Transportation Master Plan Oversight and Outreach Committee

AGENDA ITEM D-1 Transportation Master Plan Oversight and Outreach Committee

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - DRAFT

Date: 8/30/2018 Time: 6:30 p.m. Belle Haven School 415 Ivy Dr., Menlo Park, CA 94025

Meeting notes taken by the consultant team are attached to these minutes (Attachment).

A. Call to Order

Oversight and Outreach Committee (Committee) Co-Chair Keith called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.

B. Roll Call

Present: Diane Bailey (late arrival), Andrew Barnes, Chris DeCardy (late arrival), Kirsten Keith, Adina Levin (late arrival), Henry Riggs, Sarah Staley Shenk, Katherine Strehl, Jen Wolosin Absent: Catherine Carlton, Jacqueline Cebrian City Staff: Kristiann Choy, Kevin Chen, Alex Skoch Consultant Staff: Mark Spencer, Nick Bleich, Andre Huff, Jeff Knowles, Katharine Pan, Kacy Wilson, Katie DeLeuw

C. Public Comment

• Pamela Jones requested that the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) be connected to the Belle Haven Traffic Calming Plan.

D. Regular Business

D1. Approve the Oversight and Outreach Committee meeting minutes of May 30, 2018

The Committee discussed converting to summary minutes.

ACTION: Motion and second (Wolosin/Barnes) to approve the Oversight and Outreach Committee meeting minutes of May 30, 2018. The motion passed (3-2-1-5; Strehl/Shenk abstained, Riggs dissented, Bailey/Carlton/Cebrian/DeCardy/Levin absent,).

D2. Present project overview and introduce open house meeting format

Committee members Bailey/DeCardy/Levin arrived during agenda item D2.

• Sheryl Bims commented that the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) should be related to the location of development and the improvements funded by the program. Bims also spoke on traffic calming measures to be included in the TMP and the need for the Safe Routes to School program to include the Belle Haven neighborhood.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Draft Minutes Page 2

Staff and Consultant made the presentation (Attachment).

The Committee discussed adding an additional meeting and to agenize larger city-wide issues that might not be caught in the three subarea meetings. They also discussed the TIF program, including program fee amount, projects that will be funded through the program, correlation of the fee program to the TMP.

D3. Commence open house

Meeting attendees broke to participate in an open house (Attachment).

D4. Review of draft recommendations for North Area of Menlo Park Consultant made the presentation (Attachment).

The Committee discussed recommendations and strategies for Bayfront Expressway, the Dumbarton corridor and intersection of Bayfront Expressway and Willow Road.

• Bernardo Huerta described the importance of bringing the TMP strategies and recommendations to East Palo Alto. • Romain Taniere emphasized the importance of discussing the recommendations on University Avenue and Willow Road with East Palo Alto city staff and residents, as they would be impacted. • Pamela Jones concurred that East Palo Alto should be part of the discussions, and stated that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is not concerned with the communities affected by nearby projects. • Cecelia Taylor suggested Caltrans be present in the meetings and active in the TMP process moving forward.

The Committee discussed their role. They considered cost options and analysis as well alternate bike lane and pedestrian options for the draft recommendations. The Committee directed staff to provide more analysis on the Willow Road project. They also recommended that coordination with Caltrans and adjacent jurisdictions is crucial.

D5. Discuss schedule and next steps

The Committee discussed the process for submitting feedback and requested that staff receive questions and comments in order to draft the response. They also requested that evaluations be conducted on Bayfront Expressway onto Willow Road for a no-left turn and improvement suggestions for the Dumbarton and 101 area. The Committee sought clarity on the decision-making process for removing or adding projects to the TMP, Wednesday, September 5, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

E. Adjournment

Co-Chair Keith adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org ATTACHMENT A

Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan Oversight and Outreach Committee Meeting – Aug. 30, 2018 Belle Haven School, 415 Ivy Dr., Menlo Park, CA 94025 Meeting Summary - Draft Meeting Attendance:

OOC Present: Diane Bailey (late arrival), Andrew Barnes, Chris DeCardy (late arrival), Kirsten Keith, Adina Levin (late arrival), Henry Riggs, Sarah Staley Shenk, Katherine Strehl, Jen Wolosin OOC Absent: Catherine Carlton, Jacqueline Cebrian City Staff: Kristiann Choy, Kevin Chen, Alex Skoch Consultant Staff: Mark Spencer, Nick Bleich, Andre Huff, Jeff Knowles, Katharine Pan, Kacy Wilson, Katie DeLeuw

Public Comment

 Pamela Jones requested that the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to be connected to the Belle Haven Traffic Calming Plan.

Approve the minutes from the previous meeting

The OOC discussed the minutes presented for approval. Riggs and Keith requested that the minutes be more detailed to make sure input from OOC members is tracked appropriately. Wolosin made a motion to approve the Oversight and Outreach Committee meeting minutes of May 30, 2018. Barnes seconded the motion. The motion passed (3-2-1-5; Strehl/Shenk abstained, Riggs dissented, Bailey/Carlton/Cebrian/DeCardy/Levin were absent.

Present project overview and introduce open house meeting format

 Choy, City of Menlo Park, provided an introductory presentation, including background information on the City’s General Plan - ConnectMenlo, the purpose and goals of the TMP, and the importance of updating the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF). She also discussed the work completed so far, and explained the next step of developing a scoring system based on the prioritization criteria. Comments the OOC provided on the prioritization criteria in May will be addressed when the scoring system is developed.  Spencer, TMP consultant team, provided an overview of the strategies and recommendations for the TMP. He described the studies the team has completed, and their initial focus on four high priority, major corridors for improvement: Bayfront Expressway, Willow Road, El Camino Real, and Sand Hill Road. In the Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper, the team identified 173 recommendations through data, analysis and outreach conducted last fall 2017. Examples of these recommendations (e.g. curb bulbs) are shown in the Transportation toolkit.

OOC Discussion

 Strehl, OOC, asked if there would be any presentations during the meeting on recommendations Willow Road from Bayfront Expressway to Middlefield Road. Spencer responded that more information on this area would be provided at the Sept. 5, 2018 meeting, but information on all three subareas is included in distributed materials.  Keith requested printed reports for all OOC committee members. Barnes, OOC, requested a hard copy of the recommendations for the North Area of Menlo Park before Labor Day.  Wolosin, OOC, inquired whether a fourth meeting could be considered, to discuss larger city-wide issues that might not be caught in the three subarea meetings.  The OOC discussed the TIF program update, including the following questions: o Barnes inquired whether fees would increase, about what the reasoning is behind changes to the TIF, and how fee changes are measured. o Strehl followed up with question about whether the TIF would take old projects into account, and if there has to be a direct correlation between the development and the project. o Riggs asked about what projects are funded through the TIF, such as repaving Middlefield or repairing sidewalks. o Spencer explained that fee changes be determined based on cost estimates for all projects that are recommended in the final TMP. The TIF will take new projects from the TMP into account, as well as previous projects that are already part of the current TIF program. While different metrics may be used to determine fees, fees generally don’t decrease when TIFs are being updated. Fees are usually based on the number of anticipated new trips generated by a development, and the prioritization of needs to address, but different metrics can be used. o Choy responded that projects funded through the TIF must already be identified as part of the TIF program. General maintenance is not part of the program. Repairs to existing sidewalks are being funded through a separate process, although the TIF could fund sidewalk expansions or widening if identified through the TMP.  Levin, OOC, requested clarification on how the TMP and TIF funding program correlate. She asked if TMP projects would be eligible for the TIF funding program, if the TMP would allow for needs not funded by the current TIF program to be funded in the future, and if those would include operational expenses (e.g., shuttle funding). o Choy responded that yes, local and regional improvements would be eligible for the TIF funding program. o Spencer responded that operational expenses, like the shuttle, would not be directly funded by the TIF program, but that the shuttle could be funded by a transportation demand management (TDM) program. TIF funds are more likely to be used for infrastructure and other physical projects.

Public Comment

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 2 of 5 Oversight and Outreach Committee / August 30, 2018, Meeting Summary

 Sheryl Bims, Belle Haven resident, provided the following comments: o In relation to the TIF, it is important to find a direct correlation between the location of a development that would be subject to the TIF program, and the improvements funded by the program. o All forms of traffic calming measures should be deployed equitably by the TMP. o Safe Routes to School program improvements have not been proposed in Belle Haven. Bims requested documentation on past recommendations and improvements that have been made to Belle Haven. o Bims expressed gratitude for Menlo Park staff raising Belle Haven residents’ concerns to the Menlo Park City Council in December 2017.

Review of draft recommendations for North Area of Menlo Park

Spencer presented an overview of recommendations and strategies, including some specific areas where the project team needed input from the OOC.

OOC Discussion

The OOC discussed recommendations and strategies for Bayfront Expressway and the Dumbarton corridor. The following comments were provided.  Keith requested a 3D rendering of the proposed Dumbarton corridor improvements.  Riggs emphasized the importance of insisting on the best options for the city of Menlo Park, and determining what is right for the city.  Levin clarified that the Dumbarton proposal would require interchanges at Willow Road or University Avenue, but not both. The analysis for these options shows that grade separating both intersections would not work well.

The OOC discussed recommendations and strategies for Bayfront Expressway/Willow Road, including the following questions and comments:

 Increasing bus speed on the Dumbarton corridor is a good idea and using the shoulders for bus-only lanes seems like the best option. More people are likely to choose transit if buses are able to move through congestion.  Using the shoulder for buses should be a higher priority than the Willow Road option, as that would require bike lane removal for which replacement may be delayed due to the sequence of funding.  Improvements should specifically address congestion – such a moving cross-bay traffic down to Middlefield.  Some areas in the city are experiencing higher development than others, and yet the TIF-funded projects are spread throughout the city. This seems unfair. We should be making transportation investments in areas that are experiencing disproportionate higher levels of development. It’s not clear how the bus queue jump and bike lanes will both fit on Willow Road at O’Brien Drive.  Rail on the Dumbarton corridor should continue to be considered.

Public Comment

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 3 of 5 Oversight and Outreach Committee / August 30, 2018, Meeting Summary

 Bernardo Huerta, East Palo Alto Transportation Committee member, described the importance of bringing the TMP strategies and recommendations to East Palo Alto. o Keith agreed with this importance, as the city of Menlo Park has no jurisdiction over University Avenue.  Romain Taniere, East Palo Alto resident, also emphasized the importance of discussing the recommendations on University Avenue and Willow Road with East Palo Alto city staff and residents, as they would be impacted. o Spencer clarified why University Avenue is included, since it is located in East Palo Alto and not Menlo Park. This is because the transportation system in connected and involves a network of roadways and intersections. As drivers come off the Dumbarton corridor, University Avenue is the first intersection. Any improvements made in this area must consider University Avenue.  Pamela Jones, Menlo Park resident, Belle Haven neighborhood, agreed that East Palo Alto should be part of the discussions, and stated that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is not concerned with the communities affected by nearby projects.  Cecelia Taylor, Menlo Park resident, Belle Haven neighborhood, suggested Caltrans be present in the meetings and active in the TMP process moving forward.

OOC Discussion

 DeCardy, OOC, stated that the OOC should be helping city staff and the City Council best prepare option for the full community to consider, in a way that all residents can understand. People need to be able to draw the conclusions that congestion will not be improved with these recommendations, because that may affect the way they make decisions. If it is not possible to address congestion through infrastructure recommendations identified in the TMP, then the lowest cost options, such as buses on the shoulders, should be considered.  Bailey, OOC, provided her comments: o It would be helpful to see a cost benefit analysis for these recommendations. o One idea is to think about Willow Road as a community street instead of a thoroughfare. o Regardless of what happens on the Dumbarton Bridge, Bayfront needs to be addressed. o The Willow Road option that removes bike lanes should be eliminated from future consideration.  Barnes suggested the team provide more information on how much of the Willow Road traffic is regional vs new from developments. This could help inform cost-effective solutions.  Shenk, OOC, observed that some of the TMP recommendations are solving problems for commuters but not necessarily Menlo Park residents. She expressed a desire to understand Menlo Park residents’ needs, e.g. creating better connections to parks and greenspaces. Shenk also supported the point others had made regarding coordination with Caltrans and adjacent jurisdictions. o Keith added that the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County is another important agency to coordinate with, as it may be an important source of funding.  Levin made the following comments:

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 4 of 5 Oversight and Outreach Committee / August 30, 2018, Meeting Summary

o Agreeing with Shenk’s point, there is a concept for “Safe Routes to School” but not for “Safe Routes to Parks” or “Safe Routes to Grocery Stores” or other short distance trips. Healthy people should have options for traveling short distances safely without getting in a car. o There is a section of buffered bike lane in front of an apartment building on Haven Avenue, but the connection points do not have any improvements. This should be evaluated.

Schedule and next steps

Keith reviewed next steps. In addition to those listed above, these included:  OOC members will send Choy their questions so responses can be drafted.  Look at no-left turn option from Bayfront Expressway onto Willow Road. Would this help with Traffic in the Menlo Park neighborhood?  Meeting again next Wednesday, Sept. 5, starting 6:30 p.m. and received consensus to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m.  During meeting on Tuesday, September 25, discuss whether the OOC will be ready to go to the public in fall 2018. (Action previously captured)

OOC Discussion

 Wolosin noted that Pamela Jones, Menlo Park resident, has brought up the southern access route in the Menlo Park neighborhood multiple times as a problem. She suggested that if the OOC is reaching out to East Palo Alto neighbors, they should evaluate every possible concept for improving the connections to Dumbarton and 101.  Wolosin inquired about the process for submitting additional feedback. Choy responded that the OOC members should send input directly to her. Keith requested that additional ideas on recommendations and strategies be added to the list for analysis and consideration.  Bailey requested that, at the next meeting, the city should provide clarity on the decision- making process for removing or adding projects to the TMP.

The meeting adjourned.

