Should public land, money go to theater?
Mayor Sally Meadows said Los Altos Stage Company (LASC) did not ask for $50,000 for a capital campaign analysis at the May 9 study session (“Theater plan advances with council support,” May 24).
True. But in the meeting Q&A, an LASC representative said “… the city would need to provide at least $50,000 toward the study.” Since the council directed our city manager to discuss “next steps” with the group, we can assume the $50,000 request will be forthcoming.
The Q&A also revealed “significant staff resources will be required” to support a theater, and patrons would need “in the range of 64 spaces.” The building itself would deplete 13,000 square feet of a parking plaza. To ensure adequate parking downtown, will the city have to build a garage for $100,000 per space, the cost at Palo Alto’s $68 million parking structure?
We already gave LASC $38,000 for a feasibility study which resulted in “likely” project costs, “likely” utilization and a “likely” forecast. Now they want us to pay for a study to identify pledge targets to cover the $23 million theater building cost. If they haven’t identified potential donors after years of meetings, they have no right to ask for city funds.
A recent poll shows 31% of respondents are not satisfied with how our city spends its money. Before LASC asks for $50,000, let’s ask why our public land and public money are going to their private project.
Pat Marriott
Los Altos
Dog park needs minor adjustments
The issue of adding a permanent dog park near the library that would eliminate parking spots should be easily resolved due to the removal of the diseased oak trees next to the proposed dog park. Just simply adjust the plans to incorporate the newly available space and leave the current parking spots alone.
Also, there is no good reason to remove the already established fenced dog park behind the soccer field goal. It is an ideal space for smaller dogs and has already become a popular spot for dog owners to congregate, though mixing big dogs with small dogs can be a problem.
All that needs to be done is to improve the already functioning park by leveling the ground with the soccer field and resodding it with grass used for dog parks. This should reduce muddy conditions, especially if the sprinklers are properly aligned. Wood chips at the entrance near the tree where there is a lot of foot traffic would also improve the space where people stand in the shade.
By making these minor adjustments, a win-win for dogs and readers could be achieved by the city’s leadership.
Jim Sweeney
Los Altos
What is source for library numbers?
In her letter published in the May 17 edition of the Town Crier (“Dog park cost is ‘unbelievable’), Elissa Wellikson suggests the fact there are 30,000-plus residents creates an imprimatur by which we should discount the accommodation of dog owners in Los Altos because those 4,000 dog owners are a relatively small number. So, by the same logic, should we also not accommodate the relatively small number of residents who travel by bicycle, who attend the theater, etc.? Of course not!
But then she conflates this notion with her suggestion that 4,000 dog owners “… is very few indeed compared to the hundreds of thousands of individual visits to the library in a year.” Really!? What is the source of her data which indicate “hundreds of thousands” of individual visits per year to the specific library site where the parking spots are to be removed in order to provide a reasonable accommodation to the interests of her fellow Los Altans?
Gary Albright
Los Altos
Dog park alternative
would benefit all
Library patrons, soccer parents and dog owners searching to park with way too few spots – there is an alternative that would benefit all parties.
The Los Altos City Council recently approved spending $75,000 to develop a plan to build a permanent dog park between the soccer field and the library. Choosing this location could eliminate up to 15 parking spots and would be in addition to 15 spots removed during the pandemic. To start, there are not enough parking spots now for the library as it returns to pre-pandemic demand. To reduce parking spaces when there are not enough, while introducing a new group wanting to park, presents a challenge to logical thinking. To make matters worse, on weekdays library demand peaks between 3 and 6 p.m., which most likely coincides with soccer parents and dog owners.
There is an alternative site that should be added to the $75,000 study underway – South Lincoln Park across the two parking lots in front of three churches. The city’s proposed site is 91 yards from the closest homes on Hillview Avenue divided by the open soccer field. The alternative site is 88 yards from the closest house on Orange Avenue, but the three churches block both sight and sound. The area is large enough to accommodate a dog park nearly twice the size of the temporary dog park at 600 square yards.
All three groups would benefit with the dog park on South Lincoln, with more than enough parking and adding parking between the library and soccer field. If the city implements its present plan, auto exhaust pollution will increase as drivers search for an open parking spot that may or may not exist, but more importantly, it could become a safety hazard as children navigate the parking lots heading to the library or soccer field.
David Smith
Los Altos
