizing community achievement, sustainability demands action. Data from the public forums must be translated and communicated in such a way that citizens feel that their input was considered and acted upon where appropriate. Measurable goals and indicators are essential in a sustainability plan to convey the efforts of the city to address the citizen’s concerns and ensure their values are being met. Sources: Anonymous. 2009. “Employing social media.” EDA Update 2.10: n. pag. Web. 4 Dec. 2009 http://www. planning.org/eda/newsletter/2009/oct.htm. Chrystalbridge, Marianne. “Public Participation.” ESD Toolkit. n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2009 http://www.esdtoolkit. org/discussion/participation.htm. Green, Gary Paul and Anna Haines. Asset Building & Community Development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2008. Google Books. Web. 3 Dec. 2009 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zjaR9fw MjOMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP12&dq=identify+community+lea Photo: Home with Solar Panel Sign in Yard - South Orchard St., Madison WI
  • 103. sustainability plan | PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 90 ders+and+minorities&ots=6qp81IDgIz&sig=vN8t5gFZQLl Z4TrLFn0Iwqy1tG0#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Key, Jerry. “City’s Sustainability Awards to be Held February 2010.” Southeast Indianapolis Communities. Blogspot, 21 Nov. 2009. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. http://southeastindy.blogspot.com/2009/11/ citys-sustainability-awards-to-be-held.html. Suarez, Susan J. “Public Participation & Social Justice.” American Institute of Certified Planners. n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2009 http://www.planning.org. “Wil-Mar Neighborhood Center.” Madison.com. Madison Newspapers, Inc., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2009 http://www.madison.com/communities/wil-mar/index. php.
  • 105. PART III: POLICY OPTIONS policy options shaping the future
  • 106. urpl 912 | 12.18.0991 SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS The dominant suburban and urban fringe development patterns in Dane County, over the last half century, have created a built environment that poses significant challenges to Madison’s and the region’s sustainability. A combination of land use policies – as summarized below -- could help the City of Madison and its neighborhoods become not only more sustainable, but also more livable. • Transfer of Development Rights: TDR programs use the private real estate market to permanently preserve rural lands. They can be a win-win solution to open space preservation because developers, landowners, and the public realize a substantial benefit from the transaction. TDR programs preclude the need for public land purchases or highly-restrictive zoning regulations, and mitigate takings conflicts by compensating landowners for restricted development rights. The Madison Comprehensive Plan indicates a desire to permanently preserve open space and agriculture/rural use districts. TDR programs are best implemented at a regional scale, which directly supports Madison’s expressed desire in the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the County and surrounding towns to take stronger roles in preventing more intensive development in rural unincorporated areas. • Compact Development: Compact development is integral to sustainable land use policy. Compact development patterns contribute to open space preservation, increased mobility, energy efficiency, affordability, and savings in infrastructure costs by maximizing the development potential of land. The Urban Land Institute found that doubling density can decrease vehicle miles traveled by 38%, and that residents of high-density areas tend to own half the number of cars as residents of low-density single-family communities. Well designed compact development can also help to reduce crime rates, enhance neighborhood connections, and promote community ownership and involvement. Madison can promote compact development by encouraging brownfield redevelopment, infill, and transit-oriented development. • Brownfield Redevelopment: Brownfield redevelopment can be both costly and time- consuming; however, it potentially provides important environmental, economic, and social benefits. Madison currently has a Brownfields Remediation / Elimination and Workforce Development (BREWD) program that targets business development in three areas of the City. This program could be strategically expanded to also create public open space, affordable housing, and public facilities on brownfield sites throughout the City. Chicago’s Brownfields Initiative can be a useful precedent for Madison in its efforts to streamline its redevelopment process and obtain funding for expanded redevelopment initiatives. • Infill Development: Infill development offers many potential neighborhood benefits, including a compact mix of land uses, and increased walkability. Madison could look to the precedent of Sacramento’s pre- approved floor plan program as a template Photo: Redevelopment of a brownfield site - Traverse City, MI
  • 107. 92 for expediting its granny flat approval process as well as single-family or other infill development projects. One of the keys to successful infill development, in addition to expedited approval processes, is designing land uses and structures that are compatible within the existing neighborhood character. • Street Connectivity: An interconnected network of streets tends to encourage walking,biking,andtransittripswhileastreet network with few connections generally favors automobile travel. A recent special report published by the Transportation Research Board concludes that good street connectivity can reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT), especially when coupled with more compact development. Madison could follow the example of cities such as Austin, TX and Fort Collins, CO, which have adopted street connectivity requirements for new development. • Transit-Oriented Development: Many cities have enhanced the viability of their transit systems by encouraging development around transit nodes. Transportation choices are closely related to the way land is developed. Madison should encourage higher density, mixed-use development near its existing and projected transit network, allowing residents closer proximity to shopping, employment and other activities. This targeted development strategy would support an energy-efficient rail and bus transit system. • Reduced Surface Parking: Parking lots are an inefficient use of land, functioning at less than peak capacity for all but a handful of days every year. Traditional surface parking lots generate heavy storm water runoff, which in turn collects motor oil and other chemicals that infiltrate local waterways. Large parking lots also can become safety hazards for pedestrians. Madison could follow Helena, Portland and other cities by implementing downtown parking caps or lowering city-wide maximum parking standards. The City could also incentivize structured and underground parking lots to limit the detrimental effects of large-lot surface parking. • Green Affordable Housing: Green affordable housing is low impact, energy efficient housing, affordable to low to moderate income residents.  Madison can facilitate the development of green, affordable housing by eliminating exclusionary land use regulations, subsidizing rent and home ownership for qualified low-income residents, and incentivizing or enforcing stronger energy efficiency standards for both new and renovated housing.  City-wide benefits would include cleaner air, reduced homelessness, and cost savings from energy efficiency.  • Neighborhood-Based Community and Social Services: The provision of on-site resources and services for residents is an important component of sustainable housing practices.  Madison already has community centers and programs, but the expansion of these resources in every neighborhood can increase employment and education, reduce crime, and enhance mobility for all residents.  On-site housing resources could include transportation subsidies, job training, education programs for both youth and adults, financial literacy programs, access to technology, and case management.  sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
