TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL – P. Huang, A. Levin, P. Mazzara, M. Meyer, M. Shiu (Vice Chair), B. Walser (Chair)

CITY STAFF – R. Baile, J. Quirion

A. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Under “Public Comments”, the public may address the Commission on any subject not listed on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the Commission. When you do so, please state your name and city or political jurisdiction in which you live for the record. The Commission cannot respond to non-agendized items other than to receive testimony and/or provide general information. The public may also address the Commission regarding items listed on the agenda at this time or during the Commission’s consideration of the agenda item.

B. REGULAR BUSINESS

B1. Approve Minutes from the Regular Meeting of March 12, 2014 (Attachment) B2. Consider Report from Staff Regarding the 2-Hour Parking Restriction between 10:00

a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Mondays to Fridays, Except Holidays, on San Mateo Drive between the Bike Bridge and Bay Laurel Drive (West)

B3. Consider Installation of a One-Way Stop Sign on Wallea Drive at San Mateo Drive

(Attachment) B4. Consider Recommendation to the City Council for the Removal of On-Street Parking

for New SamTrans Bus Stops (Attachment) B5. Consider the Draft Transportation Commission Report to the City Council regarding

the merging of the Bicycle and Transportation Commissions (Attachment) C. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

C1. Update from the Downtown Businesses, Menlo Park Signage, and Branding Project

Subcommittee (Huang/Walser) C2. Update from the Subcommittee on Potential Revisions of the Neighborhood Traffic

Management Program (NTMP) (Shiu/Walser)

C3. Update from the High School Project Subcommittee Regarding Transportation Related Challenges (Mazzar)

PAGE 1

April 9, 2014 Agenda Page 2

C4. Update on the Comprehensive Review of the Street Light Program in Menlo Park

Subcommittee (Shiu) C5. Update on the El Camino Real Traffic Study Subcommittee (Levin/Mazzara) C6. Update on the General Plan Transportation Issues Subcommittee (Levin) D. INFORMATION ITEMS

D1. Update on 500 El Camino Real (Stanford/Arrillaga) Project D2. Update on Transportation Projects

D2. Update on the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Projects

E. ADJOURNMENT

Agendas are posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website at http://www.menlopark.org and can receive e-mail notification of agenda and staff report postings by subscribing to the “Home Delivery” service on the City’s homepage. Agendas and staff reports may also be obtained by contacting Rene Baile, Transportation Engineer at (650) 330-6770. Transportation Commission meetings are recorded and audio broadcast live. To listen to the live audio broadcast or to past recordings, go to http://menlopark.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2. (Posted 4/03/2014)

Any writing that is distributed to a majority of the Commission by any person in connection with an agenda item is a public record (subject to any exemption under the Public Records Act) and is available for inspection in the Public Works Department at 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025 during regular business hours.

Persons with disabilities, who require auxiliary aids or services in attending or participating in Commission meetings, may call the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 330-6620.

PAGE 2

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES

Regular Meeting

March 12, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers

701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA

B. Walser, Chair, called the meeting to order at approximately 7:05 p.m. Commissioners Present: A. Levin, P. Huang, P. Mazzara, M. Shiu (Vice Chair), B. Walser (Chair) Commissioners Absent: M. Meyer Staff Present: R. Baile, N. Nagaya A. PUBLIC COMMENTS There was no public comment. B. REGULAR BUSINESS B1. Approve Minutes from the Regular Meeting of February 12, 2014 (Attachment) ACTION: Motion and Second (Mazzara/Shiu) to approve the minutes with the following amendment, passed, 4-0-1-1, with P. Huang abstaining and M. Meyer absent. • Under B4, on the motion that failed, replace “M. Meyer” with “P. Mazzara”. B2. Discuss Range of Views Regarding Potential Joint Transportation and Bicycle Commissions and Authorize Commission to Prepare a Report to City Council Summarizing Views ACTION: Motion and Second (Shiu/Huang) that Chair B. Walser and A. Levin jointly draft the report to the City Council and send it to staff to circulate to the rest of the commissioners for comment, and that if there were substantive comments, for staff to bring it back to the Transportation Commission at the April, 2014 meeting, unanimously passed 5-0-0-1, with M. Meyer absent. C. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

