Browse archives: 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995

Published on 02/24/1997 All articles from this issue

Decision reversals, good and bad

printer friendly version

Editorial

The Los Altos City Council's Feb. 11 reversal of an earlier decision to allow construction of a three-story condominium project at El Monte Avenue and Foothill Expressway seems appropriate.

Council members voted 4-1 to limit development to two stories and 15 to 16 units after hearing the protests of nearby residents. Their approval of a three-story plan last October that was rejected this time included 24 units priced between $350,000 and $450,000.

That the council was even hearing the matter a second time was unusual. The city had evidently failed to notify neighboring property owner Tom Harrington, who had threatened legal action if the application process was not renewed.

The resulting resident opposition, more vocal than the first time around, and the planning commission's insistence that the project remain at two stories, no doubt figured prominently in the decision.

Like the council, we also have a better sense that two stories is the better way to go. Although we agreed with the council decision last time, we now have a better sense of the strong resident opposition to three stories, as well as the profound impacts a precedent-setting, three-story project would have brought to that location.

We don't feel the council should simply react to the loudest voice at the meeting. But we're convinced the council was more careful and educated in this action.

This marks the third time in a year the council has been given a second chance on a proposal. Last year, council members twice approved a contract for fire services with the county. They voted a second time because a resident forced them to review what they were doing. But the result was a better awareness of proposal.

The council also authorized the purchase of the St. William School property for recreational use after first deciding, at a study session, not to pursue it. Sensing community support and realizing the purchase was feasible, the council took a second look and OK'd the action.

We don't think there's any sense to reviewing every application twice. But in the above cases, with the impacts of the decisions so important, the second look was beneficial.

We know of at least one glaring instance, however, when the council succumbed to threats of legal action. In October 1995, the council overturned a ruling that would have euthanized pit bulls involved in an attack on a neighborhood. Under threat of a lawsuit from the owner, the city released the dogs to the owner, who was moving to another county.

If council members reverse a decision from a more informed point of view, we're all for it. If the decision arises from intimidation, legal or otherwise, that's deplorable.