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

See below for questions on Swim complex, Parking, Creeks

Click on a name for other candidate information.   See also more information about this contest.

Answer from Robert "Curtis" Cole:

A community pool is a valuable and worthwhile asset for children, teens, and adults. The City should continue its support for a community pool and reach a decision in 2004. The pool supporters will promote the benefits of the pool complex. The neighborhood residents and the environmental impact report, due early next year, will highlight the costs associated with the project. The City Council must craft a solution where the benefits outweigh the costs and the effect on the neighborhood is acceptable, in the Council's view. Los Altos faces a challenge of maintaining our city's unique character while accepting the need for updating commercial properties, residences, and community facilities. Los Altos had a community pool in the past which benefited our neighborhoods, rather than harming them; that should be our standard for the future.

Answer from Jeannice (Fairrer) Samani:

The community should determine its needs. There are 2 scenarios; (1) if, the community wants a community pool (1 pool) then that is what should be developed, (2) if, there is a need for a public swim complex then that development should occur. The City of Los Altos has enjoyed and utilized the community pool for many years. Also, we have to plan for current and future needs. In neither scenario, an assessment of the impacts regarding traffic and public safety should be considered. It would be a "Win-Win" for the community-at-large.

Answer from Christopher Friendly "Chris" Nicholson:

I feel that a high-caliber public swim complex would be a valuable asset to the Los Altos community, and I am for it, if it is reserved as an asset for the Los Altos community. Los Altos should have a swimming pool; it is an important asset for any community to have, but it should be paid for by the community, and should fit the needs of the community. I believe a three pool complex is too extravagant for the needs of Los Altos, and that a more moderate design comparative to the old Covington pool would be better suited to, and more affordable for, Los Altos citizens.

Answer from David Casas:

I support a community pool with the basic necessities to enable a community swim program. It is imperative that we strike a balance between community benefit and neighborhood rights prior to any development being initiated.

Currently, there are 2 standard pools and 1 small wading pool planned for property adjacent to Rosita Park. The current Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will not be completed until after new City Council Members are chosen in the upcoming November election. Therefore, I believe it is essential that the next City Council provide leadership and guidance by bringing this issue back into the public discourse, as a part of a well thought out decision process.

Once the EIR is complete, I recommend that the next steps be taken in 2004 in relation to the proposed location: 1) Hold a neighborhood meeting in the Rosita Gym to discuss the EIR outcomes, findings, and recommendations 2) If the EIR specifies the Rosita property as suitable, solicit neighborhood input to help frame tangible solutions to truly mitigate neighborhood impacts as a result of any development 3) Revisit the pool design and operation, as appropriate, to incorporate mitigating aspects 4) Ensure that the pool operations are set up to be financially self sustaining 5) Design ongoing recreational programs that provide for reasonable community access and "free swim" opportunities 6) Establish a realistic timeline for the development and eventual opening of the new Los Altos Community Pool

Answer from Val Carpenter:

I feel that Los Altos needs to bring back our community swimming pool. For many years, Los Altans enjoyed the community pool located behind Covington School. When the school district decided to reopen Covington as an elementary school, the pool was closed, and ever since, various groups have been working to once again provide this popular amenity in a way that makes sense in the 21st century. Building a facility with separate wading, recreational and competitive pools seems ideal. The Rosita Park location is where the previous pool was, so replacing it there also makes sense, although I'd want to see the results of the pending Environmental Impact Report before moving forward.

Answer from Ronald D. Packard:

The city needs a pool complex, and SPLASH has made efforts to gather the funds to do so. It is unfortunate that the City ignored any negative impacts on the neighbors, and brushing aside its serious obligation to do an EIR. As a result, the City was sued by the neighbors, lost, and required to pay tens of thousands of dollars of attorney fees incurred by the neighbors. This has delayed the entire process. At this point, the most prudent approach is to receive the EIR and carefully consider all recommendations and mitigating steps to lessen the impact. I believe an acceptable pool complex (possibly of a smaller scale than originally proposed) is feasible without unreasonable negative impacts on neighbors.