PAGE 3

March 12, 2014 Minutes – Page 2

C1. Update from the Subcommittee on the Downtown Businesses, Menlo Park Signage, and Branding Project (Huang/Walser)

None. C2. Update from the Subcommittee on Potential Revisions of the Neighborhood Traffic

Management Program (NTMP) (Shiu/Walser) None. C3. Update from the Subcommittee on High School Project Regarding Transportation

Related Challenges (Mazzara) P. Mazzara stated that three high schools in the City – Menlo Atherton, Menlo School, and Sacred School – would be on board to do the competition on Earth Day, April 22 – and that he would like to recommend to the Commission to invite the representatives of the students who participated to the commission meeting in May. C4. Update from the Subcommittee on the Comprehensive Review of the Street Light

Program in Menlo Park (Shiu) None. C5. Update from the Subcommittee on the El Camino Real Traffic Study

(Levin/Mazzara) N. Nagaya reported that the project kick-off meeting occurred at the end of February, with the consultant moving forward on the data collection, and that a community workshop would be scheduled in April at the Menlo Park Presbyterian Church meeting room. C6. Update on the General Plan Transportation Issues Subcommittee (Levin) N. Nagaya stated that the City released an RFP (Request for Proposals) for consultants approximately two and a half weeks ago. Regarding the educational topics generated by A. Levin and N. Hodges at the first subcommittee meeting, they were incorporated as much as possible into the draft work plan and scope of work in the RFP.

INFORMATION ITEM D1. Update on Transportation Projects R. Baile provided updates on the following projects: • Oak Grove Avenue Lighted Crosswalk Project – Project is substantially complete. .

PAGE 4

• VA Hospital Frontage Improvements – Contractor is still waiting for the arrival of traffic signal poles prior to commencing intersection Improvements.

D2. Update on the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Projects R. Baile stated that he recently received an inquiry from a resident on Roble Avenue expressing concern about speeding on Roble Avenue between El Camino Real and University Drive and that he referred the resident to the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program guidelines. E. ADJOURNMENT – 8:30 p.m. Prepared by: Rene C. Baile, P.E.

PAGE 5

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PAGE 6

PAGE 7

PAGE 8

PAGE 9

PAGE 10

PAGE 11

PAGE 12

PAGE 13

PAGE 14

TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 701 Laurel Street / Menlo Park, CA 94025-3483 / (650) 330-6770 / Fax (650) 327-5497

MEMORANDUM

DATE: April 3, 2014 TO: Transportation Commission Meeting of April 9, 2014 FROM: Transportation Division SUBJECT: Consider Recommendation to City Council for Removal of On-Street Parking for New Samtrans Bus Stops RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Transportation Commission provide a recommendation to City Council for No Parking to accommodate the new Samtrans bus stops at the locations as shown in Attachment A. BACKGROUND In late January 2014, Samtrans made significant changes to its bus service across San Mateo County. These changes were identified in the Service Plan Samtrans adopted in May 2013. A first wave of changes were implemented in August 2013, and the remaining changes were implemented on Sunday, January 26, 2014. The most significant changes affecting the City include modifications to Routes 281 and 295. Route 281 serves the Belle Haven community, which provides a connection between the Onetta Harris Community Center (OHCC) and the Stanford Shopping Center. The frequency of trips was increased to provide service every 15 minutes on weekdays and improve on-time performance. The route was running in a loop on the Ivy-Almanor-Hamilton and Newbridge corridors; the new route now runs on Newbridge Street in both directions. Route 295 served Sharon Park and West Menlo Park, providing a connection to shopping destinations and connections to other transit lines for local residents. The route was replaced with new Route 286, which runs between Menlo Park Caltrain and Sharon Park during commute hours. Service on Route 86 was also expanded to capture some of the demand left by the elimination of Route 295.

