Mayor Balks at Claims of Unresponsiveness

This is one in a series of Q&As with candidates running for three open seats in the City Council election on March 8. Voss' answers have been edited for length. 

Don Voss is a semi-retired commercial banker. He is the current Mayor of La Cañada Flintridge, having served one term as a council member, and formerly served as the city treasurer. Voss, 60, has lived in LCF for 29 years. He is married and has two children and one grandchild.  In his free time Voss enjoys golf, photography, his music collection and traveling.

 Question: Many would like to see a remapping of the school district to eliminate the Sagebrush issue, which, by law, forces some students on one side of the same street to attend schools in Glendale, while students across the street attend school in LCF. What would you like to see done to rectify this situation?

Answer: First, it is very important to understand that the Glendale Unified School District and the La Cañada Unified School District are completely distinct legal entities from the City and from each other.  The school districts have never been a part of the City.  In no way does the City administer either of these school districts, just as neither school district administers the City. It is also important to understand that each of these school districts were established long before the incorporation of La Cañada Flintridge as a city.  Each operates within the city limits of La Cañada Flintridge. The tone of the question implies that the City may have some sort of special arrangement with the LCUSD to permit the children of City employees to attend LCUSD schools.  There is no such arrangement.  LCUSD accepts inter-district applications first for children of employees of LCUSD, and then for children who have at least one parent or legal guardian physically employed within the District’s boundaries.  A complete description of this inter-district policy, which is enabled by the State Education Code, can be found on the LCUSD website www.lcusd.net. 

The fundamental issue raised in the question is quite obviously outside the direct authority of the City.  It is best addressed through the two school districts.  The role of the City is to communicate the concerns of residents to the school districts, which we have done and continue to do in a number of forums, and when possible help to facilitate resolution of any issue involving either of the two public school districts operating within the City limits. Additional information can be found on the website of the La Cañada Flintridge Educational Foundation www.lcfef.org.

Question: If elected, what could you and the city council as a whole do to improve LCF schools in general?

Answer: The City enjoys a very strong and symbiotic relationship [with LCUSD].  The most notable example of this is the Joint Use Agreement that was established between the City and District in 2000.  Under this Agreement, certain School District facilities are made available to the public during non school hours under a cost sharing arrangement.  Some of these facilities are the Lanterman Auditorium, the skatepark, tennis courts, basketball courts, athletic fields, and the Information Resource Center (LCHS Library).  The City has embarked on numerous capital projects to improve School District facilities that are available for resident use during non-school hours.  I introduced a new decision model, which is called Social Return on Investment, to facilitate the prioritization of projects and joint use facility consideration.   

But the City’s support of education is not limited to the Joint Use Agreement.  We have worked to improve drop off and pick up safety at LCUSD schools, notably La Cañada Elementary and the High School.  We have consistently supported the La Cañada High School Music Parents Association with funding for musical equipment, uniforms, trips, and the like.  The City Council passed in 2009 a resolution in support of the La Cañada Unified School District’s Parcel Tax “Measure LC”.  This measure, approved by the District’s voters, raised $4.5 million for the School District.

All of these initiatives help the La Cañada Unified School District focus precious budget dollars on its primary mission of academic excellence.  The City is similarly committed to strong educational institutions and stands ready to support them as appropriate.

Question: What do you most oppose about the extension of the 710 Freeway, assuming you oppose it.  If you support it, why?

Answer: By far, the most important reason to oppose a 710 extension is to protect our residents, especially our children, from the substantial health risks it would bring to our City. Extension of the 710 to connect with the 210 to relieve traffic congestion in the Alhambra area would bring to La Cañada Flintridge an estimated incremental 30,000 vehicles per day, 8,500 of which would be heavy duty trucks.  Truck traffic as a percentage of overall traffic on the 210 would increase from 11% currently to over 20%.  Study after study demonstrates permanent lung impairment to children who live or go to school within 500 feet of a heavily traveled freeway.  There are ten schools in La Cañada Flintridge that are within 500 feet of the 210.  Each La Cañada Flintridge City Councilmember opposes the 710 extension proposal – to espouse any other position would be a betrayal of our residents.  And trying to push the problem to other cities would be equally irresponsible.

There are plenty of other reasons to oppose the proposed 710 tunnel extension.  Among them:

• More noise and congestion for La Cañada Flintridge
• No project cost benefit analysis
• No reliable project cost estimate
• No viable project funding plan (how could there be when the cost is unknown?)
• Projected instant obsolescence of the tunnel, opening at Service Level “F”
• Absence of serious study of less expensive and more efficient alternatives to a costly, obsolete freeway.  Examples, most likely in combination: light rail, intermodal transit, low-build option, improvements to existing freeway on and off ramps, improved traffic light synchronization.

 It is high time that we in Los Angeles County got serious about fresh, creative, cost-effective, and efficient ways to solve our transportation problems.  To “build another freeway” might have been a legitimate response in 1961.  But fifty years later, we know that yet another freeway is no longer the right answer.  We need 21st century solutions to 21st century problems.  This is the theme I express when discussing the matter with our Federal and State representatives, our County Supervisor, the Metro Board, Caltrans, the Southern California Association of Governments of which I am a Regional Council Member, and our neighboring communities that would also be negatively affected.

Question: What is your response to residents’ claims that the current city council has not been responsive to citizens’ concerns?

Answer:  I have yet to hear a single example of any time over a ten-year period as mayor, city councilmember, or city treasurer that I, or another councilmember representing the council as a group, have failed to respond to any member of the community.  I strive to respond quickly, accurately, considerately, and constructively.  I am easily accessible in numerous ways.  My home phone number is in the phone book.  My home address is in the phone book.  My home phone number, home fax number, and city hall phone numbers are printed on my calling card, which, along with my city e-mail address are also available.