Dear Council Members,

We live across the street from Seminary Oaks Park (SOP). We are deeply concerned about the selection process that the staff and consultants followed over the last several years resulting in SOP as the preferred location for an emergency water reservoir. Based on my reasoning below, we are requesting that you reopen the selection process because we believe the original process was flawed.

The research we have done leads us to believe that the important effort to provide emergency water storage for the City of Menlo Park has somehow gotten off-track. When solving problems, most people like to have a clear sense of their goals. In this case, we think they lost track of the most important of those. How much emergency water do we need? Simply identifying the need for emergency water is not enough, we need to determine exactly how much water we will provide before we can decide where we are going to store it.

When one remodels one's home, it is prudent to incorporate all the desired new features in the master construction plan. It makes for a more successful remodel at a lower cost. This same wisdom applies at the city level. As we contemplate the various remodeling projects, we must think holistically. Will we be getting the most protection for our money if we elect to construct a reservoir independently from all the other public projects currently planned? As you probably know, the City of Mountain View won awards for combining an underground emergency water storage facility with a school playing field and track. While I don't know all the specifics, I understand that the school was in desperate need of a new track and the city was in need of a reservoir. What a fine idea to combine the two.

Having several kids enrolled in many different sports played around our city, we know firsthand the dearth of suitable playing fields. How wonderful if we could find a way to provide more playing fields while simultaneously serving our emergency water storage needs. The consultant study identified only city-owned properties. While that may have been an appropriate guideline when this project was originally scoped, given our need for additional playing fields, it seems to be deficient now. We must include the broadest number of potential locations so that we can serve as many community members as possible.

Although we have lived in our home for more than five years, the first we learned of this project was the day the flier arrived in our mailbox. It seems that the idea for emergency water storage has been around for two decades, but the community's input has only been considered in the last two months. Why is that? How do we ensure that the community's voice is heard when important projects like this are considered?

We have heard Menlo Park described as a "Tree City Community". We believe we speak for all its citizens when we say that a construction solution that does not involve killing significant numbers of mature trees should be a primary goal.

The concept of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is one that is prevalent in technology; it applies to this project as well. To the extent we can partner with other agencies (both public and private) to build the facility we need, we could lower our costs. To the extent we can piggyback on other construction, we could lower our costs and reduce the disruption to the community. To the extent we provide protection for more people in the community, we could lower our cost per person served. Please consider the TCO as you evaluate this important project.

Thank you for taking the time to understand our perspective. We hope you share our concerns and elect to reopen the selection process to find the best possible location.

Sincerely,

Liz and Rich Shane
Seminary Dr. Received on Mon Jun 30 13:39:34 2008