|
Publication Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 LETTERS
LETTERS
(May 11, 2005)
Almanac and Caltrain are missing the point
Editor:
Last week's editorial "Midpeninsula Wins, Loses on Caltrain" seems to miss the point of our efforts in Atherton to preserve train service. Similarly, we feel that Caltrain misses the point of its role as a public service.
The residents of Atherton do not expect and do not seek for their station to be served by Baby Bullet trains or even by significant express service. Neither do we believe that every train should be a "milk run" that stops at Atherton.
But we do believe that Atherton should retain some level of train service. The milk run trains that are on the proposed schedule should include Atherton as a stop, and at least one morning limited-stop train to San Francisco, and afternoon return, should be preserved.
Caltrain's ostensible rationale is that elimination of service to four stations (only two stations, Broadway in Burlingame, and Atherton, are currently at issue) allows them to provide more, faster trains to other stations. This is based on the unproven assumption that potential riders will be lured onto the system by faster trains.
We may be willing to accept the argument that stops at Atherton and Broadway could slow down the high-speed commute-hour trains. But we believe that an additional five minutes in order to accommodate two additional stops during the non-commute mid-day, evening, and weekend hours would not affect Caltrain's operations, or the attractiveness of those trains to riders.
It would also be less expensive than the hastily proposed shuttle service with all the associated costs for a driver, fuel, and so forth.
But the essential issue really isn't reached by debating the foregoing points. The essential issue is whether Caltrain is to perform a public service or whether its objective is merely to maximize revenue and reduce costs.
We contend that Caltrain is a public service and should perform like one, given that 82 percent of its capital and operating funds come from taxes, not from the fare box. Does the possible achievement of increasing the fare box share by one or two percent justify taking away the service of what will remain a predominately government-funded operation?
The residents of Atherton and Burlingame believe they deserve the transit service that they pay for with their tax dollars.
James R. Janz
Atherton City Council, chair
Atherton Caltrain Corridor Committee
Big loopholes in zoning proposal
Editor:
The Menlo Park proposal to streamline commercial zoning that is to be reviewed May 10 throws out the baby with the bath water. It contains loopholes wide enough to drain the city coffers of future revenue and overwhelm neighborhoods with increased traffic, and it fails to provide mechanisms to control such problems.
Common sense suggests that the lengthy use permit process is unnecessary for some minor projects (e.g., renovating a bathroom for handicapped access or moving a wall to facilitate manufacturing production flow.)
But, the proposal also abolishes reviews for projects that actually change the use or intensity. Examples: conversion of the historic Park Theatre to offices, video rental store to Realtor office that no longer generates city sales tax revenue, dry cleaner to check-cashing retailer that attracts robberies. And it eliminates the community's ability to address adverse impacts on traffic, safety, city revenue, and to manage the mix of local-serving businesses.
The proposal goes too far by allowing unfettered conversion of industrial district spaces larger than 10,000 square feet. Incongruously, a project is not considered "more intense" if it does not add parking spots -- even when needed. Similarly, a major conversion of biotech to general office space is not considered a "change in use" even though there could be a vastly different impact on city sales tax revenue and traffic.
The many flaws of this proposal will hurt Menlo Park. As written, it simply eliminates resident voices and discretionary, protective city powers under the guise of streamlining.
Patti Fry
Wallea Drive, Menlo Park
Confusing zoning with law enforcement
Editor:
Stu Soffer writes that there is a connection between zoning regulations and the recent robberies at La Hacienda Market.
Everything in life is connected, but some connections are more relevant than others, and the La Hacienda robberies are not a zoning issue. While the Menlo Park Planning Commission can and does assure appropriate use for neighborhood development, the operation at the market in question asks no special privilege and is favored by many residents.
Some former planning commissioners would prefer, I think, to have all projects in the city be reviewed by the commission. There is an unfortunate three-month wait for review as it is, and tying up every project with big brother oversight is just not reasonable.
We had a rash of bank robberies on the Peninsula two years ago, but didn't blame the banks. Having an oversight group hot and ready for knee-jerk reactions to news items doesn't help the long term task of city planning; confusing zoning with law enforcement is the kind of reaction avoided by cooler heads.
The issue of streamlining commercial zoning applications is benign by design, aimed at less controversial projects. The city hopes to reduce the burden on staff and the planning commission (not to mention the small
business applicants) so more attention can be spent on real neighborhood issues. Clear rules with special case review can make better neighborhoods, not red tape.
Henry Riggs
Callie Lane, Menlo Park
School district may rescue PV library
Editor:
The San Mateo County Library Joint Powers Authority recently announced its intention to discontinue operations at the Portola Valley Library on June 1.
This decision followed a new engineering report finding that the old library building in the Town Center is at risk of collapse in an earthquake.
News of the library's closure was a blow to all who love the Portola Valley Library as a center of learning and a community gathering place. The outlook appeared bleak for preserving library services pending the projected opening of the new Portola Valley Library in the fall of 2007.
But now the Portola Valley School District has come to the rescue. At its May 4 meeting, the school board endorsed the relocation of the library temporarily to two unused classrooms located at the north end of the Corte Madera School campus. The district is prepared to permit the rapid conversion of this facility into space that will preserve most library functions over the coming two and a half years. In order to accommodate the needs of school parents, faculty, library users, and campus neighbors, staff from the district, town, and library are now working hard to resolve issues such as traffic, parking, and hours of operation.
As a member of the Portola Valley Town Council, I wish to commend the Portola Valley school board, Superintendent Anne Campbell, and Assistant Superintendent Tim Hanretty for their extraordinary response to the library crisis. The district's quick and decisive action to save the town library provides yet another reason why Portola Valley residents can take enormous pride in their school leaders.
Steve Toben
Santa Maria Avenue, Portola Valley
.
Parcel tax sustains Atherton
Editor:
I have been an appointed member of the Atherton Audit Committee for five years, the longest tenure to date.
During this period the audit committee helped the City Council select a highly qualified finance director and a new auditing firm. And the committee offered significant pragmatic financial advice.
One of the results has been four consecutive unqualified (I.E. clean) audits prepared and submitted to the council in a timely manner.
In early 2004 the Audit Committee volunteered to study, evaluate and recommend revenue enhancement and cost containment strategies for the town. After weekly meetings for two months, a 10-page written report was delivered to and discussed with the council.
One recommendation was that the parcel tax should be increased to an average of $913 per parcel annually in June 2005 because of the forecast cost increases over five years. (The committee vote was 4-1 in favor; the dissident felt that an increase to $1,500 was required.) However, after intense discussion with the council, the committee agreed to just a renewal of the current $750 per parcel.
Renewal of the parcel tax is crucial to accomplishing Atherton's strategic plan and to meeting the operating and capital budgets for the coming five years. I strongly urge all concerned Atherton residents to vote for the continuation of this tax in June.
Bob Jenkins
Irving Avenue, Atherton
Streetscape critic sees concrete, not trees
Editor:
I would like to offer Dan Dippery, who praised the Alameda streetscape, my new glasses.
I for one do not see beauty on the Alameda but see much more traffic backing up and much more cement. This is ugly to me, not beautiful.
Pat White
Santa Cruz Avenue, Menlo Park
E-mail a friend a link to this story. |