  • 108. urpl 912 | 12.18.0993
  • 109. 94sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS TRANSPORTATION Transitioning away from the auto-centric transportation paradigm is critical if the City of Madison is to achieve its sustainability goals. A reduction in vehicle miles traveled would help reduce carbon dioxide emissions that pose health and climate problems. By promoting mass-transit, bicycling and walking, Madison can greatly reduce its overall fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. These transportation policy options demonstrate the role that transportation policies can play in promoting accessibility, mobility, public safety, and public health. • Light Rail or Street Cars: Madison has been studying the feasibility of a light rail line running through the city for some time now. Historically, Madison had an extensive street car system that was comprehensive in its area of coverage and level of service. A light rail or street car system would have many benefits, including greater long term transit capacity as the city and ridership grow, and higher fuel economy per passenger mile. A light rail or street car system could help encourage people to drive less, which could significantly lower transportation related CO2 emissions. • Bus Rapid Transit: Bus Rapid Transit or BRT is a mass transport option that could be economically feasible for Madison. A BRT system has buses operating on their own right-of-way, which operate similarly to light rail or street car systems. BRT, like streetcars, has also been considered by the City of Madison for implementation. University Avenue and other streets currently have their own bus lanes; making implementation of a BRT system easier in those areas. The advantages of BRT are similar to those of light rail and streetcars, in that BRT offers higher long term capacities to meet future city growth and ridership. BRT can help to significantly lower the air pollution attributable to Madison’s commuters. • Increasing Intelligent Transportation System Technology: Madison has already begun to use some of the ITS technologies available today, including real-time bus tracking and LEDs at bus stops. The number of LEDs at bus stops could be expanded to include stops throughout the city, making the bus system more convenient to use. LEDs display estimated wait times for buses as Madison has real time GPS tracking devices on its fleet. Other ITS technologies that could be implemented include electronic payment systems, which could make the ticket sale process more efficient, and the linkage of bus system information to Google maps. The benefits of these changes are likely to include increased knowledge, and safety of the system resulting in increased bus ridership. This in turn can generate greater revenues from the bus system and reduce the number of cars on the road. • Inter-Regional Transportation and Commuter Rail: Dane County has already taken some initial steps needed to create a regional commuter rail system. The first of these was the formation of the Dane County Regional Transit Authority (RTA). Commuter railwouldprovideincreasedopportunitiesfor peopleinthegreaterMadisonregiontotravel inasustainablemannertodestinationsinand Photo: Light Rail on Howard Street in downtown - Baltimore, MD
  • 110. urpl 912 | 12.18.0995 around the City of Madison. Madison has the additional cost benefit of using existing track infrastructure for part of the potential commuter rail system. A regional rail system could help spur economic development along rail corridors. Madison also has the opportunity to connect its current public transit system to the proposed regional commuter rail line, further increasing the region’s transit service. • Biking and pedestrian friendly streets: Madison has made great strides in ensuring that cycling is a viable transportation mode. This is reflected in the numerous streets throughout the city that already have bike lanes. Bike racks have also been placed on the fronts of most of the bus fleet. The city is also attempting to make street crosswalks safer for pedestrians. Madison can further improve its bike and pedestrian friendliness by clearly marking bike lanes and all cross walks, insuring that they are visible to drivers. Madison can also improve its bicycle storage options, especially at public transit stops, in order to further increase the ability of residents to connect by bicycle to public transit. The environmental and health benefits of increasing the walking and biking are clear, as both forms of transit emit no C02 and are excellent ways for people to be physically active.
  • 111. 96sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
  • 112. urpl 912 | 12.18.0997 BUILDINGS Currently in the United States, buildings account for 72% of electricity consumption, 39 % of energy use, 38 % of CO2 emissions, and 40 % of raw materials use. Sustainable building practices can mitigate the environmental impacts of communities and neighborhoods. The following policy options are effective methods for making Madison’s buildings more sustainable. • LEED or Equivalent Goal: Many municipal governments, including Madison, have adopted standards to ensure that new or newlyremodeledCity-ownedandCity-funded buildings are more sustainable. Madison already requires city-owned buildings to achieve LEED silver certification. Very few municipalities require all new construction or remodeled existent buildings to meet LEED or equivalent standards. Madison could distinguish itself as a sustainable city by requiring that all buildings meet LEED or equivalent standards. • Density Bonus Goal: According to the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties’ 2007 Green Building Incentives That Work, density bonuses are one of the top three incentives endorsed by developers surveyed. To encourage the construction of sustainable buildings, Madison could provide density bonus incentives for those projects that meet specified social equity, energy efficiency, and mobility standards. This could be measured in a variety of ways, such as comparing a building’s floor area ratio to the desired density standard and to the density of affordable housing units per acre. Affordability is based on 30% of the area’s median household income. • Existing Building Goal: While many sustainable building design and construction effortsaregearedtowardsnewdevelopment, in any community most buildings, regardless of scale or use, are already in place. In Madison, efforts to retrofit, rehabilitate, or otherwise improve the sustainability and energy efficiency of existing structures could prove crucial for long-term building sustainability. A program to conduct an energy audit and building upgrade cycle could be coupled with existing City programs. Success could be measured by an annual comparison of a given building’s energy efficiency, compared with similar buildings’ performance ratings. • Guidance and Technical Support Goal: Some municipalities have adopted guidelines to facilitate the development and maintenance of green buildings. Madison already has several similar measures in place through the MadiSun, Mpowering Madison program, and The Natural Step. However, this already useful toolbox could be expanded by creating sustainability guidelines for the private development community. For example, two-page sustainability guidelines could be prepared for office buildings, industrial buildings, and residential buildings. This technical assistance could be offered through both printed and electronic media. This program could be enhanced by surveying the development community to see what other information they need to build more sustainably. Photo: Green roof on City Hall - Chicago, IL
