The DCVA board recently submitted a questionnaire regarding issues pertinent to the valley and its residents to the two official candidates in the June 2010 election for District 4 Supervisor, Debora Fudge and Mike McGuire.  Both candidates' responses are provided verbatim below for DCVA members and other interested parties to review.  If you have questions regarding these statements, you are advised to follow up directly with each candidate.  Debora Fudge: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , Mike McGuire: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Response from Candidate Debora Fudge

Date of Response:  ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­4-9-10

1. Sonoma County General Plan

A.  Do you believe there are any omissions which would require amendments?  If so, please elaborate.

The General Plan uses a USGS groundwater classification system created in 1959 to identify groundwater availability.  This needs to be updated, especially in light of the groundwater plain studies currently in process.

The cumulative impacts of water use language in the General Plan need to be strengthened.

We need to increase the tools to protect small local operations in the GP.

We need the ability to process agricultural products – the GP does not adequately support those enterprises. We are losing Pugs Leap because the application process is too arduous.  This should not be happening at a time when we are trying to Go Local and support local businesses.

Geologic analyses also need to be included in the GP.  Decisions are being made now without solid and sometimes even accurate geological information. 

B.  Would you support an amendment requiring that at least 75% of the grapes used in new wineries or expansions of existing wineries be required to be grown in Sonoma County?  If not, why not?

Yes.  It’s important this region remain known for the quality of the grapes and the wine made here, not for mass production from central valley wineries who want to use our appellations.  The negative impacts from the trucking in of grapes only inflame neighbors and cause resistance to the location of all new wineries, even those we would like to encourage.  I want local vineyards and wineries to thrive here.  With opposition to new wineries gaining ground across the county, it’s important that of those we approve, we are supporting those who live and work in Sonoma County.

2. Planning and Zoning Oversight

A.  Would you support the formation of an impartial advisory committee comprised of local experts to aid PRMD in prescreening potential new businesses with respect to the detrimental cumulative effect (for example more than 3 wineries/tasting rooms within a ½ mile radius) of such projects?

I think an unbiased peer review process is a good idea.  I am a professional planner and I am very concerned about the cumulative impacts I see occurring in small wine valleys. I have plans for improvements that need to be made within PRMD and their processes, and this would be an easy first step to implement.     

B. Would you support the county requiring a traffic study for Dry Creek Valley to assess baseline traffic conditions on the roads serving the area for the purpose of determining impacts and possible mitigations of new proposed projects especially on West Dry Creek Road?   If not, why not?

Yes.  Projects that are approved on a piecemeal basis without the full understanding of baseline conditions and what individual and cumulative impacts are should no longer happen.  We have special valleys in the 4^th District, and all have special characteristics that should be preserved and not destroyed. Once we get too far down this path we won’t be able to turn back. Now is the time to complete this study, as we are doing with groundwater and surface water studies.  With me as Supervisor, you can rest easy knowing that I will maintain your valley in its present state.  Again, I am the professional planner who fully understands your concerns, and knows what to do about them.  I will also not accept faulty environmental documents.  When I worked at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, my boss was one of the original authors of CEQA and I worked extensively with CEQA myself.  No one will sneak past me with projects that aren’t fully evaluated and whose impacts are not properly addressed.

C. How would you address the gap between PRMD’s rules and the enforcement or lack thereof that seem to be rampant throughout the county?  Please provide examples if you are aware of any such situations.

I am aware of enforcement issues with events held at wineries, and their impact on neighbors with noise, traffic and general nuisance. I hear it all over the county, in other districts as well. The rules need to be revisited so that they are enforceable.   Again, as a professional planner, I will be your best friend on the Board of Supervisors, as the planner who knows how to make the changes that are necessary.

D. Alexander Valley is facing another tribal land claim which could eventually result in another casino being built.  What is your position regarding tribal lands and the spread of additional casinos into rural areas such as the Dry Creek Valley?

I am not in support of any casinos or card rooms in Sonoma County.  I will work any angle I can, with the state and federal government, to stop the proliferation of casinos here.   On my own, I have spoken on two different occasions with the tribal leader of the River Rock casino about lessening the impacts of the casino as it exists now, especially the unnecessarily overlit parking structure.  I have provided him with ideas on how to mitigate the impacts of what is already built – unfortunately I have not seen any action on my suggestions. I will continue to try to communicate with that group. I never give up.    

