Chip,  

My email below from last week that has fact corrections and additional FAQs for the Transportation webpage for the Ringwood Pedestrian Overcrossing. However, I haven't seen any change to that page, nor have I received a response via email to any of the below.  

Can I expect one or the other soon?  

Thanks,

Mark Throndson  

PS - also, you're probably not the person, but the link from the City council webpage to the city council email log appears to not be working. This is the link pointing to here:
http://www.menlopark.org/council/%5C%5Cccin.menlopark.org:81.    

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Throndson [mailto:markthrondson_at_yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:47 AM
To: 'CWTaylor_at_menlopark.org'
Cc: 'city.council_at_menlopark.org';
'Sonoma-Tehama-Oakwood-Del_Norte-Iris_at_yahoogroups.com' Subject: FW: Ringwood POC and the EIR
Importance: High  

Chip,  

The website and FAQ for the Ringwood Ped overcrossing is only as useful as the quality of information and FAQs on it. I would appreciate you more directly addressing the following items that are either in the current FAQs (as noted), or in addition to the current FAQs:  

• In your HISTORY section, first paragraph, you state that residents within 500' of the POC were notified via postcard for the Bicycle commission meeting in Nov 2007. However, there is public documentation available stating that this mailing did not happen as you suggest. Since most people indicate they have received no mailers, there is much question if the mailing happened to the level you are indicating, and there is later written documentation that whatever mailing occurred for this meeting happened days AFTER the meeting actually took place. I know you are aware of this issue and the current wording is a misrepresentation of the facts - please correct this ASAP.
• On FAQ #1 - regarding updates on status, your answer states "IF there are any future meetings regarding this project". This is very wishy-washy and non-commital about any future involvement from the community. Since it has already been noted that notification was lacking in a number of key instances, leading to a logical conclusion that community involvement has been limited as a direct result, can you communicate a more definitive plan and decision milestones for the City and CalTrans covering from now to construction start? This project has large scope and a significant budget for Caltrans, so I'm sure it's well planned and thought out, and the community should be given lead time into when the key decisions are being made about the POC and what input you need from us and by when for design input.
• Related to the above, what further role will the community be given in providing input into, and determination of, the design that ultimately is constructed?
• Related directly to the question just asked, my obvious concern surrounds the options and process of the meeting held the evening of March 25, including, but not limited to the following items:
  • The vast majority input was that none of the 6 options shown represented a reasonable solution to the desired POC rebuild.
  • The scope of the discussion was limited to only these options, even though the vast majority in the room could not reconcile with the options.
  • No meeting minutes were taken = no accountability for the input given or the results of this discussion
  • Not that any of the current options should really be considered due to their expansive impact to the neighborhoods but, when forced to a hand vote, in contrast to your statements on the website near the end of your "History" section, there was a significant majority input on an option that was NOT Option 4. For some reason, this hand vote result was then summarily dismissed. Then, when put through a more coerced, "guided tour" process by you leading the audience, as hard as you tried, there was no definitive preferred option. The differences were subjective and indistinguishable between the "least objectionable" options, and even one of the city council members (who in attendance at the Mar 25th meeting) stated as such in comments during the public comments section of the April 14 city council meeting in which our petition was submitted to council for consideration.
  • I WILL RE-ITERATE -> THERE WAS NO DEFINITIVE OPTION THAT STOOD OUT AGAINST OTHER PROPOSALS AT THE MAR 25th meeting. To suggest otherwise as you are doing on the website is your own promotion of a particular design, not an accurate representation of the input received from residents at the meeting.
• How can residents verify if they were properly notified at the times you indicate notifications were sent out? I live within 500 ft of the existing structure, and potentially a lot closer to some of the current design proposals, and the first time I heard about this project came not through notification from the city, but rather through our neighborhood email distribution list at the last minute for the March 25, 2009 design review meeting. Of the many petition signees I subsequently spoke with, the vast majority were unaware of the project until I came by to discuss it with them. Stating that such communication happened on the website is just words. I believe the preponderance of evidence suggesting otherwise needs some method of validation, especially considering it has been noted that there were communication lapses at several points in the process.