Answer from Francis Albert La Poll:

We need community swimming facilities. First, we must recognize the benefit to thousands of our citizens. Providing recreational swimming/lessons is a local government function, and mostly pays for itself. Second, work with the swimming community. Third, end discrimination which imposes on swimmers full capital and operating costs, a burden not placed on other recreational communities. This burden has led to programming which displaces community swimming and frightens neighbors. Fourth, understand and address neighbor concerns so swimming may peacefully co-exist with neighbors for another 50 years.

Answer from Francis Albert La Poll:

Most residents disagree there is a "parking availability" issue. If there is, the issue is who pays for solutions such as underground parking. Decades ago, some downtown property owners paid to create parking plazas, giving them to the City. Los Altos taxpayers have since paid to maintain them. As before, those directly benefitting financially should pay for future improvements: downtown property owners and businesses, especially those not part of the original plaza creation, yet benefitting from them. The City can help by establishing a new parking assessment district (and downtown property owners would vote whether to do so).

Answer from David Casas:

Parking availability varies by location and time of day. The lack of street parking (Main, State, 1st, 2nd, etc.) is usually acute during the mid-day hours. Public parking lots, within the downtown area, are also impacted to some degree. However, parking is still available in the lots that are farther away from high traffic businesses.

To solve the downtown-parking problem, decisions need to be made that bring long-term relief to an ongoing problem. To be clear, I do not concur with the recently enacted parking permit process for downtown businesses. The permit process is only addressing the symptom, through the creation of a bureaucracy, without addressing the root cause. For background, the City owned property at 1st and Main was originally acquired to add parking capacity into the downtown area. However, this location is a gateway into downtown, and the City has been hesitant to envision the property solely as a parking lot. As a potential solution, the City could sell this property and utilize the money to increase parking capacity elsewhere in the downtown area.

Answer from Ronald D. Packard:

As a attorney and property owner who works in the village, I know that parking in some areas often is a problem, and once the economy improves, it will become an even greater problem. Some businesses have refused to locate in the village due to their perception of a parking problem. The current permit program may help better define the problem, and possibly help solve it. If the permits do not cure the problem (or merely spread it to adjacent residential areas), then parking structures (preferably underground) are the likely long-term solution. The obvious challenge is funding.

Answer from Val Carpenter:

I'm not yet convinced that parking availability in the village is a problem that needs to be solved. Even at lunchtime on Friday, I've never had to park more than 1 block away from my destination. Therefore, I think the problem may be one of different expectations regarding how far one has to park from one's destination is acceptable, and I would start with gathering input from merchants and shoppers to clarify this before taking any additional action on downtown parking.

Answer from Robert "Curtis" Cole:

The City's downtown zoning codes provide the means to ensure that properties off of the public plazas provide adequate parking for their employees and customers when the properties are redeveloped. For example, any forthcoming proposal to update the Post Office on First street should bring that property into compliance so its employees do not park off site and take up downtown customer parking. A development at the city owned First and Main site, especially one done in conjunction with a Safeway property redevelopment, is an opportunity to provide quality public parking at that end of town. The pilot parking permit program will provide insight into the use of plaza parking spots by non-plaza businesses. Ultimately, the City must work with the businesses, the LAVA, and the property owners to identify the scope of the parking problem and discuss the resources available to develop a viable solution.

Answer from Jeannice (Fairrer) Samani:

There is a need to plan for current parking issues and for the future. A current solution is to have a designated area for long-term parking (over 3 hours) that is not directly behind the shops and restaurants this would free-up parking spaces for patrons.

