7JFXQPJOU N LETTERS
VOICES FROM THE COMMUNITY Founding Editor, Kate Wakerly
N S TA F F Publisher Tom Gibboney
Editorial Managing Editor Andrea Gemmet Staff Writers Daniel DeBolt, Nick Veronin Intern Emily Hamilton Photographer Michelle Le Photo Intern James Tensuan Contributors Dale Bentson, Angela Hey, Sheila Himmel, Jennifer Pence, Monica Schreiber
Design & Production Design Director Raul Perez Designers Linda Atilano, Gary Vennarucci
Advertising Advertising Representatives Anna Mirsky, Brent Triantos Real Estate Account Executive Rosemary Lewkowitz Real Estate Advertising Coordinator Samantha Mejia Published every Friday at 450 Cambridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 E-mail news and photos to: editor@MV-Voice.com E-mail letters to: letters@MV-Voice.com News/Editorial Department (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 Display Advertising Sales (650) 964-6300 Classified Advertising Sales s FAX E-mail Classified ads@MV-Voice.com E-mail Circulation circulation@MV-Voice.com The Voice is published weekly by Embarcadero Media Co. and distributed free to residences and businesses in Mountain View. If you are not currently receiving the paper, you may request free delivery by calling 964-6300. Subscriptions for PER YEAR PER YEARS ARE WELCOME #OPYRIGHT ÂĽ BY %MBARCADERO -EDIA Company. All rights reserved. Member, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
N WHAT’S YOUR VIEW? All views must include a home address and contact phone number. Published letters will also appear on the web site, www.MountainViewOnline.com, and occasionally on the Town Square forum.
TOWN SQUARE FORUM POST your views on the Town Square forum at www.MountainViewOnline.com E-MAIL your views to letters@MV-Voice.com. Indicate if it is a letter to be published. MAIL to: Editor Mountain View Voice, P.O. Box 405 Mountain View, CA 94042-0405 CALL the Viewpoint desk at 964-6300
ANNEX NEIGHBOR BACKS FLOOD BASIN
FLOOD BASIN FOE FAULTS APPROVAL PROCESS
In her July 2 letter, Cindy Riordan of Saratoga claims to speak for Mountain View property owners and their opposition to flood protection. She doesn’t speak for me or most of the people I talk to. I live next to Cuesta Annex, own property in the flood zone, and I support the Water District’s plan to protect 2,700 properties along Permanente Creek. I believe the 69 percent of Mountain View voters who approved the “Clean, Safe Creeks� bond measure in 2000 want their taxes spent to protect properties in Mountain View, not some other part of the county. Ms. Riordan criticizes the district and city council for lack of responsiveness and transparency. In fact, the Water District wrote a 900-page environmental impact report, including 400 pages of comments from the public and responses from the district. I’ve read all of the comments and while some are valid concerns, many included misinformation like 1) an unrelated history museum proposal, 2) clear-cutting of heritage trees throughout the Annex, 3) steep walls people can fall off, 4) permanent fencing around the basin, and 5) the killing of protected wildlife. All of these misconceptions were refuted in written responses, so it is not surprising the water district board approved the final report and decided to move forward with design meetings. I love the Annex, spend time there almost daily, and have been active in protecting its natural beauty. I would oppose a plan that would ruin that. The conceptual renderings in the impact report show a beautiful, natural-looking creek bed that will fit well with similar topology changes in Cuesta Park. In fact, the same landscape firm that designed Cuesta Park 30 years ago also created the basin renderings. As the city and district move forward with detailed designs for the basin in the Annex, I encourage everyone to come to the public meetings to see the real designs and interact with the engineers, biologists, and landscape designers to help ensure this beautiful vision becomes a reality. Kevin McBride Begen Avenue
