By A goof in arithmetic?
Why is the Town of Los Altos Hills being asked to approve an ordinance that will double development limits on its moderate slopes, triple them on steeper slopes and irreversibly undermine its traditional dedication to the preservation of its natural setting? Would you believe it if I told you that it was to cover up a goof in arithmetic?
The ordinance grew out of an effort by the town to liberalize inequities in the treatment of substandard, “grandfather” lots, too small to meet the minimum required by the slope density standards. (The required minimum lot size is one lot unit, or 1 “LUF,” which increases from 1 A for lots under 10 percent average slope to 2 A at 33 percent). The original “constrained-lot” ordinance applied only to these non-conforming lots - those with LUF less than one - probably only 10 or 15 percent of the town (an accurate count has not been made). January versions of this ordinance liberalized standards for this small class of non-conforming (”constrained”) lots with a formula that matched standards for the rest of the town as the lot size approached the town standard (1 LUF).
In February, Councilman Robert Fenwick introduced an alternate formula which supposedly was more “seamless” and achieved the same purpose. It was accepted uncritically by the council majority and technical staff virtually without public debate.
I pointed out, however, (in a March 7 letter to Council, Planning Commission and staff) that the formula was completely unworkable, unfair and probably illegal. At the boundary where the substandard lots interfaced with the rest of the town, they were permitted up to three times as much development as the larger conforming lots.
Rather than correct the flawed formula to remove this absurd drop in permitted development when a lot gets big enough to comply with town standards, the council majority opted to solve the problem (or seize the opportunity) by applying the “Fenwick formula” to the other 90 percent of the town as well. In my view, it is no less absurd in this broader role.
We can devise objective ordinances that will be fair and just and satisfy the needs and wishes of our present residents, and our obligations to neighboring communities, but we can’t do it in ignorance. Before any action is taken on ordinances, the town desperately needs a comprehensive study by a competent independent planning consultant.
Arthur H.(Art) LachenbruchLos Altos Hills
Parking: You should get what you pay for
Parking in downtown Los Altos is, and always has been for the benefit of downtown merchants who need customers in order to stay in existence, and they are the ones who paid for the parking plazas. These were developed via an assessment district and paid for by the property owners along Main and State streets.
This arrangement is typical in other cities as well. In Palo Alto, downtown parking facilities were funded by property owners that benefited from them and just recently an assessment district was approved by the owners of 73 percent of the assessed property in a downtown area to construct 700 new parking spaces at a cost of $45 million. There is no taxpayer subsidy.
The First and Main property is owned by the Los Altos taxpayers having been purchased for $1.8 million in 1995. Appreciation should put its current value at between $4 million and $5 million. It should lease for over $400,000 per year with regular escalation in the future.
Up to this time, all the proposals for development of this property have revolved around the developers providing extra free parking for the public.
The only way they can do this is by being reimbursed by the owners of the property - the residential taxpayers of Los Altos. In this way, taxpayers are being expected to give up income from their investment in order to subsidize parking.
A more fair development of the property would require the developers of a hotel or theater to provide the amount of parking required for their specific project.
If they wish to be in the retail parking business, they could be allowed to build extra spaces paid for by monthly or hourly market rate fees.
Additional retail customer parking, if truly needed, should be more centrally located and funded by an assessment district.
If freebie parking were excluded from project requirements, a hotel could bring in $500,000 in room tax each year, along with the annual lease payments, providing an amount that could be put to good civic use to do some of the things we had hoped to do with the increase in the utility tax that lost at the last election. The proceeds from our investment should benefit us all and not just the vocal few inside the downtown triangle.
Tom AndersonLos Altos
Insulting columnist
The caveat is “never take on a man with an unlimited supply of ink.” However, Publisher Emeritus Mr. MacKenzie’s “Commentary” in your April 11 issue begs response.
In order, he has demeaned the mayor, the 43 percent of the town who favor a theater at First and Main, Wall Street Journal readers (it’s NOT just financial, Mr. MacKenzie), poult(r)ymen (sic), foreign films, Germans, Los Altos law enforcement, affluent homeowners, Cartier, Neiman Marcus, Thomas Kinkade, a mis-named “American Rifle Association,” Charlton Heston, and our early pioneers.
I, too, have lived in Los Altos for over 50 years and have never witnessed such a concerted insulting of an entire populace. For one so interested in “improving the place,” this diatribe is puzzling.
In this context it’s not difficult to see why none of Mr. MacKenzie’s “innumerable suggestions” have been accepted. He talks down to the readers, our kids, stay-at-home moms and fathers.
His self-admitted lack of financial acumen is apparent in this latest suggestion to build a “city-owned, free, energy-generating treadmill palace” on the site. (No further comment needed.)
If this is intended as humor, Mr. MacKenzie’s sense of same is sadly lacking.
If I’m wrong, please send me one of his free “Lighten Up” T-shirts.
Don Broesamle
Los Altos
