From: R. Todd Johnson <rtjohnson_at_(domain_name_was_removed)>
Date: Tue Jul 01 2008 - 11:33:39 PDT

Dear Council Members,

I'm certain that you've already heard from a number of my neighbors regarding the Staff's proposal for an emergency water reservoir at Seminary Oaks Park. I wish to add my voice to the concerns already expressed (I'm sure), regarding the harvesting of the mature trees there, the apparent lack of community involvement in the process of setting criteria for site selection and the need for a holistic criteria for site selection (liberated from considering only City-owned property) that takes into account projects currently planned or being planned by the Fire District, the School District, the VA and Cal Water. All of these points are important, but I'm certain they have been eloquently addressed already by my neighbors, so I will not repeat them hear, other than to say, I agree fervently with my neighbors on these points.

Instead, I am writing, first to thank those of you with whom I've had the pleasure of meeting, for your understanding and thoughtful approach to concerns raised by the community, and for your willingness to (1) undertake to protect the citizens of Menlo Park in the case of an emergency by assuring adequate water supply, and (2) respect the community as it tries to form a thoughtful and constructive response to the Staff's proposal. As I've mentioned to several of you, it is not our goal to come off as a bunch of pitchfork wielding NIMBY's, set on being sure that this water supply is moved into someone else's backyard, but rather to work with the Staff and the Council to ensure that the final outcome represents the best possible result for all the citizens of Menlo Park.

Having said that, I must express my grave concern that the Council is being asked to wear two hats here, seeking to serve two different constituencies. From my perspective, my family and I are very big losers in an apparent conflict that exists in these two roles.

Our family lives at 2 Pepperwood Court, in Vintage Oaks, just one block away from the park. Unlike many of our friends and neighbors with small children, our daughters (who have gotten many years of enjoyment from the park) are now in high school and college and are much less frequent users of the park. Although my wife and I often visit the park with our two dogs, we have been a little less concerned than some of our neighbors with the ultimate impact on the park (other than the loss of mature trees in our neighborhood).

Rather, my wife and I have grave concerns about the lack of an adequate emergency water supply for us and for our neighbors in Vintage Oaks. As residents served by Cal Water, our question is simple: Is the proposed reservoir designed to serve customers of the Menlo Park Water District, or all the residents of Menlo Park who are presently under-served by emergency water supplies.

When I first met with the Staff, I was told that the goal of the emergency water reservoir was to assure the residents of the Menlo Park Water District of adequate emergency water supply. In fact, I was told several times, how Cal Water customers were going to face much higher rates and have much less coverage in the case of an emergency, something that the Menlo Park Water District was trying to assure would not happen to its customers. In fact at one point, as a group of us met with Staff, we were told that the Cal Water customers in Menlo Park had less than 20% of their emergency water needs covered and the Menlo Park Water District was trying to ensure that its customers had 100% of the minimum emergency needs covered (defined at that time as 2 hours of fire flow and 8 hours of peak customer use).

Unfortunately, as a Vintage Oaks resident and Cal Water customer, we (along with our Vintage Oaks neighbors) are being asked to bear the direct impact of 18 months to two years of construction proposed at Seminary Oaks Park, without any apparent benefit, if the Staff's comments above are to be taken at face value. This, I believe, puts the Council in an awkward position, to say the least. Is the goal of the emergency water reservoir to assist all the residents of West Menlo Park in the case of an emergency? If so, then no one would dispute that the current proposal yields a water capacity that represents a proverbial drop in the bucket in meeting those needs. In fact, the City's own contractors have held differing views on what would represent an adequate supply even for the Menlo Park Water District West Menlo customers, but both estimate that amount would be larger than proposed by the current plan.

Since my initial meeting with the Staff, the tune has changed. Now that the Staff (having been reminded that the Vintage Oaks residents are Cal Water customers) states that it must start with some emergency supply on the theory that some supply is better than none. The Staff has come up with convoluted answers of how the water supply could be used to serve all residents of West Menlo Park, although I would imagine that some Menlo Park Water District customers would be displeased by this idea, given the small supply being proposed. Instead, the Staff says now that perhaps several of these smaller reservoirs will ultimately have to be built. Setting aside the increased operational cost of building several smaller reservoirs (as opposed to broadening the search criteria beyond City-owned land to find a site for an adequate larger reservoir), please consider the difficulty the Staff (and the Council) will have in passing several of these proposed sites in several locations, each including a pump house like the one in Mountain View. (See photos below.)

Of course, the location of the site does not support the idea that the site is being located to serve all residents of West Menlo Park who are currently under-served by emergency water supplies. In fact, the Staff has repeatedly mentioned that the location of the proposed site is ideal, situated in the middle of the Menlo Park Water District's West Menlo customers. Of course, when you look at a map of all the residents of Menlo Park in need of emergency water supply, the present site is far from ideal.

In the alternative, perhaps the Staff has considered only customers of the Menlo Park Water District in their proposal. In which case, as a resident of Vintage Oaks, I am not being served by the proposed reservoir, but I am being asked to bear the pain, including the potential impact on housing prices both during and after the construction (when a park with more than 100 mature trees is being replaced by a relatively tree-less substitute). Beyond issues of inequity involved in such a proposal, if this is what the Council is being asked to endorse, then each of you should expect to hear an outcry from all the residents of West Menlo Park who are not being served by this project and who have no proposed emergency water supply from the money, time and effort being spent on this proposal. This, I believe, is where the Staff's narrow search criteria presents the Council members with the greatest issue. How will it justify to the non-MPWD customers, a site chosen with a criteria that restricted the search to City-owned property only, when other possibilities clearly seem to exist that might allow for a larger reservoir to serve more residents.

I do not envy the Council in trying to navigate this dilemma. I would guess that most Council members regard their duty to all the residents of Menlo Park (the position for which they were elected) as overriding their duty to a subset of that population in the Council's role as the Board of the Menlo Park Water District. If the Council (upon advice) agrees with this proposition, then I fervently believe that the Council must undertake discussions with Cal Water to seek an emergency water supply for all the residents of Menlo Park on a site that will permit adequate supply for all residents (which I believe will inevitably entail a selection criteria freed from the restriction used in the current site selection property of locating a reservoir only on City-owned property). Anything short of that would represent a potential failing of the Council's obligation to serve all the residents of the City.

Although the present situation may seem difficult, as I have mentioned to several of you, a talented and highly motivated community has now been activated to assist in this endeavor. Although the Staff may not enjoy the "messiness" of this type of community involvement, the City should seriously consider the connections of these residents with City constituents such as St. Patrick's Seminary, the Federal Government, the School District and the Fire District, not to mention several developers who are currently seeking Council approval for major projects in our City.  

I'm confident that, when utilizing all of the City's resources (including those of its residents), all the residents of Menlo Park can benefit from a properly sized reservoir.

--todd

R. Todd Johnson
Partner-in-Charge
Silicon Valley Office ? 1755 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 ? Direct: 650.739.3999 ? Fax: 650.739.3900 ? Mobile: 650.269.4477 ? rtjohnson@jonesday.com

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

---

This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.  If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.

---

Received on Tue Jul 1 11:41:08 2008