Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


RE: Laurel Bus options

From: Dave Encisco <"Dave>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:01:16 -0700

Nikki,

Thank you for the reply.

The link you've provided to the Staff Report Number 16-157-CC
indicates under Circulation and Parking, paragraph two: "limited bus
traffic". The next paragraph defines "limited" as:..."the District
proposed the following bus services for the Upper School in
accordance with the Project Description identified in the adopted
IS/ND", i.e. the District proposes two buses and an occasional school
field trip bus.

You've said in your email below "(it) does not limit the number of
buses beyond what the School District has already proposed", which is
just another way of saying the proposal will be limited to two buses
and an occasional school field trip bus. Then you say in point 2
(will) include..."potential future shuttle service". I'm not sure what
a shuttle service entails, but I'm all for conditional statements in
an agreement that takes into consideration future unanticipated
consequences. Unfortunately nowhere in 16-157-CC is potential future
shuttle service addressed (nor are service vehicles defined...is a
garbage truck considered a service vehicle?). I realize that the draft
 agreement is still being negotiated, but I would think that potential
future shuttle services should be an added bullet under (16-157-CC)
Circulation and Parking.

I've already expressed my disapproval with the following:

"The City will reserve the right to rescind the encroachment permit
allowing access to Oak Court if the District is in violation of the
Project Description and fails to take appropriate steps to comply with
the agreement".

Let's say the District does define the word "limited", therefore,
hypothetical, if the District increases to three or more buses the
City has the right to rescind the permit because this is a violation
of the agreement. Yet if the City will consider potential future
shuttle services, then adding "potential" (an evaluative term)
shuttles would not be in violation of the agreement because "limited"
cannot be determined or applied to the interpretation of the
agreement.

I'm just asking that something like the following clause be added to
the agreement: however the District can appeal due to changes in the
redistribution or increase in the student population or findings in an
ensuring Safe Routes to School Study. My request is that simple.
Regards,

Dave Encisco

On 8/30/2016 at 1:59 PM, "Nicole H Nagaya" wrote:

        Dear all:
        Thank you for sharing your thoughts on potential busing to the new
Laurel Upper School. As you noted, the City is considering an
agreement with the Menlo Park City School District regarding access
to the new campus, specifically at Oak Court. However, the proposed
agreement would not cancel any existing bus service and does not limit
the number of buses beyond what the School District has already
proposed in its environmental review of the new school. The agreement
would reiterate the planned operation and access of the Oak Court
gate, as defined by the School District, to (1) exclude private
vehicles (parents, teachers, staff accessing the parking lot) and (2)
include pedestrian/bicycles, a limited number of buses (including
those for field trips), potential future shuttle service, emergency
vehicles, and service vehicles.
        For the actual text excerpts from the “Operation” and
“Circulation and Parking” subheadings of the Project Description
from the environmental documents prepared by the School District,
please see the staff report prepared for the 8/30/2016 City Council
meeting:

        http://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/11420
        Best,

        Nikki
        Nicole H. Nagaya, PE

        Transportation Manager

        City of Menlo Park

        650.330.6781
        From: Archna Patel [mailto:archnapatel_at_(domainremoved)
 Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 7:31 PM
 To: JChild_at_(domainremoved)
JLambert_at_(domainremoved)
asheikholeslami_at_(domainremoved)
H ; Choy, Kristiann M ; Chen, Kevin ; Murphy, Justin I C ; McIntyre,
Alex D
 Subject: Laurel Bus options
        Dear the MPCSD and MP City Council Members,
        I am a Laurel parent and Menlo Park resident. It has come to my
attention that the Oak Court gate located at the far side of the Upper
Laurel parking lot may only be allowed to open once in the morning and
once in the afternoon for one school bus (the Tinsley bus). While I
am sympathetic to those who live along Oak Court who wish to keep
their street quiet, it is crucial that the gate be allowed to be used
as needed, by Laurel School, for the following reasons:

         * Busing will make the streets around Upper Laurel safer for
everyone, including those who live along Oak Court (school bus drivers
must pass a rigorous driving test and they follow the highest driving
protocols).
         * The only way for buses to be able to drop off and pick up students
at Upper Laurel is to use the Oak Court gate (neither Elliott Drive
nor the parking lot are wide enough to allow buses to turn around).
         * The alternatives to having buses use the Oak Court gate would be
buses picking up and dropping off kids on busy neighborhood streets
and then having the kids navigate to school by foot.
         * If residents are not given the option to ride the bus to school,
there will be more kids being driven, more cars on the road, and more
traffic on our streets. * Buses are needed for field trips.
        As part of a larger Safe Routes program, busing to Upper Laurel
should be increased, not decreased! Please make sure that our kids,
and the future Laurel kids, have the opportunity to bus to school.
        Thank you for your consideration,

        Archna Mehta
Received on Tue Aug 30 2016 - 17:07:23 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)