The LANN Board and Advisors wishes to thank all the new and renewing members who took a moment to answer the "areas of interest" section on the remittance envelopes for the 2003-2004 membership payment. Based the enormous positive feedback LANN received as an organization, we’re giving ourselves a rare "pat-on-the-back". As in the past 3 years, city issues, traffic, schools and design guidelines have been the top areas of interest. This trend currently continues, with LANN receiving almost as much attention. Comments such as "Keep up the good work"; "We appreciate the many hours the LANN Board members put in to keep us informed"; or "You’re doing just fine", have been extremely overwhelming, and have provided an enormous energy boost for LANN.

The chart below shows the top areas of interest from the membership feedback. Others comments were received but not in sufficient volume to be included on the chart. These dealt with subjects such as: community pool, day workers, maintaining village atmosphere and the First and Main Street development.

In 2004, we promise to continue our focus on the core areas. We will also seek out new and though-provoking subjects that we feel are of interest to the membership. If you have an idea for a story or have a talent for writing, please call the LANN line (650) 949-5560 and leave a message. If there are areas where you would like to see LANN’s involvement (such as senior issues), contact a Board member or call the LANN line and offer a suggestion as to how we can we can raise awareness.

Once again, thank you for your continual support of LANN and our efforts. We appreciate and will gratefully accept this "pat-on-the-back".

LANN’s mission is about preserving the small town character of Los Altos.  LANN acts on this mission by informing its members about local issues, evaluating candidates, addressing elected officials, and surveying members to prioritize issues.
In addition to all this, LANN also provides one-on-one assistance to residents who want feedback on navigating the public hearings and the city procedures.
This assistance can include:

• Encouragement and Support
• Advice about the city’s processes and policies
• Past precedents that may be useful in one’s argument
• Information regarding the city ordinances and the General Plan
• How best to present relevant information to decision makers
•A network that can put residents in contact with other people who may help.

In the fall of this year, a resident came to LANN and described the following issue:

A large, underdeveloped flag lot abutting his family’s property was put on the market.  The resident asked the city if this lot was large enough to subdivide.  Since the width of the total lot fell short of the required width of two flag lots (by 1 inch according to some), the city staff told him that the lot could not be subdivided.  What never got communicated to this resident is that exceptions to city codes are sometimes made.  However, there must be a reason or ‘finding’ to make that exception.  In other words there has to be a special condition creating a hardship for the owner.  The resident, believing that the city staff would never recommend an application to subdivide, was rather shocked to get a public notice in his mailbox stating that developers wanted to do just that!

After some one-on-one discussions with several LANN board members, the resident was able to coalesce the key issues and present a compelling case to council.  We are happy to say that the council sided with this resident.  We’ve decided to include a letter sent to LANN from the resident, in the hope that other residents will see that LANN does much more than produce a monthly newsletter.

November 15, 2003

TO:  The LANN Board

I wanted to express my gratitude to LANN and its staff for their help and support with a subdivision and housing project planned for a flag lot adjacent to my family’s property.

On October 3, 2003, I received notice of an upcoming public hearing with the Planning Commission for the subdivision of the flag lot behind my mother’s home. The property did not meet the minimum width requirements, and several nearby residents were concerned with privacy invasion, mass and bulk, safety, noise, and tree protection.

Soon thereafter I learned about LANN, an organized group of Los Altos citizens with the express goal of preserving our small town character.  I was put in touch with Leslie Lodestro and Kathy Putman, two of LANN’s board members, who I briefed on the issue at hand.

Both were supportive of our neighborhood cause and provided strategic direction and information about city ordinances and processes.  I was given valuable guidance on the public hearing process and advice on how to work with the city staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council.  Leslie, Kathy, and others affiliated with LANN, identified what homework was necessary for the best chance of success.  I was coached on how to organize the neighbors and our arguments. With the assistance of LANN, our neignborhood put together an organized effort to oppose and defeat the proposed subdivision.

The proposed flag lot subdivision first went before the Planning Commission.  The City’s Planning Staff recommended approval of the subdivision, but the Planning Commission did not reach consensus, as the vote was 3-3 to subdivide.  This failed motion meant that the developers would have to appeal this decision to the City Council, which they did.

At the appeal hearing on November 12, both Leslie and Kathy spoke on behalf of the neighbors opposed to the subdivision.  They acted as an independent voice for the entire residential community of Los Altos opposed to out of scale developments.  After hearing all public input, the Los Altos City Council voted 3-2 to deny the developer’s appeal.

We, the neighborhood opposed to the subdivision, had the good fortune to connect with LANN.  We found LANN’s board to have a lot of collective experience and knowledge making LANN a valuable resource for citizens interested in preserving the small town, semi-rural character of Los Altos

I now know the importance of staying current on local community issues.  One way of staying current is connecting with other like-minded individuals.  Therefore I am now a member of LANN!  I look forward to supporting the organization because of my common interest to preserve the small town character of Los Altos.

Sincerely,

Tom Trembois

Los Altos resident

With only one application this month for a new two story home, we had the space to include an application for a variance. It is worth noting....

1.  03-SC-53--W.Chapman/ M. and L. Shell--485 Van Buren Street: Consideration of design review for a new two story home.

