Professional Report - Master's Thesis

General Plan Sustainable Development:
Holistic Sustainability Policy for the City of Irvine
Montgomery Norton
Spring 2009
Professional Report submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree:
Master of Urban and Regional Planning
Department of Planning, Policy & Design
School of Social Ecology
University of California, Irvine
CLIENTS: Kelly M. Koldus, AICP, Associate Planner-Great Park Entitlement Team
Chandra Krout, AICP, Environmental Programs Administrator-Environmental Programs
Bill Jacobs, AICP, Principal Planner-Advance Planning
Brian Fisk, Manager-Planning and Redevelopment
FACULTY ADVISOR: Martha Feldman
Professor of Planning, Policy & Design
Roger W. and Janice M. Johnson Chair in Civic Governance and Public Management

NORTON2
On Cover: Figure 1: Irvine Environmental Programs. Source: City of Irvine, 2008

NORTON3
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... 3
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................ 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 6
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT............................................................................... 8
1.2 REPORT SPONSOR........................................................................................ 9
1.3 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................. 10
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE............................................................................................. 11
2.0 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................. 13
2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY................................................... 14
2.2 SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS.............................................................. 18
2.3 STATE SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES........................................................ 21
2.4 GENERAL PLAN.......................................................................................... 29
2.5 METHODS..................................................................................................... 35
3.0 CITY SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING.............................................................. 36
3.1 CURRENT SUSTAINABILITY IN IRVINE................................................ 38
4.0 THE COMPONENTS OF HOLISTIC SUSTAINABILITY .............................. 40
5.0 SUSTAINABILITY & THE GENERAL PLAN.................................................. 44
5.1 PLANS VS. POLICIES.................................................................................. 45
5.2 IRVINE’S GENERAL PLAN........................................................................ 47
6.0 THE PROCESS OF ADDRESSING HOLISTIC SUSTAINABILITY............... 53
6.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION........................................................................... 56
6.2 DEMOCRACY & PLANNING..................................................................... 60
6.3 INCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT...................................................................... 61
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................... 63
REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 66

NORTON4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Irvine Environmental Programs...................................................................... 1
FIGURE 2: E3 Integration = Sustainable Community Legacy.......................................... 9
FIGURE 3: Possible pathways of public health impacts from climate change................ 17
FIGURE 4: Indicators of sustainability............................................................................ 20
FIGURE 5: Suggested California General Plan process................................................... 27
FIGURE 6: Requirements related to General Plan implementation................................. 33
FIGURE 7: Concentric circles of sustainability............................................................... 42
FIGURE 8: The three spheres of sustainability................................................................ 43
FIGURE 9: Pyramid of sustainability............................................................................... 44
FIGURE 10: Market rent in Orange County, CA............................................................. 55
FIGURE 11: Hourly wage discrepancy in Orange County, CA....................................... 55
FIGURE 12: Actions, resources, and frameworks............................................................ 57

NORTON5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Social, environmental, and economic threats no longer reside in isolation, nor are areas of
the planet free from such challenges. The human species faces the greatest crises in
history as every individual, community, nation, and culture experience the limits of our
ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change, environmental pollution, social inequality,
and financial collapse. The solution to this grave scenario was agreed upon at the 1987
World Commission on Environment and Development, where the report, Our Common
Future, described the principles of sustainable development. Since this international
accord, all levels of governments have attempted to grasp the concept of sustainability.
Among these, leaders like the State of California and the City of Irvine are taking
responsibility for implementing change. Although they have been successful to date, the
gravity of the situation requires diligence and a commitment to transformation policy
strategies. Having nearly exhausted the possibilities for environmental sustainability, the
City of Irvine is looking to develop and implement holistic programs and planning
processes that will contribute to secure and vibrant sustainable communities. In order to
accomplish these goals, it is necessary to lie out an overall vision for the City through the
foundational structure and process of the General Plan. The biggest opportunities for the
City of Irvine to incorporate into this process include the essential components for life –
water and food. In addition, citizens, organizations, and governments will all have to
come together forming inclusive civic engagement, sharing best practices and
collaborating on how to overcome the challenges that communities face.

NORTON6
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Experts agree, our increasingly globalized, resource intensive, and socially
exploitative society is threatening natural ecosystems and human communities all over
the planet (Brown, 2006; Diamond, 2005; Friedman, 2008; Hawken, Lovins & Lovins,
1999). The climate is changing in ways that will increase the intensity, unpredictability,
and intensity of storms and severe weather events (Friedman, 2008). Integrated and
comprehensive solutions are needed to overcome the effects of man-made impacts on the
climate and the environment.
Sustainability has become an integrated solution to the world’s economic, social,
and environmental challenges facing our society (World Bank, 2003). Governments are
being called upon to create innovative strategies of collaborative governance, inclusive
management, and holistic policies to effectuate positive change. In other words, rather
than focusing on individual problems or issues, comprehensive solutions are needed to
improve the health of living systems in a holistic manner. This is known as sustainability
or sustainable development and focuses on the process just as much as the outcome.
Sustainability has its roots in democratic governance and collective engagement. The
question is whether social, economic, and environmental insecurity will breed further
civic empowerment and responsibility or engender conditions of increasing inequality
(Robinson, 2007)?
The concept of sustainability is an attempt to reconcile many of the negative
effects of globalization (Brown, 2006; Diamond, 2005; Friedman, 2008). Societies have
become much more interdependent. As demonstrated by the recent global economic and
financial collapse, system failures impact civilizations across the entire globe. The threat

NORTON7
of civilization collapse in the past was different because such events occurred in isolation
and over long periods of time (Diamond, 2005). Now, the threats are global and
immediate. The eight historic factors that lead to civilization collapse in the past are now
joined by four new ones: climate change, the buildup of toxic chemicals, energy
shortages, and full utilization of the earth’s photosynthetic capacity (Diamond, 2005).
Unfortunately, the planet cannot sustain the current or growing world population
consuming in the fashion and at the intensity of the “American way of life” (Friedman,
2008). According to the original Ecological Footprint Analysis (EFA) developed by
Wackernagel and Rees (1996), the world ecological deficit in 1992 was roughly 25
percent. An ecological deficit is when the consumption of a population defined by a
specific area exceeds the biological capacity of the area’s “ecosystems to produce useful
biological materials and to absorb waste materials generated by humans, using current
management schemes and extraction technologies” (Global Footprint Network, 2009,
p.1). This grew to 35 percent by 1997. Redefining Progress (Venetoulis & Talberth,
2005) created an updated version of EFA, which is much more precise – Footprint 2.0.
This version takes into account the land and resources needed by other species in order to
sustain the current level of biodiversity on the planet. This more accurate version of EFA
calculates a world ecological deficit of 39.5% as of 2001 data. Of the countries most out
of ecological balance are the United Arab Emirates (-213 per capita in global hectares),
Kuwait (-146), and the United States (-89).
According to Wachernagel (2007) and his ecological footprints analysis, it would
take about six planets to support the world population if everyone consumed in the
current American fashion. In response, nations have come together forming international

NORTON8
protocols, commissions and conferences to find sustainable solutions to a convergence of
challenges. Simultaneously, cities, states, and regions are developing their own plans for
making a difference at their respective scales.
Irvine, like other cities both domestically and internationally, has taken the
initiative to address global challenges by developing local solutions. Cities and local
jurisdictions are where such policies and programs can and should be implemented.
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The City of Irvine has long considered the environment and, in many ways,
sustainability in its vision as a master planned community. With a history of land
conservation and physical planning through its Phased Open Space Dedication Program
(1988) and its Sustainable Landscaping Guidelines program (1990), Irvine has set many
environmental planning precedents. Irvine was the first city nationwide to ban the use of
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and to have curbside recycling, while being the first city in
Orange County to pass a Green Building ordinance. But now with cities all over the
world instituting sustainability policies, programs, and initiatives, a new standard can be
achieved, where sustainable development becomes the status quo. It is time to go beyond
individual environmental programs and develop holistic strategies to address the triple
bottom line of ecology, economy, and equity. Sustainability integrates the previously
isolated social, environmental, and economic systems into a holistic paradigm (Hawken,
Lovins, & Lovins, 1999).
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Irvine, are taking the responsibility to lead
the world out of the impending economic, social, and environmental crises facing

NORTON9
civilization (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (International
Council on Local Environmental Initiatives, 2008). The City of Irvine is committed to
addressing holistic sustainability throughout its policies and programs as shown in Figure
2. The next step for Irvine will be to integrate sustainability into the City’s General Plan
during the next comprehensive General Plan update (Fisk, 2008). This report will
provide guidelines on how best to integrate holistic sustainability into the General Plan
for the City of Irvine.
Figure 2: E3 Integration = Sustainable Community Legacy.
Source: City of Port Coquitlam.
1.2 REPORT SPONSOR
This report was prepared for Michelle Drousé, Kelly Koldus, Bill Jacobs, Chandra
Krout, and Brian Fisk at the City of Irvine. Michelle Drousé began this process as the
primary contact and client for this Professional Report in July 2008. She designed this
Professional Report internship around previous research conducted by her and the
Community Development Department regarding sustainability, General Plan elements

NORTON10
and structure, and the General Plan update process. Michelle was a 2003 graduate of the
Masters in Urban & Regional Planning (MURP) program at UC Irvine and acted as the
initial coordinator for this project. Michelle left the City in January 2009 and Kelly
Koldus, an Associate Planner in Project Entitlement and a fellow graduate of the 2004
MURP class, become the new primary contact for this report. The team of clients at the
City of Irvine also includes: Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner for Advance Planning;
Chandra Krout, Environmental Programs Administrator; and Brian Fisk, Manager of
Planning and Redevelopment in the Community Development Department. Professor
Martha Feldman is the Faculty Advisor for this report in the Department of Planning,
Policy & Design. She has a background in collaborative public management and holds
the Roger W. and Janice M. Johnson Chair in Civic Governance and Public Management
at UC Irvine.
1.3 OBJECTIVES
There are four main objectives this report will address:
• First, the report will be used to identify best practices in city sustainability
planning with regard to General Plans and holistic sustainability policies. This report will
recommend whether to integrate sustainability throughout the General Plan, create a
separate Sustainability Element, or produce a combination of the two.
• Second, this report will propose how to address holistic sustainability in the
General Plan.