3. Sonoma County Economy

What if anything would you do to foster a pro-business attitude in Sonoma County?  What are your ideas relative to creation of new jobs and retention of existing jobs?  How would you address competing priorities?

A pro-business attitude is what is especially needed here as we try to rebound from our economic recession.  I will do county-wide what I have done in Windsor – work with the community to create vision plans that outline clearly what kind of development and job opportunities are welcome in which locations, then work with planning staff and other county departments to ensure they work together on applications to work out problems proactively ahead of public hearings.  Staff must work closely together so that projects that are desired in the community can fly through the approval process, and those that are not desired are stopped before they get too far along.  We should also be working more closely together with the Economic Development Board and the tourism bureau and the Innovation Council.  I don’t see enough collaboration yet between different groups that are all working toward the same goal. 

We approved a winery in a light industrial part of Windsor in one Planning Commission meeting.  We worked with the developer to make sure he addressed Town concerns up front, and we brought a much desired business to Windsor in a location that fit well, and we met his schedule for construction so that he could make crush the same year.  When it’s right, there is no reason for unnecessary delays that cost the project more than is necessary.  

This is also how we built the Windsor Downtown, of which I played a major part.  As citizens we vision planned what we wanted, we worked with the Ag and Open Space District to obtain part of the land we needed for the Town Green, we bought the rest of the land we needed, and then we used redevelopment money to build the infrastructure including the streets in the new Downtown. It was only then that Orrin Thiessen came to Windsor to build.  He said he knew we were serious, committed, and then we sped him through approval processes because he was following our predetermined vision plans.

I will take this experience to the county level, and break through roadblocks that currently exist.  Bureaucracy is out of control here.  If we have better planning documents and agreement ahead of time about what we want to promote here and where it should be located, then we can attract it, just like we did in Windsor.  We have worked together, the county and the cities, on such things as the Climate Protection Plan, Regional Climate Protection Authority, and now we are starting to work together on the future of the Central Landfill.  I have been a part of all of these collaborative efforts – the only candidate in this race who has done so from the beginning.  If we can be known nationally and even internationally for our collaborative efforts regarding climate change, then we can certainly do it for job creation and economic renewal of the county as a whole.  This is my highest priority, and as a planner, you need me in this position on the Board to make this happen.

In terms of existing jobs, we need to reach out to businesses that are hanging on by a thread here and listen to their concerns and address them.  The expansion of Amy’s Kitchen comes to mind.  If it’s cheaper for businesses to locate elsewhere, then we need to work to keep them here, even if it means making some concessions we might have done in the past.  Times are different. Nothing will be as it was.  Business as usual will not cut it anymore.  I know this and have an open mind to all kinds of new ideas that we can come up with together to retain what we have, and to create a region that is famous for working together on all kinds of issues. If we can do that, together with what we already offer in terms of climate and world class quality of life, then we will really be set to withstand future challenges. We will be sustainably self contained, economically and environmentally.

In terms of competing priorities, I see land use and climate protection policies as being competing with economic recovery.  While we need to attract more jobs here, we cannot sacrifice our solid land use planning policies and our climate protection goals.  Economic recovery and environmental issues must go hand in hand, even now. We can do this.  We need to plan where growth can go, and then we need to ensure it is designed appropriately so that impacts are mitigated. Where growth is not appropriate, then it should still not be allowed.  We have many areas in the urban service areas of the county, as well as in the cities, that can be redeveloped for the increase in jobs that are needed.  I have a plan for how to make the Airport area more attractive for new job growth and even some residential land uses to go along with it, so that people can live where they work. 

