Candidate for 2nd District supervisor

What will you do to secure a sustainable water supply to meet General Plan needs for the County and its cities? What is your position on the use of groundwater?

We have a three year supply of water for the entire region stored in Lake Sonoma, but we can't use it because of the sensitive fishery habitat in Dry Creek. I support the work being done in Dry Creek to possibly allow higher releases from Lake Sonoma. But I also do not support waiting ten years – as the Sonoma County Water Agency proposes – to make a decision on building a Dry Creek bypass. Such a bypass pipeline can be both affordable and environmentally responsible, and would end the series of artificial water shortages the county has been suffering through.

I recognize the importance and sensitivity of sustainable groundwater pumping levels. I support the studies underway of the different groundwater basins in the county. I'm also concerned that the Sonoma County Water Agency's rate design – loading both fixed and variable costs into a commodity charge – might be giving cities improper price signals that encourage them to heavily pump their own wells instead of buying SCWA water.

What will you do as a supervisor to facilitate the expansion of Highway 101 through Petaluma to Novato, and the construction of planned interchanges and other transportation improvements? What is your position on getting the SMART rail system up and running?

I have long advocated widening the Novato Narrows. I served for six years on both the Sonoma County Transportation Authority and the Novato Narrows Policy Advisory Group. When Measure M was being drafted, I personally got $10 million added to the spending plan for the segment of 101 south of Petaluma. The good news is that the Narrows EIR has finally been completed, and parts of the Narrows are funded through design. This means that we will have "shovel ready" projects when state and federal funding becomes available, which tends to happen on short notice. I am optimistic that we will make substantial further progress in the near term.

The Rainier cross-town connector and interchange – which I have long supported – needs a strong supporter in the south county supervisor seat because Caltrans needs to be constantly reminded of the importance of Rainier to this community.

I have also served on the SMART board. I realize that SMART has its challenges, but I'm committed to keeping service start-up as scheduled in 2014.

Sonoma County's roads are among the worst in the Bay Area. What will you do to fix them?

The main reason rural roads are in such poor condition is the same reason why Petaluma's streets are in such poor condition: we are consistently, year after year, under-spending on street maintenance. Petaluma recently balanced its budget by grabbing $300,000 per year in street maintenance funds to spend on non-street purposes. It was the easy thing to do, but it was the wrong thing to do, and I was the only member of the city council who voted against it.

Consistent and adequate funding of street and road maintenance is a high priority for me, as that vote demonstrates. I will not raid street maintenance funds for other purposes, and I will work proactively to grow the funding available for maintenance work.

What will you do to support dairies, wineries and other agricultural endeavors in the south county?

As a matter of land use, I support the right of farmers to farm in ag-zoned areas. I want to include farmers and other stakeholders in an open, careful and transparent process to address our groundwater challenges. And both the county and the cities need to maintain the ag support businesses needed to keep local farms viable. I am pleased that we are on the verge of restoring freight rail service, which should lower the cost of feed grains. I am also pleased at the trend of local farmers moving towards more specialized and high value-added crops as opposed to bulk commodity crops, as this will allow local farmers to compete more effectively, and local government should assist that wherever possible.

What will you do to maintain quality public health services, including mental health services?

Health care is primarily a national issue, as the recent debate demonstrates. At the local level the county needs to make sure that Sutter abides by its contractual obligations to open a replacement hospital, and that all providers comply with their obligations for indigent care. About 60% of Sonoma County's commercially insured population is covered by Kaiser. (Full disclosure: I'm a Kaiser member, and happy with it.) Kaiser is doing fine; it's the rest of the system that is challenged. The county should assist the various public hospitals, where possible, in staying open. In Petaluma, for instance, even Kaiser members have a stake in keeping Petaluma Valley Hospital viable because it has the only emergency room in town. So part of the challenge is convincing everyone that they have a personal stake in keeping the health care system functional.

Maintaining a robust mental health system is very important. If we don't provide adequate support services and medication, we'll spend even more in the sheriff's department, jail and court systems and homeless shelters.

How will you address the increasing gap between revenues and the expenses associated with providing public services? Give specific examples.

