ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES BACKGROUND
Q: Development in the older urban centers helps the environment by redirecting new development away from wild and rural land on the edge of the urbanized region. What is your vision of future development for Oakland, both in downtown and in the neighborhoods?
A: I support development that serves the majority of the citizens of Oakland. It is my vision that we would continue to do more live/work development in the downtown area and to pass an "inclusionary policy" to mandate that 20% of residential development be dedicated to affordable housing. I support low-impact development in the neighborhoods and want to mindful that we preserve the culture and character of existing neighborhoods. As a Council Member, I would work towards getting a requirement that all development proposed in Oakland would have to undergo a vigorous "community benefits" review before a development contract is issued or signed. As a minimum, the City needs to demonstrate that the development project is beneficial to the citizens of Oakland. Criteria for a community benefits assessment would include: environmental impact issues, monetary considerations, health and safety issues, traffic impact, public service outlay, public school impact, etc.
Q: Before development of public lands such as the Army Base and the Estuary, should there be a Specific Plan developed by the public before solicitation for developers? What would be your vision for such a plan?
A: I support the Estuary Policy Plan and want to ensure that it is followed. The EPP is the end product of hundreds of hours of effort by citizens of Oakland, the Planning Commission, the Port Commission and the City Council. It is a "covenant" between the public officials and the citizens of Oakland. We should implement the vision of citizens of Oakland and look for a developer who would implement the vision; not have a developer come to us and say, "have I got a deal for you".
The Army Base should undergo the same rigorous review by the citizens of Oakland and public officials in order to hammer out a vision which would serve all the citizens of Oakland. This should not be done in a piecemeal fashion and no developer should be solicited until this process is completed. The concern is that any Special Plan developed by the citizens of Oakland would be perfunctory and not adhered to by our elected officials (as in the case of the Estuary Policy Plan and the Oak to Ninth project).
A strong advocate for the citizens' vision is necessary at the City Council level and that will happen only when we elect truly "independent" representatives to City Council (i.e., someone who is not encumbered by any special interest).
Q: The Estuary Policy Plan (EPP) was adopted after an extensive public process. In violation of the EPP, the present proposal for Oak to Ninth did not go through a Specific Plan process. Would you support a referendum to give the public the opportunity to decide the uses for this public land? Do you support the open space components of the EPP?
A: Yes, I would advocate and fight for a referendum to assure the wishes of the public as defined in the Estuary Policy Plan are followed. I have consistently supported the open space components of the EPP; implementation of the EPP; maximum access to the waterfront; low density use of public land at the waterfront and do not support the Oak to Ninth project as it is currently proposed.
Q: Would you support inclusionary zoning for new housing developments, and if so, at what percentage? Do you support the Oaklanders for Affordable Housing proposal?
A: Yes and at 20%. I have been a strong supporter for both a city-wide policy for all prospective developers to follow to insure that affordable housing is incorporated within each proposed development. The Oaklanders for Affordable Housing proposal is a reasonable approach.
Q: Some housing developments in older industrial areas are driving out existing businesses. How would you deal with this conflict?
A: I would assure that we preserve a mix of housing, light industry and small business enterprises within Oakland as part of a larger "economic health" plan. I have proposed that we develop an Oakland Business Plan and to let the public help define that mix. My preference that we give great deference to small business and that this community provide the "lion share" of the economic business plan in Oakland.
Q: Oakland adopted a Transit First policy in 1996. What would you do to encourage adoption of walking, bicycling, public transit, and other automobile alternatives?
A: I am a strong advocate for alternative energy, conservation, reuse and recycle efforts. I own a zero-emission, electric car and have worked on policy papers to help college campuses convert to a hybrid/zero emissions campus. Creating a pedestrian and bicycling friendly environment in Oakland will require a City Council person that is committed to this transformation. I would advocate strongly at every opportunity during policy development meetings to set goals for reducing emissions, conserve energy through reduction of use programs in public buildings, and to advocate for an increase in more public transportation options whether by bus, training, ferry or BART.
Q: Would you advocate for City staff and officials to set an example by adopting programs such as transit-passes, parking-cash-out and guaranteed-ride-home?
A: Yes.
Q: Other ideas?
A: During the last year's election, I advocated for a "streetcar" system similar to the Key System to tie together our inter-modal system and to our more economically depressed neighborhoods to stimulate commerce. For $60 million dollars an increment; we can build 20 blocks of permanent tracks in 3-4 years. Five increments would cost ~ $300 million over a 20 year period and can be absorbed comfortably in the budget cycles. I envision that we could lay tracks down Broadway to Jack London Square; down Embarcadero, down Oak Street to tie Lake Merritt to the Waterfront; down the 66th or 98th Avenue corridor).
