You are on page 1of 10

2013 Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter Candidate Questionnaire for Redwood City Council

Candidate Information Name: James (Lee) Han Campaign manager and Office Address: Shaunn Cartwright, 720 Warren St, Redwood City, CA 94063. Election ID (FPPC): Awaiting ID number from the FPPC. FPPC 410 paperwork was filed this week. Phone: 650.207.7251 Fax: N/A Email: JamesLeeRWC@Gmail.Com Website: JamesHan.Org

Are you a Sierra Club member? Yes.

STANDARD QUESTIONS 1. The Sierra Club considers your past record as the best indicator of your future action for the environment. What have you done, especially in a community leadership context, to protect natural resources and the environment? As founder, main organizer, and freelance communications specialist for "Occupy Saltworks," I led protest actions and a coordinated media campaign against Cargill's proposed Saltworks development in Redwood City last year. On Earth Day 2012 I led a self-organized protest of nearly forty people outside the Redwood City headquarters of DMB Associates, the developer hoping to build on the salt ponds. While no organization endorsed our protest, in attendance were representatives of at least five different Bay Area Occupy groups, leaders within the Loma Prieta Sierra Club chapter, members of the anti-Saltworks group Redwood City Neighbors United, and three different candidates for state and local office (Joseph Rosas, Sally Lieber, and Sabrina Brennan). That same day, about half of the protesters spoke out in public comment at the City Council meeting urging the council to drop the Saltworks project. We attracted media coverage from TV helicopters, the Redwood City-Woodside Patch, the Mercury News, and the SF Public Press. (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20465266) Coverage was sustained with letters to the editor in the Mercury News for days after our protest action. Thanks to direct action like this and especially the sustained, passionate advocacy from wellestablished groups like Save the Bay, the Sierra Club, and others, the so-called "50/50" Saltworks plan was withdrawn from discussion two weeks after Occupy Saltworks' highly successful Earth Day 2012 protest. More: http://blog.savesfbay.org/2012/04/wonky-wednesday-occupy-saltworks-targets-cargilldeveloper%E2%80%99s-offices/

* As Secretary for Save Pete's Harbor, I have advocated to stop the privatization of the submerged public lands at Smith Slough in Redwood City and to stall an unsustainable development on fill lands on the bayfront that sit in the path of sea level rise. I wrote an op-ed for Save Pete's Harbor which was published in the Redwood City-Woodside Patch. The op-ed, which revealed key city documents that supported our argument that the city must start over with development plans in order to preserve the public trust use of the state lands at Smith Slough, played a key role in Save Pete's Harbor's victory at their appeal hearing on May 6: http://redwoodcity-woodside.patch.com/groups/opinion/p/paul-powers-and-redwood-city-muststart-over http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2013-05-07/petes-harbor-appeal-does-not-holdwater-redwood-city-council-sends-development-back-to-planning-commission/1770455.html http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23211778 * As a key Redwood City member of Californians United for a Responsible Budget, I have been advocating against the building of a new jail on a sit so toxic that a covenant was issued on the land prohibiting residences from being built there. Thanks to our activism, land remediation was done to an extent more than what was orginally planned: http://redwoodcity-woodside.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/redwood-city-residentsprotest-toxic-jail-on-earth-day I recently also helped to mobilize against Jerry Hill's SB 445, which he gutted and amended to take away valuable state funding from much needed services in order to fund jail construction on the toxic site: http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2013-08-16/county-jail-funding-effort-failssenators-bill-to-help-san-mateo-county-sinks-in-committee/1773691.html Besides the toxicity of the site, the new jail is sited in an area that belongs to the Inner Harbor Specific Plan which is being worked on by the city. The inner harbor area where the new jail is to be sited is vulnerable to sea level rise and may be at risk of liquefaction in a strong earthquake. A jail on such a site is not sustainable in the long-term, and fiscally irresponsible as the county and/or the city will have to foot the bill in decades to come to protect such large government buildings from sea level rise. If the City were to be hit by a 100-year flood event, a jail in the inner harbor area housing hundreds of inmates will be a huge safety and security issue, for the inmates as well as the community. 2. What do you regard as the major environmental and conservation issues facing the Redwood City and the Bay Area as a whole? For Redwood City in particular, the major conservation and environmental issues center around housing and development, and the current push to build for the sake of building without proper concerns for road capacity, transit-oriented housing, greenhouse gases, and unsustainable building in the path of sea level rise and in earthquake liquefaction areas. For the Bay Area as a whole, there is a tug of war going on: On one side, there is a movement to build more housing to relieve gentrification pressures and housing demand. However, in the

