Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Sept 21 PC draft Minutes edits

From: domainremoved <John>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:21:00 -0700

 Dear Council Members -
  The Planning Commission Sept 21 draft Minutes sent to you, covering
discussion of the General Plan, unfortunately could not include Commissioners'
edits due to time constraints. In some cases General Plan context and concepts
were incompletely understood by the offsite recorder. Below are edits to my
comments only and which better represent what I said. Apologies for the
additional text at the last minute.
  John Kadvany / Planning Commissioner

-----Original Message-----
From: John Kadvany [mailto:jkadvany_at_(domainremoved)
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:49 PM
To: 'Chow, Deanna M'
Cc: 'John Onken'
Subject: Sept 21 Minutes edits

Hi Deanna -
 Here are some suggested edits to fill out my remarks from the Sept 21 Minutes
covering the PC discussion of the draft General Plan.
 Thanks,
 John

P. 15
Existing Text: "He [= Commissioner Kadvany] said for example if they cared
about safety and probability of death than bicycle riders on El Camino Real
were more likely to be killed than cyclists on less busy streets so that
should be a priority and the number of people affected should include the
30,000 vehicle drivers a day on that road."

This is not what I conveyed here. Rather something like:
"He said that the priorities associated with draft street designations were
ambiguous. For example if safety and probability of death is a priority, then
bicycle riders on El Camino Real should be considered a priority on El Camino
Real right now, as there are bicycle riders there regardless of people's views
on new bike lanes or other changes. On the other hand, others will say that
30,000 vehicle drivers a day are on that road, and so they should be the
priority. The meanings of new street designation priorities will have to be
worked out to address such competing interpretations."

Same page:
Existing: "He said vision zero it was great in the Plan and it's goal was to
get the number of traffic fatalities in the City down to zero. He said to him
that meant how transportation systems were designed and providing
infrastructure for other modes of transit.
He encouraged stronger language there about what they were really trying to
do. He said they were not quite there in saying what they wanted to do to take
the City forward. He said there was not enough detail about Willow Avenue. He
asked what their expectation for congestion was as they would live with that
for years."

Rather:
"He said that including Vision Zero was great in the Plan and recognized that
its goal is to get City traffic fatalities to zero. He said to him, based on
what other cities did, that Vision Zero also meant greater commitment on how
transportation systems were designed and providing infrastructure for other
modes of transit, particularly bicycles and pedestrian modes which had
received much less attention in the past compared to cars. He encouraged
stronger language in the text about what Vision Zero was trying to do. He said
the City was not quite there in saying what was to be achieved to address
automobile congestion, even if bicycle and pedestrian options get better. He
said there was not enough detail about expectations for streets such as Willow
Avenue, El Camino Real, Middlefield and Bay. He asked what were expectations
for congestion which would likely be present for some years regardless of
other improvements. He said the City was not being completely honest with
itself about automobile congestion challenges. "

Page 16:
Existing:
"Commissioner Kadvany said he thought they could use more language about what
was public benefit to include what the City's policies were and where they
were going with that. He said in the M-2 many of the amenities would only
occur if there was sufficient financing through growth to obtain them. He
suggested there were amenities so essential and fundamental that the City
needed a policy to make those happen within some identified time period. He
said the rail corridor was something along those lines and should be
repurposed for pedestrians, bicycles and light transit. He said it would
energize the area, and he thought that was something they would want to do
that was not dependent upon development above the baseline. He said he did not
see enough in the Plan about tree canopy management for city and residential
trees. He said they needed stronger language about water management and water
supply."

Rather:
"Commissioner Kadvany said he thought the Plan could use more language about
public benefit policies. He said that in addition, in the M-2 area, many of
the proposed amenities would only occur if there was sufficient financing
through growth to obtain them. He suggested there were amenities so essential
and fundamental that the City needed a policy to make those happen within some
identified time period. He said the rail corridor could be one of those
options, along with a grocery and pharmacy. He recommended that the rail
corridor should be repurposed for pedestrians, bicycles and light transit, and
not a larger and more expensive rail line, on which he was in agreement with
other Planning Commissioners. He said this amenity would energize the area,
and he thought that was something the City should want to do, regardless of
development above the baseline. The cost of such a project might be considered
in the range of $100M to $200M, sufficient that it could be partly financed by
the City through a bond or other means. He also said he did not see enough in
the Plan about tree canopy management for city and residential trees, relevant
given the stress on trees due to drought and their aesthetic importance for
the City. He said the Plan also needed stronger language about water
management and water supply."
Received on Tue Oct 06 2015 - 08:22:05 PDT

[ 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)