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 5 of 5 Oversight and Outreach Committee / August 30, 2018, Meeting Summary THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT D-2

TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Receive Draft Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper and Provide Feedback on North Area Recommendations August 30, 2018 AGENDA ° Review of Project Goals & Purpose (10 min) ° Meeting Format (5 min) ° Open House Workshop (25 min) ° Committee Discussion (~1 hr) ° Next Steps (10 min)

2 REVIEW PROJECT GOALS & PURPOSE

3 CONNECTMENLO GENERAL PLAN CONTEXT

° Citywide equity ° Healthy community ° Competitive and innovative business destination ° Corporate contribution ° Youth support and excellence ° Great transportation options ° Complete neighborhoods and commercial corridors ° Accessible open space and recreation ° Sustainable environmental planning 4 CONNECTMENLO CIRCULATION ELEMENT CONTEXT 1. Complete Streets 2. Safety 3. Health and wellness 4. Sustainability 5. Transit 6. Parking 7. Transportation demand management

5 CONNECTMENLO CIRCULATION ELEMENT CONTEXT ° 2.C: Develop Transportation Master Plan ° 6.C: Update Fee program ° 1.B: Develop Safe Routes to School programs ° 1.E: Adopt emergency response routes ° 5.5: Work with agencies to reactivate transit on the Dumbarton corridor ° 2.6: Discourage use of city streets as alternatives to state highways

6 PURPOSE

Transportation Adopt Impact Master Plan Fee program Development General Plan General Plan pays new fees Circulation – 2.C Circulation – 6.C ° Community ° Establish ° Fees due at engagement on connection building permit key issues between new stage ° Identify projects development ° Improvements ° Cost estimates and new constructed as infrastructure ° Prioritize funds improvements ° Update fee accumulate program ° Set fee rates by land use 7 HOW DID WE GET HERE? Date Task City Council adopts ConnectMenlo November–December Identifies TMP as highest priority Circulation Element 2016 program January 2017 Staff releases RFQ for consultant services May 2017 City Council awards contract to W-Trans June 2017 W-Trans project initiation August 2017 City Council establishes Outreach & Oversight Committee 1st round community engagement. July–October 2017 1,000 participants. 1st Outreach & Oversight Committee meeting: October 30, 2017 Goals, prioritization criteria and performance metrics 8 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN GOALS ° Safety Vision Zero – Eliminate traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal collisions by 50% by 2040. (Policy CIRC-1.1)

° Sustainability Enable the City to meet the goals of the current and future Climate Action Plan, including a 27 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction

° Mobility Choice Design transportation projects to accommodate all modes and people of all abilities. Encourage the use of lower emission modes such as walking, biking and transit. (Policy CIRC-2.1 & 4.1)

9 PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA

Cost Ease of implementation Sensitive populations • $: Less than $100,000 • May be accomplished during routine • Proximity to daycares, senior centers, • $$: $100,000 - $1,000,000 pavement maintenance or City-guided and communities of concern • $$$: $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 program • $$$$: Partner Projects • May be eligible for grant funding • Significant community support • F: Funded Real Camino El

Transportation sustainability Safety School nearby • Meets City’s goals and policies for • Could improve safety conditions • K-12 school located with ½ mile radius mobility choices and health & wellness

January–March 2018 W-Trans develops draft recommendations and strategies

March 14, 2018 City Council info item to prepare for OOC #2 Outreach & Oversight Committee #2: March 20, 2018 Draft strategies and recommendations for high priority corridors City Council info item: March 27, 2018 Identify need for more meetings Review recommendations from OOC April 17 & 24, 2018 City Council policy discussion and direction

May 9, 2018 Complete Streets Commission May 22, 2018 Council approval of revised scope of work

May 30, 2018 OOC #3: Review Council-adopted scope, goals, prioritization 11 criteria and role of OOC DRAFT STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ° Framework for development: – SamTrans Dumbarton Corridor Transportation Study – Dumbarton Forward (MTC) – City-prepared Transportation Analyses from past projects – Limited right-of-way – Critical issues based on transportation data and collision patterns ° Identified 4 high priority, major corridors: – Bayfront Expressway – Willow Road – El Camino Real – Sand Hill Road ° Citywide recommendations on other corridors in development 12 CITY SUB-AREAS

North Area OOC #4

Central Area OOC #5

South Area OOC #6

13 MEETING FORMAT ° Open House Style

° Station Overview and Staff

14 DISCUSSION

° Public Comment

° Committee Feedback – Questions & Clarification

15 OPEN HOUSE

1 6 OPEN HOUSE RECAP ° Bike Mobility

° Pedestrian Mobility

° Congestion Relief

° Sustainability

° Safety

17 BAYFRONT EXPRESSWAY OPTIONS 1. Use existing shoulders for bus only lanes

2. Conversion from Expressway to Freeway for mixed flow AND managed lanes

3. Dumbarton Rail Corridor

18 WILLOW ROAD OPTIONS/TRADEOFFS 1. Create Exclusive Bus Lanes, Remove Bike Lanes and Median/Parallel Bike Routes/New Menalto Bike/Ped Overcrossing (If median to remain, road needs to be widened)

2. Bus Queue Jump Lane at O’Brien Drive

3. New Class IV Separated Bike Lanes, Removal of Median

19 OTHER PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS ° Willow/O’Brien – New crosswalks across Willow Road – Signal upgrades to accommodate pedestrians

° Wider Sidewalks – Ivy Drive (requires SFPUC approval) – Newbridge Avenue (narrows travel lanes)

° Install Bike Lanes – Parking removal required on Marsh Road, Jefferson Drive, and O’Brien Drive

20 OTHER PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS (FROM OPEN HOUSE) °

21 DISCUSSION ° Public Comment

° Committee Feedback – Is the list complete or are there projects missing? – Are there projects listed that the Committee does not want to move forward? – Do any of the projects need clarifications or refinements? – Does the Committee agree that these projects should move forward into the next round of community engagement?

22 NEXT STEPS

2 3 SCHEDULE

Task Schedule OOC #5: Review recommendations for central area of City September 5, 2018 Complete Streets Commission #2: September 12, 2018 Review bicycle & pedestrian network recommendations OOC #6: Review recommendations for south area of City September 25, 2018 Community workshop and online open house Fall 2018/Winter 2019

Release draft Master Plan Spring 2019

OOC #7 & Complete Streets Commission review draft Spring 2019 Master Plan City Council review and adoption Summer 2019

Develop Fee Program update Fall 2019

24 DISCUSSION

° Public Comment

° Committee Feedback – Schedule – Upcoming Meetings

25 THANK YOU ATTACHMENT D-3

General Comments • Are these slides/photos on the city’s website? • Need more outreach/involvement of East Palo Alto residents and stakeholders on all Willow/Bayfront transportation projects. • Need better visualization of the plan (Dumbarton). • Unclear what the planning process is and how to voice comments.

Pedestrian Mobility • How do we get the cars out of the way? Can we make the streets narrower so every vehicle slows down? • Night pedestrian lighting? • Facebook buses loading on Jefferson. (Project #20) • Yes!! O’Brien/Adams ped/bicycle improvements – sidewalks, bike lanes, better lighting. (Projects #39, 40, 32, 30) • Bulb-outs are being removed in one case at least in San Mateo. They created safety issues for bikes. • Need to implement an ALL red traffic light timing at ALL Willow Road lights to improve safety and mitigate vehicle blocking. • Bus transit signal priority yes! Need BRT to be visibly better alternative. • Metrics – Please estimate vehicle trip reductions from safer bike and ped routes, .e.g., if 5-10% more people could walk/cycle instead of driving, X% vehicle trip reduction, X tons GHG reduction, X minutes vehicle travel time saved. • YES! [separate commenter agreed with this request] • Need ped connections from Haven apartments to Marsh Manor services. • Sidewalk gaps near O’Brien Drive.

Bike mobility • Is there a bike connection from the overpass (Ringwood over 101)? • Will Bayfront HOV lane affect bike lane on Willow? • What is the difference between bike network classes? • Need safe bike access between Haven Ave apartments and destinations including Marsh Manor, Belle Haven, Facebook, Redwood City. • Survey should specify self-selected respondents. • Pedestrian and bike priority on both Marsh and Willow to decompress both. • Need bike route continuity across railroad tracks, Marsh Road, south side! • City needs to maintain paving quality and provide weekly street cleaning for bike lanes. Many of us bike in traffic lane when possible – smoother, less small debris and untended tree root lifts.

Congestion Relief • How it’s defined? Single cars? Person thru-put? • O’Brien/Willow light timing and coordination with new bridge at U.S. 101 need to be changed and synchronized to allow local traffic to turn left from O’Brien to Willow. At peak hour transit on Willow blocks the intersection and makes it impossible to exit O’Brien. • Concerns about grade separation • No city money for Bayfront Expressway Safety • Need safe routes to destinations – closest supermarket, services. • Marsh bike path continuity to Bay Road. • Bike crossing signals should be appropriately short. • Extended crosswalk time should be a separate button from base crosswalk time. • Confirm efficiency of bulb-outs. San Mateo is removing recent bulb-out that created bike hazard. • Target the right problem – congestion resulting in collisions overall, not just bike/ped although those are more worrisome. • O’Brien must be included in all red traffic light internal and better synchronization to exit O’Brien/East Palo Alto.

Sustainability • Need more shuttles and better marketing of them. • Yes! [separate commenter agreed] • City should consider impacts from cut-through and non-local traffic on congestion – concern about including cut-through traffic from northeast. • Consider turn restrictions at Bayfront and Willow – and preference for local-originating traffic (stickers/parking) • Will Caltrans agree? • Is the City working with Caltrans to get control of state roads? • Focus on addressing congestion with less emphasis on bike/ped. • New “green” concrete that sequesters carbon. • I would like to make sure that the Dumbarton Corridor promotes sustainable behaviors. Not polluting or noise-generating.

Transportation Master Plan Oversight and Outreach Committee

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - DRAFT

Date: 9/5/2018 Time: 6:30 p.m. Laurel School Upper Campus 275 Elliott Dr., Menlo Park, CA 94025

Meeting notes taken by the consultant team are attached to these minutes (Attachment).

A. Call to Order

Oversight and Outreach Committee (Committee) Co-Chair Keith called the meeting order at 6:33 p.m.

B. Roll Call

Present: Diane Bailey, Andrew Barnes, Jacqueline Cebrian, Kirsten Keith, Adina Levin, Henry Riggs, Sarah Staley Shenk, Jen Wolosin Absent: Catherine Carlton, Chris DeCardy, Katherine Strehl City Staff: Kristiann Choy, Kevin Chen, Alex Skoch Consultant Staff: Mark Spencer, Nick Bleich, Andre Huff, Jeff Knowles, Katharine Pan, Katie DeLeuw

C. Public Comment

None.

D. Regular Business

D1. Present project overview and introduce open house meeting format

Staff and Consultant made the presentation (Attachment).

Committee member DeCardy arrived during agenda item D1.

D2. Commence open house

Meeting attendees broke to participate in an open house (Attachment).

D3. Review of draft recommendations for Central Area of Menlo Park

The Consultant made the presentation (Attachment).

• Mark McBirney spoke against the recommendation to remove the median on Willow Road. • Katie Behroozi spoke against the idea of too much risk being associated with slowing cars down. Behroozi also expressed concern about downtown access bike access and bike infrastructure improvement needs in and around downtown.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Draft Minutes Page 2

• Betsy Nash asked what the current lane widths are and whether they could be reduced to accommodate the bike lanes.

The Committee discussed the recommendations made regarding the improvement of traffic delays. They also considered the best methodologies to meet the goals set for certain roadways.

The Committee commented on specific projects, including project numbers: 35-50, 69, and 70. They also requested police patrol in neighborhoods to address speeding. The also discussed the idea of non-conventional solutions and the increase of alternative modes of transportation are becoming much more mainstream. The Committee requested additional data for traffic volumes and flows.

D4. Discuss schedule and next steps

Staff reminded the Committee of the next meeting on Tuesday, September 25, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. They also request for members to provide comments to staff by September 18. E. Adjournment

Co-Chair Keith adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org ATTACHMENT A

Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan Oversight and Outreach Committee Meeting – Sept. 05, 2018 Laurel School Upper Campus, 275 Elliott Dr., Menlo Park, CA 94025 Meeting Summary - Draft Meeting Attendance:

OOC Present: Diane Bailey, Andrew Barnes, Jacqueline Cebrian, Chris DeCardy (late arrival), Kirsten Keith, Adina Levin, Henry Riggs, Sarah Staley Shenk, Jen Wolosin Shenk, Katherine Strehl, Jen Wolosin OOC Absent: Catherine Carlton, Katherine Strehl City Staff: Kristiann Choy, Kevin Chen, Alex Skoch Consultant Staff: Mark Spencer, Nick Bleich, Andre Huff, Jeff Knowles, Katharine Pan, Kacy Wilson, Katie DeLeuw

Present project overview and introduce open house meeting format

 Co-Chair Keith reviewed the agenda.  Riggs, OOC, brought up a question as to how the OOC members should share their comments, and whether these should be distributed to the full OOC. Choy, City of Menlo Park, responded that OOC members should send their comments to her directly, and she can distribute to the rest of the OOC.  Choy then provided an introductory presentation, including background information on the City’s General Plan - ConnectMenlo, the purpose and goals of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). She also discussed the work completed so far, and explained the next step of developing a scoring system based on the prioritization criteria.  Spencer, TMP consultant team, provided an overview of the strategies and recommendations for the TMP. In the Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper, the team identified 173 recommendations through data, analysis and outreach conducted last fall 2017. The Sept. 5 meeting presentation would focus on recommendations and strategies for the central area. Similar to the Aug. 30 meeting, the meeting will be partially open house style and then participants will reconvene for discussion.  Spencer recommend that, as the OOC and members of the public review the recommendations list, they keep the following questions in mind: Is the list complete or are there items missing? Are there recommendations that could be removed? With some refinements, will the TMP be ready for community engagement?

Review of draft recommendations for Central Area of Menlo Park

OOC Discussion  Keith summarized a conversation with the project team regarding comments Wolosin, OOC, had provided to the project team earlier in the day. Most of Wolosin’s recommended additions can be considered. The project team will review them in regard to volumes and road widths, and may need to discuss trade-offs with the OOC about some of them.  Riggs stated that he had also provided comments via email and would like to ensure the Consultant team received them. Riggs’ comments suggested that each recommendation be reviewed with two questions in mind: (1) is the route in question subject to traffic delays? (2) Will the proposed project improve the traffic flow in real time for the impacted areas?  Wolosin inquired about the factors that come into play when decide which engineering tools to apply to a roadway. In addition to volume and level of stress (LOS), is there a way to incorporate community sentiment, and allow the city to use its own judgement in determining which tool to apply? Spencer responded that this is not generally the practice, and that there are trade-offs with applying tools that do not meet the volume and LOS thresholds. There are safety and liability risks associated with things artificially lowering speed limits.  Levin, OOC, built off what others had discussed, describing her desire to make streets safer for everyone – from young to older and everything in between. While standard methodologies are important, it is also important to determine the best methodologies to meet the goals set for certain roadways, which may not be exclusively to improve congestion. Levin mentioned Castro Street in Mountain View as a good example of a road where traffic speeds were decreased, making it a comfortable place for all users.

Public Comment

 Mark McBirney, Menlo Park resident, expressed his opposition to the recommendation to remove the median on Willow Road, as this is a residential street and should not be subject to increased traffic.  Katie Behroozi, Menlo Park resident, stated that she lives on Bay Road and disagrees with the concept of too much risk being associated with slowing cars down. Streets should be designed so that everyone can use them safely.

