Sign up for Express
New from the Voice, Express is a daily e-edition, distributed by e-mail every weekday.
Sign up to receive Express

Login | Register
Sign up for eBulletins
Click for Mountain View, California Forecast
Voice News
Increase font Increase font
Decrease font Decrease font
Adjust text size

Big field lines up for council race
Candidates include five newcomers, two incumbents and Kasperzak

Bookmark and Share
Mountain View voters will have an opportunity to elect a new majority of the City Council when they go the polls Nov. 4. And they will have plenty of candidates to choose from.

When filing for the four open seats closed last Friday, the field had swelled to nine people, with local real estate agent Diana Wang entering at the last minute.

This election will be the last one in the next six years where there won't be an incumbent trying to fill every open seat. Matt Pear and Nick Galiotto will term out this year, leaving at least two seats open to newcomers, while Laura Macias and Mayor Tom Means will be running for re-election.

With four seats up for grabs, an entirely new four-vote majority could be put into power, changing the course of City Hall for years to come.

Here is a brief look at the candidates:

Chris Clark
Clark, 24, is a senior operations manager at a local tech company who grew up on a farm in Illinois. His political experience is mostly as a page in the U.S. House of Representatives. But the Stanford graduate calls himself a "geek" when it comes to local politics, and he sometimes peruses the city budget just to see how money is being spent.

When asked about population growth in the city, Clark said growth is unavoidable. Space available for housing needs to be "maximized" while preserving open space.

He says he can provide a voice for young high-tech workers, and help connect that community to city government. A new teen center is also a goal for Clark.

"Mountain View's support for our young people can be better," Clark wrote in an e-mail. "We should study the most effective programs in other cities."

But his top priority, he said, is to see the city use "fiscal restraint as we ride out this cycle of economic instability, rising energy and other prices, and an unpredictable real estate market."

Alicia Crank
Crank ran for City Council in 2006 and has spent seven years on the Human Relations Commission. The marketing specialist moved to the area from Detroit in 1998.

Her top priority is to revisit the city's Below Market Rate (BMR) housing ordinance and "make it more specific."

"We need to encourage developers to create units within their complex," Crank said.

Her second priority is supporting programs like the Police Activities League and the Gang Task Force.

"I never thought I would say this, but we have a high murder rate in Mountain View," she said. "Teens have grown up to not be very positive citizens in the community."

She said she would not like to see the city grow too much, but would favor development along major traffic corridors. She is passionate about preserving the city's affordable apartments and older neighborhoods.

Tracy Gordon
Tracy Gordon, 39, is a virtual unknown to City Hall insiders. After moving here from the East Coast 11 years ago, she says she has gained a unique perspective as a "mom around town," with her 3-year-old twins.

She rents a house behind City Hall on Franklin Street with her husband, a laser engineer, and works part-time as a bartender downtown.

"Mountain View's development needs to slow down," Gordon said. "There is already too much congestion."

One of her complaints is that the downtown lacks a certain "diversity" among restaurants, with very few serving traditional American food.

Gordon is the only candidate who has not committed to the city's $19,000 campaign spending cap.

John Inks
John Inks, a retired aerospace engineer who lives on Showers Drive, was the fourth-highest vote-getter in the 2006 election, losing by 300 votes to Jac Siegel. He has served on the Environmental Planning Commission, which he now chairs, for the last two years. Before that he was a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission for many years.

He said his strength is in city planning.

"Figuring out how the city should grow in the future while preserving quality of life and open space -- while allowing growth in population and the economy -- that's what I have chosen to do," he said.

Inks has also developed an interest in walkability, practical energy conservation methods and the city's community emergency response teams. He said his top priority is to maintain quality city services in the face of looming budget problems.

Mike Kasperzak
Mike Kasperzak served on the City Council from 1998 to 2006. He is back again for a third term after withdrawing from the state Assembly race last year.

His top priorities are affordable housing, fiscal responsibility and open space.

