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 ]


Competing interests on Oak Grove--acknowledge but please move ahead

From: Lydia W. Lee <"Lydia>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 22:35:36 -0700

Dear City Councilmembers,

Thank you for listening to the community and getting the Oak
Grove/University pilot going. It's been a privilege to serve on the Menlo
Park Bicycle Commission for the last couple years and get to know you and
the city staff, as well as to familiarize myself with the process by which
things get done in the city. I entreat you to honor the democratic process
and avoid re-opening the Oak Grove pilot to further modifications at this
particular juncture -- however tempting it may be to do so.

There is a misconception that the project has somehow been rushed through.
However, the staff report details all the outreach and community engagement
that has been undertaken in order to ensure that this pilot is indeed what
the community at large wants: http://www.menlopark.
org/DocumentCenter/View/12457

Based on the past experience with projects such as the sidewalks on Santa
Cruz Ave., I think we all came into this knowing that some opposition by
those located on the immediate route was inevitable. I'd like to point out
that the current pilot is already the result of considerable compromise in
order to satisfy various constituencies. The plan includes on-street
parking where it was judged that parking was critical:

--Along the north side of Oak Grove between El Camino Real and Crane.

--Along the north frontage of the 1300 El Camino Real development on Oak
Grove.

--Along the south side of Oak Grove between Alma and Laurel.

--Along Crane between Santa Cruz Avenue and Menlo Ave.

Note that while we can debate the merits of these particular modifications,
they occurred during the time when the process allowed for such
modifications to happen. I believe that allowing any one group to
spontaneously commandeer the city's own process--whether it be Nativity
School parents, the Bicycle Commission, or federal immigration officers—is
undemocratic.

At the risk of going off on a tangent, I'd like to add that I deeply
sympathize with the parking issues that Nativity School parents are dealing
with. Every school in our area has a major traffic snarl during pick-up and
drop-off times. The situation pits drivers against other drivers,
bicyclists against pedestrians, everyone against anyone else in their way,
because the roads are not designed to accommodate that level of traffic.
This is why we need to put in special safeguards for our young bicyclists
now.

Retaining parking on Oak Grove may in fact exacerbate Nativity School's
parking issues in the long term, while having a safe bike route may
encourage more parents, kids, and community members to bike there for
school, services, and special events alike. Perhaps the Oak Grove pilot can
be a catalyst for Nativity to develop a formal transportation plan (aka
Transportation Demand Management plan), if it doesn't already have one.
Then it can ensure that all of its regular parking needs can be met onsite,
per its agreement with the city in 2006 -- when it was allowed to expand
its facilities on the condition that it had adequate parking.

Thank you again for your exceptional level of public service and for
honoring due process.

Lydia Lee
Menlo Park Bicycle Commissioner
Vice Chair, Parents for Safe Routes
Received on Thu Apr 06 2017 - 22:41:18 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)