PAGE 15

Business Item B4 TC Meeting of April 9, 2014

ANALYSIS City received a request from Samtrans to install new bus stops to support these route changes. Four new stops on the north side of Newbridge Street at the following locations to serve the modified Route 281 were requested:

• East of Carlton Avenue • East of Windermere Avenue • East of Almanor Avenue • East of Market Place

Two new stops to serve the new Routes 86 and 286 were requested:

• North side of Monte Rosa Drive, southeast of Eastridge Drive Aerial images showing each location are included in Attachment A. After consideration of Samtrans’ request and based on field observations, staff is recommending that the Commission consider “No Parking” restrictions at each location for 50-75 feet to allow buses to effectively load and unload passengers adjacent to the curb. For its outreach effort, staff mailed out the meeting notification flyers (Attachment B) to residents in the area shown in Attachment C. Attachments A: Aerial images showing proposed stop locations and areas of parking restrictions B: Meeting Notification Flyers C. Map of Meeting Notification Area

PAGE 16

Attachment A:

Aerial images showing proposed stop locations and areas of parking

restrictions

PAGE 17

Belle Haven / Route 281

• Serves Onetta Harris Community Center to Stanford Shopping Center

• Eliminate service on Ivy-Almanor-Hamilton

• Add two-way service on Newbridge

• Add 4 new stops on north side of Newbridge PAGE 18

PAGE 19

PAGE 20

Newbridge St

PAGE 21

Newbridge St

Mar

ket P

lace

PAGE 22

Monte Rosa/Routes 86 & 286

• Eliminated Route 295 service to Menlo Park • Replaced with new Route 286:

– Service from Menlo Park Caltrain to Sharon Park – School Hours only

– 2 New Stops on Monte Rosa

PAGE 23

PAGE 24

PAGE 25

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PAGE 26

New Bus Stop and Parking Modifications  

March 26, 2014  In  late  January 2014,  Samtrans made  significant  changes  to  its bus service  across  Sam  Mateo  County.  To  support  these  changes, Samtrans  has  requested  placement  of  new  bus  stops  and  parking restrictions  to  serve  these  routes.  In  proximity  to  your  property, Route 281 was reconfigured to run  in both directions on Newbridge Street. Samtrans has requested a new stop on the northeast corner at Carlton Avenue as shown below.   

  The Transportation Commission will consider parking restrictions  to support  these  stops  at  their  upcoming  meeting  on Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 at 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers at 701 Laurel  Street,  Menlo  Park.  Please  contact  Nikki  Nagaya  at nhnagaya@menlopark.org  or  650.330.6770  with  comments  or questions. 

M

EN

LO P

AR

K,

CA

940

25

C

OM

MIS

SIO

N M

EETI

NG

CIT

Y O

F M

EN

LO P

AR

K

PU

BLI

C W

OR

KS

DE

PA

RTM

EN

T 70

1 LA

UR

EL

STR

EET

ME

NLO

PA

RK

, CA

940

25-3

483

PAGE 27

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PAGE 28

City of Menlo Park

This map is for reference purposes only. Data layers that appear on this mapmay or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. The City of Menlo

Park and its staff shall not be held responsible for errors or omissions. Pleasecontact City staff for the most current information.