OOC Discussion

Spencer discussed recommendations on Middlefield Road, Willow Road, Ringwood Avenue, and El Camino Real. Starting with Middlefield Road and Willow Road, Spencer described the issues of mounting congestion in this area, as well as the need for bike/ped improvements matched with the limited right-of-way. Spencer reviewed three elements, described below, that make up the team’s recommendation for this area. The OOC provided questions and comments:

Project #47 – Removing the “porkchop,” which would force drivers to turn at a 90-degree angle and slow cars down.  Riggs indicated that these changes could reduce the crossing distance for people walking, and suggested adding a pedestrian signal to stop vehicular traffic. He encouraged thinking outside of the toolbox and coming up with non-conventional solutions.  Levin described a wide-radius turn in front of Menlo-Atherton High School where there are often children, as well as challenges around Middlefield and Willow where people

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 2 of 5 Oversight and Outreach Committee / September 5, 2018, Meeting Summary

might not feel safe going to the train on bike or foot. Solutions should address these needs.  Keith described that projects #47 and 70 operate together, as the bike box extension provided protection for people biking. This would require removal of the right turn lane northbound on Middlefield turning toward Willow Road.  Wolosin asked how long of a delay is anticipated when describing general traffic delays. Spencer indicated that the last page of the packet that the OOC received describes these types of trade-offs.  Barnes, OOC, noted that projects #47, 69 and 70 all correspond. He displayed some images to meeting attendees that he had also presented to the Complete Streets Commission. These images illustrated the challenges people biking in this area face when trying to access Middlefield. While the bike box is a good idea, accessing the bike box is difficult and this should also be addressed.  Levin emphasized the importance of accessing supermarkets and other destinations safely, in addition to safe routes to schools, which Barnes’ presentation demonstrated.  Wolosin requested that the project team evaluate origins and destinations of people traveling through this area, suggesting that this may help focus in on which networks the recommendations should focus on. Projects #35-50 on Willow Road – options include removing the median, adding a reversible bus lane between Durham and Middlefield, and at Coleman, installing a southbound right turn lane although this would result in loss of parking. This area is constrained due to the available right- of-way. While the options described in the TMP may help address person thru-put by improving transit and bike access, they are unlikely to improve congestion.

 Riggs clarified that the parking loss for the right-turn lane would be around four parking spaces, and commented that medians were installed originally for a purpose in terms of traffic flow.  Cebrian, OOC, found it difficult to envision what this area would look like and how all the lanes would fit.  Wolosin provided the following comments: o Project #44 – This should be a bike lane instead of a median. o Project #48 – More information is needed on how a reversible bus lane would work, and how people would access this bus. o Project #45 – Parking removal should be for bike/pedestrian improvements and not a turn lane. The southbound right-turn lane is not a good idea.  Spencer further described the reversible bus lane. It would be a dedicated lane in the middle of the road, with controlled access and lots of signages. It would add transit capacity and could also be used for high-occupancy vehicles. The bike lanes would not be removed, though some parking may be lost to accommodate this.  Riggs thought that improving traffic on Willow Road needs to be a primary consideration, as people need to get through Menlo Park to access the freeway or other regional destinations. He stated his support for the reversible bus lane.  Levin noted that, while the median offers nice landscaping and safety for drivers, the overall goal for the roadway should be to improve safety for all users. Landscaping should be reduced in exchange for safety of people. Regarding the reversible bus lane, Levin stated her support, explaining that this would be a benefit for all, and both private

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 3 of 5 Oversight and Outreach Committee / September 5, 2018, Meeting Summary and public buses could use it. She also wondered how the reversible bus lane would affect bus stops, and how people would get to the stops. It would be helpful to see diagrams showing how the bus stops would be affected.  Spencer responded that the bus stops would be affected, and they would need to determine where to relocate the stops through coordination with SamTrans.  Cebrian stated that she likes the idea of the reversible bus lane, and wondered if the companies using private shuttles could help pay for this. The reversible bus lane is good, but not enough – we should do more to get people out of their cars. The reversible bus lane could also benefit emergency services.

Public Comment

 Katie Behroozi, Menlo Park resident, expressed concern about downtown access. There is a gap in bike access – the bike lane that ends at Crane Street and Oak Grove Avenue should be continued to Hillview Middle School. Bike infrastructure improvements are needed in and around downtown.

OOC Discussion

 Riggs expressed his support for the reversible bus lane that can also be used by emergency vehicles. He also agreed with the importance of continuing bike connections to Hillview.  Riggs suggested increasing police patrol in neighborhoods to address speeding.  Levin made the following comments: o OOC members should try out the regional bus routes to better understand where they go and whether they are useful. o What is often termed “alternative” modes of transportation are becoming much more mainstream. For example, in Redwood City where there has been infill development, 50 percent of people who live or work in downtown use travel modes other than driving alone. o Regarding incentives vs enforcement, subsidized parking should be eliminated. An evaluation of current incentives is needed, as is consideration of modifying these incentives. The benefits of good street design far outweigh those of enforcement, especially in the long term.  Bailey, OOC, made the following comments and suggestions: o A do-no-harm policy should be considered. All the recommendations that decrease safety for people biking or walking to improve the situation for drivers should be disqualified. o Additional data is needed on traffic volumes and flows, to better understand which car trips can be replaced with bike, pedestrian, or transit trips. Commute information that separates large employers with transit benefits from smaller employees who don’t provide transit benefits would also be helpful. o Menlo Spark released the results of a mobility survey today, which found that 20 percent of people are taking transit. More people would ride transit or travel by bike if it were more convenient. o The city should consider requiring private shuttles to be used for the public, at least on the return route when they are normally empty.

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 4 of 5 Oversight and Outreach Committee / September 5, 2018, Meeting Summary o The TMP recommendations should include closing a portion of downtown Menlo Park to car traffic, to encourage more people biking and walking.

OOC Discussion

 Wolosin made a series of comments and suggestions: o A reversible bus lane east of 101 should also be considered. o Adding lanes to Willow Road will make it more difficult for people to cross. o Marsh Road is another entrance to the city and multi-jurisdictional improvements should be considered. o Add a road diet on Middlefield Road through Menlo Park to the list of recommendations. o Consider removing the sharrows proposed on Laurel from Burgess Park to Willow Road. There will be increased traffic in this area and bike lanes should be installed. Generally, sharrows are a stop gap but don’t reduce stress for people biking.  Barnes inquired about the reversible bus lane, and specifically what happens to the lane east of 101. Spencer explained that the reversible lane would be best short, just between Middlefield Road and Durham Street on Willow Road. Past Durham, buses would need to merge with mixed-flow traffic. This would free up space for cars in that short segment and could improve the travel time for people on the bus getting through that area.  The group discussed bike lanes on Willow Road north of 101 (projects #35, 36, and 37). This area has limited right-of-way – for bus lanes to fit, then bike lanes and the median would need to be removed. Spencer described some of the trade-offs associated with this – bus lanes would benefit both residents and regional commuters, while bike lanes may only benefit residents. Barnes supported person thru-put over the bike lane in this case. More information is needed on the incremental benefits for bus lanes.  Riggs suggested a bus lane extending to Laurel to access the train station.

Public Comment  Betsy Nash, Menlo Park resident, asked what the current lane widths are and whether they could be reduced to accommodate the bike lanes. Mark responded that the project team did consider this but the lanes are already very narrow.

OOC Discussion Levin suggested looking at the recommendations as packages of improvements that can be done in phases. She also thought it would be helpful to see the recommendations in the context of existing bus and bike routes to show which projects are cohesive.

Schedule and next steps

The group will meet again on Sept. 25. OOC members should continue to review the recommendations and provide comments to Choy by Sept. 18 using the comment form provided.

The meeting adjourned.

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 5 of 5 Oversight and Outreach Committee / September 5, 2018, Meeting Summary THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT D-1

TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Receive Draft Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper and Provide Feedback on Central Area Recommendations September 5, 2018 AGENDA ° Review of Project Goals & Purpose (10 min) ° Meeting Format (5 min) ° Open House Workshop (25 min) ° Committee Discussion (~1 hr) ° Next Steps (10 min)

2 REVIEW PROJECT GOALS & PURPOSE

3 BACKGROUND

ConnectMenlo

Circulation Element

Transportation Master Plan 4 PURPOSE

° Sustainability Enable the City to meet the goals of the current and future Climate Action Plan, including a 27 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction

6 PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA

Congestion relief GHG reduction / Green infrastructure • Short-Term person throughput • Reduces impervious surface or • Long-Term • Moves people out of SOV and into increases pervious surface; stormwater7 • Circulation Patterns transit, carpools, shuttles, etc. treatment • Meets City’s GHG goal HOW DID WE GET HERE? Date Task City Council adopts ConnectMenlo November–December Identifies TMP as highest priority Circulation Element 2016 program January-June 2017 City selects W-Trans, Project Initiated August 2017 City Council establishes Outreach & Oversight Committee 1st round community engagement. July–October 2017 1,000 participants.

July–December 2017 Prep existing transportation information summary

January–March 2018 W-Trans develops draft recommendations and strategies

March 14, 2018 City Council info item to prepare for OOC #2 8 HOW DID WE GET HERE? Date Task Outreach & Oversight Committee #2: March 20, 2018 Draft strategies and recommendations for high priority corridors City Council info item: March 27, 2018 Identify need for more meetings Review recommendations from OOC April 17 & 24, 2018 City Council policy discussion and direction

May 9, 2018 Complete Streets Commission May 22, 2018 Council approval of revised scope of work

May 30, 2018 OOC #3: Review Council-adopted scope, goals, prioritization criteria and role of OOC August 30, 2018 OOC #4: Review recommendations for north area of City

September 5, 2018 OOC #5: Review recommendations for central area of City 9 DRAFT STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ° Framework for development: – SamTrans Dumbarton Corridor Transportation Study – Dumbarton Forward (MTC) – City-prepared Transportation Analyses from past projects – Limited right-of-way – Critical issues based on transportation data and collision patterns ° Identified 4 high priority, major corridors: – Bayfront Expressway – Willow Road – El Camino Real – Sand Hill Road ° Citywide recommendations on other corridors in development 10 CITY SUB-AREAS

North Area OOC #4

Central Area OOC #5

South Area OOC #6

11 MEETING FORMAT ° Open House Style

° Station Overview and Staff

12 DISCUSSION

° Public Comment

° Committee Feedback – Questions & Clarification

13 QUESTIONS TO KEEP IN MIND ° Is the list complete or are there projects missing?

° Are there projects listed that the Committee does not want to move forward?

° Do any of the projects need clarifications or refinements?

° Does the Committee agree that these projects should move forward into the next round of community engagement?

14 OPEN HOUSE

1 5 OPEN HOUSE RECAP ° Bike Mobility

° Pedestrian Mobility

° Congestion Relief

° Sustainability

° Safety

16 ANATOMY OF A PROJECT – WILLOW & MIDDLEFIELD

° Challenges – Traffic Congestion – Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections – Limited Right of Way ° Alternatives Considered – Road Diet – Protected Intersection Components – Roundabout ° Proposed Recommendation – Right-turn overlap – Bike box extension – Future bike lanes when properties redevelop 17 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS/TRADEOFFS

° Willow Rd between Durham St and Bay Rd – Install bike lanes (median removal required)

° Willow Rd between Middlefield Rd and Durham St – Reversible bus lane (median removal and parking removal required)

° Willow Rd/Coleman Ave – Install southbound right-turn lane on Coleman (parking removal required)

18 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS/TRADEOFFS (CONTINUED) ° Bay/Sonoma/Ringwood – Install new traffic signal – Install left-turn lanes on south and west legs (requires removal of landscaping)

° Laurel/Ravenswood – Realign northbound lanes and install bicycle lane (requires parking removal)

° Middle Avenue – Install bike lanes (requires removal of parking on at least one side)

19 EL CAMINO REAL OPTIONS ° Corridor Study

° Council Preferred Option – Buffered Bike Lanes (requires parking removal) – No modification of curb placement requires shared right-turn lanes for bicycles and cars

° Alternative Option – Remove median to allow for dedicated bike lanes

20 OTHER PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS (FROM OPEN HOUSE) °

21 FEEDBACK PROCESS

° Staff will collect feedback from Committee members

° Projects to be Added/Modified – Team to analyze feasibility, appropriateness – If needed, staff to bring back items for discussion at September 25 meeting

° Projects to be Removed – Staff to bring back items for discussion at September 25 meeting

22 DISCUSSION ° Public Comment

23 NEXT STEPS

2 4 SCHEDULE

Task Schedule Complete Streets Commission #2: September 12, 2018 Review bicycle & pedestrian network recommendations OOC #6: Review recommendations for south area of City September 25, 2018 Community workshop and online open house Fall 2018/Winter 2019

Release draft Master Plan Spring 2019

OOC #7 & Complete Streets Commission review draft Spring 2019 Master Plan City Council review and adoption Summer 2019

Develop Fee Program update Fall 2019

25 DISCUSSION

° Public Comment

° Committee Feedback – Schedule – Upcoming Meetings

26 THANK YOU THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT D-2

Pedestrian mobility • Please consider two-button walk buttons. One for healthy walkers, bikes, runners (most frequent in some locations) and longer call intervals for slow-walkers, strollers, large groups. • Please consider police department presences at problem or higher-risk locations to encourage thoughtful driving (the usual: speeding, partial stop, not taking turn in order), walking (j-walking, standing off curb), biking (wrong-way, running stops, on sidewalks, etc.) • Project #47: pork chop allows right turns without back-up. This can be augmented to create pedestrian safety zone. Do not delete. • Project #63: • D – leaning rail, great idea. • A – Adaptive signal timing/coordinated signals or omit red arrow when no traffic approaching (or like Middlefield Road at Costco). • Project #70: requires increased staking (second lane) at Palo Alto Ave. • Projects #77, 111: Keep (or increase) angled parking – it’s efficient numbers, easy pull in/not block traffic as long, no door dings. • Project #78: Separating train from cars/peds/bikes at only 1 of Menlo Park crossings is not a solution. • Please consider safe walking route/sidewalks on Ringwood between Middlefield Road and Bay Road. • Safe/illuminated crosswalk across Bay Road at Greenwood to bus stop – students/peds. • Projects #85, 88-97: Relocated bikes to parallel route to El Camino Real. El Camino Real will not be safe for family biking. And most of 35,000-40,000 cars actually need to get through. This is a congestion issue. • Projects #125, 127, 113: Check with San Mateo – they are removing bulb-out just built on 27th? Are they near park. • Project #89: Install additional right-turn lane from El Camino Real north on to Ravenswood per El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan. Add specific signal “walk” button if needed to interrupt right turn on red.

Bike mobility • Middlefield Road and Ringwood Ave particularly problematic. In favor of removal of right turn slip lane (southbound Middlefield Road) – Project #64. • In favor of project #63 jug-handle bicycle left turn. • We must have bike lanes on Willow from 101 to Bayfront to match overpass bike lanes. • To add to project #69 – two-stage left turn southbound for those wanting to turn northbound on to Woodland – dovetails into project #70. • Projects #45 and 47 – on board are both called Willow and Bay (see corrections on board). • Explore 1-way bike lanes on parallel routes so that parking can be retained/allowed on 1 side of street. • For high speed streets with parallel bike routes, including wayfinding signage to direct people. • Look at Redwood City protected bike lanes and intersections (approved by Council) as a reference for El Camino Real. • Remove right turn lane on Middlefield to turn on Willow and make bike lane. • Santa Cruz Ave southbound turning on to Fremont is very difficult to safely make a left turn.

