Environment - Sierra Club Questionnaire

2009 Seattle City Council Questionnaire

Leadership and the Environment
The Sierra Club is America's oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization, with approximately 700,000 members nationwide, 32,000 in Washington

State. We work to elect candidates who will lead the fight to protect our communities and the environment.
Candidates supported by the Sierra Club include those who champion protecting our clean air, water, and wild places; speak out against environmentally

destructive measures; and work to protect our natural heritage.

1. In a brief personal statement, please respond to the following questions:
a) What is your greatest environmental accomplishment?
b) What environmental issues are your top priorities?
c) On what environmental issues will Seattle lead other West Coast cities, under your tenure? How will you advocate and achieve that goal?
d) How have you publicly engaged on these issues?
e) Where does environmental protection rank in relation to your other City Council priorities?

I have been working on both local and global environmental issues for many years – and it continues to be one of my top priorities. We need to dramatically

increase our focus on creating an environmentally sustainable society – especially in the United States. This includes significant reductions in miles traveled

by car, industrial regulations, and changing personal consumption habits. To date, I have been focused on two areas: reforestation and education. I have worked

to inspire countless youth and adults to get involved with planting trees. My single largest accomplishment is working with several cities around the US to

mobilize youth to engage in tree planting as a part of Global Youth Service Day. Also, I have led a national team of teachers that has empowered over 2,000

young adults since 2008 to become strong leaders in their community. Graduates have taken up reforestation projects in Haiti, local campaigns to plant trees,

and all were educated on the environmental, health, and social benefits of eating a vegetarian diet.

In Seattle – my top environmental priorities are: improving alternative transportation (cycling, walking, and transit), expanding industrial regulations for

energy efficiency and harmful output, and educating the public on the impact of personal consumption habits. Under my tenure, Seattle will lead other West Coast

cities in public transportation, green buildings and waste management, and consumption habits. I will work closely with local environmental groups, businesses,

and local government to best understand the opportunities and solutions and I will work to create legislation and other initiatives to drive environmental

leadership across the region. I will focus on developing clear studies that show the economic, environmental and health benefits to each initiative so we can

gain the support of all stakeholders. To date, I have primarily engaged on these issues on an individual level. However, environmental protection ranks in my

top three City Council priorities – all of which are related. I am focused on our environment, our youth, and our economy. We need to increase our investments

in each of these areas to ensure the long term prosperity of Seattle.

2. Have your positions ever differed from those of the Sierra Club? If so, please explain.
Seattle is Washington’s largest population center, biggest tax revenue generator and the progressive epicenter of Washington. Our city needs a voice to match

this prominence that will be heeded in Olympia and heard across the West Coast.

My positions have been in line with those of the Sierra Club as far as I know. I have always been focused on the environment from the time I was a Boy Scout –

having enjoyed countless days in the wilderness both here in the US and around the world. It is our responsibility to protect the planet, and I am committed to

championing environmental protection for decades to come at local, national, and global levels.

3. As a City Council Member, how will you re-establish the City of Seattle’s presence in and value to the decisions of government bodies such as the Washington

Legislature, the Governorship and the Port?

As a City Council Member, I will recognize the interdependence of multiple stakeholders in driving environmental protection and work to ensure the City of

Seattle is well represented in leading the State’s environmental roadmap. To do this, I will research the current decision making procedures and understand the

various lobbyists, business interests, and community interests. I will work with the Mayor to ensure the City of Seattle has a strong representative in each

government body. Again – we need to make this a priority and take responsibility not just for our city, but for the entire region.

Transportation
The transportation decisions being made now will affect the shape of our region for decades into the future. Our previous excessive investment in capacity for

single occupancy vehicles has caused sprawl, loss of natural places, increased air and water pollution, and released CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that change

the climate, acidify the ocean and alter ecosystems. New research demonstrates that auto-dependent landscapes are also correlated with poor health. Furthermore,

cars are an inefficient way to move people and goods, as evidenced by the traffic jams surrounding Puget Sound. If Seattle is to lead the state toward an 80%

reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 we must drastically reduce our reliance on single-occupancy vehicle transportation. Sierra Club, therefore, supports

implementing a number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction strategies, including increased gasoline taxes, directly taxing VMT, weight-based vehicle fees,

and taxes on long-term commuter parking.