2,774

City of Menlo Park GIS

462.3

Legend

1:

NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet

Feet0 462.3231.16 Notes

AddressStreet NamesRailroadSphere Of InfluenceCity LimitsAdjacent Cities

<all other values>

ATHERTON

BELMONT

DEVONSHIRE (UNINC)

EAST PALO ALTO

EMERALD LAKE HILLS (UNINC)

HARBOR/INDUSTRIAL (UNINC)

LADERA (UNINC)

LOS TRANCOS WOODS (UNINC)

MENLO OAKS (UNINC)

MOBILE HOME PARKS (UNINC)

NORTH FAIR OAKS (UNINC)

PALO ALTO

PALOMAR PARK (UNINC)

PORTOLA VALLEY

REDWOOD CITY

SAN CARLOS

SEQUOIA TRACT (UNINC)

STANFORD LANDS (UNINC)

STANFORD WEEKEND ACRES (UNINC)

UNINCORPORATED

WEST MENLO PARK (UNINC)

WOODSIDE

Public FacilitiesSchoolsParksTravel Ways

Asphalt

Landscape

Median

Railroad

Paper

LakesParcels

Flyer 1

Flyer 2

Flyer 3Flyer 4

PAGE 29

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PAGE 30

City of Menlo Park

This map is for reference purposes only. Data layers that appear on this mapmay or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. The City of Menlo

Park and its staff shall not be held responsible for errors or omissions. Pleasecontact City staff for the most current information.

2,774

City of Menlo Park GIS

462.4

Legend

1:

NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet

Feet0 462.4231.18 Notes

AddressStreet NamesPedestrian OvercrossingRailroadSphere Of InfluenceCity LimitsAdjacent Cities

<all other values>

ATHERTON

BELMONT

DEVONSHIRE (UNINC)

EAST PALO ALTO

EMERALD LAKE HILLS (UNINC)

HARBOR/INDUSTRIAL (UNINC)

LADERA (UNINC)

LOS TRANCOS WOODS (UNINC)

MENLO OAKS (UNINC)

MOBILE HOME PARKS (UNINC)

NORTH FAIR OAKS (UNINC)

PALO ALTO

PALOMAR PARK (UNINC)

PORTOLA VALLEY

REDWOOD CITY

SAN CARLOS

SEQUOIA TRACT (UNINC)

STANFORD LANDS (UNINC)

STANFORD WEEKEND ACRES (UNINC)

UNINCORPORATED

WEST MENLO PARK (UNINC)

WOODSIDE

Public FacilitiesSchoolsParksTravel Ways

Asphalt

Landscape

Median

Railroad

Paper

LakesParcels

Flyer 5

Flyer 6

PAGE 31

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT C2

PAGE 32

To: City Council From: Transportation Commission Date: April 9, 2014 Subject: Potential merger of Transportation and Bicycle Commissions Background. At the January 8th Transportation Commission meeting, the Transportation Commissioners were asked to discuss and provide recommendations to consider merging the Transportation and Bicycle Commissions into a Complete Streets Commission. At that meeting, a motion was made in support of merging, which failed, on a 2-3-0 vote (with two commissioners absent.) At the request of the Bicycle Commission, a joint meeting was held in January to further discuss the question. At that meeting, another motion was made in support of merging, which passed, 3-2-0, again with two commissioners absent. Subsequent to those meetings, Commissioner Hodges resigned from the Transportation Commission, without having voted on the matter. The Commission remains split, three in favor and three opposed. The Commission discussed the matter again in March, and following is a summary of the various issues of concern to the Commissioners. Complete Streets. Now that the city has adopted a Complete Streets policy, proponents of the merger argue that having separate Transportation and Bicycle Commissions has become redundant, and that a merger/renaming to a “Complete Streets Commission” would reaffirm the City’s commitment to a Complete Streets policy. In this manner, they argue, one Commission would be able to consider all modes of transportation in a more holistic manner. The Complete Streets policy enjoys the support of all current Commissioners. The mission statement of the Transportation Commission already tasks the Commission with advising City Council on matters related to the adequacy and improvement of all types of transportation within and across the City. Transportation Commissioners who oppose the merger believe that a Commission focused on bicycles remains necessary to maintain sufficient focus on bicycle safety and promoting bicycle use. The Bicycle Commission focuses specifically on bicyclist safety and the development of better bicycle facilities in Menlo Park. For example, in the annual review of the Capital Improvement Plan, the Bicycle Commission can focus specifically on bicycle infrastructure, whereas the Transportation Commission looks at a wide variety of transportation-related projects. Those who oppose the merger are concerned that bicycle projects would not get enough attention if one commission reviewed all transportation capital projects. Burden on Staff and the Community. In recent months, the two Commissions have shared a number of agenda items. Supporters of the merger argue that having the same matter come before two Commissions creates a burden on members of the Community who have to figure out which or both commissions will be addressing a given issue, need to attend two meetings to speak on one issue.

