HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 Supplement #32 Supplemental No. 32
ITEM#3.2
Distributed 10/26/16
From: Rob Fagen
To: iimbasij gmaiLcom;iitze.CouoerusCalcouoerus.org;ismandleCalhotmail.com;richard.partridaeCalcomcast.net;
Kavita Tankha
Cc: Suzanne Avila;Deborah Padovan;john Radford
Subject: Pathways planning
Date: Wednesday,October 26,2016 9:45:18 AM
Dear Planning Commission:
In advance of this evening's review of the proposed pathways plan, I would like to offer a
general observation and three specific recommendations.
My general observation is that the significant pushback from the residents of all of the affected
neighborhoods indicates one or more of:
1. insufficient communication of the rights and obligations of being part of the Town
2. insufficient understanding by the residents of the benefits to the broader community within
the Town of building the pathways as proposed versus the costs (and what those actual costs
are and under what circumstances they fall due)
3. a plan that is actually imposing excessive burden for minimal benefits
In any of these cases,the solution is to increase the level of shared understanding between
those proposing the plan and those being imposed upon by the plan. There have been properly
noticed meetings and prior rounds of feedback. As the level of concern hasn't dropped among
the imposed,this model has been insufficient. Can we introduce innovation to our process that
raises the level of common understanding?Can we try to find a style of community gathering
designed to expose all stakeholders' concerns as well as the projects' constraints and design
parameters?Then we have a good chance of producing a plan that better balances all interests.
My first specific recommendation is further study of the community feedback and
further communication of the design goals,benefits and constraints to the community.
Then we reach a more widely accepted proposal. This plan has a 30+year horizon for areas
annexed to the Town in the last few weeks to years. We want to make progress, yet I don't
think we're in a hurry.
My second specific recommendation, as a resident of Mora Drive, is firmly against the
proposal offered by Trail People.
Seven months ago,there was a petition circulated asking for a path on Mora. I appear to be
one of only two signers who live on Mora. I signed exclusively over safety at the blind curve
just above Terry Way. I'd be happy with a completely on-road trail if we increased the space
between the fog line and the guardrail at that corner. This could be accomplished by moving
the road a bit further into the hill.
The proposal as stated does not appear to thoughtfully consider the context of the road, current
usage, current infrastructure or the effect on the safety of all traffic (auto, bicycle and
pedestrian)resulting from the design.
My third specific recommendation is to consider allowing the pathways program to
adapt to local needs versus imposing the pathways program regardless of context.
•
I fully support the idea of pathways,yet the intense pushback on Mora and in other areas
indicates to me that the current one-size-fits-all approach needs to be changed. The same
standards and practices that worked well on the blind curve on Fremont are inappropriate for
other areas with different geographies, histories and features.
Respectfully,
Rob Fagen
Mora Drive,LAH
Rob Fagen
rob.fagen@gmai 1.cor11