LETTERS LETTERS (June 09, 2004)

Facts scrambled on traffic management

Editor:

Ross Wilson's letter last week regarding Menlo Park's Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) ends with the paragraph: "By erecting almost insurmountable barriers to protect the quality of life by halting cut-through traffic on our neighborhood streets, the Transportation Commission - abetted by the City Council majority - is flagrantly violating its fiduciary responsibility to the residents of our city." Wow! Pretty heady stuff!

Unfortunately, Mr. Wilson has his facts scrambled. The Transportation Commission and the City Council are very much upholding the trust placed in them by the residents of Menlo Park by assuring that a small minority does not change the neighborhood streets without a majority of residents' approval beforehand.

The 60 per cent majority required of all affected residents is to make sure that any changes are indeed requested by the neighborhood. And, yes, those who do not vote are counted as a "no" vote because, as experience has taught Menlo Park (and Palo Alto), those against obstacles in the street remain dormant until the concrete hits the pavement. There is no reason for the city to put time, effort and money into a project unless there is overwhelming support and approval from a super majority of residents as well as owners of rental properties.

The 60 percent majority is not something that Menlo Park dreamed up. In two public presentations, Menlo Park's consultant confirmed that several other local cities use similar criteria. Menlo Park's requirement of 60 percent is about average.

Menlo Park is not an island. The Menlo Park borders abut Atherton, East Palo Alto and Palo Alto as well as unincorporated areas in San Mateo County. The streets flow from one city to another. It's just common courtesy to involve neighbors in evaluating the plan's impacts as the traffic management plan document suggests.

Excessive speed is illegal. Ignoring traffic signs is illegal. However, it is not illegal to drive along any street while going from point "A" to point "B." Streets are built and maintained using public funds and are therefore available for the public to use.

I commend the Menlo Park City Council for adopting the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, which will apply to all of Menlo Park.

Barbara Hunter
Laurel Avenue, Menlo Park

Sam Sinnott's heart still in Ordinance 926

Editor:

Lorie (my wife) is running for the Menlo Park City Council so my opinion could be considered biased, but I have to respond to your editorial last week titled, "Another try on home building rules."

My support for the rescission of Ordinance 926 does not represent a change of heart. I addressed the council immediately following the filing of the referendum petitions several months ago and recommended rescission. Those of us who understand 926 know it is more restrictive than the current ordinance and already contains most of the revisions desired by all sides. Any future ordinance will simply be a refined version with graphics.

Many of your readers and signers of the petition still believe that rescinding 926 somehow protects them from "monster houses" and that "developers were waiting" for the "most sweeping and devastating change to the laws of Menlo Park" to take effect. (These are quotes from Kelly Fergusson, who led the petition drive.) They were purposely misled. In fact it is easier to build large houses on most lots in the city now, under the existing ordinance, than under 926.

The strategy that would have benefitted the city most, but was not pursued, would have been to adopt 926 and amend it. That, however, would not have bolstered Kelly Fergusson's modest resume of civic contributions with a sensational, rallying issue.

Dave Bohannon and I convinced Mickie Winkler and Lee Duboc to avoid a schoolyard skirmish over a fabricated issue in the fall. Rescinding the ordinance was not a defeat because a battle wasn't waged.

Sam Sinnott
Rose Avenue, Menlo Park

Why the city should save shuttle post

Editor:

The Menlo Park City Council should consider the following facts about the proposed elimination of the TSM Coordinator's position before considering the current budget proposal on June 8:
* Menlo Park's shuttle program that serves seniors, high school students, commuters and disabled residents is a model program for the rest of the county;
* The success of a customized program providing nearly 5,000 rides per month is due primarily to the undivided attention given it by the TSM Coordinator;
* This position cannot realistically be parsed out to three or four currently full-time employees without either increasing their hours or diminishing the quality of service to the shuttle users;
* An employee who is responsible for a highly successful and trouble-free program that has widespread popular support should not be forcibly retired or demoted.

There are relatively painless alternatives to the elimination of this position, the most obvious of which is the reduction or elimination of the so-called car allowance given to the city manager and his senior managers.

In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom has asked managers who receive more than $100,000 annually to take a 15 percent pay cut. Menlo Park should consider a 2 percent reduction in top managers' pay or a 50 percent reduction in the car allowance.

In these economic times, it is extremely unlikely that such a modest reduction in executive compensation would result in a flight of managerial talent from the city. However, the savings would be sufficient to guarantee that our exemplary shuttles would continue serving our residents, schools and businesses under competent and caring local control.

Steve Schmidt
Central Avenue, Menlo Park

Good decision to rebuild Town Center

Editor:

The Portola Valley Town Council is making the right decision in moving ahead with planning to rebuild the Town Center.

Recent, state of the art geologic studies have shown that all current buildings, except the historic "old school house," are in extremely hazardous locations and should not continue to be used for intensive human occupancy. These buildings are underlain by a complex of "faults on echelon" that split off from one of the main traces of the San Andreas Fault. In a major, 1906-type quake, ground rupture, and offset, would likely occur under these buildings, resulting in their catastrophic collapse and serious injury or death of those people inside them.

It is not a question of whether such a quake will occur, but when. To continue to expose our community's children to such a risk in the library and various classrooms is unacceptable. It would be irresponsible to expose the public, town and library staff to this ongoing risk by continuing use of these outmoded buildings.

When the town acquired the site, abandoned by the school district because of geologic problems, the site was thought-based on older, now outmoded geologic investigations-to be bisected by "straight-line" faults. This caused prior town councils, including the ones that I served on, to conclude that most of the current buildings, while far from ideal in location, were set back enough from potential faulting to be marginally safe for use.

The new studies, which have shown the current buildings to be unsafe, indicate that potential faulting does not extend into land at the west of the current Town Center site. It is safe to build new structures at this location, if they are designed to modern codes that can withstand severe ground shaking without rupturing, that they would be subjected to in this location. These safe buildings can be of a more compact, efficient design and would be set back further from the road than the existing ones, maintaining the beauty of the scenic corridor and providing even more room for playing fields and outdoor recreation.

Jon Silver, former mayor
Portola Road, Portola Valley

E-mail a friend a link to this story.