NORTON11
• Third, this report will provide strategic process recommendations to achieve
public participation and inclusion regarding the development and implementation of the
proposed comprehensive revision of the City’s General Plan.
• Lastly, this report will identify further implementation programs and successful
strategies not yet achieved within Irvine’s sustainability portfolio.
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF SUSTAINABLE PLANNING
Social, environmental, and economic challenges are threatening the stability of an
increasingly global society. Many experts warn about the degree, intensity, and scale of
present and future social, environmental, and economic catastrophes, unless there is a
profound mobilization towards integrated sustainability measures (Brown, 2001, 2006,
2008; Diamond, 2005; Tainter, 1988). Such sustainability measures are created by the
leadership of local jurisdictions and shared amongst cities as an exchange of best
practices (ICLEI, 2008).
Cities are key agents for promoting sustainability (ICLEI, 2002; United Nations,
2008). According to United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Population Division (2006) for the first time in history the majority of humans live in
cities, and although these urban centers only occupy 2 percent of the Earth’s surface, they
consume 75 percent of the Earth’s resources and produce 75 percent of the Earth’s waste
(cited in Jones, 2008). Cities are uniquely situated to address the social, economic, and
environmental concerns of their communities through strategic and efficient policy and
programmatic solutions. Cities have the unique capacity to preserve and protect the
safety, health, welfare, and morals of their community as conferred by the Tenth

NORTON12
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Selmi, Kushner, & Ziegler, 2008). This police
power gives states and their local jurisdictions the responsibility to address the threats of
climate change, social inequality, food and water security, and environmental pollution
created by traditional forms of fragmented development and economic development.
Such powers of regulation also allow cities to create innovative solutions for public
benefit through integrated sustainability measures. Because cities are relatively small
organizations and have direct feedback from their constituencies, through mandatory
public participation, they are able to adapt to situations and revise strategies for efficient
and effective solutions, what Nattrass and Altomare (1999) refer to as Learning
Organizations and Evolutionary Corporations.
The City of Irvine can be a leader in planning for a sustainable future. The City
of Irvine has already established itself as a leader in creating innovative programs and
policies, including its Phased Open Space Conservation Plan, Sustainable Landscaping
Guidelines, and the first version of the Energy Efficiency Plan in 1996. Irvine is known
internationally as a model Master-Planned Community and is located at the heart of
Orange County. As the third largest city in Orange County, Irvine has capitalized on
having the most numerous environmental and sustainability programs and is the home
and staff sponsor for the Orange County Great Park (OCGP), which is being developed
based on the principles of sustainable development. The City of Irvine has as its goal to
be the safest, greenest, smartest, and fairest city in the country (Mayor Kang, 2009) an
ideal goal reflective of a sustainable community.
Integrating sustainability into the General Plan can serve to unify the City’s vision
around social, environmental, and economically just and sustainable goals. All

NORTON13
implementation programs and subsequent policies must remain consistent with the goals
and objectives set out in the General Plan. By integrating economic, environmental, and
social goals and objectives together, the City can unite around a common purpose of
achieving sustainable communities.
Irvine can go beyond the state mandated effort to promote and include public
participation in the General Plan revision process. By taking the opportunity to include
the community in the General Plan revision process, Irvine can educate its residents and
businesses about the benefits of holistic sustainable development and engage critical
stakeholders in the process of governance and active citizenry. Irvine can strengthen the
City’s own policies and programs, through coalition building and collaboration among its
diverse multicultural, academic, and professional resources.
This report may be used to educate staff, department heads, residents, and
businesses, as well as other cities about how to develop comprehensive sustainability
policies and implementation programs, while promoting a more inclusive process of
planning for a sustainable future.
2.0 BACKGROUND
It is helpful to provide a brief development of sustainability from the international
scale down to the local level in order to understand the context surrounding Irvine’s goals
objectives, and policies. Although there has been a lack of national leadership for
sustainability in the U.S. for the past decade, States and local jurisdictions have taken up
the call to develop integrated and holistic visions for the development and planning of
America’s future. By reviewing the basics of the General Plan and the State of

NORTON14
California’s involvement in this process, the following analysis will identify Irvine’s
position according to the guidance and mandates being prescribed for the field of
sustainability initiatives occurring domestically.
2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY
The concept of sustainability is not new; it has been an undercurrent of sound
development and planning all along. Indigenous cultures learned that in order to survive,
they had to live in harmony with nature, preserving the health of ecosystems, and acting
as stewards of their surrounding environment (Stephens, Parkes & Chang, 2007). In
1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison arguing that a federal bond
should be paid within one generation of the debt, because, as he put it,
The earth belongs… to the living… No man can by natural right oblige the
lands he occupied, or the persons who succeeded him in that occupation,
to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might,
during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations
to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living
(Cited in Braungart and McDonough, 2002, p. 16).
In response to growing local and international environmental concern the United Nations
sponsored the World Commission on Environment and Development in Geneva,
Switzerland (United Nations, 1987). Gro Harlem Brundtland chaired the report, “Our
Common Future” that came out of the Commission. This report set the internationally
agreed upon definition for sustainability: “development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs”
(NGO Committee on Education, n.d., p.1).
In 1992 at Rio de Janeiro, the UN Conference on Environment and Development
convened the Earth Summit, where 178 governments came together to devise an

NORTON15
implementation strategy for sustainable development known as Agenda 21 (United
Nations, 2004). Agenda 21 and the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda
21, reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg,
South Africa in 2002, emphasized the unique role and responsibility of local governments
to address sustainable development.
Twenty-one years since the Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future” and
sixteen years since the Earth Summit, the UN Conference on Environment and
Development (United Nations, 1992), sustainability has become a global movement.
Nearly every organization and institution has since developed their own definitions of
sustainability consistent with their mission and values. Since its inception, sustainable
development has focused on effective implementation at the local and national levels.
The international context presented by the United Nations has focused on identifying the
problems, establishing broad protocols, and incorporating strategies, but it is the
responsibility of national, regional, state, and local governments to implement
sustainability (United Nations, 1994).
Many nations, including the U.S., followed the recommendations given at the
Earth Summit to establish National Councils for Sustainable Development (United
Nations, 2004). In June 1993, the Clinton Administration preceded this decree with the
establishment of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development through Executive
Order 12852. This advisory committee to the President was in place until June 30, 1999
as of the last amendment to Executive Order 12852 (President’s Council on Sustainable
Development, 1993). Since then, national leadership on sustainability had been lacking,
until the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) came out with its

NORTON16
Sustainable Research Strategy program in 2007, and the Federal government established
its sustainability website last updated on October 03, 2007 (Federal Facilities
Environmental Stewardship & Compliance Assistance Center, 2007). Despite a lack of
financial resources and national support, sustainability, otherwise known as livable
community planning processes, have been initiated locally to address sustainable
development (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, 2002).
Climate change policy also gained traction nationally in 2007, when the state of
Massachusetts sued the EPA over jurisdiction to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide
(CO2) as a pollutant (Supreme Court of the United States, 2007). Climate change,
resulting from human activities that have increased the concentrations of greenhouse
gases, is recognized as a threat to biological diversity, agriculture, land and water
resources (Backlund, Janetos & Schimel, 2008). “Climate changes – temperature
increases, increasing CO2 levels, and altered patterns of precipitation – are already
affecting U.S. water resources, agriculture, land resources, and biodiversity” (United
States Climate Change Science Program, 2008, p. 2). The largest coalition of scientists
ever assembled to address a single topic formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), which has come out with four Climate Change Assessment Reports
(1990, 1995, 2001, 2007) and is currently outlining the fifth due in 2014
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, n.d.). Climate Change also has incredible
challenges for public health, increasing exposure to marine and water-borne diseases as
well as threatening food supply (Figure 3). Because of such threats, the State of
California has accepted responsibility for curtailing the effects climate change by passing
policies that attempt to reduce global warming greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Many

NORTON17
of these climate change laws also establish the boldest policies for sustainable
development through implementation statutes.
Figure 3: Possible pathways of public health impacts from climate change. Source: U.S.
Climate Change Science Program, 2003

NORTON18
2.2 SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS
It is important to balance sustainable productivity with measurement (Redclift,
2005). Often the desire for accomplishing certain standards of policy success can create
a dichotomous relationship without actually measuring this success. Indicators are
created to provide a standard for measuring, reporting, and comparing achievements of
programs and policies. The reliability of indicators can also be determined by their
process of development, whether or not a third-party neutral organization was involved,
and of course, the thoroughness of the evaluative capacity. When it comes to
sustainability, the challenge of appropriate measures and standards becomes even more
difficult, because of the complexity of the subject. This has been demonstrated by the
shift from the Environmental Sustainability Index of 2005 to the Environmental
Performance Index of 2008 by the collaboration between the Yale Center for
Environmental Law and Policy (YCELP) and the Center for International Earth Science
Information Network (CIESIN) (Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center, 2009).
The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) is a collaborative report developed
by YCELP and CIESIN in collaboration with the World Economic Forum and the Joint
Research Centre of the European Commission. The first ESI reports came out in 2000,
2001, 2002, and 2005. Since the 2005 ESI report their focus has shifted toward
environmental performance data collection for more readily available policymaking. The
EPI focuses on reducing environmental stresses to human health and promoting
ecosystem vitality and sound natural resource management (Yale Center for
Environmental Law & Policy & Center for International Earth Science Information
Network, 2008).

