The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of the Los Altos - Mountain View Area and asked of all candidates for this office.

See below for questions on the utility tax, housing development, affordable housing, future plans

Click on a name for other candidate information.

Answer from Francis Albert La Poll:

Yes, to make up for the $1,000,000 per year that the state has taken from our city since 1992. As Mayor, I proposed, and council initiated, outside audits. The first, of public works, demonstrated that (1) the department could be reorganized for greater efficiency and responsiveness, which is being done; and (2) resources should be found for facility maintenance and street repair, saving replacement costs. Utility tax revenue pays for our parks, open space, and recreational facilities. Now improved city-run emergency response, and traffic safety units, also depend on passage. As promised, I have annually returned my council salary and declined city health benefits, saving taxpayers nearly $35,000 during my first term. I shall gladly pay $8 more per month to improve our city: better maintenance, more recreational opportunities, and a safer community.

Answer from Ron Knecht:

This question implies that meeting our needs requires increasing existing City revenues. It's not so. Thus, I oppose tax increases, and support tax/spending moderation and sound management instead. The facts:

• Government is too big, relative to our economy: research shows that its overreach reduces economic growth and human wellbeing way below levels we'd enjoy with smaller government. * On Council incumbents' watch, continuing revenues climbed at 2.5 times the previous reasonable rate, exacerbating the main problem even before any tax increase. State diversion of local revenues had restrained LA's take only to reasonable growth rates -- no cuts! -- but now it's soaring again.
• Incumbents voted to spend 17% more this year than last, even without a tax increase -- so all real needs are already met.
• Property taxes are soaring (8.4%/year); likewise, fees/permits (8.1%) and sales taxes (4.5%); we already pay new transportation taxes; and incumbents propose a 79% Utility Tax increase!
• FY98/99 produced a huge surplus due to conservative budgeting. Council formed a wish-list committee to advise how to spend it and then double-dipped, spending the surplus and seeking a tax increase. It's too much.
• The increase was split into two propositions to duck the 2/3 majority requirement voters enacted. This risky trick denies voters assurance that funds will be spent as proposed if the increase passes, and sneakily circumvents their will.

So: 1) taxes are already greatly excessive and rising rapidly; 2) Council made things worse, especially with a 17% spending hike that exceeds all REAL needs; and 3) the tax increase is an unnecessary double dip, sneaky, risky and destructive of human wellbeing. We respond generously to real needs, voting increased school funds twice recently. This proposal abuses our trust. I'll be a moderate on the Council, promoting restraint.

Answer from Louis Becker:

Yes, I support putting the utility tax increase for Los Altos on the ballot. If passed, this tax will provide the financial resources necessary to achieve a greatly improved level of service to the residents of Los Altos. I voted to put this item on the ballot to give the citizens the opportunity to make the decision as to whether or not they want this improved level of service.

Answer from Kris Casto:

I supported the initial utility tax and I support this increase. The benefits are improvement to facilities for recreation and youth programs, to public safety and to deferred street maintenance. The entire City Council has endorsed the utility tax.

The City has a history of responsible stewardship of the current tax. With the input from the oversight committee and with the exemption for low-income seniors, we will be responsive in our obligation to serve you, our citizens.

I support giving our community a voice in voting for funding of local improvement and services.

Answer from Noah D. Mesel:

Los Altos already has a Utility Tax, which Measure I proposes to increase from 3.5% to 6.25% -- about $1.1 million annually. I will not support this tax, because I believe taxing water and electric use is like taxing milk and bread, which we do not tax in California. The alternatives are (1) a more focused tax on cable TV and cell phones; (2) funding from our upcoming renegotiation of AT&T's cable franchise; (3) partnering with business to increase economic activity in our seven commercial districts to increase tax revenue; (4) less use of high-paid outside consultants.

Answer from Louis Becker:

We need to analyze all available public input before we answer this question. The process to get this information has just started, and is working very well. However, much more public input and analysis will be necessary before I reach a conclusion on this issue. I do favor some means for residents to protect the character of their neighborhoods. However, any such plan must have a reasonable provision for exceptions to protect the minority.

Answer from Noah D. Mesel:

The City should work with neighborhoods to protect the charm and value of consistent character neighborhoods, but I think that one-story overlay zones are the wrong way to accomplish this task. The Planning Department must consistently enforce zoning and land use laws along with the Residential Design Guidelines. Additionally, the City should work with homeowners and developers to establish practical, enforceable rules for improving homes that permit property owners to exercise their rights without creating a nuisance or destroying neighborhood character.

Answer from Francis Albert La Poll:

The Council has had but a handful of two-story appeals in four years and overlays have not been necessary. Design guidelines have mostly worked well, balancing applicant rights with neighbors' legitimate privacy and bulk concerns. Now, with ten years' experience, the city is reviewing the guidelines. We can shorten the approval process while ensuring that applicants and neighbors have an improved understanding of what is expected an required.

Answer from Kris Casto:

The City is aware of the heightened tension in some of our neighborhoods described as consistent character. In that regard, we established a task force to make recommendations to the Council. One recommendation was the recent community workshop with over 350 in attendance.

