Remember that time, last July or August, when you caught a view of the Puget Sound out of the corner of your eye… maybe above Pike Place Market. Maybe crossing a ferry to Bainbridge. Maybe at Discovery Park. And you just thought to yourself ‘Wow.’

Hold that memory in your head. Now imagine what this region would be without Puget Sound. If you voted for the Pike Place Market property tax levy because of the

Puget Sound

 market’s intrinsic value to this community, then imagine how much more intrinsic is that body of water that is an environmental and economic driver of the Pacific Northwest.

Guess what, it’s sick. It’s really, really sick. So sick, the Puget Sound Partnership has spent the last 18 months figuring out what it would take to cure it with its draft action agenda. But hold your horses, the document is still only a draft and is ready to change based on your comments.

If you care about the sound… or would like to have future memories with the sound in it, I’d read my story in the DJC tomorrow, check the action agenda out here, and start investigating the issue and how you can make a difference. It’s worth it.

Is a sustainable MBA really necessary? The Network for Business Innovation in Sustainability is asking that question, and hoping you will help them figure out if it is by answering a survey here.

The 17-question survey is meant to gauge local need for sustainability MBA programs. The survey introduction says Antioch University’s Center for Creative Change is considering offering an MBA in Social and Environmental Sustainability beginning in Fall 2009.

Locally, the Bainbridge Graduate Institute has offered an MBA in sustainable business since 2002. The people I know that have attended this program give it rave reviews. Other schools, like the University of Washington and Seattle University, also offer courses in sustainability.

For more on this topic, check out Ideal Bite. It’s an old post, but has some interesting comments on green MBA’s.  Or check out the article “Green Business and Education Prove a Crutch to a Lagging Economy.”

The LEED platinum WPUDA headquarters in Olympia, photo by Matt Todd Photography

Photo by Matt Todd Photography

According to the October edition of the Green Builder, the monthly digital newsletter published by the Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, there are 113 LEED certified projects in Washington and 657 that are registered. But where in the state are they?

If you missed the post about whether green building is an urban thing (click on tag ’suburban cities’ if you did), maybe the statistics below will help answer the question. 

This information is based solely on the USGBC’s LEED project registry, and does not take into account other green buildings, such as those that are Built Green. It also does not consider those buildings that are complete and awaiting certification from the USGBC, of which there are many.

According to the registry:

There are three LEED platinum buildings in the city. One in Seattle, another in Shoreline, the third in Olympia.

There are 32 LEED gold buildings in Washington. Of that, 15 are in Seattle, two are in Bellingham and two are in Vancouver. But the other 13 are spread across the diverse jurisdictions of Issaquah, Spokane Valley, Redmond, Cheney, Lacey, Spokane, Monroe, Tumwater, Retsil, Olympia, Burien, Tacoma and Bainbridge Island.

Go down to LEED silver and out of 38, it’s 15 to Seattle, four to Tacoma, three to Issaquah, two for Tumwater and one each for Monroe, Vancouver, Redmond, Olympia, Port Townsend, Walla Walla, Sammamish, Spokane, Bellevue, Auburn, Kent, Fort Lewis, Bremerton and Liberty Lake.

Obviously there are more LEED projects in Seattle, and at least more LEED silver in Tacoma. But the rest of it is a mixed bag. If we look at projects that are registered to meet LEED - but have not yet achieved it (and in today’s market where certain projects are being held indefinitely, might never make it) it’s a very different story.

In the registered list there is currently 18 pages of projects. Of those, 7 pages are in Seattle, one page in in Tacoma, almost one page is in Bellevue, a little more than a page is in Vancouver, while Spokane, Bellingham and Olympia each have about a half a page. But there are planned projects spread everywhere from Friday Harbor to Bonney Lake to Woodinville to East Wenatchee to Hoquiam. Since LEED is planned in all of these areas, does that mean that green building is not an urban thing, though there might be more of it going on in urban areas?

If you want to explore the registry, visit http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/Project/CertifiedProjectList.aspx

This week, I wrote an article in the DJC that looked at green building programs outside of Seattle.

The story quoted King County GreenTools, a program that supports green building in the county, as saying every suburban city is interested in green building but to

Built Green project in the Issaquah Highlands

different levels. So far, it said there are only two suburban jurisdictions, Kirkland and Redmond, which have started green building programs. (I have since learned via a representative of the city of Issaquah that that city also has an official green building program. Issaquah has supported green building practices for over eight years.)

Even in the DJC offices, the story struck home on two very different levels. One of my colleagues, let’s call them Randall Potersdam, was surprised that Redmond’s green building program had been around less than a year. Having spent a lot of time on the Eastside, this person thought there would have been a green building program in Redmond ages ago.