NORTON19
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division have
developed the most holistic sustainability indicators for Sustainable Development (United
Nations, 2009). The latest edition was published in October of 2007 and covers 14
themes, which demonstrate the comprehensiveness of the analysis. Chapter 40 of
Agenda 21 addressed the need for countries and the international community to develop
indicators of sustainable development with the purpose of setting a standard for all levels
of government
Several organizations have been committed to the development of sustainability
indicators over the years since the international developments of sustainability protocol.
Although most of the extensive research conducted is focused on national-level
dimensions of sustainability, local indicators are easily adapted from these more
comprehensive studies as well there are organizations who have developed their own
proprietary standards, created general standards for local jurisdictions, and/or consulted
with local jurisdictions to develop collaborative standards.
Comparing nations by the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) several policy
conclusions become apparent (Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center, 2009).
Whereas resource consumption and pollution derive from economic activity and thus the
accumulation of wealth, developed countries also have greater capacity to invest in
environmental amenities and mitigation strategies. Wealth correlates highly with EPI
scores, but at every level of development, some countries achieve results that exceed their
income-group peers. Further analysis of these peer group leaders suggest that good
governance contributes to environmental outcomes.

NORTON20
The importance of sustainability indicators is to determine the agreed upon
composition of sustainability principles.
BOX 1.2
Indicators of sustainable development
In order to pursue sustainability, it is important to measure it. A few examples of indicators proposed or
used by countries, international and other organizations are listed here:
* Genuine Savings (World Bank). Change in total wealth, accounting for resource depletion and
environmental damage.
* Genuine Progress Indicator (Redefining Progress, a nonprofit public policy organization), and
Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (United Kingdom and other countries). An adjusted GDP figure,
reflecting welfare losses from environmental and social factors.
* Living Planet Index (WWF). An assessment of the populations of animal species in forest, fresh-water,
and marine environments.
* Environmental Sustainability Index (World Economic Forum). An aggregate index spanning 22 major
factors that contribute to environmental sustainability.
* Ecological Footprint (Redefining Progress, WWF, and others). A measure of the land area re-quired to
produce, in renewable form, the energy consumed by individual countries.
• Resource Flows (World Resources Institute). Total material flows underpinning economic pro-
cesses.
v Environmental Pressure Indices (Netherlands, EU). A set of aggregate indices for specific environmental
pressures such as acidification or emissions of greenhouse gases.
• UN System of Environmental and Economic Accounts. A framework for environmental accounting.
• UN Commission for Sustainable Development Prototype sustainable development indicator sets
for individual countries.
Figure 4: Indicators of Sustainable Development. Source: The World Bank, 2001, p. 5.
Many sustainability assessments and indicator portfolios have been developed to
measure holistic sustainability outcomes at different scales as shown in Figure 4. What
are less clear are quantifiable effects of implementing sustainability objectives. One
study found, was the Sustainability Impacts survey conducted by the Institute for Supply
Management (Institute for Supply Management, 2008). “A majority of supply
professionals are already involved in sustainability initiatives. These initiatives are
having an important impact on policies, practices and supplier relationships”, as seen by
the implications of Irvine’s Zero Waste Resolution, Construction and Demolition
Ordinance, and the consideration of Plastic Bag and Styrofoam bans (Institute for Supply

NORTON21
Management, 2008, p. 2). The Institute for Supply Management survey is important to
mention because it addresses the challenges associated with the complex globalized
supply chains of transnational corporations and their products. It is difficult to effectuate
change and achieve sustainable resource management when components of our products
are the purview of other countries and their social and environmental policies. It is much
easier to ensure standards of health, safety, and welfare if products are produced and
consumed locally. This is why community sustainability actually reinforces the Tenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution where the authority of preserving and protecting the
safety, health, welfare, and morals of the community is conferred upon the states and
further delegated to their local subdivisions or jurisdictions (Legal Dictionary, 2009).
From the very foundation of the nation, states were given responsibility for setting the
standards and local jurisdictions held the responsibility to customize these standards into
local policies and implementation programs.
2.3 STATE SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES
The State of California has accepted this responsibility and taken incredible
leadership regarding climate change and sustainability policy. Starting in 2003, the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research included research and policy
recommendations into the General Plan Guidelines on how to address Sustainable
Development and Environmental Justice (Office of Planning and Research, 2007).
Despite the fact that the U.S. was one of the few countries to refrain from signing the
Kyoto Protocol, the state of California issued Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates that cities meet the greenhouse gas

NORTON22
(GHG) reduction goals (California Air Resources Board, 2006). CA has also passed
Senate Bill (SB) 97 adding GHG emission reductions pursuant of AB 32 to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines regulated by the State Air Resources
Board (Office of Planning and Research, 2007); SB 375 that links transportation,
housing, and land use planning with AB 32’s GHG reduction goals (State of California,
2008); AB 811, which provides funding mechanisms to make energy-efficient retrofits to
local residences and businesses (California Legislative Counsel, 2008); and AB 939,
which although passed in 1989, is being reviewed to develop recycling and waste
diversion targets through Integrated Waste Management Planning and special financing
schemes. The list seems to continue every year, as the State of California single-
handedly grapples with the incredible challenges prescribed in AB 32.
Assembly Bill (AB 32)
In 2006, California became the first state to adopt legislation that would, in essence,
meet the goals of the Kyoto Protocol. Assembly Bill 32, otherwise known as the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, devised a goal and strategy for achieving Greenhouse
Gas Emissions (GHG) reductions to a level pursuant with declarations made by the
International Panel on Climate Change. AB 32 requires that the State of California set
reporting and verification mechanisms to track the reduction of GHG emissions to 1990
levels statewide by 2020 (California Legislative Counsel, 2009). AB 32 requirements are
managed and regulated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) (Air Resources
Board, 2006). The legislation requires CARB to convene an Environmental Justice
Advisory Committee and an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory

NORTON23
Committee in the spirit of social and economic sustainability. AB 32 relies on
subsequent legislation and implementation programs to achieve its goals as a part of its
scoping plan and regulation (AB 32 Implementation Group, 2007). Some of the
programs include: the Million Solar Roofs program, Fuel Efficiency Standards,
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), AB-1470: Solar Hot Water Heater program, the
High Speed Rail system recently approved by the California voters, and the already strict
California Air Quality Standards.
Senate Bill (SB 97)
In order to meet the goals of AB 32, particular implementation legislation was
necessary. The two more significant bills are SB 97 and SB 375. Like the case of
Massachusetts v. EPA, SB 97 came out of a lawsuit by the State Attorney General Jerry
Brown against San Bernardino County for not addressing the impacts of GHG emissions
in their comprehensive land use planning update. In order to settle the case and release
the state’s budget from political stalemate the California Legislator passed SB 97 and it
was signed into legislation on August 24, 2007, which forces GHG quantification and
mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As such, the Office
of Planning and Research was delegated the task and is currently developing CEQA
Guideline amendments for GHG emissions (OPR, 2007).
Senate Bill (SB 375)
While AB 32, SB 97 and others are monumental forms of legislation and huge
steps to address anthropogenic impacts on climate by reducing GHG emissions, Senate

NORTON24
Bill 375 is unprecedented. SB 375 targets the single largest contributor to GHG
emissions in California - vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of passenger vehicles. The bill
attempts to reduce VMT by addressing how communities are designed (Office of the
Governor, 2008). The precedent was again made by the size and diversity of the
coalition involved in designing and supporting this legislation. The bill supports the
California Air Resources Board’s ability to reach the goals of AB 32 by directing it to
develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The 18 metropolitan
planning organizations of the state will be required to devise “sustainable community
strategies” (CSCs) to reduce the VMT of the region. The Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), the metropolitan planning organization for the area
is in the process of deciding whether to handle the region as a whole or to divide it up
into its 14 subregions that would then create their own individual CSCs into a
coordinated whole. Because SCAG incorporates roughly half the population of the state,
this planning effort shall prove monumental. This bill does also provide a way of
conceptualizing the actions and strategies necessary for reducing our impact on climate
change while moving toward more holistic policies for sustainability. SB 375 is a bridge
in considering the link between impacts on climate change and community and regional
sustainability planning.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Pursuant to Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) is in the process of developing CEQA guidelines “for the mitigation
of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.” OPR is required