I am a LEED accredited professional, and am working on ways to help new and existing businesses become greener, not only reducing GHG emissions but improving their operating bottom line as well.  It can all be done together, but it will be hard work as temptations arise to just accept whatever we can get.  We can’t do that – we can’t sacrifice this beautiful county. What we can do is to become a model for the rest of the world, as we have done with climate protection policies.  The reason I am working so hard for this Supervisorial seat is because my vote is very much needed now on Board to implement these new ideas.  My education, background and experience are skill sets that currently do not exist on the Board, and won’t without my election.  It’s time we start planning and encouraging the kinds of projects we want, and stop wasting time and money fighting the ones we don’t.  

4. Agricultural Economic Environment

What do you see as the most critical issues facing the agriculture economy in Sonoma County and what are your thoughts on the best ways to support and protect the agricultural industries at the county level?

The availability of water is probably the highest concern. We need to continue working on determining what we have through ongoing studies, both groundwater and surface water, so that we don’t overdraft our supply and hurt those who would need water to survive in the future.  We need to ensure that we can allocate enough water for the needs of existing ag and rural residential parcels among it, and even make room for new ag producers.   I want very much to see us become a locally sustainable ag economy in terms of not only grape production, but dairies, ranches, farms, and orchards.   

We need to recognize the big issues facing the grapegrowers today: water rights, bypass flows in the fall and winter and frost control in the spring.  There are many paths to solutions, but they all need to recognize the values of fish, of agriculture and of water management.  We should be working together, with government being proactive and not reactive or obstructionist. 

We need to work with the state Department of Water Resources to stop illegal diversions, and we must continue to increase urban conservation, and the reuse of wastewater generated by urban areas within urban areas to offset their potable water use for landscaping. Potable water is better spent on growing food, producing wine, for domestic use, and as habitat for fish, than it is for watering lawns.  (In Windsor, we just voted to ban front yard lawns. It’s a start.)

The Sonoma County Water Agency Water Advisory Committee, of which  I am a part, has only water contractors as members.  The rural areas are completely lacking in real representation and should be included.  I’m open to a new structure of governance for the SCWA that is representative of all water users in the county.  

I also see looming and continuing problems with conflicting land use decisions being made that are harming agricultural production, and the rural way of life that goes along with it. We need a balance in the rural community.  Some projects, which convert a small parcel into a Disneyland of a winery, may be totally inappropriate for a neighborhood.  And, as some of the recent projects approved by Paul Kelley and his planning commissioner show that Dry Creek valley needs new representation.

I obtained a Masters degree in Environmental Planning specifically so I could work to protect ag lands throughout my life.  I have worked at the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to preserve ag lands in the Central Valley region (obviously those efforts were thwarted when new governors came into office who didn’t believe in smart planning).  I have successfully worked to reign in Windsor’s growth, and took out 300 acres out of our UGB that is now planted in vineyard.    I will work at the County level to protect all ag in Sonoma County, in any way that I can.  This is extremely important to me. I’m not the city girl some people assume I am because I live in Windsor.  My home is a 1934 era farmhouse in town limits here that I have restored.  I spent my teen years on a 100 year old farm when my family relocated to the Santa Cruz foothills.  My dad still lives at the top of Loma Prieta.  My appreciation for the rural way of life runs deep.    

5. Urban Sprawl and Agricultural Land

A. Despite innovative policies regarding urban growth and sprawl, the urbanization of farmland continues to threaten the quality of life in Sonoma County. We have stretched the need for water and our need to deal with waste water beyond all reasonable levels as our population continues to grow and spread. Given the fact that the number of claims to these water resources seem to exceed supply, how would you reconcile these competing issues?  More specifically, how would your approach to a solution play out in the Dry Creek watershed?

Parcels should not be subdivided further to the extent that they are now. I am still concerned about the numbers of certificates of compliance that exist.  I really don’t think we have innovative policies at all, and that is what I want to change.  We have business-as-usual policies where the overall picture is not being examined for these multiple zone change applications.  Cumulative development is not being examined as far as I am concerned.  I’m a planner – I can see the problems you are facing even though I don’t live where you do.  I propose a “vision plan” for the entire Dry Creek Valley, and other areas of the county as well, so that we determine what is acceptable to residents, what is appropriate, what should be encouraged and what should be discouraged, and then we codify that plan and stick with it.  Cumulative impacts and strain to water supplies will then be significantly reduced.  There is a new informative system in order to gauge community input called “MetroQuest” – and I would employ that method to ensure that the vision is completed with everyone’s input.