• One quick clarification that should be added to FAQ #1 and regarding the purported past mailings - were postcards sent out to residents within 500ft of the existing POC structure, or to residents within 500 ft of the proposed new design options? As some of these proposals are approx 600 ft long parallel to the highway (on both sides of the highway, in both directions from the current landing points of the existing POC) before they span across the highway, this would rather dramatically affect the suggested mailing list. And how are you treating this for any future mailings?
• The city of Menlo Park made a decision to accept CalTrans' offer to rebuild the POC as part of their lane expansion program. I support this decision, within the constraints of the City of Menlo Park taking leadership and responsibility for acting in the best interests of its residents on both sides of Highway 101 regarding the design and implementation. My concern is that answers to questions to you and the City regarding implementation have typically resulted in a deferral of responsibility to CalTrans, who have not demonstrated an interest or design sensitivity to solutions for residential neighborhoods. With that in mind, can you please clearly answer:
  • Is there a formal design review and signoff by the City of Menlo Park before CalTrans gets the green light on the project? If not, why not?
  • What is the city's position regarding acceptable design implementations? What criteria does CalTrans need to meet, if any, besides "connect point A to point B"?
• Your information website claims to have posted notifications about the CalTrans EIR numerous times, via newspapers and at public locations in Menlo Park. Yet at the design review meeting of March 25, 2009, almost no one in attendance was aware that the EIR existed. Can you please elaborate in your website description, or via FAQ the following additional items regarding the EIR:
  • How many people attended each of the EIR review meetings you indicated?
  • What, if any, feedback was received in response to the EIR reviews?
  • Was the city involved and represented at these review meetings? If not, why not? (While I have no issue with you deferring responsibility to CalTrans for conducting the EIR study, as a resident of Menlo Park I have every expectation that the city would review those findings in detail)
  • If you were involved, in representing the residents of Menlo Park, how could you and/or the City of Menlo Park not raise the issue of the disconnect between the findings in the report, and the resulting summary and cover page contents? Specifically, the report includes in its findings on pp 23-24 "The approach ramps will be a dominant feature for residents on the local streets parallel to the freeway. The visual impact to these viewers will be high and of long duration", and yet the front page of the EIR and all summary pages at the end of this report do not address the finding and make no mention of it in presenting a conclusion. This is a distinct change from the current structure, and one that the city should have an issue with, if it is making responsible decisions in good conscious for residents of Menlo Park living on both sides of Highway 101.
• CalTrans is paying for this, so ultimately I guess the City of Menlo Park doesn't care about the costs. But as an information site and for disclosure, you should add a question about the costs in the FAQs, as it has been asked many times. So "What is the estimated cost of this project"? From my notes from the March 25th meeting, the CalTrans employees stated the baseline cost for least expensive proposals was approx $5.75M (Options 1 and 2). Options 5 and 6 were approx a 20-25% cost adder, due to the extra footage to have the structure span further, across Pierce and Van Buren roads (in addition to Hwy 101). Options 3 and 4 were an additional 20-25% on top of that, due to the increased design complexity of doing the double backs. This suggests that the more expensive options are in the $8-9 million range. Feel free to get confirmation and latest info from CalTrans on these numbers, but I believe this accurately represents what they stated.

My apologies for all the questions - unfortunately, with projects like this, the devil is in the details. CalTrans doesn't care much about the details that we do. We need the city to represent the residents of Menlo Park fairly and evenly. I look forward to seeing the website updated to reflect answers to these issues, and hope to have your timely support to that end.  

Thank you,

Mark Throndson

1072 Tehama Ave

Menlo Park, CA 94025

650-281-9402 cell   Received on Tue May 12 2009 - 22:33:26 PDT