rush to build, important conversations about environmentally sustainable building, building that understands the capacity of the Bay Area's resources, building that accounts for sea level rise and earthquake liquefaction, are being drowned out by development interests and an eye toward short-term increases in property tax revenues. It is the role of local governments and regional agencies to make sure that the push to develop is properly shepherded in ways that plan for climate change and greenhouse gas reductions. It is also important that we improve water quality in San Francisco Bay, protect and restore our wetlands and estuaries, and plan for sea level rise. San Francisco Bay is the largest estuary on the west coast of the United States, and most of the fresh water that flows into the bay comes from the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, making up 90% of the freshwater inflow in most years. Estuaries are an important spawning, nursery and rearing habitat for a host of fishes and invertebrates, migration corridors for salmon, steelhead and sturgeon, and breeding and nesting habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. It's imperative for the Bay Area's local governments and regional bodies that we be good stewards of our bay. 3. What are the principal areas of the environment that you will work on if elected? How will you deal with them? If elected, I will commit myself to stopping development on the Cargill salt ponds and assuring that any development along our remaining bayfront and bayfront-adjacent areas account for sea level rise and earthquake liquefaction. I will do everything in my power to prevent a need for costly levees and flood mitigation in the next decades due to unsustainable development. The most important step to dealing with this issue is to bring these concerns to the Council chamber. Currently, no other candidate for city council is voicing concerns about sea level rise, waterfront development, and the lack of open space near the east side of Redwood City in any substantive way. This is one of the main reasons that I am running. I intend to be a strong voice for these concerns within council chambers, and to give staff the direction they need to be able to address such concerns in a pro-active manner. As a community advocate who has an effective relationship with media, I will also make sure that these concerns are brought to the public's attention as often as possible. With a seat on the council, I will also be able to give information to the public and to advocacy organizations like the Sierra Club: information that may be technically available to the public but that the public may not readily have access to or may not think to ask for during a public records request. With a seat on the council, I can help be a conduit of much needed information between City Hall and environmental advocates who are concerned about what goes on inside CIty Hall. I will also conduct vigorous outreach within the community to sway public opinion on important Redwood City issues that affect how we develop, like Saltworks, Pete's Harbor, and the Inner Harbor Specific Plan. I will advocate from within the council chambers for a greater public outreach and greater public input on these issues, and will walk through neighborhoods, on foot and in my own time, to outreach to our residents on these important issues.