  • 113. 98 • Public Understanding, Education and Involvement Goal: It is critical to bring green building practices to the attention of the general public and to all facets of the building industry. By informing these groups of the benefits of green building, the city can expand market demand and strengthen the local capacity to build green. Routine communication on the city’s progress towards sustainability could encourage the public and the building community to embrace the “best practices” for a more sustainable future. One way to do this is by making this information more user-friendly and easy for the development community and public to access. Guidelines and fact sheets, for example, could be made available through the City’s website. • Building Plan Review and Permit Process Goal:Acommonconcernforthoseinvolvedin development is the duration and uncertainty of the review/permitting process for building proposals. Giving preference to projects that commit to specific sustainability goals provides an incentive for the development community. Green building projects could pass through the process faster, saving developers’ time and money. Madison could expedite the permitting process for targeted projects, such as a new grocery store that meets specific site and building standards. Depending on the project complexity, green building permits could be approved in as little as 30 days. • Monitoring and Reporting on Building Performance Goal: The City of Madison should monitor the costs and benefits of its green building strategies and practices to evaluate the effectiveness of the sustainability standards, technical services, and incentive programs. Although Madison is already monitoring and reporting on city- owned buildings, public disclosure of energy usage in privately owned green buildings can be an education tool to increase public awareness of the benefits of sustainable building practices. All information should be user-friendly and easily accessible to the public through the Internet. The City also could survey the public to see how accessible and user-friendly these monitoring documents are. sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
  • 114. urpl 912 | 12.18.0999
  • 115. 100sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS ENERGY, UTILITIES, AND NATURAL RESOURCES One of the best ways for communities to become more sustainable is to use natural resources more efficiently. It is no secret that our energy and water resources are finite, whether they are fossil fuels, ground water, “renewable” fuels or products like biomass and ethanol. Improvements in Madison’s energy and water policies could reduce consumption, increase efficiency, and ensure access to affordable infrastructure for generations to come. By incorporating some of these policies and programs, Madison can continue to transform its built environment into one that is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. • Energy Usage, Conservation & Building Efficiency: In addition to LEED requirements for city buildings, expanding the program to include privately-owned buildings could save city residents and businesses millions of dollars in energy costs while also reducing tons of CO2 emissions. Establishing energy efficiency standards for all buildings is crucial. In addition, low-income residents and their landlords could be offered rebates on energy-saving fixtures like setback thermostats and Energy Star appliances. Implementation of a regional “Smart Grid” could help increase energy conservation. Public education and outreach to community groups, neighborhood associations, and schools could inform them of the best practices for energy efficiency. • Efficient Energy Production & Pollution Reduction: There are three coal-fired power plants on Madison’s isthmus: the MG&E power plant on Blount Street, UW-Madison’s CharterStreet plant and the state-run Capitol Heating and Power facility. These plants, when taken together are the major suppliers of Madison’s electricity consumption. However, there are plans to convert the Charter Street plant into a biomass energy plant, operating completely on wood chips. Converting the coal-fired plants to other fuel sources, such as natural gas, would help to improve both air and water quality in and around Madison. • Developing Renewable Bioenergy Sources: Portland, Oregon currently requires a minimum 5% blend of biodiesel for all vehicle diesel fuel sold within its city limits. Gasoline is required to contain at least 10% ethanol. Through this effort, Portland is creating demand for thousands of gallons of renewable transportation fuels. This in turn helps to spur market development of large- scale Oregon based biofuel production. This growing renewable fuels market generates a need for oilseed crops like canola and mustard seed that can be grown as rotational crops by farmers. Strategies such as this meet goals for job growth, greenhouse gas emission reduction and local environmental health. Although the crops that could supply fuels for Madison differ from Portland, the practice of encouraging bio- fuel usage through policy helps to reduce monoculture farming practices and to ensure environmental sustainability. • Reduce Waste through Comprehensive Recycling Program: Madison does a good job of keeping waste out of landfills by Photo: Compost in hand
  • 116. urpl 912 | 12.18.09101 recycling and composting over 59% of the city’s waste stream. However, Madison residents still annually send nearly 50,000 tons of material to the Dane County Landfill. That is about 1,500 pounds of trash, on average, for each of Madison’s 67,000 households served by the Streets Division. Enrolling city neighborhoods in Recyclebank could encourage recycling by fostering a waste reduction competition between enrolled communities. In addition to residential based programs, increasing recycling in public spaces could help to keep waste and recyclable products from ending up in landfills or water bodies. Recycling programs in Germany have been extremely successful. Manufacturers, for example, are responsible for recycling the packaging of goods sold. This has reduced overall packaging in Germany by 14%. • Reduce Waste through a Municipal Compost Program: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Berkeley and Seattle are just some of the cities working towards the goal of zero waste. San Francisco now has three separate curbside bins, blue for recyclables, green for food and yard waste, and black for garbage. They also reach out to the various communities in the San Francisco Bay area by creating informational flyers in five different languages. These flyers promote the composting program by including a coupon for a free small kitchen counter food scrap collection pails. They also offer coupons for a 25% discount to restaurants and hotels that participate in the compost program. Nearly 40,000 tons of organic matter is annually recycled into fertilizer which the city then sells. In addition to composting organic waste, the city of Boston powers 1500 homes through an anaerobic digester within the city boundary. The odor-free facility has been well received by resident • Reduce Potable Water usage through Greywater Recycling - Water from showers, bathroom faucets, and laundry - also known as greywater - makes up 50-80% of potable water use. Madison residents use about 70 gallons/day and much of this could be reused through greywater recycling systems. Reused water is usually limited to flushing toilets and subsurface irrigation. While many new buildings have been designed with water efficient fixtures, many older homes and apartments have not been upgraded. Toronto and Prescott, Arizona encourage landlords and low-income households to upgrade aging housing stock by offering low- priced kits that include faucet aerators, low flow shower heads, a toilet flow reduction and leak test, and lawn watering instructions to help residents reduce potable water use. Once the homeowner installs the kit, the $10 fee is credited on their water bill. • PromoteCleanSurfaceWaterthroughUrban Stormwater Management: Stormwater runoff, contaminated with sediment and other chemical and biological pollutants, negatively impacts the health of Madison’s lakes. While Madison does not have a combined sewer system, disconnecting down-spouts, and increasing the number of rain barrel and rain garden programs would help reduce runoff to the lakes and potentially increase groundwater recharge. In addition to “daylighting” long buried creeks and streams, Madison could take other steps to restore its natural hydrologic patterns. As part of this restoration process, outreach to community groups, neighborhood associations, and schools could increase environmental awareness and build interest and support for Madison’s green infrastructure.
