Hi—
I am writing the council to confirm my wife’s (Pam Stoner) and my opposition to the proposed stop sign at San Mateo Drive and Middle Ave. Being now 30 year residents on San Mateo Drive, we really do not see the need either historically or currently. We don’t need or want it for purposes of accessing Middle, which we do routinely. In those respects and others, I also echo the comments made to you by our long time neighbor on San Mateo Drive, Catherine McMillan.
Importantly, I read ALL of the comments and input received that was attached to the relevant commission report some months ago. As I stated at the recent Saturday update meeting hosted by council members Mueller and Nash, that data simply does not support any supposed broad demand or need for a stop sign here. It just doesn’t! The number of TOTAL times it was cited was perhaps half a dozen total, out of hundreds and hundreds of comment lines recorded. The number of times a need was cited around Arbor and the park and senior center was many, many times higher. Honestly, at the Saturday meeting, my jaw sort of dropped, when it was suggested there was supposedly yet more anecdotal data, and even more that it seemed to somehow merit more weight. World turned upside down to me when that was said-not good process, not documented, and contrary to the written record.
Net, I really want and need to see DATA here. I submit you don’t have it, and then ask, so why is this really being proposed? I heard at the Saturday discussion more traffic supposedly coming from the ECR Stanford project. But, that’s not news, nor do I recall anything about that project and the EIR that was spilling over to San Mateo Drive. Yet, this proposal would do just that. That is, with traffic “flowing like water” it will inevitably result in some increased cut through traffic on Wallea and San Mateo. And if it is true and the subtext of this is some kind of traffic mitigation to filter traffic to into the neighborhoods and off the collectors and arterials, where is the EIR on that??
I also submit this is really short sighted. That cut through traffic increase will be dumped onto the primary streets in the Oakville Terrace subdivision that support the designated bike path. Why are we entertaining seriously this change that puts more cars onto that designated north south route? And for that matter, I even ’t even seen that issue of conflict with bike route traffic on Wallea + San Mateo even flagged, let alone studied.
Net, not a good idea, the data does not support it, and it is likely to have unintended negative consequences. Please reject this proposal. If you want to do a lighted crosswalk—what was previously apparently considered before this latest surprise change in direction—that’s fine. More generally, I urge the minimum, not the maximum. A stop sign is too much and not fair for diverting traffic into a cohesive neighborhood—with an established bike route.
Regards, Elias Blawie