Q: Do you support dedicating space for a lane for Bus Rapid Transit on the AC Transit route planned for Telegraph/Broadway/International?
A: I would generally support anything that would get people out of cars and into public transportation. Would have to review this proposal in more detail and want to hear from the public regarding the BRT proposal. A great deal will depend on whether BRT impedes "same direction" traffic and cause high levels of exhaust from idling cars which pollute the environment as well.
Q: What is your position on the Creek Ordinance? Should it be modified and if so, how?
A: I fully support the implementation of the Creek Ordinance, and adherence to a well-developed Creek Map, in order to avoid ad hoc attempts to gain variances. I support a wide "buffer" zone from the main Creek artery to prevent developers from building too close to it and to preserve its access by the public. I would prefer that final decisions be made by the Director of Public works, rather than the more politically-charged City Council and Planning Commission.
Q: What is your position on the principle of waste management mitigation fees?
A: I would support it, but would also like to start putting pressure on corporations to do their part by packaging products in bio-degradable containers and to educate consumers to avoid products that are not "properly" packaged, to encourage less waste.
Q: Do you support increasing waste disposal fees as needed to meet the voter-mandated landfill diversion goal of 75% by 2010?
A: Yes.
Q: To what extent should the City Council try to take responsibility at the local level for the global environmental issues of climate change and mass extinction of species?
A: City Council should do its part to educate and raise the awareness of the public regarding these issues and to provide opportunities for the citizens of Oakland to make a difference on these issues. Events like "Green Day" and "Save A Species" should be hosted by the City of Oakland annually. City Council should use whatever influence it has with governmental and state agencies to bring about a reduction in global warming and to protect endangered species. Q: How would you propose to adequately maintain and the city's Parks and Open Spaces and create new ones?
A: By assuring that the Parks and Recreation Department have adequate staffing to maintain our parks and open spaces. New open spaces can be created by encouraging low-density development around park areas and by requiring all development to incorporate open space into all of their designs. Would also promote healthy living and correlate the importance of preserving trees, parks and open space for citizens of Oakland.
Q: What is your position on the use of herbicides for fire suppression in the Oakland Hills?
A: I am not supportive of using herbicides for fire suppression in the Oakland Hills. I am for using goat grazing, mandatory clearance by property owners and insist on City, County, State maintenance of common public areas. For example, I am not clear as to why the use of herbicides, such as the RoundUp used in the Oakland Hills, are considered suppressants. Their use converts live plant material into flammable dead plant material and unless removed becomes fuel for a fire. Even when used to halt the spread of non-native species, herbicides still contribute to toxic runoff and glyphosphates like RoundUp are known to be carcinogens, which is harmful to humans. I support the removal of non-native species and flammable vegetation the old fashion way and more sustainable way - animal grazing or by human toil.
Q: Please identify pro-environmental actions you have taken either as a private citizen or public official in the last ten years, and any environmental or civic organizations active on environmental matters in which you have been active.
A: I was the only candidate in the last Special Election that advocated for the application and implementation of the Estuary Policy Plan and took a stand against the Oak to Ninth project. I have advocated for the conversion of college campuses from gas-driven cars to hybrids and zero-emission vehicles. I have written policy papers on how to take a college campus from gas to electric outlining the cost, health, and social benefits.
The proof of my environmental concerns and beliefs is not in what I say, but what I do. For example, consistent with my beliefs, I own a zero emission electric car. Additionally, I have built a home in Oakland that perpetuates conservation of fuel through a massive insulation process, maximizing nature lighting and holding and preserving heat through its architectural design for evening use.
I also have two environmentalist advocates on my steering committee. Steve Lowe who has been active in waterfront issues for many years, and was an early advocate for the preservation of the Ninth Avenue terminal and implementation of the Estuary Plan. And Alan Taylor, who is a green voter and managed an environmental architectural firm and owns a passive solar house.
Q: Please indicate up to four major issues which your campaign emphasizes.
A: My four top issues are:
1. Public Safety
2. Clean Money and Participatory Democracy (e.g., Voter Reform, Anti-Special Interest)
3. Sensible and Responsible Development
4. Healthy Living (e.g, Medical Safety Net for Elders and Children, Our Environment, and Weaning Ourselves from Oil Dependency)
