By Town Crier Staff Report
The future development of the city-owned lot at the corner of First and Main streets has generated city-wide controversy in recent weeks as the Los Altos City Council comes to a decision that will either place a hotel or movie theater at the .78-acre site.
The Town Crier submitted the following questions about the future of the First and Main lot to Los Altos Mayor King Lear last week. These are his written answers.
TC: The Los Altos Community Foundation recently sponsored a survey to gauge what the public would prefer to see happen at the First and State streets lot. According to survey results, four-out-of-five residents would prefer that a movie theater be developed at the site. There has been some community concern about how the questions were formulated and interpreted. Do you think the survey accurately represents the general public?
KL: The poll was random dialed within Los Altos prefixes. The persons answering were asked if they live in Los Altos. If they said yes, then the city’s First Street property development process was described to set the stage for the questions. The first poll question was then asked: “Would you prefer an expansion of Safeway; additional public parking only; a three- story hotel with a cafe or restaurant; a three-story development including a movie theater, cafe, retail stores, and condominiums; or leave the property as is.
The order of these selections was randomized from call to call, except that “leave it as is,” was always left at the end. Those polled then chose the option they most liked. 44 percent chose the option with a theater, 23 percent chose “leave it as is,” 16 percent chose additional public parking only, 9 percent chose the hotel, and 8 percent chose “an expansion of Safeway.” They were then asked for their second choice and asked why they preferred the first choice over the second choice. 46 percent of those selecting a hotel said that they thought Los Altos needs a hotel. They were never told that two new hotels with a total of 336 rooms are currently being built in Los Altos.
Those polled were then given more descriptive information about the hotel and theater options and asked again what they preferred among the five choices. The theater choice increased from 44 percent to 48 percent and the hotel increased from 9 percent to 12 percent, a bigger percentage change. Most of the changed votes came from “leave it as is,” which went from 23 percent down to 17 percent. There was no bias in the follow-up question because the answers do not indicate such bias. Other data were also taken on age, male vs. female, frequency of movie attendance, and frequency of hotel bookings made for local visitors.
Those under 55 years of age (54 percent polled) preferred a theater as first choice by a 57 percent to 8 percent margin over a hotel.
Four hundred and two people completed the poll. This was the number recommended by the polling company for a reasonably accurate answer. I believe the poll does represent the opinions of the 40,000 people in the greater Los Altos area that thinks of Main Street as their downtown.
TC: While talking about the survey during the council meeting last week, you made many references to “we” when discussing the way the questions were formulated for the survey and they the results were interpreted. Who is “we?”
KL: How the questions were formulated means nothing. The questions mean everything. The questions can stand on their own merits. The TC would do the public a great service by publishing the specific text and results of the poll. Let the public judge for themselves. I find that those who say the poll must have been biased, simply do not like the results.
TC: How much weight will these survey results carry in the Los Altos City Council’s process in choosing a theater or a hotel?
KL: I have encouraged council to generate and weight criteria to be used in this decision so the public can see how we prioritize the various considerations. We did a ranking exercise that ended up weighting public opinion 12.5 percent. City financial benefit is 20.5 percent and added public parking is 17.5. percent, whether the design is appropriate to the site is 11.25 percent, and whether the use contributes to the economic strength of Downtown is 8.75 percent, and economic feasibility is 15 percent. The remaining 5 criteria have the other 14.5 percent. No single consideration dominates. The council will make a balanced decision.
TC: It seems, based upon your recent presentations, that you are trying to generate public support for a theater rather than a hotel. Does this represent the council’s view, or your own? Do you feel it is appropriate for you to promote one land-use over another?
KL: Councilmembers can operate in different ways on different issues. Usually we act as judges who take great pains to hear all sides fairly and not prejudge. Then after all information has been presented and our questions answered, we discuss the issue and make a decision.
In situations where the council is taking initiative, one or more of the council members often take a leadership role to help guide the process. The council makes all of the final decisions, but as a committee we have a difficult time generating a passionate vision of what can be accomplished. The city has always been fortunate to have such leadership on its councils and that is why we have Redwood Grove, and Rosita Park and the History House. Our council comprises five such leaders, each of whom provide the rest of us with visionary focus on topics that they feel strongly about. I have been working hard for three years on this First Street topic. I promised when elected to improve downtown parking.
Based on my analysis, I am very comfortable that the mixed use development with a theater is a brilliant and cost-effective solution to parking, and provides downtown entertainment in the evenings, energizes our economy, and serves our 40,000 Los Altos area residents as a community benefit. I am comfortable that a Camera Cinema theater will succeed. One cannot be a leader if one cannot decide where to go. I have decided. Fine tuning the details will still have to be done on whatever use we select and will require more public input.
TC: The San Jose Mercury News and others have raised the point that accepting a $1 million gift from an anonymous donor to move forward with the movie theater development could raise ethical complications. How do you respond to that criticism?
KL: Yes, I am concerned about the ethics of having one proposed concept resulting in windfall revenues for the city ,which will then influence staff and council to pick a use that the public does not want. This is what is happening with the hotel tax. The present value of the anticipated hotel tax would be $3 million to $5 million.
The $1 million gift would, in a modest way, influence the council to do what the public wants. Since there is no conflict with public interest, there is no ethical issue. We are simply fortunate that someone cares this much about the community to make this offer.
A movie theater is not unlike the Bus Barn Theater. It adds to our local art and culture. If the offer were to be from someone who would commercially profit from selecting the theater, that is also fine.
We encourage the developer to maximize his offer and where the money comes from is not important, as long as the use is publicly supported and the money benefits the public, not individuals.
TC: A traffic engineer hired by the city to study the impact of a new development suggested as a way to increase access to First Street from Foothill Expressway would require removing the large tree in the median in front of the Consignment store. Do you agree with this proposal?
KL: No way.