The Sierra Club and the Loma Prieta Chapter care about a range of environmental issues and each year we prioritize issues that are the most critical for our area. The following questions are based on these priorities. Climate Change / Climate Adaptation 1. What is the status of Redwood Citys climate change plan? Are goals being met and are they tough enough? What would you push Redwood City to do to reduce greenhouse gas generation locally, regionally, and nationwide? What do you do as an individual to reduce your GHG generation? Redwood City just approved and adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on Earth Day this year - April 22, 2013: http://www.redwoodcity.org/ClimateActionPlan.pdf While the city is on track to meet the goals in the CAP, I do not believe those goals are tough enough. The goals ask for only a 15% GHG reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. If you look at the PDF, you will see that this is actually a very small step and not tough at all. A tougher, more pro-active goal to set would have been to reduce GHG by 15% of 2010 levels, which are significantly lower than 2005 levels, or to reduce GHG by 25% of 2005 levels. As the PDF itself states, even if Redwood Citys GHG emission rate dropped to zero, we would still be experiencing climate change. While setting wildly unrealistic goals may not help the city to form a feasible plan to reduce GHG, tough goals are needed to motivate the city to do more. There is no reason that the city cant take it upon itself to set itself higher standards than what the state requires of it, particularly a city that is lucky enough to have the financial resources to be able to strive for tougher standards. One important way to push Redwood City to reduce GHG is to push for the building of housing units close to the downtown core and public transit, and to push for a more walkable, bikeable city. Redwood City must stop developing large housing complexes near 101 and away from the downtown Caltrain/Samtrans routes (as seen in the Villas at Bair Island, One Marina, and the proposed housing development at the Petes Harbor site). Redwood City's current push to build on the waterfront is a recipe for more car trips and more traffic on 101, Whipple Ave, and Woodside Rd, and it needs to be stopped by returning our focus to the downtown core, where an increase in housing will also benefit local small businesses and provide a natural audience for the local downtown events: an audience that doesn't have to drive into Redwood City. As an individual, I personally have reduced my car trips by moving closer to the downtown core this year, which makes going out to dinner or events with friends in downtown Redwood City an easy, walkable experience, as opposed to the car trips I used to take. I have also been able to take Caltrain more regularly from my current place, which further reduces my car trips. I also have not eaten red meat since my early teen years in an effort to cut down on my personal contribution to greenhouse gases, and have been pescetarian since my early twenties. I eat locally grown food as much as possible, and support various farmers markets on the Peninsula. I have also drastically cut down on my sushi consumption in the last decade and have learned to love vegetarian sushi after realizing that most of the fish in higher-end sushi restaurants is flown in from Japan or flown in from other places along the Pacific coast of the US, which consumes a massive amount of GHG. I have also become an avid BART user in the last decade and almost never drive into San Francisco or Oakland anymore, like I used to do in my teenage years and early twenties.

2. How might you proceed with preparing our community for climate change already expected to occur? Setting a good example within City Hall and advocating that development in sea level rise areas be halted until greater efforts are taken to figure out how the city would actually be able to pay for climate change-related expenses at pertains to our waterfront development in the coming decades. Creating programs (and expanding existing ones) that educate people on meatless meals or make it easier for people to grow their own food, both at home and perhaps in empty city lots, as a way to combat GHG production from meat or food that isn't local. Its also important to advocate for bike paths on as many city streets as is possible, and to focus development around our downtown core, so that we can reduce our GHG production.

Green Building

3. Describe Redwood Citys green building program? What more can be done to ensure that all new construction and remodeling incorporate green building principles? How would you go about it? Redwood City does have a program in place with a green building ordinance passed in 2009 (Sec. 9.18), but to my reading it seems very basic and small-scale. The ordinance does set forth minimum requirements for green building standards for residential and non-residential projects, but thats it. Theres nothing to encourage homeowners or businesses to take the extra step towards truly green, future-forward building. I would like to see this program expanded with creative and visionary ideas that either expand on or add to this green building ordinance, such as offering incentives to homeowners who want to add rooftop solar to their house, reimbursements to homeowners who remodel with low-flow showerheads and low-water toilets. On a more basic level, the city should look at requiring stricter green standards for non-residential projects, particularly projects being undertaken by developers with deep pockets as opposed to projects being undertaken by small business owners. I can also envision a program where developers help to finance green improvements for small business owners and city residents as a way to provide community benefit to the city when they are lobbying for their projects in City Hall. Land use, Transportation & Transit Oriented Development 4. Climate action plans for the peninsula call for reducing traffic by increased use of walking, biking and public transit. It has been shown that increasing density and adding a mix of uses, e.g. combining retail, residential, and commercial, along with urban design that promotes walking and biking as well as comprehensive parking solutions, is most effective in reducing vehicle trips. What are your views about the creation of downtown and transit hub specific plans that zone for building heights sufficient to generate significant economic value that will benefit your entire community? What types of projects would you support to provide people