B. What restrictions should be placed on irrigating agricultural lands with wastewater in Sonoma County?  Do you believe in county-wide, general restrictions or is there a basis for region-specific restrictions?  If so, what do you see with regards to the Dry Creek watershed?

I think there should be region-specific restrictions, depending on the type of soils.  Clay type soils might be able to accept waste water without further impact to underlying aquifers, but even then, waste water would have to be applied carefully to avoid runoff. Areas with alluvial soils should be avoided so that aquifers do not get contaminated with untreated byproducts of waste water, such as personal care products.   

I made sure that Windsor’s wastewater master plan EIR included language that our wastewater would not be sent to where it could harm aquifers, and that our “molecules” of wastewater were to be primarily reused within town limits first, then reused nearby with hay farmers or willing vineyards near Windsor, and then sent to the Geysers pipeline if we were able to hook up, in that order.  Disposal into the river was the last option, and we have had years where we have disposed of no wastewater into the river because of our great management of our own wastewater.  In fact, the RWQCB has told Windsor that we are a model in the way we treat and handle our wastewater.

I was opposed to NSCARP.  I also made sure Windsor staff commented on the NSCARP EIR to point out 18 inaccuracies within that EIR that incorrectly referenced agreements that Windsor had not made to the county for wastewater storage and distribution.    

6. Urban Wastewater

Which of the following solutions would you consider to be the most effective way for Sonoma County to deal with urban wastewater, and why?

1.  
   1. Increase the flow of water to produce more clean energy at the Geysers thermo power generating plants.
   2. Build reverse osmosis and ultraviolet water treatment facilities to purify water adequate for domestic use.
   3. Improve water treatment facilities and holding ponds to provide water for landscape and agricultural irrigation.
   4. Your additional solution?

I would say in this order, c, a, and then b.  Windsor is already the leader in Northern California, and has held that lead for 8 years, for the provision of recycled water to the front and back yards of a 478 unit subdivision.  That subdivision is net-zero in terms of water for irrigation and we are proud of it.  I led the effort.  I would love to build reverse osmosis plants here, but right now we don’t have the renewable energy in place in order for the great amounts of electricity needed for treatment to be non-carbon.  When we get alternative energy plants up and running here, which is a major goal of mine, and then we should start converting to reverse osmosis.

An additional solution is to continue to reduce what we generate so that we don’t have so much to treat and dispose of.  I’ve experienced composting toilets and was very impressed.  They wouldn’t be accepted everywhere but they do have their place.  Sewer lines need to be repaired because great amounts of storm water enter them and then has to be treated and disposed of.  I will continue to look at any new technologies on the horizon so that we can manage our wastewater better than we are now.  

7. Public Transportation

In what order would you consider funding public transportation in Sonoma County, and why?

1.  
   1. Increase traffic lanes on highway 101 from Novato to Petaluma.
   2. Support the SMART train service and develop feeder bus distribution at all train stations.
   3. Support and increase public transportation by increasing commuter busses from Sonoma County to Marin County and San Francisco.
   4. Your additional solution?

In this order:  b, c, a.  I am the Chair of SMART and am working very hard to get train service from Larkspur to Cloverdale by 2014.  SMART is only the start, and is the spine of what in the future will be an alternative transit network.  With GHG emissions coming primarily from single occupant cars in Sonoma County, we must provide options so that we can travel in a less carbon intensive manner.    SMART is already working to preserve right of way for future expansion to the Capitol Corridor and to Amtrak. 

Our commuter bus system is pretty sad. It’s painful to ride the Golden Gate busses – you can’t talk, you can’t drink coffee, and the schedule is not good.  We should come up with a better bus system between our two counties, which are where most of the traffic is generated. And then feeder buses to this new bus line, to make it convenient to ride.  And the busses should be designed with the amenities that we are planning for SMART rail cars that will encourage commuters to want to take the busses.  They must be way more convenient than they currently are.  You shouldn’t have to get up at 4:30 a.m. to catch an express bus.