1. Will you press Olympia, WSDOT and other entities to analyze greenhouse gas impacts in all major transportation investments? Will you support only those major

transportation investments in Seattle that reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Yes – I will press Olympia, WSDOT and other entities to analyze greenhouse gas impacts on all major transportation investments and I will support those major

transportation investments in Seattle that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have to shift our investment dollar priority away from improved and expanded

roadways if we are going to realize a public transportation system that moves a significant percent of the population. We know there is elasticity of demand in

people’s choice to drive a car – as seen when gas prices have gone up and when there have been major closures on I-5. People find other means. To make the

changes required fast enough – it will take both penalties (taxes and fees related to driving) and incentives (improved public transportation, bicycle and

walking options, etc) for people to take alternative means of transportation.

2. Reducing single occupancy VMT is one of the best ways we can reduce our transportation related problems. What are your ideas for reducing VMT?

First, I will work change our investment priorities from roads to public transit, bicycle, and walking options. With the budget cuts that need to be made – I

will work to find funding sources from outside the city to ensure the current plans continue. I will also work to shift funds away from roads and also push for

increased revenue from tolls, gas taxes, parking taxes, etc in order to pass the real cost of driving onto those driving cars. Education needs to be a part of

this as well so that the public understands the real impact of driving and they can quantify the benefits of choosing to bus/bike to work.

3. Are you willing to remove parking on major arterials to accommodate Bicycle Right of Way (BRT) lanes? Why or why not?

As an avid cyclist, I understand the need for BRT lanes and will support the expansion of dedicated lanes on major arterials. This improves safety which will

encourage people to commute via bicycle – thus reducing greenhouse gases. I am willing to remove parking on major arterials to accomplish this, and I recognize

the need to coordinate with neighborhood planning, SDOT, and other groups to select the roads that provide the best ROI.

4. In Seattle, peak hour busses are standing room only and irregular, light rail service is limited and major arteries are clogged with SOV’s. How will you

address the stretched transit system that Seattle residents face daily? Please discuss your vision, including specific policies such as bus rapid-transit and

congestion pricing. How will you realize this vision?

Today, it takes me twice as long to commute by bus or bike than it takes to drive. My vision to address the Seattle public transportation problem is to ensure

that it takes approximately the same time to commute via public transportation. To do this, I will work with King County to increase the number of buses on each

route and to increase the speed of the lines with improved payment systems. Also, I will work to prioritize funding for the expansion of light rail and ensure

the line has priority at intersections so that speed can be prioritized. I would like to partner with the Sierra Club and other organizations on this to

understand their experience and expertise.

Planning to replace the Highway 520 Bridge is underway. Sierra Club supports a solution that expands transit service across Lake Washington and into surrounding

areas while protecting adjacent natural areas & neighborhoods. We strongly support variable tolling to reduce congestion and pollution, pay for transit, and

reduce VMT. In order to adequately address environmental concerns, the final bridge replacement proposal must:
a) Protect the Arboretum (e.g. no interchanges that dumps traffic through the Arboretum)
b) Make transit service integral to the bridge design
c) Transit operation throughout the day, not just at peak commute periods
d) Toll both SR 520 and I-90 using variable toll schedules. Revenue above the lowest base toll rate should be used for transit.
e) Include transit capital investments and operating expenses in the proposal
f) Design new 520 facilities for ease of conversion to integrated light rail operations in the future
g) Be mindful of salmon runs in any construction near water especially around the Ship Canal.
h) Design for the movement of people and goods, not increased vehicle capacity

1. Do you support Sierra Club’s goals on 520 reconstruction? If not, how do you differ?

Yes – I support the Sierra Club’s goals on 520 reconstruction. All of the environmental impacts need to be considered and accounted for with any large

transportation investment. I would perhaps add the requirement for a bicycle lane across 520 as well as there it is a more convenient bridge for commuters than

I-90. This is mentioned in the Bicycle Master Plan as well.

