County Supervisors Urge Rosemont Plaza to Be a Good Neighbor

The owners of Rosemont Plaza attended Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting to appeal a January notice requiring them to build a “six-foot high perimeter masonry wall along the interior boundary lines of all residential zoned (RD) properties.”

The county staff recommended that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal, however, the supervisors voted to postpone the issue until March 27 at 11 a.m. for further review and to give the landlord an opportunity to work with the community.

There are currently 34 homes that surround the center, which takes 2,300 feet of fence.

More than 12 Rosemont residents came to show their opposition of the appeal and voice their concerns. The shopping center, located on Kiefer Boulevard, is owned by Elie Alcheck of Las Altos and Irvin Weinstock of Belmont.

Alcheck based his appeal on his knowledge that the construction of the development was up to code when he purchased the center in 1986, and that the fence was up to date according to 1977 property codes.

He brought up past surveys that he said confirmed there was a fence within the 1977 compliance, and past renovations where no issue of the development’s compliance of building codes was ever an issue.

He said the masonry wall requirement “is based on an inaccuracy.”

“We had the compliant fence all along,” Alcheck said.

Supervisor and chair Don Nottoli, who represents the Rosemont area, was very vocal, questioning the landlords’ responsiveness to the community members. Nottoli said the community members feel shunned and ignored, and have expressed their feelings in numerous letters and emails to the Board of Supervisors.

“At least in your view, what have you done to respond to neighborhood concerns or have you ever heard them before?” Nottoli asked.

Mike Alcheck, the center’s director of operations, responded to Nottoli’s question. He said he oversees property issues and that the center currently has dedicated staff and security personnel on site 24 hours a day to handle issues at the center. In addition, he said there is a security gate in the back of the building that is locked everyday from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. He also pointed out the landlord’s efforts to keep the center well maintained and clean.

He said other centers in the area that are surrounded by residential homes do not have six-foot masonry walls, and that it would be unfair to apply it only to their center.

The landlords have sent out bids for the masonry wall, and said the cost would be around $240,500 and would also include an additional cost of removing approximately 76 mature trees. Mike Alcheck said removing the trees would be a “significant loss” and that the trees offer a natural barrier for the homes. The total of the project could cost more than $275,000 according to the landlords.

He said he has been working on returning calls from residents and that they are willing to work with residents on ways to handle to issue of noise and safety from the center.

“It is our firm belief that this statute has been incorrectly and selectively applied,” Mike Alcheck said. “And if building this wall is required, we believe that this cost must legally be shared with the 34 residential property owners who are coterminous owners on the property-lined fence … Such actions only makes doing business in this community more difficult for the residents and the business owners of the Rosemont community, and it is our hope today that you decide not to require such an unreasonable and expensive undertaking.”

The landlord’s attorney, Ronit A. Bodner, suggested the landlords meet with community members quarterly to work on issues as an alternative to building the retaining wall, which she said would not solve the community’s problems.

Bodner, who also sits on the planning commission for the City of Los Altos, said requiring the landlords to build the masonry wall would establish a precedent for surrounding centers and that they were code compliant at the time the center was purchased. She recommended that the landlords and community members work on solutions and that it was in the best interest of all parties to see the center thrive.

Residents voiced their complaints during the public comment section. They disagreed that the security gate in the back of the center is ever locked and that delivery trucks still come through at all hours. They also feel that the landlord have continually been unresponsive to their attempts at reaching out for action and said loitering and noise have become so bad that they can no longer enjoy their backyards.

Cindy Marshall, a resident who has lived in her home for 40 years, said the center’s owners are taking total disregard to their neighbors. She said she checked the Sheriff’s records and that in 2010 there were 126 calls for service and 41 crime reports from that center alone. In 2011, there were 133 calls made and 33 crime reports.

Other issues were cars racing and screeching tires in the back of the center at night, rat problems and homeless people leaving garbage, urine and feces along the fence creating a bad odor. Residents were concerned that the issues could affect their property values.

“We are in real fear of our safety,” Marshall said.

The supervisors would have had to look at the possibility of initiating a code amendment if they denied the landlords’ appeal to building the six-foot masonry wall. The item was postponed to allow the supervisors time to look at their options and for the landlords to discuss a course of action with community members on how to improve the center’s problems with the community.

Supervisors agreed that a retaining wall would not solve all of the residents’ problems, and that other resolutions would need to be made.

Nottoli told the center’s owners that they need to “be a good neighbor” and work with the residents. He said he will make himself available to work through the issues with the residents and property owners. Meetings should be scheduled sometime next week.

After the meeting, Bodner said she is hopeful that they can improve relations with the community.

"If they're happy and the property is doing well, then we're happy," Bodner said. "That's our goal."

Resident Tom Peterson said he was happy that residents had an opportunity to express their concerns to the supervisors and how responsive and attentive the supervisors were.

"There is a real disconnect to what the owners of the plaza have said, and what we're seeing and experiencing," Peterson said. "They did express a willingness to have dialogue that would be positive, so lets have a positive outlook."