By Mediator not hospital union idea
I was surprised to read a very perplexing statement in a May 9 Town Crier article, “Union hospital officials continue negotiations”. This article deals with the negotiations between Service Employees Internal Union and El Camino Hospital.
The statement is a quotation made by the union’s chief negotiator, Christy Somersheim: “We’ve brought in a federal mediator, David Weinberg. He came to try to break the log jam”
It was not the union that brought in the federal mediator; it was El Camino Hospital. It is not the union that is paying for the federal mediator to break the impasse; it is the taxpayers.
The article goes on to correctly state the cause of the impasse: The union’s refusal to allow the employees of El Camino Hospital to vote on the issue of open or closed shop.
Bryna BailinEl Camino Hospital employee
Community Pool yes, mega pools no
We take issue with the letter written by LaNae Avra in the June 13 issue of the Town Crier regarding the proposed Rosita megapool complex. While we support the concept of appropriately sized community swimming facilities in Los Altos and in our neighborhood, we disagree with the assertion that the proposed Rosita megapool complex is a replacement for the old Covington Pool.
At both the Parks & Recreation Commission and Los Altos City Council meetings the proposed Rosita megapool complex had 2-3 times the pool area of the old Covington Pool. This is hardly a replacement. The significant increase in the size of the swimming facility, and the expected 2-3 times increase in usage of the facilities will have a substantial negative impact on our neighborhood, which is already undergoing significant changes.
Specifically, placement of the Rosita megapool complex on a dead-end street that has seen recent increases in use due to the Rosita athletic facilities and will soon see additional increases in use due to the reopening of Covington School (550 students and staff), childcare at Covington School (75-150 children) and ongoing use of the Covington and Rosita Park athletic facilities, the LASD district offices and the Covington minipark (which is becoming the Covington micropark) is not appropriate. Couple these uses with pool activities, as in the sample plan put forward by SPLASH that run from as early as 5 a.m. to as late as 10 p.m. with two or three times the pool use, and you have the recipe for the destruction of the quiet residential life that people value in Los Altos.
We say yes to appropriately sized community swimming facilities in Los Altos. We say no to megaswimming complexes in any residential neighborhoods in Los Altos.
Eric Lutkin and Deanne TuckerLos Altos
No significant changes with LAH revision
I take serious issue with the unnecessary inflammatory tone, incorrect facts and misrepresentation of our last Los Altos Hills council meeting at Bullis School and of our recently completed town survey by Ginger Summit’s letter to the editor on May 23.
First of all, I am very pleased and proud of the team approach of the new city council and of the numerous townwide notices sent to residents on important issues such as constrained lots, basements and the report from the LUF (Lot Unit Formula) Committee. Prior city councils refused to send out notices townwide to our residents on a regular basis, preferring to adopt ordinances and polices without resident input.
I do agree with Ms. Summit when she said that the meeting provided a great opportunity for residents to observe the current council in action.
What they saw was a polite and courteous council who listened to all residents and a council where respect and civility reign.
The majority of the council voted to increase the maximum development on constrained lots, most of which have acreage greater than one acre but a LUF of less than one because of a slope greater than 10 percent. The council had held two prior public hearings on this specific issue and had sent out two townwide notices. The majority of residents who attended these meetings and at the last meeting at Bullis School spoke in favor of the increase from 4,000 square feet to 5,000 for maximum floor area and from 6,000 to 7,500 square feet for development area.
The majority of residents said in the recent town survey that they like Los Altos Hills the way it is. The above change will do nothing to significantly change our town from the way it is. Every lot will have at least 65 percent as open space with no possible development. The constrained lot change will simply grant fairness to those residents who have experienced a dramatic development reduction over the last 15 years as the LUF formula was adopted without townwide notification or participation. How Ms. Summit can say that these numbers are “outrageously high” is beyond any reasonable conclusion. She said that Emily Cheng’s suggestion of 4,500 square feet instead of the adopted 5,000-square feet was a “very workable compromise” -4,500 is “very workable” and 5,000 is “outrageously high”? Her letter in no way is representative of the input received from the majority of the residents and certainly was not the “overwhelming public sentiment” of those attending the meeting.
Steve FinnMayor, Los Altos Hills
Disinterested about our energy crisis?
On June 2, approximately 400 people, including me, attended Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s Town Hall meeting on energy. Four excellent panelists discussed the crisis confronting California. In attendance were council members from Mountain View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Redwood City. The absence of anyone representing the Los Altos City Council is disturbing. Isn’t our council interested in learning about what we can do to alleviate the problems facing us?
Phyllis Cairns
Los Altos