PAGE 33

Community members who wish to educate commissioners about specific issues have a need to spend time educating more commissioners. There is also a burden on staff to support both meetings. Those who support the merger believe that the increasing overlap of agenda items is not a temporary anomaly - it is a “new normal” resulting from the City’s Complete Streets policy which requires considering all modes of transportation and all users (although implementation may vary depending on the setting). Consequences of “Complete Streets” include City Council having appointed Commissioners who consider multiple modes of transportation, and having hired City Staff who are expert in multiple modes of transportation. Because of the Complete Streets orientation, supporters of the merger believe that transportation changes will require consideration of multiple modes on an ongoing basis, and therefore there will continue to be many agenda items that require consideration of bicycles and other modes together. Those opposed to the merger do see this recent overlap as a temporary anomaly. The Commissioners opposed to the merger do acknowledge the there is a slight burden on staff and the community when an item comes before both Commissions, but believe that clear focus on the mission and role of each Commission would go a long way to eliminating much of the overlap. Furthermore, when an item must come before both Commissions, a joint meeting could be held so that presentations from staff or the community would only need to be made once. The Commissions have met jointly once in 2014 and also previously in 2013, so this is a feasible alternative to a merger of the Commissions. Implementation. How exactly the merger would be implemented is an important question with many details that would need to be worked out. Supporters of the merger believe the details can be worked out between staff and representatives of the two Commissions. Some who support the merger believe that detailed bicycle project design review could potentially be handled by subcommittee. Moreover, there are other topics, such as transit, and transportation for the disabled and elderly, that would also benefit from increased attention considering the Complete Streets mission to serve all modes and all users. While the lack of a bicycle-specific commission would reduce opportunities for volunteering and community participation via formal evening meetings, there remain multiple opportunities to promote bicycling via school communities, bicycle advocacy groups, and other activities. The reduction of the total number of commission members may increase the amount of volunteering that may reach more people outside of formal evening meetings. Commissioners opposed to the merger agree that there are many additional topics that would benefit from increased attention under the Complete Streets policy, and argue that adding all bicycle-related issues to the portfolio of the Transportation Commission would only make it harder for those issues to get adequate attention. Furthermore, Commissioners opposed to the merger raised questions about the integration of the two commissions. What would be the number of Commissioners on a merged Commission? There was a consensus among the Commissioners opposed to merging that a Commission with greater than seven members would be unwieldy and impractical.

PAGE 34

Paring down a merged Commission to seven members, however, raised a number of other related concerns among those who oppose the merger:

• The Commissioners serve this community in a volunteer capacity. Currently the City of Menlo Park has the benefit of fourteen residents volunteering their time and energy to serve the community. Decreasing the number of volunteer positions available for residents would be a loss to the city of this volunteer time and effort.

• Commissioners often field questions and share information with the public on an informal basis, and reducing the number of commissioners would reduce the amount of community outreach.

• Commissioners noted that there are multiple applicants to fill available openings on the Transportation Commission, and raised a concern that merging the two Commissions would only make it more difficult for residents seeking to participate.

• If a merged commission had responsibility for all forms of transportation, including detailed review of bicycle plans, this might require a larger time commitment from Commission members, which might have the effect of discouraging some residents from serving on the Commission.

PAGE 35

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PAGE 36