Busses within the cities must also be rerouted and not have circular routes that cause you to have to take 3 times longer to get where you want to go.  Bus lines should be more linear. I used to work for a bus company in the scheduling department (Regional Transit in Sacramento) so I understand this. I’ve been talking to Santa Rosa City Bus and Sonoma County transit about this.

And as chair of SMART, I am leading the negotiations with NCRA for a       new Operating Agreement so that they can start freight operations as soon as they are financially able.  This will reduce GHGs and also take trucks off of our freeways, preserving pavement as well as our climate.        

If anyone would like to speak with me further on any of these issues, or others, I welcome it.  I can be reached at:  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it or at 836-9057.

Response from Candidate Mike McGuire

Date of Response:  ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­4-9-10

1.   Sonoma County General Plan

A. Do you believe there are any omissions which would require amendments?  If so, please elaborate.

I do believe there are omissions particularly when it comes to the public’s ability to provide sincere input related to projects built within our agricultural regions. As we have all seen, there has been an expansion of new wineries in the north county over the last 15 years and there has been growing frustration by many residents related to public participation in the decision making process. In addition, I have become concerned that a few operators are focused on building a venue for events and not about the art of making wine 

People visit our County, not just because of the beauty, but because Sonoma County is still “real.” I know we are in tough times and a few operators are looking to diversify their business models, but we need to be cautious in our approach about approving projects that are focused more on events than making wine.

There needs to be greater focus on working collaboratively with neighbors regarding hours of operation, the density of businesses within a specific area, event calendars and noise. You don’t need to be a professional planner to realize that the pressures will continue to expand in the coming years related to growth within our agricultural regions. We need a Supervisor that has the ability to bring all sides together to build a sustainable economy while protecting our agricultural heritage.

B.  Would you support an amendment requiring that at least 75% of the grapes used in new wineries or expansions of existing wineries be required to be grown in Sonoma County?  If not, why not?

I support the initiative by the Sonoma Wine Grape Commission and the Sonoma County Vintners to introduce the Conjunctive labeling Initiative.

Legislation is currently being considered at the state level which would require wine be labeled Sonoma County if 75% of the grapes used to produce that wine were grown in our County.  I would support such legislation. 

There had been previous legislation in 2006, authored by the Senator Wesley Chesbro dealing with both Sonoma and Napa Counties.  The new legislation being considered would actually put more teeth in that law.

National market research has demonstrated that 86% of consumers recognize Sonoma County as a premier grape and wine producing county.  It’s important that wine consumers have reliable information regarding the origin of the wine they are consuming.   

I feel the time has come for Sonoma County to join other wine producing regions, such as Napa Valley, Paso Robles, Lodi and Bordeaux, and build the image of the entire region through consistent labeling of all wines produced here.

With this initiative I believe that we can provide a major incentive for existing and new wineries to use Sonoma County grapes in their wines.

2.    Planning and Zoning Oversight

A.  Would you support the formation of an impartial advisory committee comprised of local experts to aid PRMD in prescreening potential new businesses with respect to the detrimental cumulative effect (for example more than 3 wineries/tasting rooms within a ½ mile radius) of such projects. 

Yes, in fact, I would encourage this type of planning structure. Too many times over the past decade, the County has made decisions without taking into consideration the long-term impacts projects will have on neighbors, along with the Valley’s quality of life. This type of committee just makes sense.  I would work with the Dry Creek Valley Association regarding the composition of this committee and would solicit additional expertise from the grower and wine community. Whether it is commercial development or the Northern Sonoma County Agricultural Re-Use Project, I believe the County’s communication can be much improved. Having a local connection will not only help with the decision making process, but I believe it will be a great benefit to long term planning efforts related to the Valley.  As I have shared with some of the DCVA Directors, I will be directly soliciting input from the Board regarding any new development and Water Agency projects within the Valley.