2. Should the 520 replacement bridge accommodate high capacity transit (light rail or bus rapid transit) from day 1?

Yes – this will allow a connection from Bellevue downtown to Seattle downtown. The light rail will be extended from downtown to the University District and will

need to also connect to Bellevue to prevent people from commuting via car. Until the light rail is complete, a bus rapid transit system can provide a benefit to

commuters and reduce SOV use.

3. How should increased transit be funded? How can we best protect transit funding when transportation funds are going into the Viaduct’s Deep Bore Tunnel?

Increased transit should be funded from a variety of sources.
1) Prioritize funds for public transit over expensive road improvements
a. While it may be too late to change course on the Viaduct Deep Bore Tunnel, there are other projects like 520 and the Mercer Street Mess that we can ensure

prioritize public transit. Also, I will work with the State DOT to ensure budget overages for completion of the project do not come from local transportation

funds.
2) Increase taxes on gas, long term parking, and introduce tolls to encourage alternative transportation and increase revenue for developing public

transportation
3) Stimulate small business growth in Seattle to put people back to work so that overall tax revenues stabilize. To do this, I plan to work with business

leaders and the city to improve taxation and permitting processes for small business.

4. Of the current west-side mediation options (A, K & L) which do you view as the best way forward? Why?

The K mediation option presents the best way forward for the west-side. It is more affordable than option A ($4 billion vs. $6 billion) and it prioritizes

protection for the Arboretum and transit. However, there is a request to redesign the “keyhole” design for LWB to the Arboretum to minimize impacts to the

Arboretum and I agree with that. This is an opportunity for Seattle to advocate for our environment.

5. WA Legislature has required the City to weigh in on 520 plans. As a City Council
Member, how will you influence the planning & approval process?

As a City Council Member, I will serve on the Transportation committee and coordinate a City representation at all talks and decisions regarding 520. I will

work with the neighborhoods, chamber of commerce, Mayor’s office, and other stakeholders within Seattle to ensure we are driving a consistent agenda when

interacting with regional and state stakeholders. I will be sure that the environmental impact of all options is prioritized and I will work to provide the

appropriate analysis and data that can be considered before approving the 520 plans.


The City of Seattle, the WA State Dept. of Transportation and the Business / Civic
Stakeholder Committee have worked to find a viable replacement for the Alaskan Way
Viaduct and identify necessary re-designs to the adjacent street grid. However, the State is moving forward with the Bored Tunnel option. Billions of dollars in

critical funds may be spent on untested technology to promote single-occupant vehicle transport in a time of recession, state budget crisis and global climate

disruption. Sierra Club considers it crucial that any viaduct solution reduce vehicle miles traveled, enhance alternative transportation modes and implement

environmental improvements.

1. What is your view of the State’s proposed Deep-Bore Tunnel option?

My view is that the State did not prioritize the environmental impact of the solution – as it does not provide enhanced transit options. It is also the most

expensive option compared to repairing or even replacing the viaduct. The money being invested in the additional expense of the Deep-Bore Tunnel could have

funded light rail and rapid bus further.

2. If you hold a negative view of the Tunnel option, what actions will you take to prevent its implementation? If you hold a positive or nuanced view, what

actions will you take?

I plan to build support for contacting the State with an alternate plan to the Tunnel that takes into account the benefits of the tunnel and prioritizes transit

and the environment. First, I would work with organizations such as the Sierra Club to understand if there are solutions that can be added to the Deep Bore

project that make it viable for transit. Since there is so much support and funding already being allocated – it may be more achievable to negotiate on the

implementation as opposed to completely stopping the project and getting approval on a new plan. I will work to understand the options and interests of all

stakeholders and then work towards a plan that achieves our combined objectives.

Smart Growth & Land Use
Unregulated development and suburban sprawl poses one of the biggest regional threats to native wildlife (from habitat loss), water quality (from storm water

pollution), and climate (from increased VMT). If Seattle continues current land-use practices in the face of population growth, these environmental stresses

will reach critical levels. Building compact cities with effective mass transit is the obvious solution. However, increased density raises other issues: Access

to affordable housing and support for mixed-income neighborhoods; neighborhood workability and character; access to open spaces and public services.