NORTON25
to “prepare, develop, and transmit” the guidelines to the Resources Agency on or before
July 1, 2009. A draft open for public comment has already been created and made
available on the website. Now CARB must certify and adopt the guidelines on or before
January 1, 2010 (OPR, 2009).
CEQA, is the preeminent environmental policy regulation focusing on
environmental review of development projects. It requires developers to meet certain
quantified standards of environmental impact measures and mitigate these impacts
(Fulton, 1999). CEQA has a long history as the first in a line of state environmental
regulations. Adopted in 1970, it even became the model for the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), which has a similar structure for the national jurisdiction, although
CEQA has much more rigorous standards. CEQA’s history has been crucial for
establishing California’s environmental awareness and community engagement. What
CEQA doesn’t do is change the environmental values of a community. The CEQA
process ultimately reflects the tendency and priorities of the jurisdiction, its citizens,
government, staff, business and political interests, because it relies on citizens and local
government for oversight and review. Contest of CEQA findings and documentation is
addressed through public comment and litigation or the threat thereof.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is another component of the
General Plan development and amendment update processes. Because General Plan
amendments and revisions are subject to CEQA, these processes can incur significant
costs and controversy. Like the General Plan Guidelines, the OPR creates the CEQA
Guidelines, although the CEQA Guidelines are compulsory (Fulton, 1999). The
Guidelines for CEQA have expanded from about 10 pages in the early 1970’s to over 200

NORTON26
now, adding to the cost and time for preparation of environmental documentation and this
trend will likely continue with the inclusion of GHG emissions. As with the General
Plan, CEQA is used to inform the public of specific development projects and their
possible environmental impacts. It relies on litigation by citizens and public
organizations to ensure its accuracy and enforce mitigation strategies. The complexity of
the interaction between CEQA and the General Plan will also increase with the passage
of California SB 97 and SB 375. Although, the state requirements for sustainability
policy are increasing, there are cumulative benefits when multiple policies and integrated
holistic strategies are incorporated into the planning practices and portfolios of local
jurisdictions. The two basic ways to accomplish this, are to create a comprehensive
sustainability plan or integrate sustainability into the city’s existing policies, namely the
General Plan. Either approach should strive for the highest degree of inclusion and
collaboration both internally with staff and externally with the public. What the General
Plan provides is a concrete and enforceable structure and process.
As the guiding agency for the general plan process, the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research suggests a process that includes public participation throughout
the development and revision of the General Plan (Figure 5). There are certain mandated
requirements for informing the public when it comes to General Plan amendments and
revisions. In addition to the basic requirements, some jurisdictions are seeing the General
Plan revision process as an opportunity to educate the public about sustainability and
their City’s environmental programs by empowering their citizens to become active
community planners and decision-makers. This type of civic engagement has been

NORTON27
encouraged by OPR as a necessary component of sustainable development and
environmental justice.
Figure 5. Suggested CA General Plan Process. Source: Office of Planning &
Research, 2003.

NORTON28
CA General Plan Guidelines
As stated, California is expanding its environmental policies to address a more
holistic approach to planning. Not only is it taking responsibility for mitigating the
impacts of climate change, but it is also suggesting solutions to social economic and
environmental inequalities (OPR, 2007). The State of California General Plan Guidelines
revised in 2003 by OPR, created a whole new chapter on Sustainable Development and
Environmental Justice, because as it explains, “environmental justice issues are often
related to failures in land use planning” (pp. 20). The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines environmental justice as,
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. Environmental Justice is achieved when everyone enjoys the
same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and
equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment
in which to live, learn, and work (U.S. EPA, 2009).
The OPR’s General Plan Guidelines go on to describe how sustainability translates to
good planning in terms of livable communities and smart growth. It also defines
sustainability in terms of the three E’s: environment, economy, and equity, and refers to
the “triple bottom line.” Further suggestions by the OPR regarding ways to integrate
sustainability and environmental justice into the General Plan will be discussed later.
Although the State of California is beginning to show its leadership for addressing
sustainability, integration at the level of the General Plan has yet to become a common
practice, for reasons that will be explained in this report.

NORTON29
Other sections added to the 2003 version of the General Plan Guidelines
incorporated several changes from the previous 1998 version, including, but not limited
to:
• Guidance for addressing environmental justice
• Guidance on developing optional water and energy elements
• Expanded guidance on public participation in the development of the General
Plan
These changes are important to mention, because the City of Irvine’s last
comprehensive General Plan update was completed in 1999 and adopted in 2000, which
was prior to these changes in the State guideline. It would be wise to anticipate future
changes to the General Plan Guidelines that will come down from the Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research, which typically occurs at the end of each Governor’s term. It
is also important to anticipate how state laws passed since 2000 or 2003 will be translated
into local government planning with regards to sustainability and the General Plan,
including AB 32, SB 375, SB 97, AB 811, and AB 939.
2.4 GENERAL PLAN
The purpose of the General Plan is to enumerate policies regarding the physical
development of a community to guide land use and planning-related decisions (M. D.
Drousé, personal communication, January 27, 2009). General Plans have both
informational and procedural requirements (Waterman, 2004) and are divided into
sections called elements. Each element addresses development policy, which may
consist of goals, objectives, principles, policies, standards, and plan proposals (Office of

NORTON30
Planning & Research, 2003). In California, there are seven required elements for the
General Plan: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.
It is possible to group required elements of the General Plan together, for example
conservation and open space, which the City of Irvine has elected to do (City of Irvine,
2008).
The development of the General Plan over time has been an interesting process.
When it was first established the General Plan was seen as a visioning document (Selmi,
Kushner & Ziegler, 2008). It then became a blueprint document, originally called a
Master Plan, and was focused on zoning. In the 1950s, this focus on zoning characterized
the General Plan as guide for land use decisions. In the 1960s and 70s, the focus became
one of “remedy” as the General Plan was used to delineate redevelopment plans, funds
were determined, and public participation was included for the first time. Recently, the
General Plan is again being seen as a document and process for determining a City’s
Vision.
The General Plan is a unique document in that it represents the goals and values
of the City. General Plans have the following common characteristics (City of Irvine,
2008):
• The plan serves as a guide for growth and change
• The plan is comprehensive in its approach
• The document is long-range
• The plan is developed with public participation
• The plan is amendable

NORTON31
The General Plan reflects significant legislative action (Office of Planning and
Research, 2003). As the foundation for land use decisions and policy, it is subject to the
initiative and referendum processes and takes a resolution passed by the City Council to
adopt or amend it. Thus, General Plans must follow a specific public notice and hearing
process. As described by the Office of Planning and Research (2003), public
participation, intergovernmental review, and the California Environmental Quality Act
should be included in the determinations throughout the General Plan development,
amendment, and comprehensive revision process.
Implementation Tools
The General Plan is a focal point for much of the surrounding policies that local
jurisdictions use to govern, including but not limited to (City of Irvine, 2008):
Zoning Regulations
Specific Plans
Code Enforcement
Redevelopment
Subdivision Regulations
School/Park Dedication Requirements
School Dedication Requirements
Housing Regulations
Strategic Business Plan
Environmental Review
Design Review
Public Works Projects and Construction
Acquisition and Development of Parks
Development Agreements
Once a General Plan is adopted, consistency must remain reciprocal within the various
elements of the General Plan and between the General Plan as a whole and its
implementation tools (Feldstein, 2006). This issue of consistency forces jurisdictions to
keep current with General Plan amendments and comprehensive updates, despite the high

NORTON32
cost and time involved in the revision process. If a zoning ordinance is adopted and is
inconsistent with the city’s General Plan, the jurisdiction can be sued on the grounds of
inconsistency (Fisk, 2008). This also provides opportunities for creating policy that
might otherwise be difficult to enact (Feldstein, 2006). If in the General Plan a stated
goal is for the establishment of a principle of sustainability, it then becomes local policy.
Once adopted, all planning and development implementation tools, including zoning
ordinances and building codes, must be modified to meet the consistency requirements
with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.
Many of Irvine’s implementation tools for planning have begun the process of
addressing sustainability. This creates a particularly interesting scenario when it comes
to consistency. Most likely this is the more natural policy development scenario for
sustainability, since the majority of local jurisdictions have established some form of
environmental policy or sustainability program prior to tackling the more complex
General Plan process. In certain ways this seems backwards though as sustainability
goals and objectives will be decided after certain programs have been implemented and
functioning for quite some time. The benefits to this process is that much of the
foundation has been laid for identifying policy language and vision, gaps in programs and
indicators, and opportunities to develop more effective holistic systems of sustainable
community strategies, as suggested by SB 375. As the City of Irvine approaches its
General Plan update, it is important to review the process.
Amendment of the General Plan
The State of California permits and suggests periodic General Plan updates based
on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s General Plan Guidelines (Office of

NORTON33
Planning & Research, 2003). As far as a comprehensive General Plan update, which
touches on each section or element, jurisdictions are given relative autonomy to establish
their own schedule, with the exception of the Housing element, which must be updated
every five years. Of course, these decisions must be in accordance with the technical
and political dynamics of each city. As a matter of law, local jurisdictions are required to
promote public interest, comments, and understanding of the general plan, as shown in
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Requirements related to General Plan implementation. Source: Office of
Planning Research, 2003.