Your “Cuesta Annex basin a done deal� editorial incorrectly states the public received much public notice and opportunities to comment during the 2008 hijacking of the 2006 Cuesta Park Annex Master Plan. In January 2008, Kevin McBride and his wife Justine lobbied Mountain View Historic Association members with seductive Annex flood basin and museum illustrations by Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey (RHAA). On February 22, the McBrides presented these same misleading illustrations to their neighborhood. Without asking the audience whether they preferred these illustrations over Annex concept B, my Annex blueprint, or the existing Annex landscape, Kevin McBride interpreted some positive feedback as granting him authority to discard the approved 2006 “Concept B� annex master plan. You cite the June council meeting where the Annex flood basin was approved. Look at your newspaper’s June 13 ad announcing the meeting’s topic: “Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan.� There is no mention of the Cuesta Annex or a flood basin. Section 54957.2 of the Brown Act mandates the city council not discuss or act on items not publicly announced. Mountain View city staff also violated the section of the Brown Act that requires written public records be available for inspection. In April 2008, I submitted to the City Council my own Annex master plan blueprint with five pages of supporting text and photos. During the September public hearing, my blueprint and most support pages were omitted from written public testimony presented to the parks and recreation commissioners. On November 10, I resubmitted my six-page document, but the city’s copies rendered my photos indecipherable. Fast forward to the 2010 water district’s approval of the flood plan’s environmental impact report. Their report omits all verbal and written 2009 public hearing annex flood basin opposition, including my Cuesta Annex blueprint. To learn more visit w w w. s ave t he c ue s t a a n ne x . blogspot.com. Robert Schick Los Altos Hills
â– EDITORIAL â– YOUR LETTERS â– GUEST OPINIONS
N EDITORIAL
THE OPINION OF THE VOICE
Merger won’t fly W
e doubt if the Santa Clara County grand jury’s idea to save money by merging the three local school districts will generate any enthusiasm in Mountain View or Los Altos. Merging is one of those ideas that looks good on paper but would be virtually impossible to execute. First of all, it would take a majority vote of each school district’s board or a petition signed by 25 percent of the district’s registered voters just to get the question on the ballot. That hurdle alone presents a huge challenge, due to varying demographics in the Mountain View Whisman, Los Altos and Mountain View Los Altos High School districts. These are not homogeneous districts. Academic performance at most Whisman schools, while excellent, is not quite on par with standardized test scores achieved in Los Altos elementary schools. It would be counterintuitive for Los Altos parents to support merging with the Whisman district, especially if they asked, “What’s in it for us?� Likewise, we can’t see why parents who live in the high school district would elect to share their higher property tax income with the elementary districts. Superintendents who spoke to the Voice also were not eager to leap into a merger. Barry Groves, superintendent of the high school district, noted that “there would be some fiscal disadvantages. I think we are very successful with our current configuration and I’m not sure how the proposed consolidation would make things better,� he said. If a three-way merger ever could overcome the political hurdles, the Grand Jury projects $9.4 million could be saved by operating transportation, maintenance, IT, food and other functions as one entity. Even more could be saved, the jurors said, if the merger strategy was applied to collapse 17 unique districts in the county into four large districts, which could save $51 million a year. But even if there would be substantial savings, we don’t believe local residents would agree to give up control of their schools to a megadistrict. Craig Goldman, superintendent of Mountain View Whisman, which is the result of a relatively recent merger, says the grand jury’s suggestion is much more complicated than merging the two elementary districts nine years ago. “Ultimately,� he told the Voice, “because of the higher funding level received by Los Altos elementary and the high school district, we don’t think (a merger is) a viable alternative.� Angie Cardoza, grand jury foreperson, sees it differently. “Any time you’re asking for change, people will be hesitant,� she said. “It’s easier to stay the way it’s always been — the status quo — instead of saying, ‘Let’s try something new.’� “Something new� might make sense financially, but at least for the foreseeable future, we doubt if there will be any interest in consolidating the local school districts. There just isn’t enough upside to make it happen.
JULY 9, 2010 â– MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE â–
13