Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Re: Pope/Chaucer Bridge

From: domainremoved <Kirsten>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:55:10 -0800

Hi Manfred,

Thank you for your email. All alternatives will be studied in the EIR. If
you would like to talk about this, please feel free to contact me.

On Monday, February 10, 2014, <manfred_at_(domainremoved)

> Hi Jessica,
>
>
>
> It was nice to meet you in person during the meeting on January 29 in
> Menlo Park. I'm not sure whether it is necessary to repeat my comments from
> the meeting in writing to make sure they are heard.
>
>
>
> Just in case here they are:
>
>
>
> 1) You explained in detail that the process has to start from the Bay to
> make sure nothing that is done upstream creates any problems further
> downstream. Since you were not able to provide a plan for the replacement
> of the University Bridge it is clearly too early to discuss a replacement
> of the Pope/Chaucer Bridge. We don't know yet what the capacity downstream
> will be. That needs to be clarified first and I'm still puzzled by this
> oversight.
>
>
>
> 2) Your engineer stated during the meeting that a replacement of
> University Bridge is highly unlikely since it is basically an on-ramp of
> 101 and the traffic impact of replacing it would be too high. He continued
> to state that instead of replacing it, an underground culvert is way more
> likely. I wonder whether we can give the same consideration to 100s of
> trees along our natural creek that we are giving to cars on University. An
> under-the-street culvert that doesn't require any removal of trees should
> be considered.
>
>
>
> 3) Your team talked a lot about getting people out of the flood zone and
> saving them flood insurance payments. It was barely mentioned that the cost
> for the complete project beyond the bridge replacement - floodwalls or
> culverts - would have to be paid through a Special Flood Assessment
> District. Please put the complete numbers on the table, so we can make an
> educated decision. How much additional property tax would that mean? How
> much less would it be compared to flood insurance? Who would pay? Only
> people who are paying flood insurance right now? Or would people all of the
> sudden find themselves being taxed although they are otherwise not required
> to pay flood insurance?
>
>
>
> As stated in the meeting. It is too early to make a decision as not all
> necessary facts are known. First we need to know the complete list of all
> projects downstream of Pope/Chaucer, then we need to know all facts about
> all alternatives - How many trees would have to be removed for each
> alternative? (It is not enough to say "Every tree within 5 feet of the
> wall" - We need to know how many 100 that will be). How much additional
> property tax would be necessary to pay for each of the alternatives? Who
> will have to pay the assessed fee? Once we have the complete picture we can
> make an educated decision. Until then there is no other alternative then no
> alternative.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Manfred Kopisch
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Feb 10 2014 - 19:54:52 PST

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)