1. Discuss your vision for reforming Seattle’s land use practices. Please consider the following in your answer and take as much space as you need:
a) How do you propose we accomplish both increased density and affordability in city neighborhoods? How can be best foster the creation of mixed-income

neighborhoods?
b) How would you resolve objections to increased urban density?
c) How will we integrate land use and transportation planning?
d) Do you support up-zoning districts near transit corridors -- those carrying buses as well as rail – to allow mixed-use multi-family development? How far back

from the lines is this appropriate?
e) How should we expand and maintain progressive transportation infrastructure including: good sidewalks, bike lanes, transit, and aesthetically pleasing

streetscapes that encourage walking and transit use?

In addition to supporting the continued investments in the Center City, we need to provide additional incentives to builders to create low-income and affordable

housing. In talking with local developers – the permit process and the associated expense can be greatly reduced and I intend to address this. Also, we need to

provide opportunities for families including recreation space and quality schools in the City. I would address objections to increased urban density with

policies that ensure affordable housing and studies that show the environmental and health benefits of living in a higher density city.

Also, Seattle already has many neighborhoods that need to also be developed carefully to meet all of the needs. There are many neighborhoods that have already

started to address these issues. Fremont has a great central area and now has several businesses where people can live and work in the same neighborhood.

I would like to introduce a Community Revitalization Initiative that focuses on areas with depressed families, poverty, and high crime rates. The plan will

bring business, community, and builders together to create new self sustainable communities that offer mixed income green housing, a diverse range of employment

opportunities, community policing, improved schools and youth activities, and local shopping. By putting together this model with a clear investment opportunity

for businesses and builders – we can attract the money required to implement the Community Revitalization Initiative and once proven, it will expand. I would

prioritize these communities being built along public transportation lines to connect people to the rest of the city.

Puget Sound / Storm Water
Puget Sound is in trouble. The largest contributor of toxics to the Sound is Stormwater Run-off. Vehicles release toxic substances from oil leaks, brake

linings, and tire wear, including oil, asbestos, copper and zinc. The impervious surfaces of urbanized watershed then carry the pollution as stormwater into

Puget Sound without any treatment or filtering. The Low Impact Development (LID) approach to land and stormwater management emphasizes conservation and use of

on-site natural features integrated with engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls which mimic natural hydrologic functions. LID design minimizes impervious

surfaces, protects/ enhances native vegetation & soils and filters stormwater at its source. The progressive City of Portland has adopted a “Green Streets”

policy requiring this natural draining be incorporated into all city re-paving projects.

The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) is in the process of revising the Stormwater Code and Directors’ Rules. The

three most significant revisions may include: 1) Revising how the Stormwater Code is enforced. 2) Incorporating requirements to install green infrastructure. 3)

Changing thresholds and performance standards for development projects.

1. Discuss your vision for reforming Seattle’s stormwater management practices. Please consider the following in your answer and take as much space as you need:
a) How would you promote the use of LID to improve hydrologic function to clean urban
stormwater? Should Seattle adopt a Portland-like "Green Streets" policy?
b) Options for preventing toxic pollutants (e.g. pesticides, fertilizer, industrial chemicals) from entering Seattle’s stormwater. Would you focus on creating

toxics reduction incentives or restrictions? Would you focus on increased stormwater retention and decreased flow? Should we treat residential and profit-

oriented industrial areas the same?
c) How can we promote the creation of green roofs in Seattle?
d) If your ideas would cost money, how would you propose to fund them?

There are two primary ways to address the environmental impact of stormwater run-off. The first and far less expensive method is to regulate the types and

overall amounts of toxic materials by regulating pesticides, fertilizers, and other industrial chemicals. I would restrict the use of certain chemicals based on

research showing those that have the highest environmental impact and then I would introduce incentives to use alternatives to any remaining toxic materials.

This will apply to both industrial and residential areas. One idea to create an incentive is to tax remaining toxic materials so that they are more expensive

than natural alternatives.

The second way to address the environmental impact is treatment – which is far more expensive. I support the combined LID approach that Portland has adopted and

I would support Seattle adopting a similar “Green Streets” policy to ensure widespread use of LID. Also, the government can promote the creation of green roofs

in Seattle by requiring new developments to have green roofs or providing funding incentives to builders. The City can also educate the public on the benefits

of green roofs and include it in other incentives for residents and businesses to invest in energy efficiency.

