|
Publication Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2004
LETTERS
LETTERS
(May 26, 2004)
Council made right decision on child-care
Editor:
I am sorry to see that Nancy Travers has resigned as a member of the Menlo Park Parks and Recreation Commission. She is a bright, energetic and passionate advocate for children and a dedicated volunteer. To the extent that her departure was due to the City Council majority's decision to use a remodeled building for child care, however, I must disagree with her.
Because of their pro-development stance, and the inevitable threats posed to our residential quality of life, I strongly and frequently take issue publicly with the three "slate" members of the City Council (Lee Duboc, Nicholas Jellins and Mickie Winkler).
However, regarding their decision on a new child care facility, I want to applaud their commitment to fiscal restraint in deciding to remodel a perfectly serviceable existing building and thereby save the city millions of dollars and local landfills tons of discarded building materials.
In particular, Nicholas Jellins showed courage in reversing his earlier vote for a new building, which was supported by his political backers (local trade unions, among others). I am a child care professional and was a member of the city's Child Care Task Force (with Nancy Travers) that studied a variety of alternatives. From a survey of parents, it became clear that the best way to provide child-care for school-age children was on local school campuses rather than at a central location, Burgess. Not only would more children be served, but also on-site care would eliminate the need for expensive transportation that had never been included in the costing (and, thus, pricing) of the after-school services.
By serving the remaining 50 pre-schoolers in a remodeled building and working with the school district to establish on-site care, the city would be able to serve two or three times as many children at a lower price to parents, with less operating funds from the city, and at less than half the capital cost of a new building.
How wonderful it would be if we in Menlo Park could elect council members with the environmental and social consciousness of the minority members and the fiscal conservatism of the majority members.
Chuck Bernstein
Oak Court, Menlo Park
Loss of tree, lion stain Palo Alto
Editor:
I don't get it.
In Palo Alto an eucalyptus tree is killed for growing in the wrong place. And then a mountain lion is murdered for sleeping in the wrong place.
These blatant crimes should be reported to "America's Most Wanted." For shame.
Marcia Desautel
Sharon Park Drive, Menlo Park
Council should stop dilly-dallying on zoning
Editor:
Menlo Park's City Council majority (Mayor Lee Duboc, Mickie Winkler, and Nicholas Jellins) should reconsider their stance on residential zoning.
Zoning ordinance 926 should be immediately rescinded so that the city can promptly engage in developing alternate zoning regulations that address, repair and improve the existing residential zoning ordinance's significant problems.
Zoning ordinance 926 fails to provide a true fast-track for residents in Menlo Park who see approval for a modest remodel of their homes, say single story additions of 300 square feet or less.
Instead, Ordinance 926 has created a "one size fits all" rule-based system with a lack of differentiation for the diversity that exists in Menlo Park's neighborhoods.
The proposed ordinance also removes essential protections of surrounding neighboring property owners from impacts on their privacy, solar access and heritage trees. And, unlike in other modern cities, the ordinance does not include desperately needed design guidelines to clearly explain and illustrate all of its rules.
Residential zoning ordinance regulations are important because they provide orderly use of land, adequate light and air, and prevent and over-concentration of population. They also assure that our city is able to provide adequate community facilities and utilities to its citizens.
These rules also make sure that new development does not adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the existing residents. I wish the City Council majority would stop dilly-dallying about on this important issue of residential zoning and get down to engaging in the necessary hard work needed to update and fix our existing regulations.
Toni Stein
Magnolia Street, Menlo Park
Allied Arts renovation is looking good
Editor:
I cannot tell you how impressed I was on a recent tour of the Allied Arts Guild. The expert and loving care being taken on the renovation is amazing.
Allied Arts is a historic and beautiful place - a jewel in the crown of Menlo Park.
Kudos should certainly go to the hard-working and dedicated women that have kept this treasure going.
Mary Ann Kaisel
Campo Bello Lane, Menlo Park
Valley needs a vote on new center
Editor:
The May 12 letter written by Clair Jernick makes the point that there should have been a community vote taken to gain a consensus about the scope and magnitude of the Town Center project. We agree with her.
