However, given that the entire department reportedly joined the request, I take the situation as a huge red flag. There maybe major problems in the department which may not be related strictly to salaries and/or benefits. The upper levels of management and the Council need to determine why the request was made and take steps to resolve the problem(s). This should be done as quickly and publicly as possible.

The city should lead in conservation and use of effluent/gray water for irrigation. It should also have an aggressive system for identifying leaks in the pipes and fixing them. It should also establish a maintenance rotation so older pipes are replaced as they wear out.

I think a bridge for bicycles, pedestrians, and wheelchairs is a good idea for that location. It will provide the flattest possible route from Mountain View to downtown and enhance the neighborhood.

In terms of traffic planning, I believe transportation pathways, such as streets, are the community’s skeleton. They need to be designed for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians and the locations generally established well before development occurs. That means the City decides where not only the arterials and connectors will be, but also the neighborhood streets. The City should control how each development links into the neighboring areas and not allow structures to be built in the way. I like adaptive grid systems, because they are easy to expand.

I would like to see “what-if“ studies to evaluate changes in traffic patterns before the City closes or opens any intersections. Any proposed development should also include traffic studies that look at the impact of increased traffic throughout town and determine mitigation as part of the discussion of how much housing density should be allowed.

The neighborhood’s objections are as real and legitimate as the need for the fields. The ball field’s development will create problems that go beyond the site—such as greatly increased traffic (creating a need to widen the road to three lanes, plus bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides), lights, and noise. I believe the City needs to have solutions to those problems—and funding to pay for them—before developing a detailed design. If solutions are not available or affordable, perhaps moving to an alternative site should be considered. The consideration should include balancing all costs, such as road improvements.

I would like to see a process where the first step is to bring the developer and the neighbors together to resolve concerns and problems. This should not be a “them” vs. “us” confrontation. It should be a process of fitting the new into the existing with a minimum of adverse impacts.

As for the general development of parks, it should take place at the same time as the development of a subdivision. In situations where landownership indicates piecemeal development of relatively small parcels, the City should require some type of public space to be developed with the parcel—even if it is just bench under a tree.

I have extensive experience in coordination, planning, procedures and implementation. I believe that good government is open government, and that city council must be receptive to citizen input and involvement. I also believe in planning for the future, in anticipating problems before they become intractable, and in paying strict attention to clearly laid-out guidelines and procedures. There should be no such thing as government “on the fly.”

In past lives, I have been a field director for Camp Fire Girls & Boys, the Recording Secretary for the American Association of University Women, and on the board of the Moscow Civic Association. Currently, I am the chair of the Lit Group, a book review group which is over fifty-years old. I am a citizen activist. and have been involved in the revision of the animal codes and zoning issues.