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

Published on 10/13/1999 All articles from this issue

LAH council OKs $1.33 million capital improvement budget

printer friendly version

By Leslie K. Martin / Town Crier Staff Writer

A handful of residents turned out for last Thursday's Los Altos Hills City Council meeting to witness adoption of the proposed capital improvement budget for fiscal year 1999-2000.

The council approved adoption of the $1.33 million capital improvement project and budget. The budget includes $1.524 million in new projects. An estimated $950,000 has been spent on town streets, pathways and storm drainage systems. An estimated $819,000 remains from previous capital project appropriations. The council agreed that future pathways would be restored concurrently with roadwork where pathways are next to road construction. Budgeted completion of work-in-progress projects include Natoma Road landslide, pathways from Lupine to Elena, and on Fremont and Purissima Roads and ongoing storm drain and pavement improvements.

Fallout continued from last month's controversial hearing about planning commissioner Charles Wong, who remains on the board despite several alleged planning violations on his own property.

During floor presentations, resident William Downey raised the Wong issue. "The city council appears to be in a state of denial over (Wong)," Downey said. "He didn't have proper building permits for a home improvement project. It's a mystery to me how that fact was never revealed to the council before the embarrassing appointment was made. If anybody should be squeaky clean as regards to having his house in order before serving in an official capacity, it should be the planning commissioner."

A town committee is seeking resident input and looking into the possibility of another hearing to consider recalling Wong from the commission.

ronmental maintenance requirements for a pond on his property, Scott said, "I really hoped they would reject it, because there's no criteria by how it's accepted or rejected."

Another requirement that the town does detail, Scott said, "although I'm sure that the council is unaware of any of this," is a grading and construction operation plan. Scott said the plan covers such items as: defining where a site construction trailer and a town specified debris box sit (but plan instructions do not explain what would be acceptable locations), parking on site, truck traffic, and, "an item on the outhouse, which to me is absolutely fantastic," Scott said. "I failed to conform to the outhouse requirement, because it says it must be placed so it is not visible from the neighbor's property. And since there's no invisible outhouse, I can't do that."

Fortunately, Scott said, the plan was rejected, "So that means I don't have to do this project anymore, and so I'm going to get to spend full time giving you my services."

He concluded by making the point that it really wasn't a laughing matter. Scott said the plan was rejected because it was not on a 24-by-36 inch piece of paper.