2. Stormwater Code revisions are expected to go into effect before the November elections, but City Council must continue to engage DPD and SPU to strengthen

Seattle’s approach to stormwater pollution.
a) Will you make natural drainage the default option for all streets undergoing major maintenance?
b) Will you support incorporation of the Green Factor into the multifamily zoning code?
c) Will you reduce or eliminate parking minimums that encourage driving?

Yes, I will support natural drainage and the incorporation of the Green Factor into the multifamily zoning code. I will also work on eliminating parking

minimums so that the market can determine the appropriate amount of parking so that we can further reduce driving.

The Puget Sound Partnership issued the Action Agenda in December 2008 identifying the strategies, policies, and investments we need to make in order to restore

Puget Sound to health by 2020.

1. What are three important steps you think the City of Seattle should take to achieve a healthy Puget Sound by 2020?

As per the Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda, the City of Seattle should prioritize the following three steps to achieve a healthy Puget Sound by 2020:
1) Revise zoning to eliminate development in ecologically important and sensitive areas and encourage a higher density Center City and neighborhood areas.
2) Restore ecosystem processes, structures, and functions by working with other stakeholders to fund projects.
3) Reduce sources of water pollution by introducing regulations on toxic material use as the LID system discussed above.


2. Restoring Puget Sound will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but will provide an opportunity to create new Green Jobs. In Seattle, how do you think

necessary funds should be generated?

To generate the funds required for this massive cleanup, Seattle can allocate tax revenues from the newly created Green Jobs associated with this effort and

others.

Grocery Green Bag Campaign
Seattle uses over 800,000 plastic grocery bags each day. They float beneath the surface, break up into plankton-sized pieces, concentrate toxics and get eaten

by fish. Marine life gets poisoned, tangled and their stomachs clogged. Paper grocery bag production pollutes watersheds and transportation of the heavy bags

release greenhouse gases. Both types of bags go against Seattle’s Zero-Waste initiative and contribute needlessly to climate change and regional pollution.

In 2002, Ireland adopted a plastic bag fee which reduced use by over 90% and prompted a cultural shift away from disposable grocery bag use. “Free” grocery bags

externalize the costs of pollution, litter and carbon emissions. But appropriate fees internalize environmental costs and prove to be an effective mechanism to

minimize unnecessary waste.

1. Do you support for the Bag Fee & Container ballot measure and will you publicly endorse the measure in your City Council Primary Campaign?

Yes, I support the Bag Fee & Container ballot measure and will publicly endorse the measure in my City Council Primary Campaign.

2. Please explain the motivation for your answer to the previous question.

Personal consumption habits are the big “elephant in the room” when it comes to environmental policy. The food we eat, the products we buy, and the way we live

have a tremendous impact on the environment. We need to take strong actions to turn these habits around – and the Grocery Green Bag Campaign is a great area to

focus on. The elimination of Styrofoam to go boxes was another positive initiative, and I know there are many more that we can drive in the coming years.

Green Buildings & Energy
Buildings contribute over one-third of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Building energy loss can be reduced with weatherization and other power saving

policies. The Sierra
Club supports retrofitting existing structures, laying down strict efficiency standards, and promoting intelligent architecture (e.g. daylighting, efficient

fenestration) in new construction.
Mayor's Green Building Task Force is reviewing these issues as it targets an initial efficiency increase of 20% and in January 2009, released draft

recommendations.

1. What are your opinions of the GBTF recommendations? As a Councilmember, how do you plan to act in relation to the GBTF?

Overall, I think the GBTF recommendations are not going to make the impact soon enough to achieve the 20% increase in efficiency. However, I do agree with the

order, time, and cost to implement the short, medium, and longer term solutions. The long term solutions should have specific dates for review or even clear

next steps that will lead to implementation in parallel with the short and medium term solutions. As a Councilmember, I will work with the GBTF and the Office

of Sustainability and Environment to support the Green Permits, New Energy Codes, and the longer term solutions.

