League of Women Voters of California
Santa Clara County, CA November 5, 2002 Election
	Dean Warshawsky Answers Questions Candidate for Council Member; Town of Los Altos Hills

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

Read the answers from all candidates.

Questions & Answers

1. Do you support or oppose the design and cost of the proposed new Town Hall? How do you propose to pay for the new Town Hall? What role in the planning process should residents and the Planning Commission play?

There is definitely a need to rebuild our Town Hall. I want to see Town participation, alternative styles, cost analysis of these alternative styles, and a recognition that our surplus revenues need to be protected for any emergencies. The cost of this project should be brought down to a reasonable level, like $3M. That's enough to keep $3M in the bank as a safety net. In addition to this, the current Town Hall plan doesn't allow for the Purissma Water district. Our new Town Hall should accomodate our water district.

2. Which, if any, of the town-owned property would you favor selling during your term?

As a policy, we shouldn't consider selling any town-owned property. If we manage our cash reserves and budget wisely and in an efficient manner, we will never face a funding issue. I support adopting the Open Space Initiative once it has been filed and the signatures gathered. This motion by the council would save the cost of a special election.

3. Would you alter the pathway system, on-road and off-road, and, if so, how would you evaluate the importance of any path to be retained or abandoned?

The 2002 Master Path Plan's proposed removal of future trails while adding sidewalks and "on-road paths" is not consistent with the town's General Plan, which calls for a system that includes both types of pathways. Also, the town's environmental review of the 2002 Master Path Plan concluded that the Plan does not have an adverse environmental or recreational impact. This was based largely on a conclusion that the Plan would result in a net loss of only 3.9 miles of planned pathways. Again, given that essentially all of the lost pathways are trails, with unique benefits, and essentially all of the gained pathways are sidewalks or "on-road paths" that lack those benefits, this conclusion seems to defy common sense.

The town's process for developing its pathway system must be more open and inclusive. The process for developing the 2002 Master Path Plan has raised everyone's anxiety. Notices have been confusing about the nature of the meetings. There seem to be no criteria for keeping or abandoning paths, and residents' statements indicate that the town's records are still full of errors. The town would be better served by a more careful process that gives voice to all relevant concerns, adheres to the General Plan, and complieswith required environmental reviews.