with an alternative to the private auto? How would you include affordable housing? Focusing development in our downtown core and having building heights sufficient enough for to provide the residential capacity sustainable growth is important. While it is important to hear community concerns about shade profiles and the effect of taller buildings on their residences and quality of life, the fact remains that if we are to continue to grow as a city, we need to start looking up and considering height allowances in our zoning if were going to grow in a sustainable fashion, instead of continuing to grow outwards with developments in the path of sea level rise. It is important, in order to provide alternatives to the automobile that we stop emphasizing development near 101 (as seen with the One Marina project, the Villas at Bair Island, the planned development for the Petes Harbor site, and the push to develop the Cargill salt ponds along Seaport Blvd). Unless we start putting more housing and mixed-use developments in the downtown core, we will not be able to provide our new residents with viable, sustainable ways to utilize Caltrain and Samtrans. Focusing our development in downtown is the perfect way to plan and allow for affordable housing. For various reasons, many people find living in a busy, noisy downtown undesirable, and do not consider a place where they can hear the trains passing by and downtown music events an ideal place to live. Housing units downtown are therefore the perfect place to push for affordable units, or at the very least, a large portion of below-market rate units: The Crossing 900 development on Middlefield Road, right behind the Caltrain station, is the perfect example of a missed housing opportunity. While it is encouraging to see such a large building devoted to office and retail space being built right by the Caltrain station, the lack of any housing in the building at all means that it is not the truly mixed-use development I would like to see in downtown. The city cannot afford to keep missing these housing opportunities if they are to truly make Redwood City a sustainably developed, transit-oriented city. 5. Will you lead your city to adopt Transfer of Development Rights? Absolutely. A program for transfer of development rights (TDR) is a great way to keep open spaces and sensitive areas protected from development, and it provides cities with a creative tool to ensure that development happens where it is sensible and needed. TDR helps cities control land use to complement zoning and strategic planning for more effective urban growth management and land conservation. TDR also allows for owners of historic buildings to make a comparable amount of money through the sale of development rights as they would if they demolished such buildings to sell off the land to developers. I would be happy to lead the adoption of TDR in Redwood City. Open Space & Urban Recreation Access to Nature 6. In these tough economic times parks and open space are affordable ways for residents to spend their leisure time. However, these conditions also make maintenance a challenge. How will you ensure that residents in your city will have access to safe and enjoyable parks and open space? Increasing funding to hire at least two or three more staff members for the parks department is

entirely possible: In the 2008-2009 fiscal year the city spent almost $13.9 million on its parks depart ment. By comparison, the city spent a little under $12.3 million in the 2012-2013 fiscal year, a full $1.6 million less. While the city's adopted 2012-2014 budget forecasts a slow climb back up to an amount close to $13.7 million by 2017, there is no reason that a goal of $13.9 million can't be met by that year, if not sooner. Aggressively increasing funding to the park system so that we return to 2008-2009 funding levels is possible through something as simple and small as enacting a temporary freeze on pay and benefit increases for executive and management positions in city government, which generally pay six-figure annual salaries. Water Conservation & Recycling, Rivers & Creeks 7. California will continue to face increasing droughts, what is the most important water-related issue for Redwood City and what policies or actions would you advocate to address this issue? The most important water-related issue for Redwood City is the new development and housing units we have planned for the City and whether or not we will have enough water to provide for all the new housing that the city has planned. As you may know, the proposed Saltworks development on the Cargill salt ponds would require that water be shipped in to Redwood City from out of the area, perhaps as far away as Southern California. Put simply, the scale of such a development and the need it would place on the states water supply is absolutely untenable: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18743198 But Cargill/Saltworks is not the only development in Redwood City that must be examined when Redwood City is looking at its water supply. While much of the housing units being developed are sorely needed, little time seems to be spent analyzing whether or not our city has the capacity to take on so many extra families, car trips, and people who will need access to basic resources like water. Unless Redwood City aggressively expands on its recycled water program and conservation education within the community, the city will have to face more serious issues related to water and carrying capacity at a time not too far into the future if it does not take a step back and rethink some of the development proposals it is considering. 8. What is your position on stream setback requirements for development? Do you believe current requirements are too strict, too lax, or just right? To my best understanding of the issue, Redwood City has a creek setback ordinance that was adopted in 2005. However, the Finger Avenue development plans around Cordilleras Creek has brought issues to light that indicate that the ordinance may not be strong enough for its intended purpose. I agree with the Sierra Club that issues around the Finger Avenue development demonstrate that there is a need for the Engineering Department to develop a top of bank definition and setback zone for affected watercourses within the City that is unambiguous and predefined, in accordance with the model ordinance language recommended by the USEPA. I support the Sierra Clubs May 2009 Resolution to Uphold the Redwood City Creek Set-Back Ordinance and I agree that Redwood City's 2005 creek setback ordinance must be