Sustainability • Transportation Management Authority (TMA) should speak to TMP – need formal role to manage programs. Example – Palo Alto. • Could transportation demand management (TDM) tie into Green Business Council? • Use Chamber to help initiate TMA. • First/last mile support – especially or students or smaller businesses. • City’s TDM strategies need to be implemented – would be very helpful at Middlefield/Willow – half-mile from train and Dumbarton bus on Willow – good location for program improvements that are led by city (because businesses are smaller). • Don’t fear the scooter/bike share! There are different models. • +1 [separate commenter agreed] • +1 [second separate comment agreed] • Need to ask what’s missing from our infrastructure to allow people to use scooters safely. • TDM implementation is synergistic to safety and congestion relief goals. • Can city explore pedestrian mall / closing portions of downtown? • Consider additional school buses – to reduce number of vehicle trips. • Expand program. • Survey parents about need • Alternatively, charge single-occupancy vehicle drivers. • Carbon sequestration concrete.

Safety • Speed bumps, circles, narrowing, no left-turn arrows are well meant but no substitute for enforcement of traffic laws. (City Council, please respond!) • +1 [separate commenter agreed] • Re: Flood Park Triangle improvements: • ADD signaled crosswalk for students/persons at intersection of Bay and Hedge where SamTrans bus stop is. • ADD colored bike zone (green) along Bay between Marsh and Willow as a safe route for students to Menlo-Atherton/Laurel/Encinal and others. • We need to use a modified level of stress. It must look at peak time and the “interested but concerned” cohort.

Transportation Master Plan Oversight and Outreach Committee

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - DRAFT

Date: 9/25/2018 Time: 6:30 p.m. Hillview Middle School 1100 Elder Ave, Menlo Park, CA 94025

Meeting notes taken by the consultant team are attached to these minutes (Attachment).

A. Call to Order

Oversight and Outreach Committee Co-Chair Carlton called the meeting order at 6:36 p.m.

B. Roll Call

Present: Diane Bailey, Andrew Barnes, Catherine Carlton, Jacqueline Cebrian, Chris DeCardy, Adina Levin, Henry Riggs (late arrival), Jen Wolosin Absent: Kirsten Keith, Sarah Staley Shenk, Katherine Strehl City Staff: Kristiann Choy, Kevin Chen Consultant Staff: Mark Spencer, Andre Huff, Jeff Knowles, Katharine Pan, Julia Malmo- Laycock, Katie DeLeuw

C. Public Comment

None.

D. Regular Business

D1. Approve the Oversight and Outreach Committee meeting minutes of August 30 and September 5, 2018

The Committee expressed the desire for additional detail in the meeting minutes so that the discussion and feedback provided by the Committee is reflected. Co-Chair Carlton stated that she would work with the City Manager to find a way to include more detail in the minutes.

ACTION: No motion or second to approve the Oversight and Outreach Committee meeting minutes of August 30 and September 5, 2018.

D2. Present project overview and introduce open house meeting format

Staff and Consultant made the presentation (Attachment).

D3. Commence open house

Meeting attendees broke to participate in an open house (Attachment).

D4. Review of draft recommendations for South Area of Menlo Park

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Draft Minutes Page 2

The consultant made the presentation (Attachment).

Katie Behroozi spoke in support of improving biking and walking on Atschul Avenue and Olive Street.

The Committee discussed the removal of parking to add pedestrian and bicycle facilities, consideration of time restricted parking during school commute times, ways to improve crossing of Santa Cruz Avenue including flashing beacons and stop signs.

Katie Behroozi spoke about the Homer Avenue and Alma Street intersection in Palo Alto that has a push button that will enable a right turn on red sign.

Staff Choy reported that the Committee members have copies of the feedback received prior to the meeting on the list of recommendations (Attachment).

D5. Discuss schedule and next steps

Staff presented providing an informational item to the City Council in October/November with the next round of community engagement planned for early 2019.

The Committee requested another special meeting to approve the minutes from August 30 and September 5, 2018.

ACTION: Motion and second (Wolosin/Riggs) to request an additional meeting so that the Committee can approve minutes and review information that will be provided to City Council and for the next round of community engagement. The motion passed unanimously (8-0-3, Keith, Staley Shenk, and Strehl absent).

E. Adjournment

Co-Chair Carlton adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org ATTACHMENT A

Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan Oversight and Outreach Committee Meeting – Sept. 25, 2018 Hillview Middle School, 1100 Elder Ave, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Meeting Summary - Draft Meeting Attendance:

OOC Present: Andrew Barnes, Diane Bailey, Catherine Carlton, Jacqueline Cebrian, Chris DeCardy, Adina Levin, Henry Riggs (late arrival), Jen Wolosin OOC Absent: Kirsten Keith, Katherine Strehl, Sarah Staley Shenk City Staff: Kristiann Choy, Kevin Chen Consultant Staff: Mark Spencer, Andre Huff, Jeff Knowles, Katharine Pan, Julia Malmo- Laycock, Katie DeLeuw

Approve the minutes from the previous meetings

The OOC discussed the minutes presented for approval. Members of the OOC felt that the minutes should provide more detail than the summarized version that had been submitted, because the purpose of the OOC is to provide feedback on elements of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) so this feedback should be documented. In addition, the OOC members are dedicating many hours to the TMP process to provide feedback and would like to see how this feedback is being tracking and used. Henry Riggs, OOC, expressed a concern about helping the public follow what the OOC is accomplishing. Without more detailed minutes, the public will not have an opportunity to understand how their concerns are being acknowledged. Other OOC members agreed that the minutes should more accurately reflect the meeting discussion and public comments, and noted the recent challenges with the proposed Menlo Park Library as an example of how things can go poorly. The group agreed that the minutes should be reconsidered for the purposes of transparency. OOC Co-Chair Carlton noted she will discuss options for increasing the level of detail of the minutes with the city manager.

Present project overview and introduce open house meeting format

Choy, City of Menlo Park, provided an introductory presentation, including background information on ConnectMenlo, the purpose and goals of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). She also discussed the work completed so far, and explained the next step of developing a scoring system based on the prioritization criteria. The project team attended the Complete Streets Commission meeting on Sept. 12 and received input on the bike and ped improvements recommended so far.

Spencer, TMP consultant team, provided an overview of the strategies and recommendations for the TMP. In the Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper, the team identified 173 recommendations through data, analysis and outreach conducted last fall 2017. This paper leads up to the TMP itself. Spencer introduced open house format and described the stations. Participants should provide written comments on the flipcharts. He suggested that as participants review the projects, they keep in mind some key questions: Are there any projects that are missing? Are there projects that should not move forward? Are there some that should be refined? Should these projects move forward into the next round of community outreach?

Review of draft recommendations for South Area of Menlo Park

Public comment

• Katie Behroozi: Altschul Ave is dangerous for people walking and biking. I would like to see the city step up and implement a bike boulevard for kids coming home from school. Also, there are some streets that are key routes for people to get to and from school that have different characteristics throughout the day. During some periods of day they are completely quiet, while in peak periods they are crazy. Olive Street is one of these – this is 30 mph wide street with no center line, and at peak periods there are kids walking and biking in both directions to and from schools plus parents driving. Evaluations of streets should consider these unique periods of the day.

OOC Discussion

Spencer began a general discussion with the OOC to introduce the topics. Knowles, Consultant Team, discussed closing the sidewalk gaps on Sharon Road (Project 136) and Harkins Ave (Project 140) and new bike lanes on Avy Avenue (Project 134), as well as Altschul Ave which should be evaluated.

• Riggs, OOC, inquired about parking loss for Sharon Road. Has this been evaluated and what’s currently known about who parks there? o Knowles explained that this would require a parking study. The team is relying on resident input right now, but it is possible to evaluate parking. o Choy, City of Menlo Park, clarified that, while trade-offs will be discussed in the TMP, the detail of analysis in the TMP may be limited. However, when the city considers implementation of the TMP recommendations, a more thorough parking evaluation would be needed. o Levin strongly supports completing a more thorough parking study and continuing to think about how to accommodate both safety improvements and provide parking. • Bailey, OOC, suggested a policy of “do no harm” where safety is prioritized over any other factor. This should include increased and clearer communication with the public and about the benefits of creating safe bike routes and sidewalks to health, safety, and the environment. Regarding parking, if there are parallel routes available, maybe parking can be removed only on one side of the street. o Levin suggested evaluating parking removal at limited hours on routes most commonly used. Although, in terms of timing, children may not just travel during peak periods, as they may have after-school activities. • Wolosin, OOC, provide the following comments:

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 2 of 7 Oversight and Outreach Committee / Sept. 25, 2018, Meeting Summary o Councilmember Mueller is very supportive of the improvements on Sharon Road and had already allocated funding and have been talking to residents. o Wolosin has done some outreach herself with local parents and found support for sidewalks at various locations. o Regarding general road design, there are some extremes related to roads being for cars and removal of parking. We need to clearly define our values and not compromise. She would like clarity on what circumstances would allow the city to take the overall public need into consideration over the needs of a small number of residents. • Carlton noted that Sand Hill Road is difficult during morning and evening rush hours, as well as Alpine Road, which may be made worse due to Stanford’s new medical building. Sand Hill Road is already a defined project, but Alpine Road is not. Alpine Road should be added regardless of the difficulty surrounding the jurisdictional right of way. • Levin made a comment related to all modes where there are a couple streets, including Santa Cruz Ave and Willow Road that have high volumes at peak periods. It is extremely difficult for people walking to cross those streets without a crossing beacon. It is also hard for people driving to turn out of driveways and local streets into and out of neighborhoods, and even more difficult for people biking. Levin suggested evaluating combinations of pedestrian beacons, stop signs, and even 4-way stops to enable people to get out of cross streets. There are flaws with current design related to current volumes, resulting in people making unsafe decisions.

The group discussed projects 140-143, which includes restricted parking on Sharon Park Drive near La Entrada School, a class III bike route on Monte Rosa between Avy Ave and Sharon Park Drive, restricted parking on Oak Ave between Oak Knoll and Sand Hill, and a series of pedestrian and bike improvements on Sand Hill Road and Oak Ave.

• Carlton noted that the team should consider the effect of changing or eliminating parking on one end of La Entrada – it is likely that this would make the parking on the other side of the school more challenging. • Riggs requested clarity on the intention behind Project 143, as it requires right turns on red to be prohibited. Is this turning motion prohibited due to safety? If so, can it be limited to when bikes are present? o Levin noted that, while this approach may work at this location, at other locations this level of specificity should not be needed. Drivers should know the laws and abide by them. • Riggs commented that more enforcement is needed; the Menlo Park Police Department does not seem to monitor intersections of concern even when requested. Barnes and Wolosin, OOC, agreed with the need for enforcement and emphasized the key is better design. Designing the streets so that they work for all users and slow drivers down may reduce the need for enforcement. • Levin suggested that the OOC review the safety information for this area again. There are many blue dots showing collisions, including some with larger dots, indicating higher collision rates and yet no safety improvements are recommended in some of these locations. These need a second look.

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 3 of 7 Oversight and Outreach Committee / Sept. 25, 2018, Meeting Summary • Riggs observed auto-auto collisions are much higher than auto-bike collisions. He suggested that this demonstrates that drivers do not follow the vehicle laws and enforcement is needed.

Public comment

• Katie Behroozi: There is an alternative to prohibit a right on red at all times. In Palo Alto at the intersection of Alma Street and Homer Ave there is a button that triggers a no right turn sign, which is lit-up and very clear. When the button is not pressed, then the sign remains off and cars are free to turn right.

OOC discussion

Levin provided the following comments:

• Safe Routes to Safeway and other destinations should be considered. There is a new Safeway in Sharon Heights that people walk to, including seniors and people with strollers. However, the entrances are not well designed for pedestrians. The project team should evaluate pedestrian improvements here as part of the overall goal of making it easier for people to walk to services. • Vision Zero was an initiative that began in countries that had huge spikes in collisions. The behavior of drivers improved along with design changes and expectation shifts.

Choy described the team’s process for evaluating written comments. They have reviewed what they have received so far and are looking at adding or modifying some projects. They have received requests for additional information and illustrations in some areas and will respond to those. Some comments were duplicates or agreements, others were beyond the scope of the TMP, such as traffic calming measures, so those will be noted as needing to be included elsewhere.

• Wolosin requested clarification about the traffic calming measures. Choy explained that individual traffic calming measures are not intended to be part of the TMP. The TMP will include larger network projects or programmatic recommendations. • Levin suggested an intermediate approach, such as recording locations that would benefit from future traffic calming measures, where roadway performance is not meeting goals. • Choy explained that the team is using the same approach for traffic calming as they are for projects requiring coordination with neighboring jurisdictions. While they won’t directly be recommended in the TMP and funded by through the Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) program, they would be followed up on outside of the TMP process. • Levin suggested an addendum to address the multi-jurisdictional issues. These might be some of the biggest problems and if the city does not pursue improvements here they could be putting Menlo Park residents at risk. • Choy replied that if the project borders Menlo Park, it will be included. The team could also include qualifiers regarding the importance of these and describe the partnerships that would be needed to implement them.

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 4 of 7 Oversight and Outreach Committee / Sept. 25, 2018, Meeting Summary Choy provided a summary of projects that the team plans to add and review, per suggestions from the OOC and others. The project team has done some analysis of various projects already, and removed some suggestions from further consideration due to the results of their analysis. The OOC had the following questions and comments:

• DeCardy, OOC, asked whether the team is including origin and destination (O&D) information when assessing the recommendations. Knowing where drivers are coming from and going could help evaluate the relationship between different recommendations and challenges in the system. o Spencer explained that they do not specifically use O&D data when evaluating traffic volumes. That isn’t generally done at the scale of local traffic analysis. However they are looking at the system as a network of improvements that would have a net effect. • Levin commented that the team should not just be evaluating roadway improvements but also person through-put via transit and other non-car improvements. Spencer responded that the team is including a transportation management association as part of the implementation recommendations. • Wolosin inquired about safety improvements in the Willows neighborhood, and also suggested thinking about making improvements for neighborhoods with limited entrances and exits such as Belle Haven. o Spencer agreed that the team needs to show improvements for people in Belle Haven and the Willows. o Levin suggested that a measure of success could be whether a 9-year old can get to Willows market safely. • Barnes asked about Projects 47, 69, and 70, and how to address the challenges associated with getting to this area. He asked what the OOC members should do if the recommendations proposed don’t meet the needs. Currently, the recommendations don’t seem to solve for the core issues of getting people to that corner safely. In addition, more transparency is needed regarding the trade-offs and what the team is evaluating. o Spencer responded that the recommendations will address some of the current problems at this intersection, but additional evaluation is needed regarding bigger trade-offs and perceived constraints.

