The Los Altos Municipal Code requires that the design of any new single-story home or any addition to a single story home be reviewed and approved by the City Planning staff. Architectural and Site Control Committee (A&S) review and approval is only required for two-story construction. The Community Development Director, however, has the discretion to require A&S review and approval of specific single-story designs. The current policy is to do this when he feels that the design may be incompatible with the neighborhood or because there are unusual site conditions. Recent examples are a design for a mideastern style home in a neighborhood of Cape Cod style homes and two designs that specified an unusually high floor level and building height. Neighbors are only notified when A&S approval is required.

The criteria for approval of a design by the City Planning staff are the same as those used by the A&S. They are documented in the City of Los Altos Single-family Residential Design Guidelines for New Homes and Remodels that is available at City Hall or on the city's web site (http://www.ci.los-altos.ca.us/commdev/ind). Some Los Altos residents are dissatisfied with the review process because they feel that neighbors should have some input to the review process for all designs. Others are dissatisfied because they feel that the process is too burdensome. Any change to the process would require City Council action.

Those who want more input to staff review of a specific project should talk to the City Planning staff and let them know of their concerns. The staff and the Community Development Director will consider their concerns in any decisions made. If they are unaware of the project, there currently is no way for them to provide input. A good neighbor, however, should inform his neighbors of any project he is planning. Possible changes that would provide more opportunity for neighbor input to the review process are:

1. Set more stringent criteria for requiring A&S approval of specific projects
2. Require neighbor notification for all residential projects
3. Require A&S approval of all residential projects.

All of these would require City Council action. A specific possibility can be brought to the Council's attention by addressing the Council during the Public Comments portion of a City Council meeting. If the Council agrees to consider the proposed change, it will carefully weigh the pros and cons that include cost impacts on the City and the project applicant, added complexity of the process, lengthening the process, etc. In my estimation the above possibilities are listed in the order of likelihood for Council action.

Here are this months listings of new applications for housing. The first five listings are for two-story construction; Items six and seven are requests for a lot split to construct two new single-story homes. The last two items involve a second living unit, and the creation of a flag lot.

1) 02-SC-22 --Stewart Associates/S. and J. Chen --1455 Montclaire Place --Consideration of design review for a new two-story home.

2) 02-SC-23 --J. and S. Burr --125 Gordon Way -- Consideration of design review for a new two-story home.

3) 02-SC-24 --G. and M. Hamamoto --953 Mercedes Avenue -- Consideration of design review for a two-story home.

4) 02-SC-15 from T. Economidis at 730 Raymundo Avenue--Consideration of design review for a second story addition.

5) 02-SC-25 --S. Cioffi --716 Linden Avenue -- Consideration of design review for a two- story garage.

6) 02-SC-16 from Abigail &Haws/T, and C. Hastings at 60 E. Portola Avenue (66 E. Portola Avenue). Consideration of a design review for a new one-story home.

7) 02-SC-17 from Abigail & Haws/D. and Hastings at 70 E. Portola Avenue (66 E. Portola Avenue). Consideration of a design review for a new one-story home.

8) 02-UP-05 --J., K., R., and D. Farinas -- 1644 Kensingtion Avenue -- Consideration of design review and a use permit for expansion and conversion of an existing structure to a second living unit.

9) 02-DL-01 and 02-UP-04 --C. Parvini -- 211 Mountain View Avenue -- Consideration of a use permit and tentative subdivision map to create a flag lot.

The following is the view of the author and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the board or the membership of LANN

At the risk of receiving numerous flaming emails and irate phone calls, I am coming out of the closet on my Measure A vote. I voted "no." There I said it.

Before you peg me as an anti-school, under supportive, child-hating tightwad, hear me out.

Throughout the campaign I found myself with mixed emotions, which distilled themselves down to a different voting decision almost daily. Although I have opinions about what may have gone awry I can only speak for myself and share with you my personal experiences, which by the way remained just that, my personal experiences throughout the campaign. I did not work in any way to sabotage the efforts KLASS and in fact did what I could to lend support given my personal, conflicted feelings.

There were a number of negative bumps that I personally hit in the campaign road. The first came early and felt large. I attended the 'Community Leaders' meeting, upstairs at Clarke’s. I had great respect for all of the people I knew in that room, that morning, but to me, the general climate in that meeting felt exclusionary in that any opinion or thought that did not align with the campaign was clearly not going to be tolerated.

Some of the comments, especially those from school board members, felt more like threats. The reaction to "what to do about" the person who voiced concern over the insufficient public notice process was dismissive and actually laughed at. I do understand that I was sitting among a team of the strongest possible supporters and anything that might undermine the goal must have been uncomfortable. But, perhaps if the issue had been met with honest concern and a sense of accountability I would have left with a different opinion. Rightly or wrongly, some of what was said that day struck me as arrogance and I have found that I respond better to humility.

Something else happened in that meeting that gave me pause the following day. Superintendent Gratiot gave a very believable explanation of the timing of the public notice filing and the reasoning behind the publication selection. She explained that the Registrar of Voters office had authority over where notices were published and the fact that the notice ended up in a tiny San Jose newspaper with a circulation of only 1,000 was disappointing but beyond the District’s control. I felt better when I heard it. But then the very next day in the Town Crier, Superintendent Gratiot was quoted with a different set of reasons for placement, attributing the problem to missed deadlines and unfortunate timing. Perhaps I misunderstood something but at the time, the answer I was holding onto from the previous day suddenly felt like strategy rather than honesty.

Along the way there were several other personal incidents that underscored my skepticism. I am not sure it would be useful or helpful if I listed them all, but they continued to reinforce my initial unfortunate experience in that first meeting.

Overwhelming in my discomfort was the feeling that the numbers just did not make sense. I do not have a finance degree so I wanted to believe that it was just too complicated for me to understand. By then I was left with trust to push me along and sadly that was compromised early on.

So I have to wonder; did the measure lose because of simple complacency among voters? Or did the measure lose because those who may have been feeling like I did did not have the stomach to go and vote and actually punch "no"? For me the end did not justify the campaign means.

I have a check written, signed and sitting on my desk, which I hope to send to defray some of the deficit. But until have I some trust restored and my husband (who does have the finance degree) can get some of his questions answered the check will sit on my desk, a sad reminder of most difficult vote I have ever cast. My hope is that the "new and improved Measure A" this November will be more clearly and concisely explained. Along with this, perhaps the School Board and District Administration can eliminate the appearance of being manipulative.

LANN is proud to sponsor a question and answer forum on school finance in Los Altos.

Dates, locations and details will be printed in upcoming newsletters and will be publicized

throughout town. Please email any questions you would like to have answered at this important

Fall Forum to lannline@aol.com, or you can call and leave your questions on the LANN voicemail at 949-5560.

Did know you can directly access the Los Altos Municipal Code on the city website? Not only can you access it and read it, you can also do searches. For example, if you want to know about noise regulations go to the search block and type in "noise," without the quotes. That will cite every paragraph in the entire city code that has the word noise in it. It makes it very easy if you have a problem and you’re interested to find out what the code says about it. Just do a search and you won’t have to call City Hall or the planning people or make the trip to City Hall to ask.