  • 117. 102sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
  • 118. urpl 912 | 12.18.09103 PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND URBAN FORESTRY Parks, open space, and the urban forests provide places for people to connect with each other and with the natural environment. These outdoor spaces play an important role in making cities vibrant and livable places. Parks and open spaces provide many economic, environmental, and social benefits. These benefits include reducing air and water pollution, increasing property values, and providing nearby recreational opportunities. The policies and practices listed below can help enhance Madison’s parks and open space system to create a more sustainable community. • Ensure accessibility to public open space: Ensuring that all residents of Madison are within a 10-15 minute walk of a park or other public open space is an important livability goal. Meaningful civic spaces - re- imagined streets and sidewalks, along with new plazas and waterfront promenades – are valuable community assets that could be implemented in conjunction with higher density infill and redevelopment. • Create more ‘Green Streets’: Green streets arepublicspacesthataccommodatemultiple forms of transportation, not just cars. Green streets also provide tree canopy coverage and incorporate sustainable stormwater management practices. Madison currently uses some best practices, including rain gardens. But more can be done, especially on major avenues and boulevards, to plant trees and no-mow ground covers, install porous paving, and integrate bio-infiltration swales. • Ensure appropriate maintenance, landscaping and natural plants for public lands: By landscaping with drought- tolerant native plants, the economic costs and environmental impacts of managing public lands can be reduced. The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary program for golf courses, for example, helps course superintendents develop environmental management practices that protect the environment, conserve natural resources, and provide wildlife habitat. The program would be viable for Madison’s five golf courses. • Encourage and preserve private open space: Open space is not merely public land but includes private and institutional open space. By informing the public of voluntary land conservation options, and incentivizing the protection of environmental features through rebates and expedited permits within the development process, cities such as Sioux Falls, SD, and Alexandria, VA, are working to conserve privately-held open spaces. • Enact a Tree Preservation Ordinance: Madison currently does not have a tree preservation ordinance. Cities such as Milwaukee, WI, Pasadena, CA, and Lake Forest, IL, have adopted tree protection ordinances that protect designated trees during construction. These ordinances also provide replacement standards and fines when trees are damaged or have to be removed. Photo: Warner Park rain garden - Madison, WI
  • 119. 104 • Maintain the ecosystem health of natural resources within open spaces: Madison has several conservation areas to protect ecologically important wetlands within the city. Madison should consider following the lead of Denver and the Government of South Australia which have protected networks of biodiversity corridors to enhance ecosystem resilience to climate change. These green infrastructure protections include natural areas threatened by development. • Increase the urban canopy: Cities from New YorktoSanFranciscohavesetambitiousgoals to increase the urban canopy. New York has set a goal to reforest parks and increase the urban canopy to 90% in parks and to 80% on city streets. Several other cities, including Denver, have tree planting goals within the city to ensure adequate tree coverage throughout the city. With the Madison street tree inventory to be completed soon, the data will be available to identify locations - for example, in residential, commercial, and industrial areas - where Madison’s tree canopy could be enhanced. • Expand volunteerism: When community members become active in caring for their neighborhood, it provides a sense of ownership and, potentially, reduces the maintenance demand on the city. Currently, Madison has several volunteer opportunities including the ‘adopt a park’ program. Madison also works with local community and conservation groups in various capacities. These programs could be expanded by using the Internet to solicit and report volunteer service. sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
  • 120. urpl 912 | 12.18.09105
  • 121. 106 FOOD SYSTEMS The success of food systems policy development will depend on numerous factors, including the capacity of municipal staff and allied private and nonprofit organizations, the type and availability of public and private grant monies, and the perceived needs and/or priorities of local citizens (e.g. food security public health, access to cultivatable land, economic development). The following sustainable municipal food policies and actions range from short-term to long-term, and vary in the difficulty of implementation. The policy options laid out below would help maintain Madison’s reputation as a leader and innovator in the field of food systems, while also making Madison more sustainable. Short-term: • Food waste reduction and hunger relief legislation. • Counter-advertising against unhealthy foods. • Removal of junk food vending machines from public schools & agencies. • Increased point-of-sale signage and availability of fruits and vegetables in school & municipal cafeterias. • Demonstration “victory gardens” on highly visible public land. • SNAP-accessible farmers markets. • Zoning for urban agriculture. • Incorporation of food processing/ distribution infrastructure into regional land- use and economic development plans. • Modification of zoning ordinances to support healthy mobile vending. • Increase the number of available mobile vending permits. Mid-term: • Ordinances restricting access to unhealthy food. • Grocery store attraction: o Zoning incentives (e.g. density bonuses) for developments with full-service supermarkets in under- served areas. o Public-private partnerships providing one-time loans/grants • Restrictive ordinances/ regulation of fast food cues. (e.g. density, size and location controls on signage and advertising) • Mandatory menu/calorie labeling at restaurants. • Subdivision design standards mandating inclusion of food access and food production features. • Public-private agricultural programming for hunger relief, rehabilitation/re-entry services, and job training. • Build demand for local food through actionable local food procurement policies. o Establish a local food procurement policy pilot project in partnership with a single municipal agency or a partner such as the University of Wisconsin. Long-term: • Taxes that reduce the profitability of discretionary calories (i.e. junk food) for food retailers. • Tax credits for food retailers sourcing locally. • TIF districts and CBDG grants to promote local food-based small business incubation, food processing and distribution enterprises. • Collaborate with local food producers, retailers, and distributors to identify artificial or administrative barriers to a robust local farm-direct and wholesale food market: o Work with Wisconsin DATCP, the sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS Photo: Edible, organic garden in front of City Hall - San Francisco, CA
  • 122. urpl 912 | 12.18.09107 Department of Public Health and otherstomodifyregulationsdesigned for the industrial agricultural sector to better accommodate the scale and production practices of small/mid- scale producers and distributors. • Develop permanent year-round public market facilities (e.g., on Madison’s west side, east side, and central area). • Implement a municipal curb-side household organic composting program. • Construct anaerobic digesters to capture energy from food waste and other local organic refuse.