• Riggs provided the following comments: o The project team is on the right track for Middlefield and Willow through local improvements within the context of larger programs and/or policy changes, e.g. transit improvements, Dumbarton corridor, sidewalk report policies. o The public perceptions is that the TMP is supposed to reduce congestion. The public will be surprised to see that the recommendations don’t alleviate congestion. o Regarding parks, people generally drive to parks because of what they need to bring with them. People aren’t often going to parks on bikes. • Bailey commented that the goals and purpose of the plan was lost in the working paper. It might help members of the public understand the document if some of the vision was brought forward, and trade-offs were further described. o Spencer agreed that the final TMP will include more visionary discussion and context. This strategies and recommendation paper is intended to be a working

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 5 of 7 Oversight and Outreach Committee / Sept. 25, 2018, Meeting Summary paper. The final TMP will be publicly accessible and easier to understand, within appropriate context. • DeCardy provided the following comments: o Regarding alleviating congestion, DeCardy agrees that some people will feel like the plan should be more about congestion. If the plan can’t address congestion, then the city should be transparent about this. o Transparency is also needed regarding analysis behind the results, not just the final results. The project should be more transparent and open to the community, and the prioritization process should be clearer and more engaging. o There are low-cost methods the city can implement to try things before making huge investments. Some of these types of tools could be included in the plan to allow community to be more engaged. o The city should investigate buying the right to control Willow Road all the way to Bayfront, this would be a good way to think about and address systematic problems. • Wolosin noted that everyone has responsibility to follow the laws when biking or driving. While inconveniences might cumulatively add a minute to a trip, the benefit that it might give to people biking or walking outweigh this delay. Safety improvements should be considered a higher priority than driver inconveniences. • Cebrian, OOC, agreed that is important to acknowledge the role that everyone plays. The city should be honest with the community about how much of the congestion can be addressed. Both messaging and enforcement are important. • Barnes inquired about methodology. When the team analyzes congestion relief do they consider induction of demand? o Spencer replied that the team evaluates future traffic volumes from Connect Menlo and general plan 2040 projections and then factor different elements into the model. This shows vehicles move around the regional system but not at the local level. Generally as more capacity is available, roads eventually fill up again. o Carlton commented that congestion is regional. While Menlo Park can’t address regional traffic alone, the city should be able to make it better in certain areas. o Spencer responded that the team is not trying to fix traffic altogether; they are trying to manage the situation, provide options and make it safe and efficient as possible within this context. o Spencer added that induced demand does existing at a local level, but is not taken into account using the tools currently available. • Bailey suggested considering pricing strategies at a future meeting, such as parking pricing and congestion pricing. • Wolosin stated that the OOC should have an opportunity to discuss more global, citywide recommendations through another meeting before the recommendations are brought to the public. The OOC members need to better understand broader issues. Wolosin also noted that the subareas of north, south and central is confusing for Menlo Park residents, and suggesting using bayside, hillside and central instead.

Choy reviewed next steps of bringing an informational item to council in October/November. Then the team will develop prioritization criteria, then lead to community engagement in early 2019. The OOC would have an opportunity to provide more input during community engagement, and the team will come back to the OOC in spring with the draft TMP.

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 6 of 7 Oversight and Outreach Committee / Sept. 25, 2018, Meeting Summary Carlton expressed concern for the project team moving forward and presenting to City Council while the minutes and OOC feedback questions seem unresolved. Wolosin asked for clarification on whether the info item for Council would be an update on the OOC meetings or if would include more details on the direction that OOC was providing. Wolosin requested that the OOC be able to provide feedback on an informational item that would include OOC direction on the projects. The OOC members agreed that the next steps and decision-making process seem unclear, and that they would like to see how their input is being addressed before the team presents to Council. Riggs also noted that the community has not been involved since the beginning of the project, and feedback from public outreach at this stage may not be very helpful.

Wolosin made a motion that that the OOC recommend the city host another OOC meeting to review minutes and information being prepared for Council. Bailey and Levin suggested this meeting also cover citywide recommendations and Willow Road improvements. Riggs seconded the motion. All OOC members supported this motion.

The meeting adjourned.

City of Menlo Park – Transportation Master Plan Page 7 of 7 Oversight and Outreach Committee / Sept. 25, 2018, Meeting Summary THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT D-2

TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Receive Draft Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper and Provide Feedback on South Area Recommendations September 25, 2018 AGENDA ° Review of Project Goals & Purpose (10 min) ° Meeting Format (5 min) ° Open House Workshop (25 min) ° Committee Discussion (~1 hr) ° Next Steps (10 min)

2 REVIEW PROJECT GOALS & PURPOSE

3 BACKGROUND

ConnectMenlo

Circulation Element

Transportation Master Plan 4 PURPOSE

° Sustainability Enable the City to meet the goals of the current and future Climate Action Plan, including a 27 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction

6 PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA

City Council adopts ConnectMenlo November–December 2016 Identifies TMP as highest priority Circulation Element program

January-June 2017 City selects W-Trans, Project Initiated August 2017 City Council establishes Outreach & Oversight Committee 1st round community engagement. July–October 2017 1,000 participants.

July–December 2017 Prep existing transportation information summary

January–March 2018 W-Trans develops draft recommendations and strategies

March 14, 2018 City Council info item to prepare for OOC #2

Outreach & Oversight Committee #2: March 20, 2018 Draft strategies and recommendations for high priority corridors

8 HOW DID WE GET HERE? Date Task City Council info item: March 27, 2018 Identify need for more meetings Review recommendations from OOC

April 17 & 24, 2018 City Council policy discussion and direction

May 9, 2018 Complete Streets Commission

May 22, 2018 Council approval of revised scope of work

May 30, 2018 OOC #3: Review Council-adopted scope, goals, prioritization criteria and role of OOC August 30, 2018 OOC #4: Review recommendations for north area of City

September 5, 2018 OOC #5: Review recommendations for central area of City

September 12, 2018 Complete Streets Commission #2: Review bicycle & pedestrian network recommendations 9 DRAFT STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ° Framework for development: – SamTrans Dumbarton Corridor Transportation Study – Dumbarton Forward (MTC) – City-prepared Transportation Analyses from past projects – Limited right-of-way – Critical issues based on transportation data and collision patterns ° Identified 4 high priority, major corridors: – Bayfront Expressway – Willow Road – El Camino Real – Sand Hill Road ° Citywide recommendations on other corridors also developed 10 CITY SUB-AREAS

North Area OOC #4

Central Area OOC #5

South Area OOC #6

11 MEETING FORMAT ° Open House Style

° Station Overview and Staff

12 DISCUSSION

° Public Comment

° Committee Feedback – Questions & Clarification

13 QUESTIONS TO KEEP IN MIND ° Is the list complete or are there projects missing?

° Are there projects listed that the Committee does not want to move forward?

° Do any of the projects need clarifications or refinements?

° Does the Committee agree that these projects should move forward into the next round of community engagement?

14 OPEN HOUSE

1 5 OPEN HOUSE RECAP ° Bike Mobility

° Pedestrian Mobility

° Congestion Relief

° Sustainability

° Safety

16 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS ° Close Sidewalk Gap – Project 136 Sharon Road: New sidewalks requires removal of on-street parking and landscaping. – Project 140 Harkins Avenue: New sidewalks require removal of on-street parking and landscaping and coordination with San Mateo County. ° New Bike Lanes – Project 134 Avy Avenue: Class II bike lanes require removal of on-street parking and coordination and approval by San Mateo County.

17 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS (CONT’D) ° Provide Clear Pathway during School Hours – Projects 140 and 142 – Parking restricted during school hours on Sharon Park Drive and Oak Avenue to provide clear walkway to La Entrada Middle School and Oak Knoll Elementary school, respectively

° Sand Hill Road and Oak Avenue (Project 143) – Reconfigure intersection to add two stage turn queue boxes to provide better bicycle access. Requires right turns on red to be prohibited for westbound Sand Hill and southbound Oak traffic.

18 FEEDBACK SUMMARY

° Staff received more than 220 comments from Committee members, Complete Street Commissioners, and members of the public

° Approximately 105 of the comments refer to projects to be Added/Modified/Clarified – Team still needs to analyze 45 for feasibility, appropriateness – About 15 projects will include sketches to help clarify the recommendation

° Remaining comments were either duplicates, agreement with project recommendations or includes policies/projects beyond the scope of the TMP

19 PROJECT ADDITIONS ° Pedestrian and Bicycle crossing over 101 north of Marsh Road ° Pedestrian and Bicycle Rail crossing over Dumbarton rail to Onetta Harris Community Center ° Marsh Road sidewalks – Requires removal of parking, landscaping and coordination with Redwood City residents ° Encinal Avenue sidewalks – Requires removal of parking and landscaping ° Bicycle Lanes on Chrysler – requires parking removal ° Bicycle Lanes on University between Oak Grove and Santa Cruz Ave – requires parking removal ° Bicycle Lanes on Oak Grove between Crane and University – requires parking removal

20 WILLOW & MIDDLEFIELD

° Challenges – Traffic Congestion – Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections – Limited Right of Way ° Feedback Received – Road Diet – Protected Intersection Components – Separated Bicycle Lanes ° Analysis Results – Queues – Delay

21 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS ° Menalto Avenue from Durham Street to Woodland (#60) – Request: Convert existing head-in parking to back-in angled parking near Café Zoe ° Coleman between Ringwood Avenue and Willow Road (#61) – Request: Class II bike lanes within City limits – Tradeoff: removal of on-street parking, Coordination with San Mateo County ° Laurel Street from Burgess to Willow Road (#75) – Request: Class II instead of Class III – Tradeoff: removal of on-street parking ° Encinal Avenue from Garwood Way to El Camino Real (#82) – Request: Class II instead of Class III – Tradeoff: removal of on street parking on both sides of the street 22 PROJECTS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL SKETCHES ° Shoulder running bus lanes along Bayfront Expressway (#3, #4, #6, #7) ° New intersection configuration at Bayfront Expressway/Willow Road (#8) ° Intersection improvements at Constitution Drive and Chrysler Drive (#16) ° Intersection improvements at Willow Road and O’Brien Drive (#40) ° Intersection improvements at Bay Road and Ringwood Avenue- Sonoma Avenue (#53) ° Intersection improvements at Ravenswood Avenue and Laurel Street (#74) ° Intersection improvements at Oak Grove Avenue and University (#110)

23 REMOVE WILLOW ROAD PROJECT ALTERNATIVE? 1. Project 35 - Create Exclusive Bus Lanes, Remove Bike Lanes and Median/Parallel Bike Routes/New Menalto Bike/Ped Overcrossing (If median to remain, road needs to be widened)

2. Project 36 - Bus Queue Jump Lane at O’Brien Drive

3. Project 37 - New Class IV Separated Bike Lanes, Removal of Median

24 DISCUSSION ° Public Comment

25 NEXT STEPS

2 6 SCHEDULE

Task Schedule Prepare info item for City Council October/November 2018

Community workshop and online open house Winter 2019

Release draft Master Plan Spring 2019

OOC #7 & Complete Streets Commission review draft Spring 2019 Master Plan City Council review and adoption Summer 2019

Develop Fee Program update Fall 2019

27 DISCUSSION

° Public Comment

° Committee Feedback – Schedule – Upcoming Meetings

28 THANK YOU THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT D-3

Pedestrian mobility • Middle – remove parking on both sides – from Fremont/Arbor/Windsor to accommodate wider bike lanes for safe routes to school and better visibility and less cross traffic with parked cars pulling in and out • #125 – 4 way stop at San Mateo Drive and Santa Cruz Ave • #127—4 way stop at San Mateo Drive and Middle Ave • All modes- stop sign, light or beacon – can’t turn out of cross streets – Santa Cruz and Middle • Guidelines on when to use paint vs. thermoplastic • Need occasional enforcement of various pedestrian crossings for autos not yielding right of way • Middle and El Camino has right on RED which is dangerous when NB El Camino traffic U-turns

Bike mobility • Altschul Ave entire length: o Should have a contraflow lane as many students use it going the wrong way and to get to and from school o Would regulate working with the county as it isn’t in Menlo Park • Wellea—needs some traffic calming to control traffic at intersections as it’s difficult to cross at Santa Cruz and Menlo Park • Bike & ped safety depend on drivers observing basic law. Right of way. Need enforcement to encourage good behavior. Hearing consistent talks of ped. and bikes being ignored. • #124—superfluous given bike route adjacent (#126) – discussed at complete streets meeting o Street design eats enforcement for breakfast • Can city please send street sweeps weekly all year to keep bike lanes clear of glass, trash, acorns, nuts/bolts? • Need to develop specific plan for how e-scooters and e-bikes will be treated on roads, bike lanes, sidewalks • Bike lanes necessary on Olive (not class III) #129 o Street rating doesn’t capture peak times (7:30-8:40am and 2:30-3:30pm) o Olive and Santa Cruz intersection needs to be studied at school drop off time • El Camino protected bike lanes not just buffered

Sustainability • Explore seen infrastructure curb cuts for stormwater absorption (i.e. yes on stormwater retention) water flow along street gutter • Explore air pollution monitoring at heavy traffic routes for clean air and climate pollution  signage when levels are too high • Do the caps on vehicle traffic for FB/IG. Count uber and lyft arrivals and departures. If not they are being used extensively and should be considered (in the vicinity – Belle Haron) • Upgrade El Camino buffered bike lanes to protect (low curb for fire access) lanes • What are the carbon reduction benefits of the project? Please specify.

Safety • Great to see so many projects aimed at improving bike and pedestrian • Safety, especially near schools o Please articulate how this reduces traffic and GHGs o Safety first! Safe bike lanes and sidewalks should always be a priority above parking convenience o Principle of do no harm – projects should never negatively impact safety! • Targeted enforcement at school locations during drop-off; pickup; to address safety (such as in front of Hillview) o Bike lanes on Olive could help with safety near school o Safe route to Safeway – many pedestrians • Yes, enforcement please, not just at schools. People behave for months after getting or setting tickets. • How about safe routes to work? Get companies to mode shift by funding protected bike sheds.

Congestion Relief • Work with the county/PA to reduce congestion on Alpine • 2 lights on Alpine at J. Serra and Santa Cruz/Sand Hill light logical questionable – poor flow • Need to understand all congestion relief – calculations based on latent demand – public should know how this is being calculated • Support measure W and other transit $ programs to provide high quality mobility choices so that more people can opt not to drive solo • Stanford shuttle % + city-run shuttle – data on these, maybe in Stanford ER? • What does it take to expand shuttle service? Like a circulator – what #s do you need? How to ensure frequency and ridership is useful? • Explore sticker and other restriction options for SOV and cut through traffic (look at other cities) • Rush hour turn restrictions targeting SOVs and cut through traffic • Ensure that all infrastructure projects include quantification of the amount of demand it will induce o How much demand o In what timeframe o How quickly will the road/corridor return to its condition prior to the project, after completion of the project o + more buses to MP destinations for children (school buses) ATTACHMENT D-4 Bernardo Huerta (EPA) • I am for Alternative C, three lanes in both directions on Willow Rd. between US HWY 101 and Bayfront EXPWY,

with the median removed allowing for bicycle lanes in both directions.

• Not in favor of exclusive bus lanes in Alternative C on Willow Rd. between US HWY 101 and Bayfront EXPWY. It

would be unfair to commuters crossing the Bay, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto who can not take this service and

write it off as an expense. The fact that buses would naturally use this lane in order not to be changing lanes

during heavy traffic is obvious. On the East Palo Alto side these exclusive bus lanes would be in the turning lanes

to Newbridge St. and Alberni St. If the busses would enter the far right lane after Newbridge St. in the east bound

direction East Palo Alto resident would complain less.