I won't ask voters to approve a local tax increase to support general government programs because I don't believe there is support for that. Long term, we can increase our revenues by promoting a healthy private sector, thereby stimulating both property and sales tax revenues. I would: (1) do everything possible to protect against further raids by Sacramento on local funding sources; (2) work to grow the County's revenue base long term; and (3) work collaboratively with stakeholders, including employees, to find the best solutions for budget shortfalls.

County government, like private businesses and families, must work to be more efficient. It is also important for elected officials to lead by example: in Petaluma, I'm giving back 10% of my city council pay and benefits while our employees are on a furlough program.

One area we should explore is instituting a tiered retirement program with less generous benefits for new hires, as Marin County has done.

What do you hope to achieve in the area of parks and open space and what will you do as supervisor to reach those goals?

I will work to improve the access and usability of Tolay Park. The county should be supporting Petaluma's efforts to open a multi-sport park complex by the Petaluma airport. I recognize the importance of adequately maintaining our existing parks.

The Open Space district gives us the opportunity to achieve several goals. It should focus on sensitive habitat and community separator lands vulnerable to development, as well as on preserving working farms and dairies and helping them remain viable.

What would you do as supervisor regarding the casino proposal in Rohnert Park as well as any future casino proposals?

The proposed 2,000-slot-machine Rohnert Park casino would be a disaster for the entire region. It would create at least 18,000 vehicle trips per day, yet the tribe proposes to spend not one dime on upgrades to the mainline of Highway 101. It also creates serious water supply and wastewater challenges, as well as various social ills.

I don't think the casino is inevitable or a done deal, which is why I'm a leader in the fight against it. I'm one of the individual plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit that has prevented the federal government from taking the Rohnert Park site into trust for casino gaming over the last two years. And I will make sure there is a NEPA lawsuit if the casino proposal advances that far.

Meanwhile, I am continuing to advocate for a county-wide advisory vote against any further expansion of casino gaming in Sonoma County. There are six federally recognized tribes in Sonoma County with the potential to open casinos. The California

State Senate hearing last summer on Assemblyman Huffman's ACR 56, at which I testified, drove home the point that the Graton Rancheria and its allies are scared to death of an advisory vote because they realize it has the potential to be a game changer.

How do you feel about the Dutra Group's proposed asphalt plant south of Petaluma? Do you believe the south county should have a local source of asphalt for road repair and reconstruction?

I oppose the proposed asphalt plant. I do agree that a south county asphalt plant would be helpful, if a suitable site can be identified. That hasn't happened yet. But it isn't accurate to imply that the condition of local streets has anything to do with this issue. That is entirely a funding issue. Whether an asphalt plant is ten minutes closer really hasn't made a difference.

What is your opinion of the proposed Roblar Road Quarry gravel mining operation west of Cotati?

The proposed quarry presents the types of tradeoffs that often appear in land use decisions. On the one hand, local sources of aggregate would, all other things equal, be a more sustainable approach. Much of the aggregate now used locally is shipped from British Columbia. I oppose resuming gravel mining in or next to the Russian River, so if we are to have local supplies, it needs to come from quarries. On the other hand, rural residents have developed justifiable expectations, based on the County General Plan and zoning, about the types of uses that will be allowed in their neighborhoods. I take these issues very seriously — I first got involved in local government due to an issue (a noisy bar) impacting my own neighborhood. In this particular situation, the first hurdle, in my mind, is whether or not the proposed quarry use is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. The second hurdle is whether or not the project's impacts can and would be mitigated in a meaningful way. This is the framework I would apply in deciding whether to approve this or any other proposed project. I also don't make a decision until I've heard from both sides, and I haven't had that opportunity yet with respect to this proposed quarry.

What is the current Board of Supervisors doing well? What are they not doing well? What would you like to see changed?

The current Board should be commended for getting the voters to extend Open Space District funding for another 20 years, and for their roles in getting Measure M (101 widening) passed and SMART passenger rail authorized.

County government has developed a culture that doesn't encourage the degree of collaboration with local cities that would produce good outcomes. Two examples. First, regarding the landfill, where cooperation between the county and cities is essential, the county's initial approach was unreasonably heavy-handed threats of lawsuits against the cities. Less stick and more carrot would have advanced discussions more effectively. Second, on water supply, the county last year unilaterally and radically changed course, triggering a lawsuit from Santa Rosa. While I agree that a significant change of course was warranted, it should have been done in a more collaborative manner.