2. Discuss your vision for reforming Seattle’s green building policy. Please consider the following in your answer and take as much space as you need:
a) Should Seattle require a home energy audit at the time of sale?
b) Should city funding be used to establish a public/private weatherization loan pool?
c) Should Seattle provide financial incentives for homeowners to weatherize their homes, such as subsidizing the cost of an energy audit or providing rebates

for work completed?

Seattle’s green building policy is an opportunity to dramatically reduce our energy needs and to provide an engine for job growth. In addition, I plan to

introduce a social component to increase the adoption of green buildings by starting a Community Revitalization Program that involves businesses, communities,

builders, and government. This will provide a clear mechanism for upgrading homes and it will uplift our economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. The program

will draw investment from businesses and developers to fund the replacement of old, inefficient buildings with new green buildings.

Seattle should require a home energy audit at the time of sale so that compliance to the green building policy can be met with required upgrades. Instead of

using city funding for a weatherization loan pool – I would propose a microfinance solution that brings neighbors and businesses together to bring buildings up

to code. This will be a faster and cheaper process than a government loan and it encourages local communities to take responsibility. Seattle should provide

financial incentives for homeowners to weatherize their homes in the form of rebates for work completed.

Another source of excessive energy waste use in buildings and homes are light fixtures that remain perpetually on.

Light Pollution affects natural wildlife behavior patterns and research is now studying cumulative adverse affects on people. The progressive city of Flagstaff,

AZ has regulated light pollution and become an International Dark Sky City.

1. Would you support a reduction in business building light use, after working hours? How would you effectively implement this (e.g. mandatory actions,

incentives, education)?

Yes – there is a great opportunity to reduce light use after working hours in business buildings. I would work with businesses and building management companies

to develop a combination of mandatory actions for specific hours, and education for additional reduced light use.

2. How else would you suggest reducing after work energy consumption?

I will provide resources to businesses that can conduct energy / light audits to determine more ways to reduce consumption that will also lead to financial

savings for the business.

3. How would you reduce light pollution and energy waste in residential areas?

I would introduce incentives to purchase compact fluorescent bulbs and provide for recycling the bulbs as well. In addition, I would research the primary drains

on energy that are non-value add in residential areas and educate the public on how to eliminate those. To reduce light pollution, I would focus on light from

apartment buildings in common areas and also look into reducing street lighting in areas that are appropriate. I would also look to the Sierra Club and other

organizations for further recommendations.

4. How would you implement light-use reductions in Seattle government buildings?

I would hold Seattle government buildings to the same policies implemented for business buildings. Again, the City needs to lead by example.

Seattle City Light
1. As the state's largest publicly owned utility, Seattle City Light (SCL) has an important role in state and regional energy policy. Is SCL doing enough to

advocate clean energy standards, efficiency, renewable resources, and climate protection? If not, what else should it be doing?

Seattle City Light is not yet doing enough – only a small percent of the electricity being created is coming from renewable sources like wind. The Green Up

program should instead be the default for all residents and businesses to ensure sufficient funding to invest in more renewable resources. Also, to improve

conservation efforts, City Light can work to pass regulations on after hours work lights year around. I would like to work with the Sierra Club to understand

other opportunities for Seattle City Light to improve energy policy.

2. The City has made ambitious commitments to reduce global warming pollution. What will you do to support the achievement of those commitments? How would you

respond to a politically attractive rate decrease if such a decrease might jeopardize long term investments in clean energy and climate neutrality? How would

you offset the high cost of electricity to low income households?

I will fully support the implementation of the commitments made by the City to reduce global warming pollution. To do this, I will ensure there is an oversight

body driving and monitoring the efforts across departments and other organizations. I will not support a rate decrease that jeopardizes long term investments in

clean energy and climate neutrality – my commitment to the long term sustainability of our planet is clear. To offset the high cost of electricity to low income

households, I will allocate additional funds to reducing energy needs by those households and expand the adoption of the donation program from more affluent

households.

3. How would you encourage more robust public participation in decision-making on City Light issues from rates to resource planning?

To support more robust public participation, I will work with the Mayor to develop a steering committee with key residential and business stakeholders.