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: Input re General Plan/M2 revision

From: domainremoved <PETER>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:25:12 -0800

Here is what the State of California Guidelines call for in a General Plan:

"Infrastructure Capacity
One determinant of the amount and location of future development is the capacity of the physical infra- structure (i.e., schools, fire stations, roads, sewer trunk lines, drainage systems, water and gas transmission lines, electric and other utilities, etc.). The current and projected capacities of these systems should be evaluated and compared to current levels of use, the levels projected by the existing plan, and the levels projected by the draft plan alternatives. The resulting analysis will help to identify available opportunities for development as well as potential constraints."

"The following basic questions should be answered in regard to infrastructure:
♦ Is capacity sufficient to serve current planned demand?

♦ Are there any areas with acute shortages of service?

♦ Are there areas with excess capacity?

♦ Will additional infrastructure be necessary to accommodate future development?

This information will help decide when and where expansion will be needed and how infrastructure improvements and expansions will be funded and will help in estimating the cost of extending services for each of the plan alternatives. It will also inform decision makers about which of the general plan alternatives may be the most cost effective."

Clearly NONE of these guidelines are being met in the current General Plan/M 2 process.


> On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:30 PM, PETER CARPENTER <peterfcarpenter_at_(domainremoved)
> The City seems to have a blind spot when it comes to the Fire District.
> The Fire District’s input was ignored as the Specific Plan was developed.
> The Fire District’s input in once again being ignored as the General Plan/M 2 revision proceeds.
> There is literally no reference in the current General Plan/M 2 Guiding Principles to fire services.
> The Fire District is unique in being excluded from the Corporate Contributions Guiding Principle.
> In my opinion there is no way that the existing Station 77 or the existing Station 77 site can provide the necessary fire services that will be required by the proposed build out of M 2.
> The General Plan is, by definition, a zoning document and yet no zoning provision has been made for expanded fire services.
> If this problem continues to be ignored there will be two probable outcomes:
> 1 - A preventable disaster will occur because of inadequate provision in the General Plan for enhanced fire services.
> 2 - The refusal by the Fire District to sign off on future developments in the M 2 area because it lacks the capacity to adequately serve such developments.
> Peter Carpenter
Received on Wed Dec 10 2014 - 14:19:32 PST

[ 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)