Threats of this nature are not acceptable in any sense of the word. And anyone espousing a philosophy that entertains the idea of a "Goddess Tree" followed along by such threats is hardly an example of an "And it harm none, do what you will" ethic.

We know the feeling, they have been making harassing phone calls to Villa Siena for months.

I have felt that the plans for the annex have been pushed down our throats. I have attended meetings and written letters for years opposing this plan along with many others. I will NOT vote for any incumbents this year!

A goddess tree is no stranger a notion than a "holy spirit".

Here's a link to the park in question if you'd like to visit with this and other trees before we KILL them:

Web Link

The Eye doesn't seem to be saying a "Goddess Tree" is a strange notion, just that it seems somewhat incompatible with anonymous, threatening phone calls. Sounds like Villa Siena has been harassed by the same people charged in this case.

Web Link

;-)

My sources tell me there is a small group of these nut cases that hassle staff and council members. They see cuesta annex as sacred ground that should never be touched by anyone except them. They make false claims (see recent MV Voice editorial) about the process that led to the master plan and the design of the flood basin.

Wow, what a piece of work. Instead of making threats regarding trees, she should try to volunteer or do something else useful. Unless the goddess tree says not to.

Watch out for the misleading link posted previously. The Google Map link labeled "Here's a link to the park in question if you'd like to visit with this and other trees before we KILL them:" zooms in to show Cuesta Park, NOT Cuesta Annex. Too see the annex, pan to the west. Cuesta Annex is the brown (non-irrigated, dead grass) area adjacent to Cuesta Park.

Its official. I was on the fence about the Annex plans, but reading this story and realizing who I would be aligned with on the "No basin" side as well as studying all the pros/cons of the issue, I now support the flood basin plan whole heartedly.
Lets get this party started, bring in the 'dozers!

Realism: That's is the problem with zealots - nobody wants to be caught dead standing next to them.

By the way, anyone know when, in the last 100 years, that creek flooded?

Dogwalker, The Water District had this to say in their 2/21/2008 briefing for the City Council Study Session:

"The Permanente Creek watershed has had a history of recurring floods which have adversely impacted the safety and economic stability of residents and businesses in Mountain View Flooding occurred in 1862 1911 1940 1950 1952 1955 1958 1963 1968 1983 1995 and
1998. In December 1955 the so called Christmas Storm inundated approximately 770 acres in the lower reaches of Permanente Creek Homes businesses and agricultural lands in Mountain View sustained losses bri ges and culverts in Mountain View were extensively damaged and 100 people had to be evacuated from their homes for several weeks."

Some improvements were done in the 50's and 60's, but apparently not enough to prevent flooding in the 100 yr flood scenario. The 100 yr flood does not necessarily happen once every 100 years, could be more or less. But it is a national standard. See this USGS link: Web Link

I'm sorry the flood control plan for Cuesta Annex has caused such strong opposition. Personally, I think the result will look at least as good as the present appearance, if not better. And I agree this and the other flood control measures, e.g., Blach School, McKelvey Park, are needed.

It is hard to understand why residents would prefer a 23'ditch covering 7 acres to the natural setting that now exists in Cuesta Annex. Typically, these astro turf covered basins become receptacles for trash and can attract unsavory characters who are looking for a place to hide or hang out, according to the police.

Previous floods had largely to do with when the Permanente Creek was redirected in th 1800's. Since 1959 when the diversion channel was built, flooding hasn't been a problem.

The Santa Clara Velley Water District admitted on 9/16/10 that only about 600 homes are in danger of flooding in 100 years and the flood level would be about 1 foot. It would have been a better use of taxpayer money to address solutions for these homes than use millions of dollars in property taxes for a flood basin that is overkill. Google the Civil Grand Jury's negative report on the Santa Clara Valley Water District as it relates to this project and Measure B funds.

So, Saratoga painter, "Only 600 homes" ONLY? I have 20 houses on my block. That means 30 entire blocks of homes would be flooded and in need of repair when it could have been prevented. With maybe 3 people per home, that's 1800 of our neighbors affected. Think about that for a second. 600 homes in YOUR neighborhood, and close to 2 thousand or YOUR NEIGHBORS who's lives will be turned upside down and who's repair bills will be significant. 600 homes? Dig it.

Saratoga painter,

It's not a 7 acre basin, only 4.5.

It won't be covered in astro turf -- it will have the same sorts of grasses that is has today (or maybe they will put in native species rather than the current invasive ones).

The 600 homes are the ones in the FEMA 100 year flood zone that will experience 1 foot of flooding or more, but there are a total of 2700 homes that would experience some flooding.

But police ignore whenever similar calls are done to a common citizen. No surprise there.

Tom: I think the woman was cited for harrassing a "common citizen" - the resident who wished to remain anonymous -- and not for calling the Council member. At least that's how I interpret the article when it read:

"Wylie said additional counts could not apply to the calls made to public officials because the law is different for them.

'Unless there is a criminal threat you have the right to call your council members and voice your concerns,' Wylie said."