By Council decision allows no exceptions

I recently had the opportunity to review plans for a second- story addition to a residence in my immediate neighborhood. The proposed addition appears to be modest and appropriate to the character of the neighborhood. That said, because of the Los Altos City Council’s action on March 28 regarding R1-S (single story overlay) zoning applications, I can neither approve nor disapprove of this proposed construction.

At the Council meeting on March 28, I spoke in favor of allowing neighborhoods to apply for a single story zoning overlay, and requested that the proposed overlay plan allow exceptions to the single-story building restriction on a case-by-case basis upon approval of neighbors who would be affected by the construction.

No speaker at the meeting argued against allowing such exceptions, which would allow second-story additions which are modest and appropriate to the character of the neighborhood. Nevertheless, the Council voted to allow no exceptions to the one-story limit in any neighborhood which applied for and was granted R1-S overlay status. The Council also decided that a neighborhood can apply for R1-S status only with the approval of 70 percent of the properties in the zoning area, and that at least 75 percent of residences in the area must be single story.

By these actions, the Council has all but ensured that no neighborhood can successfully apply for and obtain R1-S zoning status. It is unlikely that 70 percent of property holders in a neighborhood will approve a zoning change if no exceptions are allowed.

A neighborhood which tries and fails to rezone must wait for seven years to reapply. The Council has set up a process which kills any chance of traditional single-story neighborhoods gaining protection against the intrusion of “monster” houses.

It’s time the Planning Commission and the City Council start consistently applying existing guidelines for construction in our town. Approve construction, both one and two story, which is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The Council’s activity has succeeded only in pitting neighbor against neighbor.

Roy L. RobinsonLos Altos

Question of fairness in Lee case

Thanks for your March 29 coverage of the Lee vs. Los Altos case. It focuses on an apparent zoning problem.

City Attorney Robert Booth stated variances are routinely granted. In Lee, the city successfully argued that property owners with non-conforming setbacks were allowed to “expand” along their non-conforming lines and thus, without a variance, Lee’s neighbors would be denied the “privilege” of doing as others similarly situated may do.

The Lees argued that the neighbors had several alternatives to keep their home addition in full compliance with setback requirements. Instead, the neighbors chose to construct in a manner that the Lees argued would place their rear yard in a bowl. The Lees further argued that the reasons stated by their neighbors for preferring the path they chose were irrelevant to determining entitlement to a variance.

Los Altos Municipal Code expressly prohibits additions to properties that would “increase” an existing nonconformity. “Expanding” along a nonconforming setback line is an “increase” in nonconformity. In this case, the required setback is 25 feet, the existing setback is 8 feet, and the city argued that limiting the expansion to a 10-foot setback (not 25 feet) would not increase the nonconformity.

The city states that, if the neighbors’ house were oriented a different direction than it is, then only a 10-foot setback would be required. Irrelevant and misleading, the Lees note. With reorientation, the garage would have to be moved another 17 feet back from the property line, or it would be illegal and encroach unreasonably on the Lees.

Either Lees’ neighbors are the only Los Altos property owners who will be allowed to increase their non-conformity in spite of the many lawful alternatives available to them, or they are in a class of property owners with a special privilege of increasing a nonconforming setback. Neither outcome is proper.

I strongly support property rights, including reasonable regulation to protect one’s enjoyment of his property against unreasonably encroaching uses by a neighbor. Such regulations should be limited - but once made, enforced.

Ron KnechtLos Altos

One more for Mac’s

Shortly after we moved to Los Altos in 1955, my father and I were watching the Pet Parade, when dad asked a fellow watcher, “Where does a guy get a drink in this town?” Incredulous, the man responded, “You’re standing in front of the best bar around.” Dad said, “But I don’t want a cup of tea.” “Just go inside,” the man urged. We did and Mac’s became part of our family; and we, a part of theirs, from that day forward.

Every family celebration was held there, including dad’s 75th birthday lunch, when, compliments of the house, he got a “Texas Jigger” of bourbon. His joyful laugh could be heard for blocks, I’m sure. I had my first legal beverage there on my 21st birthday and my sons Steve and Geoff and I went there often. Three generations of Bells found Mac’s their favorite place for good food, good drinks and good company.

Diane, Ron and Craig carried on the gracious hospitality of Arno and Marilyn, where every patron was also a friend.

The owner of the new building comments that Ron Shanholtz had numerous opportunities to buy the property and avoid the huge tax bill, cost of a new roof and a new exorbitant monthly rent.

Well, perhaps Ron’s pocket change didn’t quite cover the megabuck price. In any event, I join thousands of friends in wishing Ron, Diane and Craig all the best in the future, as we thank them for the past.

Rick Bell

Los Altos

Last year for Native Plants?

For over 15 years the local chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has planted and maintained the native plant garden at Foothill College. This coming weekend they will be holding their annual wildflower show at the college and tours of the garden will be offered, as they have been for the past five years. The garden is in full bloom right now and there are over 160 species of native plants in the garden.

Sadly, this may be the last year that the garden will be in existence. The new master plan for the college outlines many proposed changes. The loop road is to be moved and will go through the area that is occupied by the Ornamental Horticulture Department.

All the horticulture facilities, the greenhouse and shade house, will be razed. A new high tech biology building will be built in the lower area. The area that has the old road and the native garden is indicated on the plan as parking lot.

A group of CNPS members and friends will be making a short presentation and presenting a petition at the board of trustees meeting on Monday, May 1, the day after the wildflower show. We welcome letters of support and your presence at the board meeting. It will begin at 7 p.m. and is held in the district office on the campus, which is the first right turn after entering the loop road on campus.

Ellie Gioumousis(No address given)

Common sense not a problem

(This letter is in response to Joan Passarelli’s April 5 Spiritual Life column, “Moral issues revealed in primary election.”)

How do you do it, Ms. Passarelli? How do you take on the majority of voters in a state and accuse them of being promoters of hatred, bigotry and oppression? With what appeared to be an all- too-familiar finger-wagging posture, you presumed to tell those who did not vote as you did that they are intolerant, unjust, and oppressors.

Did you know many in the homosexual community were proponents of Proposition 22? Does that make them more or less “moral” than you? Would you be unable to welcome them into your fold because they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman? Or is that another of those ironies that so “bitterly amuse” you?

I’ll tell you who I am “thrilled beyond measure” to welcome into my fold, Ms. Passarelli. My fold includes people of common sense, thinkers. I really don’t care if they are gay, a different color than me, or if they are or are not people of faith. Who I don’t want in my fold are condescending do-gooders who are forced to hurl their “private struggles” in the faces of the common sense majority in this state who passed these propositions. The people who really scare me are the people who consider criminals victims. A juvenile criminal is still a criminal, and a murderer has still committed a heinous crime against all that is decent.

Maybe it will help you understand the common sense majority in this state if we talk to you as victims. We are victims of your slander and we are not amused at being portrayed as “the problem.” Many of us believe it’s time to strive openly to protect ourselves from the fear you are promoting. My private thoughts were private until I read your article, but you have forced me to make them public.

Patricia Watkins

Los Altos