Another colleague, let’s call them Tallulah Jillian, was surprised by the extent of cities that were interested and actually working on aspects of green building. When you think of green building, Tallulah said, you usually think of it as an urban thing… but if 39 cities in King County are interested in it, it might not be such an urban thing after all.

How about it, is green building an urban thing?

Duo, a Built Green project in Kirkland

If so, there are a lot of reasons why it could be more prevalent in big cities. Big cities have more money and more staff members through which to spread the work of developing green building programs and policy. They also tend to own utilities, which can be a source of funding or product or project investigation.

But smaller cities, that have buy in from residents, can make things happen without the bureaucracy of large city government. For example, Kirkland, Issaquah and Redmond have no problem calling expedited permitting “expedited”. Seattle calls a similar, newly launched program “facilitated” because it doesn’t want to guarantee the project’s permitting will actually take less time.

So what do you think? Is green building an urban thing or not? Do you think building green is easier or more difficult in urban or suburban cities?

Tune in for my next post for a breakdown of where LEED buildings actually are spread across the state. You might be surprised.

Want a job as the sustainable infrastructure advisor for the city of Seattle Green Building Team and Planning Department? Well the job is open and waiting for you. There’s only one catch: the position closes on Tuesday.

Before you get angry on me for last minute posting, be warned that I just received

Is this the job for you?

this e-mail today. Now it’s your responsibility to move quickly!

The e-mail says the job is “a mid to senior level position.” Salary range is $32.42 to $48.63 per hour. The job that requires the person to have:

• Technical expertise in low impact development, district energy/thermal distribution systems, on-site water and wastewater processing and other decentralized technologies.
• Strong communication skills.
• Financial skills to develop the business case for solutions that may provide distributed benefits to a variety of business units and stakeholders.

You also have to have a BA degree and five years experience in government policy and public utilities. To apply, click here. Happy hunting!

Loyal readers! Today I come to you offering some great prizes for your continuous attention to the DJC Green Building Blog.

DJC Publisher Phil Brown models the green tote

The first (and definitely the best) is a spectacular, new DJC reusable tote bag.  Afraid of being charged 20 cents per bag at your local grocery store? Forget about it with this

strong, stable and lightweight tote! Modeled at left by the DJC’s stylish Publisher Phil Brown, and bearing the DJC’s customary insignia (”helping business do business since 1893″), it’s sure to be your favorite new accessory.

If you want to be the envy of your many grocery store friends, all you have to do is respond in a comment below to all or part of this question: What is the biggest obstacle to building green, how would you fix it and who do you think should be responsible for fixing it? Bags will be given until supplies runs out.

Our second possible prize (and less certain because it’s another organization giving it

You know you want one

You know you want one

away) is a “certified green commercial kitchen” worth $40,000 from a contest sponsored by Foodservicewarehouse.com. The Web site is an online restaurant supply retailer that has created a new green certification for commercial kitchens. To be certified, a commercial kitchen must earn points in energy and water conservation, waste reduction, green cleaning and green education. I can’t speak to how stringent the process is and it looks like you might need to buy kitchen goods from the site to earn points, but I guess something is better than nothing. The certification itself seems emblematic of how the idea of green is spreading into new places.

Either way, the kitchen contest is fairly simple. Just go here and enter information by Oct. 31. A link for the contest is also included to the left of this page under ‘links.’

Best of luck and happy winning!

The end of summer has been a big month for trees in Seattle. First, there was the Ingraham High School Debacle (if you missed it, read the Seattle Times story here). Then three trees on the Burke Gilman were murdered (see my colleague Shawna Gamache’s blog SeattleScape here). Now, Mayor Greg Nickels has announced interim

Trees at Ingraham

Trees at Ingraham

regulations to better protect our green leafy friends.

Now, for background, trees are one of the city’s priorities this year and both DPD and the Seattle City Council have been looking at ways to increase urban tree cover. But it seems like these two issues - Ingraham and the Burke Gilman - were the last straw to break the camel’s back. (Or just a shrewd move on the mayor’s part, either way.)

Chambers Bay carnage

null

The new regulations, which would need to be approved by the city council to take affect and would only last until the official string of regulations are proposed, deal with an “exceptional tree.” Before, an exceptional tree was one with unique historic, ecological or aesthetic value, and was an important community resource. If the council passes this interim regulation, an exceptional tree will be one with substantial tree canopy, as well as groves of trees. The regulations will then prohibit the removal of all exceptional trees unless the removal is associated with a corresponding development permit.

For other trees, the regulations will prohibit the removal of more than three non-exceptional trees, 12 inches or greater in diameter in one year when not associated with a permit.

It will also increase penalties for willful or malicious violations of tree protections. Think this doesn’t happen often? See the gruesome cut in the tree above? That happened last spring at Chambers Bay (to read more click here).