  • 123. 108sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS
  • 124. urpl 912 | 12.18.09109 SHAPING THE FUTURE: THREE PHASES This report has presented a broad range of sustainability policies and practices that have been successfully implemented in other communities. Although the City of Madison has made substantial progress in becoming a more sustainable community, additional policies and programs can be developed and implemented. Three phases are briefly outlined, below, to suggest that shaping Madison’s future could be an iterative process. Each successive phase can build upon previous phases. Collectively, the following three phases illustrate a complementary set of policies and practices that could be implemented in Madison and Dane County to create a more sustainable city and region. Photo: Activity along State Street - Madison, WI
  • 125. 110sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS Phase 1 In the nearest future, Madison could improve bus service, further enhance the mobility and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, create incentives for energy and water conservation, implement greener storm water management practices, increase waste recycling, improve access to healthy food, and better protect urban street trees. Table 1: Madison’s Green Future
  • 126. urpl 912 | 12.18.09111 Phase 2 Building on the first phase, stronger incentives could increase energy and water efficiency, better manage waste and storm water, and improve both public health and the local food system. Successes in each of the areas can raise public awareness and build support for additional sustainability programs and practices. Table 2: Madison’s Greener Future
  • 127. 112sustainability plan | POLICY OPTIONS Phase 3 In the third (but not final) phase, environmental and economic sustainability are integrated with social equity to ensure that benefits of a more sustainable and livable community are enjoyed by all citizens, regardless of age, gender, income level, or race/ ethnicity. Table 3: Madison’s Greenest Future
  • 130. urpl 912 | 12.18.09113 100% Green Power Purchasers. http://www.epa. gov/grnpower/toplists/partner100.htm 6 October 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, http://www.1kfriends. org/Transportation/WI_Transportation_Projects_/ Streetcars.htm 3 Easy Ways to Conserve Energy. http://www. enactwi.org/index.php?page=conserve-energy Accessed on 21 October 2009. Affordable Housing Design Advisor: www. designadvisor.org, accessed on 12/2/2009. Affordable Housing Design Advisor Green Housing Projects: http://www.designadvisor.org/green/ murphy.htm; American Wind Energy Association FAQ Cost. http:// www.awea.org/faq/cost.html Accessed 4 December 2009 Applebome, Peter. “After War, Finding Peace and Calm in a Garden.” New York Times, November 30, 2009, New York Section. Applicability of Bogotá’s TransMilenio BRT System to the United States, US Department of Transportation, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Bogota_ Report_Final_Report_May_2006.pdf Arlington County’s 2007-2008 Building Energy Report Cards, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva. us/portals/topics/aire/BuildingEnergy.aspx Arlington County, Virginia’s Density Bonus Incentive, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva. us/DEPARTMENTS/EnvironmentalServices/epo/ EnvironmentalServicesEpoGreenBuildings.aspx Arlington County, Virginia’s Green Building Fund, Available at: http://www.arlingtonva.us/ DEPARTMENTS/EnvironmentalServices/epo/ EnvironmentalServicesEpoGreenBuildings.aspx Arlington Virginia Environmental Services: http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/ EnvironmentalServices/dot/planning/page66674. aspx, accessed on 11/7/2009. Audubon International. 2009. Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses Certification Overview.RetrievedNovember10,2009from http:// www.auduboninternational.org/PDFs/Golf%20 Certification%20Overview.pdf. Austen, Ian, “Montreal Inagurates Contients Most ambitious Bike-Sharing Program.” The New York Times May 13, 2009, http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes. com/2009/05/13/montreal-inaugurates-continents- most-ambitious-bike-sharing-program/ Bailey, Phil. 1994. Ozaukee Country Club’s Audubon Stepping Stone to a Better Environment. USGA Green Section Record. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1990s/1994/940912.pdf. Bellows, A. “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” Community Food Security Coalition. http://www. foodsecurity.org/UAHealthArticle.pdf (accessed September 20, 2009). Benfield,Kaid.(2008).“Transit-OrientedDevelopment in Arlington: Stunning Success and Some Lessons,” NRDC Switchboard: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/ blogs/kbenfield/transitoriented_development_ in.html Bibliography
  • 131. 114 Berrigan, D. and R.P. Troiano, “The Association Between Urban Form and Physical Activity in U.S. Adults,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, volume 23, issue 2, supplement 1, August 2002. Bike Rack on Buses Update, www.ci.mil.wi.us/ ImageLibrary/User/.../Bike_Racks_on_Buses_ Upate.pdf. Biofuels. http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/ index.cfm?c=42843 Accessed 4 December 2009 Biofuels/Biodiesel. http://www.biofuelsportland. com Accessed 4 December 2009 Blueprint Denver: http://www.denvergov.org/ Portals/650/documents/BlueprintDenver.pdf, accessed on 12/3/2009. “Boston Silver Line Washington Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Demonstration Project Evaluation”, US Department of Transportation, September, 2005, http://www.nbrti.org/media/evaluations/Boston_ Silver_Line_final_report.pdf Building Energy Efficiency Programs in Europe and Australia. http://www.envirovaluation.org/ index.php/2009/10/16/building-energy-efficiency- programs-in-europe-and-australia-offer-important- lessons-for-the-united-states. 21 September 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009. Bush, Rudolph, City Hall Blog, The Dallas Morning News, November 10, 2008, http://cityhallblog. dallasnews.com/archives/2008/11/walkable- zoning-regulations-ex.html California Environmental Associates. “Slow Money Wisconsin.” 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Data and Trends.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/ statistics/prev/national/figage.htm (accessed December 2, 2009). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Recommended Community Strategies and MeasurementstoPreventObesityintheUnitedStates: Implementation and Measurement Guide.” Centers forDiseaseControlandPrevention.July,2009.http:// www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/community_ strategies_guide.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009.) Charter Street plant will use biomass fuel, not coal. http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/437085 6 February 2009. accessed 4 December 2009 Chicago, Illinois’ Green Permit Program, Available at: http://www.cityofchicago.org/ webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/ GreenPermitBrochure_1.pdf CityofAlexandria.2002. AlexandriaOpenSpacePlan. Retrieved Sept 19, 2009 from http://alexandriava. gov/uploadedfiles/recreation/info/OpenSpacePlan. pdf City of Alexandria. 2009. Eco-City Alexandria: Environmental Action Plan. Retrieved Sept 18, 2009 from http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/tes/ eco-city/EAP_FINAL_06_18_09.pdf City of Bellevue. 2003. Bellevue’s Parks and Open Space Plan. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.cityofbellevue.org/park_plan.htm City of Denver. Greenprint Denver, building a sustainablecity. RetrievedSept.18,2009fromhttp:// www.greenprintdenver.org/water-environment/ City of Denver. 2000. Game Plan. Retrieved Sept. 17, 2009 from http://www.denvergov. org/parksandrecreation/Home/GamePlan/ tabid/432591/Default.aspx City of Edmonton. 2006. Environmental Strategic Plan. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http:// www.iclei.org/index.php?id=8572. sustainability plan | BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • 132. urpl 912 | 12.18.09115 City of Eugene. 1992. Urban Forest Management Plan. Retrieved Sept 17, 2009 from http:// www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/ PTARGS_0_2_144746_0_0_18/ForestPlan.pdf. City of Eugene. 2006. Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Project and Priority Plan. Retrieved Sept. 18 2009 From http://www.eugene-or.gov/ portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=217&PageID=13 60&cached=true&mode=2&userID=2 City of Malibu, Zoning Ordinance, Title 17.44.050 Elements of landscape documentation package City of New York. 2007. PlaNYC. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from http://www.nyc.gov/ html/planyc2030/html/downloads/the-plan.shtml. City of New York. 2009. PlaNYC Progress Report 2009. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from http:// www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/downloads/ the-plan.shtml. City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. 2009. Status Report: Portland Plan Indicators. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/ index.cfm?a=246919&c=46822. City of Portland. 2007. Green Streets Cross-Bureau Team Report. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/ image.cfm?id=153974. City of San Francisco. 1997. Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.sustainable-city.org/. CityofPortlandBureauofPlanningandSustainability. “Urban Growth Bounty 2009.” City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. http:// www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=49224 (accessed December 3, 2009). City of Sacramento City Sponsored Infill House Plan Program: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/ planning/infill-house-plan-program/, accessed on 12/4/2009. CityofSanFrancisco.“Sourcing&ServingSustainable, Healthy Food.” City of San Francisco. http://www. sfgov.org/site/sffood_index.asp?id=66024 (accessed December 4, 2009). City of Seattle. 2003. Monitoring Our Progress: Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/ groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/ Web_Informational/dpd_001102.pdf. City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. “P-Patch Community Gardens.” City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods. http://www. cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/ppatch/ (accessed December 3, 2009). City of Seattle. 2005. Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan Toward a Sustainable Seattle. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/ Planning/Seattle%5Fs%5FComprehensive%5FPlan/ ComprehensivePlan/ City of Sioux Falls. 2009. Open Space. Retrieved September 30, 2009 from http://www.siouxfalls. org/~/media/documents/planning/2009/shape_sf/ jan_09_policies/OPEN%20SPACE.ashx. City of Vancouver. 2009. Greenest City: Quick Start Recommendations. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http://vancouver.ca/greenestcity/PDF/ greenestcity-quickstart.pdf. Cooper, Gary & Furmaniak, Thomas B, “Portland Streetcar: A Two-Year Report Card”, National Light Rail Transit Conference, Transportation Research Board, Portland, Nov. 2003 Council on the Environment in New York City. “Greenmarket.” Council on the Environment in New York City. http://www.cenyc.org/greenmarket
  • 133. 116 (accessed December 4, 2009). CRCOG Best Practices Manual: Transfer of Development Rights (2002): http://www.crcog. org/publications/CommDevDocs/TCSP/Ch03_ FactSheet_TDR.pdf, accessed on 10/20/2009. Davis, Steve. (2009). “Arlington, Virginia’s Story of Smart Growth: The Movie,” Smart Growth Around America Blog, http://blog.smartgrowthamerica. org/2009/05/08/arlington-virginias-story-of-smart- growth-the-movie/; District of Columbia Department of Transportation, http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/lib/ddot/information/ bicycle/newbike-final.pdf Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co. “Food Production Along the Transect.” New Urban News. http:// www.newurbannews.com/13.4/jun08newest.html (accessed December 3, 2009). Dutch, Steven, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Why People Don’t Use Mass Transit, http://www. uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/masstransit.htm Ecology Center. “EBT Farmers’ Market Nutrition Project.” Ecology Center. http://www.ecologycenter. org/ebt/ (accessed December 2, 2009). Electric Street Car Systems, http://my.execpc. com/~coken2/stcarrs.htm Environmentally friendly upgrade planned for Charter Street plant. http://www.news.wisc. edu/16755 21 may 2009. Accessed on 4 December 2009 EPA – Green Infrastructure http://cfpub.epa.gov/ npdes/home.cfm?program_id=298 Accessed 4 December 2009 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Food Waste Management Tools and Resources.” Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa. gov/waste/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd- res.htm (accessed December 3, 2009). European Council of the European Union, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage. aspx?lang=EN&id=1 Federal Highway Administration, “Integration of Bicycle and Transit”, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ ped_bike/docs/bike_bus.pdf Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation: Student Workbook (second edition). Report No. HRT-05-133h Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Data, 2005, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/data/grants_ financing_1090.html First Community Housing, Flex Your Power Success Story: http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CS_ FirstCommunity.pdf; Friends of the Pittsburgh Urban Forest. 2009. STRATUM: Street Tree Resource Analysis Tool for Urban Forest Managers. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www. pittsburghforest.org/STRATUM. From Turbines and Straw, Danish Self-Sufficiency. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/world/ europe/30samso.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 29 September 2009. Accessed 4 December 2009. Government of South Australia. 2007. South Australia’s Strategic Plan 2007. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from http://saplan.org.au/images/pdf/ South_Australia_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf. GovTrack.us The Federal Food Donation Act. 2008. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record. xpd?id=110- s20080522-78 (accessed November 30, 2009). Grist’s 15 Green Cities, Available at: http://www. sustainability plan | BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • 134. urpl 912 | 12.18.09117 grist.org/article/cities3/ Growing Power. “About Us.” Growing Power. http:// www.growingpower.org/about_us.htm (accessed September 20, 2009). Handy, Susan, et al. (2003). “Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There,” Chicago: American Planning Association. HomeDepotFoundation,FirstCommunityHousing’s Murphy Ranch: http://www.homedepotfoundation. org/pdfs/murphy_ranch_3.pdf, all accessed on 12/4/2009. Illinois Department of Agriculture. Press Release. “Illinois Department of Agriculture to Plant Community Garden: Garden will be open to the public and located on Illinois State Fairgrounds.” March 10, 2009. http://www.agr.state.il.us/ newsrels/r0310091.html (accessed December 4, 2009) King County, Washington, Transfer of Development Rights Program: http://www.kingcounty.gov/ environment/stewardship/sustainable-building/ transfer-development-rights.aspx, accessed on 10/20/2009. Kubik, M. Y., Lytle, L. A., Hannan, P. J., Perry, C. L., & Story, M. (2003). The association of the school food environment with dietary behaviors of young adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1168-1173. http://www.joe.org/ joe/2009february/a3.php (accessed December 3, 2009). Lacy,Brian,SmartCommunitiesNetwork,Community Cycling center, http://www.smartcommunities.ncat. org/success/community_cycling.shtml Leeds Konsult, Light Rail Systems, http://www. konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments/ instrument002/l2_002c.htm Lesson 1: The Need for Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility, FHWA http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/ pedbike/pubs/05085/chapt1.htm Lewis,Megan.2008.FromRecreationtoRe-Creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space System Planning. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 551. Chicago: American Planning Association. Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA), http://www. lrta.org/explain.html Los Angeles, California’s Building a Green Los Angeles: Framework for the City’s Green Building Program, Available at: http://www.lacity.org/council/cd9/pdf/ELEC%20 ENTIRE.pdf Los Angeles, California’s Standard for Sustainability, Available at: http://www.lacity.org/ead/ environmentla/greenbuilding/leed.htm Los Angeles County Metro, http://www.metro.net/ projects_studies/rapid/default.htm Marqusee, Rob. “Iowa Local Farmer & Food Security Act.” Woodbury County. http://www. woodburyorganics.com/Woodbury_Organics/ Main_files/LFFSA%20v1.1.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009). Marqusee, Rob. “Iowa Local Farmer & Food Security Act.” Woodbury County. http://www. woodburyorganics.com/Woodbury_Organics/ Main_files/LFFSA%20v1.1.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009). Merrigan, Kathleen. Memorandum. “Harnessing USDA Rural Development programs to support local and regional food systems.” USDA. August 26, 2009. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. 2002. Metropolitan Parks & Greenways and Master Plan. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www.nashville.gov/parks/master_plan.asp.