2.  03-V-34--J. and D. Roston--2090 Huntington Lane: Consideration of a rear yard setback variance to allow five feet where 25 is required.

• The two adjoining property owners on each side;

• The three adjoining rear property owners; and

• The five adjoining front property owners across the street;

• In addition the owner is required to post a notification on the site.

Once the Architecture and Site Review Committee (A&S) makes a decision on a project, anyone can appeal the A&S decision within 15 days.  Appeals are then heard by council. But single story homes are handled differently.

Currently, if a property owner files an application for a one-story home, this project is reviewed by planning staff (unless the project is very unusual, and then it is forwarded on to A&S).  And when the design review is done by staff, there is no requirement to notice neighbors.

Based on current city codes, anyone can appeal a staff level decision to A&S.  But, it must done within 15 days.  Consequently, very few staff decisions are appealed because neighbors are not noticed for new single story homes and are usually unaware that any design review took place.

The city is now in the process of amending the codes related to Design Review of Single Family Districts.  One of the recommended modifications made by the Planning Commission is to allow appeals only if staff denies a project.  This means that the applicant has the right to appeal staff's denial but neighbors have no right to appeal staff's approval of a one-story project.

LANN believes this is an issue worth spending some time on.  There are a number of other options that the city should consider.  Here are a few possibilities:

A&S should do all design review,

Staff level design review should require noticing,

The right to appeal any staff design review decision should remain.

If you agree that these other possibilities for neighborhood input should be explored, make your voice heard on this issue.  The City Council will be reviewing these code amendments at their January 13 meeting. Any questions, call Kathy Putman, LANN Housing Chair.

The Los Altos City Council, at its December 9 meeting, held a public hearing

on citywide speed limits. The impetus behind the hearing was a request by Public

Works to increase speed limit on five collector streets (El Monte, Springer, Miramonte, Grant and Fremont) as to be in conformity with the 85^th percentile speed. The prima facie speed limit on any street, which passes through a business or a residential district (other than a state highway), is 25 mph. The 85^th percentile is the speed 85 percent of the vehicles are traveling based upon a measured survey. This measured speed is rounded down to a multiple of 5 and may be adjusted downward another 5 mph to accommodate factors like accident history and roadside conditions. Radar cannot be used to enforce a posted 25 mph speed limit (except in school zones) if the speed survey yields a speed limit higher than the posted speed limit.

Twenty-seven of the twenty-nine speakers at the December 9th hearing spoke in favor of retaining the 25 mph speed limit on these five collector streets. The recurring themes expressed by the speakers included:

Council voted to leave the posted speed limits unchanged, thus eliminating radar from the available enforcement tools. Peninsula/South Bay cities are facing similar challenges where residents prefer a 25 mph speed limit through neighborhoods, knowing the radar enforceable speed limit is greater than 25 mph. California Vehicle Code (CVC) 627 was amended in January 2000 to allow "local authorities" to consider residential density and pedestrian/bicycle safety when setting speed limits. Many had hoped the change would allow cities to set speed limits in accordance with local conditions. The conflict is another section of the CVC (the 85^th percentile rule) that was put in place in the 50s to address the abusive speed traps.

So what are the City’s options?

Option 1 educates the community through an ongoing dialog but may not yield a consensus. Options 2 and 3 are long shots at best. Option 4, even with grants, requires the City to match a percentage of the funding. Additionally, projects have a multi year timeline from concept to implementation (the Berry Ave. SR2S project is approaching 4 years). Option 5 impacts the City’s operational budget and takes a year to recruit, train and place new officers on the street. The net: there are no easy solutions to the City’s speeding problem.

Yes! If you are one of the 1000+ households that lives near El Camino Real, three story projects are part of the proposed changes to the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) zone ordinance. Notices were sent out to all residences within the El Camino corridor with the date and time of the Planning Commission meeting to discuss these proposed changes. Less than 20 people showed up to express concerns or questions regarding the impacts of the CT zone ordinance changes.

Included is a table that notes these changes. In summary, here is how the overlay works:

The proposed amendments to the CT zone ordinance combine the two columns into one set of development standards, eliminating the need for the confusing overlay concept. According to the proposed amendments to CT, any mix use project that includes at least 40% housing can be built up to three stories. The reality of this change is that a developer can get a third story added to a project as long as there is a minimum of housing provided within the project.

Other changes made by Planning Commission are:

• Changing the front set back from 50 feet to 25 feet.
• Decreasing the side yard set back to 40 feet if property abuts a residential district.
• Increasing the side and rear landscape buffers from 10 feet to 20 feet if the property abuts a residential district.

Thus, the opening statement of this article, " A three story project in my neighborhood?" will be reality if City Council approves these changes. If you have an interest or concern with these changes, contact the City Council as soon as possible or attend the January 13^th City Council meeting in which the CT zone ordinance is due to be reviewed.

Current and Proposed Development Standards

For El Camino Real

Co-President Mike Abrams

Co-President Dianne Edmonds

Vice President Ken Lorell

Treasurer Dianne Edmonds

Secretary Kathy Wright

Editor Vickie Clements

Housing Chair Kathy Putman

Membership Chair Leslie Lodestro

Traffic Chair Bill Crook

Contributor Karen Greguras

Webmaster Jerry Wright

Advisors Tom Anderson

Lou Becker

David Casas

Kate Disney