NORTON34
General Plans are routinely revised through established amendment processes,
including specific element amendments and comprehensive General Plan revisions. This
report has been commissioned in order to provide recommendations preceding and
regarding the City’s next comprehensive General Plan revision such that the completion
of this extensive process will reflect the sustainability goals and vision of the City of
Irvine’s strategic goals. According to the City of Irvine’s General Plan (2000), an
amendment may be initiated by private property owners, the City Council, the Planning
Commission or Director of Community Development. Each element of the General Plan
is limited by the City Council to six amendments per calendar year (City of Irvine, 2008).
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2003) must notify a city or
county that it has not updated its General Plan in eight years and the Attorney General is
notified if the city has not revised the plan after ten years. Because the City of Irvine is a
Charter City, a city which writes its own governing charter adopted by its elected body
and approved by the state rather than simply adopting the State Legislature’s general law
governing system, Irvine is able to establish its own General Plan amendment schedule
and format. Charter cities file the charters with the Secretary of State and are thus
recognized pursuant to Article 11 of the California State Constitution (State of California,
n.d.).
The State of California currently consists of 112 charter cities and 368 general
law cities (League of California Cities, 2008). In 1994, a particular case, the City of
Irvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment decided that charter cities of less than
2,000,000 population are exempt from State consistency requirements between the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, unless the charter city exercises this right by

NORTON35
establishing such a requirement expressly stated in its charter (Feldstein, 2006). Irvine
has elected to follow the consistency guidelines as prescribed by the State. General Plans
typically plan for the future with a perspective of 15-20 years and are expected by the
OPR to be comprehensively updated every 10 years (OPR, 2003).
Amendments and updates to the General Plan are legislative acts according to the
CA Government Code Section 54301.5 (Feldstein, 2006). This means that each case
must meet the requirements of Public Notice and Hearing, as well as being adopted by
the City’s Council or legislative body. This is why cities often elect to group
amendments together, because of the time and resources involved. A tremendous amount
of work goes into a comprehensive revision, usually conducted by an outside consultant
in collaboration with the city’s planning staff. Consequently, budgetary constraints are a
major factor when it comes to a comprehensive revision of the General Plan. The last
General Plan update process for the City of Irvine cost upwards of $1 million to complete
(B. Fisk, personal communication, January 13, 2009). The current economic conditions
have so far delayed the City Council’s desire to update the Irvine General Plan and
become a leader in addressing sustainability more comprehensively. Members of the
staff and the City Council are hopeful that the process will commence in fiscal year 2009-
2010 (B. Fisk, personal communication, January 13, 2009).
2.5 METHODS
It is necessary to describe the methods and procedures that were used to research
sustainability and the General Plan and to elucidate which information was critical in
determining the conclusions and recommendations presented. Sustainability builds on

NORTON36
the concept of integrating best practice approaches to solving diverse challenges across
disciplines. In order to achieve a holistic vision for sustainability, it is important to
gather information from a variety of policies and programs. Such case studies and
benchmarks will be analyzed based on their relevance to the City of Irvine, the expected
comprehensive update of the General Plan, and the City’s implementation programs. The
programs will be analyzed based on established sustainability indicators. Academic and
scholarly research will be used to ground the information in a foundation of planning
practice and theory. Pertinent legal analysis will be used to characterize and elucidate the
impacts of cases involving sustainability and General Plans. Lastly, interviews of the key
staff involved with advance planning, sustainability programs, and the community will be
included to build the appropriate context for this report as it pertains to the current
management and political environment at the City of Irvine. In addition to suggesting
more quantifiable solutions based on a matrix of best practices that demonstrates the
City’s strengths and weaknesses, this report will address the public and internal process
of integrating holistic sustainability into the General Plan and the implications for
effective implementation.
3.0 CITY SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING
In Europe, local sustainability initiatives were born out of Agenda 21 from the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Earth Summit in Rio,
1992. Because European cities embraced this accord, they immediately began to devise
policies for achieving sustainability goals and metrics. Countries like Finland and others
integrated sustainable development strategies throughout all levels of their government.

NORTON37
European nations and their local jurisdictions also gained a unique advantage by adopting
and conforming to the International Organization for Standardization’s (ISO)
management system standards (International Organization for Standardization, 2009).
Such choices allowed for standardization and thus broad dissemination of information,
organizational, and resource management processes.
On the contrary, cities in the U.S. have just begun to reach a critical mass for
developing and then sharing policy and programmatic best practices. Europe was able to
take advantage of and contribute to the sustainability standards, as the movement grew
out of international accords and conferences in the early 1990’s. Ironically, the driving
force for domestic sustainability policy has come from the attempt to mitigate and adapt
to climate change. When the U.S. pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, states and cities
realized that they were forced to take full responsibility for mitigating the threats of
climate change. In addition, American colleges and universities followed the U.S.
Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement with their own Presidents’ Climate
Commitment (American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, 2008),
wherein 637 colleges and universities have joined. A total of 935 Mayors (and counting)
from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, representing a total
population of over 83,504,990 citizens have signed the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection
Agreement committing themselves to developing Greenhouse Gas emissions reduction
plans and targets (The United States Conference of Mayors, 2008). In 2007, Mayor Beth
Krom signed onto the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement on behalf of the City
of Irvine.

NORTON38
3.1 CURRENT SUSTAINABILITY IN IRVINE
Irvine, like many other jurisdictions, has been quite successful in implementing
environmental programs. Irvine has championed broad environmental programs in the
region and stands as the leader in Orange County (See Appendix A). Many examples of
environmental policy exist, including the City of Irvine’s diverse environmental
programs, but how can such programs be expanded to address economic and social
issues.
The City of Irvine has led the way for many years regarding environmental
sustainability with programs like the Phased Open Space Dedication Program (B. Jacobs,
personal communication, November 7, 2008) and the Sustainable Landscaping
Guidelines (S. Thompson, personal communication October 27, 2008). It has continued
to develop its environmental programs across departments, including Community
Services, Public Works, Public Safety, the Orange County Great Park, and Community
Development (City of Irvine, 2008). The City of Irvine created its first Energy Plan in
1994, which focused on energy efficiency (S. Thompson, personal communication,
October 27, 2008). It was revised in 2002 as the Irvine Community Energy Plan and
again in 2008 as the City of Irvine Energy Plan. The City created and adopted its own
voluntary Green Building program for homes, apartments, and commercial buildings, as
well as designing a resource guide for residents (City of Irvine, 2007). There is also a
voluntary Green and Recycled Purchasing Policy, which promotes quality and
comparably priced environmentally friendly products for City employees (City of Irvine,
2006). The list continues with recycling and waste management programs. Irvine has a
citywide curbside recycling program, including composting all the City’s green waste

NORTON39
(Krout, 2008). In 2007, Irvine was at 56% waste diversion pursuant to Assembly Bill
(AB) 939. A zero-waste resolution was passed on July 10, 2007 and effective February
25, 2008; an ordinance requiring 75% diversion of construction and demolition materials
was passed (City of Irvine, 2007).
In transportation, the City has a multi-faceted approach from regional
transportation nodes to collaborations with UC Irvine. With two times the number of
jobs to housing, Irvine functions as the employment center for many surrounding
communities. Consequently, Irvine has focused on the Regional Transportation Center
(RTC) located between the Orange County Great Park (OCGP) and Barranca Parkway, in
the City of Irvine (C. Krout, memo, November 19, 2008). As an Amtrak and Metrolink
station for the statewide rail lines, the Regional Transportation Center also offers
connections to the Orange County Transportation Authority’s local bus services. The
City has established a shuttle that runs from the RTC to the Irvine Business Complex
(IBC), which employs more than 98,000 individuals through 4,200 businesses. The RTC
is offering zero emission electric vehicles to rent via the Internet, called ZEV-NET (zero
emissions vehicle network). The City is also working with UC Irvine and the National
Fuel Cell Research Center, in partnership with Toyota Motor Company to expand the
area’s Hydrogen fuelling station network and create a demonstration project at the
OCGP.
The City of Irvine has also developed synchronistic environmental programs that
cross departments. The City has designed several mixed-use and transit-oriented
development projects including the IBC and the OCGP’s Heritage Fields (C. Krout,
memo, November 19, 2008). There is a planned guide way system between the Great

NORTON40
Park and the Irvine Spectrum, a regional employment, residential, and community
services district. The City has even applied for a Caltrans planning grant to increase the
density of its future development and thus provide for alternative forms of transportation.
Regarding this report, programs can be integrated into the holistic vision for the
City of Irvine that can be incorporated in and communicated in the General Plan. As the
comprehensive planning document for the entire City, the General Plan offers unique
opportunities for content and process. Along these lines, the City of Irvine established a
“Green Ribbon Environment Committee” on August 4, 2008 comprised of seven
community members, staff, Planning Commission Douglas Sheldon, Councilmember
Krom, and Mayor Suhkee Kang. The purpose of the Committee is to enhance the city’s
collaboration with the community in reviewing and developing innovative environmental
and sustainability programs and policies. Many more environmental sustainability
programs and policies have been developed and adopted by the City, but it is important to
focus on the subject of this report, the General Plan.
4.0 THE COMPONENTS OF HOLISTIC SUSTAINABILITY
In order to transition from environmental sustainability into a more holistic vision,
it is necessary to review the principles of sustainability as the triple bottom line. The
concept of holistic sustainability automatically infers that there are distinct components,
but really such a dichotomy or distinction is oxymoronic, because by its very definition,
sustainability refers to the integration of previously separate systems. Traditional
development and planning of the past 50-100 years dealt with the social, economic, and
environmental systems in isolation, as land use was the main subject of the discipline.