• Please make a no right turn, until a green light, on Newbridge St. from the Menlo Park side, so the far right lane in

the west bound direction on Willow Rd., entrance to north bound US HWY101, is not totally filled with cars when East Palo Alto Newbridge St. traffic has its turn to enter Willow Rd.

• Please no managed lanes or toll road on Willow Rd. from US HWY101 to Bayfront EXPY.

• Please no buses on the shoulder on Willow Rd. between US101 Hwy and Bayfront EXPY.

• Please open a bicycle gate next to UPS on Adams C. Helps to keep bicycles off busier street.

• No right turn on Kavanaugh Dr. at the intersection of O’Brian Dr. in order to keep traffic to Facbook #3 off

Kavanaugh Dr.

• No change to University Ave. intersections and signal lights at O’Brian Dr. and Adams Dr. in order to keep traffic

to Facebook #3 from impacting east bound University Ave. traffic. Enhancements to these intersections would

create bottle necks like University Ave. and Donohoe St.

• There is a weight limit of three tons for vehicles on University Ave. When Willow Rd. and University Ave. were

rebuilt in 1997 between from US HWY101 and Bayfront EXPY, Willow Rd. was rebuilt down 22 inches the entire

length and University Ave. 14 inches down at the intersections only. Caltrans determined Willow Rd. to be the

truck route for the Dumbarton Bridge and University Ave. for regular car traffic.

• Please leave signage space for East Palo Alto to install weight limit signs of three tons between University Ave.

turn off from Bayfront EXPY to O’Brian Dr.

• Please keep TDM busses off University Ave. Willow Rd. is the designated roadway for the TDM busses due to

their weight.

• Please include a sidewalk between Kavanaugh Dr. and rail road crossing on University Ave. on the Menlo Park

side. This is the area facing University Ave. at the Menlo Business Park.

• Please find space to make up for lost street parking at the Willow Rd. US101 HWY overpass and East Bayshore

Rd. in East Palo Alto due to the new overpass. This would buffer Menlo Park residents parking in East Palo Alto

overnight.

Document Name: Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan - Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper

OCC Member Name: Jacqui Cebrian

Date submitted: 9/17/18

Comment Initials Initials Project Project Number Number Number Comment Comment Page and/or Page and/or OOC Member OOC Figure Number Figure jc 1 9 This is the preferred option. I’m assuming we can find some way to bring this queue jumping shoulder bus all the way from the reversible Willow median bus lane. Is that still possible at this stage of overpass construction?

jc 2 11 The Belle Haven neighborhood has 5 exits that feed into three channels. Reducing access to any one of these exits could have detrimental effects on neighborhood ingress and egress. No to this option, thank you.

jc 3 13 Is this the long dreamed of bike/ped path along the Dumbarton rail lines? I think a trail like this could have the ability to make biking to work more practical for more people who are currently traffic. It would have a relatively low Level of Stress (except for when the trains start sharing the ROW. Yes!!

jc 4 14 I worry that those residents on North Marsh might really object to losing their parking and that may derail bike paths. Of course the Dumbarton rail bike path would help here.

Comment Initials Initials Project Project Number Number Number Comment Comment Page and/or Page and/or OOC Member OOC Figure Number Figure jc 5 17/18 I really like roundabouts. I seek to understand how they would work with the gridlock happening now at peak afternoon times. If cars can’t exit out the other side because they can’t get onto Bayfront, won’t that begin to clog the roundabout? If not, great.

jc 6 21 As this striping and signaling is going through, please please look at the demands placed upon the local (and often counter-commute) traffic, so that locals don’t need to lane shift to go straight on Chilco from Bayfront, through Constitution and around Instagram corner.

jc 7 26 How would it be different from Sharrows? This is a good bike thru -way right now from the bike bridge.

jc 8 20 Definitely need bicycle lanes over on -street parking because of the high school going in. We should prioritize bike lanes over street parking in all parts of this office community.

jc 9 35 Willow is wide enough. I would rather take a lane of traffic and turn it into a protected class I trail and make biking look like an awesome choice. It’s already too much of a thoroughfare.

jc 10 37 I like this option.

jc 11 38 Totally support southbound and northbound Hamilton each having their own light cycle. Does time of day right turn mean that outside peak hours, there might be right on red possibility? I do support that. I think people cut through the gas station to skip the wait.

Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan Page 2 of 5 Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper – OOC Review Comments

Comment Initials Initials Project Project Number Number Number Comment Comment Page and/or Page and/or OOC Member OOC Figure Number Figure jc 12 39 I support all of this.

jc 13 41 If I understand this right, southbound Newbridge would get a left and straight light first, then switch to just straight along with northbound newbridge. Then southbound would be all red and northbound would be all green for the rest of that cycle. I think that would be better. It would be really helpful if there could be two right turn lanes from southbound Newbridge onto eastbound Willow. jc 14 48 This is the preferred option.

jc 15 49 Yes.

jc 16 50 Yes!

jc 17 53 I support the simplification of this intersection. I wonder what the bikes would really end up doing at this intersection. It’s a well traveled bike thoroughfare.

jc 18 54 This intersection should be a three -way stop. The cars all stop on the other side for easy bike exit. It should be that way on the south side of the bridge also.

Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan Page 3 of 5 Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper – OOC Review Comments

Comment Initials Initials Project Project Number Number Number Comment Comment Page and/or Page and/or OOC Member OOC Figure Number Figure Jc 19 63/64 I love this plan. This section is my least favorite part of both directions.

jc 20 64 Ringwood from MA to the bike bridge. This area is a little crazy after school and I feel like high schoolers will follow only the easiest paths if possible. What if we put in a giant crosswalk between the entrance/exit to the parking lot and the entrance to the gym parking lot. It could be light controlled for walkers/bikers and have them all crossing at one spot. It would also eliminate a problem pick-up spot, which is good. jc 21 74 If I understand this correctly, bicycles are going to switching sides with cars as a practice at a really busy right turn corner where people are parenting and driving at the same time. I think this would ramp up the level of stress for parents letting their kids ride independently. That makes some sense on Laurel because it’s just not as high traffic of a right. jc 22 65 I completely agree about the road diet for Middlefield. As it stands right now, Menlo Park is practically begging people to speed. Drivers are pent up on one lane through Atherton before it opens to two wide lanes with little traffic compaction. Palo Alto slows them back down. The same thing happens when traveling north. It’s like Atherton’s section of El Camino. Put Middlefield on a road diet with one lane each direction and a turn lane down the center 23

Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan Page 4 of 5 Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper – OOC Review Comments

Comment Initials Initials Project Project Number Number Number Comment Comment Page and/or Page and/or OOC Member OOC Figure Number Figure 26

Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan Page 5 of 5 Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper – OOC Review Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Document Name: Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan - Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper

OCC Member Name: Chris DeCardy

Date submitted: September 18, 2018

Comment Initials Initials Project Project Number Number Number Comment Comment Page and/or Page and/or OOC Member OOC Figure Number Figure 1 Section This is a high priority. The current system is also arbitrary and confusing for residents. Given that traffic and 2.4.1 related concerns will only increase in difficulty in the next decade, this should explore a standing committee that Project 165 reports to the city council for recommendations (using the current Commission for example like EQC hears heritage tree appeals). This and much more thinking should be devoted to this section, which is a good start. 2 Section This is the only place that e -scooters are mentioned and e -bikes not at all. Missing from this upfront section of the 2.13.4.4 document is putting in place a policy NOW that will be clear on how the city will handle e-bikes and e-scooters, whether in a share program or privately owned. These modes of transportation may be an opportunity to address congestion, however they are also ‘halfway’ between a bike/scooter and a car, so need to be clear about how they should be treated on the road and on sidewalks. All of this should be done so the city encourages and not discourages use that is safe and fits with the community given the potential to get people out of cars. 3 Section One of the goals of the entire Transportation Master Plan is with congestion relief. However, the focus and 3.1.1.3 metrics are not on reducing the demand for single-occupancy vehicles but only on the supply of alternatives. Given the massive pent up demand for SOVs to use Menlo Park to cut through for commutes north/south and East Bay, this is a massive oversight. Every project should be considered and understood for whether it will relieve congestion given that for every reduction in commute time or in a SOV on the road, there are other SOVs ready to fill the gap. In addition, not all SOVs may be of the same importance to Menlo Park residents and businesses. Anyone who lives in the city or any business who has employees coming to the city wants to be sure SOVs are considered thoughtfully. However, any SOV that is only coming through this city is an entirely different story. All of the specific projects considered – especially those that have very high costs associated – have to be assessed for

Comment Initials Initials Project Project Number Number Number Comment Comment Page and/or Page and/or OOC Member OOC Figure Number Figure this type of congestion relief/impact if the city council and public can fairly and fully consider the impact on our community.

4 3.2 Yes on equity as outlined, and especially in addressing my Comment 3 above.

5 Project 172 In addition to stormwater , there are many other green opportunities for infrastructure projects – for example, pavement that allows water to move through it rather than just being shed into drainage systems. This should be researched more fully and expanded more fully. It should also not be an add on, but included in assessing each individual project under consideration. 6 MISSING The recent experience in the Willows to use turn restrictions during the evening rush hour has massively improved Citywide traffic flow, congestion and safety in the Willows. Congestion apps like Waze no longer route cars through the neighborhood and the restrictions were thoughtfully placed to not disrupt movement of residents of the Willows. In other neighborhoods, this type of ‘cut through’ restriction should be considered to reduce traffic volume/speeds along smaller roads that were never designed for cut through traffic. 7 MISSING We need an explicit Citywide item that mandates exploration of the city taking over the se ction of Willow Road that Citywide is now managed by CalTrans and also in conjunction with EPA community, looking at the same for University Ave. Having this control would allow the city to install traffic restrictions during rush hour or in other ways – such as no turns onto Bayfront during evening commute and off of Bayfront during morning commute. This needs to be fully explored and presented as a potential alternative. This type of change would massively reduce congestion along Willow Road – much more than any other consideration in this entire TMP. 8 MISSING Full exploration of other communities that have worked to reduce cut -through commute traffic to learn what Citywide tactics can work, including resident stickers or passes, so that the city council and community understands all available options and implications for reducing traffic volume.

9 Project 35,36,37 See comment 6 above – all avenues to restrict cut -through commute traffic should be explored. Moving to widening the road and removing the median only will add more traffic, still be congested and will make it unsafe for pedestrians and bikes. Maintain bike lanes, make it as passable as possible for buses, safe for pedestrians.

Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan Page 2 of 5 Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper – OOC Review Comments

Comment Initials Initials Project Project Number Number Number Comment Comment Page and/or Page and/or OOC Member OOC Figure Number Figure 10 Project 46 What problem is this trying to solve? The parking works to slow traffic, which is good. The tree is huge and has identification. Are people running into it with their cars? Seems like the least cost way to make sure the tree is seen is the best way to go here.

11 Project 47 This should be a dutch junction.

12 Project 48 I underst and the need/interest in bus acc ess , but this doesn’t seem well thought out for pedestrian access or how it fits with the whole stretch of road. Needs more looks at other options.

13 Project 111 Explore options that would eliminate more or all parking, restrict traffic flow and allow for more pedestrian and storefront utilization of this space – vibrancy that has been created in other Bay Area communities.

14 Project 133 Does signalizing solve the pro blems here. What about other measures without signalizing?

15 MISSING Implement stationary and mobile air quality monitoring system near heavy use freeways/roadways with heavy Citywide pedestrian traffic, bike traffic and/or with nearby schools and parks. Prominently make air quality levels available to the community and issue alerts when localized air quality levels reach unsafe levels – especially for children, elderly and those with breathing/asthma issues. 16

Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan Page 3 of 5 Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper – OOC Review Comments

Comment Initials Initials Project Project Number Number Number Comment Comment Page and/or Page and/or OOC Member OOC Figure Number Figure 17

Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan Page 4 of 5 Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper – OOC Review Comments

Comment Initials Initials Project Project Number Number Number Comment Comment Page and/or Page and/or OOC Member OOC Figure Number Figure 24

Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan Page 5 of 5 Strategies and Recommendations Working Paper – OOC Review Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK NOTES FOR TMP STRATEGIES ANDE RECOMMENDATIONS WORKING PAPER

PROJECT NO. COMMENT

14 Thank you!

37 At this cost range, need cost benefit analysis.

39 Extended crossing time should be provided by a second separate button, clearly marked as such. It is not always necessary to hold traffic for extended time crossing.

40 Bulb outs are especially dangerous to bicyclists. They force bikes into vehicle lanes. And for those not attentive, less skillful or being passed cause impact on curb. Bad idea wherever bikes are present. San Mateo is removing the new bulb out on 28th Ave at Mason after complaints.

41 Program left turn arrow to flash (left turn after full stop/ yield to oncoming) when no opposing traffic. Ref. Middlefield Rd at Willow (RC Costco.) Option to imbed loop to trigger flashing in absence of approaching vehicles. Failsafe is that stop is required.

46 What priority is this?

47 Do not remove pork chop, it helps maintain traffic flow, overall public’s long-stated priority. Add quick-response walk signal for island-to-sidewalk interval; confirm island as refuge.

49 Use paint for treatments, not heat transfer. Bikes avoid heavy transfer stencils. (Poor Peninsula pavement is rough enough as it is.)

53 If signal is for peak hour, should default to flashing yellow/flashing red at all other times

57, etc. What are the Bicycle Boulevard design features? Do they impact other modes? Please clarify for OOC.

63 See 47 above

64 See 47 above.

74 Cannot co-join Ravenswood eastbound with left turn, too much traffic depends on eastbound. (Do not add additional cycle to signal if causes delay.)

76 Yes - this is critical to providing safe north-south bike route.

78 Alt A does not solve other three at-grade crossings; indeed it prevents any future raised track due to proximity. Alt. A creates “deep dip” for bicycles to conquer, will be avoided, not preferred. Need to fully investigate fully raised tracks through downtown 3 intersections. (Note, this issue has been waiting an exceptionally extended period for raised track analysis.)

84 Bikes are ill advised on ECR. This state highway is the only downtown-to-downtown route through MP and adjacent cities, and when it does not carry the demand, vehicles use neighborhood streets. This problem has been repeatedly identified. Urban intersections and commercial driveways are a significant hazard to bicyclists, need alternate route. Improve the parallel bike route identified in the ECR/DSP on Laurel/Garwood from the creek to Encinal to provide safe non-conflict north-south bike travel. This will be a liability issue.

86-91 ECR needs to improve its vehicle through put with the continuation of three lanes through downtown, both northbound and south. See above for bike route.

98-105 Maintain 9’ wide diagonal parking wherever possible. 90 degree parking is not favored for well cared for vehicles due to door damage.

111 See above. Additionally, bikes are safer going behind angle parking, as back up is slow, preceded by brake lights then back up lights. whereas doors open without warning. Fully shared lanes are appropriate on Santa Cruz shopping street. Note: Parklets should only be built when and where sponsored, per ECR/DSP.

112 Lights if added on Santa Cruz should convert to flashing yellow/flashing red after hours.

113 Avoid bulb outs on Menlo Ave – see 40 above.

117 Keep 2 car lanes open from ECR to Safeway entrance, clarify with white lane lines, provide sharrow in right lane. Consult with property owners about parking removal.