strengthened by requiring that a Use Permit for new construction within the setback zone not be granted unless a hardship can be demonstrated, and-unless peer reviewed studies support Use Permit findings. To my understanding there has been no change to the ordinance since the May 2009 resolution, but I am happy to listen to the Sierra Club and be educated on any developments that have taken place since then. If no movement has taken place since 2009, I will advocate for the strengthening of the 2005 ordinance and call for unambiguous definitions of pertinent terms related to stream setback issues. Wildlife 9. What would you do to help preserve wildlife habitat, wildlife corridors, and biodiversity Redwood City and our region in the face of pressures from the growing human population? Wwetlands restoration at the Cargill site will complement that restoration that has already happened at the Bair Island site and is of crucial importance to maintain areas in the SF Bay estuary for birds and sea life. I will also advocate strongly for the creation of park space and open space within the Inner Harbor Specific Plan area. The IHSP area is bayfront and bayfront-adjacent land and prime locations for recreational space and open space. There is huge opportunity in the IHSP area to create spaces to help preserve our local biodiversity. I would also like to explore the possibility of increasing the density of trees and planting of native species along Jefferson Ave and Woodside Rd to create something of a patchy corridor for certain types of wildlife, such as birds and native insects. Zero Waste and Extended Producer Responsibility 10. Do you know where the yardwaste and foodwaste collected in your city goes? Explain the problem with using organics as alternate daily cover at landfills? Will you support a statewide ban of organics from landfills and from any form of high temperature energy generation facilities like gasification or incineration of mixed waste? From what I understand Recology, which serves all of San Mateo County, takes all of our yardwaste and foodwaste and composts it. This is the right way to do things, instead of using these organics as alternate daily cover. Every day, organic material is dumped into landfills. As it decomposes, the fugitive air emissions released impact the health of adjacent communities, while liquid emissions jeopardize precious local groundwater resources. Even though California is the state with the most stringent guidelines for managing landfill gas, keeping organics out of landfills (thereby not creating the toxic gas in the first place) is the most responsible and effective way to manage such gas. Disposing organic material in landfills and incinerators also impacts our food system and depletes our soil. I would happily support a statewide ban on organics in landfills.