NORTON41
Planning often occurred in a piecemeal manner through the application of zoning
ordinances. Instead, planning should take a more comprehensive approach realizing the
interdependence of economic and social systems within the surrounding natural and
political environment (Figure 7). To address any one of the three components of
sustainability individually is a reinforcement of the status quo, wherein social and
environmental costs are externalized in order to increase short-term economic returns.
With the advent of global climate change and other forms of widespread environmental
pollution, isolated market failures are multiplying, fast approaching the limits of the
earth’s carrying capacity (Friedman, 2008). Not only are there impacts on the natural
world, but the health of communities are suffering from the pollution-based economy.
Natural and social capital is being liquidated and transformed into commodities and
products for profit (Hawkens, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999). With growing economic
inequality, comes social and environmental injustice. Therefore, sustainability as a
dynamic, innovative, and strategic solution needs to be inherently holistic and address the
convergence of the triple bottom line.

NORTON42
Figure 7: Concentric Circles of Sustainability. Source: Sogesid, n.d.
Unfortunately, academia has continued to reinforce the notion that information is
contained in neatly divided Cartesian silos of thought (Lindell, 2007). Not to argue the
utility of such beliefs, but there is an equally constructive value in synthesizing patterns
into integrated and inclusionary systems, as suggested by the sustainability movement.
Even the notion of evolution ties into this discussion. As Ernst von Wiezsacker, the UC
Santa Barbara Dean at the School of Environmental Science and Management, (2008)
claims, evolution can be seen as the emergence of biological anomalies out of a sea of
diversity meeting the new and unexpected conditions of the future, rather than the
reduction of diversity through the traditional concept of survival of the fittest. Basically,
systems are strengthened through diversity as reflected by the planet’s ecosystems. The
economic value of an ecosystem is incalculable, because they provide the necessary

NORTON43
services for supporting life. The reduction in diversity of plant and animal species in a
particular area contributes to disease and a further loss of biodiversity. Extrapolating this
out to human systems, relates to the destruction caused by unilateral planning for
optimization of limited components or members of a system. Examples of this are seen
in industrial agriculture and monocultural farming, but also in economic policies that put
profit before people and/or the environment.
The multitudes of data and scientific conclusions all point to issues of social,
economic, and environmental collapse on a global scale, if governments and civil society
don’t come together to plan for a sustainable future (Diamond, 2005). In order to achieve
this goal, cities, communities, and nations must discover the intersections formed by the
triple bottom line (Figure 8 & 9).
Figure 8: The Three Spheres of Sustainability. Source: Vanderbilt University, 2007.

NORTON44
Figure 9: Pyramid of Sustainability. Source: Sogesid, n.d.
5.0 SUSTAINABILITY AND THE GENERAL PLAN
Although very few U.S. cities have devised strategies for integrating sustainability
into their General Plans, many cities have developed other forms of sustainability policy.
Some cities have various forms of comprehensive sustainability plans, including Culver
City, Sacramento, and Santa Monica. In addition to cities, are county sustainability
plans, which can be just as useful for comparing and gathering best practice information
and strategies. One such example is Marin County, which has developed a countywide
comprehensive sustainability plan.

NORTON45
5.1 PLANS VS. POLICIES
Many cities both internationally and domestically have comprehensive
sustainability policies. These policies differ on many levels, but in particular is the
distinction between hard law and soft law (DiMento, 2007). Hard laws are those that are
legally binding and enforceable by powers vested in government. Soft laws are
commitments between parties that are not legally binding or enforceable. “Almost all
court decisions hold that an adopted plan that is not required and made the ‘governing
law’ by state statute or local ordinance is ‘advisory’ only and not legally binding or
controlling with respect to a city’s zoning actions” (Selmi, Kushner & Ziegler, 2008, pp.
209). Often, soft law evolves into hard law by influencing the parties to prescribe
legislation. As such, many jurisdictions invest the energy, time, and resources into
sustainability plans and programs, which are only advisory in nature without then passing
legislation to implement these goals. Although the General Plan is a plan, the policy
prescriptions within must be reflected through consistency requirements with zoning
ordinances, building codes, etc. which are then hard law.
Although many sustainability plans are comprehensive and inclusive, unless they
are adopted by the legislative governing body of the area as an ordinance or state
designated general law, compliance with such plans is unenforceable. The Climate
Protection Action Plan (CPAP) created by the Environment Committee in conjunction
with residents of the City of Laguna Beach, CA provides a role model for developing an
inclusive and participatory planning process. Following the commitment made by then
Mayor Toni Iseman to the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, the City of

NORTON46
Laguna Beach’s Environment Committee proceeded to develop a comprehensive climate
protection plan. The process was an achievement of public participation including over
850 residents in a process of research and development that culminated with the Climate
Protection Action Plan. Although the plan itself plays an advisory role in its
recommendations it acknowledges the necessity to develop a new element for the City of
Laguna Beach’s General Plan in order to meet its objectives and implement the CPAP’s
recommendations (Citizens and the Environmental Committee of Laguna Beach, 2008).
The CPAP was completed in April 2008 and by the Planning Commission’s January 28th
,
2008 meeting, residents had been working with the Commission to include sustainability
language, goals and objectives into an amendment of the land use element of the City’s
General Plan (City of Laguna Beach, 2008). This is exactly how soft law plans and
programs become hard law policies.
In California, Union City, (pop. 69,176) has developed an Environmental
Sustainability Element, which by title doesn’t address the triple-bottom line; Berkeley
(pop. 100,744) has developed an Environmental Management Element; and San
Francisco (pop. 739,426) calls theirs an Environmental Protection Element. The
California cities of Chico (pop. 71,427) and Pinole (pop. 19,061), are both currently
constructing a Sustainability Element. In Orange County, many of the 19 cities that
responded to a survey on environmental and sustainability programs reported having
integrated or in the process of integrating sustainability, to some extent, in their General
Plans. So far, Huntington Beach is the only city in Orange County that has begun the
process of developing a sustainability element. Several other cities reported having a
sustainability charter instead of integrating sustainability into their General Plans.

NORTON47
5.2 IRVINE’S GENERAL PLAN
Irvine has already made sustainability an integral part of its vision as of the 2000
General Plan: “The creation of a livable and viable and visually attractive community
through skilled planning and sustainable development as outlined in this General Plan”
(City of Irvine, 2000, pp. 1). There are many sections in Irvine’s current General Plan
that include sustainability language. Besides the vision of the City, the first sections on
what is a General Plan and the role of the General Plan describe important aspects of
sustainability. The first is brief; it states that a General Plan is a community relation to
the region (City of Irvine, 2003). The second section is a bit more in-depth; it lays out
the role of the General Plan. The General Plan is comprehensive, long-range
development and preservation policies, relation between social, financial, environmental,
and physical characteristics of the City. Residents, business-owners, City officials, and
all those interested in the direction of the City are the intended users of the General Plan,
because it reflects the community’s values.
The History of the General Plan section touches on a topic of cultural importance
when it mentions that Native Americans first populated the area. Native Americans are
again mentioned in the Cultural Resources element. Although archeological
investigations show them arriving about 9,000 years ago, there is no mention of who they
were, what tribe(s), and or their current relationship with the City and community.
The City of Irvine’s General Plan is divided into 13 elements, seven required by
state law and six optional elements. The optional elements include: cultural resources,
public facilities & services, integrated waste management, energy, parks & recreation,
and growth management. Interestingly enough, all of these optional elements could be

NORTON48
considered aspects of sustainability planning. To include a separate sustainability
element at this point could be considered redundant and even unnecessary, but since the
City has consistently lead the way for innovation, a combination strategy may be most
effective. Although it is beyond the scope of this report to identify the totality of
sustainability examples within the General Plan, it is important to mention some
highlights.
Analysis of the Elements
The land use element is generally the most prominent and often controversial
element of the General Plan, because it specifically addresses the boundaries between
public and private uses of land resting on the city’s use of the police powers to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of the public or community over private interest (Selmi,
Kushner & Ziegler, 2008). At the City of Irvine, the goal of the Land use element is to
ensure “Quality of life” (QoL). This expression is placed in quotations, because its
definition is highly subjective. Although the concepts are very similar, QoL indicators
tend toward more explicit incorporation of public health concerns. In the sustainability
literature, health is often addressed as it pertains to one of the three E’s, like community
health or environmental impacts on health. So, in a way the City of Irvine’s current land
use goal can be readily incorporated into the vision of sustainability, but would be served
from a more quantifiable or objective goal (see Sustainability Indicators).
In reviewing the City’s General Plan it can be useful to consistently take a step
back from the actual script and again identify patterns and gaps. The first objective of the
land use element is called City Identity, and although this could be construed as