This is more than a promise, this is how I have always operated. As a member of the Healdsburg School Board, former Mayor and current Councilmember, I have prided myself on soliciting input from individuals that would be impacted by potential projects. This is why I proudly brought together the Dry Creek Valley Association, Alexander valley Association, Soda Rock Neighborhood Association, Westside Association to Save Agriculture, Bishop’s Ranch, Russian Riverkeeper and the City of Healdsburg to form the Clean Water Coalition of Northern Sonoma County.  I will continue with my track record of building bridges, tireless advocacy and collaboration if I am lucky enough to be elected as your next supervisor

B.  Would you support the county requiring a traffic study for Dry Creek Valley to assess baseline traffic conditions on the roads serving the area for the purpose of determining impacts and possible mitigations of new proposed projects especially on West Dry Creek Road?   If not, why not. 

As a native Healdsburg resident, I have driven West Dry Creek Road literally hundreds of times. The road was never meant to carry a large amount of traffic each day. It’s narrow, not in the best shape and the traffic volume has increased greatly over the last 15 years. I believe it is the County’s responsibility to study the long-term affects future development will bring to West Dry Creek Road including traffic volume.  While I don’t believe it’s a good idea to arbitrarily spend money on a lot of studies, I think it’s important in this particular situation.  In order to make good decisions around future development, it’s necessary to determine certain baseline conditions.  The West Dry Creek area – as it is so important to Sonoma County’s wine industry and culture – is a region where I think it would be important to study and determine such conditions before moving forward with new projects.

C.  How would you address the gap between PRMD’s rules and the enforcement or lack thereof that seem to be rampant throughout the county?  Please provide examples if you are aware of any such situations.

As I campaign for this position, I have heard about issues Sonoma County residents face in dealing with PRMD.  The issue you raise regarding the rules and enforcement being one.  I know there have been some Grand Jury cases that have focused on this inconsistency while most complaints I hear about are related to the time it takes to submit and application and have that application come to a hearing. I have also been made aware of issues related to a lack of noise enforcement related to outdoor concerts or events within the Valleys. 

I would want to work with the PRMD advisory group to help work out some of these issues.  We should use some of the current resources to bolster the enforcement arm of PRMD as we restructure the department to improve efficiency and responsiveness to community needs.

D.   Alexander Valley is facing another tribal land claim which could eventually result in another casino being built.  What is your position regarding tribal lands and the spread of additional casinos into rural areas such as the Dry Creek Valley?

I am opposed to the expansion of casinos in our County, particularly within our rural and agriculture regions. The current proposal in the Alexander Valley would be placed just a half-mile, as the crow flies, from where my family farmed for nearly a half century.  I am opposed to the spread of any more casinos into rural areas within the county and I will do all that I can as Supervisor to resist any type of further expansions.  The introduction of gambling casinos into our rural and agricultural areas are inconsistent with my vision for the County and I believe any type of gambling operation would be blight on our environment, rural landscapes, wine and tourism industries

3.   Sonoma County Economy

What if anything would you do to foster a pro-business attitude in Sonoma County?  What are your ideas relative to creation of new jobs and retention of existing jobs?  How would you address competing priorities?

The Economy is the number one issue facing us here in Sonoma County with the highest jobless numbers in decades. In fact, the County is reporting the unemployment and underemployment numbers have reached over 20%. The Board of Supervisors needs to take their role seriously, and aggressively pursue new opportunities to improve our local economy and take a greater role in promoting local businesses and jobs. 

•             Partnerships - We have to create new partnerships with local businesses and business groups that are beneficial to everyone: Partnering with our local car dealers, visitor services, hi-tech, manufacturing, and our service industry is crucial – we are currently missing opportunities to work with each of these sectors to promote them and help our economy and job base at the same time. We have had great success in the city of Healdsburg by partnering with local industries, and we need to do the same for Sonoma County. 

•             New Businesses - We must establish a goal of attracting and helping create 100 new small businesses here in Sonoma County that employ between 10 and 20 people.  These small, professional, service, sale &/or manufacturing based businesses are the cornerstone of our local economy and we need to focus our efforts on them. 

•             Education – We cannot forget that education is the key to our successful economy - in more ways than one!  The County can and must take a real leadership role when it comes to education, particularly with addressing the achievement gap with the 70 % of public high school graduates that will not go onto a 4-year degree.  We have the chance to truly assist schools in their work to educate our children, and more importantly we can create school/county/private partnerships that encourage local opportunities throughout the county.  High schools, SRJC, SSU, local businesses and the County need to actively work together to create programs that provide education that applies to LOCAL jobs.  Through internships, residencies and apprenticeship programs, we can help provide jobs to our children right here at home.