Answer from Christopher Friendly "Chris" Nicholson:

I think the phrase "solve parking availability" implies a problem I do not believe exists. In the eighteen years I lived in Los Altos, I have always seen large amounts of available parking in downtown. Parking is not always available right in front of locations customers want to frequent, but that is an issue that cannot be resolved without a level of bureaucracy I believe would be more harmful than helpful. If residents want more parking in downtown, we should work to provide more off- site longer-term parking in the form of a small unobtrusive parking structure, and lower the time limit on popular parking spaces.

Answer from David Casas:

As stewards of the environment, the City Council should continue to work with other governmental bodies and oversight agencies in the protection of watershed resources, creek preservation, and storm water management designs. Along with the Santa Clara County Water District, the City Council plays an active role in managing development along our riparian corridors. Clearly, all decisions establishing increased environmental protection should also ensure appropriate consideration of individual property rights. I will work to enhance the long-term vitality of our waterways utilizing a balanced approach.

Answer from Jeannice (Fairrer) Samani:

There are 4 creeks that run through the City of Los Altos. Currently, the creeks are maintenance by Santa Clara Water District. There are key 5 areas in which of City Council can help to preserve and enhance the vitality and the function of the creeks: (1) participate in the countywide "Good Neighbor Program", that is a measurement performance project that was passed in 2000 to support the performance of the maintenance crew, and the 4 events a year that involve such projects as pollution clean-up day and major trash pick-up, (2) participating in the Planning Study for Permanente Creek North County, (3) support Stream Stewardship Plan-Stevens Creek Steel Head Trout project, (4) support the NonPoint Source program, (5) appoint a citizen representative or attend the Watershed Advisory Committee for Santa Clara County.

Answer from Christopher Friendly "Chris" Nicholson:

I believe the city council has an important role to play in setting the environmental policy of Los Altos. It is the shape of that role that will determine the shape of our environment in years to come. The city council should be deeply committed to preserving our wonderful surroundings, especially our creeks. By being diligent with concerns about storm water runoff and other environmental issues, the city council can better ensure a beautiful Los Altos for many years to come.

Answer from Robert "Curtis" Cole:

The City Council exercises primary authority over land use planning and permitting. While stewardship of the watershed is implemented at the local level; our water and riparian habitats are a regional issue. Los Altos must work in partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the county, other cities, property owners, and other stakeholders to develop policies, guidelines and standards for the protection of water and watershed resources. The City's general plan and zoning laws implement these standards by controlling elements such as structure size, setbacks, and grading around riparian corridors. The City Council must understand and represent the property owners in discussions with the SCVWD, and must effectively communicate and implement the principles and policies collaboratively developed with the SCVWD to the community and property owners affected by those policies.

Answer from Val Carpenter:

I think Los Altos needs to work closely with Los Altos Hills and the Santa Clara County Water District to ensure that private property along our creekbeds is safe from water damage under flood conditions while also preserving the ambiance and privacy of these properties. To me it's a delicate balancing act that will work best if property owners, local governments and agencies, and environmental groups are actively involved in setting and prioritizing objectives and identifying solutions.

Answer from Ronald D. Packard:

The City Council has an important role in dealing with creek preservation and runoff needs. The role should include continued active participate in the regional Water Resources Protection Collaborative Effort, and implementing land use decisions which balance the rights of the creekside residents with the needs for preservation and runoff. The Water District currently has authority to impose restrictions on the property owners for a set distance from the creek center. At present, I fail to see the need to increasing that distance.

Answer from Francis Albert La Poll:

In California, cities regulate land use. Counties have a residual role they often view as outside their core functions and try to shed. Special districts established primarily to prevent floods and ensure drinking water supply, lack the expertise, the resources, and the authority. The City must protect creeks from encroachment, alteration, and degradation; and assist the Santa Clara Valley Water District to accomplish its flood and water supply goals. Simultaneously, we must protect residents from District efforts to expand regulatory jurisdiction by defining creek banks to include all land radiating from a creek until level ground is reached, plus 150 feet--a definition that can cross streets!

The order of the candidates is random and changes daily.