125, 127 Avoid bulb outs, these would directly impede bike lanes. See 40 above.

133 At this cost, need cost-benefit analysis. Is there an urgent need for signal?

143 Provide second separate call button for extended walk time – see 39 above. If prohibiting right turns on red, specify time period or conditions (e.g. when children present); otherwise, direct PD to periodically focus-enforce full stop instead of restriction.

144 If prohibiting right turns on red, specify time period or conditions (e.g. when children present); otherwise, direct PD to periodically focus-enforce full stop instead of restriction.

156 Explain to OOC, what is a Bike Counter?

165 NTMP was enacted by council in response to a problem of “not in front of my yard”. Change requires public hearings, local travel requirement data, and explanation that focused periodic enforcement has been earnestly tried and how it failed.

166 This is very effective IMHO.

167-171 These are positive, progressive actions.

173 TSP can be very helpful on Bayfront and on Willow. Transit viability on ECR must be evaluated given popular indifference to status quo bus service. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chen, Kevin

From: Sarah Staley Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 9:27 PM To: Choy, Kristiann M Subject: Sarah Staley Shenk Feedback for TMP - NORTH

Kristiann -

Than you for your role in the meeting tonight.

Please have added to the minutes and notes these comments, which I would like to have reflected in all topical areas of

• Congestion Relief • Safety • Bike Mobility • Pedestrian Mobility

*City centers, hospitality, local businesses, grocery stores, etc. should be easily accessed thru multi purpose routes. *Bikes and Ped options on and at Marsh is just as important as Willow. This would decompress Willow. *Park access, safe routes to school snacks safety for Menlo Park residents must be top of mind, not just traffic and commute ease. i.e. you can’t have a major Park at the end of Marsh road and no way for residents to get there other than by car and snarled in dangerous traffic.

Sincerest thanks. Sarah Staley Shenk Parks and Rec Commissioner 6508042293

On Aug 30, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Choy, Kristiann M < [email protected] > wrote:

Hello TMP Committee Members,

Please see correspondence below from two of your committee members, Jen Wolosin and Adina Levin, regarding tonight’s meeting.

Thanks, Kristiann

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chen, Kevin

From: Jen Wolosin Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 11:51 AM To: Choy, Kristiann M Cc: Chen, Kevin; Murphy, Justin I C Subject: Feedback for TMP - NORTH

Hi Kristiann,

Please email this to the appropriate people.

Thank you, Jen

Dear Fellow Committee Members, Staff and Consultants,

In preparation of our meeting to discuss the northern most area of Menlo Park, fellow committee member, Adina Levin, and I spent a few hours touring the area. Given the volume of feedback we would like to provide, we thought it best to send our thoughts to everyone in advance of the meeting. We also look forward to a lively and productive discussion.

Before getting into specifics, we first want to extend our appreciation for adding the TMP Goals to the project list grid. These greatly help in highlighting which projects align with the City's biggest goals. Most of our feedback is regarding the safety of all roadway users. We have organized our comments first based on page 114 of the working paper that corresponds to section 4.2.1, "North Area Project Discussion." You will need this page and/or project list to follow our comments.

8. It is unclear what is being proposed. A drawing of the proposed configuration is needed. In general, we are in favor of changes that improve ped/transit safety/mobility. 9. Yes. We support this option. 11. No, this is not desirable. Interchanges that encourage an increase the number of vehicles run counter to the goals of sustainability. Also if the expressway can accommodate more cars, this will result in more congestion at the destinations. For example Downtown Palo Alto will have difficulty accommodating more cars and parking demand . The fact that the on/off ramps could not be accommodated at both University and. Willow Road due to proximity also makes this problematic. 14. Yes. We must build proper bicycle infrastructure to places people want/need to go (schools, stores, office parks). MISSING - The project list is missing the entire stretch of Marsh Road. Three items should be added here. A)Bike connection from Marsh Manor (Starbucks) to Bay Road (near Suburban Park). AND B)Bike connection from the Bay Trail (Haven and Marsh) to Starbucks. AND C)Pedestrian improvements all along Marsh Road. The existing overpass at 101 is a death trap for pedestrians (blind curves, uphill, no signage, etc.) and the sidewalk along Marsh is incomplete to Starbucks. MISSING - The area along Haven, between the RWC border (near the trailer park) all the way to Marsh. The new Haven Street apartments have impressive buffered bike lanes, but they lead to nowhere. Even worse, the ending of the bike lanes on both sides of the apartments are blind curves. While Project List Item #1 addresses a piece of this area, it doesn't go far enough. Bicycle facilities need to provide complete safe routes to connect people from their homes to their destinations . In addition, it is unclear from Project Item #2 how bikes are supposed to get from Haven Street across Marsh (on the hill side of the road), or turn right on Marsh, safely. We also have concern for pedestrian safety there. 16. This is not clear. Please elaborate/draw it for us.

1 20. The new TIDE school will be built on this street. This road needs sidewalks and bike lanes. In addition, to complete the connection to the school, at a minimum a bike lane must extend to the part of Constitution between Jefferson and Chilco. MISSING - Bike lanes on Chrysler. Someone coming from Haven Street or down Marsh must have a way to get to this area. OVERALL COMMENT RE: THE OFFICE PARK AREA (#15-20) - This area is being redeveloped and the new developments should have TDM programs and onsite parking. This area should NOT prioritize on street parking over bike safety. There is also a new apartment complex (94 units) planned for Independence Drive. This people will need safe options get around that do not require driving. 27. More information is required to make a decision about this. How much wider, how much more narrow? If you look along the center medium curb you'll see rubber markings of cars that are trying to squeeze by parked cars. The devil is in the details here. 32. YES! We'd also like to see how this whole area relates with the plans for Facebook village and other known development projects. 34. We are not in support at this time of a parallel bicycle route via Menalt o. The new Willow/101 interchange is being built especially for safer biking. This road must be prioritized. If all other infrastructure is built first (including a better crossing for bikes/peds at Marsh/101), then we'd like this additional route. 35. NO widening of Willow Road. Belle Haven residents are supposed to shop at the Willow Village. Widening roads makes streets longer and less safe to cross, less hospitable for pedestrians, and goes against the Connect Menlo goal of having the road serve local residents, not only people driving through. 36. We don't understand how this would work safely for people using bicycles...how could a bus lane (queue jump) be provided while and maintaining the bike lane without widening. Please show diagrams. 37. We are leaning towards this option.

Please note that we don't think it is appropriate at the North meeting to discuss Project items beyond #44. The Working Paper has organized the areas of the City into 3 regions and according to this classification we should end our discussion at Project #44. We will not be prepared to discuss the other items.

Thank you for reading this.

Sincerely, Jen Wolosin (and Adina Levin)

-- Jen Wolosin Parents for Safe Routes www.parents4saferoutes.org [email protected] 415.710.5838

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

2 Chen, Kevin

From: Jen Wolosin Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 12:13 PM To: Choy, Kristiann M Cc: Chen, Kevin; Murphy, Justin I C; Adina Levin; Katie Behroozi Subject: TMP Feedback - Central

Hi Kristiann,

Please forward this again to the appropriate parties.

Thanks! Jen

Dear TMP-OOC Committee Members, Staff and Consultants,

Fellow TMP-OOC committee member Adina Levin and I once again toured the area that will be discussed at our upcoming meeting, this one for the “Central” part of town. Complete Streets Commissioner Katie Behroozi also had an opportunity to weigh in. Before sharing our specific observations, we have a few general comments to share.

We would like to add some considerations for prioritization criteria: 1) network gap closure (the degree to which a proposed project addresses a link in a bike/ped network chain), 2) the degree to which a project improves the safety/quality of life for those living near new development and 3) expand the “school nearby” criterion to include whether a proposed project is along a route to school.

Another issue we would like to bring up is how to determine which bike treatments to use around town. The use of Class III bike treatments or “sharrows” does not improve safety on streets with moderate to high volumes and speeds, and is inappropriate except on extremely low volume/speed corridors. In addition, we should be considering peak time conditions (including peak time “Level of Stress”) when selecting a proper treatment–not average of conditions throughout the day/week. Furthermore, we should be looking at the “Level of Stress” thresh olds for the “interested but concerned”/vulnerable groups of potential cyclists, not avid cyclists. Conditions on Coleman Avenue are highly variable depending on time of day and it can be especially stressful for young riders. It is also important to note that the 85th percentile speed of travel is usually higher than the posted speed limit. We can’t have it both ways–use the 85th percentile to enforce, but then use the posted speeds to determine bike treatments.

We would like the TMP to also include TDM (transportation demand management) programs. We saw many areas around town, separate from Bayfront, Downtown and Sand Hill, that could benefit from a TDM/more robust shuttle program. Some of these include: • Coleman apartments (near Willow bus routes connecting to downtown/Caltrain and Palo Alto) • Middlefield office buildings (near Caltrain) • Apartments surrounding downtown Without pursuing an aggressive TDM strategy, we are missing opportunities to relieve congestion and vehicle parking constraints.

Finally, we need some type of analysis performed that shows where people are traveling to and from. That is, we want to make sure that people in Belle Haven can get to super markets, parks, etc.; and kids in the Willows can get to schools, after school activities , etc. We need more of a focus on network completeness rather than a laundry list of one-offs. We'd also like to see Strava heat maps that show the most traveled routes for cyclists that show how people are currently moving around.

Here are our specific comments: 45. Willow Road and Coleman Avenue: No. We are not in favor of making it less safe for bicycles on Coleman Avenue. Adding a dedicated right turn line would prioritize cars, not people. 46. Willow Road and Gilbert Avenue: The real problem with Willow and Gilbert is south of Willow, on both the east and west sides of the street. Parking needs to be removed, at least during peak school commute hours, so that cyclists don’t need to weave in and out of parked cars. 47. Willow and Middlefield: Does not go far enough. This should become a dutch intersection. 48. Willow Bus Lane: We need more information to evaluate this option. How will people get on and off the bus? Will parking remain? How will this work? 53. Ringwood-Bay-Sonoma: The options presented are not clear. That being said, do not add lanes at this intersection. Prioritize people, not cars. Regarding the one-way west Sonoma and one-way east Ringwood, this could work under the following circumstances: • The one-way only extended to the end of the island and did not go all the way to 101. The island would then essentially become a large-ish roundabout. • Paint (or other treatments) were used to narrow the stretch from Bay to the end of the island. This could include striping for parking, bike lanes and the rest of the road. Traffic calming must be achieved here, or a wide one-way stretch will encourage speeding. 54. Ringwood from Bay to Van Buren: Children/youth use this route as an important commute route to school and after-school programs, and visibility is poor for drivers and cyclists. If we are designating this as a bike boulevard, we need to add a two-way stop sign on Van Buren, giving right of way to the steady stream of cyclists heading to and from the Ringwood bike bridge (similar to the stop signs on the other side of the freeway.) 51-55. We were unable to adequately look at this area. 57-60. THE WILLOWS - There are a variety of options being explored here. How will the Willows Neighborhood Complete Streets (formerly the Upper Laurel Safe Routes to School Study) relate to these proposals? This isn’t clear. We have a lot to say about this area, but we want to understand how these projects are interconnected. 60. Menalto Avenue between Durham and Woodland: The parking for the shops at Menalto and Gilbert must be taken into account when proposing a bike boulevard here. How will the backing out of cars affect this? 61. Coleman between Ringwood and Willow Bike Boulevard: No. The level of stress during peak commute hours on Coleman is way too high. A larger discussion of Coleman Avenue [City portion] is needed. There are 3 options: a. Keep Coleman as is, prioritized for cars and extremely stressful for cyclists, especially vulnerable ones (school kids). At a minimum a stop sign is needed at Santa Monica Ave. b. Engineer the road design on Coleman to be safer/less stressful for cyclists. This would involve removing parking on at least one side of the street to install a bike lane. This could be difficult given the number of apartments with many car-owning residents. c. Reduce the volume of cars traveling on Coleman to make it less stressful. This can be accomplished by turn restrictions during peak hours or even closing Coleman at the County line. 63. Ravenswood-Middlefield: Yes. If we understand the jughandle correctly, this sounds like a huge improvement. Removing the channelized right turn should also improve safety for both cyclists and pedestrians. 64. Middlefield-Ringwood-D Street: This sounds like it would help cyclists but we need clarification on how this works for pedestrians. This might also be a place to explore an innovative left turn solution (e.g. jughandle), given the stress for cyclists of merging across two lanes of Middlefield traffic to access the left hand turn box. MISSING - We think that Menlo Park should take a position regarding Ringwood, especially regarding safe routes for MA students. M-A kids need better facilities to get to the Ringwood bridge. Now, they head out of the bike rack area and either cro ss Ringwood with no protection, or head down Ringwood in the wrong direction on the shoulder/bike lane. There also needs to be a complete safe route for those traveling up Ringwood towards Middlefield. The additional protected crosswalk in the direction heading toward downtown is welcome and essential. However the bike lanes near downtown disappear just when they are needed the most. This is not ok. Finally, bike lanes are only bike lanes when vehicles are not allowed to park in them. If we are serious about Ringwood becoming a bike route, we need to work with other jurisdictions to ensure that cars aren’t parking in the bike lanes (which happens frequently around high school events).

