By Creekside article misses bottom line
The Town Crier article of Aug. 7, regarding the City Environmental Committee’s recommendation to the planning comission discussing the newly proposed property setbacks and easements for creekside owners, misses the bottom line - the cost. The takingof a setback or easement to a property according to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its subsequent interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court, subject to just compensation payable to the property owner. If the City of Los Altos intends to take setbacks and easements, and declare properties non-compliant to city code, the net result will be a loss if property vcalue to nearly 500 Los Altos creekside property owners. for these individuals, this has roughly been estimated at $120 million. Are the tax payers of Los Altos willing to reimburse these individuals for their loss or willing to endure a law-suit with that size of number attached?
Our home will be 7 feet within the proposed setback. it will be declared noncompliant. If 50 percent of our house os destroyed for any reason or if it exceeds its useful life (confusing city codes seem to declare that to be 50 years, which is 15 years from now), we will have to demolish 500 square feet or rebuild all but that 500 square fee of our home. Others are in a more difficult position as their homes will be entirely within the seback due to the way “top of bank” is defined bu the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Imagine what that homeowner will say to a prospective buyer when they go to sell their house: “Oh by the way, in 15 or less years, the City hasdeclared this property will become open space.”
Thomas and Laurel OlsenLos Altos
Watch for advertorials
As an unelected official spokesman of the local eye care community, I am writing to take umbrage at an article in the Aug. 7 Town Crier.
The article began by prompting parents to have their children’s eyes tested before school. A noble beginning, which I don’t disagree with. It went on, however, to be a blatant advertisement for Pearl Vision Co. and all the reasons we should shop there.
Pearl Vision is currently having a problem with the state board of optometry for false advertising, doesn’t have a store anywhere near us, and is not considered a pinnacle of eye or lens care within the eye care community. I would only ask that you monitor these articles for what they really are.
Steve Anderson, O.D.Los Altos Optometric Group
Town hall passage defies resident wishes.
The passage of the resolution to move forward on th e construction of the new town hall in Los Altos Hills flies in the face of the overwhelming sentiment opposing such a grandiose project. At the July 18 council meeting only one person spoke in favor of the edifice and scores of people spok eout against it.
We now have the “New Guard” represented by Casey, Finn and Fenwick, who ran on a program of responsive government based on the Nordstrom’s service model in control ramming an overpriced pig on the poke down our collective throats by threatening to provide us with a monumentally overstated town hall instead of an unobtrusive structure more in keeping with the desires of its immediate neighbors.
Tow and a half years ago, the council appointed a citizens’ committee to study and the need for a new town hall. This committee moved forward over the new several months and received several requests for proposals from architects and contractors for a new more adequate town hall, but nowhere near the scale of this Mission-style monstrosity. At a meeting in April 2000, Toni Casey publicly disbanded the committee stating that we were not ready for a new town hall. Obviously she had a hidden agenda which has been borne out by subsequent events.
William C. DowneyLos Altos Hills
Rosita neighbors still against complex
The Rosita Neighborhood Coalition continues to oppose the proposed aquatic complex at Rosita Park. One of our many concerns is the financial risk that it poses to our city.
Upon its completion, the facility will be owned by the financially strapped City of Los Altos. The city council has stated that the pool facility must be financially self-sustaining. The facility’s primary revenue source will be user fees. It is worth pointing out that, according to the SPLASH consultant Glenn Lyles, no other municipal pool in this region operates without city subsidies of $100,000 to $200,000 per year. If the aquatic complex is unable to pay its bills, Los Altans should know ahead of time how the shortfall will be met.
Pools are notoriously expensive to maintain; even routine repairs like pumps and resurfacing can be costly. Resulting deficits could occur periodically or be ongoing.
If this facility cannot break even, would the money to operate it come from other programs in the Recreation Department’s budget? From the budget of another city department? From a tax or bond measure? Would the pools be closed? Or, as we suspect, would the pool operators be forced to attract users in numbers far exceeding those contemplated in traffic studies and environmental reports?
A thorough review of the complete business plan and its supporting date and assumptions could shed light on these question. Despite our numerous requests, neither SPLASH nor the city has been willing to provide this information.
The council and SPLASH, both of whom desperately want this project to proceed, will no doubt state that they have reviewed the plan and are comfortable with it.
As SPLASH member Kathy Englar predicts, further discourse on the business plan will only raise more concerns and conflicts. Right she is! Better the risks are fully disclosed to Los Altos now, than after the pool is built.
Patti Beaulieu
Los Altos
