Q

Environment

QUESTION: What positions would you take as a council member to balance environmental concerns and the need for open space with the demands of development and pressures for more recreational facilities?

John Ellis: In order to balance environmental concerns versus open space versus development versus recreational facilities, I would support an approach more flexible than currently being used. While one should always keep an open mind for better ideas, I believe that more concentrated development (taller buildings with underground parking) without an increase in overall density would cause less environmental damage while providing more open space and recreational facilities. Only an ethical city council could be trusted not to allow one without the other.

Trudi Loh: Not only can environmental concerns be balanced with development concerns and recreational needs, they must be if we are to preserve quality of life. I will staunchly support preservation of open spaces, ridgelines and greenbelts. And I will deal fairly and consistently with each developer’s proposal. Our council does not need a fifth member who is a rubber stamp for either extreme. We do not need to choose “sides� but to move forward to meet the challenges of the next century. We can and will do this with thorough analysis, fair and reasoned review, and civil debate.

Mike Markey: I would keep a balance by identifying areas that would promote joint use of open space and athletic facilities with minimal environmental impact. Since most of the major development is in place, we will be in a maintenance mode over the next five years in the city. I would promote improving our open space allocation and identify revenue-generating programs to facilitate the cost of maintaining our open space.

Ekbal Quidwai: We have a well thought out, balanced General Plan, which has already gone through the process of give-and-take to have compromises built into it. We are the envy of other cities. For the past few years developer fees that should have been used to build sports fields and infrastructure have been diverted: of the $4,671,000 received from Shappel $4,161,679 has been spent to build a new city hall. Dos Vientos has given $3,245,159 in fees and $2,470,000 was loaned to RDA to build the new city hall. It is NOT a matter of shortage of funds but the wrong set of priorities!

Ramaul Rush: The positions I would take would be based upon reviewing all of the facts and the impact of my decision upon the community at large.

Lance Winslow: Oh, I don’t know, what kind of positions would you take. We already have enough resolutions, ordinances and municipal codes. Not to mention enough fees, taxes, permits, assessments, tariffs, tolls, charges. We have to deal with federal mandates, state legislation, county requirements and Michele Keotke of the Sierra Club. A private developer isn’t going to get away with anything in this town. I certainly wouldn’t make anymore laws. Maybe we should just follow the ones we already have! That’s my position. As far as recreation facilities go--I’m your candidate. Vote for Lance.