  • 135. 118 Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department. 2007. The Miami-Dade County Parks and Open Space System Master Plan. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.miamidade. gov/greatparksummit/library/OSMP_FINAL_ REPORT_entiredocument.pdf. Michigan Stormwater. http://www.michigan.gov/ stormwatermgt/0,1607,7-205--198075--,00.html Accessed 4 December 2009. Million Trees NYC. 2009. Benefits of NYC’s Urban Forest. Retrieved Sept 21 from http://www. milliontreesnyc.org/html/urban_forest/urban_ forest_benefits.shtml. Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee. 1995. A Guide to Developing a Community Tree Preservation Ordinance. State of Minnesota, Department of NaturalResources.RetrievedDecember1,2009from http://www.mnstac.org/RFC/preservationordguide. htm. Montgomery County Department of Economic Development Program Overview (2006): http:// www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/ded/ agservices/pdffiles/tdr_info.pdf, accessed on 11/14/2009. Morales, Alfonso, and Lindsey Day Farnsworth. “Satiating the Demand: Planning for Alternative Models of Regional Food Distribution.” University of Wisconsin Department of Urban and Regional Planning Working Papers. October 2009. Morales, Alfonso and Gregg Kettles. “Zoning for Public Markets and Street Vendors.” American Planning Association. Issue 2. Zoning Practice, February 2009. National Association of Industrial and Office Properties Research Foundation, Green Building Incentives that Work: A Look at How Local Governments Are Incentivizing Green Development, Available at: http://www.naiop.org/foundation/ completedresearch.com National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, http://www. nbrti.org/ National Governors Association. (2001). “Growth Toolkit: Maintain Farmland and Other Working Lands”: http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menui tem.9123e83a1f6786440ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnex toid=6a685aa265b32010VgnVCM1000001a01010a RCRD, accessed on 11/14/2009. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “NYC Green Carts.” New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. http:// www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cdp/cdp_pan_green_ carts.shtml (accessed December 4, 2009). New York, New York’s Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ planyc2030/html/plan/buildings_plan.shtml Newsome, Gavin. Executive Directive. “Healthy and Sustainable Food for San Francisco.”July 9, 2009. http://civileats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ Mayor-Newsom-Executive-Directive-on-Healthy- Sustainable-Food.pdf (accessed December 4, 2009). Nowak, David. 2007. Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values: New York City’s Urban Forest. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved Sept 20, 2009 from http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/ downloads/pdf/ufore_study.pdf. Our Environment. http://www.mge.com/ environment/ Accessed 4 December 2009 Parkiteer, Bicycle Victoria, 2009, www.parkiteer. com.au Parry, Olivia. Press Release. Dane County Partnership to Benefit from State Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin Grant Dollars to Make it Easier to Access Locally Grown, Organic Produce. July, 17, 2008. http://danedocs. sustainability plan | BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • 136. urpl 912 | 12.18.09119 countyofdane.com/webdocs/pdf/plandev/ifm/ Kathleen_Falk.pdf. Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. “Philadelphia Green’s City Harvest program.”Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. http://www. pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/city- harvest.html (accessed December 3, 2009). Philadelphia High-Performance Building Renovation Guidelines, Available at: http://www.phila.gov/ pdfs/PhiladelphiaGreenGuidelines.pdf Plan / water / introduction http://www.sustainable- city.org/Plan/Water/intro.htm Accessed October 2009 Policy Link. “A National Fresh Food Financing Initiative:  An Innovative Approach to Improve Health and Spark Economic Development.” Policy Link. http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/ b.5136643/k.1E5B/Improving_Access_to_Healthy_ Food.htm (accessed November 30, 2009). Portland, Oregon’s Build It Green! Home Tour, Available at: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/ index.cfm?c=41893 Portland, Oregon’s ReTHINK Program, Available at: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index. cfm?c=42714 Portland Parks & Recreation. 2001. Parks 2020 Vision. Retrieved September 23, 2009 from http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index. cfm?c=40182&a=89435. Portland Streetcar History, http://www. portlandstreetcar.org/history.php Power Plants. http://www.mge.com/about/ powerplants/ Accessed 4 December 2009 Protecting Water Resources With Higher-Density Development. http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/ protect_water_higher_density.pdf Accessed 1 October 2009 Programmable Thermostats for Consumers. http:// www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=thermostats.pr_ thermostats. Accessed on 4 December 2009 Rail to Rails, ‘Walking and Biking as Mainstream Transportation Choices”, http://www.railstotrails. org/resources/documents/whatwedo/TrailLink%20 07%20Program_Mobility.pdf Railway Technology: Portland, http://www.railway- technology.com/projects/portland/ Railway Technology: Montpellier, http://www. railway-technology.com/projects/montpellier/ Railway Technology: Sheffield, http://www.railway- technology.com/projects/sheffield-tram/ Reid, Ian. 1994. Canadian Youth: Does Activity Reduce Risk? Canadian Parks and Recreation Association. Retrieved on Dec. 1, 2009 from http:// lin.ca/resource-details/1323. “Rethinking Local Affordable Housing Strategies: Lessons from 70 Years of Policy and Practice,” http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/knight/ executivesummary.pdf, accessed on 11/30/2009. Reynolds, Conor, et al, “The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature”, Environmental Health, October 21, 2009, http://www.ehjournal.net/ content/8/1/47 Roney,Mathew,“BicyclePedalingintotheSpotlight”, Earth Policy Institute, May 12, 2008, http://www. earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C48/ Santa Monica, California’s Green Building Design and Construction Guidelines, Available at: http:// www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/categories/ buildGreen.aspx
