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 ]

Re: Oak Grove - Tuesday (3/28/17) Night's City Council Meeting

From: domainremoved <Jennifer>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 20:54:01 -0700

Can you please clarify the current direction Staff has been given regarding
the Oak Grove bike pilot and the timing associated with the direction?

On behalf of many, thank you in advance for your attention to this.

Jen Wolosin
Parents for Safe Routes
415-710-5838 <(415)%20710-5838>

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Jennifer Wolosin <jenwolosin_at_(domainremoved)

> Dear City Council Members,
> I just had an opportunity to watch the video of Agenda Item I3 (Oak Grove
> Metrics and Alta Contract) from Tuesday's (3/28/17) City Council meeting.
> While I am sympathetic to the parking needs of those at Nativity, I am very
> concerned with the action that Council decided to take at this meeting for
> the following reasons:
> *Moving backwards*. The City Council already approved the Oak Grove
> project in December. Our hard-working staff did their due diligence, wrote
> and presented their staff report, weighed the concerns of different
> constituent groups and the Council had an opportunity to ask questions, did
> so, and voted to approve. Directing Staff to re-investigate this project is
> moving progress in the wrong direction. There is an opportunity cost of
> postponing action. Staff will now have to table other critical
> Transportation projects to tend to this Council directive. Will this slow
> down the Laurel Safe Routes Study (which is already being slowed down for
> Willows Traffic)? Will it slow down the institutionalized Safe Routes
> program? The safety problems on many of our roads to schools can not wait.
> Action must be taken. The Oak Grove project is a pilot. Let it happen. Try
> it out and see what happens. Inaction is dangerous.
> *Entire discussion off topic and therefore comments not representative*.
> The discussion about the merits of the Oak Grove project was not on the
> agenda. The agenda item was about metrics. Had the community been informed
> about the potential conversation of the merits of the study, other
> constituency groups would have had the opportunity to attend and voice
> their opinions. Key stakeholders were often referred to in the discussion
> as Nativity families, business owners and those along the route. From what
> I watched, the alternate point of view was dismissed as that of the Bicycle
> Commission. There is an extremely large and concerned constituency group of
> Menlo Park residents who want a safe East/West passage, for school and for
> basic bicycle transportation. My family lives east of El Camino. On
> weekends, if we want to get out and bike ride, we're more likely to travel
> to Palo Alto for lunch than Menlo Park because of biking safety concerns.
> How many parents like me need to speak up (again) to support this project
> for you to let it go forward? Please do not let recency bias direct your
> actions.
> *Wrong message to community about civic involvement*. I realize that you
> are volunteers and thank you for your time. There are also many others in
> this community who dedicate countless hours to try to improve our
> neighborhoods. There are those of us who pay attention, show up and fight
> for what we believe in. What message does it send when hard fought projects
> can be derailed at the 11th hour? What precedent does it set when taxpayer
> dollars spent on Staff time can be thrown away at a whim? How can you
> expect committed residents to stay engaged when they feel undermined?
> *You can't compromise safety*. I heard a lot of talk about balance. The
> problem with chipping away at the integrity of the bike lanes is that at
> some point the project will tip and the core of the initiative (a safe[r]
> East/West route) will be lost. It's unfair to kids and parents to ask them
> to ride on a "safe route" when every few blocks they are forced to swerve
> into traffic and "share" the road to avoid parked cars. A false safe route
> will keep parents driving one by one and continue to foster traffic
> congestion on our already clogged roads. As a community we either value
> safe routes or we don't. If Council does, it will need to make some
> decisions that may be unpopular for some (at least until the benefits are
> given an opportunity to become apparent - thus the pilot).
> Transportation issues are not easy ones. As you know, I started over a
> year and a half ago lobbying for infrastructure improvements on Coleman
> Ave. I still want infrastructure improvements on Coleman Ave., but I also
> understand now that I live in society where we have to look at the needs of
> the larger community and do work for the greater good. I get that Nativity
> parents are concerned about their own parking and that of their fellow
> parishioners, but I would ask them to look at what they can do internally
> to mitigate the situation the best they can (more carpooling, different
> drop-off procedures, etc.). I would also ask them to engage with Parents
> for Safe Routes and join our Community Partnership so they can see how the
> needs of one school must be taken into consideration with-in a larger
> context. We're all interconnected.
> If we keep doing what we're doing, we're going to keep getting what we're
> getting. And what we have now is a dangerous situation for those traveling
> East/West.
> Please direct Staff to move forward with the pilot.
> Thank you for your time.
> Sincerely,
> Jen Wolosin
> Parents for Safe Routes
> jenwolosin_at_(domainremoved)
> 415-710-5838 <(415)%20710-5838>
> www.parents4saferoutes.org
Received on Mon Apr 03 2017 - 20:59:40 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)