Dear Editor,
I am not in favor of the freeway sign at all. As previously documented, the use of a freeway pylon sign is diametrically opposed to the position of the City of Los Alamitos as expressed in the Los Alamitos Commercial Corridors plan, so my opposition has no uniqueness of origin with me.
The sign primarily serves to bring even more gridlock traffic onto Katella Ave, no matter where the sign is located. Moving the freeway sign does not at all ameliorate this community wide quality of life degradation due to willfully worsening the traffic on Katella Ave and its environs.
As has already been publicly stated and documented, gridlock traffic is projected due to the Village 605. I am against this continued planned/purposeful imposition of traffic gridlock upon our community.
I oppose the worsening of our quality of life which increased traffic brings. Since the freeway sign (besides its visual blight to Rossmoor, which continues even in the sign’s new post-appellant form ) exists to worsen the traffic, I am opposed to the sign.
I am opposed to the Village 605 Regional Shopping Center also because it requires the freeway sign for financial viability. But even without the freeway sign the Village 605 will still bring about gridlock traffic.
So I am opposed to making the traffic even worse on Katella than it already is from whatever cause, and especially when the causes’ origins are voluntary, willfull, knowledgeable, and informed, though in my opinion narrowly focused.
As documented in the Los Alamitos Commercial Corridors Plan, the community survey therein states traffic is the community’s biggest concern, and less traffic is the community’s biggest desire. I stand with them.
If a pedestrian bridge ever comes to be, it should be placed at or just east of the existing crossing guard monitored crosswalk at Wallingsford/Walnut crossing Katella for a variety of reasons, including respect for the residential property rights of the homeowners along the south side of Katella Ave for whom the bridge would be an additional nightmare.
Douglas Smith
Los Alamitos
Cypress resident raises concerns over the city’s recent decisions
Dear Editor,
At their last meeting, the Cypress City Council appointed Mayor Pro Tem Peat and Council Member Berry to an Ad Hoc committee to review Valley Vista Services’ request for a 10 percent residential trash rate increase and a 17 percent commercial rate increase.
It is hard to understand how George Briggeman, who has been connected to Cypress’ trash business for over 20 years, could not anticipate the needs and costs of doing business in our city.
In addition to the section of the franchise agreement that allows for consideration of an extraordinary rate increase and the rate increase justification submitted by Valley Vista, enclosed are some articles that may be of interest regarding Valley Vista Services and their parent company, Zerep Management Corporation.
While the City Council is looking to set up a Town Hall meeting regarding spending $330,000 of City (our) money to develop a vision for the race track property, perhaps a Town Hall meeting to get input on this proposed trash rate increase as well as what can be done about the skyrocketing costs of pensions in our city would be a more appropriate discussion.
During the City’s workshop on pensions where they discussed annual pension costs increasing from $4 million to $8 million, one suggestion was that the city could significantly reduce the city’s infrastructure projects to offset pension cost increases.
In the most recent audit report for the city, the City’s Director of Finance and Administration states that the funding plans for sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems as well as other infrastructure components (sidewalks, trees, streets, traffic signals) indicate a need for additional revenue sources to achieve the City’s long term goal of maintaining its infrastructure systems and facilities at optimal levels.
Perhaps the residents should have input in a Town Hall meeting into other ways of addressing these pension costs rather than allowing our infrastructure to further deteriorate.
The unfunded pension liability that was discussed at the workshop was $30 million.
If you look at page 75 of the city’s most recent audited financial statements (enclosed), you’ll see that the $30 million unfunded liability for the City’s Miscellaneous and Safety plans is based on a discount rate of 7.65 percent.
The financial statement footnote also projects that the unfunded liability is closer to $50 million if the discount rate drops to 6.65 percent.
The CalPERS Board recently reduced the discount rate to 7 percent which means the unfunded liability for the city is likely over $40 million given this lower discount rate rather than $30 million.
If you are interested in learning more about the history of the funding model for the CalPERS pension program and the rationale and impact of this recent change in the discount rate, the following is a link to a 30 minute video developed by the CalPERS Board.
George Pardon
Cypress