2 65. Middlefield-Linfield-Santa Monica: This entire intersection needs to be looked at thoroughly. This may need a full signal and the consideration of how people will be able to travel both ways across Middlefield on bikes and as pedestrians is critical. Additional traffic calming in Linfield Oaks may be necessary. 69. Middlefield between Willow and Palo Alto Avenue: A protected bike lane is preferred. 70. Middlefield-Woodland: This does not go far enough. This intersection needs some type of dutch intersection to allow bikes and pedestrians to move in all directions. This should be squared off as much as possible. Traffic calming efforts/signage is greatly needed between Middlefield and Baywood since there is not enough room for a proper bike lane and bikes must share the road here (unless some land acquisition along the vacant lot is possible). The City should also work with Palo Alto to trim trees to improve visibility. MISSING: Menlo Park should encourage Palo Alto to convert the poor-condition sidewalk between Palo Alto Ave and Woodland into a proper multi-use trail. This is a significant safety hazard. MISSING: The corner of Laurel and Encinal needs to have a bulb out on the southwest corner. Drivers cut the corner here, putting many children and pedestrians in danger. MISSING: Menlo Park should encourage Atherton to install a multi-use trail along the south side of Encinal Avenue (as their standard is to use trails instead of sidewalks). Encinal is is a major route to school and the lack of a facility for parents and children walking and bicycling is very unsafe. MISSING: Middlefield Rd between Ravenswood and the Palo Alto border is designed like an expressway, with a 35 mph speed limit (similar to El Camino Real) and four lanes. The bike lanes along this section are an essential component of the north-south Peninsula network, not to mention important for students biking to Encinal–but they are too narrow/unbuffered. Middlefield Rd. in Menlo Park is a prime candidate for a road diet, similar to that on Alameda de las Pulgas (bike lanes, center turn lane, one travel lane in each direction). We should also be looking at buffers and/or protection for bike lanes in any section of roadway where drivers routinely travel faster than 25 mph. 74. Ravenswood and Laurel: Some of these improvements benefit cyclists; others are harmful. The changes proposed on the south side of Ravenswood are good. On the north side–eliminating a bike lane and installing sharrows–are not acceptable–in fact, they basically recreate the existing problematic scenario from the northbound side.. Laurel is a sig nificant north/south cycling route. Also, the safety issues will be exacerbated if the current grade separation recommendation is completed (Ravenswood only) and/or if the library is built on Laurel. These changes would add many more cars to Laurel. 75. Laurel between Burgess and Willow: No. This is a safe route to school and to a major recreation center. Given the projected increase in traffic (grade separation, library, etc.) along this corridor, we should be looking at bike lanes, e78. Ravenswood Grade Separation: Alternative A was a bad political compromise, and is not the right choice for grade separation. More than one crossing must be grade separated. Too much traffic will come to Laurel Street. Whatever is done, bike lanes on Ravenswood must extend at a minimum to the bike lanes that will be included in grade separation (to El Camino). 80. It would be great if this path were striped to separate modes so bike and pedestrians don’t collide. 84. Bike lanes on El Camino must be protected, not buffer ed. It is not appropriate to only have paint as a safety measure. Look to Redwood City for the treatments being considered 85 to 97. We didn’t have time to consider these, with the exception of 92. 92. A synchronized traffic signal or other creative solution must be considered at the Safeway/gas station entrance/exit on Middle (restrict left turns coming out?). Bike lanes that pass by these dangerous locations are a major concern. Perhaps Safeway can reconfigure their entrance/exit. In addition, the current pillars at the Safeway entrance hamper visibility for people driving, walking, and bicycling. These should be modified, if possible. 107. Yes. 110. Oak Grove and University: No. We are not in favor of adding a lane for left turns. Many kids use University to get to Hillview and this will make the intersection much more dangerous. We see driving slowly downtown as a good thing...downtown should be safe for people walking. We are actually in favor of extending the Oak Grove bike lane all the way to University, and if possible, to have bike lanes on University. 111. Ok. 112. University-Santa Cruz: Yes. Also add a bike box or other way for bikes to turn left here. We recommend removing 4 parking spaces here, between the 2 legs of University to make it safer for cyclists. Also add more bike parking here. MISSING: There needs to be a red right turn arrow at Santa Cruz and University (south) for cars making a right towards Draeger’s. Drivers often try to beat the pedestrians here on a green light.

3 MISSING: Complete streets through downtown. We are lacking any sort of bike treatment on Santa Cruz Avenue between University and El Camino Real, which induces kids to ride on the sidewalk. We are also lacking a connection between the Oak Grove bike lanes and the Santa Cruz bike lanes--critical for students biking to and from school along this route. 113. Yes. This also makes a case for not putting the loading zone on Menlo. This intersection also need a “wait here” marking on the ground/sign. 117. Yes. Of course. Other items along Middle and University - We didn’t really get to this. MISSING - We witness many people riding the wrong way in the bike lane between University Avenue and approximately Windsor drive. We think people do this because there is no safe way for cyclists heading west on Santa Cruz to turn left under heavy traffic conditions. More safe crossings are needed along Santa Cruz. This would also help people from these side streets trying to turn onto Santa Cruz.

Sincerely, Jen (and Adina and Katie) -- Jen Wolosin Parents for Safe Routes www.parents4saferoutes.org [email protected] 415.710.5838

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

4 Chen, Kevin

From: Jen Wolosin Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 7:24 PM To: Choy, Kristiann M Cc: Chen, Kevin; Murphy, Justin I C Subject: TMP Feedback - South

Hi Kristiann,

Please forward this feedback to the TMP-OOC, the Complete Streets Commission, Staff and Consultants. It's once again from me and Adina Levin, with added feedback from Complete Streets Commissioner Katie Behroozi.

Thank you!

Jen

Overall, the project list items in the TMP need to be more aligned with the values of the TMP - safety, mobility choice and sustainability. Many of the current recommendations are based on earlier and outdated models of transportation that prioritize moving cars over safety and sustainability. While we have attempted to look at each project item and add feedback that accurately reflects the values mentioned above, we may have missed important details. It is important that Staff and Consultants review these items and those we may have missed with a lens focused on the city’s goals.

If Menlo Park is truly committed to getting people out of their cars and onto bikes to get to school or pick up kids, run errands, we need to make sure that our bike lanes are sufficiently wide. For example, bike trailers are usually 3.7 to 4.3 feet wide, so whatever we codify as a bike lane width should account for this. Wider bike lanes will also be key for handling larger volumes of biking and scootering that the introduction of e- bikes/scooters will surely demand. That’s induced demand that we want.

South Feedback While all the items below are important, after circulating the South (or West as Menlo Park residents call it) project list among parents, the top priorities that continue to come up are: • Olive - Need to slow traffic, make safer for bikes. • Santa Cruz Avenue between University and Avy - Traffic calming/stop lights/signs and better crossings needed. • Santa Cruz between Avy and the “Y” - Needs to slow down, needs bike lanes and sidewalks. • Santa Cruz/Oakdell/Sharon - Complete redesign needed, especially since visibility is poor given the hill and curve. Needs Rapid Flashing Beacon or other substantial treatment to provide drivers with visibility. Moving the crosswalk alone is not enough. • Sharon Road - Needs sidewalks. • Altshul - Needs bike lanes. Consider having bike lanes in both directions, cars in one direction (cf. Lasuen St. between Arboretum and Campus drives on Stanford campus).

118. The traffic is moving too quickly. While bike lanes should help traffic calm the street, additional traffic calming measures should also be considered, to bring driving speed lower than the currently signed 30mph, which is too high for the neighborhood use. In addition, on the corner of Middle and Olive, there should only be 1 lane so that the bike lane can remain. This is where separation between cars and bikes is most important. MISSING - Santa Cruz Avenue between Orange and University. Identify streets that could use a stop sign/light and better crossings. It is very difficult to make turns off of Santa Cruz Avenue when there is heavy traffic. Now that the street is beautifully paved the cars are speeding too quickly. Santa Cruz Avenue should also be traffic 1 calmed. Cars are choosing Santa Cruz over Sand Hill because it moves so quickly. Tons of kids and adults bike here with only a painted white line to protect them. Must be safer. 124. San Mateo drive is a major bike throughway to/from Stanford, etc. Not sure if Class III is enough here. 125. Most important part of San Mateo Drive is crossing with Santa Cruz. Many school kids use this intersection and crosswalk to get across Santa Cruz. Flashing yellow lights are not enough. Need a stop light or a four way stop sign. 127. A four-legged crossing should be considered here. MISSING - The crossing at Valparaiso and Elder is not effective. Kids are NOT crossing here. The lighted crosswalk should be moved to Politzer. Complete Streets Commissioner, Lydia Lee, has persistently advocated for improvements here. 128. Yes. There also needs to be a crosswalk on Elder that crosses Politizer. MISSING - Olive and Santa Cruz Avenue. This intersection needs improvement. Tons of kids cross here during school hours and after school/on weekends. If a crossing guard is not present (there is only one fo r very limited moments), the infrastructure fails. This may need to be a 4-way stop or a lighted intersection. The City is also supposed to be installing bollards here to prevent parents from illegally dropping off their kids. 129. No. Olive is a major sch ool commute route and the speed and volume during commute/peak times require more aggressive safety measures. Olive should have proper bike lanes and sidewalks. Class III does not go far enough here. There should also be more crosswalks along Olive (at Stanford and Olive for example [crossing Stanford]). Olive, at least near Santa Cruz, should also be 25mph, not 30mph. Might we be able to take advantage of rules about being able to lower speed limits near schools? MISSING - Stanford Avenue is a wide, open street. It may require sidewalks and traffic calming. 130. This intersection needs a major overhaul. It likely needs a signal, possibly a HAWK beacon. The placement of the crosswalk is poor and doesn’t promote walking. The speed along Santa Cruz and erratic movements at that location demand aggressive safety engineering. Note: many residents have voiced that moving the crossing isn’t sufficient; more substantial change is needed. MISSING - Santa Cruz Avenue between Avy and the “Y” is a speedway. The speed limit is 30mph but drivers go much faster. The speed limit should be 25mph. The volume is also substantial. This is also a major route that cyclists use, and the County is currently considering adding bike lanes to their part of Santa Cruz (and Alameda de las Pulgas). While there are some bike lanes in front of the cemetery, they should extend through this entire corridor and be on both sides (they really should be protected given the speed and volume). Sharrows are absolutely NOT appropriate here. There also should be sidewalks along here, if space allows. According to residents, kids walk along here daily. 131. Depending on speed and volume, a class 2 should be considered. This is a major route for bikes through the Oak Knoll-adjacent area, and it would be an even bigger one if there were bike lanes on Santa Cruz and a safer crossing at Santa Cruz/Sharon/Oakdell (again, this intersection MUST be fixed). 132. Real sidewalks vs. asphalt should be installed. This would encourage more residents to walk. 133. While a signal could be a good option, please also examine a roundabout here (mentioned by residents). This intersection definitely needs improvement. 134. Yes. This would be great. Must pay attention to how people are pulling in and out of commercial spaces here. Sidewalk improvements are also needed along Avy between Alschul and Monte Rosa (the current sidewalks are crumbling and inadequate). 135. Ok. 136. Yes, absolutely. Parking removal should be considered on both sides of Sharon Road along this stretch to make room for bike lanes or even sidewalks on both sides. Traffic calming on Sharon (speed bumps or other treatments) should also be considered. The City should also encourage the County to include bike lanes and sidewalks on Sharon Road between Alameda de las Pulgas and Santa Cruz Ave. 137. Not clear. 138. This stretch of road is too wide, with poor visibility and lots of activity (school). Drivers speed up to go over the hill and during peak hours there is high volume. This should have bike lanes, on both sides (or a dual- direction cycle track) (the newly installed path on the campus of La Entrada is insufficient). At a minimum, traffic calming measures need to be installed along this stretch and parking restrictions during school hours. There are also significant gaps in the sidewalk network along this stretch. The City should also consider making this entire stretch one-way (part of it is). Drivers heading east on Sharon can't turn left (north) onto Altschul anyway, so it's unclear the purpose of keeping this street two way. Use the space for bike lanes-- which the City should encourage the County to create/extend all the way down Altschul.The County should also create a bike opening in the gate at Altschul and Avy (the current design requires bikes to cycle head-on 2 into cars [said knowing that bikes legally should not ride against the traffic, but in real life this is a major cycle route for school kids. The infrastructure should be designed to follow the most convenient route]). 139. Depending on speed and volume, a class 2 bike path should strongly be considered. Again, this is an area where kids are trying to get to school and parents are dropping off. At a minimum parking restrictions during school hours should be enacted. MISSING - Sharon Road and Eastridge. This needs a possible bulb out, though per resident feedback, the school bus may have a hard time navigating the turn. At a minimum, parking restrictions at this intersection should be implemented. Another crosswalk should also be installed along Sharon Rd. 140. Possibly consider parking restrictions outside of school hours. 141. This should be Class 2. MISSING - Sharon Road at Sharon Park Drive (in front of Safeway). This intersection should be a four legged crosswalk. According to residents, people cross here currently without a crosswalk. The right turn through lane on Sharon Park Drive should also be eliminated. This current intersection is currently designed primarily for cars and the area has people walking to the shopping center from nearby homes. MISSING - There should be a pedestrian entrance to the Safeway shopping center from the the corner of the shopping center along Sand Hill (closer to 280). MISSING - The City should talk to the Safeway complex about the quality of their bike racks. They are antiquated - they only lock the tire to the rack. These are not theft-proof. 142. This is confusing. There is no parking currently allowed on the “west” side of Oak Ave between Oak Knoll and Sand Hill (except for a short strip between the school and the corner, which also has parking restrictions). This is a stretch of sidewalk in front of three houses. Do they mean the east side? 143. Oak Avenue Sand Hill Intersection: Big issue here is the inability of northbound cyclists to cross over into Menlo Park from campus. These changes *should* fix that. The sidewalk on Sand Hill and the crosswalk on the east side of the intersection are critical. 144 to 151. We didn’t have time to check this out.

North - Extra 2. This entire intersection needs to be examined to ensure that bikes/peds can safely cross/pass through here given the volume and speed of drivers. The people living on Haven need to be connected to the rest of the city. 3/4/6/7 - The suggestions along Bayfront Expressway must be illustrated so the public can understand the impact to cyclists. It is not clear from these descriptions what is being proposed. 5. The latest design of the bike/ped crossing looks like it has many sharp turns that may be difficult for bikes to navigate. 10. How does this fit in with bike lanes on Willow? 12. Yes 13. Yes 23-26. If sharrows are to be installed here, ensure that the speed limits and road conditions are conducive to bicyclists and drivers sharing the road. Additional traffic calming features may be necessary. 28. Yes, and this may also help slow traffic. 29. Yes 30. Yes 31. Yes 33. This is not a sufficient alternative route to Willow Road for bicycles. 38-44 - This entire stretch of Willow is dependent on what decision is made about Willow. It is critical that pedestrians and cyclists can safely cross this street.

Central - Extra 49. Ok, as long as they are not sharrows. Sharrows are in no way appropriate on Willow Road. 50. Ok. 51. Ok. 52. Ok. 56. Ok MISSING - There needs to be a safe way for cyclists/pedestrians to get between from Van Buren to Bay Road. If someone crosses at the Ringwood bridge and then wants to get to Willow Road they will cross Bay Road. Need a safe crossing here.

3 57. See comments re: Menalto for North (#’s 33 & 34). That being said, Menalto on this side of 101 is heavily used by school kids getting to/from Menlo-Atherton High School, Willow Oaks and Upper Laurel. Priority should definitely go to kids needing to cross and travel along Menalto on bike and foot (particularly between O’Keefe and Gilbert). 58. Depending on speed and volume and how much this street factors in to Safe Routes to Schools, may want to consider removing parking on one side and adding bike lanes. 59. We are not comfortable with this being a one-line item here. This neighborhood must be evaluated carefully to determine how the streets are being used and where people are going. Class III/sharrows should be not be the standard for Safe Routes to Schools. 62. Ok. 66. Ok. 67. Ok. 68. Ok. 71-73. Ok. 76. Ok. 77-79&83. This entire area will be dependent on the grade separation alternative (once again, we are very much against only separating at Ravenswood - more needs to be separated). In the meantime, the intersection of Alma and Ravenwood must be improved. If you stand out there and watch bicyclists it is terrifying. There is no safe and comfortable way to get people where they need to go. 81. Yes. This needs to be done right away/top priority so we don’t miss the window when Stanford is building. 82. Not sure why this can’t be bike lanes, especially if this isn’t going to be grade separated. 85-97. Need to allow for the safe crossing of El Camino by pedestrians and cyclists. 106. Absolutely! We need Parking Management BEFORE we need parking garages. MISSING - University Avenue between Santa Cruz and Oak Grove needs bike lanes and/or parking restrictions for school commute times. This is a missing chain in the network (along with the final stretch of Oak Grove between Crane and University)

-- Jen Wolosin Parents for Safe Routes www.parents4saferoutes.org [email protected] 415.710.5838

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.