  • 137. 120 Schueler, Tom. 1995. “The Peculiarities of Perviousness.” Watershed Protection Techniques. 2.1. Scottsdale, Arizona’s Green Building Program, Available at: http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/ greenbuilding Seattle, Washington’s City Green Building, Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/GreenBuilding/ Commercial/IncentivesAssistance/default.asp#LEED Seattle, Washington’s 2006 Density Bonus Incentive, Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/ dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@sustainableblding/ documents/web_informational/dpdp_018423.pdf Seattle, Washington’s Priority Green Permit Program, Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/ Smart Communities Network Success Stories— Chicago Brownfields Initiative: http://www. smartcommunities.ncat.org/success/chicago_ brownfields.shtml, accessed on 12/4/2009. Sounder, First Quarter 2009 System Wide Ridership, http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/ newsroom/Ridership_Q1_2009.pdf Sounder Commuter Trains Specifications, http:// www.soundtransit.org/Riding-Sound-Transit/Our- Vehicles/Sounder-commuter-rail.xml State of Hawai’i Sustainability Task Force. 2008. Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.hawaii2050. org/images/uploads/Hawaii2050_Plan_FINAL.pdf. Stringer, Scott M. “Food In the Public Interest: How New York City’s Food Policy Holds the Key to Hunger, Health, Jobs and the Environment.” Manhattan Borough. February, 2009. http://www.mbpo.org/ uploads/FoodInThePublicInterest.pdf (accessed October 15, 2009). Sturm, Roland and Deborah A. Cohen. “Zoning For Health? The Year-Old Ban On New Fast-Food Restaurants In South LA.” Health Affairs 28, no. 6 (2009): w1088–w1097 (published online 6 October 2009; 10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1088) US Department of Agriculture. Sustainable Energy Utility Oversight Board. http:// www.seu-de.org/ Accessed on 20 October 2009. Sustainable City. http://www.sustainable-city.org/ Plan/Energy/strategy.htm. Accessed on 4 December 2009. The Urban Land Institute. (2005). “Higher Density Development: Myth and Fact.” Thornton Creek Water Quality Channel. http:// www.seattle.gov/UTIL/About_SPU/Drainage_&_ Sewer_System/Projects/COS_002477.asp Accessed on 4 December 2009 Town of Edmonston. 2009. The Green Street Project. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from http://www. edmonston.us.com/GoingGreen.html. Tri-Met MAX System Overview, http://trimet.org/ about/history/maxoverview.htm United States Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). 2008. Campus Sustainability Plan. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://sustainability.ucsb.edu/plan/ docs/sustainability_plan_workingdoc4.08.pdf. University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems. 2006. “U.S. Food System Fact Sheet.” University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems. http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01- 06.pdf (accessed December 1, 2009). University of Washington-Department of Landscape Architecture. 2006. Open Space Seattle 2100. sustainability plan | BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • 138. urpl 912 | 12.18.09121 Retrieved September 30, 2009 from http://www. open2100.org/. Urban Habitat, “Curituba’s Bus System is Model For Rapid Transit”, http://urbanhabitat.org/node/344 USDA Forest Service. 2009. What is STRATUM? Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www. fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/stratum.shtml. US Department of Agriculture. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.” US Department of Agriculture. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/ snapmain.htm (accessed December 4, 2009). U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.energy.gov/ Accessed on 4 December 2009 US Department of Health and Human Services (2007) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: http://epa. gov/brownfields/success/showcase/sc_chica.htm, accessed on 11/29/2009. US Green Building Council. “LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System.” Proposed draft for ballot. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile. aspx?DocumentID=6146 (accessed October 14, 2009). U.S. Green Building Council, Green Building Research, Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/ DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1718 UW Extension. “Hunger Close to Home: Dane County.” University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension. Revised August, 2008. http://www.uwex. edu/ces/flp/demographics/hunger/pdfs/dane.pdf (accessed December 3, 2009). UW Extension Agricultural Innovation Center. “Incubator and Shared Kitchens.” UW Extension Agricultural Innovation Center. http://www. uwex.edu/ces/agmarkets/aic/sharedkitchens.cfm (accessed on December 1, 2009). Wheeler, Timothy. 2009. Remaking Main Street. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved December 2, 2009 from http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bal- md.gr.street25nov25,0,2052577.story. White, Dr. James A .http://www.chelanpud.org/ documents/SNAP_ASES_Paper.pdf Accessed on 4 December 2009 Wisconsin Department of Agricultural, Trade and Consumer Protection. “Buy Local Buy Wisconsin Grant Program.” Wisconsin Department of Agricultural, Trade and Consumer Protection. http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/mktg/business/ marketing/val-add/directmktg/blbw.jsp (accessed on December 2, 2009). Wolf, Kathy. 1998. Urban Forest Values: Economic Benefits of Trees in Cities. Fact Sheet 3. University of Washington- Center for Urban Horticulture. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from http://www. naturewithin.info/Policy/EconBens-FS3.pdf. Woodbury County Iowa. Resolution. “Woodbury CountyPolicyforRuralEconomicRevitalization:Local Food Purchase Policy.” http://www.woodbury-ia. com/departments/EconomicDevelopment/WC%20 LFPP%20v3.pdf I (accessed on December 2, 2009). Yglesias, Matthew, Class Warfare and the Bus, http:// yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/class- warfare-and-the-bus.php “Zoning Change will Make Bike Parking Based on Space, Not Car Parking”, WashCycle, November 02, 2009, http://www.thewashcycle.com/2009/11/ zoning-change-will-not-reduce-bike-parking.html
  • 139. 122sustainability plan | APPENDIX Public Forum Results: Neighborhoods
  • 140. urpl 912 | 12.18.09123 Public Forum Results: Neighborhoods (Continued)
  • 141. 124sustainability plan | APPENDIX Public Forum Results: Transportation
  • 142. urpl 912 | 12.18.09125 Public Forum Results: Buildings
  • 143. 126sustainability plan | APPENDIX Public Forum Results: Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources
  • 144. urpl 912 | 12.18.09127 Public Forum Results: Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources (Continued)
  • 145. 128sustainability plan | APPENDIX Public Forum Results: Energy, Utilities, & Natural Resources (Continued)
  • 146. urpl 912 | 12.18.09129 Public Forum Results: Parks, Open Space, & Urban Forestry
  • 147. 130sustainability plan | APPENDIX Public Forum Results: Food Systems
  • 148. urpl 912 | 12.18.09131 Public Forum Results: Food Systems (Continued)