NORTON49
superficial in its coverage, the description of the objective is to “preserve and strengthen
Irvine’s identity as a diverse and innovative community” (City of Irvine, 2003, p. A-10).
In many ways diversity and innovation are the hallmarks of sustainability. Policy (f)
under Objective A-1 goes on to “promote sustainable development through energy and
water conservation, reduced reliance on nonrenewable resources, and the use of native
trees, shrubs, and grasses with low maintenance costs” (City of Irvine, 2000, p. A-10).
Granted this still focuses on the more physical or environmental aspect of sustainability,
but these are important aspects of mitigating climate change through energy and water
efficiency measures. Land use Objective A-2, Economic Development does incorporate
social parameters through Policy (g): “Promote Irvine as a city of choice for business
through development of... affordable housing opportunities for Irvine employees” (p. A-
12). Objective A-3 addresses open space areas and describes the Open Space Phased
Dedication program in detail in a sidebar; and Objective A-4 focuses on balanced land
uses. There are many more positive examples of where the current 2000 General Plan’s
land use element has already incorporated significant sustainability principles.
Two elements that still have more opportunity for improvement or inclusion of
the sustainability vision are the Circulation and Public Facilities & Services elements.
The goal of the Circulation element is to provide a balanced transportation system, but
there is no mention of sustainability and roadways receive the significant majority of
attention. Of course, in the current system of development this is understandable because
of the U.S. historical over reliance on personal automobiles for transportation. Under the
two objectives dealing with Roadway Development and Roadway Design there are 18
and 19 policies, respectively. Pedestrian Circulation received only three policies, Bicycle

NORTON50
Circulation – 11, Riding and Hiking Trail Networks – 8, Public Transit Program – 11,
and Air Transportation and Telecommunications Programs both received 6 policies.
What the element does mention in the Public Transit System section under Existing
Conditions is that “opportunities exist to expand Irvine’s public transportation system”
(p. B-3).
As for the Public Facilities and Services element, there is no mention of what are
fast becoming urban trends and that is organic farms and gardens. The element lists a
plethora of public facilities and services, but fails to address the most basic requirement
for sustaining life – food. It is fascinating how this seems like a radical notion in the
world of planning, but local, organic, sustainable food policy is fast becoming a major
issue of our times (Pollan, 2008). As noted across the national media, The First Lady,
Michelle Obama made news this week with the planting of an organic garden at the
White House. Another timely discovery pertinent to the next General Plan revision is
that the Community Facilities and Services Element Needs Assessment on Service
Programs, which was last conducted back in 1991 (p. G-2). Certainly, the needs of the
community have changed and shifted over this time period, especially since the current
General Plan was developed with growth management and the impending buildout of the
City. Another compelling aspect of this element is mentioned in Objective G-1: Public
Facilities Development described as an opportunity for collaborations. Undoubtedly,
public-private collaborations and public-institutional collaborations are a priority for the
City of Irvine, since that objective contained 24 different policies, which is great for
sustainable development.

NORTON51
The Cultural Resources element is a unique item in terms of sustainability. The
City of Irvine prides itself on its multiculturalism and diversity. What this element
focuses on is more of the physical artifacts of past historical, archeological, and
paleontological significance. Although it is important to research and identify heritage
sites and ensure historical preservation of these landmarks, there is even more
opportunity to expand this element and thus make a connection to current populations of
cultural resources. Specifically, there are the unique and valuable histories of the Native
American tribes and societies that once roamed this great continent and the Hispanic
relationship with the area and the state of California that used to be an extension of the
Mexican territory.
There is much to learn from both of these cultures and it would be a shame to
ignore not only their connection to the area, but also their connection to the land that
supported ancient cultures of sustainability. As the City moves forward with addressing
the social aspects of sustainable development there is an opportunity to engage in these
predominantly marginalized populations providing for a strengthening of knowledge and
understanding of the local environment through culture appreciation and understanding.
The Integrated Waste Management element has a current goal of “encouraging
solid waste reduction and provide for efficient recycling and disposal of reuse and solid
waste material without deteriorating the environment” (p. H-1). Although this is
commendable and in-line with AB 939, the City can go a huge step further in completely
eliminating the concept of waste as McDonough and Braungart (2002) explain in their
book, Cradle to Cradle. As mentioned, with an overall diversion rate of 56%, a 75%
construction and demolition waste ordinance, a city green waste and resident education

NORTON52
composting program, and a citywide traditional recycling program, Irvine is well on its
way to transforming waste into raw materials. What are left are smaller policy decisions
that have been successfully adopted in other cities including citywide bans on plastic
bags and Styrofoam and commercial green building policies. There is also a connection
to the water issue as Objective H-3 deals with Waste Water.
Many other examples of sustainability language and policy objectives are listed in
the four remaining elements. Of course, the Energy element is an important part of
reducing environmental impacts in terms of air pollution and GHG emissions. It also
provides motivation for better modes of alternative transportation and local community
services such as food and water systems. These two life-sustaining essentials are also
prominent in the Parks & Recreation and Conservation & Open Space elements. Parks
are natural providers of community services for recreation, but they can also serve as
educational environments for valuable sustainability lessons as well as providing
community food and water security. Again, the Conservation & Open Space element has
several objectives that address not only biotic resources but permanent agriculture and
water. Lastly, the Growth Management element, a product of Measure M, is greatly
inline with the goals of SB 375. This element even gets into the discussion of regional
coordination with surrounding jurisdictions regarding interjurisdictional land use and
transportation planning. The Growth Management element specifically addresses
integrating land use and transportation planning as well as reducing VMT’s (Objective
M-1 & M-2). Because the City of Irvine’s General Plan contains so many already
established components of the sustainability agenda, it is useful to focus on the remaining
deficiencies.

NORTON53
6.0 THE PROCESS IS IMPORTANT
Larger questions revolve around sustainability that transcend previous
environmental movements. The environmental movement’s issues, policies, and
regulations focus on physical planning issues and their relation to biological and
ecosystems; whereas sustainability, by definition, seeks to answer questions that go
beyond environmental health. Mitigations to limit environmental degradation by point-
source pollution do not address the larger impacts of climate change and issues of
environmental justice. Greening a city does not inherently address socioeconomic
inequalities. As Jim MacNeil, Secretary General for the U.N. World Commission on
Environment and Development notes, “If we change the way we make decisions, we will
change the decisions we make” (cited in Krizek and Power, 1996).
The role of planning, public administration, and public management are shifting
or maybe constantly evolving. Traditional forms of public administration founded during
the Woodrow Wilson administration have since transformed. As will be described,
inclusive management styles are succeeding to engage the public in grassroots
democratic governance. Through such collaborations and cooperative planning
exercises, the community can come together to inspire each other to create new and
innovative holistic sustainability programs and establish the necessary coalitions to
achieve implementation results. It is easy for a planning department to become
overwhelmed with responsibilities as the workload of an increasingly complex regulatory
and urban environment weighs in, although City staff have the opportunity to increase
capacity by reaching out to the public and engaging stakeholders not yet involved in the
planning process. Through such cooperative exercises, resources and opportunities may

NORTON54
be identified and incorporated that would have otherwise been lost. Planning is
struggling with its lack of diversity in the field and academic departments (American
Planning Association, 2001), but it is the very diversity of experience and perspective
that strengthens a community and provides innovative solutions to challenging systemic
issues.
As the sustainability movement grows, it must incorporate the voices of the
vulnerable and marginalized communities and individuals of the previous grey economy.
Previously thriving industrial centers of our large cities are now bombed-out shelters for
the poor underclass, the unwanted. The American Institute of Certified Planners Code of
Ehtics and Professional Conduct (2009) states, “(planners) shall seek social justice by
working to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special
responsibility to plan for the needs off the disadvantaged and to promote racial and
economic integration” (p. 2). The purpose of this discussion is that as cities continue to
“green” themselves, they must recognize the needs of the vulnerable and marginalized.
As the U.S. has transitioned from a manufacturing and industrialized powerhouse to a
economy of service workers, the blue-collar jobs that created the middle-class have all
but disappeared. Many individuals and families in the new service and construction
industries find it financially prohibitive to afford housing in Orange County (Figure 10 &
11).

NORTON55
Figure 10: Market Rent in Orange County. Source: Orange County Community
Indicators, 2009.
Figure 11: Hourly wage discrepancy in Orange County, CA. Source: Orange County
Community Indicators, 2009.

NORTON56
6.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Do General Plans necessarily facilitate democratic processes involving public
participation, or do they function better as technical documents developed by staff and
experts with specific planning expertise (Selmi, Kushner & Ziegler, p. 202)? Traditional
models of public participation, including the famous Ladders of Public Participation
espoused by Arnstein (1969) reflect a confrontational orientation. However, public
participation provides an opportunity to develop relationships and thus create responsive
structures for current and future problem solving (Feldman & Quick, 2007). Changing
from an “us vs. them” orientation to an inclusive “us for the solution” framework can
produce new actions and new resources (Figure 12). According to Sanoff (2000), “The
concept of community participation is based on the principle that the environment works
best if the people affected by its changes are actively involved in its creation and
management instead of being treated as passive consumers” (as cited in Passon et al.,
2008). One of the biggest challenges of ensuring proper public participation is being able
to identify stakeholders, their roles, and then achieve their active involvement (Bryson,
2004). As the Bruntland definition of sustainability suggests, cities should be planning
for the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Unsustainable planning
ensures, on the other hand, that the youth of today will inherent a much more degraded
and inopportune situation based on the greed and mismanagement by present decision-
makers and power structures. One way to possibly address this issue is to involve youth
in the planning process.