•             Rural Communications - The rural nature of the 4th Supervisorial district leaves our area woefully under-served when it comes to Internet and cellular communications - There is virtually no way for a small and growing business to thrive without this access, and the County needs to recognize this weakness and work with local business to help change this as quickly as possible and launch an aggressive rural broadband initiative.

•             Consortium - We need to bring all parties together for the Economic Development Board - Business interests, labor and ALL the municipalities in the county need to become partners in making sure that repairing and improving the economy is number 1.  It will take some hard work for everyone to set aside regional/historical differences, but the current economy demands it.

4.  Agricultural Economic Environment

What do you see as the most critical issues facing the agriculture economy in Sonoma County and what are your thoughts on the best ways to support and protect the agricultural industries at the county level?

First off, we need a strong voice for agriculture on the Board of Supervisors. The 4^th District needs a Supervisor that understands the needs of our agricultural community, family farmers and rural issues. My family farmed the Alexander Valley for nearly a half century and I not only understand the challenges all of you face, I will work tirelessly to ensure your family has a voice on the Board

There are several key issues facing agriculture in the county. In particular: Water, development pressure and protecting your right to farm status as well as developing public/private financial partnerships which will benefit agriculture.

The next 4^th District Supervisor will be responsible to bring together agricultural, environmental and municipal leaders to deal with the issue of frost protection along with long-term water allocation demands. I am the only one in this race that comes to the table with a local agricultural background and I directly understand the water issues facing the agriculture community. In addition, as a Councilmember, I am the only one that has directly helped to manage a municipal water system and this expertise will greatly assist me in hitting the ground running when it comes to the operational side of the Water Agency Board of Directors.

Together, we must also ensure that there is sufficient water available for the environment and fisheries, agriculture, our cities and recreation. Dealing specifically with agriculture, which is the County’s largest employer and tax increment, there are several ways to address the issue of water security.

A.  Continue to advance urban conservation along with agricultural conservation as well.

B.  Where geologically and environmentally appropriate, promote the use of off stream storage sites. The County is only capturing a small percentage of all run off that flows through our region on an annual basis. During periods of peak flows, we have more than sufficient water to be able to fill off stream storage reservoirs without impacting water needed for fish habitat or downstream requirements.  This new initiative would require the Water Agency, PRMD and various state and federal agencies to work together regarding approval timelines and costs related to agricultural reservoirs.

• Look at using peak flows to re-charge our underground aquifers through direct injection of our underground aquifer.
• Develop a stronger collaborative effort with the Dry Creek neighbors related to the Water Agency’s habitat enhancement project

The Board of Supervisors must develop a strategy to work with our County’s State elected leaders to ensure the Williamson Act is reinstated. The Act, which was suspended due to the recent budget crisis, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict agricultural parcels to open space. Past in 1965, the Williamson Act has preserved millions of acres of threatened Ag land all through out the state as well as help to preserve family farms.

The Board must also develop a closer relationship with Sonoma County agricultural commissions such as the Winegrape Commission, Sonoma County Vintners Association along with regional advocacy groups to help promote the Sonoma County brand. This may mean the development, similar to what was launched in the City of Healdsburg, a financial partnership.

Development pressure on agricultural land and open space must be addressed through the general plan, including the preservation of community separators.  Ensuring that the community separators are fully enforced and encouraging cities that do not yet have an Urban Space Boundary to implement one.

5.  Urban Sprawl and Agricultural Land

A. Despite innovative policies regarding urban growth and sprawl, the urbanization of farmland continues to threaten the quality of life in Sonoma County. We have stretched the need for water and our need to deal with waste water beyond all reasonable levels as our population continues to grow and spread. Given the fact that the number of claims to these water resources seem to exceed supply, how would you reconcile these competing issues?  More specifically, how would your approach to a solution play out in the Dry Creek watershed?

This is one of the toughest issues facing our region, and we need to find a process for solving the problem. I believe the county can and should create an inclusive process for developing water supply and water use solutions – and each of the growers and water users must be a part it.