Will make people think twice or will they keep employing gardeners who “accidentally” remove the trees in the backyard that were coincidentally imparing a view?

Whenever a room of business people start arguing about green building, at least one ends up saying government should incentivize change rather than mandate it, otherwise green requirements will cause that other kind of green to dry up.

It turns out that in far-away Germany, a small town called Marburg is dealing with

Coutesy of the New York Times

these same problems. According to an Aug. 7 story by Nicholas Kulish in the New York Times, the decision of the town council to require solar-heating panels has caused some to call the town a “green dictatorship.”

In happened in June: the council switched from encouraging citizens to install solar panels to making it an obligation. It requires solar panels on new buildings, and on existing homes that undergo renovations or get new heating systems or roof repairs. There’s a 1,000 euro fine for projects that don’t comply, as of Oct. 1.

Here in Seattle, changes like this don’t seem real. Our politicians put a 20-cent fee on paper and plastic bags from the grocery store and the news and anger generated by the action is overwhelming. A change of the magnitude of Marburg’s decision is certainly nowhere near occurring in Seattle.

But if it were, would this be the way to go? Where is the line between a green haven and a green dictatorship, considering many in this city would already consider it the later?

Let’s take a small break from reality and imagine that Seattle was going to require something like this. I’m guessing solar panels might not have the greatest impact (considering our famously overcast weather) so then what would? Insulation, windows, green building materials, indoor air quality? What revolutionary change would you suggest the city take on? Answer my new poll to the right, or share your thoughts below.

For more on this topic, visit Smart Economy, Support the Warmth, Truemors or the Huffington Post.

If you’re a developer who’s been asking for “expedited permitting” for green buildings in Seattle… you’re not going to get it any time soon. What you are going to get, however, is “facilitated permitting.”

Facilitated permitting means that for pilot projects accepted into the program (like Bruno Lampert’s Capitol Hill project pictured at left), you get one contact person at DPD who will identify problem code areas and help work through the issues with you. Only super green projects (comparable to LEED gold or platinum) will be accepted into the program… sorry LEED silver, you’re just not green enough. 

There are a number of code issues that sit in the way of going after really green systems. In fact, they pretty much run the gamut of topics depending on what you’re looking to do.

Bradley Khouri, architect with b9 Architects, is working on Urbansight, a project in the Priority Green pilot program. He said to really encourage green building, permitting needs to be quicker for green projects, it needs to be easier to deconstruct a project and the city needs to better recognize the use of stormwater on site. He also said zoning for infill development needs to be rewritten, but that’s another story.

What do you think are the code issues that need to change? (To read a past post on this topic, click here).

The city has been talking about launching an expedited permitting process for months, but when it came down to it, they didn’t want to guarantee projects going through the program would get through quicker than others, because they would have tougher code issues to deal with. For more on this topic, read my story in the DJC here.

So Seattle developers, if you want ”expedited green permitting,” you’re going to have to go to Kirkland…. they’ve got it for single-family green houses and are looking at it for commercial buildings. If on the other hand, you’re willing to pursue super green systems and are cool with the “facilitated” title, Seattle’s just the place for you.

Steve Nicholas, one of the most constant faces in Seattle sustainability politics, has left the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability and Environment. In fact, he’s even leaving the state!

That’s right. Nicholas, who has been the director of OSE for eight years (longer than the mayor has been mayor), will begin a new job in Montpelier, Vt. in October as director of climate programs at the Institute for Sustainable Communities.

His spot will be filled, as in interim position, by Michael Mann, the deputy director of the Office of Policy and Management. Mann recently led the department’s Transportation and Infrastructure Team. 

Sadly, Nicholas has already left the building and I have no forwarding address. But what I can tell you is back in 2001, when he had just been appointed the office’s first director, Nicholas told the DJC here, “My goal is to work the Office of Sustainability out of existence in 10 years.”

Back then, the article reads:

“If, on the other hand, his office becomes a “repository for all things sustainable. That’s an abject failure,” he says.”

A lot of things have changed since that article. But some things haven’t changed. The office is still around. The city is still looking at a streamlined permitting process for green buildings. We’re still wrestling with the word ’sustainability.’

Readers, it hasn’t been 10 years yet — only eight. But what do you think the office has accomplished in that time? Has Seattle done everything it could to encourage sustainable development, living, business etc., in eight years or not? And is the mayor’s office a repository for all things sustainable or slowly being worked out of existence? What do you think are the biggest green development changes in that time?

Oh, and if anyone has Steve’s e-mail, tell him I’m lookin’ for him!

For more DJC articles on Steve Nicholas, see this article he wrote for us in 2004, this one he wrote in 2005, this one he wrote in 2002, this one about the mayor’s crusade for trees, and this one about smart growth.