Environmental Issues

By Emily Reilly

Full Text of Emily Reilly's Responses to the local Sierra Club Questionnaire.

My campaign is an old-fashioned, high-energy, grassroots effort of walking door to door (both myself and with volunteers), yard signs, and targeted mailers, slate cards, and organizational endorsements. The City has a voluntary limit of $19,000 in spending per campaign, to which I subscribe. To date I have received endorsements from S.E.I.U. and S.C.A.N. My supporters include Mardi Wormhoudt, John Laird, Celia Scott, Katherine Beiers and Debbie Bulger.

2. What is your position on widening Highway 1?

I am opposed to widening Highway 1. It would create even more traffic and it would take money away from studying and implementing other means of dealing with highway congestion--alternative efforts to which I am strongly committed. This issue is one where I have a history of involvement, as I am a co-founder of the Transportation Think Tank, where our mission statement is:

To improve the quality of life by reducing the use of automobiles:

• * by educating ourselves and the public;
• * by generating ideas for more effective transportation;
• * by crossing traditional political, geographical and psychological boundaries.

I am in favor of acquiring the Union Pacific right-of-way and am thrilled with the recent commitment of the Regional Transportation Commission to go forward, which was made after this survey was distributed. I will work at the City level with the County and the Regional Transportation Commission in this matter. It is also important that we remember to include the needs of pedestrians and the disabled when planning for the use of this corridor, and I support the bicycle/pedestrian uses proposed for this right-of-way.

Regarding rail service to connect to the rail depot in Pajaro, I am unclear. Are you are referring to the possibility of connecting Pajaro with Gilroy, which I have heard mentioned, or perhaps Pajaro to Santa Cruz? As a member of Santa Cruz City Tranportation Commission and the steering committee for the city's Master Transportation Study, I am excited about the possibilities of many rail alternatives, including some of the promising new technologies using fixed guideways. I appreciate rail as a resource, although the proposed Coyote Valley development raises the concern that rail access to Santa Cruz County would encourage urban sprawl.

4. Would you support a permanent logging moratorium on the City's watershed lands in San Lorenzo Valley?

Absolutely. We must protect our watershed.

5. The City of Santa Cruz is now responsible for substantial natural areas of wildlife habitat and open space. How should the city manage them?

Our hard-won greenbelts must be managed for their habitat, open space and viewshed values and not developed for intensive uses. So, for example, while I am committed to more sports fields for the Santa Cruz area, I believe this is too intensive a use for the greenbelt lands.

As a City Transportation Commissioner I have listened to many of the stakeholders talk about their dreams for Arana Gulch. I have come to my conclusion slowly about this issue and it has helped me appreciate the consequences and develop an informed opinion. I do not support a bikeway that would bisect Arana Gulch.

I am pleased that the City has hired a resource ecologist. We must continue to support and perhaps expand this position.

6. During a future drought year like that experienced in 1976-77, The Santa Cruz City Water Department predicts that there will be a 48 percent shortfall in city water supply. Recent rulings by the federal government will require more water to remain in the San Lorenzo River to protect listed endangered species. Approximately 44% of the users of the water supplied by the city's water dept. lie outside the city limits. Demand for water, by growth within and outside the city, is projected to increase. What process would you recommend to deal with the conflicts inherent in this situation?

The water issue is difficult because of the issues you state in the question, such as the fact that 44% of the users served by the City Water Department are in an area where the City does not have authority. It is also clear that the city relies on surface water, the adjoining districts rely on groundwater, and that the City has enough water for its customers in wet years. Given those facts, these are my positions:

First, I support keeping enough water in the river to protect endangered species. Secondly, I believe it is imperative that we conserve, conserve, conserve. We have shown that we can do it. I would support incentives to businesses for conservation and require big users to develop reclamation plans. Users outside the City should also be required to conserve. I would oppose providing water for users who were exceeding the limits of their own aquifers . I would support exploring the option of a desalination plant, shared by more than one agency, which Santa Cruz could only use during a drought. Of course, this is a complicated solution and must be studied carefully to determine the environment impact.

7. How do you propose to manage future growth in Santa Cruz? We have taken some good steps toward growth management in Santa Cruz City. We have designated and acquired greenbelt lands. We have established an urban boundary. We still have to work with the issues of traffic and affordable housing within our city. One problem is our relationship with the University on growth issues. We must do a better job of communicating with the University leaders. They have a mandate to grow and we do not have control over their land use decisions. We must urge them to house their students and strongly support sustainable transportation programs for their faculty, staff, and students.

And we must manage our own growth: by infill, better land use and housing policies crafted to achieve mixed-use neighborhoods. We must buy land when it becomes available and use it to provide affordable housing in perpetuity. I support rental housing, perhaps smaller units, near transit lines. More local jobs mean fewer people having to commute. We must encourage less single passenger vehicle travel and preserve our urban boundaries Better bicycle routes mean fewer cars on the road. Tele-commuting, live/work units, e-commerce, all provide ways for us to support our local economy with less impact our environment. We must develop community understanding about the number of people our limited resources can support.