The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Los Altos/Mtn. View Area and asked of all candidates for this office.     See below for questions on Parks, Condo Conversions, Hangar One, Site 25

Click on a name for candidate information.   See also more information about this contest.

Answer from Tian Harter:

I don't want to see future increases in the City's population distributed throughout the City. I want to see future increases in Mountain View's population concentrated near light rail stops and train stations.

As things stand now, parks on the west side of El Camino are at almost one park per precinct nearer the bay they are much more scattered. I would like to see another park or two in the south eastern part of town.

Answer from Alicia Crank:

Right now, there are parts of our community that are underserved in the areas of retail, parks and recreational facilities. I would focus on creating balanced growth for our neighborhoods, filling in the blanks that residents have long vocalized concerns about.

Answer from Ronit Bryant:

As Parks and Recreation Commissioner for eight years, I rewrote the City's Parks and Open Space Plan so that it provides a vision for parks in Mountain View and a detailed analysis of park and open space needs on both the neighborhood and the City level. The Plan identifies areas in town that are deficient in parks and open space and generates a prioritized list of needs. Park in-lieu fees that are collected when a development occurs in a neighborhood are used to acquire and develop parks in that neighborhood. The process has served us well for several years, with a number of new parks either acquired or developed in under-served neighborhoods.

The issue of parks and open space has recently gained more visibility in Mountain View and the time has come to move more aggressively on this issue. We have areas in town where parks and open space should be added, whether or not more development occurs. As your Councilmember, I will make the addition of parks and open space (particularly in under-served areas) a key priority. I will push to study additional funding mechanisms, move more aggressively to spend the park in-lieu fees that have been accumulating for several years, and request a list of all City properties in town. My experience with Mercy-Bush Park in my downtown neighborhood is that even a small park (0.6 acres, in this case) can be a gem and a great community-building resource for the neighborhood.

As for increases in the City's population, I believe that our focus in Mountain View today should be to renew our vision for what we want the City to look like in the next five to ten years. As your Councilmember, I will advocate for an inclusive and responsive process to achieve such a vision and update our General Plan based on it. The issue of population increase is a regional problem and we should work with our regional partners to resolve it. An interesting concept that is being looked at regionally is the idea of a "Grand Boulevard" on El Camino Real, which would turn it into a site of "meaningful destinations" with great potential for housing and urban development.

Answer from Jac M. Siegel:

The current situation with respect to parks is defined by the city goal that there should be 3 acres of park/open space for every 1000 residents in the city of Mountain View. No funds should be allocated for any expansion in an area that presently meets the 3/1000 ratio until all our neighborhoods have reached this goal. Further, All "in-lieu of fees" collected anywhere in the city should be applied to making sure that under-served areas of the community get the attention they need (e.g., Monte Loma area, Old Mountain View, etc.). Additionally, no city-owned land should be sold, unless or until the sale of it has to do with an ideal land purchase opportunity with respect to parks. Mountain View is not in urgent need of raising funds by selling off city land assets. The default posture should be to keep these assets around for future generations to leverage. Finally, the Parks and Recreation commission has undertaken a comprehensive study to try to determine what the city's P & R assets are, and then to make recommendations about what we need and what we want. While city staff will do an excellent technical job on this report, the evaluative aspects urgently require citizen input and intervention. This technical report should serve as the basis for a community effort to decide what the study means, and what we want to do about it. When it comes to the long term planning of such important quality of life issues, the professionals need to listen to the community!

Answer from John Inks:

Just as I now do as Parks and Recreation Commissioner, I would continue to review parkland/in-lieu fee dedications to insure park facilities with new developments are targeted to appropriate underserved areas as much as possible. Since Mountain View is essentially built out, dedications are already reviewed carefully to make sure the distribution is as fair as possible. I would also review special studies for new recreational facilities and master planning processes that depend on public input with an open mind to make sure the entire community is considered.

Answer from Kal Sandhu:

Intelligent Growth is the way to go. Parks are a vital neccessity in the city. As the population grows, so is the need for housing. I would advocate park-like settings for any large developments; along with parts of the property dedicated to the development of parks that are open to all residents of this city. Without straining or draining the city's financial resources, I would look into acquiring land for urban parks.

Answer from John Inks:

Yes, since apartments are the most affordable source of housing. To date there have been several requests including one from the League of Women Voters inquiring as to whether the City is abiding by the existing condominium conversion ordinance (including keeping track of all conversions/demolitions). According to Community Development there is a substantial cushion in keeping with this ordinance wherein new apartments have come on-line replacing some of those dwelling units that have been either converted or demolished in order to offer for sale product.

Answer from Kal Sandhu:

Yes I'm concerned. However, we have a buffer that is viable currently. Rentals provide a source for affordable housing. If, and when, the condo conversion becomes a problem, I'll be very happy to look into it and correct the situation, as necessary.

Answer from Jac M. Siegel:

The condo conversion ordinance is a complex issue. The primary purpose of the ordinance is to provide lower cost housing for residents while ensuring that condo conversions meet adequate building code standards. If administered properly, the ordinance is a viable way to support lower cost housing in the community.

Answer from Alicia Crank:

My concern is that there does not appear to be any protection for those who are currently renting apartments that could not afford to stay in their homes due to the conversion. I believe we need to create alternatives for those residents affected by this and find ways to prevent pricing them out of our community.

Answer from Tian Harter:

I have many friends who support restoring Hangar One. It bothers me to admit that I think the building is more trouble than it's worth. The walls have PCBs in them. They leach out and pollute the ground water. The ceiling is so high that heating and cooling are impractical. It has been many years since we had an airship big enough to need Hangar One to house it.

Answer from Jac M. Siegel:

The restoration of Hangar One is a worthwhile endeavor. Because the restoration effort involves the clean-up of toxic materials, the US government should be responsible for restoring/preserving Hangar one. Maintenance of the hangar could be turned over to the county or the city of Mountain View, along with hangar use administration.

Answer from Kal Sandhu:

Yes, indeed. Hangar One is part of Mountain View's rich heritage. The use and maintenance of Hangar One should be the responsibility of the entity or foundation that is put in charge of the facility.

Answer from John Inks:

As a pilot and avid aviation enthusiast, I support the restoration of Hangar One because of its historical aviation value. Although it would seem logical to seek federal funding for the clean-up, I'm leery of asking for federal funding when federal spending and deficits are out of control. I would suggest a private Hangar One Foundation where I and many others that want to save Hangar One could contribute directly to the restoration and maintenance.

Answer from Tian Harter:

I'm not a supporter of Hangar One.

Answer from Jac M. Siegel:

Restoration of the tidal marsh should take priority if it comes to an either/or situation, but I believe that this is not the case.

Answer from Kal Sandhu:

The most important factor is to clean the source of contamination; toxins in Hangar One.

Answer from John Inks:

The PCB source for Site 25 is to a great extent from Hangar One; therefore, the ultimate remediation of Site 25 is contingent on remediation of the source PCBs from Hangar One. Thus, there can be no restoration of Hangar One without addressing the PCB contamination source for Site 25. Later this year the Navy will release an update on Site 25.

The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.