We assume that all candidates support the city's policy opposing the use of Moffett Field for commercial or general aviation, and that they support the annexation of NASA property. If you disagree, please indicate and explain.

Stasek. I have been a vocal supporter of the recommendations of the CAC, current city policy and the continuing efforts toward annexation of NASA property.

1. While there is widespread support for the activities that NASA proposes in the Ames Development Plan, we are concerned about its environmental implications.

What should be done to minimize the negative impact of NASA's proposed development on the local housing situation and transportation congestion? If the only way to balance new employment with new housing is to close the runways, would you support that?

Perry. I believe that any new business construction at NASA/AMES should be accompanied by an equal amount of new residential construction and infrastructure improvements. I support closing the runway to make space for housing.

Ambra. I do favor closing the runways. I also favor creating new housing at Moffett Field

Stasek. There is a substantial amount of land available for redevelopment. Housing is a critical component of that and I will be making sure that the city stresses the importance of housing during our participation in the upcoming review. I think there is sufficient land so that housing does not need to be placed extremely close to the runways.

Zoglin. Ideally, Moffett Field could have turned into the Midpeninsula's "Housing Reservoir." That, of course, would have environmental impacts of its own, but it is the last large space available in our area. Absent such usage, I would favor whatever can be done to provide housing on site, including closing the runways if the national defense gurus would permit.

Pear. There is ample reason for environmental concern because it's inevitable and must be dealt with accordingly given the fact that 15,000 employees are expected to work where there are two large toxic plumes that may require eternal remediation (i.e., pump and treat). NASA should be allowed to develop within environmentally sensible limits, which includes housing for their employees. If they cannot develop within the supporting infrastructure, than they should not be allowed to proceed with the scale of development that they've proposed.

Noe. While I don't want to see expanded air traffic, I think there is value to having the runways and the Air National Guard Rescue presence here. I have encouraged NASA officials to explore high density housing in or near the core of the proposed academic development. I have also suggested that if they are unable to accommodate sufficient housing on-site, that they include housing mitigation in their charges to academic/commercial tenants and provide financial assistance to the local communities for developing more housing. Regarding transportation, there is a light rail station on-site now and their site designs are taking into consideration future extension of the light rail into or through the site.

2. Would you support the transfer of any Moffett wetlands or other habitat area to the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge? Do you favor the restoration of tidal flow to any Moffett wetlands where this is feasible?

Stasek. I favor maximizing all possible restoration of baylands habitat, including parcels now controlled by Cargill Salt.

Noe. I have to be honest that I don't know all the pros and cons of such a property transfer, but my initial sense is that it is a good idea, and restoration of tidal flow where feasible is certainly a good idea.

3. Do you support the use of state and/or federal funds to acquire and ecologically restore the Cargill salt ponds adjacent of Moffett Field and Shoreline Park? Should such a project be linked to expansion of the San Francisco International Airport?

Perry. I support the use of federal funds for ecological restoration of the salt ponds. I oppose the SFO airport expansion. I oppose the linkage of wetlands restoration to airport expansion.

Stasek. I support all available funding for wetlands restoration. The city has taken a position against the current legislation which linked airport expansion with a specific payment for purchasing Cargill Land. The city opposed this because the legislation exempted the Airport project from the CEQA process in return for a specified payment that may or may not be sufficient to fully mitigate the environmental impacts of the airport project. I agree with the city's position that any mitigation must be determined through a complete environmental impact study, not some arbitrary payment which may or may not be sufficient for full mitigation.

Pear. Yes. Go to Alviso and see what a nice restoration project they did there. No, it should be performed regardless of the SFO Airport plans.

Noe. The salt ponds areas should be acquired and restored now while the opportunity exists, regardless of what happens with the airport expansion.

4. Are you willing to urge our Congressional delegation to introduce or support language to make below-market housing a public benefit conveyance? (Such legislation would permit NASA, the Army, or other federal property owners to transfer property at below market prices if designated future use were subsidized housing.)

Perry. Yes. I also support the transfer of the land at market rates to make room for general housing.

Stasek. Yes, I would be willing to lobby our congressional representatives on this issue.

Pear. Given the current information available today, Yes. However, this is no substitute for a housing program that addresses the needs of all its citizens.

Noe. Yes. Particularly the housing sites on Moffett Blvd., if not used to house either military personnel or people who are employed at Moffett Field, should be made available to the City on the best possible terms so that we could use it to provide affordable housing to community members.

5. Are you willing to urge our Congressional delegation to introduce or support language to allow federal agencies to use a share of revenue, from the sale of their real property, to address environmental or infrastructure requirements upon portions of their property remaining in federal hands.

Perry. Yes. In fact, such restitution should be a requirement, and not just an option.

Ambra. Yes, although I am concerned about creating a special monetary incentive for the sale of Federal property. For example I would be concerned about the sale of property at Moffett Field to the impact upon traffic and the local housing market.

Stasek. I would not support public revenues going to a private entity who bought the property to then subsidize the private entity to improve the property they just bought. If the land were transferred to another public agency - federal or local for example - any revenues of that transfer should be available to the public agency to do environmental cleanup or infrastructure improvements so that the land could be utilized to its fullest capacity.

Pear. First, is it in our best interest for the Federal Government to sell real property? Second, why are we "trading" when the Federal Government should assume responsibility in the same manner demanded of private companies? In conclusion, yes, but only as a last resort because I'd rather not wait for a sale to address an environmental issue.

6. Will you insist that NASA pay its fair share of additional services or infrastructure costs borne by the city as a result of additional activity or development at NASA Ames/Moffett Field?

Perry. I will fight and lobby to make NASA pay for the cost of their development. (I will insist if I am in a position to do so. Unfortunately, the federal government and its agencies usually require no local approval.)

Stasek. Unfortunately we are not in a position to insist that NASA do anything. I will however be very vocal about the local impacts of this development and publicly call on NASA to propose how they would address and compensate the city for local impacts of their development.

Zoglin. Yes. Following the leadership of Councilmember Sally Lieber, the Council inserted wording into our response to their version of an EIR indicating that "social" concerns resulting from the development had to be addressed as well as the more traditional impacts. This will provide an opening for the City to insist (insofar as we can) that they take responsibility for all of the resulting impacts.

Pear. Absolutely Yes! This goes without saying. How can the City ask private developers to pay nexus linkage fees and allow NASA to avoid paying direct linkage fees?

Noe. In a recent meeting with NASA, I asked questions regarding what types of use fees they will be able to charge their tenants, specifically relating to housing mitigation. I believe they could find ways to incorporate some costs into their use fees or make otherwise create mechanisms whereby their research and academic tenants could pay into infrastructure such as expanded transit.