By Send letters to editor Bruce Barton at the Town Crier, 138 Main St., Los Altos 94022, or e-mail:
Benefits of Adobe project
outweigh NIMBY-ism
An article in the Town Crier (Feb. 19) insinuated that the Santa Clara Valley Water District is attempting to foist a “bad” project upon my constituents in Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.
In fact, the project is designed to improve the creekside habitat and aesthetics, improve bank stability and provide improved flood protection on Adobe Creek.
Here are some facts: The town of Los Altos Hills retained flood control easements on parcels along the creek with the intent to facilitate the collective transfer of those easements to the water district for a flood control project.
The project concept and design was approved after a formal public process and with the concurrence of both the Los Altos and Los Altos Hills councils. The project was modified to address additional concerns raised by residents (including D.J. Rogez), but those changes did not impact the basic design.
The water district has moved the project boundary several feet and has been able to retain a number of mature trees in an effort to bend over backward to placate Rogez.
That was not enough for him, though. He apparently wants the project stopped because it will indeed impact his property, an impact he had full knowledge of when he purchased the property and developed it. A viable project for Adobe simply can’t avoid all impacts. There is no question the benefits of this project to the citizens of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and, most critically, other creekside residents outweigh the impact to Rogez’ back yard.
As I informed the town council in two letters last year, a failure to provide the easements simply would mean the project will likely not occur. That would represent a sad capitulation to one individual’s desires at the expense of the community and basically forfeit millions of public dollars and community effort to put an acceptable project together. Residents along the creek and those close by will need to look to the town council for answers when they suffer bank erosion or flooding.
The town council should approve the transfer of the easements. It should not succumb to Rogez’ classic invocation of NIMBY-ism.
Gregory A. Zlotnick
Director, District 5
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Keep an open mind on
Bullis parents’ efforts
Bullis is an extremely strong school community and an important resource in the town of Los Altos Hills. The school board made a decision it felt it had to make. However, it remains important to keep an open mind about options, especially if they could benefit everyone.
Having a neighborhood school has always been important, and having schools in one’s own town is paramount. In 1978 the school board closed Purissima School, the second last school in Los Altos Hills. The school board, including current members, promised that Bullis would never be closed.
Now that the board has closed the last school in Los Altos Hills and integrated it into a school that is twice as large, the parents at Bullis are thinking about options.
I see little understanding of or compassion for what the Bullis parents are trying to achieve. Imagine if the district closed all of the schools in Los Altos and forced the students into Palo Alto, Cupertino and Mountain View.
Imagine if all the schoolyards in Los Altos were fenced off as private school sites or sold off for homes.
Los Altos Hills has exactly one flat site where children can play soccer, learn to ride a bike, shoot a few hoops and play on a great playground. That site is Bullis.
Like any neighborhood school, it is used beyond school hours. Bullis helps build our community. It’s an easy place for people to meet.
The parents are working to preserve the last neighborhood school, which is also a critical community resource. Don’t fault them for that.
A group of parents is proposing a charter school to preserve a public school for neighborhood children in our town and to preserve a community resource. They want to achieve this in a way that benefits the district. They do not want to be adversaries; they would rather be partners.
Let’s hear the proposal and have the facts straight before offering criticism. The opportunity may be exciting. But we won’t recognize it unless we keep open minds.
Tay Vanderlip
Los Altos Hills
Pool letters light
on the facts
The shamelessly choreographed collection of virtually identical “Letters to the Editor” in last week’s Town Crier supporting the SPLASH (Swimmers Promoting Los Altos Aquatics, Safety and Health)/Los Altos Masters-sponsored Rosita Pool Complex is unfortunately light on the facts.
The Rosita residents are not necessarily against a community pool. However, it should be just that - a pool that serves and benefits the community with recreational swimming, lessons and socializing.
The proposed complex does not meet those needs. It focuses on extensive programs that generate revenue in an effort to finance the complex’s operations.
SPLASH/Los Altos Masters and the city say there will be no ongoing cost to the city. This is very unlikely. City staff has estimated that up to $250,000 a year in city funds would be needed. Given budget limitations, is this how we want our money spent?
A neighborhood group consisting of over 90 residents felt strongly enough to bring a lawsuit against SPLASH and the city for glaring violations of the California Environmental Quality Act. In its recent ruling, the judge strongly agreed with the Rosita neighbors, putting a halt to the complex pending further environmental studies and requiring the city and SPLASH to follow the law.
Every citizen of Los Altos should be asking why a neighborhood was forced to resort to legal action to require the city to simply comply with the law. There is something wrong here.
Susan Mensinger
Los Altos
City forging ahead
despite concerns
As the recent Rosita Park Aquatic Complex court ruling against the city affirms, the majority of our city council is blindly forging ahead, devoid of common sense. Some history explains how we arrived at this difficult situation.
First, given the impact of traffic, parking, noise and lighting, the council could only justify the Rosita site by dramatically altering the city’s 1999 Rosita Master Plan. New standards were issued that have never been used in Los Altos and are contrary to prevailing practices of many municipalities.
Then the council deferred to SPLASH, which clearly has a vested interest, to develop a self-supporting Business Plan. To maximize revenue-generating programs, a third pool was added and community swim was drastically limited. Even the city-hired consultant acknowledged the Plan was based upon “best case” projections.
Aside from the environmental impact to the neighborhood, why should you care? Because our town of Los Altos is financially liable. A 5/1/01 city staff memo to the council stated that cities typically fund 50-60 percent of a pool’ s operating costs; Los Altos could be responsible for $250,000 annual shortfalls. A 1/4/02 staff memo identified problems with the consultant report’ s altered environmental standards, stating it didn’t have “adequate supporting data, references or descriptions to defend their recommendations.”
A 3/12/02 memo recognized many of the plan’s shortcomings. Nevertheless on 3/26/02, despite objections by virtually every Rosita neighbor, the council plunged ahead, approving the plan.
The consequences? The planned destruction of a quiet residential neighborhood, serious traffic safety concerns for Covington School children and potentially large operating budget shortfalls that our town can ill afford. Los Altos needs a well-designed, neighborhood-friendly place for kids to swim and have fun. This isn’t it.
Rick Foreman
Los Altos
Answer to pool issue
in city’s back yard
There is a better location for a community pool.
An existing area exists between the Youth Center, Library and City Hall. With 20′ setbacks the available area is at least 276-by-180 feet, easily large enough to support a full sized lap pool, wading pools and pool amenities. Permanent support structures could be built directly off the Youth Center west wall. The Police Department is 50 yards away. The library is next door.
The adjoining Youth Center is a perfect complement to a pool. Access is available. Additional parking exists next to the Hillview Community Center with possible expansion parking available on the adjoining open soccer field. Los Altos owns the land. It is convenient and helps tie the downtown area together. It also avoids placing a high-activity sports center in the middle of a residential neighborhood as all four sides have non-residential buildings to buffer noise and lights.
What is wrong with this idea? Simple. It is not big enough for a large, multi-pool, 5:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Regional Swim Complex for SPLASH members. It is, however, quite sufficient for a true community pool area.
Therein lies the question; do the residents need a Regional Swim Complex or a community pool? SPLASH members have often stated how wonderful a pool would be for the community. Fine. Having noted that, there would be little issue with SPLASH funding and managing a community pool next to the Youth Center with appropriate, non-exclusive access for its members.
There are viable alternatives to extended legal battles, destruction of neighborhoods and declining public safety. Sometimes the best answer lies right in our back yard. In this case, literally, in City Hall’s back yard.
Kurt Ayers
Los Altos
