Dear City Council members,

I thank you for your time and consideration last night and I'm sorry this is long.

The format of the meetings is such that there is no public debate and really little council debate. Something as charged as the over crossing warrants a little more back and forth especially when people misinterpret what was said or say something that is wrong or misleading and it is then taken as fact. I realize having a debate during the meeting would lead to chaos and the format has evolved to mostly work. I agree with your observations and frustrations that this really wasn't fully vetted before the meeting. It does lead to design from the dais in a partial vacuum.

I was the first speaker during the public comment section and I appreciate being allowed to speak first. I believe that cut back on the number of people speaking. Unfortunately if I had to do it over again, I would have encouraged all my neighbors to get up and say the same basic things over and over like the folks from Menlo Oaks did and I would have tried to be the last speaker. The more times something is heard the more likely it is to sink in or not be forgotten. I believe that many things I said were lost by the time the public comment section was complete.

Now for some thoughts and observations.

I believe we are confusing the appearance of access with actually used access. There are more than 2,000 people living on the east side of 101, (I couldn't find exactly how many people live on the east side, I estimated by roughly counting the houses, I suspect it's a lot more). 50 of them a day use the over crossing, that's 2.5%. Most of those 50 are students. Why don't the other 1,950 residents use the over crossing? If it is such a vital link why is it so under utilized? I believe it is just symbolic so we can say we are building bridges and we are providing equal access to all. If this link is so vital why were there only two or three people from the east side in attendance? (Even at the bicycle commission meeting which was held on the east side there were only a couple people from the east side) How few people would need to use it before it was considered not a wise use of money, 25, 10, 2?

If you truly want to serve all the residents of Menlo Park equally you would want a real survey of who uses the crossing, where they are going, where they are coming from and more importantly why don't the other 97.5% of the people use it.

The crime statistics the police department keeps do not stand scrutiny. Because the tracts are not of equal size nor have equal number of residents or businesses in them you can not compare tract to tract. Some of the sizes aren't even close. They need to really have the number of residents and businesses in each track and also show many crimes as a percentage of the residents and the businesses. Only then can you say our tract ranks 5th in crime. In addition our tract is really two distinctly different neighborhood separated by a park. The crime rate is much lower in north part which makes the south part look better.

I'm sorry the speaker who lived on the east side thinks all of us are accusing all the students who walk across the crossing as being criminals. It's not the students nor the residents we object to. It's the easy access for people committing crimes.

All the people on Menlo Oaks who spoke were all speaking about a proposal that CalTrans showed as a possibility that no one can really consider viable. I suspect very few of them care what the over crossing looks like or ends up being as long as its entry isn't on their street. Menlo Oaks is not one but two streets away from the current crossing. Interestingly no one spoke from Oakland Ave which is between Ringwood and Menlo Oaks.

I was confused by why people wanted the loop back. I question what that really does. It doesn't decrease the length. It does reduce the width of Van Buren and it does put people using the over crossing much closer to our backyards. It's bad enough as it is right now with people staking out my house from the existing crossing, but to provide even better vantage point by looping the ramp back and forth across my backyard, gee thanks.

And for the concern of the kids crossing Van Buren and Pierce. They have to cross far busier streets than those two. How little credit do we give them? It is enough to say you'll have to take part of my property or put the over crossing right along my fence. Put a stop at the corner of Ringwood and Van Buren then they can cross more safely and you don't need to purchase a bunch of right of way.

It seems like you really didn't consider the shuttle further. Maybe more of the 97.5% people would use it if it had more hours or more frequent times or... I heard people saying it's inconvenient to have to wait half an hour. What do you tell the people who will have their houses broken into or physically violated, "Oh, it was more important to not inconvenience a few people by 15 minutes than it is to provide safety for our residence." Sound pretty silly.

Now having said all that, if we have to have the crime magnet, then let's make it harder to use it for crime. It has to have cameras and it has to be closed at night and I see no reason why that can't be done now. One of the former police chiefs looked at cameras but nothing happened. We have formed neighborhood groups off an on over the years. We formed a neighborhood watch program. We have talked to the police a number of times over they years but really things haven't changed much. The police just don't have the resources.

Finally, if we have to have it I really like the idea one of you suggested and that's having it come out in the park. I'm not sure it could come out right in the park because the park doesn't boarder the freeway but it could come out on Iris lane which is right next to the park and is really two roads separated by a grassy strip in middle (the aqueduct is under this). This would be much further away from houses, much less hidden, much more open and less then a 1/10 of a mile from the current location. Look at it on google maps or earth.

I look forward to being an active participant in the ultimate solution.

Thank you
Paul Hugo
1062 Ringwood
325-8440 Received on Wed Dec 19 12:22:32 2007