"There is no way to make for-sale housing affordable anymore in this area," he said. "One of the things I see coming out of the visioning process is how much people cherish the diversity of Mountain View. We're not going to have that diversity if the only people who can live here are those who can buy a million-and-a-half dollar house."

He also wants to see the council make difficult decisions regarding employee salaries in order to maintain city services and the city's triple-A credit rating.

Another goal, which he talked about last year as well, is a third major park in the city, possibly using the Francia orchard on Whisman Road.

Laura Macias
Laura Macias, who served as mayor last year, has consistently said that a top campaign goal will be to build a large park north of El Camino Real.

"I want to be on council to advocate, approve and fund one big community park (Cuesta Park size ideally) in the general Whisman area," she wrote in an e-mail.

She said she also wants to focus on neighborhood preservation and supporting neighborhood associations, while seeking input on the general plan update. She has often opposed higher density housing projects.

"I want to see our General Plan Version 2.0 be a plan that encompasses the vision and the complexity of city strategies, operations and revenue generation," she wrote, noting a particular interest "in funding senior, youth and community programs."

John McAlister
John McAlister, a 50-year resident of Mountain View, was appointed to the Environmental Planning Commission last year. He says the city needs to make sure its infrastructure and revenue sources are adequate before substantial housing growth is allowed.

"Once we improve the quality of life, that will improve everything the city does," McAlister said in an e-mail. "We need to make sure our business districts are strong to maintain sales tax dollars to fund the various activities we do. We are lucky we have the parks we have -- I want to maintain them to a high standard. You can't do that if you turn business property into residential."

McAlister says he is a passionate advocate for youth, with his children attending local schools. He has been involved with the local PTA and school site councils.

McAlister owns the Baskin Robbins ice cream shop on El Camino Real, and obtained a degree in business administration from UC Berkley in the late 1970s.

Tom Means
Tom Means was elected with 11,000 votes four years ago, despite spending only $5,000. Since taking office, fiscal restraint has continued to guide many of his policy positions.

Means, an economics professor at San Jose State University, believes voters appreciate how he makes decisions with the informed perspective of an academic. He recently completed a research paper finding that California cities that subsidize housing through developer fees produce less new housing and have higher housing prices.

Implementing the recommendations of the Environmental Sustainability Task Force is a top goal in the coming year for Means, partly because "we spent so much time on it."

He also wants to build a new community center and teen center at Rengstorff Park.

"We need to get moving on that," Means said. "My position is to build a teen center as a component of a recreation center."

Diana Wang
Diana Wang, 51, has been on the city's Downtown Committee for four years. A native of Taiwan, she has been a resident of Mountain View for eight years and a Bay Area resident for 25 years. She is enthusiastic about helping people find a home in Mountain View, and believes it gives her an intimate perspective on the city.

As far as city planning is concerned, Wang said she would like to see more conveniently located grocery stores and more mixed-use development. She says she is keeping an open mind about the merits of high density housing, and wants to spend more time talking to her constituents before taking a position on how the city should grow.

"I can have a broader vision,' Wang said. Like others in Mountain View, she said, "I'm an immigrant. Mountain View is a very nice city so a lot of people want to move in. There is nothing wrong with that. But many feel that their privacy and lifestyle is affected by high density."

Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.


Comments

Posted by time for change, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Aug 14, 2008 at 10:43 pm

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE lets remove

Macias,Kasperzak and Means....look around at what has been built,if you need more evidence come see the Pulte development along Ferguson Drive.!!

Regardless of whether they voted this monstrosity through they were on the council when the motions were passed.

Macias the highest claiming expense mayor in MV history!!

Don't vote for these folks and our city will be better.


Posted by Prefer diversity and tolerance, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Some people feel the same way about the Whisman Station Project. It's nice to be a NIMBY once you get your home and try to exclude others. The density of the Pulte Project is less than the density of the recent construction at Whisman Station.


Posted by A Proud Sierra Club Member, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Mayor Means has done an outstanding job in leading our community to only support development that makes sense, and has talked and worked with many of the residents involved to mitigate the impacts.


Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of another community, on Aug 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm

The streets on the Pulte development on Ferguson Drive are so narrow that garbage trucks cannot get through and turn around properly. Homeowners are having to manually roll their trash bins out to the truck for garbage pickup.

I'm all for smart, eco-friendly development and not being NIMBY or excluding others. But making architectural designs that pack people in so tight that basic services are impossible is just ridiculous.


Posted by city planner, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Aug 20, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Every proposed project goes through a vetting with fire, police, trash and other city departments to make sure public services can be provided for and are accessible. No one in the planning department presents a project to the city council unless these issues have been dealt with. In this case residents roll out their bins just homeowners roll theirs down a driveway onto the street.


Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of another community, on Aug 21, 2008 at 9:04 am

"In this case residents roll out their (garbage) bins just (like) homeowners roll theirs down a driveway onto the street."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The difference here is that a single family home owner's house is just one driveway's distance away from the main street, so rolling their garbage bin down their driveway onto the street for pickup is no big deal.

In the case of the Pulte rowhomes, many of the garbage truck-inaccesible alleys are longer, maybe 3, 4, 5 homes deep, so for the homeowners on the far end especially rolling their garbage bins out to the main street is not really analogous to a single family homeowner rolling their garbage a short distance down their driveway but more analogous to a person living on the far end of a dead end street having to roll their garbage and recycling bins (which are heavy and full of garbage) down the street past a bunch of other houses and driveways and out onto the main street and back for pickup once or twice a week. It just makes no sense.

To me, it seems like the problem is caused by developers trying to squeeze in as many units as possible in order to maximize their profits along with the backing of environmental activists who support any high-density development without truly examining or thinking through carefully whether the design really works or not.

That's why I'm a big supporter of "slower growth" council members like Macias, Siegel, Bryant, and Abe-Koga who really take the time to examine the functionality of any development proposal instead of just rubber-stamping anything that comes to them.


Posted by DG, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 12:25 am

I think keeping the Francia orchard as open space and making it the third major park in the city (along with Rengstorff and Cuesta parks) is a great idea. We are definitely underserved in terms of park space in this area on town. Kudos go out to the city council candidates who support this!


Posted by No Growther, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 8:15 am

Interesting how this "slower growth" council has approved more units in 2 years then the previous alleged pro-growth council. 3 RH's are no longer than some driveways in most areas. As for density, most projects are way below the maximum allowed. Perhaps the developers are maximizing profits by building at 65%.

The Franzia park idea is great but like the farm group you need to get the owners on board. The farm group and those that supported them promised a lot, but in the end all they wanted to do is take park land with out compensation. Fortunately, there is a major park already planned in that area but it wont happen unless park fees are collected from the developers. It easy to say you support something but another to actually get the job done.


Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of another community, on Aug 22, 2008 at 9:41 am

I'm not sure how much you keep up with the "slower growth" council but one of the things they've been trying to do is to get developers to commit to not building 100% of what's allowable, and instead doing something like 80% of that max. The problem is there is a lot of pressure from ABAG with their failing grade given to the city to build more housing in Mountain View.

I think another big reason for the problem is the city's zoning regulations. For example, the R2 zone, which makes up a lot of the city, allows for 2-story (30 foot tall) townhomes, condos, single family homes, etc. But for some reason it also allows for 45-foot rowhomes. No surprise then that almost all of the developers now choose to build rowhomes since they allow them to cram way more taller homes closer together over the other housing types. I can't even remember the last time some developer proposed detached 2-story homes in town because they don't make as much profit.

I just wish we'd see more "Whisman Station-type" developments come to the council rather than "Bedford Square-types" which is all we see nowadays.


Posted by DG, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 10:27 am

I agree with No Growther. The farm group was unrealistic in expecting to somehow just get the Francia orchard without compensation.

Macias and Kasperzak's support for a third major city park in the Whisman area is not just empty talk. The City's draft of the General Plan Update talks about purchasing land between 101 and Central for use as a third major city park.


