By More review needed for pool project
Your headline on the Rosita Park pool proposal (May 16) was not accurate. The city council did not approve a plan. The council must consider any proposal based on assumptions of size and scope. The architects for the pool proposal presented four conceptual ideas for evaluation. The council selected one of the four concepts as the basis for further review.
Further review is exactly what is needed. As noted by council, no one has provided an overall site usage evaluation that includes the pool proposal, current soccer, baseball and park activities, Covington elementary (including possible dual school usage) as well as a large day-care center.
The council clearly stated they needed to understand the big picture. Undefined details include a pool site plan, not conceptual sketches. No viable parking plan exists, turning neighborhoods into parking lots. There is no traffic plan for Rosita, including speed control or safe bicycle and pedestrian access to an elementary schoolyard. Operational costs must be understood, as the City will end up covering expenses should they exceed revenues.
A swimming pool might well be a pleasant amenity but the facts are few and the proposals quite grand. Neighborhoods will be the losers. A pool is nice. A safe community is a necessity.
Kurt AyersLos Altos
Who and why of Los Altos Film Club
Questions have been raised in the community as to who is sending out e-mails supporting a theater complex at First and Main and why. The who is Marge and Roger Anderson. We have lived in Los Altos since 1967, brought up three children through the Los Altos School system and been active in a variety of community activities.
Our involvement in the theater/hotel issue started at the Feb. 27 council meeting. To our surprise, city staff recommended that a hotel be placed on First and Main and negotiations were to start immediately with one of the hotel developers. Mayor King Lear presented an opinion poll by a professional polling group that showed strong citizen support of a theater, but staff responded they were told by the council to disregard public opinion or inputs. During that meeting, I made a speech from the podium saying I’d be willing to form a citizens’ effort to oppose a “Boutique Hotel” in favor of the theater.
Friends contacted us after that meeting, asking if we would establish an e-mail distribution system to inform and to rally Los Altos residents for the theater. Several hundred e-mail members later, here we are with no commercial conspiracies with developers or other economic interests. Our theater interests have been solely based on what the community wants.
Roger W. AndersonLos Altos
Banking on theater solution
It has been difficult to read about the deliberations on the disposition of the Main and First property. In view of the serious parking problems our town faces, it seems ludicrous to propose any use that would further tax a system which is not working already.
We all have noted the trend toward smaller spaces for financial institutions. Might there be a bank in Los Altos that would consider relocating to a smaller space? This could potentially open up a large space for a movie theater that could have better parking access and also be close to several restaurants. At this time, there are several highly visible sites that could meet the needs of a financial institution interested in downsizing.
I urge the city council to make a decsion that will serve all Los Altans.
Sandy Newman KooLos Altos
Decision should be up to the voters
In order to make an informed decision about this controversial property at First and Main, we first need appropriate financial analysis. I learned nothing about the realistic financial aspects of the various proposals. For example, the scenario for a half-empty, expensive hotel vs. a half-empty movie theater. During economic good times, an expensive hotel appears possible with the city collecting a handsome occupancy tax. However, now with some economic downturn, full occupancy appears unlikely.
The city council has an opportunity to leave Los Altos with a legacy of choosing the project that does the most for the residents instead of one-night out-of-towners. Movie theaters provide evening entertainment that includes restaurants, shops and cafes. The financial analysis must include the impact of these potential revenues.
After the issues of parking, traffic, economics, downtown ambiance have been mitigated and better defined, the final decision should be left to the voters.
Myra OrtaLos Altos
LAH majority ignored with vote
The Los Altos Hills council meeting last week at Bullis School provided a great opportunity for the residents to observe the current council in action. At issue is the amount of development that is allowed on constrained lots, such as lots less than one acre or with a significant slope.
In a recent town survey, the view overwhelmingly expressed by Los Altos Hills residents (over 75 percent) was to retain current standards so as to maintain the rural openness that remains in the town.
After months of study, the planning commission recommended increasing the allowable minimum figures to 4,000 square feet maximum floor area (MFA), the size of the house, and 6,500 maximum development area (MDA), which includes driveway, patio, pool, etc. At an earlier council meeting, Councilwoman Toni Casey arbitrarily raised these figures to 5,000 MFA and 7,500 MDA, meaning that all lots in the town, regardless of size or slope, would be allowed this much development area as a minimum.
At the council meeting Thursday, there was substantial public input reflecting the serious concerns these changes would effect. Councilwoman Emily Cheng suggested a very workable compromise of 4,500 MFA and 7,500 MDA.
By agreeing to such a compromise, the council had an opportunity to demonstrate respect for the overwhelming public sentiment as expressed in the town survey and other public venues.
Casey, Mayor Steve Finn and Councilman Bob Fenwick try to represent themselves as listening and responding to town residents. In the final vote, however, the compromise was rejected, and the outrageously high numbers were adopted, 3-2. The vote clearly shows just whose voice is being listened to. Unfortunately, it isn’t the majority of residents, or even to each other. The precious resources of the town are being compromised and eroded, one vote at a time.
Ginger Summit
Los Altos Hills