NORTON57
Figure 12: Actions, Resources, and Frameworks. Source: Feldman and Quick, 2007.
Youth and Planning
According to Piaget (1967) and Donnelly (1980), youth development is dependent
on relationships and interactions with the world around them (as cited in Passon et al.,
2008). Bechtel (1997) also explains how communication and contact with other people is
very important to the socialization of adolescents (as cited in Passon et al., 2008). The
knowledge that students receive in school regarding American government is usually not
relevant to their everyday lives. They cannot relate to it nor do they understand how they
can become active citizens before they reach the voting age (Passon et al., 2008). As
students of the Irvine Unified School District learn about sustainability through their

NORTON58
campus programs, they begin to engage in the understanding of these larger processes.
What is missing is the opportunity for students to continue this education as they build on
these experiences. Children and youth are the inheritors of the world that is planned.
They have the right, according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (CRC), to decisions that will affect their well-being (Auriat et al., 2001).
What is important to youth is having the ability to be mobile and independent.
Compact, new urbanist, and transit-oriented design can help to strengthen social
integration and increase freedom of movement (Passon et al., 2008). Youth appreciate
their environments, including the elements of safety and access to green areas. Too much
urban growth is perceived as destroying the natural areas they value, increasing traffic
and school crowding problems, and reducing safety. Youth are challenged by suburban
development, because it doesn’t allow for mobility. The biggest complaint of youth is
boredom. Youth complain about sitting idle and not feeling involved as much as their
parents, while being rejected from common social spaces. They want places where they
can congregate and socialize. Safe spaces where they are able to meet up with their
friends and engage in meaningful activities. Passon et al. (2008) recommends creating an
identifiable town center that is easily accessible by alternative means of transportation.
The town center should host regular activities and events to draw people, such as music
concerts, cultural festivals, and farmer’s markets. Often times such events are geared
toward adults or children and don’t provide opportunities for adolescents to participate.
As Machemer, Bruch, and Kuipers (2008) purport, children are a disadvantaged
group of individuals that are highly affected by planning decisions and thus have a right
to participate in the planning process. They reinforce this point by mentioning the United

NORTON59
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Earth Summit. The authors argue
for the involvement of youth and children in the planning process by acknowledging that
youth were found to exhibit more creativity, curiosity, enthusiasm, and concern for
community and environmental well being than adults (Frank, as cited in Machemer,
Bruch, & Kuipers, 2008). They suggest that while children have traditionally been
excluded from planning and design, the recognition of children as both current and future
citizens amid calls for participatory planning has led to the evolving practice of children
participating in environmental and urban planning. Children have the right to participate
and the skills to effectively contribute to the planning process. This point is further
supported by the National League of Cities (2008), which created the Action Kit on
Creating a Youth Master Plan.
Children demonstrate their capability of handling sophisticated and adult
situations as many of them act as translators for their parents or family members who are
foreign language speakers. According to Passon, Levi & del Rio (2008), adolescents
want to explore, learn, and experience their environments. They want to engage in civic
life. The idea of youth participation in the planning process can even go one step further.
Because of the relationship with Irvine Unified School District, University of California
Irvine, Irvine Valley College, and other schools, there is a direct channel for active
participation. In addition to involving students and youth in the planning process, they
can be included in the formal development of the comprehensive General Plan update
process, perhaps going so far as to develop a youth element. The decision to include
youth not only provides them opportunities for engagement, but also increases their

NORTON60
awareness and practical understanding of sustainability while giving them experience
with policy development and implementation programs.
6.2 DEMOCRACY AND PLANNING
“Since land use planning and General Plans are similar to the national economic
or centralized planning of communism, socialism, and other systems of governance, is it
the inclusion of public participation that legitimizes the process as something
democratic” (Selm, Kushner & Ziegler, pp. 200). One of the key avenues for addressing
social sustainability providing opportunities in the decision-making process and
collective bargaining with other local interests is through active citizen participation in
governance (Selm, Kushner & Ziegler, p. 199). When the city of Grand Rapids,
Michigan decided to update its General Plan in 2002, it decided to create an inclusive
planning experience for the community. Events were held where community members
were able to meet in groups to brainstorm and discuss options for how to
comprehensively revise the City’s General Plan. Instead of limiting the experience to the
planning department, the City decided to have staff from several different departments
available so that when a question or concern relating to a different department was raised,
there was someone on hand to facilitate the discussion. What they found was that many
of the citizens concerns in fact fell outside of the purview of the planning department, but
were valid concerns or issues to address. This process developed what they called a
Community-oriented development system, which allowed for an even broader
engagement by the citizens to support the City regarding non-planning sustainability
issues (Feldman & Quick, 2007).

NORTON61
Cities often fear getting citizens involved in the planning and decision-making
process, but the alternative may even be worse, costing more time, resources, and money.
Citizens will not only challenge a policy outcome, but also a policy design that
undermines their right to democratic participation and active citizenship (Baer, M. in
Whiteley, Ingram, & Perry, 2008). For the City of Irvine, the experience during the last
General Plan update should recall the ability of one interest group’s ability to forestall
progress.
6.3 INCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT
Under the American Institute of Certified Planners (2009) Code of Ethics and
Professional Conduct, planners subscribe to a statement of aspirational principles that
they shall all strive to fulfill and act in accordance. The first section of the aspirational
principles is titled “Our Overall Responsibility to the Public”. Inclusive management
incorporates two broad premises: bringing different perspectives together, and the fact
that informed deliberative processes are fundamental to democracy (Feldman &
Khademian, 2007). According to Feldman and Khademian (2007) three fundamental
perspectives are the political, scientific or technical, and the local or experience-based.
Although planners and city officials often bring scientific or technical knowledge to the
table, they may lack certain elements of the local experience or the understanding of
certain political dynamics within the community. Policymaking is regarded as more
objective when experts or consultants play a significant role in the creation and
implementation of policy. Often times rationality is the dominant value that guides plans
and policy (Schneider and Ingram, 1997). From this perspective, scientists, professional,

NORTON62
and academics emerge as the appropriate experts to be consulted in policymaking, while
local citizen input and knowledge are often viewed as unnecessary.
Feldman & Khademian (2007) found that participation forms and is effective in
communities where both informational and relational processes. These communities of
participation are always created, but there is a choice about how inclusive they will be.
The tension between professional expertise and democratic governance is exacerbated
when “policy communities” gain influence over issues that affect the public (Schneider
and Ingram, 1997). This is often the case when a planning department works internally
to create solutions by hiring the expertise of a consultant, rather than inviting and
incorporating the public or experiential knowledge of the public. “Policy communities
have reputations for being knowledgeable, prestigious, and best suited to formulate
policy that deals with complex social problems. By essentially placing themselves
between politicians and the public, policy communities can allow politicians to avoid
blame or responsibility for policy outcomes. The policy community can insulate itself
from scrutiny by emphasizing the technical aspects of policy that the general public does
not understand” (Baer, M. in Whiteley, Ingram & Perry, 2008).
Information that is too technical, scientific or that is presented in an overly
professional manner can discourage citizens from participating in the process (Baer, M.
in Whiteley, Ingram, & Perry, 2008). Planners or academics can send the message that
local knowledge and perspective is unwanted. Ensuring inclusive policy design and
implementation can ameliorate challenges by stakeholders and their beliefs. Plus the
social and human capital of the community is strengthened and increased. If government
and city staff want their work to be useful to the public, their constituents, then they need

NORTON63
to frame the issues in a way that reaches all stakeholders (Bess, 1994). Academic
writing, research, reports, and policies must target a public audience in order to be
meaningful. The information will be considered irrelevant and can provoke retribution,
unless it addresses the needs of the public and accommodates the social and political
issues of the particular jurisdiction. Empowered communities can move from the process
that they were involved to assist in other planning objectives, such as implementation
tools and other programs including a revision of the Zoning Ordinance, the annual City
budget or other such resource intensive processes. It is these implementation programs
that translate the General Plan’s goals, objectives, and policies into actions.
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
There are competing options to determine what form of sustainability policy is
ultimately the best for a given community. Several things are clear regarding
sustainability in general. In order to achieve the greatest efficacy, sustainability policies
should incorporate:
• A holistic approach,
• A dynamic process,
• A multifaceted understanding or perspective,
• Inclusive participation, and
• A comprehensive integration of possibilities
As Moore (1995) suggests, public management is a normative as well as technical
enterprise. Public policy, as well as planning, seeks to create a vision or desire for the
future. At the City of Irvine, this vision has centered on the notion of “Quality of Life” as

Professional Report - Master's Thesis

Professional Report - Master's Thesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Professional Report - Master's Thesis

Similar to Professional Report - Master's Thesis (20)

More from Montgomery Norton

More from Montgomery Norton (17)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Professional Report - Master's Thesis