Posted by City Planner, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 5:23 pm

I was at the last study session. Staff informed council that there is only one RH project built in an R2 zone. There are only 6 sights in town. All of the council members except Bryant supported RH's in R2. The N whisman project will be at 30 feet. As I stated earlier, the 80% min density was passed after developers came in with low density projects averaging below 70%. Very few projects come in at 100% so it is a non-issue. The current PP for whisman park area is around 55% of the max density allowed. Buildings look dense because the city requires so much open space.


Posted by FLN, a resident of the Martens-Carmelita neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Buildings look dense because they ARE dense... Take a look at the development on Dana and Calderon. It's scary dense. I'm not sure why they even left space between buildings and put windows on the side walls since the houses are only 4 feet apart. Sounds like "tokenism" as council member Siegel called the Hetch Hetchy proposals.


Posted by Smart Growther, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2008 at 9:22 am

That project is no denser than other multi-family buildings nearby. I don't like the project and was present when council voted on it. Not one neighbor complained about the height or spacing. Everyone was complaining about the driveway and access to school.

Siegel(EPC) voted to support the spacing (3'-10') between rowhomes (1.19.05)

"Chair Siegel said he he felt it was beneficial to have some space if it fits the particular parcel of land as it would allow more light coming through windows and also as suggested nicer landscaping and possibly walkways and or other things to help the traffic patterns"


Posted by Florence, a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on Aug 28, 2008 at 3:57 am

"State law requires each city and county plan for their “fair share” of the region’s housing needs. The fair share is determined by each region’s Council of Government. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determines the regions fair share, through a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA). ABAG has determined that Mountain View’s RHNA numbers is 2,599 units for the years 2007-2014."

Since it's a state requirement to build all these units, the council members hands are basically tied whether or not they are pro-slow growth or not. Maybe the only thing slow-growthers can really do is to limit the density, size, height, etc. of these units. No wonder Jac Siegel voted to leave small gaps between buildings, landscaping, walkways, etc. That's probably all he could really do given the strict numbers requirement.


Posted by Smart Growther, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 1, 2008 at 10:58 pm

State law requires a plan, but there is no requirement to make a city actually build the units. MV could be sued but unlikely. The RHNA process is a mixed bag of central planning with little regard to actual market forces. What is the theoretical basis for the so-called jobs/housing ratio quota for each city? In fact the ratio is one sided since it doesn't penalize cities that produce few jobs and build lots of housing. I have yet to see a council member call for more housing based on the ABAG model. Putting limits on new production may actually produce units that look even worse.


Posted by jon smith, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2008 at 5:21 pm

it seems like the ones complaining are the ones that do not even live in the community....let it be, just because you have a house in mountain view doesn't mean you "own it"..


Posted by Janet, a resident of another community, on Oct 14, 2008 at 7:41 pm

I work in MV. Everybody seems to be arguing about garbage rather than discussing the candidates. I've seen the signs and statements of each around town. I does seem time for some new blood in the system. Tracy Gordon seems to have a fresh perspective. She's been in town a long time but is new to public service. I like her down to earth attitude.


Posted by Bob, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 5:00 pm

I wish I knew more about Tracy Gordon. She has not been to any of the candidate debates/forums though. She didn't have a candidate statement either in the election guide.

For someone who is running for an office which involves so much strategic thinking, that doesn't say very much about her thinking to me.

I understand she works nights and has two young kids so she couldn't make the debates, but if elected how is she going to be able to attend the city council meetings which are also at night given these same constraints?


Posted by tim, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Nov 2, 2008 at 8:44 pm

i have no idea what you're all complaining about. i've lived in mountain view my whole life. everything's fine the way it is. forget politics, just keep everything as is...except i do hate the new castro street. it's hideous and ugly with all these new fancy buildings and a restaurants. terrible


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.
Add a Comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration! Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff
 
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *
Select your Neighborhood or School Community: * Not sure?
Comment: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box. *
Verification Code:   
 

mv-voice.com   ©2013 Embarcadero Media.
All rights reserved.