11. Will you push your city and the county to adopt an ordinance requiring drug manufacturers to pay for programs to collect unused and expired medications similar to the one recently adopted by Alameda County? Absolutely. Without such an ordinance, our local water supplies remain at risk of contamination from drugs, with potentially disastrous consequences for our children and for the wildlife that depends on our local natural water sources. Drug manufacturers profit well from their work and can afford to assist communities in preventing the contamination of our water from their products. 12. Will you lead your city to adopt polystyrene (aka Styrofoam) take-out food packaging bans? Effective as of January 1 of this year, Redwood City's ban against polystyrene take-out food packaging has gone into effect. I support the ban completely and without reservation. I do notice that automatic exemptions contained in the ordinance are prepackaged foods, and polystyrene coolers and ice chests. If elected, I'd work to phase these exemptions out of the countywide and city bans. Campaign Reform 13. The impact of the Supreme Courts Citizen United decision is becoming distressingly clear with the infusion of huge sums of outside super PAC money in recent state ballot measures and in the upcoming elections. The damage to the environment, as well as to the general health and welfare, will be felt at national, state, and local levels. Will you support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, end constitutional corporate personhood, and stop this corruption of our elections and political system? While the core ruling in the Citizens United case was essentially a correct one (in that using money to take out a political ad is a form of speech), the Citizens United decision was a clear example of judicial overreach. The decision has led to a corporate campaign spending free-forall and has wrongly enshrined corporate personhood as a valid concept. Experts and advocates in various fields, from national security to environmental advocacy to food policy, have all pointed to corporate money in politics as the root of most problems in politics from the local to the national levels. I would absolutely support an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and end corporate personhood, and I would push for the City Council to adopt a resolution supporting such an amendment. Redwood City Specific Questions 1. What is your position on preserving SF baylands in Redwood City? More specifically, regarding the 1400 acres of Redwood City baylands owned by Cargill, how much development would be acceptable to you (e.g. none, 20%, 50%, 70%, etc.) If you deem some development acceptable, please specify the kind of construction/development you would support. No development is acceptable to me on the 1400 acres of Redwood City baylands owned by Cargill. The era of filling the Bay is over. These are prime restorable wetlands that would

provide natural flood protection to Seaport Blvd, Woodside Road, and by extension, all of Redwood City. The only sort of "development" I would support at the Cargill site would be development related to creating park amenities so that the public could have maximum feasible public access to their bayfront once the wetlands are restored (i.e. public bathrooms, tables, a small parking lot, trails, picnic tables, trash/recycling containers). The lack of green, open spaces that are accessible to the public in Redwood City, particularly on the bay side of the city, makes the need for such an open space area important. 2. What is your vision for the inner harbor? How does this are relate to other bayfront areas and the need for public open space in Redwood City? The Inner Harbor Specific Plan was put under public scrutiny at recent meetings. I am proud to have been one of the people at the meetings who have raised concerns about sea level rise and sustainability of development in the Inner Harbor Specific Plan area. However, I am concerned about the process and that it is a sham being conducted to show the public that efforts were made at public outreach. Most people I know who are concerned about the IHSP, including staff at the recently closed Malibu Grand Prix, have expressed their concerns that the city is looking to develop condos in the IHSP area. As an area that will be one of the first in Redwood City to be impacted by sea level rise, the IHSP area is a poor place to build residential units. If elected I will advocate strongly for the creation of park space and open space within the Inner Harbor Specific Plan area. The IHSP area is bayfront and bayfront-adjacent land and prime locations for recreational space and open space. There is huge opportunity in the IHSP area to create spaces to help preserve our local biodiversity. While I am open to hearing about the promotion of floating, sustainable communities in the IHSP area such as Docktown Marina, I believe that parks and open spaces are the only, sensible, sustainable, and long-term option for the upland area within the IHSP. 3. Redwood City is a leader in providing housing. However, people bring impacts. What do you think needs to be done to ensure the quality of life in Redwood City is maintained while providing more homes? Ensuring quality of life means ensuring that we focus our building in downtown where public transit is convenient for people to access. Unless this is done aggressively, the housing we provide will only create more car trips, more GHG emissions, and more headaches for those who commute by 101, Woodside Rd, and Whipple Ave. Already people are significantly, negatively affected by the increase in population, and during my campaigning I have heard many people asking that development along or near 101 be stopped. What needs to be done is that the city must shift its focus from building and developing our vulnerable waterfront areas and focus its future development in the downtown core and along El Camino Real. The city must also aggressively expand its recycled water program and expand conservation efforts to ensure that our community has the water resources for our new residents. Developments like the Crossing 900 project should be rejected unless housing is included as part of the project, in order to support transit-oriented housing.