This project all began a few years ago with talk of the need for new administration offices, costing approximately $2 million to $3 million. It has now grown into a project costing possibly $15 million, with no vote of the townspeople ever solicited. The recent voluntary questionnaire made available by the town seems to be asking more "what color do you want it to be?" rather "do you want it at all?"
Furthermore, this voluntary and anonymous questionnaire method has serious flaws. For example, it could be submitted in multiples by some residents who might have an agenda, while many others may not submit one at all.
There are other issues too. For example, the questionnaire asks if the project should include an historical center. How do you decide on that? If 20 people ask for it? Forty people? Sixty people? Who decides?
We are concerned that this project has developed a life and momentum of its own, possibly disconnected from the real wishes of a majority of the residents. We think that all residents should be given the opportunity to vote on at least three different levels of scale and expense for the new center.
For example: Plan A -- new offices and corporation yard, for under $5 million; or, Plan B -- everything in Plan A plus a new multi-use room (MUR) and library, all to be built for under $10 million: or, Plan C -- everything in A and B plus some extras such as a community plaza, an art gallery, and so forth, with a price tag of up to $15 million. Once it was determined the scope of what the majority wanted, and were willing to pay for, then the design details should be worked out.
You have chosen a good architect, but opening this process now to a charette is premature in our opinion. A minority of residents could push this into being an elaborate complex that the majority may not want. Portola Valley residents deserve the right to vote an issue of such importance to our town.
Jeffrey and Marcia Keimer
Cervantes Road, Portola Valley
Caltrain giveth, then Caltrain taketh away
Editor:
Your May 19 issue has an article on Page 8 proclaiming 40-minute cuts by Baby Bullet trains between San Francisco and San Jose.
On Page 27, the piece by Arthur Lloyd implies that Baby Bullets will be great. Your editorial mentions Baby Bullets shaving 35 minutes from the present train trip between San Francisco and San Jose.
You probably weren't aware of the penalty to be paid by non-Bullet riders. Caltrain is touting the time savings of Baby Bullets while hiding or downplaying the fact that travel times on almost all other peak period trains will increase by from 1 to 12 minutes, depending on length of trip. Just like they hid their plan for cutting down trees.
Baby Bullets should be great for the limited number of passengers who can use one of only five Baby Bullet stations for travel during peak commute hours to another Baby Bullet station. But what about passengers who use the other 20 active stations between San Francisco and San Jose that are not Baby Bullet stops? And those whose peak hour-commute is between a Baby Bullet station and a non-Bullet station. These passengers will all be losers since their trains have to slow down so that Baby Bullets can whiz by.
Compare Palo Alto, a Baby Bullet station, and Menlo Park, a non-Bullet station. Between 5:30 and 8:30 a.m., Palo Alto gets 3 new Northbound Baby Bullets to San Francisco in addition to the 4 locals and 6 "limiteds" it now has. The 3 Baby Bullets take 36 minutes versus 48 for today's fastest "limited" and 67 for today's slowest local. This saves 12 minutes compared to today's fastest limited.
Menlo Park keeps the same number of trains from 5:30 to 8:30 a.m., 4 locals and 5 limiteds. Average trip time to San Francisco on locals increases almost 5 minutes and on "limited" trains about 2 minutes. With non-Bullet trains from Palo Alto to San Francisco, average time on 4 local trains increases almost 5 minutes and on 6 "limited" trains about 1 minute.
Comparisons are similar for non-Bullet trains during commute hours for all stations with time increases depending on trip length. A bigger loser is Santa Clara, where the times on locals to San Francisco increase by as much as 8 minutes and 12 minutes on limiteds.
Some increases may be small, but apply to more riders than benefit by taking Baby Bullets between Bullet stations. Total minutes lost by many riders could exceed the total saved by few. However these comparisons apply to peak commute hours only when Baby Bullets run. Travel times per trip for local and limited trains in off-peak hours remain about the same although frequency of service may change.
During the next six-month trial Caltrain should try to eliminate increased trip times and extend Baby Bullet benefits to more stations (like Redwood City, which has more riders than Hillsdale's Baby Bullet stop). Otherwise, the $127 million taxpayer cost could be a waste.
Jack Ringham
Fair Oaks Lane, Atherton
E-mail a friend a link to this story. |