For example, the Sonoma County Water Agency recently cut back on the allocations for their urban contractors. While I do not support the process in which these allocations were reduced, I do believe that this was the right decision to move forward with especially since our County is over allocated related to water rights. But before we start taking the next steps, we have to make sure everyone is included in the process.  And we need to move to develop these local solutions before we begin to see more aggressive actions from federal agencies particularly related to fisheries and diversions from the Russian river and it’s tributaries.

B. What restrictions should be placed on irrigating agricultural lands with wastewater in Sonoma County?  Do you believe in county-wide, general restrictions or is there a basis for region-specific restrictions?  If so, what do you see with regards to the Dry Creek watershed?

As a founding member of the Clean Water Coalition of Northern Sonoma County, I am fully aware of the issues facing the use of wastewater on agricultural lands and I know it’s not a one-size fits all approach.  There are significant differences in the soil types related to the various regions of the county.  For instance, the alluvial soils in the Dry Creek Valley and the clay soils on the Santa Rosa Plain are very different. Decisions not based on science, could have potentially disastrous results for the health of our residents, and crops. I am in favor of a science-based approach to where and how we should promote and implement the use of treated wastewater in the county along higher treatment levels and necessary mitigation measures. That said, I am opposed to the Northern Sonoma County Agriculture Re-Use Project and would not support its reintroduction.

6.  Urban Wastewater

Which of the following solutions would you consider to be the most effective way for Sonoma County to deal with urban wastewater, and why? 

A.  Increase the flow of water to produce more clean energy at the Geysers thermo power generating plants.

The City of Santa Rosa has been very successful in their partnership with Calpine. As you know, they have recently expanded the velocity in their line, which has allowed them to expand their commitment. I do think this has been a successful approach to dealing with wastewater and I would support the continued expansion of this effort. In fact, Healdsburg is part of a consortium that has been piping much of Lake County’s treated wastewater up to the Northern California Power Agency Power Plant for almost 2 decades.

B.  Build reverse osmosis and ultraviolet water treatment facilities to purify water adequate for domestic use.

I would be open to the build-out of a reverse osmosis option, but they can be quite costly, energy intensive and the municipality that constructs a reverse osmosis plant has to deal with the issue of toxic brine. That said, water derived from an RO plant is certainly the highest quality available.

C.  Improve water treatment facilities and holding ponds to provide water for landscape and agricultural irrigation.

While I am open to agriculture irrigation, it cannot be a one size fits all approach. I do think the County and Cities should pursue urban re-use prior to the advancement of an agricultural plan. Any plan should involve the input of surrounding neighbors and neighborhood organizations from the ground level.

7.     Public Transportation

In what order would you consider funding public transportation in Sonoma County, and why?

As a proud member of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and founding member of the Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA), we must do all we can to reduce vehicle miles traveled while providing for the infrastructure needed to expand our economy and job base.

A.  First priority is to start construction on SMART as soon as possible.  We need to begin the service in Sonoma County first. As a member of the Board of Supervisors, I will make it one of my top priorities to work with the SMART Board, SCTA, our County’s congressional delegation along with our City’s leaders to ensure the project receives recognition from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

SMART is key to our economic recovery, reducing Greenhouse House Gas emissions and the development of future transit oriented growth patterns within our communities. In addition, the Board of Supervisors will need to ensure that each train station are served by local feeder busses both on the regional level and from our community transit agencies.

B.  We must also continue with the widening of Highway 101 in Sonoma County. As a member of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, I am proud to say the project is $70 million under budget and we are now reinvesting the savings back into project, adding back features that were engineered out in previous years.

C.  Support and increase public transportation by increasing commuter busses from Sonoma County to Marin County and San Francisco.  There will need to be a discussion about revenue for this expansion. The State, in the last budget cycle, cut the State transportation Fund, which was the main revenue generator for local and regional bus routes.

D.  I also believe the County needs to advance the issue of pedestrian and bicycle friendly corridors, similar to the Foss Creek Trail which we are advancing in Healdsburg, along with maintaining para-transit funding or our society’s neediest.