Comments seemed quite balanced, but the questionnaires have not been tabulated. If it is determined that one story overlays are feasible in some neighborhoods, super majority support should be required. I would add to the discussion options for those residents who did not support limitations on their building potential. Options could include a compromise on the following: lower height limits, lower FARs, limited second floor building potential, a sunset clause.

I perceived that privacy invasions were by far the number one concern. Therefore, I would like to discuss tightening the Residential Design Guidelines and work toward privacy solutions for all of Los Altos residents.

Answer from Ron Knecht:

Overlays are of limited use, may violate homeowners' rights, and don't address our real regulatory problem: the need for a process giving all parties reasonable time limits and certainty if they meet reasonable, objective standards. We need procedural fairness, not the unworkable mess we've got that drags out some projects for two years and leaves no one satisfied at the end. If overlays can be worked into a proposal that meets those real needs, I'll support it.

Answer from Noah D. Mesel:

Los Altos can take three steps to meet affordable housing needs. First, City Council should consider rezoning the areas surrounding business districts to permit construction of multi-family housing including affordable units consistent with the neighborhood. Second, we should reevaluate the rules that restrict property owners from adding second living units and rental units on single family home lots. Third, Los Altos should cooperate with other local cities to "trade" and fund affordable housing obligations so that the region can fulfill its overall commitment to the State. Under this system, we could provide financial assistance to surrounding communities that are able to absorb the affordable housing commitment our city otherwise would have.

Answer from Louis Becker:

Los Altos is waiting to receive a new allocation from ABAG. We expect to receive this within the next 6 months. We expect to have approximately two years to respond. We cannot decide exactly what to do until we know what the state expects.

The best way to get affordable housing in Los Altos is through incentives for developers. We have these incentives in place, and they have worked very well since the last General Plan Revision. Affordable housing in Los Altos has to be subsidized by someone. Developers are the only substantial source for the subsidy in the present economic environment.

Answer from Ron Knecht:

California should repeal its unworkable, unnecessary and counter-productive mandate.

Answer from Francis Albert La Poll:

Los Altos is unique in the Valley in having an ideal parity in the number of homes and jobs (approximately 10,000 of each). We also are built-out, so opportunities for additional housing are limited. Appropriate locations are along transportation corridors, such as El Camino Real, preserving the current density of our neighborhoods.

Answer from Kris Casto:

The current Housing Element is a roadmap for opportunities for affordable housing. I would reflect on implementation successes and shortfalls.

Second living units are one part of the solution just as mixed use along El Camino Real. Recently we have approved 8 units at the Tree Farm and are reviewing the potential of the Four Seasons site.

Since the Housing Element acknowledges that the best chance for units to be built is in the multi-family areas we should concentrate our efforts there.

To accomplish our fair share, solutions to explore could include building units off-site, adding funds to units being built in nearby jurisdictions, contribute to first time homeowners programs or contributing to the Housing Trust Fund. I support exploring Los Altos fulfilling its obligation for a Certified Housing Element by the State of California.

Answer from Ron Knecht:

• Budget growth at the inflation rate only.
• Planning, land-use and building regulatory processes that are procedurally fair and promote the overall public interest.

Answer from Kris Casto:

• Youth Programs
• Update the Residential Design Guidelines
• Downtown Use and Design
• General Plan Update
• Continued conservative fiscal management

Answer from Francis Albert La Poll:

As a husband, father of five young children, and homeowner in Los Altos since 1987, I believe that families should have a voice in charting the course of our city. Of the candidates, only I can directly provide that voice. I am, and would continue to be, the only council member with children in local schools.

In the next four years, our Council will: Preserve desirable neighborhood residential character and retain current density; Streamline planning and building process; Promote traffic safety; Expand recreational facilities and programs; Improve our financial independence as a city; Broaden city-school cooperation; Promote healthy business districts; Develop attractive and productive use for city's First Street property; Pursue outside audits of city departments; Expand recycling programs; Promote undergrounding of utility lines; Enhance programs and opportunities for seniors; Put planning department online to simplify permit/building process; Establish online recreation program registration.

Answer from Noah D. Mesel:

I would like the Council to:

• revamp and improve the development design guidelines for our neighborhoods and for downtown;
• hire an economic development coordinator;
• cooperate with local businesses to follow through on redevelopment and improvement projects in Loyola Corners, Rancho, Sherwood Gateway;
• complete cable TV franchise negotiations with AT&T on terms more favorable to the City;
• update the City's Master Plan;
• complete work on the downtown CRS plan;
• agree on a Civic Center Master Plan, including possible conversion of the Hillview Center into a modern performing arts and cultural center
• hire an Ombudsman who will serve as a residents' advocate at City Hall.

Answer from Louis Becker:

I would like to see the Los Altos City Council accomplish the following items in the next 3 to 5 years:

• Maintain a balanced budget and replenish critical reserves.
• Improve 911 Emergency Response System.
• Complete 401 Rosita Park.
• Increase city overall recreational facilities including the construction of an indoor multipurpose sports facility.
• Approve new building guidelines.
• Maintain a high level of public safety through the city.
• Upgrade maintenance of streets including landscaping along sides and in medians.

The order of the candidates is random and changes daily.