HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 Supplement SUPPLEMENT
Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM #6. 2.
Distributed: 7-vCa i i.0
From: Nicole Horvitz
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 9:41 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Comments on a Draft Ciculation & Scenic Roadwy Element 2015
Please forward to Commissioners.
Nicole Horvitz
Assistant Planner
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills,CA 94022
650-947-2504
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
Planning Department Counter Hours
Monday-Friday
10 am-12 pm and 1 pm-3 pm
From: Broydo [mailto:samuel.broydo@sbcglobal.net]
Sent:Thursday, March 19, 2015 9:31 AM
To: jsmandle@hotmail.com;Jitze@couperus.org; Kavita Tankha; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net
Cc: Deborah Padovan; Nicole Horvitz
Subject: Comments on a Draft Ciculation &Scenic Roadwy Element 2015
Date: March 19, 2015
To: Ms. Susan Mandle, Mr. Jitze Couperus, Ms. Kavita Tankha, Mr. James Abraham, Mr. Richard Partridge
From: Dr. Samuel Broydo
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I have some concerns regarding the Draft Circulation & Scenic Roadways Element 2015.
First of all:
I find section 124 (page C-17) entitled "Local Bikeways" confusing.
It starts as: "Local Bikeways are designated as off-road path..."
Purissima Rd. from Robleda to Arastradero is designated as a Local Bikeway.
Does that mean that the plan is to have off-road bikeway along Purissima Rd.?
There is no space for that in front of my property, and nobody spoke to me about it.
If not, than there is a contradiction and confusion within this section.
The above section of Purissima Rd. is mentioned as one among the five segments at the bottom of section 124,
where the Pathway Element brought up all-of-a-sudden. Why is Pathway element mixed up with the Local
Bikeways section?
There are pathways on both sides of Purissima Rd., but not bikeways.
Please help me to understand this convoluted, lately added section.
1
In general: I am totally against spending any of the resources on making the transit of our town more
attractive and comfortable for the recreational out-of-town bicycle traffic,while inconveniencing the
town people.
Second of all:
The town should be more careful and not use words"adequate", "meets' and"safe",
which are not defined, open to interpretation, open the town to claims of things being inadequate, unsafe and
not meeting individual needs.
Policy 2.1 (page C-8) starts by "Provide adequate space.....",with no definition of"adequate". This is open to
claims that something is not adequate.
Propose: eliminate word"adequate". Just"Provide space" is enough."
Goal 1 (page C-4)contains: "As pat of transportation network that meets the needs....", with no defmition of
"meets". There are always some that will claim that their needs are not met.
Propose: replace"meets"with"is designed to include".
Goal 3 (page C-11)contains: "...that meets the needs of all users...".
Same as above.
Propose: replace"meet"with "include".
Policy 6.1 (page C-19) contains: "...provision of safe bicycle routs...", with no definition of"safe". It opens
the town to spurious claims of things not being safe as promised.
Propose: replace"safe"with"safety conscious".
Thank you for considering the above in your preparation for the meeting tonight. Respectfully,
Samuel Broydo
26496 Purissima Rd
2